Music And we have no minutes. Do we have any postponements or withdrawals? Alright, seeing none, we'll go right into our first hearing. I'm sorry. Good afternoon, Chairman Cravens, members of the Commission. The first item on our agenda today can be found at the bottom of page 1. It's 1A and is behind tab 1 in your notebooks today. It's MAR 2011-11. This is a request by Thompson Thrift Development Incorporated, And it's a request to rezone property at 2391 Sir Barton Way from an R3 zone, which is our planned neighborhood residential zone, to a high-density apartment R4 zone. The subject property is located at the southwest. I'm going to move this for you all, but it's on the screen as well. The southwest corner of the intersection of Old Rosebud Road, which is a local street in the Hamburg area, and Sir Barton Way, which is a collector, major collector. It is currently vacant, has been vacant since it was rezoned in 1997. It is the last residential tract that was part of a about 300-acre tract rezoning as part of Hamburg. Obviously, there was more residential that hasn't been built, but that was part of a separate rezoning at a later date. In the vicinity of the subject property, we have two very large residential developments to the west, bound by Starshoot Parkway and Ogden Way, Flying Ebony, and then Old Rosebud. Also in the vicinity, the Tuscany subdivision to the northeast, and P1 zoning to the direct north and east, which is part of the Sir Barton Office Park. In that office park you find several banks and just general office, and I think there might be a community college type facility or business college out there as well. Old Rosebud does continue into the commercial portion of Hamburg and would connect in front of Garden Ridge and continue along that frontage road in front of many of the businesses in that area. The request today is for an R4 zone, and it's not the particular use that they're interested in, but the applicant is proposing the R4 zone because the R3 zone has a .5 FAR limit on it. That's floor area ratio, and the proposed buildings, two multifamily buildings and a clubhouse, exceed the FAR allowed in an R3 zone. The two zones have exactly the same uses. They have a few different requirements in terms of yards, height, and then the floor area ratio, which is higher in the R4 zone at a .7 FAR. This is an aerial view, and you can see many of the apartments in the area are already constructed, but much of the Tuscany subdivision is yet to be completed. In addition, much of the P1 area has been built out. The applicant is proposing 150 units in their two buildings. This is just a view towards the apartments along Sir Barton Way, and I think they're more of a townhouse-type development. Trying to get the corner view of the property. This looks up Old Rosebud towards Tuscany. Across Old Rosebud from the subject property, looking at a tree that was maintained and the community trust bank. And then directly across where Old Rosebud enters the P1 area of Sir Barton Office Park. The comprehensive plan for this location does recommend high density residential land use, which is 10 to 25 dwelling units per net acre. And the applicant with the 150 units proposed on the property is proposing a density of 22.03 units per acre. The existing R3 zone would also allow that same number of units, But these units are proposed to be larger and to be taller than what would be permitted in the R3 zone. So in comparing the two zones, both would be in agreement with the comprehensive plan. The R4, on the other hand, does provide some flexibility for the applicant in terms of larger units and a taller structure. In addition, the R4 zone will allow the applicant to differentiate these units from the existing units in the area and provide more of a variety of residential housing in Hamburg in terms of the multifamily housing. So the staff does believe that this is an agreement with the comprehensive plan, both in terms of the land use element as well as meeting several of the goals and objectives. In particular, Goal 13, which encourages the provision of a variety of housing opportunities, and in particular, a variety of housing densities. And also Goal 14 and Objective F, which speaks to exceeding the minimum threshold densities as recommended by our comprehensive plan. And at 22 units per acre, this is much more on the high end of that land use category than the low end. The staff did recommend approval as well as the zoning committee for the reasons I just mentioned, the agreement with the comprehensive plan, and also subject to the approval of the development plan. I'd be happy to answer any questions about our recommendation. Any questions? Yes. How many floors are we talking about is the potential? What can you have an R4? Well, I think Jimmy will address that when he presents the development plan. Okay. Anything else? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, presenting to you ZDP 2011-63. It is located on page 2 of your agenda. You can see that the subdivision committee recommended postponement of this preliminary development plan and that there were several discussion items related to that. I'm happy to say that the applicants have given us two revisions since your subdivision committee and has addressed all of the concerns at the time of the subdivision committee. I should have passed out, I think I've passed out to everyone, a revised development plan recommendation that's recommended for approval. And if we can pull up the PowerPoint for the ZDP, we'll use that to focus in on primarily the changes since the subdivision committee. Here we go. As Tracy said, the property is located at the corner of Sir Barton and Rosebud Way. It's about seven acres of property. There are two access points on the development plan. Three, I'm sorry. There are two access points to Sir Barton and one to Old Rosebud across from an existing entrance into the commercial area. The development plan is rendered up on the board, the full development plan, the one that was the most recent submission that you are looking at today. on the PowerPoint I'm going to zoom in on the area that is being amended. To first take a look at the proposed development plan, they are proposing 150 apartment units for the subject property with a total of 246 bedrooms. Based off of their number of units in the bedrooms that are proposed, that would require 224 parking spaces. They are providing just that minimum, 224 parking spaces. There's about close to 200,000 square feet of building on the subject property, which gives you a floor area ratio of 0.66. If you remember, floor area ratio is how much building can be put on a piece of property. For the subject property, they are proposing three-story apartment buildings and a clubhouse with a pool area. You can see the clubhouse in the pool, the left-hand side of the graphic with the two apartment buildings, access to Sir Barton Way in these two points, and access to Old Rosebud Lane. With the previous plan, there were several concerns with the previous plan. One of those concerns were unsafe access. The original access points were not quite lined up with the existing median brakes. The staff was concerned about the safety of those proposed access points because they were in that magic thing where they weren't lined up, but they were still close enough that we were afraid that someone might try and make a bad decision with their vehicle. The applicant's response to that is that they have moved and shifted both of those access points to Sir Barton Way so that they're further into the vehicles. This is an acceptable solution to the Division of Planning and meeting with the Division of Traffic Engineering, and we believe that this is an approvable access scenario. Essentially, both of the access points to Sir Barton Way will now function as write-in, write-outs for the subject property. There was also concern about the floodplain. The proposed buildings on the site were shown on the previous development plan were shown inside the regulatory FEMA floodplain, which is highlighted in the dark blue on the property. They have revised the location of the buildings to pull those buildings out. The clubhouse was originally in the middle. They've now moved it over closer to the entrance across or near Floraphena Way, putting the smaller building in the area as the lotting got smaller. There is still proposed some parking that will be in the FEMA regulatory floodplain, but they've also given us some more information on the subject property related to the post-development floodplain, which is the area that is highlighted in blue on here. The post-development floodplain is developed using hydrologic analysis for the subject property. In our current regulations, this post-development – let me back up one more second. The post-development floodplain that they did was based off of a drainage study for the entire Hamburg farm, all the way from Manowar to Winchester Road. The water that will go through this comes out, majority of the water that comes out of here comes out of a little detention basin, which is not in the floodplain, under Surbarton Road through here, and will eventually work its way up into the green space that's up near the Wal-Mart and Lowe's on Winchester Road. So it's flowing north towards Winchester Road. The post-regulations require that the development be 25 feet away from both the greatest floodplain, both the regulatory and the post-development floodplain. And you can see with the revised plan, with the 25-foot building line, all of the buildings are out of the floodplain. They are proposing some garages up in this floodplain or in the 25-foot setback area. At the time of a final development plan, they'll either need to move those or go for the appropriate mechanism to ask for them to be built. We don't know yet, you know, if it were a carport. It could be part of a special permit use. If it's a garage, they might need to move it, something along that nature. But for the purposes of this preliminary development plan, the staff does not see any problem with that. And that leads us to the final development plan and the revised conditions. Based off of the latest revised plan that we have, the plan was originally postponed because there were questions about the buildings being in the regulatory floodplain. They've moved that out. The number of bedrooms had not been submitted on the previous plan, so we weren't sure if it met the minimum required parking. it does. And there was concern about the safety of the proposed access points to Sir Barton Way. The latest revised plan has dealt with that issue also. So the staff is now happy to recommend approval. You can see that we have revised the conditions to 10 conditions. The changes being number eight, resolve the conflicts between the tree preservation areas and impervious surfaces will be reviewed at the time of the final development plan. And that's simply because they were showing tree canopy to be preserved, also where they were showing parking lot. Obviously, you can't do both. That's one of those things that will just have to be worked out. On a preliminary development plan, you don't actually even show tree preservation areas. You just show the tree inventory for the subject property. We have changed number nine to say that the parking proposed impossible grading within the FEMA floodplain must be approved with a special permit use at the time of the final development plan. And I would like to point out Article 19 now, it now says that whenever your post-development floodplain is different than the FEMA regulatory floodplain, it's going to require the developers to go ahead and file a letter of map revision with FEMA so that the post-development floodplain will match up with the regulatory floodplain in the future. And then finally, condition number 10, the need for a variance or possible subdivision to permit the 20-foot building line will be reviewed at the time of the final development plan. And that's because this plan, as proposed, is a group residential project. These are three-story apartment buildings. The closest one is proposed to be just 20 feet off of Sir Barton right-of-way. In a group residential project, you have a minimum setback of 20 feet or the height of the building. These are three-story buildings. We assume that they would be around 35 feet, so that would be a greater setback. There are two possible solutions for the applicant at the time of their final development plan. They could approach the Board of Adjustment and ask for a variance to the 20-foot that is being proposed, or they could also subdivide these properties so that each of these buildings were on their separate lot. It's still controlled by a development plan, but it would no longer be a group residential project because you wouldn't have more than one principal structure on each lot. Either of those would be acceptable and they can be reviewed at the time of the final development plan, as our condition recommends. To answer your question about the height of the building, in an R4 zone, there is a height to yard ratio. However, there is a provision that as long as your buildings are 35 feet, then you can have normal setbacks. Once your buildings get above 35 feet, then the setback increases for the height of the building. I believe that I didn't open up my ordinance before I came up here because I was – but if we can – I think it's a two to one, if memory serves me correct, in the R4 zone. On the back side, toward the floodplain, it looks like an opportunity to have penthouse apartments. And so that would mean going up one more story. So you'd look out on all four sites. So I would just wonder if that would be a possibility for them. That would be a possibility, but would also require other changes to their development proposal, because if you remember, they're very close on the total amount of building that they can build on this site. They're building just under 200,000 square feet, and they've only got about 9,000 more square feet that they could build. That does give them some flexibility, but on a project of this size, it's less than 10 percent wiggle room for what they're asking for. So, yes, it would be possible for them to put a four-story. This development plan only shows a three-story building. The applicants would be able to answer whether they proposed a taller building than this or would be thinking about it at the time of a final development plan. I was thinking of a stair-step back. Oh. So you'd be two, three, four floors. That would work also. So the R4 zone would at least allow that possibility, although that's not what is being proposed today. And it's really nice to see the post-development floodplain, but this post-development floodplain is not just the extra water that we're getting from the hard surface on this lot. It's from the whole development, right? Yes, but the applicants have submitted also since our subdivision committee. they've submitted their drainage report. And as we've reviewed the micro-watersheds, if you will, just the water that is coming through here, for this reach from here, the only thing that's flowing through here is this detention basin, which has a four-inch pipe coming under here, a little bit of Sir Barton Way, essentially from Starshoot Parkway to about the median break here, and a little bit of this development on the other side. Other than that, as you come down this one, you have a controlled amount of flooding that's coming out of the existing lake that the rest of the development is built around. Once it gets to Old Rosebud Lane, I believe there's a 60-inch culvert. So you're going from a 4-inch pipe to a 60-inch culvert under the road. So I feel quite comfortable, and they have done a heck analysis for this post-development club lane. I do feel quite comfortable with the floodplain information as it's shown on the preliminary development plan. But it signifies the local capturing of water. Yes, it is. It's a very limited area. It's not like all of Hamburg is going to be coming under this pipe through Old Rosebud. Mr. Emmons, you seem very well versed. Thank you. I did my research before I came up to the microphone. That's good to be prepared. Any other questions? Ms. Phillips. When you're talking about almost 200,000 square feet, is that footprint or is that floor space within that? That's the total floor area. The coverage for this property is about 80,000 square feet. So rooftops, you have about 80,000 square feet but you've got about 200,000 square feet of actual floor area. So if they did want to increase height, that would potentially disrupt the floor area ratio, but they'd also have to come back for parking provisions as well, correct? Not necessarily, not unless they were adding dwelling units. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. In this particular instance, the dwelling units are. With respect to Marie's concern, if they added more dwelling units, they're right at the threshold for parking right now, and they would have to increase the numbers of parking spaces. And with respect to the height, you said in the R4 zone, 35 feet, and then it's double, the setback is double the height requirement? So a 40-foot building would have to be 80 feet away. No, I did the wrong. A 40-foot building would have to be 20 feet away on the side. It's not 20 plus whatever that difference between 35 and the structure height doubled? No. I'm going to have to – I'm going to have to – Okay. There we go. Thank you. That part I didn't research before I came up to the microphone. I have to do that from memory. I like playing stump the planner. It keeps me on my toes. Okay, Mr. Owens. Thank you. Jimmy, I don't think I'm going to be stumping you by any stretch of imagination. In reading the staff report, and I think you've pretty much covered it, reading the staff report there was some text or language that talked about clomers and loamers, which can get confusing and so forth. It sounds like the need for that has gone away at the present time with the shift in the building layout. Yes. The need for that has gone away with this preliminary development plan. At the time they bring in a final development plan, because the two floodplains are different, they will still have to go ahead and file a conditional letter of map revision and then follow that up with a letter of map revision. The difference between a CLOMER and a LOMER, a CLOMER, think of that as a national permit to change the floodplain. You file the CLOMER first, say how you're going to change the floodplain, why it's changing, because the map was wrong or because you're trying to physically change the floodplain. Whatever reason, a CLOMER is the national permit, if you will. And then the LOMER is the follow-up paperwork after all the work is done, after things are built. FEMA wants to know that what was built, what exists on the ground after everything is done, is the same as what you said it was going to be. So a CLOMER doesn't officially change the floodplain. It just allows the floodplain to be changed. The LOMER changes the floodplain, regulatory floodplain. I guess my question would be, are there any reason to go ahead and start that process now? It would be up to the applicants when they want to do it. At the time of the final development plan, we are going to, CLOMERS and LOMERS are going to come into our official recommendation. Those things can take some time, and so if they're in a hurry, It wouldn't be a bad thing for them to go ahead and think about this. That's just my limited experience. That's just where I'm coming from is that it may be advisable. As far as the parking spaces, it's definitely encroaching into the floodplain area, it looks like. That's okay? They are. Parking in the floodplain is allowable under our local regulations as a special permit use. But if you look at the difference between the regulatory floodplain and the post-development floodplain, there's a lot less encroachment of that parking into the floodplain than would appear on the maps today. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Jimmy. Thank you. Now it's time for the petitioners. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Mark McIntosh with HDR Engineering. We have an office here at Hamburg on Sir Barton Way. With us today is Josh Purvis with Thompson Thrift and Watermark Development. Also Trent Taylor with Thompson Thrift. and then Keefe Messenger is with HDR Engineering. We are in agreement with the staff's recommendation for the zoning request. I guess if we could, could we place the conditions for the ZDP up on the screen just so we're just clear on those 10 conditions? Fuck. He's got a copy. We're also in agreement with the ZDP and the recommendation by the staff. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. Any citizen comments? Seeing none, any, I don't guess there's any rebuttal since they agree with you. Okay. All right. All right, so we can close the hearing and turn it over to the commissioners. Any further comments about the commissioners? Seeing none, Chair, would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. I'll move for approval of Thompson Thrift Development Incorporated, MAR 2011-11, subject to the as staff recommended subject as they stated for the two reasons stated. Okay. We have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Paulson. All in favor? vote electronically. The motion carries. Thank you. I guess our next hearing. Sorry. Do the development plan. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of ZDP 2011-63 Hamburg Place Community Phase 2 with the revised staff recommendations with the now 10 conditions. Okay, we have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Second. I have a second by Mr. Paulson. Please vote. That motion carries also. Thank you. I was about to forget that. I'm sorry. MS. Good afternoon, Chairman Craven. So the next item on our agenda is at the, or toward the bottom of page 2, and is item number 1 under our Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments, and the staff report can be found behind tab 2 in your notebooks. This is ZODA 2011-6, the text amendment requested by Fortune Business Center, LLC, to amend Article 8-21 of the Zoning of the zoning ordinance in order to permit shredding, baling, and storage of paper scrap in the wholesale and warehouse zone, which is our B4 zone. Currently, this use is identified in the light industrial I1 zone and also the office, industry, and research park zone, which is our B2 zone, as principal permitted uses. since those two zones are more intense than a B4 zone, that it's considered not permitted in a B4 zone. That was as a result, that was an interpretation by the Division of Building Inspection as a result of the applicant requesting that interpretation. Building Inspection indicated that because paper shredding, bailing, and bailing regardless, first appears in the I-1 zone that regardless of whether it's associated with recycling, it was not permitted in the B-4 zone. The impetus for this requested text amendment is based on the desire of one of our local shredding companies to move from an I-1 zone to a B-4 zone within our community. And when they discovered that the B-4 zone did not permit such a use or such a move, they sought further guidance from building inspection, which advised them to meet with the Division of Planning. Upon reviewing the ordinance and the Division of Building Inspection's interpretation, the planning staff did agree and advised the applicant that they would need a text amendment in order to make them help their potential client make the move. The petitioner's justification identifies the outsourced shredding industry as one that is quite different from recycling and processing of paper and also argues that the shredding should be differentiated or separated from recycling because they are two separate uses and our ordinance considers them together. They also indicated and from our research the staff agreed that the industry related to shredding paper has grown significantly over the last 25 years and that was because of several reasons, but primarily the protection of personal information related to financial institutions and personal financial information, as well as health information and educational information. Those are really the top three, but it does spread across many industries. The staff research showed that the kind of the top three acts or federal legislation relating to this involved relating to the destruction of paper and personal information had to do with HIPAA, which is the Health Care Act, the LIBA, which is the Graham-Leach-Biley Act related to financial services, and FERPA, which had to do with education, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. So those major legislations have changed the way the shredding industry has operated and come about, and it's really not a byproduct or kind of a predecessor to recycling anymore. It's a standalone industry. The staff did visit a local facility, the facility that is interested in moving, that does paper shredding. And in that site visit, we found out that most shredding companies have both a mobile shredding operation and then an on-site shredding operation. So the mobile comes to you to shred, and the on-site is where the paper is brought to the facility to be shredded. This photo, maybe we could dim the lights a little bit. It was not the best. I had to take it through the glass since we couldn't take my phone in with me. But it does indicate, this slide just indicates kind of the process that paper goes through when it comes to a shredding facility. after getting shredded it gets baled basically and that's a photograph showing the zoom in the conveyor and baler which is the tall machine to the right and then the bailed paper as it comes out and then the empty bins much like our recycling bins or trash bins at home that have already been emptied at the facility. When we visited this particular facility, there were really two concerns that came up. First was that there was a mobile shredding unit on site actually shredding some paper outside of the enclosed building, and we were a little concerned about the noise associated with that. However, in our staff discussions, we recognized the fact that most, well, many business use the mobile shredders that come to their site and that shredding unit is operating in many different zones including less intense zones like a P1 professional office zone so that was that concern was was really alleviated by that situation and then the second concern was even before we entered the facility that the noise that might be produced by the shredding machine and the staff found that no personal protective equipment like earphones or anything were necessary for the employees at that location. And, in fact, the air dust collection system was much louder than the shredder, and even the baler was louder than the shredder. So the shredding itself isn't really a very noise-intensive use. In assessing the applicant's proposed text amendment, and I'll refer you to the agenda, The applicant proposed a new use in the B4 zone, which would show up as number 24, related to shredding, sorting, and bailing of scrap paper and storage of waste paper in a wholly enclosed building when it's located 400 feet from any residential zone. So that was the applicant's proposal. In reviewing that, the staff felt that it wasn't appropriate to put a distance from a residential zone with this particular use, primarily because the noise wasn't nearly as intense as some of our other B4 uses generate much more noise and aren't regulated in that fashion. And then in addition, the B4 zone does have some restrictions, a 100-foot distance restriction already for overhead doors, and we felt that was enough to protect residential zones related to this particular use. The staff also wanted to make a small change to the I1 zone to clarify that the shredding and baling was a B4 use and the recycling was the I-1 use. And B-4 does carry forward to our I-1 zone, but we wanted to make sure that there was a deletion from I-1 because that particular portion of the use is moving to B-4 so that there wasn't any confusion between the two. The staff is recommending approval of this text amendment and in particular the staff alternative text because for three reasons, and those are shown on your agenda, but generally that the document shredding, baling, and storage is a reasonable use in the B4 zone and actually quite similar to other B4 uses. And we recognize that the industry has changed and grown over the last 25 years and that this is a less intense use than our recycling centers in the I1 zone. And then lastly, that the goals and objectives of our 2007 comprehensive plan do support providing for greater flexibility in our commercial areas. In particular, that's goal 11, objective L. And this would provide for some greater flexibility in the B4 zone and provide for more land available for this particular use. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Okay, thank you. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Okay, thank you. All right, I don't see any. Okay. We'll close this part of the hearing and turn it over to Commissioners. There is actually an applicant on this particular ZOTA. Oh, there is? If you want to hear from them. Do you hear? Good afternoon. Mike Moyzer on behalf of the applicant. I also have here, if you do have any questions about the actual operation, Eric Caldwell, Aldwell, who is the manager of CENTAS document management here in Lexington. The staff has done a very good job of describing the type of operation. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners have any questions or comments? If not, we will take a motion. Move approval of ZOTA 2011-6, shredding, baling, and storage of paper scrap in the B-4 zone with the staff recommended changes of alternative text for the three reasons outlined. All right. Thank you. Patrick Brewer, second. Vote electronically. That motion carries. Okay. Next. Our next item is ZODA 2011-7, and this is on page four of your agenda. I'm sorry, the bottom of page three and then the top of page four. And it's number two and behind tab three in your notebook you can find the staff report. This is a text amendment that was initiated by the Planning Commission to update several references to property maintenance codes for properties that are located on our courthouse area design overlay zone, and also to amend the frequency of required meetings with code enforcement officials from a quarterly to an annual basis. The text amendment was requested by the Courthouse Area Design Review Board, and that was at the recommendation of the code enforcement staff and the fire and emergency services staff. In particular, code enforcement, the references in the ordinance today talk about a BOCA property maintenance code, and code enforcement actually uses the International Maintenance Code, the 1998 edition and this so that the difference between those two I guess is quite significant and for consistency sake code enforcement asks that this text amendment occur. There are newer or more recent editions of this particular code but the Division of Code Enforcement does prefer the 1998 edition and there were two examples that they gave the staff. In In particular, it addresses nuisance issues such as overgrowth in yards that are not addressed in the newer codes. And secondly, it addresses dwelling unit occupancy and provides for a minimum occupancy requirement related to habitable square footage. And that again is also not in the newer codes. rationale for fewer meetings between the Board and or the staff for the Board and the code enforcement officials is quite simply the fact that there aren't very many violations and not enough in particular to justify quarterly meetings. And in fact, their staff, Billy Van Pelt, meets with code enforcement or fire and emergency services as necessary anyway. So the staff recommends approval of these two small changes to the text of Article 27-8, and there are just two reasons listed on your agenda. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Any questions, Ms. White? Yes, Lynn. Lynn White- I have a question for Ms. Bolin. Ms. Sure. Lynn White- Let's say that there is a problem with code enforcement in the courthouse area. area, then what happens then? You mean with respect to building code requirements? Well. I mean, you say code enforcement, they don't enforce the zoning ordinance, they enforce the building code. Okay. Yes. Well, it goes through their standard code enforcement process. They would be cited for violation. If they do not repair it, they would go through the citation process. A lien could be put on their property. code enforcement lien with respect to anything we had to go in and do. I have been only peripherally involved in the code enforcement process. So this has never been used downtown before? I guess to clarify, the change relates to just how often code enforcement has to report to the Courthouse Overlay Design Review Board. Code enforcement operates... There will be no change in enforcement in the way everything is done. It's just that they will only be required to report annually. And meet with the design review officer. And there's no longer a BOCA. It's ICC now. Tracy, this amendment was put forward by Division of Code Enforcement. Did the Courthouse Design Review Board ever bridge the gap that was found with respect to CenterPoint and the stay on a demolition permit? Yes, we actually, the Planning Commission acted on, I don't know the exact date, but ZODA 2009-5 in 2009. So that was taken care of? I have written down issuance of permits prior to Planning Commission review for appeal. So we did have a separate text amendment related to that. Thank you. Thank you. Tracy, I've got one question, and maybe I'm just reading this wrong. At the top of our agenda, at the top of page four, it continues with officials can compile and forward to the board and to the courthouse area design review board. Who are we referring to as to the board? Off page four, the first line. The design review officer shall consult with the appropriate enforcement officers and compile the report. And that's Mr. Van Pelt currently. Is that your question? On the agenda that I've got here, it's right at the very top of page four. State's officials and compile and forward to the board and the courthouse area design review board. Who's the first board is what I'm asking. I think it's the same board. Okay. Okay. It could be a typo or either in the ordinance or on our agenda. I can, if you wait a minute, I can check our ordinances to make sure. It does appear to be a duplication, and if the Planning Commission wants to strike part of that, we can do that. Yeah. So the sentence would read or does read, to accomplish lists, the design review officer shall quarterly consult, this is current, with appropriate enforcement officials and compile them forward to the Board and the Courthouse Area Design Review Board a list of those properties. I would just suggest striking forward the courthouse area. We can either use the short or the long. Most of the rest of the ordinance, this section of the ordinance refers to it as the board because it's all related to the courthouse review board. Thank you. All right. Anything else? Do you have something, Ms. Copeland? Ms. Tracy? Yes. Are they supposed to be reporting quarterly or annually? If we approve this, which way is it going to be? Annually. I read quarterly because I was reading the existing ordinance. Okay. All right. All right. Do you want to see a version of that on the screen with the strike through? No? Yeah. Okay. They're going to report annually. Okay. All right. Anything else? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion of approval. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of 2011-7 based on the recommendation of the staff and with the change on top of page 4, eliminating the board and. If I can make a suggestion throughout that article, the board is referred to. We were just checking, Mr. Selle and I, the board is referred to just as the board instead of the longer form. So to make it consistent throughout the article, I had struck in my copy and the Courthouse Area Design Review Board. That way it's consistently referred to within that article. As confirmed. All right. I thought that's what you meant. All right. So we have a motion and a second by Ms. Phillips. All in favor, vote when you can. That motion passes. Thank you. Okay. I think that concludes the public hearing portion of your day. That concludes the public hearings. Good. And now we're on to commission items. Comprehensive plan. That's my cue to leave. Yeah, I see Mr. Duncan waiting eagerly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our goal this afternoon is to finalize the draft of the goals and objectives that we worked on last week at your work session and to also set a public hearing date at which time you will take public testimony, public statements about the goals and objectives. And we have recommended that that date be August the 25th. to help us along Mr. Chair I believe everyone should have received earlier this week by email a revised version of the goals and objectives that this planning commission marked up last week at its work session noting the changes that you all made and then we're also passing out a hard copy of the same thing that we emailed to you earlier this week if there are any questions about the changes or if those who weren't here last week have any questions about the process that took us to this point I'd be glad to address those. And anything else related to what will happen with the public hearing itself. Okay. Do we have any questions? Any comments? Okay. Looks like they're pretty happy with what we see here. I guess we need to, since we couldn't vote on it last week, We need to vote to schedule a public hearing, and you're recommending August 25th. We talked about that last week, Mr. Chair, and that seemed to be agreeable to everyone who was here. We would do that similar to what we're doing right here. We'd hold it at the end of the zoning meeting on August 25th. All right. So can we get a motion for that? Mr. Wilson moved that the public hearing be held August 25th. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second by Mr. Paulson. All in favor, vote when you can. There you go. And that motion carries. Good. Mr. Chair, we'll take about it at this point to get this publicized. We'll put the updated version on the website, and we'll also notify our contacts list, to place an appropriate ad in the newspaper and try to spread the word and get people to come out for our August 25th public hearing. Very good. Thank you very much. Thanks. Okay. Okay. Next we have an addendum to our agenda. Selection of officers. and I guess we need to get a report from the nominating committee, Mr. Paulson. Mr. Chairman, I had a question about this before we get into the nomination. Sure. What is our deadline for doing this? There really is not a deadline, but the bylaws set forth is that the election shall be held every January. ordinarily, and it just says vacancies in office shall be filled immediately by nominations from the floor, and the candidate receiving the majority of votes will take office at the close of the meeting. So it does not set any deadline for filling a position that may become vacant. It just indicates that once the vote's taken place, they simply take office at that point. Okay, and can the discussion be done in a closed session as opposed to on the air? No. This has to be an open... Not the vote. I'm not talking about the vote. I'm talking about discussion. Is there anything that prohibits us from having conversations about this? Yes, as a quorum. This has to be subject to all the open meetings provisions. Yes. I have not voted by my computer screen on anything. there's been a ghost voting for me. And I've been very agreeable with what the ghost said. But I just want to let Stephanie know that I'm unable to vote. But thank you. The ghost did okay. We had trouble with that screen last week, didn't we? Is that going to work for her? I'm sorry Thank you. Would you like to move to another monitor, Ms. Copeland? All right, so you're getting your vote by proxy, I guess. Okay, let's get back on the agenda. Mr. Paulson. All right. The nominating committee met this afternoon at Portofino's for lunch. It was a nice lunch. And without really knowing a whole lot about it, we worked through it today and came up with a, I guess, a slate that we have nominated for, I guess, approval, of which the chair would be Mike Cravens, the vice chair would be Mike Owens, the secretary would be Lynn Roche-Phillips, and the parliamentarian would be Patrick Brewer. Okay, thank you. At this time, I guess we can take, if there are any nominations from the floor. All right. Seeing none, we need a motion to adopt the report. As a committee member, can I move approval of the nominations of Mike Cravens as chair, Mike Owens as vice chair, Lynn Phillips as secretary, and Patrick Brewer as parliamentarian. You may, yeah. There should be. Do we have a second? Second. I have a second by Mr. Paulson. Okay. I just wondered, did the nominating committee have a chance to talk to anybody on the slate? For instance, I never got a call asking if I'd be interested in being secretary. No, we didn't, but we did discuss how to go about getting input, because I thought this process was a little expedient without having input from committee members. And I think several of you know that there had been several e-mails shared trying to find out the process, trying to review bylaws, trying to find out what we could and could not do. And I think Brewer's earlier question addressed some of that, whether or not we could actually have a closed session where we could find out people's schedules, their willingness, et cetera. So, yes, we discussed that. But – MR. Okay. Do you not want to – do you want to be – remain on the slate? MS. I just wondered if someone had talked to Mike or, you know, Patrick about being a parliamentarian, and you had expressed your interest in being chair a couple of weeks ago when you appointed the committee. But it's just – the protocol had been in years past to, you know, canvass people on the phone to make sure that the rest of the commission was on board with the slate? Well, I've served on it in the past, and we handled it at a lunch meeting similar to that. And generally, people will accept an appointment by the nominating committee. And obviously if anybody wants to remove themselves from the slate, they may. What's the duration? This expires in January. Admittedly, that was one of our issues. We were trying to figure out who had time. We were kind of casting. And there was only two vacancies. But as things went, there became four vacancies. So we were trying to figure it out. And it is one of those things. That's why, I mean, Bill knows I've been emailing Bill quite a bit this week, trying to figure out exactly what we're doing and how it works. So we were, I told Bill I called us the three blind mice, trying to figure out exactly what we were doing and how it would work. And that was one of the things we were trying to figure out exactly the process. And when we are not sure, we went with the best we could, thinking that if you didn't want to do it, didn't have the time, you could decline here. And then on the floor, knowing there were nominations, we could nominate on the floor if people chose not to do it. Or didn't have time. Well, we have a motion on the floor to vote for this slate. I guess you could amend. There's already a motion on the floor for this slate. Mr. Wilson. Do you understand this slate is only good until January? That's right. But this is just to start all over again. We do. We have our annual elections every January. You appoint a nominated committee in December, and then we vote first meeting in January. This is just to fill Ms. Carolyn Richardson's term and Mr. Ed Holmes' term. We need to probably get this to where we vote on it in July, every July. We've worked on that in the bylaws and for some reason they can get there. Because this happens. I mean, somebody turns out and then you, you know, we've got to have two elections a year. And so probably we ought to work on that. Any other comments? I'll make the comment that this to me is something that involves discussion in perhaps frank terms that, in my opinion, don't really need to be publicized. So I'd like to at some point have a discussion about how if that has to change law, we're not going to do it, obviously. But elections, there's a lot of discussions that go on related to who's to be nominated. And in this case, we had three people who had voiced already their concern that they didn't know the process. I didn't either, quite frankly. But I think it's a bit of overkill to have this type of discussion public. That would require a change of the Open Meetings Act in Frankfort. That is state law. Okay. Anything else? I would like to say I do appreciate the response back from both the legal and staff and giving us the guidance that we needed to proceed. All right. Okay. Well, we have a motion and a second to adopt this slate, so I guess we're ready to vote. All right, vote when you can. That motion carries. So the slate will be adopted for six months. Okay. Anything else? Mr. Chairman, the no staff items, just a reminder that your committees meet next week, the subdivision committee in the morning and the zoning committee in the afternoon over at the Phoenix building. Okay. Thank you. Yes. I just want clarification, since we will be going through this in the next six months. Did I understand that as long as there is not a quorum, we can talk amongst ourselves when we are nominating or seeking someone for nomination? The only thing which is considered a formal meeting is if there is a quorum of the commission, or obviously when you have your standing committees, your subdivision committee, your zoning committee, those committee meetings have to be open meetings. but for less than a quorum of the commission to get together and discuss something that's not considered to be a formal meeting. Then why couldn't we have done that for this discussion prior to the vote? Because there's a quorum of commission members here, and that constitutes a public meeting. Carla? Isn't it also illegal to subdivide ourselves in such a way to avoid the open meetings law? I mean, if we decided, well, let's break up into a group of three and a group of four to avoid the open meetings law, that's a violation. Yeah, I mean, I think definitely if it's for the purpose of avoiding the open meetings law. There are only carved out, I believe it's basically two exceptions to the open meetings law. That's discussion of the acquisition of property and discussion of personnel matters. We're talking employee personnel matters. And if something does not fall within those exceptions, yes, if you met for, well, you know, let's us four get over here and get together and the three of you get over there and get together and then we'll report to each other and that way we avoid it. Yeah, assuming that could be proven and that was your intent, that would absolutely, again, violate the open meetings law. All right. Anything else? So can we have a motion to adjourn? The commission stands adjourned. The love that ever comes to the night, I'll always remember.