GTV3 for live traffic surveillance cameras, collision and impact reports, and up-to-the-minute lane closure information. Welcome to this week's PARKS Minute. PARKS and Recreation is accepting registration for its adult tennis clinics and leagues. Both are open to players 15 years of age and over. The cost to participate is $40 per person per session. More detailed information can be found on the, on the Parks website at lexingtonky.gov/parks. Additionally, individuals can register here with a credit card and an email address. All other registrations can be accepted at the Dunbar Community Center located at 545 North Upper Street. PARKS and Recreation offers classes in basic horsemanship with the purpose of teaching individuals how to ride safely and to work around horses. Registration for spring classes will take place on Saturday, March the 14th, at McConnells Springs. Youth registration for ages 10 to 15 years will take place at 8:30 AM and adult registration for adults ages 16 and over will take place at 10:00 AM. A lottery system will be used to ensure fairness. The cost to participate in the equestrian program is $75 for youth classes and $95 for adult classes. Whether you are of Irish descent or not, you won't want to miss the St. Patrick's Parade and Festival. The festival will run from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM on Saturday, March the 14th, at the Robert F. Stevens Courthouse Plaza. It will include free family and children's activities such as Irish entertainment with musicians, dancers, pipers, and much more. Irish food, drink, and products from Ireland will also be available for purchase. The parade will take place at 1:00 PM on Main Street. Come out to Raven Run for an evening walk. Naturalist, Brian Perry, will lead you through the meadow trails at dusk to search for nocturnal animals. The highlight of the walk, birds permitting, will be the fantastic flight dance of the woodcock. This is a small ground-dwelling bird most people have never seen. During their incredible flight display, you will hear and see the bird as it can only be seen at dusk for a few weeks out of the year. This special program will take place at se- 7:00 PM on Saturday, March the 14th. You must register by calling 272-6105. That's this week's PARKS Minute. For more information about any events and programs taking place, visit the Parks website at lexingtonky.gov. I'm Stacy Diamond, and I'll see you next time. You're watching Lexington Now on GTV3. Plenty of meetings for the week ahead, including the regular meeting of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Commission on Friday, March 13th. You take a look at the meeting rundown, don't forget to check out the city's website, lexingtonky.gov, for more information on your urban county government. If you're looking for a green spring activity, think about registering for this year's Reforest The Bluegrass on April 11th at Shillito Park. You can register online at rtb.eventbrite.com or call Lexcall 311 for more details. That's all for this week's show. We'll be back next week with more news and information from the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. Until next time, for Lexington Now, I'm David Sullivan, and that's it, for now. I'd like to, uh, call to order the March 12th meeting of the, uh, Planning Commission. And at this time, uh, I would like to turn the commission's attention to the minutes of, um, um, February 12th. Thank you. February 12th. If there are any, uh, changes, um, corrections, revisions, those will be entertained at this time. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the February 12th, 2009 minutes. Second. We have a motion and a second, uh, to accept the minutes February 12th. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. At this time, I will entertain any, uh, requests for postponement or withdrawal at this time. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Mark McCain with Sherman Carter Barnhart. Uh, I'd like to bring your attention to, uh, page four to item C, DP2009-17 White Towers. We would like to postpone that until the April 9th meeting. Thank you, Mr. McCain. Uh, Mr. Sally, is that correct? A- April 9th? Is that- Yes, sir. It is. Okay. All right. We have a request, uh, for postponement of DP2009-17 White Towers. This is for property located at 119 Transcript Avenue. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of DP2009-17 White Towers until April 19th... April 9th? April 9th. N- ninth. Right. We have a motion and a second for postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Rory Kealey with EA Partners. Uh, page one, first item, plan 2008-71P Hampton Springs, request a postponement to April 9th. Thank you, Mr. Kealey. We have a request for, uh, is that... Did you say one-month postponement? Yes. A one-month postponement for plan 2008-71P Hampton Springs. This is for property located at 4574-4 Harrisburg Road. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement of plan number 2008-71P, April 9th meeting. We have a motion and a second for postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Next item on your agenda, top of page two, under Final Subdivision Plans, plan 2008-76F Bogey Estate Lot 1, request a one-month postponement to April 9th. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. We have a request for a one-month postponement for Plan 2008-76F, Bogey Estate, Lot 1. This is for property located at 5846 Old Richmond Road. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, uh, I move postponement of Plan 2008-76F. Second. We have a motion and a second for a postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. And the next two items are both, uh, Guest Property Unit 6, 106A and 6C. Plans 2007-239F and 2007-241F request a one-month postponement on both of these to April 9th. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Uh, we have a request for Plan 2007-239F, Unit 6A, and Plan 2007-241F, Guest Property Unit 6C. Both of these are located on William Way. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak to this request for a postponement for these two plans? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion for both plans. Mr. Chairman, I move postponement of plan number 2007-239F and plan 2007-241F. Is that a one-month postponement? One month, yes. To the April 9th meeting. Second. We have a motion and second for a postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other requests for postponements or withdrawal? Staff, you have? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Um, I'm not sure if there is anybody here to represent Eagle Engineering. Um, I saw a letter and talked to Chris Taylor at the planning commission yesterday, and he informed me that, uh, there was going to be a postponement of the Brookhaven Plaza. I represent the owner of Lot 4, and if nobody else i- is here who put f-... We don't know who put forward this plan, but, uh, I haven't seen the development plan, but we, uh, at this time, want it to be postponed. I mean, that was my understanding, and I saw a letter to that effect, but I don't know if the planning commission received it. Okay. Can I get your name, please, for the record? Steve Wilson. Steve Wilson. Uh, Mr. Martin, you had something? Uh, Mr. Chairman, we did receive the email from the applicant's engineer, a request to postpone the plan for one month. Okay, thank you. All right, uh, we have a request, um, for a one-month postponement of DP2009-13, Brookhaven Plaza, Lots 1, 2, and 4, located at t- 2467 Nicholasville Road. This was an email sent to staff, via staff, for this request. Um, is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of DP2009-13, Brookhaven Plaza, for one month, until- When? ... April 9th. April 9th, thank you. Uh, we have a motion and a second for a postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, if there are no other, um, requests for postponements or withdrawal, we'll, uh, enter into our land subdivision items. And at this time, um, you have before you, commission members, the consent agenda. And I'll ask Mr. Salih to review, uh, those applications, uh, that may qualify for the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, commission members. There are two remaining items on your meeting agenda that do qualify for consideration on today's consent agenda. The first appears on page three, item D. This is plan 2009-18F, an amended final record plat for Willow Oak, Unit 1, Block A, Lot 2. Pardon me, Lot 12, amended. This is for property located at 750 Mill Pond Road, and this plan has been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The other item, uh, that can qualify for your consent agenda is the next item on your meeting agenda, page three, item E. This is a final record plat, Plan 2006-79F for Cadentown, the Bernitha Kendrick property, located at 784 Cadent Lane. This is a final subdivision plan recommended for reapproval by your subdivision committee. The third item on your consent agenda has already been postponed by the applicant. Uh, there also may be, uh, members of the audience that may wish one of, or more of, these items to come off your consent agenda. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salih. Is there anyone in the audience that, uh, would like to, um, um, have, uh, these applications, uh, proposed for a consent agenda be heard? Okay, seeing none, is there anyone in the commission? Commission members, are there any applications you would like to have heard? Okay, with that said, the chair will entertain a motion for acceptance of the consent agenda. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of this consent agenda for the March 12th, 2009 meeting. Okay, we have a motion and a second to accept the consent agenda, uh, plans enumerated one and two, and deleting plan number three, which was postponed. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. 'Kay. We'll, uh, take a moment for staff to, uh, get set up for our next, uh, application, uh, development plan. I don't understand this agreement. I don't want celebration. I just want you to know... All right. Have a seat. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, on page four of your agenda, item BDP 200914, Hamburg Place Office Park, Lots 3A and 3B Amended, is your first and last subdivision item remaining on your agenda today. This is a final development plan. It is located in the office development area. This... Got me? Thank you. The office development area, Man O' War Boulevard, Pink Pigeon with Vendor Way connecting to Alice Sheba Way here out in the Man O' War development. This is a medical office development, office townhouses, and some similar developments in this area. The purpose of this plan is to depict the revised or amended development of this area here. You may recall you recently granted a waiver on this lot for the sewer line and a manhole. And one of those conditions, of course, was that they were to file this amended record, uh, pardon me, development plan with you. They are showing an 11,895 square foot single story daycare facility. This building is now proposed to be 64,000 square feet and three stories. I put up on the overhead for you what was previously approved, and that's a 96,000 square feet, three story, three story I'd say. And I, for a minute there I thought I said that incorrectly. The, uh, 96,000 square feet, three story building with an access point out to Alice Sheba Way and associated parking. Uh, this plan is an effective reduction of 22,000 plus square feet over the previously approved amount of square feet. In reviewing this plan, there were a tremendous number of cleanup conditions, as you can see on your agenda. This is a revised plan that we received yesterday afternoon, and they have addressed quite a few of those conditions, uh, in planned clarity, and that, that's been very helpful. It's easier now to see that there's no conflict down in here that we were concerned about. The handicapped spaces and other, some other items in terms of clarity are, they have addressed with this plan. There are issues on your agenda that, uh, we have some concern about. And primarily it is the access, internal access issue for this development. I highlighted for you in orange these lots. These all have reciprocal parking and access agreements on these lots. This lot does not. When this develops, again, it'll be one be one of our concerns to see that that is provided. This lot, three, on that original plan that you see there that you approved, is also governed by reciprocal access and parking note. If you approve this plan as is, this lot 3A will no longer have reciprocal parking and access with Lot 3B and therefore the remainder of the development. Staff has had some concerns with that. We try to encourage reciprocal access and parking. This is an overall office park in its development. We have some concern with the lack of access due to the provision of services and the long drive to the solid waste facility, the dumpster. I have communicated with our solid waste department, but there has been some work done on this plan to address their turnaround concerns. You can see here they are comfortable with that. It may not be, uh, I think their preferred choice, but, uh, they are comfortable that as long as they have a turnaround, they can provide dumpster service. This plan was reviewed by your subdivision committee, and they recommended referral to the full commission. We are asking for a couple of clarification issues as well. You might note that we're asking document compliance with Article 21-4E. That's strictly in reference to the Land Development Solutions. They're an out of state development company. Uh, we always ask that the document they're gonna play- pay their bill to lend blueprint for the reproducibles we require. That is the sole purpose of that condition. Uh, you can see again that we have resolved internal access notes, and that's the reason I presented the plan to you today as I did. And with that, if you have any questions, be happy to answer. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Tom? Yeah, I got one. Uh, Frank? On number 15 where it says, "Remove or clarify the building envelope." Is that what you're referring to, the new plan you got yesterday? Yes, sir. There was a lot of, on the original plan, the line weights were thicker on the original submission, and we couldn't tell if they had envelopes, easements, setbacks in this entire area, which we asked them to clean up the plan and clarify that. It is to your satisfaction now? Yes, sir. It is. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Martin? I just have one question on, on 18 where it says, "Resolve the internal access note number 18." Is that, has note 18 been removed or is it there or can you just give me a little further on the resolution part of that? The, we wanted to resolve it because note number 18 requires reciprocal access currently on lot three and lot four. And as I showed you on these highlighted lots, they're all subject to that note number 18 on this development plan as well. Okay. So we, we need to resolve it because they're asking for no access from 3A that if, if you approve it, the note will be revised requiring it for 3B and 4. 3B and 4. Okay. All right. Yes. Thank you, sir. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Mister Evans Owens? Mister Martin, uh, in, in committee the other day, there were some discussion in regards to the drop-off, uh, area for the, for the children, uh, at the play, play area, um, at the, um, daycare. Uh, has, has there been any other discussion about that? Uh, there was some discussion about possibly making it as a drive-through in-stead of having to back out. Yes, sir. Uh, I did meet with the applicant's engineer that's with him today, and we, we discussed some of these issues yesterday when they then brought the plan in. But as to any revision to meet that concern, no, sir. What, what you see before you is what they are proposing. I believe the owner of that facility is here today to address those, those concerns. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay. Thank you, sir. Petitioner? I'm James Thompson, the owner. Mr. Commissioner, commission members, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer. Uh, I could answer that one about the drive-through requirements. We, every parent has to bring their children right up to the door. So they have to park and bring the children in and pick them up the same way. So we don't drive through like a drive-through restaurant or anything. So we really don't need that kind of access. Okay. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Copeland? Mr. Thompson, is that right? Did you say your name is Mr. Thompson? Yes. James Thompson. Mr. Thompson, I am at a disadvantage because I have never seen this plan before, and I cannot tell what's going on at that site because it is so small. Is there some reason why you didn't bring us a plan that would be more easily readable? I don't know. Is there a reason for that? Uh, uh, I guess, Tom, Mr. Martin, do we have, can we put it on the overhead? Is it, is it because of the distance, Ms. Copeland, or is it... Well, I see green and I see blue, but I have no idea where the children are going in the daycare, uh, et cetera. That's the, isn't- That's the old- ... isn't that the old plan? That's the old plan, right. So we have no... I mean, I could read Al-Shiba Way and I can read Pink Pigeon, but I don't know what's going on in the site. I have no idea where the Dempster Dumpster is. They submitted that plan, Ms. Copeland, of course, at the scale of the previous development plan, and we could have blown that up for you, and, and we should have. And I, I do apologize for that. I can clarify some of those questions for you. The, uh, dumpster location is down here, located right down in here. These areas through here are handicapped parking spaces. It is our understanding the front of the building is here, and they will drive in here. This is a fenced in area, which are playground areas for the children, and that is how we understand the building is to function. And there, that may help quite a bit. That's the... Is that the same plan? Yes, ma'am. It is. Okay. That, that helps a lot. Thank you. Otherwise, I'm just blind, and I have 20/20. Well, that should get, that should give you a real idea of it there answered. Okay. Are there any other questions for Mr. Thompson? Mr. Martin, are you, I guess, can you, uh, just one more time, just go through the overhead and kind of walk through the playground areas just so folks... Yes, sir. If, if, again, if you look at the overhead and you see the building as proposed, immediately behind it towards the detention area is a fenced in playground area that then continues down and around to the rear of the building. And if you see on the bottom of your overhead, it says, "Fenced in playground," with a line drawn to that entire area. Okay. And that is our understanding they segregate the playgrounds based on the age of the children and that sort of thing. Um, th- that's it, that is the area. The one-story building with associated parking then is, is clearly labeled with the square footage one story, and the rest is the parking lot around it. So I guess I'm gonna ask the question with regards to condition 18. While that plan is up there to provide reciprocal parking, um, that plan would need to be modified to allow- Yes, sir. ... okay. They would need to indicate an access point between 3A to 3B. We would also expect, with approval of this plan, that they show an access point from 3B to 4, and that is independent of whether or not you allow them to develop with no access between 3A and 3B. Can you point to Lot 4, Mr. Martin? I think it's- I'll have to do that here. This is all of Lot 4. There we go. Mr. Holmes? Now, what, what point do they show the access points? I mean, do they show those now or at a later time? They will need to put them on the plan and show us where they're going to be. They could certainly indicate now where they thought they may go. We weren't locked into a specific location as much as we just desire to have the access. Okay. Um, Mr. Penn, and then Ms. Copeland. Tom, I'm, I'm confused. There is going to be reciprocal parking between the daycare and the next building? They are proposing no reciprocal parking access. That's what I thought I heard you say. Yes, sir. That is what they are proposing. Ms. Copeland? Yes. Why? Why do you not want parking to flow back and forth? That's the question that I thought you were gonna ask me. We, we don't want any access between, uh, our lot, Lot 3A, or any other lot for security reasons. Um, this way, w- you know, if we have interconnectivity and anybody can park there, parents are very touchy about their children, as they well should be. This way, we, we have security cameras and all that kind of stuff inside, and we have locked access. They have to have, uh, special codes to get in the building, so we're very security conscious. This way, we know what cars should be in that lot and what shouldn't. If you have that access so that anybody can drive in there and park, because that's really what it's allowing to, then just anybody could come and park and there's no way that we can regulate that, and that would cause great concern for parents, and I think if you had young children, probably the same. Thank you. Mr. Cravens, you have a question? I, I was just gonna ask Tom, um, those two lots right across the street, they're, they're not, uh, they don't have connectivity between each other, do they? This one does not. This one will have with 8 when it develops. Okay, but, but they weren't made to do it now. This one was not made to do it. Yes, sir. And it doesn't, it doesn't connect to the one onto the left? There is, there is no connection between Lot 9 internally with either other lot. Okay. So I think maybe your question- So- ... there are other lots that do not- That's what I was pointing out. There's some that don't have connectivity. Okay, thank you. Um, Mr. Thompson, you have anything else you'd like to add? Not unless there's any more questions. Okay. Are there any other questions from Commission for Mr. Thompson? Thank you. Thank you, sir. I see some folks in the... Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this particular plan? Okay, seeing none. Um, staff, you have anything else you'd like to add? Okay, thank you for, uh, placing the plan on the overhead. Appreciate that. Um, any further questions, comments? Ms. Phillips? Um, Tom, why is that one lot... Why was that one lot that doesn't have the reciprocal a- access, why was they... Can't talk today. Why were they not asked to provide reciprocal access? What is that land use, and when did we see that development plan, and how come it... Was it an oversight, or is there a special exception? That was prior to my time, I believe, so I can't answer quite the history of that. Uh, it is a medical office building, is my understanding, and Note 18, which is on this, which governs access on this area, is very specific to the highlighted notes. Um, I don't know, did not research the entire history of how that developed. Mr. Cravens? Can't, can't you have, uh, could you have this access and not have reciprocal parking? Yes, sir. I mean, I understand what they're saying. You know, if it's, they want their own parents, you know, be there- Yes, sir. ... but not have reciprocal parking, that could be done? Yes, sir. Could be. And that would... Would that fall under resolve? Yes, sir. Okay. So that... Y'all might resolve it that way. Mr. Penn, you had a question? Yeah, Tom, while you're up there, and I, I think I know the answer to this, but I wanna bring it up. That retention pond that's just over the fence from the playground. Mm-hmm. Is that a, uh, dry retention pond or is that a retention pond that holds water? I would have to refer that to engineering or the applicant has an engineer, he may know the answer. I don't know the answer. I would assume that that fencing would be significant enough fencing they couldn't cross it. Oh, yes. So my concern is i- some detention ponds in Fayette County hold water all the time. Others dry and, and only hold water during flood stages. So my question would be, is, is that a detention pond that holds water, and if so, are we adequately protected between those two uses? There, there are fences proposed, and, and again, not being an engineer, I would state it is my understanding that that is designed just to be a detention basin and not hold water all the time. But again, Chuck Sailor is here with the Division of Engineering, if you'd like him to elaborate on that. Would you want, would you want him to... Or... If he's here, if he knows the answer, I'd like to hear it, but if he doesn't- Mr. Sailor, if you could give us some insight on that. ... yeah, yeah. It is a dry detention pond. It's not wet, so- But it's a large one? Mm-hmm. I, I see on the plan, it's, what? It's two acres or something? Mm-hmm. Yeah, it covers a lot of that development, so it is a large facility. So at, at some point, it would hold quite a bit of water? In a significant storm, yes. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sailor. Uh, Mr. Owens, you had a n- another question. Um, I guess, Tom, as far as the internal access, um, you mentioned you're still asking for internal access from 3B to f- Lot 4? Yes, sir. Okay. And as far as resolving, is that... Are you okay with that? We could. Yes, sir. It, it would be a matter of modifying Note Number 18 on the development plan to reflect reciprocal access and parking as you all approved it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Um, yes, sir, Mr. Thompson. Uh, I just wanna make sure that there's no misunderstanding on Lot 3A. Uh, uh, the request is not only not to have the reciprocal parking, but not to have an access between 3A and 3B. And the reason for that is, is when we have families come in, as I told you, they come in at certain times to drop children off, and they come in at certain times to pick them up, and they have to park and go in. And we don't wanna have other people coming through there at the same time, because that's a heavy traffic, traffic pattern, and it's very important to us for safety reasons, as well as for the convenience of the parents to be able to get in and out of there and pick up their children in the safest possible way without extemporaneous traffic coming through. Is that... Ms. Phillips? What is the prospective use on, on, uh, Lot 3B? What kind of land use will go there? That I c- Uh, on, on Lot 3B, I have no idea. Because I think that that would determine how much traffic could potentially move from Lot 3A to 3B. Can, can we get your name also, sir? My name is Warren Witt. I represent Hamburg Place. And to answer your question, ma'am, at this time, there isn't. We do not have a potential use or tenant. You know, we would assume that it'd be most likely an office building. However, the r- the previous plan that Mr. Martin presented that has caused us to amend this plan, at the time that plan was filed, we did have an agreement with a development company to do what was shown on the previous screen. And since then, um, Mr. Thompson has come in, and the whole purpose of this request is to allow the daycare in. And as I say, we do not have any proposed tenant at this time. So most likely, we may see a future amendment to Lot 3B. Thank you, Mr. Witt. Are there any other questions for Mr. Witt? Thanks Do you have a question, Mr. Owens? Tha- thank you, sir. Um, uh, I guess this would be for Tom Martin. Um, as far as the internal access from Lot 3A to 3B, um, I can understand them wanting to have a secure parking lot for a daycare center. Uh, if somewhere down the road, that daycare center goes bye-bye and goes away, uh, something else wants to go in there, eh, what happens? Can we, at that time, request internal access once again? Do we approve this now, subject to internal access later if a different business goes in there? If, if you see an amendment, should a different business go in there, then yes, I believe internal access would be back on the table. If you approve this plan as is, then it, there will not be internal access at this time between the two lots. But if a- a- any sort of other business that might go in there, they would have to come back with an amended plan? Uh, not necessarily, no. If they were to fit into that existing building, then you would not see the plan again. So once we approve this, this is- This, this is the final development plan. ... pretty much the way it's gonna be? Yeah. Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Were there any other questions? 'Kay. We'll close this portion and hearing and turn it over to the commission for further discussion. Um, comments? How are we gonna resolve 18? I'm- Yeah. ... thoroughly confused. Have we resolved it or have we not? Well, I think that's- I don't know. ... that's for us to, uh- We cannot- ... commission to determine. I think you've heard, uh- ... have access to- ... commission say that, uh, or staff say that, "Resolve Note 18 to provide internal access and reciprocal parking consistent with the, uh, other areas in the development plan." You heard the petitioner say that no internal access. Um, I think he said, uh, the reciprocal parking aspect could be resolved, but no internal access is what I've heard. So... If I could make one other comment? Yes, sir. Uh, this is a early education center. This building, we'll be spending about $3.2 million to build this building. So this is not a simple daycare that sometimes some people think of. So we expect it to be there quite some time. Thank you, sir. Um, staff, I guess, uh, has put a revised Note 18 to denote, uh, reciprocal access from Lot 3B to 4 per Note 18. That, that was the other aspect of this resolve, Note 18. 'Cause right now, there's no, there's no access shown between 3B and 4. I, I thought the whole idea here was to preserve the security of it though, and that having reciprocal access would allow other people to park in that parking lot, and the, the applicant does not want that. And I can understand- Well, no, no, no, no, no. This is the other. This is from 3B to 4. Tom, would you point that out on the plan for us? So I thought we weren't looking at that, right? Based on the plan you have before you, if you approve it, there will be no access from 3A to 3B. That revised note will allow access from 3B to 4. Yes, yes. Okay. Okay, so that would preserve their ability to hold security- Y- ... in any ways they want? Yes, sir. It would. I think that's resolved then. Okay. All right, so we have a revised Note 18, uh, if the commission is, uh, is in agreement with, uh, Revised Note 18. So, what's your pleasure? Mr. Owens, do you have a ques- um, Mr. Cravens. I'm sorry. Um, I'd like to make a motion for approval of DP2009-14 and conditions, 19 conditions. With Revised Note 18? With Revised Note 18. Access to 3B to 4. Okay, we have a motion and a second to, um, approve DP2009-14 with the 19 conditions, noting revised note number 18. Uh, question? Question is, so, so we're saying no access from 3A to 3B? Yes, that was my motion. Right now, the daycare center, its security, its going in and out, having really anything. So, why shouldn't parking have the others do? Mr. Cravens, is that consistent with your motion? Uh, I think she's captured the gist of my motion. Thank you. We have a motion and a second on the floor. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, uh, I guess we've come to, uh, performance bonds and letters of credit, uh, on the agenda, but- We don't have it. ... we don't... Do I see it? Did I miss it? I think Commissioner Day has 'em. Okay. Well, a few of us have 'em, I guess, so... Letters of credit. Oh, okay. Great. Uh, you have before us, before you the March 12th release and call of bonds. Um, is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move for the, uh, call of bonds, uh, for the March 12th meeting. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the release and call, say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, uh, our next item, we have, uh, Board of Architectural Review. Uh, we'll give staff a moment to, uh, set up. Did you get my- Sure. ... this one? Is WL coming? Is WL- No. WL, you have to have the permit first, so. Oh. So, you're, you're gonna have to bring, uh, you're, you're gonna have to bring WL and then, uh, the department head here to, to sign the permit. WL, you gotta have the permit here. I, I, I, I brought him in, but he's not here. He's on vacation. Oh, he's on vacation? He's on paid sick leave. He's not here. Oh, he's on paid sick leave. WO, you gotta have WL and then the department head here to sign the permit. Good afternoon. Yes, ma'am. Before we get started, I have the letter of appeal from the, from the appellant that I'm gonna hand out. I don't usually do this, but I'm gonna give this to you this time, 'cause this is such a confusing. That's what happened. Okay. This is on page five of your agenda, and it's item A under permission items. It's VOAR 2009-1. It's an appeal made by Gerry Leslie for the property at 431 Fayette Park, which is in the Fayette Park Historic District. We've got property right here. This is Fayette Park neighborhood. It s- consists of 16 properties. North Broadway, 6th Street, and East 5th Street. And then Bond Alley is along here, and that kind of creates a separation between the properties on Broadway and the properties in Fayette Park. This is an appeal of the Board of Architectural Review's denial of a certificate of appropriateness to construct a second detached garage on the property. And he had a multifaceted appeal to the, or application to the Board of Architectural Appeal, and it consisted of several things. And those are all listed on page, page two of your staff report. But, um, there were two garages. One is a one-story garage, and it's existing. And that is on a property that is actually behind the garage on the property next door. And that belongs to this property. And then he was asking for a two-story garage, two-car garage, with li- um, guest quarters above. And it was to measure 22 by 28, and be 21 feet tall. And as I said, there is an existing one-story garage on the portion of the property that was, that was deeded to this property in the 1970s. And Bill, if you could put that second, second thing up. It appears to be... See, here's 431. And the driveway goes back like this, and the garage is actually behind the garage on 435. So it appears to be on the other property and not this property. Um, the BOAR first heard this at oc- on October 22nd. And then there were two additional BOAR hearings after that that all of this stuff was addressed at. Um, one of the things at the October 22nd hearing was a request to demolish this garage and, the one-story garage, and then replace it. And then one was to construct the two-story garage that's the subject of this appeal. And then a portion of that was, um, to construct a two-story addition on the back of the house with a screened-in porch to demolish that screened-in porch that was already there, and then to add a second edition with a second screened-in porch. Um, they withdrew a portion of the appeal at the December hearing, and then, um, the only thing that was actually disapproved by the Board of Architectural Review was the second garage, the two-story garage. And the historic preservation staff found this garage to be, um, okay within the design guidelines and therefore appropriate. And one of the reasons was because of the garage at 435 that appeared, or behind 435, that appeared to be on the other property, and one was because the orientation and the location on this side of the second garage was within the design gui- guidelines and therefore appropriate. They cited three design guidelines, and those are on the bottom of page one of your staff report. 35-4 states that, "Complexity of building form and shape should be compatible with adjacent buildings." 38-2, "Roof decks, dormers, skylights, solar panels, and communications equipment should be carefully placed to be compatible and should have the least negative impact on the exterior appearance of the site, structure, adjacent, and surrounding buildings." And 40-2, "The architectural details and articulation of new construction should relate in scale, rhythm, proportion, and texture to adjacent and surrounding historic buildings." And then there's one additional guideline that is applicable to this, and that's 19-3, and that deals with new accessory structures. Um, it says that they should follow the design guidelines for new construction. And then there was a reference to pages 35 to 41 of the design guidelines, um, which refers to new construction. And it deals with materials, mass and scale, um, roof pitch, building orientation, and that kind of thing. So that was also included. Um, the BOAR generally didn't agree with the staff's assessment of this. Um, it was not a unanimous vote for disapproval but they, did find it to be inappropriate and not within the design guidelines because it wasn't consistent. The garage that they're proposing was not consistent with the other ones in the Fayette Park Historic Neighborhood. Um, this one is two stories and the size and the materials and they were not, um, they didn't believe that it was t- compatible with the other ones and, and consistent with the other ones. And they also cited the loss of green space in the rear yard because of the size of the garage. They cited three design guidelines, and those are at the top of page two. 14-4, "Historic green areas and spaces at a site should be retained and maintained." 15-1, "Significant historic landscape or land features should be retained and maintained." And 15-3, "Landscaped land features should not be visually dominant or suggest a false sense of history." And design guideline 14-4 is applicable here. Actually, all three of them are, but 14-4 is particularly applicable. And that is often cited in BOAR disapprovals, or, um, loss of green space. We've hit that several times in, in appeals. Although these things are approved on a case-by-case basis, based on mass, scale, and materials, and that kind of thing, de- detached garages are routinely approved by the Board of Architectural Review if they're located appropriately on a property, if the materials are appropriate, the size is appropriate. This property is over 200 feet deep. And at least half of the rear yard is open space. It, I mean, at least half of the yard is, it's at least 100 feet deep in the back. ... from the house to the back. And that would be considered open space and green space. And Phil, if you could put the third thing up there for me, please. You've got the existing house here. This is the, uh, screened in porch and the two-story addition there that they're proposing. This is the garage, the one story that is behind 435. And then this is the two-story garage that they're proposing right here. So you've got this much open space in the backyard, and it's over 3,000 square feet. And that's smaller than a lot of properties in Fayette Park. It's smaller than a lot of the, the rear yards, but then most of the properties in Fayette Park are bigger than this one to begin with. So that, um, is one thing to consider. Um, the Board of Architectural Review has approved detached garages on properties that are much smaller than this, based on appropriateness to the site and the fact that the orientation and the location is fine. When Mr. Leslie appeared before the Board of Architectural Review at the October hearing, he had approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for replacement of the roof, replacing the, um, one story garage, or demolishing the one-story garage and demolishing the first screened-in porch, and then raising the front porch roof. Those are all part of the application. And then the board had issues with regard to the design of the two garages and the design of the two-story addition. And so they tabled that, and they asked them to come back at the November meeting for a conceptual review to discuss details and that kind of thing. And they had questions at the November meeting about the design of the garages and the need for two garages, but they focused more on the design and the materials and that kind of thing, rather than the actual need for the garage. They did question it, but they didn't talk that much about it. Um, they discussed the use of materials and how that would affect the appearance as far as mass goes. Like, he suggested that he do the garage finish in brick to match the house, and the board determined that that would, um, make the garage just look way bigger than it actually was going to be. And so that was, that's one of the things that they focused on. Then between November 12th and December 10th, he revised, or his architect revised the details as far as the second story, uh, the two-story addition and the screened porch, and then the design of the garages. And he believed because of this, after his discussions with the board at the conceptual review and the historic preservation staff, that he was within the design guidelines with the new designs. And so he was surprised when the board actually disapproved his, his application for the second garage. Um, they disapproved it contrary to the staff's recommendation of approval, and they cited the loss of green space and the dominance of the garage on the site. And the vote was three to one. There was one board member absent, and then one did agree with the staff's assessment that it was okay, it was appropriate to the site because of the location and the orientation. And, um, in reviewing this, it was hard to say whether one or the other side was correct or not correct, because they both cited design guidelines. They both are app- all the design guidelines, guidelines that they cited are applicable. And the board didn't act arbitrarily. They did apply design guidelines and did give reasons for this. And so we are recommending disapproval of this, that you uphold the BOAR because their action was consistent with other actions, even though it wasn't always consistent with their approval of garages, detached garages. It was consistent with their past actions as far as applying the design guidelines and interpreting them. So we're asking that you uphold the, the BOAR and their, and their recommendation for disapproval. And if you have any questions, I'm glad to try to answer them. And Miss Kerr is here, Miss Armstrong is here. I think the applicant is here. Thank you, Miss Rackers. I, I think we do have a question. Oh, okay. Are there any questions for, for Barb, for Mr. Holmes? I just have one for Miss Rackers. Now, the, the other garage, are they gonna demolish that? The one story, the, this one? Yeah. Yes. Well, that actually isn't the garage that's existing. That's the replacement garage, because the one that's existing overlaps property lines. And so he wanted this one to be all on, all on his property. And so this is actually the replacement garage, but it's in the basic same location. Okay. Yeah. I was gonna ask the same question. Can you put the other graphic up there with this and kind of get a comparison? And they have, the Historic Preservation has photographs of this. But you can see the property line goes along here like this- Right. ... and then there's another property line here, and this is the, the garage. So the new garage goes where? Will be, will be totally within this area within the property line. Okay. I'm still confused. Four- 430, where's- This is 435, this is 431. This is the property we're talking about. Okay, where's the new garage for 431? The new garage is proposed- Right there. Oh, okay. The big one is proposed for right here. Okay. And then this is the one story that is being replaced with another one story. Will be demolished. Right. Oh, okay. And then they're gonna replace it with the second one. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions for Miss Rackers? Thank you, Barb. Okay. Thank you. Miss Kerr? Thank you. Good afternoon, I'm Betty Kerr, the Director of Historic Preservation, and Amelia Armstrong and I are here today, um, primarily to respond to questions and so forth that you may have on this. Miss Rackers has done her usual excellent job of, uh, outlining the scenario that is before you. Um, I would submit for the record, um, much of the minutes and staff reports and application materials submitted by the applicant, so forth and so on. I would note the materials you've been given, it is a fat piece of materials, uh, partly because the subject of the garage is intertwined with all the other pieces of this application which were approved and permits issued. So it's, um... ... larger than, uh, just the garage itself topic. We have folded for you a b- you'll find a chunk that's got a big fold partway across it. That is the segment that has the site plan, and the, um, submittals of the designs, um, provided with the application. So, hopefully it'll help you to be able to flip to just that. Um, Ms. Armstrong is gonna sh- show you some photographs, which I think may help resolve a little bit of the, uh, confusion about where are the two garages, and so forth. And let me turn that to her to do, and then basically, we'll both be available for questions. Hello, I'm hoping this will might help. We're going to look at some images of the site. You can have the lights. Thank you. Th- this is the structure at 431 Fayette Park. Do you notice this is a two-story building that... This is sort of an image of the backyard. So, as you can see, the existing garage is over in this location. You could see this drives back to a concrete turnaround pad. And this is the garage here, this is the neighboring property. This is just a view of the rear structure. This is sort of, uh, m- gives you an idea of th- this. This received a permit to be removed and a two-story structure having a, um, sort of this one story to two-story addition, um, is proposed to be and approved to be put back in its place. Construction is on its way now. Again, this is the location of where the, the garage in question will be proposed to be located. This is the existing garage now. You could see the neighbor's garage on 435, the rear end of that structure now, and the property line goes along between these two buildings. Actually, one of the reasons, eh, eh, this building right here is actually on the neighboring property line, and one of the reasons why he wanted to abolish it was to relocate it onto his property. And again, this is sort of tucked behind the structure. And this is sort of a viewpoint from the rear of the house, looking towards and giving you sort of the location where the garage will be located. We can go to the overhead site plan, please. This is awfully dark. But this gives you the idea of the driveway leading back to the garage, which is tucked behind the neighboring property. This is 435. This is the one-story concrete block garage here. This garage and this property extends to include this garage. The proposed garage will be located in this area, as Ms. Rackers has pointed out previously in the plan. If we can show a next plan, please. This is the proposal for the replacement of the garage tucked behind 435. This garage is, um, 22 by 20 with 16 feet in height. At the time of this, uh, December 10th meeting, the applicant submitted two proposals for the garage. The new garage, that's, we call the west garage because it's sort of on the western end of the property. This garage is the proposal with the dormers, and this garage has 21 feet in height, and it is roughly, I believe, 22 by 28. We can show the next image, please. This is the l- how it would look as it would be directed towards the rear of the structure, sort of this, sort of the inner courtyard or inner area. Next slide, please. And these are two other elevations. This is the left elevation, which would actually be the rear of the property, and then the si- the rear elevation where it says is actually located on the west property line. It's oriented so the front face of it is actually the, the door garage, not necessarily the inner face of the, facing the rear of the yard. Um, this is the propos- the other proposal for the garage. This has no dormers. This is 17 feet in height, and it has the same dimensions of 22 by approximately 28 feet. And again, you can see all four elevations of how it is oriented on the site. And again, these doors would face the other garage that is proposed to be replaced. And I believe that's it right now. Should you have any questions, just let me know. Thank you. Uh, any questions? Uh, Mr. Penn, you have a question? So- I think Mr. Penn has a question. ... it's just a cl- I was just gonna say, one clarification. Go ahead. And that is, um, that a permit has been issued for the demolition of the garage you saw that physically exists, and a permit issued with that, that would allow for a new construction of the garage in that spot. So, that is not in question. The thing in question is the, um, should a garage be built and the appropriateness of the design of the ... and you've seen the two versions of that design here in the, uh, renderings, uh, in the space at the end of the backyard behind the house. Does that help? Yeah. I just, I, I've got one question. Yes, sir. Ms. Kerr, um, did the BOAR determine that both plans were inappropriate? Yes. Their action, um, denied the construction of either of these plans. Of e- of either plan? That's correct. So height wasn't necessarily an issue there, then? No, it wasn't limited to that. It was the overall mass and volume and, um, utilization of that, uh, size of green space to fill with something of this magnitude, uh, combined. Thank you. I just have one question also. Did the staff, in, in your review and recommendations, did you approve both, recommend both garages or one or the other? The s- the staff recommended that the application that has the dormers, uh, was more in keeping with the guidelines, because it, um, reduces the volume of that roof somewhat, in terms of its presence. Doesn't ch- uh, the height is actually a little taller, um, the one with the dormers, but, um, uh, think there would be room to consider either of those two designs from the staff's interpretation of the guidelines, but the staff did recommend that the one with the dormers was more in keeping. Thank you, Betty. Any other questions for Ms. Kerr? Ah, Ms. Phillips, you had a question? Um, the, I know that our attention is focused on garage number two, but garage number one, the existing garage, it appears that, um, a piece of that, uh, the adjoining property was purchased so that that property owner could build a garage. Do we have any history on land trags- transactions, because I'm wondering why that ... I'm trying to think, was it a green space issue, maintaining that backyard, you know, in toto, the rationale- Mm-hmm. ... for why it appears that the property owner purchased that sliver of land behind- Right. ... the adjoining lot to build his primary garage? I'm certainly not been privy to the previous homeowner's motivation as to why they did elect to acquire the footage that constitutes that rear portion of the property beside them. Okay. But, um, they did do so, and put the garage that you see, that is to now be torn down, up, and served their car parking needs in that fashion. Okay. I realize that we can't, you know, speculate on the, on the motivations of those property owners, but do we know when that primary garage was built? Do we know when that transaction all possibly went? Um, it's in the 70s. Okay. Late 70s or- Okay. ... early 80s. Thank you. I, I did have one other question. So the, the two that you shared with us, Amelia, uh, they were two options? The one, the one with the dormer was the one staff found more appropriate? Okay. Correct, but both were before the board for their consideration. And those were what I would call the garage two, so to speak. Correct. Okay, all right. It is a little confusing. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for, um, staff or the, uh, preservation office staff? Okay, all right. Uh, petitioner? Hopefully I remember how to, uh, use this, uh, contraption here. Um, my name is Jerry Leslie. Uh, I wanna give you a little background on, uh, on myself, because I, I think it's important to understand the, uh, the project, uh, that I've undertaken. Uh, first, I wanna thank the, uh, Commission's, uh, service to the community. I know that you all have to, uh, dedicate a lot of time to, uh, address these issues that impact, uh, impact our community, so, uh, I just wanna express my appreciation also with, uh, Miss Rackers and her help with, uh, uh, filing the appe- uh, appeal, and also, uh, Miss Kerr and, uh, Amelia, Miss Armstrong, and their, uh, help through the whole process. Uh, as, as you know, and, and you saw the timeline, this has been a long, arduous process, trying to, to make this work and fit within the, uh, within the guidelines, and I appreciate their help, uh, throughout this whole process. Again, my name, my name's Jerry Leslie. I was born and raised in Lexington on, uh, Lamar Drive, uh, just, uh, in Lansdowne Merrick. I went to school at Transylvania just right down the street from, uh, uh, Fayette Park, so I always, uh, knew what a special place Fayette Park was. Got my engineering degree at the University of Kentucky, and, uh, when I, uh, get out of, uh, University of Kentucky, I was fortunate enough to work with a engineering firm that was working on Paris Pike, and I see Miss Copeland here in, uh, uh, should give, uh, much thanks to her for, uh, people like her who served on the advisory committee, made, uh, Paris Pike, uh, the type of project it turned out to be. But, uh, with that, uh, project, I gained a lot of experience in understanding, uh, scale, impacts to historic properties, inst- impact to historic landscapes. Uh, so I think when I looked at this project, all those things were in the back of my mind when we looked at what we were going to plan for the use that was, uh, important for us. ... uh, my wife and I, and our family. Um, so when we ... This didn't go out without a lot of planning, a lot of thought, and a lot of hard work, uh, to make sure that we, uh, proposed a plan that met the requirements, and met the guidelines. Um, the original submittal, I think it's important to look at the list. When we went through here, we had, uh, a pretty, pretty big list. We, we looked at this house when we got fortunate, uh, at the time, uh, to have the opportunity to purchase this house. Um, but it did need some, a little TLC, uh, a little work on the exterior, um, and we wanted to also bring it up to modern standards. There, while there had been some work done on it, uh, there wasn't a lot of work done. Plumbing has to all be redone, a lot of other work. So when we looked at planning and putting in, uh, uh, additional bathrooms and some things of that nature, what we wanted to do was make sure that we kept the interior fabric, uh, intact, 'cause that was important to us, to make sure the interior walls, there's a masonry wall that goes all the way to the, to the attic. We didn't wanna have to knock that out and put in new supports or, I don't know how many have seen some of the, uh, the w- some of the work, even though that's not of the purview of the, uh, the Board, but it was something that we want- we took into account when we looked at planning what, what we planned. So when we, we planned the addition, it was so that we could minimize the impact to the in- the historic fabric of the interior of the structure also. So we kept, uh, all the hardwood and all the, uh, nice plaster work that's, uh, a part of the, uh, the house, we kept that intact without, uh, disturbing that. So that was the big issues. Also, um, we realized when we planned it, maybe we ... Maybe there was some issues that we needed to add- to address, so we worked with, uh, Betty's office and the Board at the, uh, conceptual review, and we actually, um ... Here, I ... Here we go. Oops. So, what you didn't see, and I think it was a mistake on, uh, on one of the first slides that showed the, uh, the layout, we took out a porte-cochere, which was part of the, uh, original plan, because we realized the scale of that, uh, wasn't in keeping with the, uh, uh, Fayette Park Historic District. We also took out the retaining wall that was in the front, even though we've got a fairly steep slope, uh, that will re- require some, some type of, uh, of landscaping to make sure that th- we don't have erosion issues there. And then we also reduced our originally proposed, uh, addition by 50%, and substantially reduced the scale of the garage. I think you all have the, one of the original submissions of the garage in your packet, which it wa- I think there was mention of a, uh, guest house. Well, I think the, the scale of that original, uh, garage probably made people think of a guest house, but at this point, uh, our proposal's not to have a guest house. The only reason we have two stories, uh, was because, uh, of the dormers and showing it, uh, s- having something that would, uh, break the scale down of the roof, as requested by, uh, the Pres- Preservation Office. So this is, uh, the proposed garage. Maybe this'll clear up or clarify some of the concerns that people have of the, uh, garage. That shows the addition. I wanted to show this on, um, on the, uh, aerial, because I think it shows up better. The, the garage, existing garage is here, and it is, it's about two feet on one side and five feet on another side, which are on other peoples' property. So when we did the original survey, which I believe the property transfer from our survey information was done in the '60s. A garage was not built until the '80s, uh, by the, the property owner that I purchased the, the home from. Uh, so, however that happened, and they built the garage on the wrong property, uh, I guess, I don't know. Uh, but we're proposing a garage here, uh, reconstructing this garage. Uh, the addition, the addition itself, not including the porch, is actually less square footage than the ex- the, uh, previously demolished, uh, screened-in porch. So, to just give you a brief overview of that. What I wanna do is kinda touch on why the Board, uh, why the Board disapproved the, uh, the garage and show you why they erred, and why they were arbitrary. And I think it's confusing for a property owner when you hear, "Well, they allow garages to buil- be built on smaller yards and with less green space," and all these things, but because this, for reasons unknown to me, they won't, uh, or they disapproved the garage here. First, green space. As you can see, uh, with the green space, this is my neighbor's yard. Obviously, this is my yard. Obviously, with, even with the addition, I still have more green space than my neighbor. Uh, in fact, that g- that yard has about 1,800 square feet, as you heard from the staff report. Uh, my yard, with the proposal, adds about 3,000 square feet. And what I'm gonna do is show you different yards that are si... in, in Fayette Park that are similar to, in size to me and their green space that they ha- currently have. Okay, this is at 1414, which is on the corner of Bond Alley and, uh, Fayette Park. Uh, they have, uh, about 2,400 square feet of green space. 14... or 428 Fayette Park, which is almost directly across the street from me, they have about 2,800 square feet of green space. Uh, 432, which is directly across the street from me, they have 3,200 square feet. Uh, 434, they have about 3,200 square feet. And, uh, 442, which is at the end of Fayette Park, they have about 1,800 square feet. So, when you compare that to, uh, eh, all the yards, even the, the larger yards in Fayette Park, uh, with the proposal, I would still have, uh, more green space in the rear yard than 25% of the other property owners in, in Fayette Park. So, that is why I think that, uh, the argument of the, uh, the green s- the historic green space, we still will, will have more than 25% of the, uh, other properties in Fayette Park. The garage issue. Uh, th- ... let's go back to the... according to the findings of the Board, I think it's important to read this because according to the findings of the Board, and when you go through this, the inventory of all the garages in Fayette Park, you'll see with this w- why I think that this is another arbitrary statement. That it disapproves the applicant's proposed garage. It's not consistent with the others in Fayette Park neighborhood. So, as we go through here, we'll start with 414 and we'll go around the park. I'll, I'll do this quickly. But as you can see, this is a three-car garage, two story, probably around 34 to 36 feet tall, uh, with a large brick wall. You have a one-car garage that is, uh, a hipped roof, brick in nature, right next door. Right next door to it, is a one, one-car, I will call a one-car garage, with, uh, a gable roof, wood siding. Then you have a three-car garage with a flat roof. Uh, what's not shown here is behind this tree is a storage, so it's actually the total length behind the house, which this, uh, lot is the same dimensions as my lot. So it's basically 50 feet wide and goes, extends all the way across the back of the lot. And then right next door is a, we'll call a car and a half or two-car garage with a high, uh, steep roof, steep gable roof. And when you look at these massings together, as we were talking about massings on, in the park, this is a panoramic view, so you can see all these things together and you have this, what probably appears from their backyard as one continuous structure. Uh, so, as far as scale goes, you can see what characteristics we have in Fayette Park of scales, and, and, uh, scales of structures and people's backyards. Keep on going in the wrong direction. This is a, uh, we'll call a two-car, probably car and a half with today's standards, with, uh, it's, uh, block construction. And right next to it is a, uh, large, uh, wood garage with, uh, with a metal roof. So you can, as you can see there's different styles of garages, so to understand when we were looking at our design to try to fit the park, it, it's hard to comprehend. Here you have a flat-roof two-car garage right next to a two-car garage with a gable roof. This is probably, if I'm not mistaken, at 439, it's the most current garage that was approved by the, uh, Board. If you look at the scale of this, this is similar to the scale of the proposed garage except for our roof will be much shorter. This is about a 22-foot roof, even with the... and I'll have to correct Amelia, the height of the, uh, garage is 19 feet with the gate. It's not 21 or 22, which I think she mentioned, which I have the, I have the plans here, uh, to show that. Uh, but this is, uh, 20, 22 feet, so we're looking at a three feet shorter garage, three foot shorter garage. And this is right next door, so you can see the different styles of garages as we go through. There's not really... there's a couple that are alike, uh, such as this, uh, with, uh, Ms. Newberry at, at 425, and, uh, Ms. Meeker's, uh, at 417. That's ... that wasn't your garage? That wasn't in the, the back? So that was from 6th Street? Uh, but as you look here, uh, all the roofs, you got gable roof, hipped roof, flat roof. Roof materials are metal, asphalt shingle. Some of 'em have rubber flat roofs. Uh, you got garage widths that vary from 45 to 16 feet. Garage depths that vary from 25 feet to 18 feet. Heights vary from 34 to 11 feet. I mean, all these different variations. So when you look at the, uh, the findings and then they say, and the, the board says, "Not consistent with others in Fayette Park." It makes me un- it... I'm not sure what is consistent in Fayette Park, except for, uh, that there are garages in the back of the, uh, back of the lots. Another point of clarification in the, uh, staff report, uh, and I wanna make sure that we don't take, uh, and you've got all, I think you've got the minutes or the meeting summaries or the transcripts of all the, the meetings that we held. But in the, uh, but in the staff report, it mentions that at the, uh, November meeting that the, that the garage was not, uh, discussed that much. And that a second garage, um, someone questioned the second garage. But to put that, uh, in, into context and, and carry the conversation all the way through, Nathan Billings, uh, w- a board member was the one that mentioned that and said, uh, "Why don't two g- garages, wouldn't you wanna just do that in one garage?" Meaning, wouldn't you want the, uh, garage to span the entire length, similar to some of those other garages where it faced the, opening faces the house. And, uh, get the same amount of space that you have with the two garages. But then it was determined through the dis- the discussions, um, that, um, that the two garages actually were less, would be less massive and less, more in scale in keeping with the, uh, with the historic context. Uh, also there was a discussion, I mean, th- I think it was mentioned again that there wasn't much discussion about the second garage, but there was. Uh, there was all k- all sorts of discussions. One board member mentioned having a, an attached garage. Another board member even mentioned having a two-story garage with a lift, so you could lift your cars up into the second story. So you see all these ideas that you can get sometimes, uh, when you, uh, ask for input. So there was a lot of discussion about the garage. So we look at our garage and what we came up with and the characteristics of it, it has a hipped roof to reduce the scale and height of the, uh, of the roof. A garage width of 28 feet to, uh, by 22 feet. Uh, alternate one's 17 feet high and alternate two is 19 feet high. To be perfectly honest, and I must have missed it at the, uh, previous, at the board meeting, but I did not hear the alternate one even mentioned as far as in the discussion. So I will take, uh, I will take the report at its word that, uh, that was an option. Uh, my understanding was since the staff had recommended the second option, uh, that that was what we were focusing on. So the proposed garage, I think you've seen, seen all this. I just wanted to, uh, show 'em in scale next to each other. Uh, obviously this looks like the, the alternate one if you're looking at what may look more like all the rest of the garages in Fayette Park, maybe that is more plain-looking and, and looks, uh, that character. And you've seen all that, and this just has dimensions on it where you can see the 19 feet and the, uh, and the 17 feet. And of course, you've, you've seen this and I, I wa- I wanna repeat it. I mean, it just, if you look at the details of what these guidelines sp- specify compared to the generalization of the other guidelines that the board states, uh, it, it appears to me when you say green space doesn't, or reduces green space, that that is a wholly subjective, um, rationalization. Because if you were to say you can put, uh, a birdbath back there, you could say that reduces green space. But these are a little more detailed and I think really capture what it is that we're trying to do in, in meeting the guidelines. Um, so I mean, you have those in your packet. I won't read 'em, and I think, uh, w- as we worked with, uh, Betty's office to make sure that we developed a plan that, uh, we thought, uh, met the guidelines. And as, as you see in the, uh, staff approval, uh, recommendation for approval, they also thought that in their opinion, that it, it met the guidelines. I will also like to mention that through the process, you know, we've received a lot of public comments, uh, from the neighbors. I have letters from the neighbors that were submitted to the, to the board. Uh, none of which, except for the two story portion of the garage, none of which, uh, have any opinion, negative opinion towards the garage. Uh, I don't know if the, those are part of their packets, the letters to the board. So, so you have those. So none of the neighbors opposed the garage except for the two story portion of it, thinking that it was going to be a, uh, guest house or something like that. Which it wouldn't, couldn't be anyway because it doesn't meet the zoning requirements of, uh, of Fayette Park. Uh, the other issue is, through all the, uh, all the meetings, uh, the board really never had anything negative to say about whether or not a two gar- that we could have two garages. It was more on the, uh, the design of the garage and neither was the public comment against the garage at all the, uh, board meetings which I think you have all the transcripts. Thank you, Mr. Leslie. Are there any, um, does that conclude your presentation? Yes. Okay. Do we have any questions, uh, commission members, for Mr. Leslie? Ms. Copeland? Yes. Mr. Leslie, when you showed the, uh, plan view of the existing house and then the additions, uh, that you plan to build, was that to scale? Yes, ma'am. Uh, is all of that addition two story? No, ma'am only part of the, uh, addition. Half of the addition, less than half of the addition is two story. It's 17 by 15 portion of the addition is- Two story? Two story. And then what's one story? Um... okay, yeah. Thank you. And wasn't there walls involved too with your- There was, uh, yes. There was brick wall and the brick wall that we proposed matched the adjoining, uh, property owners wall. They have a wall on their property, uh, that's, uh, not adjacent to our property, but on the other side of our property, so we were going to match their design of their brick wall with an- with another wall. Yes. And how tall is that wall? Five feet to match the, the adjoining property. And 18 inches wide or- Uh, yes. Concrete block, too- Brick. Since it's brick. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Leslie? Uh, Mr. Owens? Yes. Mr. Leslie, just curious, uh, your house, what is the overall height of it? Do you know? Oh, it's um, it's a good question. It's high. It's three stories high and, uh, each floor is about 11, it's 12 feet. The, the- Okay. So you're looking at, uh, probably close to 48 feet. Okay. Thank you. I think it's- Mr. Craven, do you have a question? Yeah, whi- which garage are you wanting to build? Which garage am I want- I will build, uh, at this point- Four or five up here and I don't know. Uh, I guess I would go with the staff's recommendation. I mean, we presented two. They recommended that the one with the dormers, uh, was more in line and in keeping with the design guidelines, so alternate two- Yeah, and, uh- ... with the dormers. I mean, I wouldn't consider that two story. H- how, how high are the, uh, side walls, eave walls? The, uh, inside side walls are eight feet and it's, uh- But I mean, where do you shut the rafters from, from the 8-foot up? Are, are you, are you sure? Uh... Oh, she's got that up there now. I've got a, a... Basically, in the upstairs you have 12 by, um, for the dormers it's 8 foot from the floor joist to the, uh, roof, uh, joist, 8 foot clearance. Oh, okay. So the rafters are, it looks like, sitting right down on the- Yeah. ... first story wall. Yeah. So- Yeah. Yeah. Is that, is that gonna be finished up there, unfinished or just- No, that's just gonna be, uh- Storage. ... storage. I think the only reason, uh, we had that up there was to put the dormers to break that scale down of the, uh- I mean, I would consider that a, a story and a half, you know, because it causes the floor, you know, where your knee walls are don't cover the whole first floor. Yeah. Thank you. Can we go back to the previous graphic and explain the room and the addition, what portion is... Okay. More. This is a rear view of the, uh, of the addition. Uh, basically this is a conservatory which comes out a little further, uh, than this addition here, and this is the two story portion of it, of the, of the addition with a covered porch. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Leslie? Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. Um, I guess, at this point, uh, we'll, uh, ask those in the audience wishing to speak in favor of this appeal, uh, to come forward in favor. I think I've got that right, in favor of this appeal. Okay. Seeing none, uh, those wishing to speak in opposition of this appeal? Good afternoon. I don't know how to work these things, so I'll- Just lean into it and talk. I'm getting a little tall. My name is Pat O'Dell. I live at 434 Fat Park. Our house backs up to 5th Street and the 5th Street garages were the ones that Mr. Leslie showed you. Um, only one of those garages has been built since Fayette Park was in historic district. That was the, um, the, the garage that had the pitched roof, it was sort of red. Um, it was actually built because a black locust in our garag- our fri- in our backyard, blew over and went across three yards and demolished the garage next door to us. Um, and those plans were approved by the Historic Preservation Committee and the LAR. The reason for all the different garages is that there was no historic neighborhood when those were all built. Um, and some of them are three, some of them are two. Ours is two. The reason those garages are not taking up, uh, they're not taking uh, up as much space is that the, the lots in Fayette Park that back up to 5th Street are considerably shorter than the lots on the north side of the park that back up to property on 6th Street. So, the, the, the lots on 6th Street side are much longer. Um, I forgot what I wanted, okay. Um, basically, that's it. There, there, there are lots of different garages, but it was before there was any regulation. The ones that have been built since then have all complied, and there's usually, there've only been one garage on each lot. That's all I can say. Thank you, Ms. O'Dell. My name is Spence Millard. I reside at, uh, 440 Fayette Park, and again, with the garage survey, when you conduct surveys, you have to make sure that your sample size does apply. One of those garages that he pointed out, it was the, one of the last ones and it was dark and it was made out of wood and it showed a variation in the sizes and the materials of construction. I did some research on that one. It was a stables for horses dating back at least to the 1930s, if not in 1880s. And that was long before standards were ever put in place as to what could be on your property and what couldn't. And that applied to, as far as I know, at least, uh, three, if not four of the structures they showed in this sample. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Miller. I'm Elsa Newbury, and I live in house 425. Uh, sort of, I'm a neighbor. And first I wanted to, first I wanted to emphasize that there are definitely several parts different in Fayette Park. There is a north side, there is a south side, and there is a park in the middle. Uh, we live on the north side, and we definitely have seven houses on there, all with the same footprint. And some of the garages that we heard mentioned, were all on the south side when they face 5th Street. Our situation is different. You see, we live in a real park. We have a park right out front and we have a park in the back, green spaces, because we have our neighbors 6th Street properties, so we don't even have their houses. It's just the property. So when I look out there right now, I can see all my houses on this side. I can see the houses on that side and I have a beautiful park view. This is why we have Fayette Park. I don't know how many of you know Fayette Park. Have you seen it? Have you visited it? It is really a beautiful area. And what disturbed me was, that in that group of seven houses, the middle house is 431. And there would be so many differences, so much build up in that area. For example, the addition, a brick wall, which is totally unheard of in our part of the place. There was a little brick wall, but it does not surround the whole property. This brick wall is supposed to surround the whole property. So we do have a loss of, a lot of buildings going up. And so I strongly, I feel very strongly about a new garage going up there too. Fayette Park was, is 110 years old and a lot of houses don't even have a garage and it just takes away from the green spaces. I think one of the most important things for us is the guideline that you really maintain and retain green spaces. And what worries me is that if we have too much buildup, it says it sets a precedent and ultimately when another house is being sol- sold, they want to build the same building, similar buildings. And before we know, Fayette Park is no longer a park anymore. ... green spaces will be gone, and I don't know what the name of that beautiful se- setting that we have right now, what that will be called. That was just in response to the houses that are different, and with the wall too, that was mentioned. There is a wall in the back. I think I mentioned it at one of the houses, but it is just a fairly short wall that goes about halfway, but it does not surround the whole property. And so, I feel very strongly that for the preservation of our historic district, it is very important that we keep our Fayette Park area as park-like as we can. Already, this centrally-located property with its additions to h- house and the brick wall has already lost a lot of green spaces eva- de- despite our guidelines to maintain and retain spaces. The results we have, or we might create a precedent that is a property that is filled with buildings rather than with green spaces that we have right now. We have park-like features in our Fayette Park, and I don't want to lose those. I fear that things like another reduction of green spaces will make the survival of our historic neighborhood very unlikely. I've lived there for 40 years and I love Fayette Park. I hope Mr. Leslie doesn't take my comments personally. I'm just concerned about Fayette Park. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Newberry. Mr. Chairman and members of the planning commission, my name's Wayne Meeker. I live at 417 Fayette Park, and I also will have lived there 40 years next month. I was very young when we got there. In fact, I was the youngest one in now... well, I'm not the oldest certainly not the youngest anymore. We're always glad to have new neighbors. We were sort of shocked when these plans came up, especially with the brick wall, which the BOAR did approve that went all the way around the property. Because Fayette Park, um, is just a super place to live. I don't know if you really know about it. It was Lexington's first subdivision when they got the trolley going out North Broadway. Um, the first homes were built about 1889, and it was all built out by 1910. The houses are all solid as a rock because they were built with old, old gross wood and all sorts of wonderful materials that we can't even buy today, and they were cheap in those, in those days. My house was built in the year, which is shocking when you see all the little details that they put into it, but I guess they had just wonderful craftsmen that must have worked 24/7, 365 days a year. Um, most of the houses only had three or four owners. Most people who come there stay for a long time. We've always had all ages and stages and lifestyles of people. Uh, there are many stories on, in each of the properties that are fascinating. Some of them are funny, some of them are sad, but it's, it's part of the lore of the park. And the thing that has disturbed us so much is that no one has ever come into the park and wanted to wall themselves in, o- out, away from the neighborhood. It's a super neighborhood. Everybody is, uh, busy and very productive. But the thing about Fayette Park, it's like a small town when your life goes to hell, or something wonderful happens, your neighbors are there and gets you through the good times and the bad. And we've all been on each side of that equation. We feel that this development is more of a suburban than an urban characteristic, um, and we'd like to keep it open. Uh, the second garage, n- three of us in Fayette Park don't have a garage. Everybody who has a garage has one garage. There's only one other two-story garage, and that's the one by, uh, Vaughn Alley, and the reason it's two stories is because the veterinarian who lived there during World War II put in a pigeon coop for homing pigeons in case we got attacked, or somebody came east of the Mississippi, and there's a million stories like that about Fayette Park. We've, uh... in, in the mid-1980s, the neighbors unanimously, uh, signed a petition for us to become an H-1, and this little gem of a neighborhood looks much like it did originally on the outside. And of course, interiors are not governed by the historic preservation guidelines. Um, just one other thing that I'd like to add that Mr. Leslie did, uh, put in, and I mentioned it at the BOAR, that this street is, uh, zoned R1C, so, um, there could not be... I visited with building inspection and there can't be any pu- plumbing pulled to the second story of this garage because then it would no longer be an accessory feature. And we'd be happy to answer any questions also, if you have any. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Meeker. I think Mr. Penn had a question for you. Ms. Meeker? The garage is all that's in play here today. Right, right, that- So- so my question to you is, are you opposed because it's a second garage- Yes. ... or are you opposed because the size and scale of the garage? Um, I think it violates, uh, the guidelines of site and setting, not only for that particular property, but for all of the surrounding properties, both on Fayette Park and on Sixth Street. But you'd be okay with two garages, as long as the- the second one wasn't too big? Um, it- I think one garage is enough, unless we- there's some compelling reason to have two garages. Thank you. Um, as it is now, I can stand at my kitchen window at the sink and look all the way from my house, which is the first property on the street next to the alley, look all the way down to the bo- um, bottom of the park and see everybody's spring bushes starting to bloom. But the other interesting thing about that is, several years ago, we called for the police to come do, uh, a neighborhood watch, um, uh, demonstration and they just laughed and the police chief said, "You all have had neighborhood watch for 100 years, so why do you need us to come?" Because it's- it's so wide open and people care and just subconsciously you look out for each other. So the more open space we have, the better, Mr. Penn. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Maker. Uh, is there any other, uh, comment, uh, those wishing to speak in opposition? Okay, I guess, uh, this point, uh, we'll take rebuttal from staff. Is there any rebuttal from staff? I'm sorry, did you- would you like to speak, ma'am? You have to come forward, please. No problem. We'll- we'll take our time. ... occasion, uh, what Gwenn said. Okay. ... the neighborhood. If we could get your name please and address. Yes. My name is Cora Carrick. I live at the bottom of the park, the three houses that face Broadway, and I've lived there since I was 14, 13, somewhere there. Before that, we lived across Broadway and two blocks down in Elsmere Park. Uh, and we're not a show-off-y place, but I think we're an asset to Lexington because, and I just thought of this when Gwenn was talking, when UK has themes and a lot of people are staying downtown at the hotels and stuff, and on the times when the basketball isn't happening, you know, in between, and people will wander into the park in twos and threes, and usually I'm out walking and I speak to them and, uh, they'll say, "This is such an interesting place. None of the houses look alike!" And probably they live in one of these cookie cutter places, you know, where they all look alike. And they'll ask about- about, uh, when the houses were built and what kind of people live there and stuff like that. And I get the feeling that, you know, we're an asset to Lexington because we're showing off unintentionally to the rest of the company- coun- country that there are still neighborhoods like this, where neighbors are neighbors. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you, Ms. Carrick. Is there anyone else who would like to speak, uh, in opposition to this appeal? Okay, um, I guess I'll call on staff, uh, if they have any rebuttal comment. No rebuttal comment? I think I would like to say something. Um, it is R1C, the property is R1C, and as an accessory use in any of the residential zones, you can have up to two roomers or boarders. So they could have people, you know, they could have a space above to- for people to stay, a- as long as they didn't have the plumbing and as long as they didn't have a kitchen facility. So, I mean, that is a possibility and that, you know, I mean, that would be something that would questioned. But I- when I said that in the staff report, it was because it was based on what was stated in the minutes of the- of the OAR hearings. I just wanted to make that clear. Okay, thank you. Okay, uh, any petitioner rebuttal comment? Take a few more moments of your time. I know this has taken a long time to address such what seems to be a small issue compared to major developments, but it is important to me. Fayette Park does mean- I am- I am a new resident there. Uh, these- these individuals have been there for 40 years, and I hope that I'm there for 40 years or even longer. I have the most to gain or lose at this point on the, uh, the viability of Fayette Park, so it's very important to me that Fayette Park stays, uh, in the context that it is. That's why I purchased a home there. That's why I'm doing what I'm doing. Uh, Secretary of In- Interior Standards, uh, for Rehabilitation alla- states clearly that they realize historic districts cannot stay frozen in time, that there has to be allowance to bring those things up to modern standards to make them economically viable because that makes them continue on when people can- can, uh, bring these older homes and older neighborhoods up to, uh- ... present day standards, uh, for, uh, people of my generation to live, and, uh, raise a family, and those kinda things. That's all I have to say. So, I thank you. Thank you for your time. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you very much, Mr. Leslie. Um, any rebuttal comment from our, um, citizens? No, no rebuttal comment? Thank you. Okay, um, I guess, um, at this time, um, d- do we have g- questions from the commission? Can we ask those questions now before we close the hearing? Okay. Ms. Phillips? Um, I wanted to ask staff, what is the minimum lot size in the R-1C district? Minimum, minimum of 8,000 square feet. Do we have a, um, minimum open space requirement in the, in that zoning district? There is not in the standard R-1C. I'd need to check the infill regulations, since this is in the infill and redevelopment area. I'd also be interested in knowing, um, whether or not there is a, a building surface coverage maximum within the R-1C district. Again, I believe that there is within the infill and redevelopment area. Um, I can get you that exact information. Um, also, would there be a district to district vegetative buffer required at the rear of that property, um, within that R-1C district? I guess it's on the 6th Street side. Would that be on the 6th Street side? Right, that is an R2 zone, and there is no inherent landscape buffer required by the zoning ordinance between R-1C and R2. Okay. Um, I also wanted to know what year, uh, Fayette Park was made an historic overlay? '81? '70. Okay. I have some information over there, Denise, that I put behind you, that gives the exact time. Thank you. It's 1986, I believe. I don't have my- And, and I'm trying to figure out when that, when garage number one was ... We suspect that garage number one was built some time between 1960 and 1980. Is that- I believe it was in place at the time Fayette Park was made a local historic district, the one that is to be torn down now- Yes. ... and the other put in its place. Um, I believe it was an existing condition at the time the district was requested. Okay. They're checking their notes now. Now? No. So, post date's the H-1? We, we, of course, would have files on that, as far as permits, but I don't know, obviously, off the top of my head. But my sense was, it was there, but the neighbors would know better, in terms of specificity to that parcel. But if I had my files in front of me, I could tell you. Suspicion it's that garage, that, that, that land subdivision, acquiring that, what I'm suspecting happened? It was a separate parcel, certainly, at the time. Whether the structure- Okay. ... that stands there today and is to be torn down exists, I would have to check files for confirmation. Okay. I- I'd be interested in knowing that. But I'm saying neighbors probably have a pretty good take on that as well. I'd be interested in knowing that. Thank you, that's all. Ms. Phillips, I have answers to your other questions. The infill and redevelopment regulations do not have minimal or minimum usable open space requirements, so there is no minimum open space required. There's also no min- maximum lot coverage in the infill and redevelopment for R-1C. There are floor area restrictions. Uh, lots that are less than 50 feet of frontage have a .35 or 35% floor area restriction, or 2600 square feet of buildable area for residence, whichever's greater. A few of the lots in Fayette Park are larger, have more frontage than 50 feet. They are allowed a maximum floor area ratio of .7 or 70% of lot area to building area. Has, um, anybody computed what the floor area ratio would be for this with, with garage number two and without garage number two? I'm not sure that that's been calculated. The garages are accessory structures. They do not count against the floor area. They do not? They do not count against the floor, you know, as far as according to building inspection, they do not count as far as the floor area. Thank you. Are there any other, uh, questions from commission? S- good question. Mr. Owens, you have a question? Um, I don't know if it'd be for Amelia or Miss Carter. Um, help me, if you would, uh, reasons, reasons for your disapproval for the garage. You're stating the three, uh, 14-4, 15-1, and 15-3. I can somewhat see where you're coming from on 14-4. I'd like a little bit of more explanation as to 15-1 and 15-3. Seems like you're talking about landscape features, and not necessarily the garage itself. Those were the three guidelines cited by the, um, Board of Architectural Review members who made the motion to- Mm-hmm. ... uh, deny the application for the garage. Correct. The staff did not recommend, uh, in a similar vein to that. Staff's recommendation supports the construction of the garage. So, um, my explanation to you would reflect the Board of Architectural Review's intent to, as much as I understood it when they made their motion to deny the garages, but it is not consistent with that which was the staff's recommendation. Okay. Um, so the other two that, that you've referenced, uh, you said you had questions with 15-1 and 15-3, that had to do with, um, 15-1, uh, specifically is to address, um, that the significant features or yard spaces in this instance, uh, within a historic district should be retained and maintained, uh, versus have alterations introduced to it, would be what that guideline focuses on. Uh, and I would suggest the board including it as a rationale as to why they did not concur with the construction of a garage was that they did not agree that, that the status quo would be retained or, uh- Okay. ... something in like manner. Uh, I, again, can't really speak for what was their specific motivation, since it wasn't our motion, uh, or rationale put forward. Um, 15-3, landscape and land features should not be visibly dominant. Um, I suspect in that instance, they really were thinking more about the building being visually dominant, quite frankly. Uh, because what was before them was not to create new land features. So I believe they're taking a philosophy that is addresses their cons- reflecting their address, they're concerned about landscape, but I suspect they're reflecting that they don't think that the garage would be an enhancement to this landscape situation. I really cannot put words in their mouth in this instance. Okay. Uh, I, I, I believe I heard earlier that, I think Ms. Records mentioned that one of the reasons for your disapproval was that brick on the accessory structure was not appropriate. Did I hear that correct? Staff's recommendation was that the proposed, uh, accessory structure, being the garage, was within the guidelines. The Board of Architectural Review's decision, uh, did not concur with that, and they, uh, voted to deny the new construction, stating it did not comply with the guidelines and these are the guidelines they cited. Because brick wasn't appropriate as an accessory structure? Mr. Owens? Yes. What I said was that the, that the, in the conceptual review, they discussed different materials and how the different, use of different materials would affect the appearance of the mass, and use of brick would make it look even larger than it was, or larger than, larger than vinyl would make it look, or larger than wood would make it look, is what I was trying to convey. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Owens. I'm sorry. Was that it? That's good. Okay, thank you. Ms. Copeland, you have a question? I don't have a question. I want to talk, please. Okay. Well, I'm, I'm holding it open for questions. If there's no further questions, we'll close this portion of the public hearing, and then we'll have, uh, discussion among commission members. Okay, seeing none, we'll close this portion of the hearing and, uh, open it up to commission for a discussion. Yes, ma'am. I have some, um, overlays that I brought in. Please, um, would you please show the one that shows that it was 1985 when this area was, became a historic district? And after that, we'll go to the one that shows the garden. It's marked through there, Fayette Park be, has 16 structures in 1985, date entered. And that piece, uh, the next one's the garden one, that piece that was, uh, amend, uh, attached to Mr. Leslie's property where is, is clearly to me, bought to either park cars or put a garage, but do something, so that could be a garden space. And that happened in 1970. It's not a, and the intention was not to make green space and ozone for Lexington. It was to have a garden, and this part of this property is every bit as important as the gardens in Charleston or the gardens in, uh, Florida, uh, with historic properties. And why we're calling it green space, I don't know. This was Mr. Stimple's property. The Simples lived there. He was with the Patterson School of Diplomacy. Garden, garden open houses and gardens in Fayette Park have been part of the walking tours of Lexington for years, and this is why these neighbors are here, because everybody enjoys the views back and forth. Uh, when I first... Could you show the overview of, uh, the whole north side, uh, neighborhood? Because if you stand back and look at the big picture, there is the lot that's in question, and it's wonderful that Mr. Leslie is going, has bought this with his talents and his engineering skill, et cetera. He is, uh, I, I believe, a part of Lochner. Is that right, Mr. Les- Leslie? Who designs bridges and they, uh, were the technical part of, um, Paris Pike, the building of Paris Pike. So to have this kind of expertise buy this property is great. But at the same time, we need to not lose sight of the fact that this is a flowing space in the middle of a very diversified, organic, socially organic neighborhood- ... where there are all types of people, all colors, all kinds of talents, new, old, educated, non-educated, landowners, renters, students, occupants for years, and they all work harmoniously because they don't have walls and they don't have, they share views in and out and check on each other. Uh, I think it's wrong to hop right down in the middle of that whole green area up there that surrounds the red block and put any kind of obstacle when the owner prior, in 1970, tucked their cars around the corner and that was a garden space. It is historic garden space, and it should be kept as garden space, not green space, garden space. It's part of the property just like cupolas are part of the property. So therefore, with, I'm happy you have it, Mr. Leslie, but that's why I'm voting, uh, disapproval. Thank you, Ms. Copeland. Mr. Day, you have a comment? I just, I just wanna get one thing c- c- certain so I know this. Uh, all we're talking about is a garage at the back of the lot. That is correct. The wall, the yard, none of that, that's all history? What we're voting on is whether you, they, it can have a garage. That's correct. Right? That's what... That's the appeal. Mm-hmm. Any other... Mr. Holmes? Yeah. I guess, you know, my, my concerns are, I, I appreciate the, the fact that, that that was a significant garden, but I guess nothing would preclude Mr. Leslie from plowing that up at some point in time. Uh, but when I look at the issue of, of the garage and, and the purpose that it serves, I, I go back to, uh, I guess the guidelines that the staff, uh, approved this under, and, uh, uh, I just feel that it, the design of the garage fits in appropriately with the, um, overall scheme of the plan and still respects the historic character and nature of the neighborhood. Thank you, Mr. Holmes. Any other comment? Mr. Owens? Thank you. Um, you know, uh, driving through Fayette Park, I was, you know, the, the atmosphere or the environment there is, is tremendous. Um, with the, with the median or park-like setting between the houses and so forth. Um, what I saw was quite a mixture of garages throughout the park, uh, whether they be vinyl, concrete block, wood, brick, you name it. Uh, I think this lot is somewhat of an unusual situation in the fact that it does have an additional piece of property, which is behind the adjoining lot, and, and, you know, right now, the way I see this, as long as this second garage is not a dominant physical structure, uh, you know, I'm okay with it and I'd be willing to, uh, vote in favor of the appeal. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Any, any other questions, com- I'm sorry, comments? Discussion? Motion? I would like to make a motion that we approve Mr. Leslie's request. Is that... Or... I think that- ... or return to BR? Which- I think that would be appropriate, but we, we also need findings to overturn this. Correct, Laurel? Um, yes, you can adopt the findings that were set forth originally by the historic preservation staff in their report that were based on the guidelines. The only distinction that may be necessary is whether you intended to approve, um, either alternative proposed by Mr. Leslie or whether you thought the approval would be restricted to one or the other. I think the original staff findings for approval, um, stated in part that they thought that the garage with the dormers were more appropriate 'cause it broke up the roof scape. So if you intended to approve only the other alternative, or if you intended to approve either alternative, you would want to say something about whether or not those dormers are significant. Okay, then so my motion would be to approve with the recommendation of the staff, um, defining the facts would be the staff's recommendation of staff report, and I guess the alternative would be the one with the dormers? Well, they approved, they originally recommended the one with the dormers and made the comment that it broke up the large roof expanse. If you don't think that's significant, you could indicate that you were approving either alternative because perhaps the smaller s- scale of the garage without dormers you felt still complied with the guidelines, if that's the motion you were making. And all I'm saying is if you intend to enlarge that approval, original approval recommendation, you might want to indicate that. My recommendation is the one with the dormers with the staff's, uh, findings. Okay. Okay, we have a motion and a second, uh, to adopt the findings of the staff's original report, accepting the alternative, uh, with the dormers that allowed a, a breakup of the roof lines and, uh, uh, roof mass. And, uh, is there a question? Call the question? Thank you. One question. Um, as far as the staff's findings, they're mentioning three in the, in the body of the report, though it talks about one additional guideline, 19.3. ... in which states new accessory struc- structures should follow design guidelines established for new construction. Th- that, would it be appropriate to add that one as well? It's actually, when you go back into the previous staff report generated by the Division of Historic Preservation, part of that. So your reference to the Division of HP's staff recommendation would be inclusive of the one you just mentioned. Okay. Is there another question? I've got a comment. Even though the addition on the back of the house was not in question here today, the garage that's gonna be built, if this motion passes, very much mirrors the, what's done on the back of that house. So I don't think it's an aberration, I think it's a continuation of what's already been approved for the back of that house. Thank you. Any other comment? Ready for the vote. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. We have one no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, I guess, next on our agenda, um, staff has, uh, an item, I guess. Um, Mr. Salih, you wanna, I guess, give us an update on that? Just wanted to remind you all that there's an audio conference on Wednesday the 18th, Designing for Water Conservation. It'll be in our conference room on the seventh floor. And if you could just let me know by Tuesday if you're planning on coming, then that would be great 'cause then we can set up enough seats for y'all. Get credit for that. Pardon? Get credit for that. You do. An hour and a half. I better plan there. Got class flights. Okay. Um, did you say that was the 18th, Barb? 18th. Next Wednesday. What time? 4:00. 4:00 PM. 4:00 PM to 5:30. Okay. Um, are there any other, uh, staff items? No other staff items? Are there any audience items? I see some folks in the audience. Okay. All right. Um, I guess, um, if there's no further business, um, Chair will entertain a motion for adjournment. Do we have to follow up here? I moved it. No. Okay, we have a, we have a motion and a second to adjourn. We're adjourned.