From my head to what I dare, oh, oh, oh, I wanna be free, yeah, feel the way I feel. Man, I feel like a woman. Oh, yeah. The best thing about being a woman is the prerogative to have a little fun. Fun, fun. Oh, oh, oh. They're totally crazy But get on the lay there Men's shirts, short skirts Oh, oh, oh Really go wild, yeah You and Evan style Oh, oh, oh Get in the action Feel the attraction Call on my head, do what I dare Oh, oh, oh I wanna be free, yeah Feel the way I feel The way I feel Man, I feel like a woman Hey, hey, hey Oh, oh, yeah, yeah I get totally crazy Can you feel it? Come, come, come on, baby Hey, hey, hey I feel like a woman Oh, yeah. Get yourself a cooler, lay yourself low Coincidental murder with nothing to show To judge your constipation and go to his head This wife's aggravation you soon ended up dead That's the same old story, same old song and dance, my friend That's the same old story, same old song and dance, my friend Gosh, with the cocaine, I found with your gut No smooth, the face of lawyer could get you under Say, love ain't the same on the south side of town You could look, but you ain't gonna find it around That's the same old story, same old song and dance, my friend That's the same old story, same old story, same old song and dance When it comes a knocking door Start knocking your own time collection Change Thank you. The Thank you. I'll call the meeting to order, please. First item of business this afternoon is going to be the approval of the minutes of January 27, 2011, and February 24, 2011. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? Hearing none, do I hear a motion for approval? Mr. Owens. Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of minutes as written and dated January 27, 2011, and also for February 24, 2011. I'll have a second by Paul in favor. Please say aye. Opposed? Minutes have been approved. Thank you very much. Okay. This time, the next item on our agenda are postponements and withdrawals. Is there anyone in the audience? My name is Wesley Witt, and at the bottom of, well, it's at the bottom of page one, Forest Park Edition. The last time I was in here, I volunteered to bring in a site plan, and it turns out that the owner is not quite sure how he would like to develop that lot. So we would like to postpone that until, I guess, the May 12th meeting? May 12th. Okay. Is there any discussion? Anyone in the audience objects to that? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion for postponing Plan 2011-26F, Forest Park Edition, amended to our May 12th meeting. That is the correct date, is it not, Mr. Sally? Yes, Madam Chair. That is the date. We hear a motion. Madam Chairman, move postponement of Plan 2011-26F until May 12th. Is there a second? Motion's made and seconded by Ms. Craven, seconded by Mr. Paulson. All in favor, please say aye electronically or nay. Motion carries. Thank you very much. We'll see you on the 12th. Thank you. Are there other postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, we'll move on to our subdivision plan. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Salley. Madam Chair, thank you. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. The first subdivision plan on your agenda appears on page 1. It is item A1. This is Plan 2010-131P, an amended preliminary subdivision plan for the Hillenmeyer property and DWS property, a portion of. These properties have addresses of 2801 Sandersville Road, 803 Greendale Road, and 2551 Leestown Road. I'd like to orient you to the location of the subject property using the zoning map. It is along the west side of Greendale Road just to the north of Sandersville Road. Sandersville continues on to the east as far as Georgetown Road and then even beyond into the single-family subdivision there. It is also to the north of Leastown Road and its intersection with Greendale is just off this map to the south. Subject property is bordered by light industrial zoning to the south and to the north and by R3 planned neighborhood residential zoning to the west and to the east. The preliminary subdivision plan here is for this particular area that you see shaded, and it is basically between the areas of Greendale Road north of Sandersville, which stubs into the property at this point currently. It is also on the west side of the planned location of Citation Boulevard. You may recall that we've seen a development plan for Sandersville West, which is the property on the other side of this right-of-way a couple of months ago for townhouse and single-family residential development. This property is zoned R3, and there is proposed 218 single-family residential lots. There are three detention basins proposed, two of which will be bisected by an extension of Sandersville Road that is to connect into Citation Boulevard just off of this plan. Sandersonville is the only collector street that will be constructed as part of this development, although I believe the functional class for Greendale Road is also a collector street. There are several local streets that will be constructed to serve these 218 lots, including one that will intersect Greendale Road to the north of the current intersection of Sandersville Road. Those of you on the subdivision committee recall several months ago we discussed an existing cemetery on the subject property, and one of the issues that has delayed commission consideration of this preliminary subdivision plan is the alignment of Sandersville Road, if you will, around that existing cemetery. On this plan, we have put in a 50-foot area shaded in yellow, And that indicates fairly new zoning restrictions that require buffering and, in essence, no disturbance area, no grading around identified existing cemeteries. Part of this plan, which was submitted earlier this month, proposes to realign Sandersville from what those of you on the subdivision committee initially saw to provide a greater separation of this new roadway from the existing cemetery area. We have aerial photos to show you if you'd like to see them. We showed them last month. Again, I can kind of orient you to the property. This is Greendale Road. Sandersville currently terminates here into the subject property here. There's residential development to the north. The light industrial zone to the north is a church location and also a cell tower, and there is existing light industrial development to the south. Looking a little bit closer at the terminus to Sandersville, there's a cul-de-sac, Green Spring Court, at that location. And it is from this point that then Sandersville will begin a curve to the north in order to bisect, or pardon me, to bypass the existing cemetery in that area. A little closer indication of the existing trees, and also it looks like one grave marker is evident from the aerial photography there as well. We passed out to you not only the revised staff recommendation on the blue handout, and for those of you that were here at your March 10th meeting, that is the same handout the staff provided at that meeting, but also a note that exists on the plan regarding sinkholes and also a staff report on a waiver request. There are two waivers associated with this preliminary subdivision plan. We've identified them as number one and number two on the preliminary subdivision plan. One is the radius of Sandersville Road will not meet the 500-foot radius requirement in order to allow it to curve around the cemetery. It is a tighter curve than the minimum required by the subaregs. And then secondly, beginning the curve far enough away to miss the cemetery requires the intersection angle with Green Spring Court to be slightly exceeded from the 80-degree limit of the subaregs by about two or three degrees in the staff's estimation. So those are the two waivers that Mr. Martin will present to you in just a moment. Looking over the revised staff recommendation, your subdivision committee did recommend approval of this plan. The staff has revised its recommendation based on the March 9th submission, deleting conditions number 8 and 9, which have been met by this revised plan. Original condition number 10, now new number 8, is to remain as a sign-off, and that would involve the new street intersection at Greendale Road. Conditions number 9 and 10 are somewhat related. Around the cemetery area, there's currently no tree preservation area proposed around the cemetery. That and from the photos you saw, there is a tree line that separates, in essence, this R3 property from the light industrial zone property to the south. Staff would ask that tree preservation be identified in this portion of the property, both around the cemetery and along this property line, and we've kind of put that information in green on the plan, which shows the existing tree canopy. That is condition number 9 and 10 within the cemetery area. Mr. Martin will review with you condition number 11 in just a moment. Condition number 12 relates to the note that I've handed out about sinkholes. This note exists on the preliminary subdivision plan. And with that note and the addition of closed contour information around Lot 22, which is right up against the future right-of-way of Citation Boulevard, it's shown by a red star on that drawing. Staff would think that that could be a very easy way to resolve that condition. Usually this type of note is common on a plan accompanied by a delineation of where the closed contour is, where the land actually begins to slope. So with the addition of that closed contour information to that part of the plan, that's what we anticipate being needed by condition number 12. I think at this time Mr. Martin will present to you the waiver report, and then, of course, he and I will be available for any questions from the Commission following his report. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Mr. Martin? Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, the waiver that is associated with this plan is, as Mr. Salley has introduced to you, is the alignment of Sandersville Road in order to avoid the cemetery and grant it the appropriate protection that it needs. We have a fixed point at this location where Sandersville Road currently terminates. And with a fixed point here and a fixed point here at Citation Boulevard, this intersection is governed by the design of Citation Boulevard. They have to get from this point to this point and also avoid the cemetery. The waiver request is from the required 500-foot radius of this curve. to 325 feet. Staff has reviewed this along with traffic engineering. We do agree that it is a hardship and that this is a reasonable solution to that, and we are recommending approval of the waiver request. There was one issue of concern that staff had, and it was a concern with traffic engineering as well, and it is in your report. You see these two lots that are being proposed here. First of all, they are a little bit longer and out of proportion to the recommended proportion of length and width. But more importantly, the subregs require safe and convenient access to be provided, both pedestrian and vehicular. Staff has some concern about vehicular access in this location. Now, we do believe solutions are available. There's been some preliminary discussion about eyebrows, frontage road, and that sort of thing. So we are recommending approval again with this access to be determined at time of your final record plat. And again, we're recommending approval of the waiver. Are there any questions from commission members at this point? Thank you. Thank you. Just in closing the staff's presentation, the Commission did review this plan at your March 10th meeting and postponed it today primarily to get additional information about the sinkhole and to hear from the professional that's reviewed the cemetery area. I believe that you'll hear additional information from the applicant on those today. Thank you. I'm Howard Cruz with Ball Homes. I guess first of all, I'd like to again apologize to the Commission for my lack of preparation at the last meeting, but I did bring the expert today. We are in agreement with the conditions and will request approval. That being said, there's one correction I guess I'd like to make to my testimony last in that the excavations that Mr. Owen showed us the photographs of were not bodies. They were holes that were dug to try and locate bodies, and Alexandra Bybee with Cultural Resource Analysts is here to explain that further. With that said, I'll turn it over to Alex. Hello. I've never spoken to something like this before, so I don't know what exactly I'm supposed to say. But where the cemetery is located, there was an existing treed area that was probably there had been a fencer at some point. So there were a lot of really old trees there. And that was assumed to be the actual cemetery boundaries. And that's typical for historic period cemeteries, especially from the mid-19th century. From what I understand, there's no, I don't know of any, like, real archaeological recordation of this cemetery at all. I'm not sure if it's been recorded as an archaeological site. But when Ball Homes contacted us, they wanted, what they wanted us to do was come out and make sure that that was the actual expense of that cemetery. Because they have, I think it's a 50-foot buffer. Is that correct? You want to make sure that you have this existing cemetery that you know that the graves are there. But then they have this 50-foot buffer around it, which is fine to place that around there. But if you don't know that potentially there's some graves that are outside of that existing cemetery boundary, you may actually be, that 50-foot buffer may not actually be a 50-foot buffer. That happens a lot. I can give an example of a cemetery that we excavated in Illinois last summer. There was a similar size location. It was about 100 feet by 100 feet. And we thought there were about seven graves there that were 199. And most of those were outside of that existing boundary that was in that nice treed area that had been avoided by agricultural endeavors and things like that. So that was the point that they had us come out and do that. What we did was we had ball homes do light removal of the vegetation in a 30-foot area around that cemetery. Then they took a backhoe with a smooth bucket and removed the topsoil. And that was what you do for that. When you have a historic grave, you typically have what's called a grave shaft. It's a big rectangular shaft that was dug down originally when they put the body in. And it'll be a big, for adults, it's usually about three feet by six feet for children, depending on how big the child is, and smaller than that. What you'll see is when you strip off the topsoil, you'll see the undisturbed subsoil, which is a lot lighter in color. And you'll see the actual soil disturbance. It's typically in this rectangular form, and you'll see modeling, because when they filled that grave back in, they are putting in the topsoil. A lot of organics are going in with it, along with the subsoil that's been disturbed. So it gets a really modeled appearance. We've done this on dozens of cemeteries and 600-some graves, I think, something like that. And so that's what we did. We stripped off that area around it to make sure that there were no graves existing outside of that known boundary. And that was what was done. I think there was a question about potentially some smaller, some deeper areas, but what those were were probably either tree falls or something like that or else. Actually, I think when the archaeologist that was out there, when she did this, she ran into stable bedrock there, which also you have redox kind of features and things like that that develop above these geologic formations. And that just, it looks like a soil disturbance, and you want to check each one of those to make sure that it's not a grave. So she took those little spots a little bit deeper, and that's what she came up with. There were no graves outside of that existing heavy tree boundary. Does anybody have any questions? Yes, Mr. Owens, and he had some, I believe you have some pictures that you showed last time that he may have some questions for you about. Thank you, Ms. Barbee. Yes, what I was hoping to do, since we've got commission members here that were not here two weeks ago that did not see the pictures, was to just show them the pictures so that they could see what everybody was talking about first. I'd like to see them, too. I guess I'll kind of narrate through this. This is looking towards the, if I can get myself oriented correctly now, towards the southeast with the cemetery in the upper right-hand corner. This is one of the sites that she was mentioning. That's a yardstick that's sticking there in the center of it. excavation shown looking at the cemetery. And if I'm correct, that's another depression site that she was mentioning. Another depression site. That was one of the smaller ones over on the southwestern edge of the property. Another site, I believe, on the southeastern edge of the property. And then that is looking to the east or southeast with the cemetery behind you, just showing excavation. looking to the west cemetery right in the middle of the picture. And then there's another site there. The cemetery itself. And that might be it. And that was one of the pictures of the cemetery, the most visible one, I have noticed that one of the other grave sites showed a death in 1814. And I think that was the last one we'd seen that picture one time. I'm sorry, maybe one more. The outer edge of the excavated site looking to the west. Is that it? Okay. Those depressions that you see in those pictures, those are where the archaeologist that was out there took the soil deeper to make sure that they were not grazed, and they were not. They were ground truth as geologic formations. Ms. Bobby, you signed off on this detailed report, and I appreciate the report very much. Did you personally supervise this excavation? No, but I went out with Lisa after we heard from Ball Homes a few weeks ago, And we actually recorded all of these similar images. So you were not there and you didn't visually see this take place? Pardon? You were not actually there and oversee the supervision? No, I was not. Lisa, the lady who was out there, the archaeologist, when she was out there, she's worked on a number of cemeteries with me and has done this before. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, personally, I found that a little troublesome when Mr. Hughes said that, Mr. Cruz said that he would bring the person that did the work here today. She was out in the field today. She's out on a project. She'd been all week. I'm sorry. So no additional grave sites were found? No, there's nothing outside of that existing cemetery boundary. There are no graves outside of that, the original boundary. In looking at the pictures that you provided, it appears to me that the pictures are much like this with leaves in the bottom of the additional sites that you dug and so forth, which wouldn't correlate with the July date of when the work was done. Is there a reason for that? For the image differences? We took those images just a few weeks ago because when we first did the project back in July, we were told that we wouldn't need a letter report or something like that. Ms. Bybee, just for your information, I did speak with, and I'll let everybody know, I did speak with Dave Pollack, UK Anthropology Department. He respected your work. immensely and pretty much said that if additional grave sites had been found, you'd probably let everybody know and would still be digging out there. Oh, yeah. So I appreciate your information on this. Thank you. Anybody? Anything else? Are there other questions? Ms. Copeland. Thank you for coming today. I personally am disappointed that we are not talking to the person who did or who okayed the invasive exploration. It looks a little heavy handed. I'm wondering if you used remote sensing. That wouldn't have worked in this situation because of the trees. When you have that much vegetation in there with all the trees and things like that, you can't run the machines over that. Brown penetrating radar won't work. Electromagnetic won't work. You should have too many obstacles. So what did you use? Sounding? Pardon? Did you use sounding? How did you? No, there was no geophysical exploration at all because it wouldn't have worked in that situation. It was a matter of stripping the topsoil to identify grave shafts. So even on the outside of the perimeter of the trees, you still had to strip? That was the only. You couldn't remote sense on the outside? No, there were a lot of small trees and things like that. When you have even that kind of little stubble, you can't use geophysical means for that sort of thing. Well, we probably did find the graves, and I don't dispute that. It just looks like it's been sort of heavy-handed exploration, and we don't have the person here that said do this. So we don't really have the person we need to talk to. I think I've given an example of what, I think this is what Lisa would have said as well. These were, I mean, this is just our typical, these are the typical techniques that we use for this sort of thing. I mean, if you go out to Eastern State Hospital where University of Kentucky, where Dave Pollack is working right now, that's what they're using to identify where the hundreds of graves are that they're excavating right now. They're using these means. They're using the mechanical excavation to identify the grave shafts. Ms. Phillips, excuse me, Ms. Phillips. The pits that we see in the images, were those hand dug with the backhoe? No, that was with a backhoe. When you have a grave, if it's a child, it's going to be a little bit more shallow, maybe four feet down, something like that. But if you go with an adult, it's probably going to be about six feet down. What you're looking at is the topsoil is maybe, I can't remember what it says in the report, but it's no more than a few feet at the most. and then you just strip a little bit more down. She was also using a tile probe, which is a steel probe, to assess if there was any kind of soil difference. When you have a grave shaft, you can also have the subsoil be nice and compact, and you can't get a soil probe down. But when you hit a grave, it'll be because it's been disturbed, so it'll go down really quickly. So she was using those as well. Thank you. Are there other questions? If not, thank you very much. Thank you. Petitioner, have any other? Unless there's any other questions on any other topic that I can try to answer. Mr. Owens. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Cruz. I guess my two concerns, or actually I've got three. One, you know, it's obvious that there's been excavation done here, whether you call it grading or excavation. It's my understanding before any of this, and this is the reason I asked a question two weeks ago, that we need a preliminary development plan in place before there's any excavation done. You know, why do we have these procedures if, you know, we don't follow them? Well, I think the short answer to that is this, in my opinion, is not excavation as defined in the subdivision regulations. The excavation that's defined in the subdivision regulations pertains to the construction of roads and other portions of the infrastructure. we actually did, quote, excavation on the property before we purchased it in order to do some exploration of sinkholes. Green and Wiesman. The ordinance that this is done to, pursuant to, requires on a preliminary subdivision plan, which is, this is, is that you show the cemetery. and you show it, identify it, based on different historic records, fence lines, or other criteria such as as determined by certified archaeologists. So the only way we could comply with your ordinance when we file this preliminary subdivision plan is perform this study to show the information on the development plan. Otherwise, you've put us in a catch-22. We can't comply with your regulations if we can't have the expert go out there and identify. Yes, Ms. Wiseman, I'm not saying that the experts should not go out there and do it. I thought you were suggesting that we shouldn't do any excavation, and I was clarifying that we have to do. To begin with, you know, my thoughts is I would say you're right. No excavation prior to the preliminary development plan. Those are my thoughts. You know, we have conditions on the preliminary development plans all the time. something to the extent of defining the exact boundary of the cemetery at the time of final development plan would have been fine. It would have gave you the opportunity to go after this fact. There is no final development plan. This is a preliminary subdivision plan, which in this case is serving as the same vehicle that authorizes construction. So I think we're talking about the same thing. this is not grading excavation that you are not allowed to do without a preliminary subdivision plan. This is simply site investigation, just like you do some preliminary site work for sinkholes and so on. We can't get there from here unless you do this amount of soil disturbance. That's my only comment, because that's the information we're trying to provide pursuant to the zoning ordinance. That's my only point. One other point, Mr. Owens. We do have a certified preliminary subdivision plan for this property. We had it done and certified. It's been amended a couple of times. We're simply here to change it, to deal with this issue. And I guess it's disturbing to me that we're having this discussion and that's why we're here. We did everything that we were supposed to do. That's why we're here. Okay. Let me skip over the why did we excavate in the 50-foot buffer area. It's disturbing to me that we put in an ordinance that says no grading or excavation within 50 feet of the cemetery, but yet we dig two feet in that area itself. Where are we now? You know, it's been six, seven, eight, nine months. The ground is still disturbed. It hasn't been restored. Are we going to restore it? What's going to be done? I have no problem putting the topsoil back if that's what you wish. The disturbance that was done was basically to remove the vegetation and expose the subsoil so that the expert could do the delineation. delineation. I believe it's normal and ordinary. What sort of preservation as far as the cemetery are we looking at? I believe the ordinance calls for a fence, and we've set it aside on a piece of property that will be owned and maintained by someone in perpetuity. Okay. Anything else? Are there other questions? Commission? Not. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? Yes, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Jamie Millard. I've been involved with preservation in Lexington the last 18 years since my family moved back here to my hometown from Philadelphia. I've been president of the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation, president of Friends of McConnell Springs. I'm currently president of the Lexington History Museum and serve on the board of the Fayette County Cemetery Trust. And I have done a 180 since I walked in this room. I heard about the excavations. I, like many people in preservation, speak for the dead, speak for the people whose families no longer live here but have left their forebearers behind. The Paines are one of these families. I personally, with the farm that we own and where my wife and I live out on Russell Cave Road, have identified a cemetery on our farm that was unprotected. And sometime since it came into the family in the 1880s, somebody decided to build a barn on top of part of the cemetery and use the other part of the cemetery as a road. Once we found that cemetery, we fenced it off. We didn't remove the barn because it was already there, but we did fence off the cemetery so it's protected, and we preserved the only two tombstone fragments that existed, but it gave us the name of the family, the Cooks, which we know owned the land as a land grant back in the 19th century. The people who helped us identify the cemetery are cultural resource analysts, and we were fortunate that this cemetery was in an unwooded area where there were no ground anomalies, with the exception of some 60 bodies that were all buried with their feet pointed east, so that at the rapture they would rise and face the sun. So we know how cultural resource analysts work, how they operate. They conducted actually a 10-year archaeological project on our farm using fourth graders from Sayre School as the diggers. And when you have fourth graders involved, it's great fun. But we observed over 10 years their professionalism, and I will guarantee you, Mike, If they said this was the only way to identify the grave locations, then I would believe that. I rarely come down on the side of developers, but if this is a developer who is being sensitive to the location of these graves and is doing what not only ordinance requires but what human decency requires, then I would support it. I know it looks bad, but some cases you've got to destroy to discover, and I think this probably is one of the cases given the obvious signs of vegetation in this area. I'd invite any of you to come out and see what we've done with the gravesite on our farm location. We've been sensitive to it. We've protected it. We haven't tried to dig it or restore it, but we did. There was some probing I know that can be done, but in a case like this, we have that amount of root material in the ground, then that in-ground sensing is not going to show you the anomalies you need to begin to identify where those graves may be. So as I say, I did a 180 on this one, but I think that they're doing the right thing. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Are there others? Staff have any other comments? None, Madam Chair. other than to let you know that since we concluded our report, we understand that some of you may not have complete copies of the staff report on the waiver. I believe Mr. Martin has got complete copies for any member that doesn't have all of the pages of our report. Thank you. Sorry, yes. Hi, my name is Lisa Sandin, and I was the president of the Fayette County Cemetery Trust. Lately, we are dissolved, but all of the members that were on our board are still here in the community and very interested and active in cemetery preservation. The purpose of the Fayette County Cemetery Trust was not just to identify, locate, preserve, and protect, and educate the community members about the importance of cemetery preservation, but also to be an advocate for the family. and the family has been up in arms about what is going on with this, regardless of if the ordinance was followed in the order that the different commissioners would have liked for it to have been followed in or us. The family is concerned because they're not in a loop, and they have a right to participate in the discussions that are going on. So that is why I'm here as their representative, and they would like to be in talk about what had happened prior to any of this. I believe Jonathan Norris was the contact that they had. Yeah, he's the attorney that I myself had been in contact with five years ago when we were the second people to notify Ball Homes that they, in fact, had a cemetery on their property that they didn't know of when they bought the property. So I'm sorry for that because it's taken so many years to get this property through the planning stages. And I, as a resident on the other side of Sanjurville, would like for the road to go through so that I have another out in our neighborhood. All of our neighbors would like that. So there's different perspectives there. I'm not eager to see that many trees lost, more houses go up, and more people move to the neighborhood, actually, because Masterson Station is an example of the sprawl that Lexington, I know, is trying to avoid with infill and redevelopment, and this is within the boundaries of the infill. But it is so sad to see so many people live in such, so compactly in this area. But we do commend the efforts of everybody on the commission for their efforts to preserve the cemetery, as well as ball homes, despite the lack of communication recently. They've been very hands-off, the area, until the last year. And we do also support what the cultural resource analysts do. They are a very reputable firm. We wish that someone would have been notified prior to the digging or excavating or probing or whatever they want to call it and what their techniques were. Eastern State Hospital and the Bluegrass Community Technical College have done an amazing job at keeping the community involved. I have to admit, Ball Homes does not make a good neighbor. we don't get to know what goes on as an average citizen I would have no idea if I didn't have an ear for what was going on here because they don't keep us involved or up to date as to what their long term plans are which is not exactly why we're here is what kind of neighbor they are but for what they've done with this cemetery and our neighborhood association and theirs. I hope that that will be who maintains it. I would recommend that the Neighborhood Association maintain it for perpetuity or whatever that long-term order is. So that's, I think, all that I have to save on the family's behalf. Is there any other questions? Awesome, thanks. Thank you. Are there others who wish to speak? I think staff said they have nothing else to say. Does the petitioner have any rebuttal, comment? Not. Then I will close the hearing and turn it over to the commission for further discussion and for a motion. Ms. Phillips? I have a question for Ms. Lisa. I'm sorry? I have a question for Ms. Lisa, who just spoke. You had mentioned that you're representing the Payne family, and the Payne family does not want action to take place on this property before they're engaged in conversation with Ball Holmes? Correct. Do they request a postponement, or what exactly are they looking for to resolve? What will make them whole? Well, I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. From our perspective, from the perspective of the Planning Commission, What can we do to make them whole to resolve the issue on their part? She lives in the west, far out west, and I'm not sure what her opinion is. As far as direct descendants, there's one that we've been in contact with, and I don't know exactly what her opinion is because she doesn't know exactly what their plans were. This was not something that they were aware was going to happen prior to it happening. They were fearful of it, and Ball Homes kept assuring us that nothing would happen. They would be in contact. Their closest family member was in contact with Jonathan Norris, the attorney of Ball Homes, last week who said that absolutely nothing was going on there. There was no plans of development at any time at all, and there was no actions being taken on the property. So their communication is lacking. And so better communications on the family's part would be something that they want. I don't know what else they would want at this time. You're welcome. Ms. Cufflin. Yes, this is the first one we've had since the new ordinance on cemetery protection. And I'm wondering at what point are we going to set out what are the specifics besides a fence for the restoration of this property that's been pretty well disturbed? What tree protection, tree enhancement, are we going to plant a ground cover, throw some grass seed on it? What's going to happen? What are the parameters for restoring the property? that Ball Homes will have to meet. And at what point, staff, Mr. Salley, at what point do we put those things in place? Mr. Salley. The staff is recommending tree preservation in the area of the cemetery. Certainly the Planning Commission, if you wanted to add conditions about the others, probably could at this time. I'd defer to Ms. Bolin. but also there will be final record plats for the subdivision that will be back before the Planning Commission, possibly after the infrastructure has been constructed or possibly even before it's completed. So this will not be the last plan that I would expect the Planning Commission to see for both the cemetery area and the street that is probably its closest impingement upon. Okay, so we can just let that be tabled, but hopefully we will have a nice recipe for this in the future. We'll not only fix this one, but we'll fix others. I mean, we'll set a precedent. I think the minimum bar today is the ordinance requires fencing around the cemetery, and the staff is recommending tree preservation. The plan is setting out the 50-foot no disturbance area. Any other details beyond that, I think the commission will have the opportunity to review at the time a final subdivision plan comes in for this area. Well, let's back up. Let's not let this just sit there in a mess until found record. Let's go ahead and put the soil back so that those poor trees that have been half their roots, maybe some of them will hang in there. Can we do that today? Can we say that? In other words, at least get it cosmetically okay, even if it's not. Excuse me, would you come to the microphone, please? I'd say one of the reasons that the area was left as it was was as a warning. So the cemetery itself has not been disturbed. It is within the confines of the disturbed area. I wanted to clarify that. We have not disturbed the cemetery. Okay. I think it would be appropriate, especially since you agree, if we worded something that basically the topsoil will just be returned so that the grade will be restored. Absolutely. I mean, I think that that's just commensurate with what was done, but not anything. I mean, we aren't going to get into vegetation or anything like that because they're going to be doing a lot of developing and work outside of that 50 feet. But I think just to simply restore just the disturbance that was done and required. We'll restore the disturbed areas, we'll put the topsoil back, and we'll seed the area. I'll commit to that today. I have no problem with that. I think that's reasonable as long as we don't go too far. There's a hope of saving some of the trees, maybe, if that happens, particularly at this time of year. Sure. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ms. Beatty. I'm sorry. Your name, the young lady that spoke earlier? Alexandra Bybee. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Sanders? Okay. Sandin. Okay. All right. Ms. Sandin, I'm still trying to reach clarification on your representation here. Are you representing the Payne family as an attorney? No. As a community member who was part of the Fayette County Cemetery Trust, who is an advocate for the families of anyone buried in Fayette County. Okay. And did you mention earlier that they have an attorney? No, they were in contact with an attorney at Ball Homes. Okay, so they have been communicating with Ball Homes. Yeah, with Jonathan Norris. Now, they are not satisfied with that communication? No. Okay, okay. You said they're not satisfied with communication. You talked directly with the Payne family who has said they're not satisfied with the communication. I apologize for any lack of communication, but, again, when we were contacted by the Payne family, made aware of the cemetery, we made a commitment to them at that time that we would do no development on this portion of the property until such a time as we have prepared an amended plan that would preserve the cemetery. That's why we're here today, is to prepare that plan so that we can preserve the cemetery. There has been some exploration, excavation as Mr. Owens calls it. That was the way the experts recommended we determine the limits of the cemetery. I've committed today to restore that area and seed it. I think we are in direct compliance with the wishes of the family. So I would ask that you approve the plan with the conditions as noted. Thank you. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Madam Chair. Bill, with number 10, clarify proposed tree protection restrictions within 50 foot of the cemetery, what are we looking for there? Basically, the plan that we have doesn't identify that there will be any tree protection within 50 feet of the cemetery. So we would look for ordinary tree preservation, tree protection plan information, especially in that area of the property. The plan doesn't show any existing canopy being retained. I guess that would include the cemetery itself? Yes, the trees within the cemetery area as well. I'm sorry, Barb's gone. She's got a picture over there that shows damage, root damage to trees already. You know, what can be done in regards to that? I don't know. I think we would have to have maybe Mr. Query address that. She may be able to find that picture real quick. And it may also be an issue that we would have to look at at the time of the final record plat to determine tree protection areas on that flat. Yeah, the one showing the, particularly the one showing the roots, those are 14-inch trees in the cemetery itself. And I'm bringing this up as much as anything, kind of following up with what Ms. Copeland said. somehow we've got to establish some standards to prevent this type of stuff from happening, as far as I'm concerned. Anyway. Okay. Mr. Brewer. I'll do that up for a second because I'll start with this and go back to my, I guess, my comment. Are we on discussion now or are we still asking questions? We're supposed to only be in discussion. I did close the hearing a minute ago, but. All right. Well, this raises a question, and I'll just pose it if we need to. Was this done as part of the excavation to determine whether the grave sites were there that ended up having the consequences on these trees? Again, we don't have anybody here who was present for the excavation, but yes. I don't know. But yes, it was. Okay. Yes. Well, I kind of feel like the gentleman who walked up and said he did a 180 because I saw the pictures that looked to me very clearly like somebody had excavated a grave site. And, you know, all the wonderful horror movies came to mind of things that come out of that. So I was prepared to come here and think that this was absolutely done wrong. And hearing the experts say how she did this and that it's common practice, I don't think there's anything left that was wrong that we can address here. I mean, clearly, if there are communication problems, that's not our purview. We can't handle that. I agree with my colleagues that we need to set some standards and have them in place, but if we don't have them in place right now, I don't think we can hold this plan hostage to getting that. So let's, as a commission, find out what it is from the law and from staff. What can we do to set those standards so that they're in place? So the next time this, if this happens, we've got rules to make a decision. But as far as I'm concerned, this one should go forward. Is there anyone else who would like to comment? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. And we can include the waiver, is that correct, in the motion? Or do you need a separate, do we need a separate vote for that? Okay. Just make sure whoever makes a motion does include the waiver. Madam Chairman. Mr. Croydon. I'll make a motion for approval of Plan 2010-131-P Hillmire Property. And was there some note that we were adding about them returning the top soil or does that need a note? Yes, that needs to be included. Okay, add 13 that developers stated that they would replace the topsoil and seed and straw of the affected areas. And also I include the waiver in my motion, approval of the waiver. Motion by Mr. Cravens. Is there a second? Second by Ms. Beatty. Further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you all for coming very much. Next item on our agenda, I'll give the staff a moment or two to get prepared. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Martin. Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is the record plat item 2 on page 2 of your agenda plan 2005-196F, Sharkey Property Unit 2B. Along with this, you will see on page 3 of your agenda item 2, a development plan 2010-23, Sharkey Property Unit 2B. Both of these plans are before you for consideration today. We are out in the Sharkey property off of Leestown Road just past the Meadowthorpe Shopping Center. In this particular area of the development, we are in an area close to the existing apartments that have been constructed and are going towards the New Circle Road or the west side of the development. There's a large detention basin. This is the plat that you see before you that fronts on Old Town Walk and Town Square Park. The plat, and this is similar to what you approved previously, has single-family homes fronting on Town Square, townhouse development blocks proposed in this area with an access and parking easement here. You may recall that as part of your action, you approved this access easement to serve this development previously. This plan has been brought back before you, and you have a handout, a brown handout before you, to discuss one particular issue that exists on this property. And it is the last condition on the plan that deals with no building permit being issued for 50 and 54. The sanitary sewer easement exists in its location, and you cannot encroach or build on top of an easement. So that was a restriction that was placed on the record plat because of that conflict. They brought it in to re-discuss that, and because this easement is now larger than it used to be, it was a smaller parking easement. They've increased the size of this, proposed size of it. It's staff's understanding they would like to relieve some of the on-street parking that exists in the area, so that's one purpose for this parking, to have gotten larger. The development plan helps explain that situation. Again, here's the area where the record plat, as you see before you there, along with this detention basin, here are the existing apartments that have been constructed. Again, you see the parking area that has been enlarged. And this plan is back before you as well for the very same reason. reason, they need to address the timing of these easements and their construction. You may recall the apartments that you recently approved at the other end of the development next to a large detention basin. They brought that plan back to you as well. They have to be able to work on the site, reconfigure the detention basin, reconfigure the easements, and then at that time, once they're approved by engineering, they have to go to council and have those parts of the easements released that are no longer necessary. It is the exact same situation affecting this property. When they brought this back to us originally to staff and asked for a continued discussion, that was the stated reason they wanted to address that timing issue just like they had to address before. However, the plan they brought to us had been revised, and it raised concerns. And so staff recommended postponement at that time, as did your subdivision committee. Subsequently, they brought new plans in. These plans very much reflect your original approval, the only exception being, again, they have enlarged the parking easement here. They are requesting, as I stated, the ability to go onto the property under the improvement plan process, construct these easements and detention basins, at which time, as I stated, they would be able to file a minor record plat reflecting the correct configuration. That removes the conflict. Then that will allow a building permit to be issued, and they can actually build the structures. You will see by your handout, and there are two of them, again, we are recommending approval of the final record plat of six conditions. you will see that there are an additional number of lots that have been highlighted. That is because in the course of our investigation of this request, it was determined that it wasn't only a sewer conflict, but in fact on a previous plat several years old, this detention basin actually extends down into this area somewhat in terms of the easement, not the actual basin. It hasn't been completely constructed. So it's necessary not only for them to release the sewer easement, but to release the detention easement as well. That impacts nine of the lots as opposed to two, and that is the reason you see that condition on your plat. You can see on your development plan handout, and that's the longer one, that we have offered a 12th condition. It is the exact same condition you approved on the previous apartments that I just mentioned to you on the other end of the property that just states that a certification of an easement minor plat or an encroachment permit must be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit, and that is to resolve that conflict. Staff is recommending approval of the plat and the development plan to you today, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Are there questions from the Commission members? Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members, Commissioner Rory Keeley with the EA Partners, I am in agreement agreement with staff's two revised conditions and request approval. Are there any questions? Ms. Copeland? Yes, Mr. Gailey. We have one plan on the left with north going up and one plan on the right with north going down. Yes. And did you go to school at UK? Yes. Does that speak badly of UK? Huh? Yes, I hope it doesn't speak badly of UK. No, it's really good. And were you taught to always put North Era up? No. We used to do a lot of things with the bottom right, so all the shading went that direction. But then there's also the idea that in a lot of our plans, they always want the street at the bottom so everyone can orient themselves as they see a property. Well, it would help us if somehow we usually had them both go in the same way so we don't have to mentally flip them every time while somebody's talking. I agree. So could we kind of hope to get closer to North always going up? Thank you. Are there other questions from commission members? Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone in the audience would like to speak to this? Seeing none, unless the members have questions, I will close the hearing at this point and open it up for discussion. And our motion. Any questions or discussion? Chair will entertain a motion. Don't everybody rush the microphone. Did I get it right? It's just the, Madam Chair, I'll make a motion for the approval of Plan 2005-196F Sharkey property and there were two revisions, is that correct? Do we need to note that in here? According to the conditions that Tom just showed me from far away. Second. Second. Motion made by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Mr. Cravens. All in favor of Plan 2005-196F, Sharkey Property, please vote electronically. Motion carries. I have another motion. We can go ahead and vote on this one. Yes. This is 2010-23? Correct? Okay. Make a motion for approval of DP 2010-23, Sharkey Property. With the conditions as recommended? With the conditions as recommended. Motion by Mr. Brewer. Do I hear a second? Second by Mr. Cravens. Any further discussion? Not. Please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Staff can now prepare for the next presentation. Thank you. Mr. Salley. Thank you, Madam Chair. The next item on your agenda appears on page two. It is item number one, DP 2011-18. This is an amended final development plan for the James Motor Company and Catherine M. McBrayer property. This property is located at 2440 Richmond Road. I'd first like to orient you to the location of the James Motor Company with an arrow photo. This is very near the southwestern quadrant of Richmond Road, heading out of town in this direction, and New Circle Road here. I think I said southwestern quadrant. This is actually, yes, this is looking from the north to the south. James Motors Company is here. This is Lake Park Drive, which off the photo serves a number of multifamily residential units, including a few in the photograph here. There is a fairly new extended stay hotel just to the south of the subject property. The property is about 60% developed, although there is almost three acres undeveloped as part of the development plan. The development plan that has been submitted for the dealership, again, to orient you, this is Richmond Road. This is the on-ramp to New Circle Road where much of the property, especially that that's undeveloped, has frontage. Lake Park Drive is here. New Circle Road is just off the plan to the east. The existing car dealership is here, oriented very much toward Richmond Road. It's immediately adjacent to a Shell convenience store, and this dealership has about 30,000 square feet currently in existence. The proposed development plan amendment is for an addition to the rear of about 12 percent, or just over 3,150 square feet in size. In addition, this plan is making some modest changes to the circulation and to the parking and also to some of the landscaping proposed for the development. We've identified on the development plan not just the building and the addition proposed, but also the existing paved areas, the proposed paved areas. This plan identifies this as employee parking area, this part of the property. and the access to the property from both Richmond Road and from Lake Park in three locations is not proposed to change with this plan. Your subdivision committee recommended approval of this plan with a number of conditions that appear on your agenda. The staff has prepared a revised recommendation for you on the pink sheet that I believe was circulated before the meeting. This plan is a revised submission since your subdivision committee meeting earlier this month. We received this on the 8th of March, and a number of the conditions resulting from the subdivision committee have been met with this revised submission. Most notably, besides the first seven ordinary sign-off types of conditions, conditions 8, 9, 10, and 11 all have been satisfied with this revised submission. The staff is proposing some edits to some of the other conditions that resulted from the subdivision committee. Beginning with condition number 12, the staff finds that there's just over 55 parking spaces. We counted 59, and the site statistics still show 55. So that's a modest clarification there of the existing parking, or pardon me, the proposed parking with this development plan. Condition 13 refers to three additional parking spaces that are proposed. There are some existing trees in this area that are part of a conditional zoning restriction. Staff would like to see these relocated just to ensure that we don't set up a conflict between tree preservation areas and these new parking spaces. There's ample room for these three spaces. We don't think there's any issue there. They just need to be shifted, if you will, on the development plan to ensure that particularly this tree is not impacted by the new pavement. Condition 14 can be deleted. That is also a condition that's been met with the revised submission. Number 15, a very modest change to the cross-section. We have a plat that shows the dimension of that median area, and we'd like this plan to reflect that as well. Condition 16, the staff would recommend be retained. There is, as I mentioned, a conditional zoning restriction adjacent to one of the multifamily developments. in this area of Lake Park Road. The applicant has added a note to their plan about fencing along a landscape buffer. We'd like that clarified in the area of conditional zoning, again, just so we can ensure that we don't have a conflict between the conditional zoning restrictions on the property and the fence installation. So we would ask for an edit and retention of condition number 16. As far as condition number 17, that is the issue referred from the subdivision committee that, in essence, led this plan to be postponed two weeks ago at your meeting. There is a sidewalk along Richmond Road up to the subject property on the other side of the on-ramp, and the staff has discussed whether or not this sidewalk can be extended across the subject property. For those of you on the subdivision committee, you may recall our staff mentioned an ordinance that can allow a payment in lieu of actual sidewalk construction. However, that ordinance is not applicable in this case because the size of the addition is not 25 percent or more of the existing square footage. However, with this frontage, the staff realizes that this development plan will be coming back to the Planning Commission as there is three acres still undeveloped on this portion of the property. As I mentioned, it's Zone B3 and has conditional zoning restrictions. So in order to eliminate the discussion condition, the staff would ask that a note be placed on the plan, that at the time this comes back to the Planning Commission for consideration for development, that the issue of extending the sidewalk along the frontage of this property be part of that review by both the staff and the planning commission. The staff is recommending approval of the plan with the revised conditions on the sheet. At this time, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the commission about this plan or our revised recommendation today. So for clarity, can we say that we now have 12 conditions? Yes. Ms. Copeland. Yes, Mr. Sally, I realize there's an effort to put off the sidewalk, but in the meantime, couldn't that undeveloped area be sold and the new owner comes with his plan for the undeveloped portion and he's going to be putting a sidewalk on somebody else's property? He would probably not be putting the sidewalk on someone else's property. The sidewalk will probably be looked at in terms of along the right-of-way of Richmond Road, and it would not be unlike a developer placing a sidewalk in the right-of-way or a widening of an existing right-of-way through some type of development. It would be consistent with the practice. Even though it's a business and they say we don't want all that mud and corruption out there, We're trying to sell cars. Well, it is a right-of-way, so it would be subject to the approval of the Highway Department. And, of course, at that future time, obviously, we would engage the Highway Department and see about where the best location for the sidewalk might be. Isn't that just putting off a burden onto two totally different entities? That's why it would be part of the development plan, so that anybody interested in purchasing this property would see on the plat that it is subject to a development plan, and then on the development plan that that is an issue that would be considered at the time a development is proposed for this law. MS. Are there other questions? Ms. Drillins? Oh, I'm sorry. Ms. Phillips? MS. Sorry. With respect to the sidewalk, and I'm a little – well, I'm not confused. so I'm just a little mystified as to why we would attach that to a condition of the new lot being created. But does the sidewalk extend in front of the Shell Station and across Lakeview Road in front of the reservoir? I know that there's a discontinuation by Kentucky American and the fire station all the way up to whatever the name of that street is. Fontaine? Yeah, that takes you up to Henry Clay. I'm not aware of any sidewalk from this point to Fontaine. There is sidewalk on Lake Park that in essence ends right at that point. Okay. So by extending the sidewalk from the New Circle Road underpass, I guess, we would be enhancing access from those on Lakeview Drive to be able to make their way across New Circle Road. That's correct. There would still be one frontage without a sidewalk there at the service station. but there is at least a paved area near their landscape island where possibly a pedestrian wouldn't have to get on grass or mud. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Owens. Bill, to kind of follow up with all that, Richmond Road is at the top of the page going all the way across. The ramp comes down at some point. Where does the ramp for New Circle Road come down? This is heading out of town. The ramp begins here. Okay. This direction. So, yeah. So lot two that we're discussing will not have any access to Richmond Road or the ramp or anything. It will ultimately come out on Lake Park Road? They clearly have an access to Lake Park. Right. We're not sure at this time whether this paved area here would connect into that property or not. It's also likely they may have an access at this portion of Lake Park. But whether or not you could travel, let's say, here through this part of the property, we don't know today. Well, I'm kind of agreeing with others here. I think putting the responsibility on that lot for a new owner at a later time for that section of the road up there just, you know, to me just doesn't seem right. Thank you. Are there other questions? Mr. Crayton. Is that two separate lots now? The convenience store and the- No, no, no, on the development plan. Is that divided now? Yes, sir. It's my understanding. This is a lot, and then this is a separate lot. Okay, but it's under the same development plan. Yes. So if the car lot were to expand into there, then they would have to put the sidewalk in at that time. Not necessarily. The note says that it would be reviewed. Okay. And hopefully we'd have updated information, we'd be able to contact District 7, see what the needs are for that facility. But it's all the same development plan. Yes. Are there additional questions for Mr. Salley? Ms. Copeland. Yes. How many feet of sidewalk are we talking about? At what cost? I'm not sure the cost. I think Mr. Cruz estimates about $4,000 for that. Looks like the frontage would be about 250 feet or thereabouts. And that would include part of what's already a paved area for the access. Okay. And it would – okay. Okay. And we're putting up an addition of how many square feet? On this particular plan, this is a 3,162 square foot addition on a 30,000 square foot building. Okay. Strowings. Bill, as far as this is the first time I've seen anything for this property. When did it come before the Planning Commission as far as, I guess, the car lot at that time? Oh, my. A long time ago? No. The original development plan is probably in the 80s? 1980s? Well, but the most recent. The most recent amendment? Yeah. Would have been probably the last three years. Was this discussed at that time? As far as I know, no. Any particular reason? I don't think the only thing that's different today than at that time is today there's a sidewalk to right here that wasn't in existence during that time. Thank you. Are there other questions for Mr. Salley? Yes, Mr. Salley, there's no sidewalk on the far side of the street either, is there? Across Richmond Road, no, ma'am. So we really need sidewalks through here. And if we're going to get Kentucky American and the fire department and other people to build sidewalks, we've got to start laying some sidewalk down. That's really the reason the staff wanted this issue revisited. Okay. Are there other questions? Thank you. Petitioner. Howard Cruz again. This time I'm with James Motors. First of all, we are in agreement with the conditions and request approval as is appropriate. As far as the sidewalk goes, the ordinance that's been cited here states that the developer shall contribute the cost of a sidewalk across their frontage. And I, in fact, made that offer. The only catch I guess we had was the ordinance further states that it shall be accompanied by two certified bids, which I do not have and didn't have time to prepare in time for this meeting. The number that I gave Mr. Salee was based on construction of a four-foot sidewalk length of 300 feet at the unit prices that are established by the engineering department here, urban county government, for new development, unconstructed items in new development. And we didn't make that offer. But since we didn't have the certified bids, we felt like maybe we weren't following the letter of the ordinance. And Mr. Salee suggested that we defer this issue. I guess the second reason that we elected to defer was that this addition to the building doesn't cross the 25% threshold, which is mentioned in one of the previous ordinances to this. So really, on this particular plan, with this particular addition, there is no requirement for sidewalk. That said, the complications of the sidewalk are great. It's not just laying a four-foot sidewalk on the dirt. We have to have an encroachment permit from the state. We're working in the state right away. It's not our property. There are two drainage ways that have to be crossed. They'll have to be culverts constructed. It's a major road, traffic control. I mean, it's a big deal to do this at this time. I guess my question is, and I've asked this and I really haven't gotten a good answer yet, is the portion of sidewalk that is constructed on Richmond Road now is in the state right of way. It's my understanding that urban county government built it. Why did they stop where they stopped? I don't know. Nobody can tell me. It's my understanding, this fund was established to make these improvements along Bridgman Road. Evidently, there's been a bike lane striped. I have some photographs, if you care to see those, but they're not showing up very well. But this is the frontage of James Motors looking back toward the water company. And you can clearly see there's a bike lane, which, as Mr. Sally mentioned, there is no other sidewalk until you get to Fontaine. Right about this point is where the exit ramp starts. Do you want to flip through those, Barb? And the next one, please. Next one, please. This is right in front of the dealership. Really, go to the next one, please, Barb. Next, please. Thanks. This is the ditch, or one of the ditches that we would have to cross. Next one, please. That one doesn't show up very well, but there's a really deep ditch right there that we would have to cross. You can see the ramp right now. There's no bike lane anymore. Next photo, please. Now you can see the sidewalk where it's built out under the bridge. So you can't really tell, but right there at the end, the dog legs and heads perpendicular across the ramp. So in my preliminary investigation, I had assumed we would pick up from there, cross the ditch twice, and come back across the front. It's just the 300 feet that I measured. I didn't count building the culverts or anything like that. A couple more photos. Keep going, please. One more. One more. One more. There we go. This photograph is from LFUCG website and doesn't show it very well here, but it shows the sidewalk in this photo. Can you zoom down a little tighter, please? I don't know if we can get there or not with this picture. Don't zoom anymore. Keep going, please. There you go. You can kind of see the sidewalk narrow. Right where it says ramp is where it crosses, and there's nothing from there on. Let me just flip to the next picture, please. This is from the state website, which is a little bit older, and there's nothing. So, you know, apparently the sidewalk was built, to my understanding, was built by our county government in 2008. I don't know where they got the funds, but again, I'm just curious as why did they stop there. And the sidewalk they're asking me to build is in public right away, just as that was. So I really don't feel it's our obligation to build this, but we did agree to make this contribution. So that's all I said. I'll try to answer any questions. Are there questions from commission members? Not? Thank you very much. Thank you. I don't see anyone in the audience to speak to this. Staff have any other comments? No, ma'am, not unless there are any questions from the commission. I would just point out we talked about possibly postponing this to verify the construction cost estimate, but I think the developer wants to move on with the project. Thank you. Ms. Copeland. Mr. Cruz is saying that he's under no obligation. Is he under obligation? No, he is not. The obligation is only triggered by an expansion on the property of 25 percent or more. So that's why this note is being proposed for the purpose of making sure that this matter will be considered at a later time so that we may have a future possibility of getting some sidewalks put in there. Are there other questions, commission members? If not, then I will close the hearing at this time and turn it over for discussion among the commission members and or entertain a motion. Ms. Copeland? Oh, you've already spoke. Ms. Phillips? Madam Chair, I'd like to move approval of DP 2011-18 with the however many conditions there are, 12 conditions, including the final condition which speaks to the sidewalks, sidewalk issue being reviewed at the time the final development plan is submitted for lot two. I have a motion by Ms. Phillips. Do I hear a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded, seconded by Mr. Owens for DP 2011-18, James Motor Company. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. We will now move to the zoning items for today, and I'll give the staff an opportunity to set up. The commission will take a five-minute recess. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Are you brokering people's purchases? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All the meeting back to order, please. Sweet. I believe you're next on the agenda. Good afternoon, Chairperson Richardson, members of the Commission. Our next item on today's agenda can be found on page 4. It's item 1A, MARV 2011-5. This is a request by FIDE LLC. and it is behind tab 2 in your notebook. I'll also point out that we've distributed a blue sheet of paper with a revision to the conditional zoning restrictions that I will address as we get into the presentation. This is a zone change request from a professional office, P1 zone to a high-rise apartment R5 zone for property at 407 Marquee Avenue. Marquis Avenue is a relatively short local street that connects to Euclid Avenue, and Euclid is to the north here. Marquis stubs into the University of Kentucky property and is one of the border residential streets between Columbia Heights neighborhood and the Hollywood neighborhood. The existing building on the site was the former location of the Fugazi Business College, and that was the P1 zone was allowed for that use. Since the Fugazi Business College rezoned the property in 1964, it has changed hands several times, and most recently was a school for academic instruction, the St. Peter St. Paul Middle School, temporarily use the building while they re-renovated downtown. In the vicinity of the subject property, there's professional office zoning along Euclid Avenue that does come across Macaw's Alley and front onto Marquee. There are also two parcels across Marquee Avenue that are zoned P1. Also in the vicinity is the Kroger store that fronts onto Euclid. It's a B1 zone. A majority of the property in the area is zoned R1E, which is the single-family residential zone. And then there is some, actually two lots that are R4, which is our high-density apartment zone. Let me show you a few photographs of this area. This is our zoning map. Just an aerial of the area. You can see the Kroger store on Euclid takes a big chunk at that intersection of Euclid and Marquee. And the rest of the block between Marquee and Park Avenue are smaller professional office uses. Some of them are still residential structures that have been reused as professional offices. The subject property does have a two, well, three-story building that's a basement walk down and two stories above. and then adjacent to it along McCaw's Alley is a small two-story professional office building as well. To the southwest is a townhouse development in an R4 zone. And we'll look at some of these photos. This is the subject property from the street with the large significant tree in the front. This is the rear of the property. And again, you can see the small professional office building that is next to the subject property. This is from the adjacent parcel. You can see there are cars in their back parking lot which are not associated with any use because the property is currently vacant. And I'm sure the applicant has some idea who these people are but maybe doesn't want to point any fingers. In the background of this picture, you can see the townhouse development that's adjacent to R4 zone. And I would also note the dense vegetation on the right-hand side of this photo, which serves as a vegetative buffer to the single-family residential properties that front onto Park Avenue. This is the front, from the front yard of the subject parcel, looking at the townhouses, and up Marquis Avenue towards the University. From the subject property looking across the street, this is the Kroger Building. And then there are, as I mentioned earlier, three properties on the opposite side of Marquis that are zoned, one for professional office and two others for high-density residential, and they all are vacant. The comprehensive plan in this area does recommend professional service use for the property. And of course you can see from this map that that recommendation stretches along Euclid Avenue for quite a ways. Also as among Euclid as you go towards High Street it becomes more of the retail trade recommendation and all of the residential that borders the subject property is recommended for medium density residential in this location. The applicant is asking to rezone the property from P1 to an R5 zone in order to maintain the subject or the building on the property and to renovate it for 15 dwelling units with up to 30 bedrooms, which is a residential density of 39.89 dwelling units per net acre. And that falls within the definition of our very high density residential land use on the 2007 comprehensive plan. And the specific reason that the applicant is asking for an R5 rather than an R4 zone, they do both allow relatively the same uses, especially principal uses, was the existing building has a floor area ratio that exceeds what's allowed by the R4 zone. R4 allows a 0.7 FAR, and the current building has a 0.82 FAR. The applicant also, with their application, proposed a restriction for the height of the building in terms of conditional zoning restrictions. The applicant did contend that at this location the professional office use and zoning is no longer appropriate and that the R5 zoning is appropriate for this property. And they also quoted several goals and objectives from the comprehensive plan that would be furthered with the redevelopment of this property. In assessing the applicant's request, the staff had to consider the compatibility of this proposed use with the neighborhood, what impact there might be in terms of a very high-density residential use to the on-street parking, Also, what the overall character of this area was, not just the neighborhood, but with Euclid Avenue, and the close proximity this site has to the University of Kentucky, as well as transit stops and other support services. The staff did come to the conclusion that the R5 zone was more appropriate at this location than the existing P1 zone, and that was for several reasons. First, the P1 zone is no longer appropriate because the parking on this property can just barely support a school or daycare use and would not be able to support with the existing square footage of the building a general professional office or medical office clinic type use. So that has made marketing and sale of the property for a professional office very difficult and challenging. But in terms of an R5 zone, the staff did find that it was compatible with the R4 and P1 zones in the general vicinity, in the development within the general vicinity, especially the townhouse development, which is also high density in nature, and that the R5 zone with the adjacent R4 zone can act as a transition or a buffer land use between the single-family neighborhood and Euclid Avenue. In addition, the subject property has always been, or since 1964 when Fugazi Business College rezoned here, a transition between a higher density or a residential area and a commercial area. And this would maintain that transition, still higher density, but between the two intensities of uses. In addition, the subject site is less than two blocks from a transit stop on Euclid Avenue and in close walking distance to the University of Kentucky, as well as having access to a broad range of businesses and personal services for the people that would occupy this structure. And lastly, the existing building is to be retained and renovated, making the site an appropriate place for multifamily residential dwelling units. Another reason that the staff felt compelled to recommend approval of this rezoning was that it did further at least two of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically Goal 8, Objective E, and Goal 13, Objective G, that both encourage rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings, especially converting a vacant building into residential use that is compatible within the existing neighborhood. The staff made this recommendation to the zoning committee three weeks ago, and they agreed with one exception. They made their motion for approval with a change to the conditional zoning restrictions, and that appears on your agenda. Since the zoning committee three weeks ago, the staff has met or discussed with the applicant a small change to that restriction. And let me just go through that. the staff originally proposed there be no more than 15 dwelling units on the property, which was consistent with the applicant's application. Since that time, they've discussed with us the possibility of, rather than having all two-bedroom units, having a mixture of one-bedroom and two-bedroom units, and therefore still limiting the use of the property to 30 bedrooms, but possibly having up to 17 units on the property. and the staff felt that that would be appropriate as long as the parking requirements, the generation of parking, didn't increase. And we were assured that that wouldn't based on this restriction. So the staff is recommending that there be no more than 17 dwelling units and no more than 30 bedrooms at this location, that the multifamily building shall be no more than three stories or 35 feet in height, which the applicant had suggested in their application, and that there be three uses that are prohibited at this location. First, extended stay hotels, incidental retail uses, and then lastly, sorority and fraternity houses. And those restrictions are appropriate to ensure a proper proposed reuse of the existing building on the subject property won't negatively impact the existing residential in the area and or the established professional offices in the area. I'd be happy to answer any questions about this application. Are there any questions from Commission members at this point? I would note that there are several variances that have been requested, and Mr. Edmonds will present a separate report about those. Thank you. Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, at the bottom of page five of your agenda, item C, the ZDP 2011-20, the marquee building. This is the preliminary development plan that is associated with this zone change. This plan does depict the property. The property, as you are aware, is developed. Here is the existing building, 13,400 square feet, three stories. First story is slightly below grade. Here is the existing access drive back into the parking area in this area to the rear of the building. Here is the landscape buffer that Ms. Wade mentioned prior in her presentation. The plan that you see before you has been slightly revised than that which the subdivision committee saw. They have redone the parking. They've actually increased the proposed parking on site, and this is in reference to one of the variances that Mr. Emmons is going to present to you. There are several. As Ms. Wade mentioned, there is a perimeter landscape variance, the aforementioned parking variance, And then there's also an open space variance that's being requested on this property. There is, of course, an open space requirement when you have a residential development. This being a developed site, they would obviously have a great problem in meeting that requirement because nothing in front of the building line actually counts towards open space. So they have a very little bit of land that's available for them in that regard. This plan, as I stated, was reviewed by your subdivision committee and recommended for approval. You can see the conditions on your agenda. We have the standard sign-off conditions through one through six. There are several cleanup conditions. And then, most importantly, item 14 is, of course, provided you grant the variances requested that Mr. Emmons is going to go over with you very shortly. I would note that item 15, resolve the use of the southwest corner of the lot for interior landscaping. When this plan was revised and submitted, prior to that, this area was much larger. Now that they have revised their parking, they have, in fact, answered the question, what are you going to do over here? And you can see some landscaping is being proposed. So we are comfortable that item 15 can be deleted from your conditions as worded, but you might retain it so that you may denote any conditional zoning if you choose to apply the conditional zoning restrictions to this plan. Then, of course, that could substitute for the current wording of number 15. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any commission members have questions at this point? Thank you. Mr. Emerson. Thank you. Mr. Emerson. Mr. Emerson. Thank you. Presenting the – whoa, that's not the right – there's a PowerPoint presentation for the variances. We'll forget the PowerPoint presentation, and we'll go on with the presentation on the variances. Presenting the staff report on those variances, there were five variances that were requested. They are generally in three categories, variances to requested landscaping, to the minimum open space, and to the minimum required parking for the subject property. I just passed out to you the staff report which we had at the zoning committee. At that time, we are recommending approval of several of the variances and postponement of one of them. We also passed out to you the first time you've seen it today, a supplemental staff report which addresses the parking, which I'll end my presentation with. First, to address the three variants requests for the landscaping, along the southern portion of the property where it shares a border with the townhouses, there would be perimeter landscaping that would be required if this zone change were passed. and along the northern boundary with the professional office, you saw the pictures where the parking lots are connected. This would also require landscaping in through here. The applicant had also requested a variance request to any interior landscaping, as you remember from the pictures. This back area is currently completely paved. Staff is recommending withdrawal of the interior landscaping. Article 18 of the zoning ordinance already addresses that and does not require any additional interior landscaping because this is an adaptive reuse of the property. So we are recommending withdrawal of that because it's not necessary. We are recommending approval of the waivers for the variances to the landscaping on the north and the southern properties. For here, because alongside of the townhouses, whenever they put in their parking areas here, Those townhouses were built in the 90s, and they put up an adequate screen with the buffer area with the hedges and the trees, just as would be required by the applicant. Along the northern boundary of the property, along with this area, we are recommending approval because it would actually be detrimental to the subject property and the other properties because right now you can actually drive in and circulate amongst all of these three parking lots that are all built together. To put in this landscaping in through here would actually be detrimental to this property here. It would also take up space and eat into the available parking for this, which, as we all know, parking was the major issue on the subject property. They have requested a variance to the open space requirement. In the R5 zone, it requires a 20% of the total lot area. This area right in front of the building, behind the tree, and there's about a five-foot area between the sidewalk and the building, that's the only part of the existing development that would count as open space. As the staff looked at this building, there aren't any real opportunities to keep the existing building and keep the existing parking lot and put any new open space on here. So the staff is recommending approval of the requested variance on the open space from 20% down to 1%. For the parking, that was the major issue in this area. Originally, the applicant had requested a parking variance from 27 required parking spaces to 17. That's mostly because when they originally submitted the plan, they submitted a parking lot layout that met all of the current geometrics of a parking lot layout. And whenever you did that, they went from 21 existing parking spaces down to 17. The staff had recommended in our staff report that the applicant come back and restripe the area as it exists today. And in doing so, the applicant was able to provide a total of 22 parking spaces on the development plan that you have here today. And as you can see from the picture that Tracy said, you know, where the cars were parked in the parking lot anyway, it works. That's how it exists today. That's how it's existed for years. And that is how we are recommending that you approve this plan today. We are, based off of the revised development plan and staff's observations of on-street parking, which I'll go over, It's on the back page of the supplemental report. We are recommending approval of the waiver, but not for the entirety that they have asked for. We're actually recommending approval from 27 down to 20 spaces. The reason why we want 20, although they're showing 22 on the revised development plan, they're not showing a dumpster location on the subject property. There's hope that they can work at the time of the final development plan with some of the adjacent property owners to work out a good solution for the dumpsters in this area. But if they do need to place a dumpster on this area, these two parking spaces would be the logical place to put it. We do feel that 20 spaces are enough to cover at least one parking space per unit, plus a few extras for guests. And as we looked at how much available on-street parking there is on Marquee Avenue, the staff over the last three weeks, multiple staff members have gone by this area and looked at the available on-street parking. And in short, there's roughly at any given time that you go out on Marquee Avenue, there's about a dozen parking spaces that are available in the subject area. that's not subject to the permit parking. That goes from Euclid Avenue to Ashland Terrace, and it's highlighted on the picture on the graph there. That area is not controlled by the permit parking, and as we looked at it, We found that there was available on-street parking to handle the requested variance for seven parking spaces. Staff is now recommending approval of the parking variance for the reasons listed on our staff report. So, in short, we're recommending approval of one, two, four, and five, and withdrawal of the third request because it was not necessary. If you have any questions for the staff, I'd be happy to try and answer those at this time. Does anyone have any questions for Ms. Simmons? If not, thank you very much. Petitioner? Madam Chairman, I'm Rena Wiseman. I'm here for FIDE LLC, and the two members are Megan and Mark Naylor, who are seated here today, the owners of the property. I am not going to go through any of the details. I think everybody has done a good job of setting forth what we're doing with the property and the variances. And I think most of you are at the committee meeting and know the background that my clients bought this property for the school to use while they were renovating downtown. And now the school's moved and we're looking for another use for the property. We are in agreement with all of the conditional zoning restrictions that Tracy outlined. I will explain the reason that we wanted to make the 15 units 17 was to give them the flexibility to do more of the two-in-one bedrooms. So the driving, the ceiling is 27 parking spaces, and we've done this so that in any event, you're not going to have anything on this property density-wise that would generate more than 27 spaces. We are also in agreement with the variance being limited to 20 spaces, given the fact that we've been able to revise the layout. We are hoping that we can keep the extra two. If we can continue to work with the adjoining landowner for the use of the dumpster, those conversations are still going, and that would be settled at the time of final development plan. We're in agreement with the conditions on the development plan, the variants. We ask to withdraw the request for the interior landscaping since that is not necessary. And unless you have any questions, we just ask that you recommend approval of our request. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions from commission members? Ms. Copeland. Yes, this is for the owners. it's my understanding you have the property for sale. Excuse me. Yes. Thank you. I'm Mark Naylor, by the way. Okay. I will be in huge support of this proposal for zone change because it addresses a need that we need for handicapped housing. it does not bother me that you do not meet the open space requirement because right up the hill there's a beautiful park it's the first floor units here could easily be handled by motorized carts and people could live there with no car and do quite well in fact it might even work for blind people yeah it's a very walkable neighborhood Yeah, it's got 100% walkability. So I just hope that the build people, the affordable housing people, the churches, that at one time we had Christchurch apartments and the Christian church downtown had apartments. I hope that this is a small enough project that a not really big church could sponsor this kind of housing. So hopefully... I can give you my phone number in case you know. Hopefully with this commercial you will put the two together because this is a real opportunity for some of our citizens. Okay, thank you. Are there other questions or comments from the Commission? Seeing no one in the audience to comment, then I will close the hearing and open the floor for any further discussion among Commission members and I will entertain a motion. We will need three motions, the first being the zoning, the second being the variances, the third being the development plan. Ms. Beatty. I just have a question. Oh, you're going to, okay, you have a question. Yeah, I just have a question around the open space. Is this setting a precedent or is this, I guess, the norm to go from 20% to 1%? Is this typical? No, it is not typical. What the staff took into account during our review, and it's in the staff report, is the fact that, first of all, that this is an adaptive reuse and that they are proposing to keep the building. If for some reason they wanted to tear down the building and rebuild this, we don't believe that that 1% would stand. The second thing that we took into account is that one block away is Woodland Park and the opportunities that it has for open space for the area. I don't believe it sets a precedent other than adaptive reuse. Thank you. Are there other comments from commission members? Ms. Phillips? I have a question about the parking report. I love that you guys went out and gathered some data. What do the dashes indicate, though? The dashes indicate just we didn't have data on that. We had multiple staff members going out and looking for different things when we went out. And then when we put our heads together, we were trying to put it all into something that made sense for you. Team effort. Team effort, which I want to thank my colleagues very much for. And before somebody asked, I guess I could ask, was this done during spring break? We did notice that the middle week out of the three weeks was in U.K. spring break, and we only had one entry on those. We concentrated our efforts on the week before and the week after spring break. Thank you. Are there other comments? If not, we'll entertain a motion for let's start with the zoning. MRV 2011-5. Madam Chair, I move for approval of MRV 2011-5. And does that include the revised staff recommendation? That it does. Motion has been made by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Ms. Phillips. Any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. The Chair will entertain a motion regarding the five variances. Staff has recommended approval for one, two, and four, withdrawing number three, and reducing number five from 27, adding from 17 to 20 spaces in that one. Is that correct? So moved. There's been sort of a motion by Mr. Brewer, second by Ms. Beatty, for approval of the five variances for MARV 2011-5. Is there any further? And everybody's already voted. Motion carries. Sense of impatience was palpable. All right. Number three. Is there a ball game on? Madam Chair, you want me to read this one or you want to? No, you may go ahead. All right. Please. I make a motion to approve ZDP 2011-20 to Marquee Building. Motion by Mr. Brewer. Do I hear a second? Were we going to, wasn't there some discussion of deleting the current note 15 and substituting to denote conditional zoning? Is that correct? Did you want to accept that change? I want to do that. Okay. So we're deleting number 15 and inserting the conditional zoning wording. I have a motion. And a second by Ms. Beatty. Is there any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Let me vote quickly here. Motion carries. Thank you very much. We have one more item, which is the initiation of a zoning ordinance text amendment. I think we already have it. Ms. Madam Chair, this is an item that recently came to the staff's attention due to a Board of Adjustment request. In the past, we became aware that building inspection has issued occupancy permits in a B4 zone for catering, although recently they began interpreting the ordinance a little bit more strictly and only allowing it in an I1, I2, and a P2 zone because it's explicitly permitted in those. The case that was coming to the Board of Adjustment, the research that came about because of that case, identified that in the past in the B4 zone catering had been allowed. So the staff or the applicant has withdrawn their application to the Board of Adjustment and the staff feels it's appropriate to codify what has in the past been permitted and to make it explicitly clear that in a B4 zone catering would be a principal use. In the course of doing a little bit more research in the past week, catering has also been permitted by the Board of Adjustment as an accessory use to a restaurant in a B1 zone and has some similarities to commissaries. So the staff is suggesting at this point the staff text amendment to define catering in Article 1, which is on the first sheet, and then there's just some other definitions that are already in our ordinance that are somewhat similar, and then on the back side to prohibit catering and commissaries in all of our agricultural and residential zones, and then allow it as a principal use, in addition to where it's already allowed, which is I-1, I-2, and P-2, also to allow it in a B-3 and a B-4 zone as a principal use, and accessory in a B-1 zone. This text would also define what parking requirements would be necessary for commissaries or catering. That's currently not defined. This is the same requirement that shops of special trade have. So staff would just ask that the commission initiate this text amendment, and it would likely be on your hearing docket on April 28th. Ms. Copeland. I just want to clarify something. Let's say I own a truck that looks like a box truck, and the sides flip up, and I'm selling hot dogs and hot sandwiches and so forth, and I drive from farm to farm or from neighborhood to neighborhood. Is that a catering truck? That is regulated by our regular code of ordinances as a vendor, And, in fact, right now the council is in the process of doing a very extensive rewrite of our ordinances to try to tighten down the regulations of that type of business. But since it is a mobile business, it's not a land use regulation. It's going to be regulated by the regular code of ordinances. Okay. Thank you. Are there additional questions for Ms. White? I have a quick question. The prohibitions in agriculture, That raises the question about Keeneland. What zone is Keeneland in? It's a conditional use, and basically everything that is done out of Keeneland is under a conditional use permit before the Board of Adjustment. When they do expansions and such, they come in and get the conditional approval, and their catering uses and things like that are considered to be accessory to the general entertainment use. Okay, so this would not affect Keeneland? No, it would not. Are there other questions? If not, then the Chair will entertain a motion to initiate a text amendment to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to commissions and catering in the wholesale and warehouse business. Excuse me. Mr. Owen. I'm sorry. I'm tardy on this, I guess. Catering, where would wineries fall into play? Well, wineries are a permitted use in our ag zones, and they can have accessory uses for restaurants and bistros, but the intent of this would not to allow them to also have catering as a principled use, that they would be able to have caterers certainly come to their property and serve, but not to be a caterer. Okay. Thank you. I think that's kind of the Keeneland situation. The principal use is the racetrack, and they serve. Other questions? Ms. Bain? When you say that's not the intended use, I'm sort of going back to Mr. Brewer's question. Is that going to create a question for a Keeneland or a winery? I mean, is someone going to challenge that whether that's not the intended use? Ms. Bolland. This is to regulate the principal use of a caterer. I mean, we've always or at least frequently allowed an existing restaurant to do catering as accessory to its principal use as a restaurant. It's the same thing with Keeneland. As Tracy said, I mean, it is a racetrack, an entertainment facility, and any catering is accessory to that. I can't imagine that Keeneland or even the wineries would get to the point where their catering would be so extensive that it would overshadow the principal use and become principal. Certainly if that happened, if, say, a winery sold out and a business bought it, that basically that's what they did was catering from that site, that would not be allowed. But I don't think that it's going to interfere in any of our normal operations of the ag tourist use as a winery or Keeneland or any of those things, because this is only governing the principal use of a catering business. I think, Fasic, Tipton also has a similar situation. They cater at their location. I'm not even sure if they cater off-site or not, but typically it's just associated with that use. So providing food at the winery makes sense in terms of a restaurant bistro. It's really more of a restaurant use than a caterer at that point. I'm not sure that we would, but the attorney that submitted documentation for the BOA case gave us a list of all the caterers that they found in the yellow pages and then cross-referenced what zone they were in. and most of them are either in I-1, B-4, or B-1 with a restaurant. There were a few like the phasic, Tipton, and Keeneland that showed up in the AR zones, and again we assumed that those were accessory to the already allowed use there. You have to have the formal notification for zone changes and things like that. We have very strict rules on that. Do we not have to follow any other rules for this, or are we leaving ourselves open to some caterer coming later and saying, I didn't know? Well, we do notify the neighborhood associations as required by a resolution from council, but that wouldn't necessarily get specific businesses. If you'd like us to do a search and notify those businesses, we certainly can do that. I'm not asking to make work. I'm just trying to make sure that we're not opening ourselves up for litigation or something else that can invite us. Any text amendment has publication requirements within Chapter 100 of KRS, so that certainly will give the proper legal notice as far as any legal liability. And I think really generally someone looking to open a business will find a piece of property that looks good, and then they'll go to building inspection and say, is this zoned to do what I want to do? or alternatively they may go into building inspection and investigate that ahead of time, in which case obviously they're going to be told where they can do, conduct that kind of business. So I don't think that will be something we'd have to worry about litigation over. Mr. Owens. Thank you. Tracy, I like visual aspects of time, and then also Mike Cravens asked me a moment ago about a situation. I said, well, I guess I'm just nosy. Maybe it's curiosity. I'm not sure. Can you mention the BOA case that got withdrawn? Bill would probably know the applicant's name. I do not recall the applicant's name. It involved a property on Jefferson Street. It was in a B4 zone, and they appealed a decision of the Division of Building Inspection to the board. The staff concluded his research and shared that with Building Inspection. Okay. All right. Thank you. Are there other questions? If not, we again will request a motion. I'm Tara Pershing. I'll move for approval of the initiation of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment as requested. I have a motion by Mr. Owens. Do I have a second? Second. Motion is seconded by Ms. Phillips. Any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other items from commission members at this time? Any from the staff? Just as a reminder, at your last meeting, the Planning Commission did vote to cancel next week's work session. So we hope to see most of you in two weeks rather than one week. Thank you. Thank you for that reminder. and if there's no further business, do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved. Motion's made by Ms. Jones. Second? Second. Second by Mr. Cravens. Motions. We're not going to vote on that. We're adjourned. I can rule on that. Thank you.