# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - January 26, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 26, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2367 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2367?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-01-26 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 10,512 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on January 26, 2012, at 1:31 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Derek Paulsen presided over the meeting, which included four agenda items and resulted in four motions and votes. The Commission heard one public comment during the meeting. All four agenda items were approved. These included the RML Construction Zoning Map Amendment and The Glen at Lochdale, Unit 4 (AMD.) Zoning Development Plan; ZOTA 2012-1 regarding Canopy Signs in the P1 Zone; ZOTA 2012-2 Amendment to Article 29 for ND1 Overlay Zone; and a Consent Agenda item. ## Attendance **Present:** Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Patrick Brewer, Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Mike Owens, Derek Paulsen, Frank Penn, and Lynn Roche-Phillips. **Absent:** William Wilson. **Late:** Patrick Brewer and Lynn Roche-Phillips. ## Votes and Decisions Four motions were voted on and passed during the meeting. **MAR 2012-1: Zoning Map Amendment** [timestamp: 01:54:41] A zoning map amendment to change the designation from B-1 to R-4 for property at 3600 & 3652 Winthrop Drive was motioned by Mr. Reynolds and seconded by Mr. Irwin. The motion passed by voice vote with all ten members voting in favor: Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Patrick Brewer, Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Mike Owens, Derek Paulsen, Frank Penn, and Lynn Roche-Phillips. The amendment includes a condition to delete the conditional zoning restriction for the southern boundary buffer and replace it with a development plan note requiring evergreen plantings in groups of three or more, spaced at least 20 feet apart. **ZDP 2012-2: Final Development Plan for The Glen at Lochdale, Unit 4 (Amended)** [timestamp: 01:55:50] The final development plan for The Glen at Lochdale, Unit 4 (Amended) was motioned by Mr. Owens and seconded by Mr. Cravens. The motion passed by voice vote with all ten members voting in favor. The approval includes conditions to resolve the extent of tree protection as necessary prior to certification and to add a requirement for evergreen plantings in groups of three or more along the southern boundary, spaced at least 20 feet apart. **ZOTA 2012-1: Text Amendment for Canopy Signs in P1 Zone** [timestamp: 01:15:44] A text amendment to allow canopy signs in the P1 zone was motioned by Mr. Cravens and seconded by Mr. Brewer. The motion passed by voice vote with all ten members voting in favor. The amendment permits canopy or awning signs limited to 15% of surface area with a vertical dimension up to 5 feet, and such signs must be deducted from the wall sign allowance. **ZOTA 2012-2: Amendment to Article 29** [timestamp: 01:22:39] An amendment to Article 29 to update property maintenance code references and reporting frequency was motioned by Ms. Blanton and seconded by Mr. Burke. The motion passed by voice vote with all ten members voting in favor. The amendment updates the reference to the International Property Maintenance Code, 1998 edition, and changes reporting from quarterly to annual. ## Public Comment [timestamp: 01:49:14] Lisa Rogers, a trustee at Anchor Baptist Church, addressed the board regarding safety and traffic concerns related to a retention pond and proposed development in the area. Rogers expressed concerns about safety hazards associated with the retention pond and noted that increased traffic from the proposed development and Trinity Christian Academy would compound existing traffic issues affecting the church. Rogers recommended that warning signs be posted in connection with the retention pond to address safety concerns. She also highlighted that Anchor Baptist Church experiences heavy traffic on Sundays and Wednesdays, indicating that additional traffic from the development would impact the church's operations and the surrounding area. ## Contested Items **Retention Pond Safety and Liability** Commissioner Penn raised concerns about the safety and liability implications of the proposed retention pond. Specifically, he questioned the wisdom of a property owner accepting liability for a retention pond, expressing concern about potential drowning incidents and the associated legal risks. The petitioner and staff responded by clarifying that liability for the pond rests with the property owner. They emphasized that accepting such risk is an individual decision that must be weighed against the benefits of creating an amenity on the property. The discussion reflected differing perspectives on risk tolerance, though the matter was ultimately resolved through this explanation of liability responsibility. **Southern Boundary Landscaping and View Rights** A split vote occurred regarding landscaping requirements on the southern boundary of the property. The petitioner requested removal of a conditional zoning restriction that mandated evergreen trees planted every 10 feet on center. This restriction had been intended to preserve views of the retention pond from neighboring properties. The Commission reached a compromise by replacing the rigid planting requirement with a development plan note that allows more flexible landscaping arrangements. Under the new approach, trees may be planted in groups of three, spaced at least 20 feet apart. This modification balanced two competing interests: maintaining neighborhood views of the retention pond while still providing environmental screening through strategic tree placement. The revised standard offered greater flexibility for the property owner while preserving the visual and environmental benefits that the original restriction sought to achieve. ## RML Construction Zoning Map Amendment & The Glen at Lochdale, Unit 4 (AMD.) Zoning Development Plan The Planning Commission considered a zoning map amendment and development plan for a 14.78 net acre property located at 3600 & 3652 Winthrop Drive. The proposal sought to rezone the land from B-1 (Business) to R-4 (Residential) zoning classification. **Presenters and Key Participants** The discussion involved Planning Commission members Traci Wade, Tom Martin, Rena Wiseman, Rory Kahly, and Tim Queary. **Proposal Details** The zoning map amendment would allow for residential development at the proposed density of 17.05 dwelling units per net acre. The project, known as The Glen at Lochdale, Unit 4, included a development plan component addressing site design and improvements. **Staff Recommendation** Both the Planning staff and the Zoning Committee recommended approval of the amendment. Their recommendation was based on the proposal's alignment with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan for the area. **Commission Action** The Planning Commission approved the zoning map amendment. However, the Commission made modifications to the conditions originally proposed. Specifically, the Commission replaced a conditional zoning restriction with a development plan note regarding evergreen plantings on the property. **Outcome** The amendment was approved with the revised conditions in place. [timestamp: 01:08:47] ## ZOTA 2012-1 Canopy Signs in the P1 Zone [timestamp: 01:56:25] The Commission reviewed a text amendment to modify signage regulations in the P1 zone by allowing canopy signs, which are currently prohibited in that district. **Staff Proposal** Staff presented a revised text amendment that would permit canopy signs in the P1 zone under specific conditions: - Canopy signs limited to 15% of the surface area - Maximum vertical dimension of 5 feet - Canopy sign allowances must be deducted from wall sign allowances **Commission Action** Key speakers Traci Wade and Dick Murphy participated in the discussion. The applicant agreed to accept the staff's alternative proposal without further modifications. **Outcome** The Commission approved the amendment to allow canopy signs in the P1 zone subject to the dimensional and area restrictions outlined in the staff's revised text. ## ZOTA 2012-2 Amendment to Article 29 for ND1 Overlay Zone [timestamp: 01:16:14] The Commission considered a text amendment to update references in the ND1 overlay zone regulations. Traci Wade presented the item. **Amendment Details** The amendment addressed outdated references to the BOCA property maintenance code within Article 29 governing the ND1 overlay zone. The update replaced these references with the International Property Maintenance Code, 1998 edition, bringing the regulations into alignment with current standards. **Reporting Changes** In addition to updating code references, the amendment modified reporting requirements for code enforcement activities. The previous quarterly reporting schedule was changed to an annual reporting cycle. Under the new framework, the Division of Code Enforcement will provide an annual summary of code violations occurring within the ND1 overlay zone. **Outcome** The Commission approved the amendment. ## Consent Agenda: N items approved [timestamp: 01:00:00] The Commission approved meeting minutes from three previous sessions during the consent agenda portion of the meeting. The minutes under consideration were from the December 8, 2011; December 15, 2011; and January 12, 2012 meetings. Eunice Beatty and Mike Owens were the key speakers on this agenda item. The Commission voted to approve all minutes by voice vote, with a result of 8-0 in favor of approval. The consent agenda item was approved. --- ## Decisions - **MAR 2012-1** — passed: Zoning map amendment from B-1 to R-4 for property at 3600 & 3652 Winthrop Drive - **ZDP 2012-2** — passed: Final development plan for The Glen at Lochdale, Unit 4 (Amended) - **ZOTA 2012-1** — passed: Text amendment to allow canopy signs in P1 zone - **ZOTA 2012-2** — passed: Amendment to Article 29 to update property maintenance code references and reporting frequency --- ## Full transcript One who keeps tearing around, and one who can't remove But where are the clowns? Send in the clowns Just when I stopped opening doors Finally finding the one that I wanted was yours Making my entrance again with my usual flair Sure of my lines Nobody's there Don't you love the farce My fault I fear I thought that you'd want what I want What I want, sorry, my dear But where are the clowns? Send in the clowns Don't bother, they're here Thank you. Second. Second. All right. When it comes up, we will vote. Looks as though it has passed. Can you not log in? I think they're coming. All right. Do we have any? Hi. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have any postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none. We'll go to zoning items. Do we have any abbreviated zoning items? Mr. Chairman, we only have one zoning item, and we'll be prepared to present to you in just a moment. Judging from the size of the crowd, I'm not sure it'll be terribly long. Is there anyone that would like to speak to this? Is there anyone present who would wish to address the proposed zone change at 3,600 and 3,652 Winthrop Drive? Anyone wish to speak to that issue today? Okay. Seeing none, we can have an abbreviated hearing on this. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Paulson, members of the Commission. Our first item today is MAR 2012-1. It is at the bottom of page 1 of your agenda, continues on to page 2, and can be found behind tab 1 in the Planning Commission's notebooks. This is a request for a zone change from a neighborhood business B1 zone to a high-density apartment R4 zone for property located at 3,600 and 3,652 Winthrop Drive. This is approximately 15 acres of property, and it's located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Winthrop Drive and Manowar Boulevard. Other uses in the vicinity of this property include Anchor Baptist Church, just to the west. Single-family residential to the southwest and to the north across Manowar Boulevard, as well as some fourplex and multifamily townhouse development to the east and to the south along Golden Trophy Trail. As you can see, it is completely surrounded by residential zoning. Most of it is R3 in this dark brown, and then R4 and R1D to the north. The subject properties are currently zoned B1, and other uses within the vicinity include more residential, the Mill Pond Shopping Center further to the west, as well as the mall further to the east and north. Winthrop Drive is a collector street, and it continues down to Jessamine County and is constructed to meet Jessamine County line, but it also continues to the south across Manor Boulevard. Just forward through that one. An aerial photograph of the property does show from last year that it is vacant, currently also vacant, with the exception of the retention pond in the south portion of the two properties. It has remained vacant since being rezoned in 1996 for agriculture. At that time, these two parcels were part of a larger zone change from AU to R4, the current proposal of R4 as well. It was rezoned at that time. In 2007, a previous applicant brought these two parcels in and proposed to rezone again these properties from the R4 zone to a B1 zone. In the four years since that rezoning occurred, the property has not developed. At that time, there was a mixed-use concept planned for the property. since that time. The bank is now the owner of the property, or a bank, and it has not developed, as you can see from the aerial photograph. It's just another aerial showing some of the surrounding residential land uses. The applicant is proposing to develop the property with multifamily housing with 252 dwelling units including 444 bedrooms on the site with a clubhouse and parking to facilitate the use the 2007 comprehensive plan at this location does recommend a high density residential land use the plan defines that as 10 to 25 dwelling units per net acre currently the properties are proposed for a development at a density of 17.05 dwelling units per net acre, so that does fall within the range suggested by the comprehensive plan. Currently, the zoning of the property also includes a conditional zoning restriction to require some screening and buffering along the southern portion of the southern property line where the retention basin adjoins existing residential development. The staff believes that that conditional zoning restriction would still be appropriate at this location to provide some screening of the higher density residential from the four plexus along Golden Trophy Trail. The staff and the zoning committee have recommended approval of this request because it is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. It falls within the density recommended by the high density residential recommendation. This recommendation is made subject to approval of the associated development plan. And again, the staff recommends a conditional zoning restriction for the property because it's appropriate and necessary to provide a natural screening buffer along the retention basin to buffer the retention basin from the less intense residential development. And the wording of that would be as follows. There shall be planted and maintained along the southern boundary of the retention basin, located on the subject property, an 8-foot evergreen tree, and then those would be planted staggered 10 feet on center. Happy to answer any questions about the zoning proposed for this location. Anyone have any questions? Yes. How does your man? Tracy, if this was rezoned four years ago, is that what you said? Yes, sir. So it was contrary to the comp plan four years ago when it was rezoned business, right? Actually, the Planning Commission and the staff recommended disapproval because we found that it was not in agreement with the comprehensive plan. However, the Urban County Council found that it was in agreement with the comprehensive plan, not based strictly on the land use map but on other elements of the plan, goals and objectives, and an implementation section of the plan. So it was the Planning Commission's recommendation to keep it in residential? Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the final development plan that is associated with this zone change is on page 2 of your agenda. However, you will find at your seats a blue sheet with revised conditions. This is the plan, and you can see that it is oriented as the zoning map was with Man of War here to the north, Wintup Drive. This is the area of the detention basin that currently exists. here are the on the plan you can see there are nine buildings associated with this development plan oriented along the perimeter and within the interior these two you can see the associated parking there are 450 parking spaces that is the required amount that is what they are providing we have a clubhouse here a pool the property the total square footage these buildings are three stories in height is a little over 450,000 square feet. The lot coverage itself, which is the footprint that you see, is 160,000 square feet. Staff, in reviewing this and with your revised condition, is recommending approval subject to your standard sign-off conditions. We do have a couple of cleanup conditions remaining. We'd like for them to denote the height of the clubhouse. We're sure this is just an oversight and site statistics. These are three stories and they're 38 feet tall. The clubhouse, we're sure, is one story. It's probably considerably less than 38 feet, but they just need to denote that height. We also have a condition that they add this kiosk mail area to their square footage and their lot coverage. This counts if it's a building. If it's not, it won't count, but we need to know, and that needs to be included in their statistics. They do have room to do that in the numbers. We do have a final condition that you see asking for a resolution of the tree protection area that you can see here. This was an area of concern for the staff. We would like to have it resolved to see if there's any need for additional protection in this area. You can see they've indicated existing tree canopy, but we really need to clarify the information being presented just to see if there's anything worthy of being protected in this area. And it's just really that's the reason for our concern is clarification along those lines. We are aware that they've met with the forester and that they've been looking at the site, and staff would like to work with the applicant and the forester to be sure that this is, in fact, adequate protection. Because this is, as you've seen in the pictures, a very heavily wooded area, particularly through here. And again, this is an old fence row with an area. There is a utility easement here that will conflict with trees. It is preexisting. It was established on a plat quite a few years ago. But again, as I stated, staff is recommending approval of this plan. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Ms. Copeland? Yes, Mr. Martin, does the sidewalk go down past the retention basin? Yes, ma'am. On the exterior, in the public sidewalk? Uh-huh. Yes, ma'am. This transitions, Winthrop does, to a collector width of 60 feet with full improvements. It's wider up in here, but it does transition across the property down here to 60 feet, and there are sidewalks in the area. And that was one reason you may recall our discussion, which they've addressed, is they've clearly shown sidewalks connecting the property to the right-of-way. All right, but I see a sidewalk coming down from Manowar Boulevard. I don't see it. Is it there on the plan down by the lake or the pond? It's presented here on this cross-section, this one, and this one as well. And this is A, B, and C, the cross-sections as they transition. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Penn? Tom, is that retention pond just for that property, or is there other property using it also? I'll have to refer that question. It was built. It's in use. So I hate to make assumptions. I would think it's serving properties. But they'll have to answer that. I'm not sure to the extent. I guess my question is this. Did they build a retention pond for commercial, and we're going back to residential? Is that a plus or a minus for that retention pond? It is our understanding there will be modifications to that area made, and it will have to meet the requirements for the development. My second question is on the easement that you talked about has to be reconciled. Is that an existing easement that's in use? You tell the easement. Yes, sir. It is an existing utility easement. It's been there for quite some time. So how do you rectify this? They will have to do the best they can to protect the trees, but now any utility work that happens in that easement will unfortunately take precedence. Mr. Owens? Thank you. Tom, as far as, I guess the proper term would be floor area ratio on this, it was mentioned 160,000 square feet of footprint with 450,000, just over 450,000 square feet. Where does that fall density-wise with what would be allowed open space-wise, floor area-wise, and so forth? They're within the limits. They're pushing up to the upper range of the limits. They are pushing up? They are pushing. Okay. I was just curious, since it was shown as 17 dwellings per net acre and what was allowed was up to 25, I was wondering floor area-wise where we were. Thank you. Mr. Owens, if I can follow up on your question, the lot coverage is the key statistic of the three that is closest to the maximum. That's why we have the kiosk condition. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Thank you. Thank you. Petitioner? Good afternoon. Thank you, members of the Commission. I'm Rena Wiseman. I'm here today for RML Construction. One of the members of that LLP, Ray Ball, is here, as well as Rory Caley of EA Partners. We'll be very brief and will answer any questions that you have. I think, as Tracy has said, this is a property that was rezoned to be one, and according to this commission in violation of the 2007 comprehensive plan, and we're basically taking it back to what the zoning was before. It's also relevant that when you turn this down in 2007, you also found that the R4 zoning was appropriate. So not only are we complying with the same comprehensive plan, we're bringing it back to a zone that is appropriate. When When it was originally zoned R4 in 1996, about the same density was suggested for this property. We were showing 252 beds, and I believe they proposed something on the lines of 240. So we're getting back to what was shown originally in 1996. I told Tracy Wade, this is the I told you so zone change. Again, this is a different owner, a different applicant other than RML. It is owned by the bank, and our negotiations are with the bank, which is why we're under some time constraints, and that's why I want to make a couple of points about the development plan. Normally, we would not make this a final development plan because of the two-week sign-off window, but because of our contractual restraints with the bank, we're making this a final development plan so that we can go forward and close with the bank under our contract. Rory Kaley has been working with all the various divisions, and we have gotten most of the sign-offs at this point. I did want to mention with regard to this new condition, 11, that we received this morning about the trees that Tom talked about. What we need to, we'd like to modify that slightly. The trees in that area will have to be, there's a lot of scrub trees. that will have to be cleaned out because, as you heard, we're going to have to go in and improve that detention basin. So there will be, to the extent there are healthy big trees in that area, we would work to preserve them. But our concern is that if we have something in here that suggests that this might be a tree protection area, that would tie our hands with going in and improving that detention basin. So we would like to, if we could resolve that today, just that we would commit to preserve the existing healthy trees. We will meet the tree canopy elsewhere on the property. It's not necessary to include this area. But our concern is that in the two weeks, if we were to impasse and there's an insistence this be a tree protection area in its entirety, that's going to prevent us from cleaning up the detention basin. Mr. Query has been out of the property. He's already signed off on it and had not identified this as a formal tree protection area. So that doesn't mean we won't be protecting the significant trees, but want to have the ability to go in there and do the work. So if we could modify that healthy big trees in that location along that boundary will be preserved, then that would be satisfactory. One other thing, we're in agreement with the findings on the zoning, but with respect to the conditional zoning restriction or with respect to the trees that are in the south boundary. We met with the Magnolia Run neighborhood a couple of weeks ago, and they requested that there be no additional trees or screening because they want to look at the pond. It's by their entryway into their development. and we explained to them that we had a conditional zoning restriction that required us to put pine trees on there. I don't think they've written you a letter. We haven't heard any more from them about that, but we felt like what we would request, if we could change that to a development plan note, that would require those trees to be planted. And if in the meantime we can find out from them whether they want the trees or don't want the trees, then we could amend that if necessary. So that would allow us the flexibility by making an development plan note. If they prefer we not have the trees rather than a conditional zoning restriction where we'd have to come back for a zone change. Again, I realize they have not written you, but they felt like that once that's cleaned up, they were interested in that being an amenity as well to us as to them, which is another reason we want to go in and clean out the trees, and they want to be able to see it. And so I think the screening, from their mind, would defeat the purpose for which I think we were trying to accomplish there. So our request would be if we could make that proposed conditional zoning restriction a note on the development plan instead to give us that ability. I hope that's clear. Otherwise, we agree with the recommendation and happy to answer your questions and appreciate your attention. Thanks. Do commissioners have any questions from the petitioner? Mr. Pan. On the easement that's on that boundary, what do you propose to do with those trees on that easement? How do you rectify that easement situation? I'll have to let Rory. I plan to have Rory come up, and that's what my plan is. You know where they're at. The existing property line between this site and the fourplexes of Golden Trophy has a recorded utility easement on it. It's in a fence line, and it has precedence. We've shown an area on our plan where you've got the building with the longest frontage towards their future fourplexes. we've gone in there and we've put a tree protection area within that 10-foot fence line. That's as much as we can stay off of it with our grading. But the utility companies and whatever lines they put in, whatever tie-ins they want to do, they've got precedence. That easement is recorded and has been at least five, six years has been on all our previous plans. So we can try to protect it. And I do not know Golden Trophy, the rest of their development, whether they extend up that line or not. I know there's a sewer in that general area. It's just something that's recorded. They've got the rights to use it. Do you know about the retention pond? Will that have to be materially expanded or just deepened? What do you think you're going to do with that retention pond? Well, I talked with Hillard, and it was originally designed for this area as a detention to be dry. There's something in the bottom that's making it retention after all these years. So engineering is of the opinion we can either go in and make it detention, or we can give them new plans with this development. And with that request, it becomes retention. And that seems to be the consensus everyone they want upon. So there will be work done in the area. Plans will be submitted. To the extent of grading, I don't know. But your point is to make it a retention pond instead of a detention pond. Yes, I believe that's what everyone is choosing to do. But you don't know about the size, how much material bigger it would be? No. No, you guys approve this, we get certified, we'll start the work. And it preexisted, the commercial. It was designed, I think, when this whole area was residential. Any other questions for petitioner? Ms. Copeland. Oops, oops, I'm sorry. Mr. Cayley? Yes. I'm just kind of thinking about the trees and the subdivision that wants to look straight at the pond. In terms of having a foreground landscape, a landscape painting with a foreground, I think it would be good to look through the trees because they're only going to stay Christmas trees for four years. But long term, would you be in agreement and would Mr. Query be in agreement of saying separating the trees more? And I really like evergreen trees because they work 365 days out of the year. Instead of 10 feet on center, which is really close, to like 15 or 20 feet on center, Then you're looking through. Well, as it stands now, it's a conditional zoning restriction from the previous four years ago, that zone change. So we cannot change that. If it becomes a development plan note to provide evergreen screening at some discretion to the urban foresters' approval, then we can do that. But right now we have to follow conditional zoning restrictions. Okay. So you guys need to change that to give us leeway if that's what you want. Okay, so we'll hash that out with Mr. Query. Thank you. Any other questions? Ms. Wade. From the staff's perspective, there was a long list of conditional zoning restrictions associated with this property currently related to the B1 use. and this was one that was related to buffering that the staff felt could be re-agreed to for the property while it was R4. It's not something that is certainly required between two residential zones for buffering. It was just something that the applicant had said, yeah, we could do that. And the staff said, yeah, that would be nice. So we continued it. But we don't really have any need, I guess, to demand that it be there. So just to clarify that. I would like to see the trees stay, but not necessarily a hedge. But where you peep through them, I think that would soften all of this building. And that could be addressed either with a different spacing or with a development plan note. You could make it a lot different with a development plan note. You could require a certain number, and they could space them as they wanted to. So there would be more flexibility with a development plan note. Mr. Rollins? Thank you. Tracy, I guess, I don't know if you or Tom, the evergreens that we're talking about, Is it on the southern side of the basin? Yes. Or between them? Okay, it's on the southern side. And then secondly, what, I guess, your thoughts, you kind of touched on it, but I don't know if you really went far enough. What's your thoughts or the staff's thoughts as far as a note on the zoning, as far as conditional restriction or a condition on the development plan itself. Rena is saying a development note. Is that different from a condition on the development plan itself? Which would be better? Well, if the Planning Commission approved it, it would be listed probably as like a number 12 or something. 12? I've got an old 18-0 that speaks to it. That it would be, you could either make it resolve the landscaping, generic, with the staff, or a very specific, almost reading the same as this. Now, a conditional zoning restriction has greater enforcement possibilities and would generally be stronger than a development plan note because a development plan note can be changed without coming back through the zone change process. Conditional zoning restrictions can only be changed by refiling a zone change, notifying neighbors, and then usually going back to council for final approval. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Martin? I thought I might elaborate on the applicant's request to modify note number 11 on the tree line. Again, our concern is along this boundary in this heavily treed area, and I think staff would be very comfortable with a condition that just said resolve the extent of tree protection necessary, and that way we could weigh the various factors. We're concerned particularly about 6-inch caliper in larger trees and those that may be worthy of protection. And certainly we understand there may be some conflict with some of the stormwater work they need to do. But again, it's a matter of determining what's there and getting some information to determine if there is something worthy of protection. So again, we would be happy with a note that just says resolve extent of tree protection prior to certification. Ms. Payne. I have a question regarding the detention to a retention of creating the pond. Will that create any type of safety problem? And I think I understand that there are other residential areas around there. Have they been notified? Should they be notified that now we are going to be creating some type of pond? And maybe this is not as large as I'm thinking that it's going to be. The pond exists, Ms. Beatty. It's there. It's been there for quite some time and holds water. I had a conversation with engineering, and so I can't verify that anybody's weighted it or anything, but it's approximately two to three feet deep is what they've estimated. And it's been there for quite some time. So everyone's very aware of the pond. Ms. Phillips? Rory was throwing around retention, detention, and I get confused. Currently it holds water and is the plan to make it so that it will be a place where water is stored temporarily and then breathe, or will it have standing water continually or just temporarily? Detention holds waters during events and lets it go. Retention has a permanent pool. So if it becomes a retention basin, then there will be a permanent pool level. Above that will be your flood control level. So it will still fluctuate, but in order to keep it an amenity, it would need to be retention so that there is a permanent pool. That's precisely what I was going to address. We want to make sure that we always have water there, since that has been what the neighbors were accustomed to. So thank you. Any other questions? Do you have a question for him? Mr. Query? Could you please come forward? The urban forester. Yes. Rather than us just cook something up that you have to do, could you tell us what you'd like to do? It sounds like we can agree to a development plan note. as to the treatment of the wooded area. As far as the condition that was already existing for, I think to me it sounds as if there was a conditional note for the landscape buffer, and you were asking can we go from 10 feet to 20 feet, we probably don't want that listed as a conditional note, that it could be also just a note on the development plan. I'd have to refer to the planning staff if that's correct, but I think that would make everybody's life much easier if we just have them noted on the development plan versus a conditional note to the zoning. Okay, so on the development plan, what do you want us to say? That there just be a buffer, period? Evergreen buffer? Then you could put them in groups of three or five or whatever you want to do? To my knowledge, I don't think the zone-to-zone requires the landscape buffer. Is that correct? So this was sort of just an agreement that I guess the developer back in 2007 had. So we don't have to have this. However, if the Planning Commission wants some kind of screening there, then we can agree right now that it's every tree planted 20 feet on center. If that's agreeable with the petitioner maybe and the staff, then we just have them to draft the note and they put it on the plan. Let me ask the petitioner if that's how they would actually draft their note. Is it 20? Well, it can be whatever. We can be agreeable to keeping the conditional zoning as it was. We're trying to help the adjoining neighbors who are not here in opposition, thankfully, and let them see this pond. So if you want to spread it to 20 feet, we can do that. If you want to see groups of three, you know. I just hate to see a natural setting with little guards going up and down in a straight line, and I don't know how to get around that. Rory, help. All right. You want to change the note to, instead of being a conditional zoning restriction, you want evergreen plantings along the southern boundary in groups of three or more no closer than 20 feet together or leaving gaps of 20 if you want to be that specific. or you can just say put an evergreen planting along that boundary and I know what you want and we'll do it. Okay. Good. Is that okay? That's good. Okay. Is that all right? Definitely. I just wanted to, I'm sorry, I jumped up. Again, on condition 10, And we just want to be clear, it says resolve extent of tree protection area. I'm not sure what you're saying there. Resolve extent of tree protection necessary. Resolve extent of tree protection as necessary. The word area is not in there. Okay. Word as should be added. Tree protection. That's, again, and I think everybody understands the issue is that we're going to be constructing a detention basin. Our construction plans aren't finalized and won't be finalized by the time we resolve this note. But if everybody understands we're trying to resolve it necessary, including the reality of the infrastructure that has to be placed on it, that's fine. I do not. That's right. All right. Any more questions? Mr. Penn. Sorry. Yeah, Ms. Wiseman, I'd like to ask you a question. Yes, sir. And this is a general question that applies to this. I've wondered, ever since I've been on the Planning Commission, if you create a retention pond and somebody drowns in it, who's responsible? Well, first of all, you sue everybody. You know, everybody. You're spoken like a true lawyer. I know. Well, whoever maintains has the responsibility for maintaining the property is going to be subject to liability. You can't ever say somebody's liable because that depends on the facts of each case. But obviously, whoever maintains a retention pond is going to have responsibility to maintain that. We have to follow the rules and regulations of not only the urban county government, but the Corps of Engineers, et cetera, to do these and take reasonable measures to protect people. So whoever owns this property will be responsible for it. It will not be the urban county government because part of this process is to incorporate that into our development. Well, that's why I have a hard time believing if I owned the property, I'd want a retention. I'd want a detention. That's why I don't understand. If you own the property and you develop it and you create a situation, I mean, I know it happens all over the city. I've often wondered why you would do that if you could do it the other way and the pond would dry. You have less chance of somebody drowning in it. That's my point. People live on both sides of that. And I don't know how deep it's going to be and I don't know how much water it's going to hold. But it bothers me to say I'm going to put a retention in there because it looks better. Well, it might look better, but I don't want the liability of it. So I was trying to understand why anybody that owned the property would want to put a retention in and accept that liability. And I was just trying to learn something from it. That has nothing to do with it. I think it's an individual decision of each landowner in terms of what they're trying to accomplish and trying to create an amenity that helps the area, parents of the area, weighing the risk of what could happen there. That's the decision you make on a case-by-case basis. and we allow them and so it's just one thing This is just a continuing education for an old man is all this is I don't know if I've educated you Mr. Rogers Thank you Mr. Chairman I guess to try and move this on and I'm kind of ready for a motion of everybody else's but to clarify with the staff once again it's kind of like we're going back and forth. Zone and restriction development plan. Are you comfortable with a development plan? Yes. Tom and I are both comfortable with a development plan. That gives some flexibility for the applicant. Do you all, does Mr. Selle have language for something like that? Mr. Owens, I think the record will be clear as to what's been talked about, and when it comes time to certify the plan, and we'll look to put something very substantially similar to what was mentioned about five minutes ago on the plan. Mr. Cayley mentioned groupings of three or more spaced at least 20 feet apart. Didn't know if we needed to. Along the southern boundary. Didn't know if we needed to make him write that out or not at the moment. Thank you. I don't think so. Thank you. Any other questions? Commission members? Yes. Let's just talk about the groupings of three. If we put groupings of three, then 20 feet down, there will be another group, not 20 feet apart inside the three. Okay? Yes. Good. Any citizen comments? Anyone in the? Yes, ma'am. Please state your name and your address. My name is Lisa Rogers. I'm a trustee at Anchor Baptist Church. Do you want my address still? Please. 3206 Pimlico Parkway here in Lexington. Thank you. As far as safety with the pond, we do have a lot of kids riding skateboards up and around Anchor. Here recently our pastors had to kind of say, don't do this because of safety concerns. So one thing that might be done with the pond situation is to post some sort of a thing that says beware or something like that because that's what we've decided to do for liability. Something that hasn't been brought up also is traffic. Our entrance and exit to Anchor Baptist, let's see, well, it was on the overhead. But there's a lot of traffic as we are coming in and going out of church on Sundays and Wednesdays. And we also have Trinity Christian Academy Middle School, and there is a lot of drop-off in the mornings and a lot of pickup in the afternoon as it's a private school. So we were concerned about traffic, and especially now since the pond has been mentioned, for the use in the neighborhood. There are a lot that surround this area, so that might be something to consider too. Thank you. Thanks. Ms. Phillips? Excuse me, Ms. Rogers? We have a question for you. Ms. Rogers, could you show us on one of these maps where your church is? Sure. You're right. So your access to your church is on the opposite side of Winthrop? Yes, ma'am. And I assume that staff aligned the entrance to the... Okay, thank you. Thank you. Does staff have any? Or sorry, petitioner have any? Or anything else? Staff? All right. Close the hearing then, and I'll hear either discussion from commission or a motion. What was that? Ms. Copeland? Mr. Salley, would you put the big picture on the overhead, please? I would just like for my fellow commissioners to look at something. This is taken from Google Earth, and at the bottom, the first line across the bottom is a 2,000 dimension, 2,000 feet dimension. My point is that this was laid out years ago, and it's not in color there, but the very neatly laid out residential area is totally isolated from Mill Pond Shopping Center, almost as if there was a Berlin Wall. And you can walk around, if you pretend you're a car, you can walk around and get a quart of milk. but it is a barrier. It is not an interlocking neighborhood. And as we go forward with the planning process and talk about connectivity and walkability, et cetera, and sustainability, keep this in mind because this is probably what we do not want to duplicate in the future or remedy in the future. We might need to remedy this type of thing. That's all. Thank you. Any more discussion or any motion? Mr. Reynolds? I guess if everyone's ready, I'd be willing to make a motion. I appreciate the interest and concerns of Anchor Baptist, and much as any individual living in the apartments right next to this, I look at that as a family-related matter. and hopefully with the interest from the church or the families, any possible conflict there could be resolved. For my first motion, I would move for approval of RML Construction Zoning Map Amendment, MAR 2012-1 RML construction with the, I'm going to say two recommendations from the staff deleting the third one where we're discussing the southern boundary plantings. Second by motion by Mr. Irwin, second by Mr. Craven. Please vote when it shows up. All right. The motion has passed. We still have a... There we go. I think that's what we... The motion has passed. And then for the ZDP, I move for approval of ZDP 2012-2, the Glenna Lockdale Unit 4 amended with the revised recommendations showing their 11 conditions, adding, well, changing number 11 to resolve extent of tree protection as necessary prior to certification, and then adding number 12 in relation to the groups of three for the plantings maintained along the seven boundary in groups of three, and we'll say et cetera as was discussed that we can pull from the minutes. Three or more. Be fine. Motion by Mr. Owens. Second by Mr. Cravens. All vote when it appears. All right. The CDP is passed as well. Thank you. All right, moving on to the next item. This is the ZOTA 2012-1 Canopy Signs in the P1 Zone. Staff presentation. Good afternoon, Chairman Paulson, members of the Commission. Our next item is ZODA 2012-1. This is a request to modify the requirements for canopy signs in the P1 zone. This is a text amendment that has been requested by Ball and Wright Capital Holding Company, LLC. on your agenda is found at the bottom of page 2, and the staff report is behind tab 2 in your notebooks. Specifically, this is a request to amend Article 17 of the zoning ordinance. Article 17 deals with sign regulations to allow canopy signs in the professional office zone. Currently, canopy signs are not permitted in the P1 zones, but they are in most, if not all, of our business zones. Article 17 was rewritten in 1983, and at that time the P1 zone was given less signage compared to all of the other business zones because it is the least intense business zone that we have. There's kind of a tiered approach to the zoning ordinance in Article 17 that as you intensify use, you get more intense signs, either larger or taller or greater in number. The canopy signs allowed in our zoning ordinance are defined as a sign painted or printed, attached flat against the surface of a canopy. And then it goes on to specifically define what a canopy means for Article 17. A shelter, covering a sidewalk, driveway, or other similar area. and it may be supported by a building or not, or by poles on the ground. So in this example, it's a little bit hard to see on the top. It's a PNC bank building with a canopy drive-through, and kind of a zoom in of the end of the drive-through, they've attached a sign that would be considered a canopy sign. Some other examples of canopy signs, again, not in a P1 zone in our community, but just general examples of how you would find those. This is a U.S. bank building with a canopy sign on their drive-through canopy. Thank you. Marathon gas station, for that matter, any gas station, that is a canopy above the gas pumps. And any sign for the price or for the name of the company is considered a canopy sign. Another example of an above canopy sign where the letters are kind of individual. And the last one is on the face of a canopy that's projecting from a building without the poles to support it. In addition to Article 17-7, which regulates the zones and what they are permitted in terms of different types of signs, Section E regulates the P1 and the MU1 zones together. But an additional regulation in Article 17 also regulates canopy signs, and it's Article 17-40. It calls for canopy signs to be allowed as part of wall signage. They're counted as part of and limited to the percentage allowed for walls. They can only be 20 feet in height when they are attached. And then there's a special provision kind of associated with that. In any case where the vertical dimension of a canopy face exceeds 3 feet, only 3 feet, that dimension 3 feet, can be used to calculate the face area. and that does become important as we go forward in this hearing. And then also that the cabinet height of a sign attached to a canopy can only be three feet in height. The petitioner has requested this specifically to identify bank drive-through facilities in a P1 zone. Those are conditional uses in the P1 zone approved by the Board of Adjustment, but their bigger concern is not that, but that they're able to identify the bank associated with the drive-through specifically. They've indicated in their justification that the limited signage in a P1 zone has, in some circumstances, not provided enough information for patrons to identify the bank itself that they would be approaching. their application then is to suggest a small business sign be allowed on the face of a canopy in a P1 zone and also an awning as the case may be. Specifically, their proposal is to add a section 16 under 17.7E to allow canopy or awning signs limited to 15% of the area of the surface to which it is attached or 20 square feet, whichever is greater. When the staff reviewed this proposal, we had two major concerns. First, that the last phrase, or 20 square feet, whichever is greater, could actually permit a larger sign in a P1 zone than our other business zones because it guarantees 20 square feet, no matter what, whichever is greater. It could be larger, but it would never be less. It would always guarantee that 20 square feet. And the staff felt that that actually takes away the consistent tiered approach that we have in Article 17. So the staff proposed an amendment or a different text amendment to, we hope, address that concern. So the wording would be canopy or awning signs limited to 15% of the area of the surface to which they are attached, but also that such sign area shall be included in the total computation for the maximum sign permitted. In other words, if a sign is already permitted on the wall of the building, you can only get a canopy sign if you basically borrow some square footage and transfer it to the canopy. We don't want to permit additional wall signs beyond what's already permitted. However, when we presented to the zoning committee, the applicant was concerned that that 15% limit and then also the restrictions in 1740 would provide them the ability to have a sign but not a sign that would be visible from the street so when we looked at for when we looked at 17-40 the applicant and the staff met and agreed that changing the vertical dimension and the basically the amount you could use to calculate your 15% could be increased instead of it being limited to three feet of a canopy face that it could be increased to five feet the vertical dimension and I will point you to this tan sheet that we've think put at your place today it's an alternative text following review by the zoning committee the staff and the applicant did meet and I believe we have mutually resolved our differences to the effect of this addition to the staff alternative or the alternative text to change the three foot references to five feet in that third line but to in any instance maintain that the maximum vertical dimension of a cabinet the sign itself could not exceed three feet the staff is recommending approval and the staff recommended approve I'm sorry the zoning committee recommended approval of the staff alternative with the caveat that we meet with the applicant for two reasons first that the text amendment will allow an appropriate addition to that signage already permitted in P1 and MU1 zones, that directional or that canopy signs do provide some directional identification and would benefit customers and businesses within our community. And then secondly, that the tiered approach of Article 17 would be maintained by the staff alternative as opposed to the applicant's proposal. I'd be happy to answer any questions if you'd like to see any additional. We do have a few pictures of signs from our community, but they're a little hard to read from pictometry. Any commissioners have any questions for staff? Mr. Allen. Thank you. Tracy, I think earlier you said, and I was kind of nodding my head, that for the canopy sign you could use the allowable dimension of the wall sign, What is left over? What is excess? Or, I guess, Rob Peter to pay Paul, reduce the wall sign to one same dimension still, or are we increasing the overall dimensions of the signs? No, I think in the P1 zone, the face of the building is calculated, that elevation, and then you get a 5% is the limit. So if someone only uses 4.5%, they would have half a percentage, which can be 20, 50, I mean it can range in terms of square footage, you could use that square footage and move it to the canopy. Basically that 5% is your overall limit. You could move, if you haven't used it all, you could move some of the square footage to the canopy sign itself, but still adhere to 15% of the face on which it's attached. So there would be another limit there. So are we increasing the overall dimension of signage on a building with the canopy? No, I think we're just transferring it if there's some available. It's just basically a new type of sign that's not listed in P1. That was the issue the applicant had. It wasn't listed at all, so therefore they couldn't transfer it there. Even the Board of Adjustment couldn't have given them the right to create a new type of sign. Okay, thank you. Any other questions with staff? If not, petitioner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing the applicant here at Ball Wright Capital Holding Company. And Jimmy Ball, who is Ball and Ball Wright, is with us. Steve Wright is the other partner. He was here at the zoning committee meeting, as some of you all recall. Chaz Hyde is with me, who's the planner, who's assisting us. Whitaker Bank is not named on this application, but they're joining us in this application. I have a photograph which really shows you the purpose of this request. This is one of the buildings that Ball Wright has built. And they have really pioneered what I think is a very positive trend of banks in suburban locations, and that is making a suburban location which a bank can be a tenant of, a ground floor tenant of, instead of having a freestanding bank facility. As you know, most of the banks in the suburban areas right now are one-story, freestanding buildings, And obviously they're clearly identifiable because you have the sign on the building and right next door you have the drive-through going and you can tell which it is. It's not a good use of land. It's probably not the best planning concept to do to have all those freestanding banks. Well, Mr. Ball and Mr. Wright have come up with designs for buildings in which banks want to come in as the ground floor tenant and which you can have as three-story buildings with other tenants in the building as well. I think that's a very positive trend. The buildings they've done have been designed by Scott Guyon, who's a local architect. And while they're sort of similar in size, they each have different architectural features, and they're very attractive-looking buildings. They have done four of these. They have done this one, which I'm showing you, which is at 998 Governor's Lane in Beaumont. They've done one right next to it, which is the Fort Bank building, which is also at the corner of Governor's Lane and Beaumont Center Circle. And they've done two in Hamburg. They've done the Central Bank building in Hamburg, and they've done the First Federal Bank in Hamburg. And since they've been doing it, some other people have done it also out in Hamburg. So I think it's a very positive trend to encourage. but there is one issue and that's identification of the drive-thru facilities this is a photograph of the building it sort of looks like an artist's rendering but it's an actual photograph of the building at 998 Governor's Lane and we are standing and taking the picture your vista point is where the drive comes into the Kroger across the street the Kroger on Beaumont Center Circle there are three ways of approaching this building by car One is the way where we're standing where the photographer is, coming out of Kroger, going there. The other way is from the left where you're coming up Beaumont Center Circle. The other way is from the other side. Now, you can see from two of these directions, here's the canopy for the Whitaker Bank drive-through. There's no identification whatsoever that tells you that that's Whitaker Bank. Now, if you approach from the third side, there is, because on the other side of the building where this Florida Tiles sign is, sort of over on the other side, which we can't see, there's a sign that says Whitaker Bank. So if you're coming from one of the three directions, you see that that building is where Whitaker Bank is. But if you're coming from the other two sides, you don't see that right off, and you don't see right away that this is indeed the drive-through facility for Whitaker Bank. so Whitaker has had some issues with that people are driving up to say, hey, where am I? I'm at the right place and we'd like to have some identification on this panel right here of the canopy and in looking into it it was discovered that that's not allowed in P1 right now there's no mention of canopy signs in the P1 zone so I came up with this devised this text amendment which I thought would work for this building and others. But through working with the staff, we've agreed essentially on the staff alternative. I had initially asked for at least 20 feet. We've sort of given on that issue, and I had asked that this be in addition to what's allowed on the side of the building. We've given on that, and under the staff proposal, that this would be essentially deducted from what you otherwise allowed on the side of the building. So in other words, in order to put a sign on the canopy right here, we have to have signage left over from what was done on the Florida tile sign or on the Whitaker Bank sign on the other side of the building. Luckily, we do on this building, and we think we do on the other ones as well. So we feel that what the staff has proposed with the two portions of their proposal will work on this and on other buildings in this area. we're also complicated by the fact that some banks like Whitaker Bank have long names and just take up much more space than like Fifth Third or PNC or Chase. So we're having to deal with that on this issue as well, which is probably good because we're looking at the extreme examples. I don't know right off of another one that has a longer name than Whitaker Bank, but we have to make it so that you can see it from the street so you know how to approach that drive-through window for the bank. Again, we appreciate working with the staff, and I think we've come to an accord on what will work in these situations. And again, I feel like this will sort of help this trend of encouraging banks to do something which is sometimes a little out of their comfort zone, and that is in suburban locations to be willing to locate in a building which also has other tenants, which, again, I think is a much better use of space in the suburbs here of Lexington. So that's what we had to present, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Mr. Penn? Yes. Mr. Murphy, if I read this right, these are for canopies that are attached to the building. Could this go over to a stand-alone canopy that was attended in that building? Well, I think the ordinance, the canopy has to be attached to the building in order to be defined as a canopy. I think that's the case. I'm not concerned about it in the B. I'm concerned about it in the P because that's what this is gilded toward. And I can't think of any instance where you would have that, but I probably run it too long. I'm always looking for the unintended consequence. And if it's attached, I can understand that. If it's something that's built out as an addendum to the building or whatever, but if the definition is attached, then I don't have a problem with it. Any other questions? All right. Does staff have any? Yes, we're good. All right. Mr. Cravens? Are you ready for a motion? I am ready for a motion. Move approval of ZLTA 2012-1, the alternative text. Motion by Mr. Cravens, second by Mr. Brewer. Please vote. And it looks like ZOTA 2012-1 has passed. Thank you all very much. All right, moving to the last item on our agenda, ZOTA 2012-2, amendment to Article 29 to update references to codes for properties within the ND1 overlay zone. This item is very similar to a text amendment that the Planning Commission initiated and considered last year. It's to amend references to property maintenance codes in the ND1 zone. Currently, it references the BOCA adopted basic property maintenance code, which the Division of Code Enforcement no longer uses. They actually used the International Maintenance Code, 1998 edition, and this is a reference that is now out of date. So the planning staff asked the commission to initiate it and at this point is recommending approval of this change as well as a change to allow the Division of Code Enforcement to provide an annual report to the planning commission about code violations in the ND1 zone rather than a quarterly report. And I mentioned at the subdivision and zoning committees that the commission has not received a report to date, even though we've had ND1 overlays since 2004. We, the staff, is working with the Division of Computer Services to establish an automated process so that they can create that annual report and we can provide it to the planning commission. The zoning committee and the staff both recommended approval of this text amendment. Thank you. Any commission members have any questions? Mr. Tracy. Thank you. Currently we're doing it on a quarterly basis, and we're proposing to go to annual. Well, yeah, we're not doing it at all. Okay. Good enforcement is not providing a report. We've not asked for a report. I didn't think I'd been sleeping that much. I didn't remember in three years' time. What would we expect to see on an annual report or on a report? And from there, where do we go forward? What is expected of us after we see it? What I would expect the commission to see would be a summary of what properties have code violations and how many code violations they've had within an annual calendar year. The next steps, I think, would be to find out if those code violations have been corrected, and if not, what kind of follow-up code enforcement is doing to require that, if it's going to court, if it's an administrative process. But once we see the total, the summary, if you have questions about individual cases, we can look into those. But I don't think we'll provide the detailed information for every case, for every property. Well, I guess that's going to be kind of my next question. If we hear this in September and there was a code violation in January, can we expect that it's been taken care of at that point? Otherwise, why bring it to us? I think it's really more of a report out to let the Planning Commission know about code violations in these special overlays. I think there's also a requirement in the H-1 zone and in the courthouse overlay zone. I don't know that there's any action required by the commission. Just more informational. Okay. Is that correct? Mr. Penn? Tracy, are these complaint-driven? These code violations, are they complaint-driven? Some of them are. Some of them would be nuisance complaints like weeds or broken windows or something like that. Okay. And a property on one complaint could have one violation or 12 violations. You just don't know. Ms. Phillips? Tracy, I think you answered my question. You said that the ordinance also requires these reports in the H-1 and the courthouse. In your time here, you've been here, what, six years? Mm-hmm. Seven years? Six years. Have you ever, do you remember any kind of reporting? No. Okay. Thank you. And I just want to be clear. You're saying the Planning Commission does not have a role in follow-up or to take any type of action. It's for information only when we receive this report. Correct. Mr. Perkman? What is the reporting requirement for the H-1 and the courthouse zone, and does it make sense for this to be different than those are? Currently, we've already amended the text for the courthouse overlay, which I believe happened last year. The text of Article 13, which deals with historic properties, the H-1 overlays, has not been amended as of yet. There are some other changes that the Historic Preservation Commission hopes to see, so we will probably group those together when that happens. But when those three text amendments are complete, they would all be the same, probably an annual report and then definitely referencing the International Property Maintenance Code, 1998 edition. The consistency, yes, would be important. Ms. Penn? Is this a result of the realignment of our planning division? No, sir. Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Wake? I would be happy to entertain a motion. Ms. Blanton? I move approval of ZOTA 2012-2, the amendment to Article 29, for the reasons outlined by staff. Second by Mr. Burke. Please vote when it shows on your screen. All right. ZOTA 2012-2 has passed. All right. We're at the end of the agenda here. Anybody have any commissioners have any items? Ms. Phelps? I'm not sure who all was here last week when we did our work session, but we talked about the bylaws changes, and I wondered if everyone's on board. I know Mike wasn't here. and is there a plan for how we're going to proceed with respect to the votes? There is. I talked to Mr. King before the meeting today, and he has not had a chance to write down what we were talking about. He said he was going to take on that challenge of writing down a few options for us and reporting to us at the next work session. Okay, the work session? Right. And then we could take it up at the next public meeting. We can vote on it then. I think the biggest issue I think he saw was the dates, So he was going to write it out with a couple different options for different dates, which we could then discuss at the next work session. I just wondered, too, if the other commission members who weren't here have been brought up to speed on what it is that we're discussing. Okay. All right. Any other commission items? Any staff items? Thank you, Mr. Chair. We don't have any staff items. We would remind you that your two committees meet next Thursday, your subdivision committee in the morning and zoning committee in the afternoon. Thank you. I'm sorry. Since we were talking about the signs and so forth, one thing that I looked at and thought of, considering the fact that, as the staff report mentioned, the last revision as far as signage is like almost 30 years old, knowing that we've got a comprehensive plan coming up and so forth, and I'm sure we're going to have a lot to do. but I feel like with technology changes and so forth, that would be something that would warrant a revision at some point in time as well, whenever we can find time to put on our work schedule. Mr. Owens, we have had several text amendments over the 30 years to different provisions of the sign regulation, but not an overall rewrite. and I think the reason was the last one took two years to accomplish. Okay. I'll be happy to entertain a motion for adjournment. All right.