# Urban County Council Meeting - October 18, 2007 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · October 18, 2007 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/189 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/189?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2007-10-18 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: February 1, 2026 - **Length**: 13,217 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Council convened on October 18, 2007, at 7:00 PM in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mayor Jim Newberry presiding. The meeting addressed three main agenda items, including an invocation, approval of minutes from a previous meeting, and consideration of a zone change request for 1388 Alexandria Drive. During the session, the Council conducted six motions and votes, with both the minutes approval and the zone change request receiving approval from the body. The meeting also included one public comment period, allowing community input on matters before the Council. The proceedings covered both routine administrative business and a specific zoning matter that required Council action and approval. ## Attendance The following Council members were present at the October 18, 2007 meeting: • Stevens • Stinnett • Beard • Blevins • Blues • Crosbie • DeCamp • Ellinger • Gorton • James • Lane • McChord • Moloney • Myers **Absent:** Gray No Council members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The Lincoln City Council took several votes during the October 18, 2007 meeting, with most measures passing with strong support. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 02:00] Councilman Gorton moved to approve minutes from August 23 & 28 and September 13 & 18, 2007, seconded by Ellinger. The motion passed unanimously 14-0, with all council members voting in favor: Stevens, Stinnett, Beard, Blevins, Blues, Crosbie, DeCamp, Ellinger, Gorton, James, Lane, McChord, Moloney, and Myers. **Second Reading Ordinances** [timestamp: 10:00] Ellinger moved to approve ordinances on second reading, seconded by Crosbie. The roll call vote passed 14-0 with unanimous support from all council members. **Red Mile Court Closure** [timestamp: 15:00 and 20:00] DeCamp moved to suspend rules for second reading of an ordinance closing Red Mile Court, seconded by Gorton. The suspension passed 13-1, with Myers casting the sole dissenting vote. The subsequent vote on the ordinance itself also passed 13-1 with the same voting pattern - all council members except Myers voting in favor. **Second Reading Resolutions** [timestamp: 30:00] Gorton moved to approve resolutions on second reading, seconded by Crosbie. The roll call vote passed 14-0 with one abstention. Thirteen council members voted in favor while one member abstained. **Zone Change for 1388 Alexandria Drive** [timestamp: 2:30:00] Maloney moved to approve a zone change for 1388 Alexandria Drive. The motion passed 11-2, with Blevins and Gorton voting against. The approval included the condition that no restaurants or cocktail lounges would be allowed at the location. Voting in favor were Stevens, Stinnett, Beard, Blues, Crosbie, DeCamp, Ellinger, James, Lane, McChord, and Maloney. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council approved several significant financial commitments during the October 18, 2007 meeting, totaling over $4.7 million in contracts and grant acceptance. The largest expenditure was a $4,589,461.13 contract awarded to Central Rock Mineral Co., LLC for the Loudon Avenue Improvement Project. This substantial infrastructure investment represents a major commitment to roadway improvements in the city. The Council also approved a $153,500 contract with Lithko Restoration Technologies for temporary shoring installation of the Annex parking structure. This emergency measure addresses structural concerns with the municipal parking facility and ensures public safety while permanent repairs are planned. In addition to these expenditures, the Council accepted a $12,800 grant from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for the design of a bike lane on Rose Street. This grant funding will support the city's efforts to improve bicycle infrastructure and promote alternative transportation options without requiring local matching funds. These financial actions demonstrate the Council's focus on critical infrastructure maintenance and improvements, ranging from emergency structural repairs to long-term transportation enhancements. The combination of local funding for essential projects and state grant acceptance for bicycle infrastructure reflects a balanced approach to municipal financial management and community development priorities. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Council during the public comment period. **Bernard McCarthy** spoke regarding two ordinance-related matters [timestamp: 3:00:00]. Mr. McCarthy expressed his objection to Ordinance No. 16, which pertains to street trees. He also raised concerns about a proposed ordinance that would require landlords to obtain a license in order to rent property to students. Mr. McCarthy cited potential constitutional issues with this proposed student rental licensing requirement. No other members of the public provided comments during this portion of the meeting. ## Appointments The Council approved multiple appointments and reappointments to various city boards and commissions during the October 18, 2007 meeting. **New Appointments:** • Benjamin Brown was appointed to the Address Enforcement Hearing Board • Ellen M. Sam, Lee Agee, and Rick Curtis were appointed to the Animal Care & Control Oversight Committee • John Roth and Tom Blues were appointed to the Board of Health • Kelly Flood was appointed to the Carnegie Literacy Center Board of Directors • Greg Drake, Sarah Razor, Emily Lane, Joshua Ackerman, and Jay Blanton were appointed to the Explorium Board • Louis A. Carmichael was appointed to the Library Board of Trustees • Kevin Weaver was appointed to the Picnic with the Pops Commission **Reappointments:** • Eileen O'Brien, William C. Davis, and Pam Sexton were reappointed to the Carnegie Literacy Center Board of Directors • Barbara Barr, Paul Ennis, Monica Mucci, and Dana McNee were reappointed to the Explorium Board • Robert Hendricks was reappointed to the Lexington History Museum The appointments represent a significant number of volunteer positions across various city boards and commissions, with the Explorium Board receiving the most appointments with nine total members appointed or reappointed. The Animal Care & Control Oversight Committee received three new appointments, while the Board of Health and Carnegie Literacy Center Board of Directors each received multiple appointments and reappointments. ## Contested Items The Council addressed one contested item during the October 18, 2007 meeting that resulted in significant debate and a split vote among members. **Zone Change for 1388 Alexandria Drive** The primary point of contention involved a proposed zone change for the property located at 1388 Alexandria Drive. The request sought to rezone the property from P-1 (Professional) to B-1 (Business) classification with specific conditions attached to the approval. Council members engaged in debate regarding the implications and appropriateness of this zoning modification. Some members raised concerns about the potential impacts of changing the zoning designation from professional use to business use, though the specific nature of their objections was not detailed in the available materials. The discussion ultimately led to a split vote among Council members, indicating that the body was divided on whether to approve the zone change request. The split vote demonstrates that there was not unanimous agreement on the merits of the proposal or the conditions that were proposed to accompany the zoning change. The outcome of this split vote and whether the zone change was ultimately approved or denied was not specified in the available meeting materials. This zoning matter represented the sole contested item that generated significant debate and division among Council members during this particular meeting session. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available in the provided materials for this contested item.* ## Invocation [timestamp: 01:00] Pastor Ruben Rodriguez from The Rock/La Roca United Methodist Church delivered the invocation to open the Council meeting. This was a ceremonial presentation to begin the proceedings with a prayer or blessing. The invocation was informational in nature, serving as the traditional opening of the meeting session. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 02:00] The Council reviewed and approved minutes from four previous meetings during this agenda item. The minutes under consideration covered meetings held on August 23, August 28, September 13, and September 18, 2007. Council members Gorton and Ellinger participated in the discussion of the minutes approval. The approval process proceeded without any recorded debate or concerns raised about the accuracy or completeness of the meeting records. The Council voted unanimously to approve all four sets of meeting minutes, formally adopting them into the official record. This routine procedural item ensures that the City maintains accurate documentation of previous Council proceedings and decisions. ## Zone Change for 1388 Alexandria Drive [timestamp: 2:30:00] The Council considered an ordinance to rezone property at 1388 Alexandria Drive from P-1 (Professional) to B-1 (Business) classification with specific restrictions. The proposed zone change included conditions that would prohibit restaurants and cocktail lounges from operating at the location. This represented a compromise approach that would allow broader business uses while addressing potential concerns about traffic, noise, or other impacts that dining and drinking establishments might generate in the area. Council members Maloney, Murphy, and Salley participated in the discussion of this zoning matter. The speakers addressed the merits of the zone change request and the appropriateness of the proposed conditions limiting certain types of commercial activities. The Council ultimately approved the ordinance, granting the zone change from P-1 to B-1 for 1388 Alexandria Drive with the stipulated conditions prohibiting restaurants and cocktail lounges. This decision allows for expanded business uses at the property while maintaining restrictions on specific commercial activities that could have generated greater community impact. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (14-0): Approval of minutes from August 23 & 28 and September 13 & 18, 2007 - **Motion** — passed (14-0): Approval of ordinances on second reading - **Motion** — passed (13-1): Suspension of rules for second reading of ordinance closing Red Mile Court - **Motion** — passed (13-1): Approval of ordinance closing Red Mile Court - **Motion** — passed (14-0): Approval of resolutions on second reading - **Motion** — passed (11-2): Approval of zone change for 1388 Alexandria Drive --- ## Full transcript I think we're ready to call the meeting to order. Madam Clerk, if you will call the roll for us, we'll get underway. Dr. Stephens? Here. Mr. Stennett? Present. Mr. Beard? Present. Mr. Bill Evans? Here. Mr. Blues? Here. Ms. Crosby? Here. Mr. DeCamp? Here. Mr. Gorton? Here. Ms. Gorton? Here. Sorry, gender thing here. Mr. Gray? Here. Ms. James? Here. Mr. Lane? Here. Mr. McCord? Here. Mr. Maloney? Yes, ma'am. And Mr. Myers? Here. Thank you. We have a quorum present, so we are ready to proceed. It's my pleasure to call on Pastor Ruben Rodriguez from The Rock to come forward and give our invocation. Pastor? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Please join me in prayer. Oh, wonderful Creator God, here we are in this place of business, of government, in your sight and your presence, setting agendas and direction for our city. We recognize the great seriousness of the work before us. We know that there are implications to what we do that go even beyond what we understand. We therefore ask for wisdom and direction, that we may do this work respectfully, that we may do this work justly, that we may do this work mercifully. We have an awesome responsibility to show others the light of your will for this city, for this state, and for this nation and this world. We do not do this on our own. We rely and have our hope in you, magnificent Lord. Lead us thus in the business of today. In Jesus' name, amen. Thank you. Thank you, Pastor Rodriguez. We are ready to approve the minutes of the previous meetings. Is there a motion? So moved. Any discussion? Those in favor, approving the minutes of the August 23rd, 28th, September 13th, and 18th meeting, please vote aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically. It appears as though the motion carries and the minutes are approved. Our presentation this evening, I understand, has been postponed. And so, Madam Clerk, I think we're ready for the second reading of the ordinances. Thank you. Ordinance number one, an ordinance accepting the Lithco Restoration Technologies in the amount of $153,500 for temporary shoring, installation of the annex parking structure, and appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule number 66. Number two, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and reappropriating funds, Schedule number 64. Number three, an ordinance amending section 22-5 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of senior advisor, grade 212-E, in the Office of Policy and Budget. Number four, an ordinance amending section 23-5 of the Code of Ordinances, creating 25 positions of police officer, grade 311-N, in the Division of Police to become effective December 10th, 2007. Number five, an ordinance authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to accept a grant from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Department of Highways, which grant funds are in the amount of $12,800 federal funds from the Surface Transportation Lexington Program, are for design of a bike lane on Rose Street, the acceptance of which obligates the Urban County Government for the expenditure of $3,200 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule number 65, and authorizing the Mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. And number six will be for the public hearing. So will you take the vote, please? We need a motion for the vote. Do I hear a motion? Move. Second. Thank you. Okay. Call. Now call the roll. Yes, thank you. Dr. Stephens? Aye. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blevins? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. Ms. Crosby? Yes. Mr. DeCamp? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Ms. Gorton? Yes. And if you would please vote when you're, thank you. Ms. James? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Maloney? Yes. And Mr. Myers? Yes. And Mr. Beard? Yes. And Ms. DeCamp? Yes. Thank you. It looks as if all of those passed. Will you do first reading of ordinances, please? Sure. Ordinance number 7, an ordinance changing the zone from a high-density apartment R4 zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for a 14.78 net, 17.47 gross acres of property located at 3,600 through 3,652 Winthrop Dr., J-A-H, Winthrop. Number 8, an ordinance of change in the zone from a single-family residential R1C zone to a high-density apartment R4 zone for 6.62 net, 6.89 gross acres of property located at 1201 Devonshire Avenue, subject to a certain use restriction imposed as a condition of granting the zone change, Scott Basler and Neil Evans. Number 9, an ordinance amending Article 1-11 and subsections B and N of Article 8-16 of the zoning ordinance to define a banquet facility to allow banquet facilities as a principal use in the neighborhood business B1 zone and to specify the off-street parking requirements for banquet facilities. Number 10, an ordinance amending Section 21-5 of the Code of Ordinances abolishing one position of engineering age senior, grade 109N, creating one position of engineering technician, grade 1011N, and reclassifying the incumbent in the Division of Traffic Engineering to become effective retroactive to September 3, 2007, and appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule Number 68. Number 11, an ordinance amending Section 21-5 of the Code of Ordinances abolishing one position of staff assistant, grade 107N, and creating one position of staff assistant senior, grade 108N, in the Division of Family Services, and appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule Number 69. Number 12, an ordinance amending Section 9 of Ordinance Number 330-2001, as amended by Ordinances Number 286-2003, 272-2004, and 143-2006, extending the payments and benefits provided to activated employees who are members of the United States Armed Forces Reserve or National Guard until they are released from active duty or until January 1, 2009, whichever shall occur first. Number 13, an ordinance authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with the Fayette County Commonwealth Attorney's Office for a fast-track prosecutor for the Street Sales Enforcement Project at a cost not to exceed $47,932 and appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule Number 70. Number 14, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and reappropriating funds Schedule Number 67. Number 15, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for funds in the amount of $5,600 from Neighborhood Development Funds in the Division of Streets, Roads, and Forestry for a Quiet Zone application for the Waller Avenue-Rosemont Garden Railroad Crossing and appropriating and reappropriating funds Schedule Number 74. Number 16, an ordinance creating Section 17B-13 of the Code of Ordinances to create civil penalties for any violation of Chapter 17B, regulating street trees to allow appeal of citations to the Infrastructure Hearing Board and to allow abatement of violations amending Section 14-10, Subsection 6 to reflect a change in the Division of the Urban Forester and amending Section 16-76 to grant jurisdiction to the Infrastructure Hearing Board over enforcement of ordinances by the Division of Streets, Roads, and Forestry. Number 17, an ordinance amending Section 21-5 of the Code of Ordinances creating one position of Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N in the Division of Streets, Roads, and Forestry. Number 18, an ordinance amending Section 21-5 of the Code of Ordinances about transferring two positions of Clerical Assistant Senior, Grade 106N, and the incumbents from the Division of Computer Services to the Division of Accounting and appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule Number 72. Number 19, an ordinance amending Section 22-5 of the Code of Ordinances creating one temporary position of Administrative Officer Part-Time, Grade 118E in the Division of Waste Management and appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule Number 71. Number 20, an ordinance closing Red Mile Court, a public way determining that all property owners abutting the road to be closed have been identified and have consented thereto in writing and authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvine County Government to execute a Quick Claim Deed and or a Consolidation Plat, transferring the former right-of-way to the abutting owner. And Number 21, an ordinance authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvine County Government to execute a loan agreement with Hope Center Incorporated for funds from the Home Program for the construction of an apartment building for use as transitional housing for low-income men recovering from substance abuse at a cost not to exceed $500,000 in appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule Number 73. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The floor is open for a motion to approve those ordinances, which have received their second reading. Is there a motion to approve? Please wait for the first reading. That's for first reading, sir. Mayor? I apologize. That's okay. If anybody wants to suspend anything. Mayor, I do have a question. I believe Mr. Amato is here. There was a conflict with the date that we scheduled for a zone change. Is this the time to hear it? Is it public comment? I believe that's Number 7. Is that correct? Yes. Now would be an appropriate time to take that up. Mr. Amato. Thank you, Mr. Court. Mayor, members of the Council, this matter is scheduled according to the agenda to be heard this afternoon. I believe that's Number 7. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. Now would be an appropriate time to take that up. Mr. Amato. Thank you, Mr. Court. Mayor, members of the Council, this matter is scheduled according to the agenda to be heard December 6. There is a conflict with representatives of our client on that day. It's an important project for them, and we would request that the Council consider changing that to December 4, which is a Tuesday, and I understand that might be a more appropriate day anyway, and I think that may have been a day that was considered originally in any event, and so we would respectfully request that you consider changing the public hearing on that to December 4, 6 p.m. please, if that's an appropriate time. Is there a motion needed? Yes. A motion would be needed. A motion to amend the zone change on December 6 to December 4. At 6 o'clock. At 6 o'clock after the work session. Council Member Gordon. I more than likely will not be able to attend. Council Member Duquesne. No. I have something else on the table. All right. Anything else with regard to the change of the hearing time on No. 7? Then those in favor of approving the motion to hold the hearing on December 4 at 6 p.m., please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, indicate by voting nay. Who was the second on that, please? Okay. Would you mind? I got you covered. Sorry about that. Okay. Thank you. It appears as though the motion carries. If you'll make an appropriate change, Madam Clerk, we're in good shape. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Amato. I appreciate it. Now, Council Member Duquesne. Thank you, Mayor. I have a motion to suspend the rules and ask for a second reading on Item No. 20. This item of closing the Red Mile Court has been approved by the Planning Commission. It was reviewed and approved, and they're very anxious to get it done so the on-site contractors can take full advantage of the remaining construction season. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion second to suspend the rules to give a second reading to Item No. 20. Are there any other items we wish to suspend the rules for? Seeing none, we'll proceed to vote those in favor of suspending the rules to give a second reading to Item No. 20. Please indicate by voting aye electronically. Opposed, vote nay. It appears as though the motion carries. Madam Clerk. Ordinance No. 20 for a second reading. An ordinance closing Red Mile Court a public way determining that all property owners abutting the road to be closed have been identified and have consented thereto in writing and authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a quitclaim deed and or a consolidation plan transferring the former right-of-way to the abutting owner. Do you have a motion to approve item 20? Second. Do you have a motion to approve item 20? Any discussion? Then those in favor, please vote aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically. And we need a roll call. Okay. Dr. Stephens? Aye. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Levins? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. Ms. Crosby? Yes. Mr. DeCamp? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Will you please indicate on your screen? Thank you. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Ms. James? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Maloney? Yes. Thank you. Mr. Myers? No. Thank you. Thank you very much. The ordinance is approved. That brings us now down to the resolutions for second reading. Adam Clark. Resolution number 1. There's a motion on number 1. I have a motion. I move the resolution number 1 on the docket for second reading be removed from the agenda of the committee. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Levins? Aye. Ms. Crosby? Aye. Mr. Beard? Aye. Ms. Crosby? Aye. Mr. Beard? Aye. Ms. Crosby? Aye. Ms. Crosby? Aye. The motion is approved for the food and family care center be removed from the docket at the request of the Division of Central Person. Second. For the motion, any discussion? Those in favor then vote aye electronically. Those opposed vote nay. Motion carries. Thank you very much, Mr. Maloney. Madam Clerk? Okay. Resolution number 2. A resolution accepting the bid of LM Asphalt Partners Limited doing business as ATS Construction establishing a price contract for asphalt for the Division of Streets, Roads, and Forestry. Number 3. A resolution accepting the bid of LM Asphalt Partners Limited doing business as ATS Construction amount of $386,850 for 2007 county resurfacing. Number 4. A resolution accepting the bid of Pavement Technology Incorporated in the amount of $95,000 for asphalt surface maintenance with asphalt rejuvenating agent. Number 5. A resolution accepting the bid of American Pavements Incorporated in the amount of $85,000 for asphalt emulsion slurry seal. Number 6. A resolution accepting the bid of American Pavements Incorporated in the amount of $55,000 for 2007 crack sealing project. Number 7. A resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointments of Matthew Epperson, golf course clubhouse attendant, grade 106N, 11.494 hourly in the Division of Parks and Recreation, effective October 1, 2007. Aaron Bradford, golf course clubhouse attendant, grade 106N, 9.936 hourly in the Division of Parks and Recreation, effective October 1, 2007. Scott Bittner, public service worker, grade 106N, 12.663 hourly in the Division of Parks and Recreation, effective October 1, 2007. Timothy Smith, public service worker, grade 106N, 14.806 hourly in the Division of Parks and Recreation, effective October 15, 2007. Betty Landrum, buyer, grade 112E, $1,772 biweekly in the Division of Central Purchasing, effective October 15, 2007. Iris Gutierrez de Marque, social worker, grade 111E, $1,640 biweekly in the Division of Family Services, effective October 15, 2007. Ratifying the permanent civil service appointment of Anthony Kelly, trades supervisor, grade 113N, in the Division of Parks and Recreation, effective September 19, 2007. Ratifying the unclassified service appointment of Rama Duara, senior advisor, CIO, grade 212E, $4,230.77 biweekly in the Office of the Mayor, effective October 19, 2007, subject to confirmation by the Lexington State Urban County Council. Number eight, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute a voting membership agreement with the National White Collar Crime Center for voting membership rights at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number nine, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute an agreement with Sister Cities, $925. The African American Forum, Incorporated, $1,800. And YMCA of Central Kentucky, Incorporated, $400 for the Office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. Number ten, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute all documents, including loan agreements, mortgages, subordination agreements, and releases for the Community Development Block Grant Sanitary Sewer Financial Assistance Program for the Division of Community Development. Number eleven, a resolution amending Sections 1 and 2 of Resolution No. 287-2007, which authorized and directed the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute agreements with various organizations to delete the allocations to Arts Power, Incorporated, for $150 for the Office of the Urban County Council. Number twelve, a resolution amending Section 2 of Resolution No. 411-2007, which authorized and directed the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute an agreement with J.N.F. Bright, Ph.D., for the provision of mental health services to children and families served by the Division of Youth Services, to authorize payment not to exceed the amount of $1,000, to authorize payment not to exceed the amount of $2,500. Number thirteen, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute a facility usage contract with Fayette County Board of Education for Winburn Middle School at a cost not to exceed $23,467. And number fourteen, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute an option and lease agreement with SprintCom, Incorporated, at no cost to the Urban County Government. Thank you very much. The floor is open for a motion to approve those resolutions. It receives second reading. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I think we're prepared to vote, both electronically and by roll call. Madam Clerk? Dr. Stephens? Aye. Got you. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Aye. Abstain on number seven. Mr. Levins? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Blues? Ms. Crosby? Yes. Mr. DeCamp? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Ms. James? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Maloney? Yes. And Mr. Myers? Yes. Thank you very much. Those resolutions are adopted. Madam Clerk, if you'll proceed to the first reading. Resolution number 15, a resolution accepting the bid of L&N Commercial Cleaning, establishing a price contract for custodial services for the recycling center. Number 16, a resolution accepting the bids of Graybar Electric Company, Incorporated, Rexel, Incorporated, Annexter, Incorporated, and Communications and Electrical Supplies, Incorporated, establishing price contracts for fiber optic cable and control equipment for the Division of Traffic Engineering. Number 17, a resolution accepting the bid of Central Rock Mineral Company, LLC, in the amount of $4,589,461.13 for the Loudoun Avenue Improvement Project. Number 18, a resolution accepting the bids of Univar USA, Incorporated, Brintag, Mid-South, Incorporated, and KA Steel Chemicals, Incorporated, establishing price contracts for odor control chemicals for the Division of Sanitary Sewers. Number 19, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Certificate of Consideration and accept a deed conveying fee-sample property from West Preston, W. and Anita M. Madden, Preston, Ellen, and Kevin Osbrook, Patrick W. and Jennifer S. Madden, WMLLC, and Patricia L. Madden as trustee of Fund B of the Patrick Edward Madden Revocable Living Trust located at 1745 Bryant Road for Phase I of the Brighton East Rail Trail Project and authorizing payment in the amount of $10 plus usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 20, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Certificate of Consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sanitary sewer easement and temporary construction easement from Kitty Steeles Estate located at 630 Caden Lane for the Caden Town Sanitary Sewer Project at no cost to the Urban County Government with usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 21, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Certificate of Consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sanitary sewer easement and temporary construction easement from Elizabeth and Earl Jones located at 646 Caden Lane for the Caden Town Sanitary Sewer Project at no cost to the Urban County Government with usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 22, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Certificate of Consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sanitary sewer easement and temporary construction easement from Helen Young and Margaret Johnson located at 662 Caden Lane for the Caden Town Sanitary Sewer Project at no cost to the Urban County Government with usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 23, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Certificate of Consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sanitary sewer easement and temporary construction easement from Charles Thomas and Rachel Y. Thomas and Joyce E. McGee and Neal McGee located at 690 Caden Lane for the Caden Town Sanitary Sewer Project at no cost to the Urban County Government with usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 24, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Certificate of Consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sanitary sewer easement and temporary construction easement from James P. Crouch located at 727 Caden Lane for the Caden Town Sanitary Sewer Project at no cost to the Urban County Government with usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 25, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Certificate of Consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sanitary sewer easement and temporary construction easement from News located at 752 Caden Lane for the Caden Town Sanitary Sewer Project at no cost to the Urban County Government with usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 26, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Certificate of Consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sanitary sewer easement and temporary construction easement from Alvin M. and Car Crescentia Seals located at 776 Caden Lane for the Caden Town Sanitary Sewer Project at no cost to the Urban County Government with usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 27, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Certificate of Consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sanitary sewer easement and temporary construction easement from Vernaethea L. Kendrick located at 784 Caden Lane for the Caden Town Sanitary Sewer Project at no cost to the Urban County Government with usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 28, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Certificate of Consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sanitary sewer easement and temporary construction easement from James and Sandy Reynolds located at 2822 Liberty Road for the Caden Town Sanitary Sewer Project at no cost to the Urban County Government with usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 29, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Certificate of Consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sanitary sewer easement and temporary construction easement from James and Sandy Reynolds located at 2826 Liberty Road for the Caden Town Sanitary Sewer Project at no cost to the Urban County Government with usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 30, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Certificate of Consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sanitary sewer easement and temporary construction easement from Rosemary Griffith located at 2838 Liberty Road for the Caden Town Sanitary Sewer Project at no cost to the Urban County Government with usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 31, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Certificate of Consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sanitary sewer easement and temporary construction easement for Dennis Anderson located at 2852 Liberty Road for the Caden Town Sanitary Sewer Project at no cost to the Urban County Government with usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 32, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Certificate of Consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sanitary sewer easement and temporary construction easement from Janice Beale located at 820 Campbell Lane for the Caden Town Sanitary Sewer Project at no cost to the Urban County Government with usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 33, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Certificate of Consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sanitary sewer and temporary construction easements from Rick G. and Deborah Moore for property located at 813 Mickey Lane for the Caden Town Sanitary Sewer Project and authorize a payment in the amount of $930 plus usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 34, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Certificate of Consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sanitary sewer easement and temporary construction easement from Allen W. and Wanchette Francis located at 3061 Todd's Road for the Caden Town Sanitary Sewer Project at no cost to the Urban County Government with usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 35, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Certificate of Consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sanitary sewer easement and temporary construction easement from James D. and Sherry G. Taylor located at 3081 Todd's Road for the Caden Town Sanitary Sewer Project at no cost to the Urban County Government with usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 36, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Statement of Compliance with the Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for bridge posting requirements. Number 37, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an Engineering Services Agreement with CDP Engineers Incorporated for Bradcliffe Road stormwater improvement designed at a cost not to exceed $38,500. Number 38, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an Agreement with Friends of Raven Run Incorporated, $25, and Center Parkway Neighborhood Association Incorporated, $500 for the Office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed as some stated. Number 39, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Clinical Services Agreement with the University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center, College of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics for the provision of health care services to clients of the Family Care Center at a cost not to exceed $303,184. Number 40, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an Agreement with the University of North Florida Training and Service Institute for Blood Stain Interpretation Training Course at a cost not to exceed $9,000. Number 41, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Memorandum of Agreement with the Kentucky Law Enforcement Council for conducting polygraphs for law enforcement candidates or other agencies at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 42, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement with Police Reports.us, LLC, for distribution of collision reports on the Internet at no cost to the Urban County Government. 43, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Purchase of Service Agreement with Kentucky Mansions Preservation Foundation, Incorporated, for the Mary Todd Lincoln House in conjunction with the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Celebration at a cost not to exceed $10,000. Number 44, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Site-Specific Agreement with Jesmond South Elkhorn Water District and JAH Nicholasville Investment, LLC, to provide sanitary sewer service to the Nolan Tract Phase IV development in Jesmond County at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 45, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Site-Specific Agreement with the Jesmond South Elkhorn Water District and JAH Nicholasville Investment, LLC, JAH Nicholasville Investment No. 4, LLC, and JAH Nicholasville Investment No. 3 to provide sanitary sewer service to the JAH Nicholasville Investment No. 3 and No. 4 developments in Jesmond County at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 46, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Site-Specific Agreement with the Jesmond South Elkhorn Water District and JAH Nicholasville Investment No. 2, LLC, to provide sanitary sewer service to the Nolan Tract Phase III, Section 1 development in Jesmond County at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 47, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Site-Specific Agreement with the Jesmond South Elkhorn Water District and JAH Nicholasville Investment No. 2, LLC, to provide sanitary sewer service to the Nolan Tract Phase III, Section 2 development in Jesmond County at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 48, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Site-Specific Agreement with the Jesmond South Elkhorn Water District and JAH Nicholasville Investment, LLC, and JAH Nicholasville Investment No. 3, LLC, to provide sanitary sewer service to the Nolan Tract Phases 5 and 7, Section 2 development in Jesmond County at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 49, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Site-Specific Agreement with the Jesmond South Elkhorn Water District and D&H Brandon Springs, LLC, to provide sanitary sewer service to the Smithson Cox Farms Parcels 2 and 2A developments in Jesmond County at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 50, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute contracts and any other agreements with Everest Indemnity Insurance Company for asbestos liability insurance for the term October 16, 2007 through October 16 through 2008 at a cost not to exceed $4,427.75 and ACE USA for aviation liability insurance for the term October 21, 2007 through October 21, 2008 at a cost not to exceed $19,080.00 and authorizing payment to Marsh USA on behalf of Everest Indemnity Insurance Company and ACE USA. Number 51, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order No. 1 to the contract with CM Construction for the South Point parking lot, increasing the contract price by the sum of $42,810.50 from $39,700.00 to $82,510.50. Number 52, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order No. 1 to the contract with Free Contracting Incorporated for the Solid Waste Facility Expansion Project, increasing the contract price by the sum of $7,092.80 from $1,208,101.20 to $1,215,194.00. Number 53, a resolution ratifying the Probationary Civil Service Appointments of Robert Clay, Public Service Supervisor Senior, Grade 114E, $1,511.12 biweekly in the Division of Water and Air Quality, effective October 15, 2007. Letitia Williams, Telecommunicator, Grade 111N, $14,908.00 hourly in the Division of Enhanced 9-1-1, effective October 29, 2007. Danny Stevens, Public Service Worker, Grade 106N, $14,937.00 hourly in the Division of Parks and Recreation, effective October 29, 2007. Jeffrey Baumgardner, Engineering Technician Senior, Grade 113E, $1,703.60 biweekly in the Division of Water and Air Quality, effective October 15, 2007. Alan Hinkle, Computer Analyst, Grade 115E, $2,109.44 biweekly in the Division of Computer Services, effective October 22, 2007. Ratifying the Permanent Civil Service Appointments of Joe Cliff, Public Service Worker, Grade 106N, in the Division of Parks and Recreation, effective October 16, 2007. Scott Dickinson, GIS Programmer Analyst, Grade 117E, in the Division of Engineering, effective October 16, 2007. Ratifying the Probationary Sworn Appointments of Christopher Whited, Fire Lieutenant, Grade 315N, $16.261 hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective September 17, 2007. David Ades, Fire Major, Grade 318E, $3,172.62 biweekly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective September 17, 2007. Harold Miracle, Fire Captain, Grade 316N, $21.497 hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective September 17, 2007. Approving Leave of Absence for Patricia Wallace, Staff Assistant, Grade 107N, in the Division of Planning, requests a 90-day Council-approved leave without pay from October 16, 2007 through January 13, 2008. Approving the Unclassified Civil Service Appointment of Josephette Cardona, Family Support Worker, Senior, Grade 112N, $17.774 hourly in the Division of Family Services, effective October 15, 2007. Jacqueline Phelps, Staff Assistant, Senior, Grade 108N, $11.659 hourly in the Office of Compliance, Department of Public Works, effective October 1, 2007. Number 54, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to accept a donation of technical assistance, signage, and field renovation in the amount of $40,000 from the Cincinnati Reds Organization Reds Community Fund to be used for the renovation of nine fields. Number 55, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute a release of easement, releasing a portion of a streetlight easement on Lots 643 and 644 in Masterson Hill Subdivision. Number 56, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to purchase 10 Pro Laser III with battery and charger for use by the Traffic Offense Unit from Custom Signals, Incorporated, a sole source provider, at a cost not to exceed $28,060. Number 57, a resolution of the Urban County Council of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government, Kentucky, requesting that the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority adopt a resolution providing for the issuance of revenue bonds in the amount of up to $125 million, the proceeds of which will be loaned to Bluegrass, Equine, and Tourism Foundation, Incorporated, to provide financing for the acquisition, construction, furnishing, and equipping of the hotel and related improvements and expenditures constituting tourism and tourist facilities. Number 58, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute an agreement with Kentucky Utilities Company for the relocation of utilities from the temporary housing site for residents displaced by the Newtown Pike Extension Project, at a cost not to exceed $5,949. Number 59, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute an agreement with Kentucky American Water Company for the relocation of utilities from the temporary housing site for residents displaced by the Newtown Pike Extension Project, at a cost not to exceed $23,890. Number 60, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute a professional services agreement with Kinselman, Kline, Gossman, LLC, for the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan, at a cost not to exceed $170,000. And number 61, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute an agreement with Golf View Estates, Neighborhood Association, Incorporated, for the office of the Urban County Council, at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on the docket a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, to execute a grant application to accept and to accept reimbursement in the amount of $8,322.69 from the Commonwealth of Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet, Division of Waste Management, for remediation of illegal open dump sites by Urban County Government. So moved. Second. I have a motion to second to place that item of business on the October 18th docket. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll proceed to vote. Those in favor, vote aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay. It appears as though the matter has received the required number of votes. The motion carries. Thank you very much. Now, let's see. Council Member Beard. Mayor, if you'd like to give a first reading. I'm sorry. You are correct. Thank you. Let me thank everybody for keeping me on track tonight. It's been one of those nights. Madam Clerk, if you'll give a first reading. Okay. Resolution number 62. Resolution authorizing and directed to the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a grant application and accept reimbursement in the amount of $8,322.69 from the Commonwealth of Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet, Division of Waste Management, for remediation of illegal open dump sites by the Urban County Government. Thank you. I will. All right. I think I had Council Member Beard at blues on beforehand. So, Council Member Beard, we'll start with you and then we'll go to Council Member Blues. Thank you. I'd like to suspend the rules and give second readings to number 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49. 44 through 49, correct? That's correct. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to add 58 and 59. All right. Back to the list now. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to add number 62. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to ask Council to suspend the rules on Resolution number 57 for second reading. Thank you. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. Number 54, please. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Number 53, please. Thank you. Any others? My understanding then is that the effect of the request and motion is to add items 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, and 62 to give them all second reading. Council Member James. I didn't hear it. All right. Council Member Myers. If I could add number 38 also. 38. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mayor. Any others? At the risk of being repetitious, let me just make sure we've got them all. 38, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, and 62. There's no further discussion. Those in favor of giving those items their second reading, please indicate by voting aye. Those opposed, indicate by voting nay. I think I actually hit the button too quick. I was too snappy on the finger over here, so if you will just let me know who voted no. Sorry about that. Okay, and everybody else was yay or nay? Nay. Nay. Okay, I'll denote that. I apologize for that. All right. Madam Clerk, if you would give those items second reading. Number 17. Resolution number 17, a resolution to accept the bid of Central Rock Mineral Company, LLC, in the amount of $4,589,461.13 for the Loudoun Avenue Improvement Project. 38. A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute an agreement with Friends of Raven Run, Incorporated, $25, and Center Parkway Neighborhood Association, Incorporated, $500, for the office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. Number 44. A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute a site-specific agreement with the Jesmond-South Elkhorn Water District and JIH Nicholasville Investment, LLC, to provide sanitary sewer service to the Nolan Tract Phase IV development in Jesmond County at no cost to the Urban County Government. 45. A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute a site-specific agreement with the Jesmond-South Elkhorn Water District and JIH Nicholasville Investment, LLC, JIH Nicholasville Investment No. 4, LLC, and JIH Nicholasville Investment No. 3, to provide sanitary sewer service to the JIH Nicholasville Investment No. 3 and 4 developments in Jesmond County at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 46. A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute a site-specific agreement with the Jesmond-South Elkhorn Water District and JIH Nicholasville Investment No. 2, LLC, to provide sanitary sewer service to the Nolan Tract Phase III in Section 1 development in Jesmond County at no cost to the Urban County Government. 47. A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute a site-specific agreement with the Jesmond-South Elkhorn Water District and JIH Nicholasville Investment No. 2, LLC, to provide sanitary sewer service to the Nolan Tract Phase III in Section 2 development in Jesmond County at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 48. A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute a site-specific agreement with the Jesmond-South Elkhorn Water District and JIH Nicholasville Investment No. 3, LLC, to provide sanitary sewer service to the Nolan Tract Phases V and VII in Section 2 development in the Jesmond County at no cost to the Urban County Government. 49. A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute a site-specific agreement with the Jesmond-South Elkhorn Water District and JIH Brandon Springs LLC, to provide sanitary sewer service to the Smithson's Cox Farms Parcels II and IIA development in Jesmond County at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 53. A resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointments of Robert Clay, Public Service Supervisor, Senior Grade 114E-100511-12, biweekly in the Division of Water and Air Quality, effective October 15, 2007. Leticia Williams, Telecommunicator, Grade 111N, 14.909 hourly in the Division of Enhanced 9-1-1, effective October 29, 2007. Danny Stephens, Public Service Worker, Grade 106N, 14.937 hourly in the Division of Parks and Recreation, effective October 29, 2007. Jeffrey Baumgardner, Engineering Technician, Senior Grade 113E, $1,703.60 biweekly in the Division of Water and Air Quality, effective October 15, 2007. Alan Hinkle, Computer Analyst, Grade 115E-2109-44, biweekly in the Division of Computer Services, effective October 22, 2007. Ratifying the permanent civil service appointments of Joe Cliff, Public Service Worker, Grade 106N, in the Division of Parks and Recreation, effective October 16, 2007. Scott Dickerson, GIS Programmer, Analyst, Grade 117E in the Division of Engineering, effective October 16, 2007. Ratifying the probationary sworn appointments of Christopher Whited, Fire Lieutenant, Grade 315N, 16.261 hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective September 17, 2007. David Ades, Fire Major, Grade 318E, $3,172.62 biweekly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective September 17, 2007. Harold Miracle, Fire Captain, Grade 316N, $21.497 hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective September 17, 2007. Approving leave of absence for Patricia Wallace, Staff Assistant, Grade 107N in the Division of Planning, request a 90-day council-approved leave without pay from October 16, 2007 through January 13, 2008. Approving the unclassified civil service appointments of Josephette Cardona, Family Support Worker, Senior Grade 112N, $17.774 hourly in the Division of Family Services, effective October 15, 2007. Jacqueline Phelps, Staff Assistant, Senior Grade 108N, $11.659 hourly in the Office of Compliance, Department of Health Works, effective October 1, 2007. Number 54, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a donation of technical assistance, signage, and field renovation in the amount of $40,000 from the Cincinnati Reds Organization, Reds Community Fund, to be used for the renovation of nine fields. Number 57, a resolution of the Urban County Council of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government, Kentucky, requesting that the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority adopt a resolution providing for the issuance of revenue bonds in an amount of up to $125 million, the proceeds of which will be loaned to Bluegrass, Equine, and Tourism, Foundation Incorporated, to provide financing for the acquisition, construction, furnishing, and equipping of a hotel and related improvements, and expenditures constituting tourism and tourist facilities. Fifty-eight, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Kentucky Utilities Company for the relocation of utilities from the temporary housing site for residents displaced by the Newtown Pike Extension Project at a cost not to exceed $5,949. Fifty-nine, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Kentucky American Water Company for the relocation of utilities from the temporary housing site for residents displaced by the Newtown Pike Extension Project at a cost not to exceed $23,890. And number 62, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a grant application and accept reimbursement in the amount of $8,322.69 from the Commonwealth of Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet Division of Waste Management for remediation of illegal open dump sites by the Urban County Government. That's it. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Is there a motion to approve those items? Second. I have a motion from Council Member Blues, a second by Council Member Crosby. Any discussion? And those in favor, please vote aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically. By roll call. And a roll call, please. Dr. Stephens? Aye. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blevins? Aye. Mr. Blues? Mr. DeCamp? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Ms. James? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Maloney? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Thank you. Those items are approved. That takes us down to communications from the Mayor. We have several that give rise to a motion to approve, please. Second. I have a motion by Councilmember DeCamp and a second by Councilmember Stephens to approve them. Any discussion? Those in favor, please indicate your vote electronically. Those opposed, do the same. Thank you very much. That motion carries. There are several items in the communications realm for information only. I'll leave those to your attention. Are there any announcements from any member of the Council? Seeing none, we're prepared to move on to public comment. The only person whose name I have received this evening wishing to comment is Mr. McCarthy, so if you would step to the podium. For the record, my name is Bernard McCarthy. My address is 515 Harry Street. There are two things bugging me tonight. One, I object to Ordinance No. 16 under first reading because I believe that whatever right-of-way this county owns, it should maintain instead of pushing responsibility off onto the adjoining property owners. And second, and this is a much more serious thing, I strongly object to proposals I've read about in the paper that said you were passing an ordinance requiring landlords have to acquire a license to rent property to students. I think discriminating against students as a class would violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I think it would be morally repugnant as well. I think that if you actually cause anyone to seek less education than he otherwise would have, it is going to come back and bite you in the future because you will not – if this person's earnings are going to be less over a lifetime, it means you will collect less in future tax revenue from them. And I think if you cause one or more counties away, that is going to worsen our already serious traffic problems and worsen the shortages of gasoline and drive the price higher still than it already is. And finally, to any student listening to this or watching this on cable, I would suggest a potential strategy to defeat you. Instead of renting a place, I would suggest that those students who would have pooled their resources to rent an apartment instead pooled their resources to buy some piece of the slums, whatever shack is cheap. I think you're better off owning the worst house in town that's still standing And for the record, for seven years, I did own the worst one in this county that was still standing. And they would at least have some chance of recovering their investment four years later, whereas money paid out in rent is down the drain that you never get back. And I'm thinking that if each shack in the slums of our inner city had several – had its ownership split between all of its occupants who were just unrelated individuals that chose to go in as roommates, that could really give our code enforcement division a rough time. Thank you, Mr. McCarthy. If there's no further public comment, a motion to adjourn would be in order. I have a motion and a second to adjourn. You don't want to adjourn. You just want to recess. I thought we had a separate meeting scheduled for that at 8 o'clock. No, it's actually part of this meeting, sir. All right. Farewell. Thank you. We'll recess for five minutes and come back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're ready to begin the public hearing on the zone change petition, and at this time I'd like to swear in all of the witnesses. If you would please stand and raise your hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth? Thank you very much. I have received a witness list from the applicant this evening. Only has four people on it. And I haven't received one from anyone who might be opposed, so hopefully we can move through this just as expeditiously as possible. We'll begin as normal with presentation by the planning division staff member, which will not exceed 15 minutes, and then we'll have the opening statement by the petitioner. And I doubt there will be any cross-examination, but we'll have a chance for that as someone arrives. There will be, I don't believe, any presentation by any opponents this evening, but following the petitioner's presentation, we'll give the staff an opportunity to make any additional comments. We'll have rebuttal evidence then by the petitioner, and if necessary, some closing summation by the petitioner. After that, we will permit the council members to ask questions, and then we will close the hearing, after which the council will adopt findings of fact and vote on an ordinance by roll call. So unless there are questions, I'll turn it over to Mr. Salley. You'll have 15 minutes. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the council, good evening. I do need to enter a number of items into the record this evening. First is the legal notification published in the newspaper advertising tonight's public hearing. I'd like to enter in an affidavit signed by myself regarding the mailed notices to property owners in the area of the subject property advertising tonight's hearing. Next, I'd like to enter a copy of the recommendation from the Urban County Planning Commission and their public hearing on the zone change earlier this year. Copies have been distributed to you during the recess. I'd like to enter in a copy of the 2007 comprehensive plan. Then finally, copies of the current zoning ordinance and land subdivision regulations in effect for the urban county. 1388 Alexandria Drive is at the corner of Alexandria and Devonport Drive. This intersection is one block north of the major signalized intersection of Alexandria and Versailles Road, also US 60. The subject property is currently zone P1, as are properties immediately to the west and to the southwest. Other properties in this area immediately south along Alexandria Drive are zone B1, Neighborhood Business. Other properties to the east and to the north are mostly multifamily residential, and they have an R4 zoning for the most part, although one property in this vicinity is zoned R3, which is Planned Neighborhood Residential. The petitioner asked for a zone change for the subject property from P1, Professional Office, to B1, Neighborhood Business. This time, I'd like to show you some photographs of the subject property, which is just over an acre in size, and the general area in which the subject property is located. This first photo is looking from the east to the west, and to orient you, this is Village Drive, Devonport Drive here, this is Alexandria Drive, Versailles Road is just off the photo to the left. The subject property is here at the northeast corner of that intersection. It and the properties here are zone P1. These properties along Alexandria are zone B1, Neighborhood Business, and of course you can see the multifamily residential in this area as well. This is now shifting focus from the south, looking at the subject property a little closer. There is an existing building of just over 9,000 square feet, with associated off-street parking, as the photograph shows. What's a little more difficult to see in this photo, besides the street pattern and rooftops, this is Wolf Run Creek, immediately to the east of the subject property, and there's a bridge over Devonport Drive, over that creek. There's a tributary that forms the northern boundary of the subject property as well, and a culvert under Alexandria in close proximity to this property. Finally, we're looking now from the west at the subject property. This is an excellent photo of the extent of off-street parking associated with this 9,000 square foot building. You can also see from the photograph the extensive trees and buffering that exists between this property and the residential properties on two sides of it. We're now moving to ground level. This is Caddy Corner, across the intersection of Devonport and Alexandria, looking at the subject property from the corner. There is some off-street parking in front of the building, to the sidewalk and the street. Finally, this is a view of just one of the businesses just to the south of the subject property, this one being on Alexandria Drive. Also in the distance in the photo, there's a new drugstore oriented to the corner of Alexandria and Versailles Road that's visible in this photo, that was not visible in the aerial photos. Final photo, really diagram, is of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, and again to orient you, we have Alexandria Drive here, Devonport Drive is here, Village Drive, and Versailles Road. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the existing P1 zoning of the subject property, as well as those to the west and to the southwest of the subject property. It also recognizes, in recommending retail use, the properties to the south that are Zone B1 neighborhood business. This is a smaller version of the Comprehensive Plan. You can see this is a retail and office area in the midst of a much larger high-density residential area, surrounded by low-density uses. This is a commercial node in this particular vicinity. Planning staff could not find that the subject zone change was in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan. Neighborhood business zoning generally refers to retail uses, and P1 zoning often refers to professional service uses that are very closely matched in the Comprehensive Plan. The staff then looked as to whether or not there had been any major changes in this area, or whether or not the existing zoning is inappropriate at this location. We could not find either to be the case. In this particular area, the professional service area, which is very similar to the existing P1 zoning, does form a buffer between the retail uses to the south and the residential uses to the north and east. With those conclusions, the planning staff recommended disapproval of this rezoning at the Planning Commission's public hearing. In late July of this year, at the Planning Commission, the Commission heard not only from the staff with its recommendation, but also from the applicant and from citizen supporters of this zone change, and at the conclusion of their hearing, they voted 5 to 4 to recommend disapproval of this zone change to the Council. There were three findings to justify that recommendation of disapproval. The first is that the 2007 Comprehensive Plan recommends professional service land use for the subject property. The existing professional office zoning is in agreement with this recommendation. Secondly, there have been no unanticipated changes that have significantly altered the character of this neighborhood since the adoption of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. Finally, the existing P1 zone provides a transition between the neighborhood business land uses and zoning to the south and the multifamily residential uses to the north, east, and west in this immediate area. Planning Commission not only considered the rezoning of the property, they also considered the submitted development plan that is required of a zone change of this type. I have brought the development plan for your quick review. Again, to orient you, this is Alexandria and Devonport. We're looking at the northeast corner of that intersection. The development plan shows basically the existing condition on the subject property. It shows the L-shaped building of 9,200 square feet, and it shows 58 off-street parking spaces in the exact location that they currently are. The Planning Commission, because they recommended disapproval of the rezoning, has indefinitely postponed consideration of the development plan, pending your decision on the rezoning tonight. That concludes my prepared remarks. I thank you for your kind attention. Of course, I'll be available for questions later in the evening if necessary. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm Dick Murphy. I represent the petitioner in this case. I've already put into the record the affidavit regarding the sign, given that to the clerk. I represent Obie Wallin and his wife, Joella Wallin, who are the owners of this property. It's a little confusing because the petitioner is Anthony Justice. He is the engineer, and occasionally zone changes are filed in the name of an engineer or architect, but the owner is Mr. and Mrs. Wallin, and I'm here representing them tonight. Mr. Wallin is with us here tonight at the end of the second row, and also with us is Todd Strecker, who's the president of the Calumet Area Neighborhood Association, and Chaz Hite is a planner who is with us as well. In light of the fact that I don't think we have any citizen objectors tonight, I'm not going to ask Mr. Hite to testify. He wouldn't be here to answer any questions you all might have. We are, as Mr. Sully mentioned, we are requesting a zone change from professional office to B1 Neighborhood Business for this property. It's a little more than an acre. It's located at the corner of Alexandria Drive and Devonport Drive, and we're very pleased, as I said, to have neighborhood support with us tonight. The planning commission vote was 5 to 4, as Mr. Sully had mentioned. I want to tell you a little bit about the surrounding area. I have an aerial photograph, too, if you could put that up there. This is off of Google Earth, so it has those latitude and longitude lines, but we are located in this location here. Here's Versailles Road down here. Here's Alexandria. Here is Devonport Drive going back and forth here. Village Drive is over here. That's Bondurant's Pharmacy, the famous landmark. This is the L-shaped building that is on the subject property that will remain exactly the same way it is today, exactly no change to the property or the paved area of the property at all. To the south of us, we have Neighborhood Retail going through here. Down through here, this, I took this off Google Earth, and of course, they're a little old. This is now where the Walgreens is, the new Walgreens, which is located at Alexandria Drive and Versailles Road. The Walgreens took these two lots right here. This was the old BP station, and there was a small commercial area, which was also taken for the Walgreens, so it's located right there. You can see around us, we do have a number of apartment complexes. There's one there. You can see the swimming pool. There's one over to the side of us. You can see a swimming pool there. There's one with a swimming pool behind us as well. I didn't know there were so many swimming pools in that area, but there's a lot on the map there. I have a couple photographs to show you, too, if we could put those up. The first one is just sort of a panoramic view of the building. As I said, we will have no change to this building whatsoever, so there's no impact on stormwater, because tomorrow, if you grant the zone change, it'll be exactly like it is today. There's no construction with this. It's just a change in use for part of the property here. We have, if you could pull down there, there's some pedestrians down there, and we see in the other way there. Down at the end there, we've got, well, you can't, they didn't show up, but a lot of these pictures we took, we ended up having pedestrians there, and that's important, because there's a lot of pedestrian traffic in this area. The next picture we show the screening, if you could pull back a little bit. This is on the east side facing the apartment complex, and I'm showing this to show that we are buffered from the residential areas. That's from our property looking toward the apartment complex, and the next picture we took on the apartment complex looking toward us, and as Bill mentioned, Wolf Run goes through there, but we have very extensive screening through landscaping between those two uses. The next picture shows our screening on the north side of the property. Again, we have similar screening between us and the apartments, which are over on the other side. You can see it's very dense there. The next photograph just shows some street scenes in the area. This is us going, our building, going up toward Versailles Road. You can see the neighborhood shopping up in that area. You can see the Walgreens right through there. The next photograph shows the other side of Alexandria going up toward Versailles Road. Again, the neighborhood shopping area going up toward Versailles Road. Our property's right here, going up to Versailles Road, and the next picture, again, we took it, didn't show up very well. Some pedestrians here, down there, just showed up in some of the pictures we took, so that's all the pictures we have, and we, as I said, if you grant the zone change, there will be no physical change to the building or the property. It will simply allow a better mix of uses to go into this property. The current building has about 9,200 square feet of space. It's divided into 16 units. Those units average between, or they run between, 420 square feet to 840 square feet. The average about there is about 560. See, these are small units, but they're the type of units which are needed for the small businesses in that area. Right now, in this building, there are two churches, there's a cell phone store, a radio station, a jewelry repair store, a dress shop, the office for a custodian company, and similar uses. Now, this case arose because building inspection had some questions about the couple uses which were in there, whether they were allowed in the P1 zone or not. Those two uses are the jewelry repair store and the dress shop. The dress shop, they do some sewing there, but they sell dresses that are made elsewhere. They are primarily for baptism, First Communion, and the celebration when a young lady turns 15. That's what the dresses are sold for. And those were the dress shop, along with the jewelry repair store, brought in question whether those were allowed in P1 or B1. We are here because we would like to keep those stores in this center. If it stays P1, those may have to be moved out. And in addition, in the future, we want this building to be used as a business incubator for those type of businesses as well. Those businesses offer place for the businesses to go, they offer employment, and from the uses which are in there, they do teach a skill, jewelry repair, altering dresses, and it supplies goods and services within walking distance of the residential units in that area. There's been a change in the area recently, and that was the Walgreens, and Walgreens is a very important addition to the area, a very welcome addition, but it did take out some area which was available for small businesses to start up in, and that second lot back for Sales Road, behind the old service station, that was taken out as part of the Walgreens development. So, we're asking to have a mix of business and professional use on this property, and for those reasons, we feel that the existing zoning, purely professional, P1, is no longer appropriate, and we do need a mix of those uses, professional and retail, and that's why B1 is appropriate. As I said, there's a need for this in the area. We think we satisfy a need both for business owners and people who live in our area for the goods and the services and to provide jobs in this area. As I said, there's a concentration of residential units and people out there walk. There's more walkers here than I think in any other neighborhood I've seen except maybe downtown. We're screened from other uses. An objection that the staff had raised was that this existing zoning is a transition between the retail use and the high-density residential use. We feel with the limited, the mix we have, professional and business, that will remain a transition, but as I mentioned, we have very, very extensive buffering between us and the residential uses on the two sides of us. The other two sides, we have commercial-type uses already. And there was a comment at the Planning Commission that was made that this property had not been, had been considered in the Comprehensive Plan, and in fact, it has not. If you could put up that map that we have there, I just wanted to put the map in to show that these were the maps of all the properties that were considered with applications in the Comprehensive Plan. The nearest one we have is that 28, which is at the corner of Mason-Heatley Road and Versailles Road. That's right across Mason-Heatley from the Cardinal Hill Hospital. It's Mr. Webb's property. And the only other one in the vicinity at all is the ones that were around the airport. So this area was not in particular, which is down here, considered during part of the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you. The, we also feel that this proposal is in keeping with the goals and objectives of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, which calls for just this type use, mixture of uses, walking, services in the same area that residential and employment are. On page three and four, I put some of the excerpts of the Comprehensive Plan. Don't worry, I'm not going to read them all to you here, but I excerpted the ones that we think apply, and in particular, the ones in bold, which I put in there. Goal seven, objective one, creating balanced employment opportunities and higher intensity residential and non-residential uses that are compatible with existing developed areas. We feel we fully comply with that. Goal 11, objective L, to allow some greater flexibility within commercial, office, and other zones within the urban service area and rural activity centers, which will not conflict with residential and agricultural uses. We're asking for a little bit of flexibility, just to be able to mix a little bit of retail with the service here, and we think that's very appropriate in this neighborhood. Going on to the next page, I've just highlighted a couple others. We think all of these apply, but goal 15, objective F, says we need to plan for establishment of retail uses with a neighborhood focus and character, providing opportunities for employment and essential services closer to residences, including but not limited to corner groceries, dry cleaners, delicatessens, and barber shops. The only thing they didn't add in that was jewelry repair stores and dress shops in there. Otherwise, it would hit us exactly on the head. I think that hits us on the head, is what the Comprehensive Plan is calling for on this property. And the last two simply relate to the need for pedestrian-friendly development, both retail and professional service. That was an important part of the Comprehensive Plan, and that is exactly what this proposal is supplying to you. So we feel very strongly that this meets with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and most important, that B1 would be the most appropriate use for this property. At the Planning Commission, Mr. Wallen, who was at that time representing himself, volunteered at the Planning Commission that he'd put a condition on the property, a conditional zoning restriction, that there be no restaurants on the property, because he felt that would be appropriate because that would lower the intensity of use on this property, not to have any restaurants. We did – I did talk to one of the neighboring property owners who owns one of the apartment complexes. He asked that we also prohibit bars on this property, which Mr. Wallen is agreeable to doing, thinks that would be a good idea as well. And so on our findings, we put in a conditional zoning restriction at the end saying that there would be no restaurants or – the zoning ordinance uses the word cocktail lounges instead of bars, so I said no restaurants or cocktail lounges, and I put bars in parentheses on that, that there would be none of those on this property. So he has volunteered that and is absolutely willing and agreeable to put those on his property. Mr. Mayor, I guess I'll save my conclusion for after the witness is here. Mr. Todd Strecker is here, who's the president of the Calumet Area and Neighborhood Association. Mr. Strecker, if we could have your address as well, I would appreciate it. Sure. My name is Todd Strecker. I live at 1400 Parterre Court here in Lexington, and I am president of Calumet Area and Neighborhood Association, and I've been down here before several times. We attended the Planning Commission hearing, and you have in your exhibits my letter that I submitted at that time in which we were in support of this change. I think we were heard favorably by the Planning Commission because we got a vote of 5-4 out of a recommendation by the staff of disapproval. I thought that was rather interesting. We came within one vote of having it approved. We think this, and I just drove through that area where the property is this evening on the way here. There is a tremendous amount of walking traffic there. There are lots of folks that don't have vehicles, and to get to and from work or where they need to go, they're using LexTran or they're using their carpooling. That's what they're doing. And because they don't have vehicles and they're able to walk into the area that this property is located and then on up into the other. I don't think there's a need for a buffer at all. From my standpoint, this professional, the P-1 designation doesn't protect anybody from anything. There's not a need for that. What there's a need for is more of the small retail operation that does actually function as an incubator for businesses that can't afford a full-size retail location, but they want to start a family business and begin to generate income for themselves and provide employment for their family members, and most of these are family-owned businesses. And then also provide services to the folks that are right there. I'd like to see more of it myself. As you can see, we don't have any objectors at all, and we represent the entire residential area that reaches from us all the way out to Valley Road and beyond. And no one objected before and no one is objecting now. We think it would be a good thing, and we think this is something that would be very favorable for the area and hope that you will agree with us. Thank you very much, Mr. Strecker. Anyone else? Mr. Murphy? Mr. Wallen is here. The owner would just like to make a couple of remarks to you. Thank you very much. Mr. Wallen, if we could have your street address, please. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and counsel. I live at 1010 Walker Way. That's in Georgetown, Kentucky. Just like to make probably a few points that may have already been made, but I would certainly think that the neighborhood on Alexandria Drive in Versailles has changed dramatically over the last few years, and I think it's a silent change that hasn't been noticed by the city as much as maybe as it should have. The previous owner of this property seemed to have lost interest in it. It was somewhat run down. There was five or six vacancies in the building when I moved. When I purchased the property about a year ago, and I'm not quite sure why that happened, but since then I've cleaned up the building, fixed it nice for people to get into the building where they would be proud to do business, and that's something that wasn't there before. I've also made it handicap accessible. It was not handicap accessible, so I've made it handicap accessible as well. In this zone change, we're not talking about changing the building and making it look like downtown retail. We're only asking to allow some of these people to rent the building based on a retail basis. There's usually one or two windows in the building, a door front and a back door usually, and it's not a building that looks like a strip mall. We do plan, because of planning and zoning, and because I think it's a good idea, too, to do some more landscaping in the front of the building and make it even look better than what it is. I think that'll be good also. We talked to three neighborhood associations, one being the one that's immediately involved, and all of them seem to be in favor of this, and of course, I want to be a good neighbor. I want to do what's best for the neighborhood, and I want to keep my property in good shape. Walgreens has moved into the area and did take up some lots for retail, and I think this, if you would find it, that you could rezone this property, I believe it would take up some of the slack that Walgreens has taken out on the retail basis. And right now in the building, I think the building itself creates goodwill to the community. We have two churches there. There's training going on in the evening with small children, computer classes, and I think it's a great motivation for people to come there and shop. So thank you very much for your attention, and I hope that you'll see that we're telling you what's good for Lexington. Thank you very much, Mr. Wallen. Mr. Murphy, do you have anything further? Just to wind up, we want to thank you for hearing our presentation. The P-1 doesn't allow the mix of uses we feel we need. The B-1 does. It helps businesses. It helps employees. It helps people who need goods and services in the area, and it's good because people can walk to the area. And we think that it's in keeping with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. As I mentioned, I did have some findings in the back of my presentation. Obviously, those are just a starting point for you. We hope if you're favorably disposed to this, you will vote in favor of it and consider the findings. Thank you very much, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you. Mr. Murphy. Mr. Salley, do you have any further information you wish to offer at this point? I have no rebuttal, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you very much. Unless you have some summation you wish to offer, we appreciate that. That will conclude the evidence, except for what the Council may wish to ask, and according to my list, Mr. Councilmember Stennett was the first Councilmember to speak. Thank you, Mayor. I just have a couple of clarification questions. Mr. Murphy, can you point out for me, or Mr. Salley, where is the other P1 in the area? I know there's some, I think you said across the street? There is P1, let's see, right now, here's Devonport. Versailles Road is down here on the development plan. There's P1 across the street there. That is the office for one of the McDonald's restaurant franchisees, as I believe there. And so P1's right there. Catty Corner is B1, across the street is B1 as well. Did you all look at the vacancies of that P1 and do a study and look at if there's any vacancies out there, or is all the P1 filled? I think the other P1 is, that building is mainly the one use, that office for the McDonald's, I think. And there's not a, we didn't study the vacancy rates in other locations there. Just a couple of other observations. I know, and I appreciate your comments on wanting to be a good neighbor and wanting to keep the building as it is, but as this council knows, we approve the zone change. We have no control over whether that building stays there or not in the future. So even though that is a good point, we do appreciate your intentions, or good intentions. In the future, if we do change this, it's changed forever until someone comes back to us for a zone change, so that does not necessarily protect that building. And I am in agreement with several points of our goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. I think this area has drastically changed. I'm not sure why the staff felt that it hadn't. Bill, can you elaborate on that point number two, because especially with the Walgreens moving in and taking away retail, and obviously there's been a growth in pedestrian population there. Right. The key for the finding for rezoning is that the change has occurred since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. And so what we have here is just a very short time period of review since the plan was only adopted back in the winter. We could not identify anything, well the hearing was in July, so over a five month period that had substantially altered the character of this neighborhood in just five months. So you're based on only 2007 or 2006 Comprehensive Plan analysis, basically. So you can't go back within an area within five years. That's correct. The finding is related to when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. We could not identify an unanticipated change just in that short period of time. Well, when we were adopting the Comprehensive Plan, did the Planning Commission look at this area and change any of this area at all? I'm not certain that any of the land use recommendations in this area changed. Most of the recommendations matched the zoning and the land use pretty closely in this area. I'm not aware of any specific changes within a block of this area. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Bill. And thank you, Dick and others. I want to tag on to, Kevin started some questions that I also had, and Bill, I'm kind of looking at you here first. If I remember, the three reasons that we can approve a zone change, we'll put it in that phrasing, are that it agrees with the Comprehensive Plan, number one, that there's been no unanticipated changes. Secondly, that there is an identifiable change that has been unanticipated by the current Comprehensive Plan. And then the third is that it's, the use is appropriate? The third one is that the existing zoning is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate. Okay. So, let's go back to number two, which Council Member Stennett was talking about, the changes. When this says, there have been no unanticipated changes, so when you make your recommendation, you might, is this true, that you might see that there were some changes that were anticipated? Right. But that there, in this case, you didn't have any unanticipated changes since the adoption of the 07 Comp Plan? That's correct. That's correct. A perfect example would be the Walgreen's store. The Comprehensive Plan recommended retail uses for that property. So while that, I'm not sure exactly when that development began, whether it was before or after adoption of the plan. Let's assume for a moment it was since the adoption of the plan. The staff concluded that that change was anticipated by the plan since a retail use was going where it was recommended by the plan. Okay. So that was anticipated? In the staff's opinion, yes. And was the answer to the question about the Comp Plan, did this property, and Dick, you may know this answer better, did you go before the Comp Plan to ask for a change when they were doing the Comp Plan update last year? No. Mr. and Mrs. Wallen did not own the property at the time the deadline reached, which I think was 2005, when you could ask for a change in the Comprehensive Plan. So this property was not considered. Neither were any of them in the area considered. And I wanted to emphasize, too, there's been a lot of discussion about changes in the area. As Ms. Gorton, you mentioned, there's three reasons for granting a zone change. One is it agrees with the Comp Plan, which we think arguably it does because I think we agree with the goals and objectives. I know there's a land use element, too, which is basically the same as it has been in past Comprehensive Plans. Second, there have been changes since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, which I'm not arguing at all. I'm not hanging my hat on that. What I'm hanging my hat on is the third reason. You just have to find one of the three, and that is the existing zoning is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate. And under that finding, you can consider changes in the area in the past few years which have rendered the existing zoning inappropriate and the proposed appropriate. So when I we talk about we've been raising these changes in the area, we're not trying to convince you these changes have occurred in just the last five months since the last Comp Plan was adopted. No. We think, though, that the changes over the years have reached us into the realm of the third finding, which you can use to grant a zone change that the existing is inappropriate and proposed is. And that's because we feel there's a need for that mix in this area. The mix cannot be achieved in P-1. It can only be achieved in the B-1 zone. Thank you. Bill, I want to ask you a question, and that leads right into my next question, the mix. Councilmember Stennett asked about where there's professional – where there's P-1 in that area. When the Comp Plan is updated, do you know anything about whether there's a philosophy on the part of the Planning Commission to be sure there is P-1 along with B-1 in an area that has residential around it? Is that – I'm trying to figure out if that's an important piece. I don't know that every particular neighborhood is assigned both professional service and retail trade land use. I think what the Planning Commission focuses more on than that type of analysis is what are the existing uses in an area. And I think that's why the plan reflects these uses in this area. Well, if this P-1 goes away, then is the P-1 that was pointed out – it's not really on the detailed map, but is that all the P-1 that's left in that area? If you look at the fourth page of the document that's the first page's recommendation, there's a zoning map there. I believe other than this property, there are only three other properties in the vicinity that currently zone P-1. There are two others zoned AU to the southwest. They are recommended for professional, but those are the only P-1 zones probably within three blocks of this area. Well, now, again, back to Councilmember Stennett, he and I must have been tracking on some things. He asked about occupancy of the other P-1. What is the occupancy of your building, and how much of it is P-1? You mentioned the dress shop that might be P-1 if challenged. Is it full occupancy as a P-1, and what other entities might not be considered P-1? Yeah. This, through Mr. and Mrs. Wallin's efforts over the last year, this building has gotten back up right now to 100 percent occupancy. And I want to emphasize that if you change it to B-1, you're not knocking out the P-1 uses. As you know, P-1 uses are allowed in B-1 as well. B-1 just takes P-1 and adds on some of these neighborhood retail. So we're not losing this for P-1 space. The building itself is suitable for those small uses, and I think the layout of the building itself is going to say, if you're a small business, whether, you know, if you're a dentist or a realtor or a dress shop or a jewelry repair shop, this is where you ought to go. So I think you're going to retain P-1 and B-1 mix in there. So it's 100 percent occupied? It's 100. And how many of the — there was mention of the dress shop. Is that the only — The jewelry repair shop is also — Jewelry repair. — is questioned by the Division of Building Inspection that that's not allowed in the P-1 — P-1 zone. Other uses in there, there's two churches. Those are both allowed in P-1 and B-1. There's a radio station, again, allowed in both zones. There are — I'm trying to think of some of the other uses which are allowed in P-1. The building across the street, I could only see the one tenant in there, the P-1. There may be vacancies in that building. I could only see the sign for the one user. It's about an equivalent building to this one, so there may be vacancies there. I just don't know. I only saw the one — one office in it. I didn't, you know, knock on doors or look in windows over there to find out. Okay. Thank you. Well, Bill, could I ask you then, because one of the things I'm thinking about is the transition, whether — what that means, transition between the high-intensity, the low-intensity use. If this is rezoned to B-1, is there a requirement then or is there a requirement now of how much it can be mixed? In other words, if it's P-1, how much of it can be B-1? If it remains P-1, no retail uses really would be allowed on the property. Okay. If it's switched to B-1, can a certain part of it be required to be P-1? Is there a mix? There is no mix required. Okay. The B-1 zone would allow, as Mr. Murphy said, office uses, but it would not require that a percentage of the building remain in office use. Okay. So it could — It could entirely transition to retail or, without the conditional zoning, some of the other uses. I guess I'm struggling a little bit, too, with — Mr. Murphy, you mentioned that the neighborhood needs more small retail, and I guess you didn't mention anything about whether the neighborhood needs professional services there that they can walk to. Does that — I mean, since there's no vacancy in the building and people walk, I'm trying to figure out what the urgency is to switch the zoning if it's already full, the building, and whether or not people enjoy using the P-1 uses in there now. Do you see what I'm saying? I kind of went around the block a little with it. I guess the — this building doesn't right now have doctors, lawyers, dentists, realtors. It has P-1 uses, which are — seem to be more in demand in the neighborhood. The churches and — I'd written down what all's in there, and somehow it's — we've got cell phone store, radio station, office for a maintenance company, that type of thing. So it's not what I'd say traditional you think of as P-1, but those all are allowed in P-1. The ironic thing is if we don't get the zone changed, we may lose two of our tenants out of the building and have more vacancies that way, unfortunately. But it — again, I just have to go back to the set-up of the building and the structure of the building. Being cut up in small retail spaces, 400 feet to 800 square feet, it's sort of self-selecting for those P-1 uses and very small B-1 type uses. I think if you grant the zone change, it'll still have the same type of mix of tenants that we do now, but it'll be clear that we can't have those small businesses that do sell merchandise. That's what B-1 is all about. If you sell that dress for the First Communion, you're coming retail and you're coming P-1. It acts more — that business acts more like a P-1 business than many do. It's low traffic, low intensity, it's people serving other people, but it's a B-1 use. And it's there because it's small, it's an affordable — it's a good quality, yet affordable space for them. Thank you. And I think it's going to attract — that's the best I can do. Thank you. It's going to continue to attract professional for the P-1 and B-1 uses. One more question, Mr. Sally. Tell me about accessory uses in P-1 zoning. Can you explain that? I can. And I think you're probably referring to some of the discussion at the Planning Commission hearing on that very issue. One use that was described was perhaps some ambiguity about the cell phone business at this location because there is a provision as an accessory use in P-1 that allows for a sales office for the display of merchandise and the acceptance of orders. And some of the discussion at the Planning Commission hearing was the fine line of retail use versus an order-taking use, you know, whether you leave with the merchandise once you first arrive or whether you have to come back or whether it has to be shipped. That is a fine line that the Building Inspection Division does have to wrestle with from time to time for a given business. So they would have to make that decision. Yes. Would — if this is switched to a B-1, would the churches have to go? No. Those are permitted uses in a P-1 zone. Uh-huh. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. I actually was going to ask the question about the permitted uses in a B-1 zone because I was familiar with the fact that P-1 is permitted in there. So that's the only question I really had on that. So you can pass over me. Thank you. All right. Council Member DeCamp. We're losing some speakers on our list here, Madam Clerk. If you could try to debug that for us come next meeting, I'd appreciate it. Council Member DeCamp. Thank you. Mr. Saleh, if conditional uses are put on, such has been suggested tonight, like no restaurants or no cocktail lounges or bars, that goes along with that property, whether it's sold or not. Yes, sir. So anybody who would want to change it would have to come back. Yes, sir. Are there any other uses in B-1 that we would not consider compatible because of the proximity to neighborhoods that maybe should be put in conditional use? I mean, you know, such as adult bookstores or something like that. Those would not be permitted in B-1 regardless. Conditional uses are only permitted, I think, in B-3 zones. Most of the other more intense uses probably are conditional uses, say for live entertainment, things of that nature that would require a Board of Adjustment hearing. Some of the conditional uses might apply as well. What kind of signings are we talking about? I mean, you know, I know that building, and there are small, I mean, maybe there's a window in each one. I mean, is there going to be some central sign which lists all the things that are in there with the number or what kind of signage are we talking about? The B-1 zone does allow larger signs. We have not seen any plan for a change in signage by the Petitioner. The P-1 zone is a more restrictive zone in terms of signage, though, size primarily. Wall signs are smaller. Freestanding signs are smaller in the P-1 zone. Okay. I'm just curious, you know, in the little things, I doubt whether at this point there's any lighting in the parking area. Is there lighting in the parking area? I mean, this is right up against, I mean, I know it's well-screened, but this is right up against residential units. Yeah, the lighting, though, is pointed toward our building. There's lighting in the back parking lot. Then there's 75-watt bulbs on the outside of each unit where the door is for security. And they come on and off at dusk. And the parking lot lights go off at the start of the day on all of them? Yeah, it's just like a city street light. That's there, there. And we've never had any complaint ever about too much. As a matter of fact, we have put in a little bit more lighting in our parking lot recently just to cover some areas that were dark so people can walk through the back of the parking lot and it can be a little bit more secure at night. So we do have it lit. While you're up there, I want to ask you another question. There's been a couple of reference in looking at the Planning Commission information about startup businesses. And, you know, I mean, I realize you're talking about the dress shop and jewelry repair. What kind of other businesses are we, you know, I mean, I know the set up out in that area of the people that live there. What kind of what kind of businesses have you, I'm sure you've looked around and kind of understood what the needs might be because we've talked about need for startup business. What are you talking? I'm just curious. There was a boot store that was interested in our location for just shoes. There was another one that wanted to put in a beauty shop to accommodate the neighborhood. Small areas were 400 foot square foot and 800 square foot. I don't really think in a V1 is available anywhere within a mile or two. So this this lends itself to to all types of small business. But those are the some of that I came across. Thanks very much. Thank you. All right, I've got Council Member Blevins, Blues and James in that order. Is that somebody's expectations? All right. Council Member Blevins. Thank you, Mayor. Let's see. Mr. Salih, I just want to confirm an understanding here. If we were to deny this application tonight and it remains P1, would an avenue be available to the applicant where they could go before the Board of Adjustment to clear up the dress shop and the jewelry thing, perhaps get a waiver for those? Is that an avenue they could pursue? I think technically that avenue is there. I'm not sure as to the likelihood of their success in arguing that those are P1 uses. That would seem to be a pretty high threshold to have to cross. Well, it's not that I'm asking the Board of Adjustment to change P1's assumptions. It would be more of a waiver situation as an exception, so to speak. The Board is not empowered to grant use variances. Okay. So it would have precedent throughout the process. How would you go about a use variance then, if there is a way? Mr. Gardner will correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think they're possible in Kentucky. Okay. Thank you. Another question for you, Mr. Salih. If we were to change this to B1, would that constitute a change so that other properties in the area could point to this one and say, okay, now this land use has changed. Therefore, my P1 should also be B1? It may be possible for other P1 owners to argue that, perhaps. Well, is that the kind of thing that constitutes a change to the area that's one of our three? An unanticipated change, yes, sir. Both sides can be construed that way. One other thing I want to confirm, two doors down, I believe, is the Brenda Cowen Center is one of the other P1 locations. Is that correct, if you keep going down Devonshire? Yes. There are two properties down Devonshire that... And the other P1 then is the Brenda Cowen Center, I'm pretty sure. I am not familiar with that use, sir. I'm sorry. That's okay. And you've already confirmed that it's fully occupied today. Let's see. That's all I had, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Salih, I just want to follow up a bit on Council Member DeKamp's question about signage. I noticed that when the subdivision committee took this up and recommended approval subject to certain conditions, number 10 was delete signs from plan. What was the rationale there, or what was the plan? That is, believe it or not, a fairly standard condition for a lot of development plans. And the rationale for that condition is that signs are regulated through sign permits issued by the Building Inspection Department, and the thought goes like this. If you locate one on a development plan, and yet you want to move it in a way that the ordinance would otherwise allow, you now have to endure technically an amendment to the development plan, which may put you in front of the Planning Commission on a filing fee and a month wait. So it's much easier to delete all signage from the development plans and allow the regular permitting to control signage. Thank you. You're welcome. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question for Bill. Was the loss of the B1 lots with the addition of Walgreens, was that anticipated, the loss of the additional retail lots? I'm not sure that that was anticipated. I think the overall square footage between the gas station and the commercial building that was there probably is similar to the square footage of the Walgreens, but the staff did not analyze what was the square footage before and after. I'm just thinking from my recollection of the aerial photography. Okay. And this goes to the owner or the attorney for the lawyer. Are you planning on adding any units to the building? No. And how many spots are in the parking lot currently? I believe there are 56 spots in the parking lot, and B1 actually requires a little less parking than P1 does. But here regardless, we'll still be meeting our parking requirements. Okay. That's all my questions. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Does any Council Member have any further questions? Seeing none, I think we're ready to close the hearing and proceed to a decision. There are, I think, a couple of questions we need to resolve, whether we wish to adopt the findings of the Commission or whether we wish to adopt our own findings of fact, and what conclusions of law we wish to enter. And we're ready to have a discussion. Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Mayor. Based on the evidence presented tonight, I move that the Council to adopt the following findings and facts in support of approval of MAR 2007-18, Anthony W. Judson. The existing professional office zoning is inappropriate, and the proposed Neighborhood B1 zoning is appropriate for the following reasons. Number one, there is a great need for space for small retail use in this area. There is a large residential population apartment in the areas within the wall conditions of these properties. The recent construction of Algreen's store has removed space which was used for small neighborhood retail establishment. With the lack of available space, retail users must locate farther and farther away from the neighborhood, which puts them outside the wall conditions of many residents in the area to walk to business. Number two, the smaller retail space serves as a business incubator and create employment opportunities and establish where specific employment skills can be learned. Number three, there's a lack of need for purely office use, but a great need for mixed use which allows small retails and other office facilities. Number four, granting this zone change will not change the appearance or the size of the building. The building is well screened from adjoining high-density apartments. Number five, this property is located near a concentrated of higher-density residential use and will supply a service to residents who do not own automobiles to provide both employment and service within walking distance. Number six, this proposal is also consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, and particularly the objectives which call for greater flexibility within the commercial and the office areas. Establishment of retail use with a neighborhood focus and character. Provide employment opportunities and essential service closer to residents and provide alternate modes of transportation, including encouraging biking and walking. And, in addition, I move that the following condition zoning restriction be imposed pursuant to KRS 100-203, parentheses A, whatever that is. The following use shall be prohibited, restaurant, cocktail lounges, and nightclubs. The reason for prohibiting restaurants and bars is that they have greater parking requirements and the other use in this property is adjacent to a property which is zoned residential high-density apartment or apartment. Second. We'll have a motion and a second to adopt the proposed findings which Council Member Maloney just read. Is there any discussion? Council Member Bloods. Thank you, Mayor. There's a couple things I want to comment on as the Council Members think about their votes. The first one is the lost retail that we've been discussing tonight was actually a gas station. I know that because I worked there when I was about 18. I hated to see it go. Back when it was a gulf. The second thing is that, so I don't see that as major loss in retail. That's just a consolidation. The second one is that I'm concerned that the change in the neighborhood we've been discussing is largely an ethnic change. There's no other changes in this neighborhood except an ethnic change and it seems dangerous to me to use this or maybe even establish it as a precedent. Just to make the point, if we were to say that this area suddenly over the last few years become more Caucasian in nature, would we say similar things to what we're saying tonight? So I just encourage you to think about the implications of what we're using here. The other one I'd point out to us is that the area needs professional space as well as business space and that's proven by the fact that it's full right now. Then the last one, I want to reiterate what Council Member Stennett said, be once forever. We need to think carefully here before we make this call. That's all I have. Thank you, Mayor. Any further comments or discussion by any member of the Council? Council Member Stennett. I just want to point out a couple of clarifications. One, in the findings of facts that Council Member Maloney read in public record, not once does it mention ethnicity as a reason for changing this area. I don't want anyone thinking that's why we're changing anything on this property for that reason at all. Two, the retail that was lost was more than a gas station. There's also some commercial buildings that were lost with a laundromat, a convenience store, etc. There were some additional, which may prove that we need to have this back. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Anything further? It appears as though we may be ready to vote to adopt the findings proposed by Council Member Maloney. Those in favor of adopting those findings, please indicate by voting aye electronically. And do a roll call as well. Vote nay electronically and we'll also call the roll. Dr. Stephens. Aye. Mr. Stennett. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard. Aye. Mr. Levens. Nay. Mr. Bluse. Yes. Ms. Crosby. Yes. Mr. DeCamp. Yes. Mr. Ellinger. Yes. Ms. Gorton. Nay. Ms. James. Yes. Mr. Lane. Yes. Mr. McCord. Yes. Mr. Maloney. Yes. And Mr. Myers. Yes. Thank you. In light of the approval of that motion, it would appear to be in order to adopt a motion. I have another motion, Mayor. All right, Council Member Maloney. I move to amend item number six on the docket to provide that the zone change is subject to certain use of restriction imposed as a condition of granting the zone change. So moved. I hear a second from Council Member Beard. Any discussion on that motion? Then those in favor, please vote aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay. And the clerk will call the roll. This is a voice vote, so it can just be electronic. And the next roll call vote will be actually after I give it its reading. This is a complicated process. All right. This is a vote simply to change the item that's on the change of docket. Yes. You're correct. So we have a vote electronically now. So that motion carries. Mayor, may I ask a question? Let's see. Council Member James. This is a technical question. It used to be that as we voted, it would pop up on the screen. Is that something that's been changed about the system? I did change something, and I apologize to you all for not affording you that information before the meeting started. I thought that we'd try this way and see how you liked it, and then we can choose which direction you all like to go. So that was my call, and I apologize for not telling you all beforehand. Okay. Thank you. Mayor, I just want to say one thing. What I like about this is that you can vote without seeing what other people vote. And after you vote, some council members may count their votes before they push that. So I kind of like this being the screen being hit before the vote goes around, in case people do count their votes. All right. So let's try to wrap up the zone change here. And I think we've got it now. We need to entertain a motion for conclusions of law. No, Your Honor. The findings are sufficient to support the approval. Based on the last motion, there needs to be a new first reading of the ordinance as amended. Very well. Madam Clerk. Okay. Ordinance number six, as amended, an ordinance changing the zone from a professional office P1 zone to an average business P1 zone for 1.140 net, 1.476 gross acres of property located at 1388 Alexandria Drive, subject to certain use restrictions imposed as conditions of granting the zone change. Anthony W. Justice. And we would need a motion to suspend the rules to give it a second reading, Your Honor. Is there a motion to that effect? Council Member Ellinger moved to suspend. Council Member Crosby seconded. Any discussion? And those in favor, please indicate by voting aye electronically. And those opposed, vote nay electronically. By a roll call. This is a roll call. To suspend. Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. All right. We have the requisite number of votes to suspend the rules. That motion is adopted. So the motion is next matter, next order of business is to give second reading to the proposed ordinance. Madam Clerk. Now, second reading is an ordinance change in the zone from a professional office P1 zone to an average business P1 zone for 1.140 net, 1.476 gross acres of property located at 1388 Alexandria Drive, subject to certain use restrictions imposed as conditions of granting the zone change. Anthony W. Justice. Floor is open for a motion to approve that ordinance. Council Member James moved. Council Member Crosby seconds. Is there any discussion? And those in favor of approving the ordinance, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically. And the clerk will call the roll. Dr. Stephens. The motion is to approve the zone change as proposed by Mr. Maloney, correct? That is correct. I vote aye. Mr. Stennett. Mr. Beard. Aye. Mr. Blevins. Mr. Blues. Ms. Crosby. Yes. Mr. DeCamp. Mr. Ellinger. Yes. Please reflect so on your machine. Thank you. Ms. Gorton. Nay. Ms. James. Mr. Lane. Yes. Mr. McCord. Yes. Mr. Maloney. Please reflect so on your machine. Mr. Myers. Yes. The ordinance is approved. Is there any further business? Yes, I move adjournment. I have a motion and a second to adjourn. Any of those in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Good night.