# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - February 23, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 23, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2413 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2413?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-02-23 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 15,359 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 February 23, 2012, at 1:34 p.m. in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Cravens presided over the meeting, which included five agenda items, eight motions and votes, and ten public comments. The Commission addressed several significant matters during the session. A development plan amendment for Baptist Healthcare System (Central Baptist Hospital) was postponed. The Commission approved a zone map amendment and conditional use request for Victory Apostolic Church. The Meadowthorpe Neighborhood's Neighborhood Design Character Overlay (ND-1) designation was approved. Additionally, the Commission approved an amendment to its own bylaws and conducted an election of chairperson. ## Attendance **Present:** Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Patrick Brewer, Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Mike Owens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, and William Wilson **Absent:** Frank Penn **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes from January 26, 2012** [timestamp: 00:15:50] Motion by Lynn Roche-Phillips, seconded by Will Berkley. Passed by voice vote. **DP 2012-4: Baptist Healthcare System Development Plan Amendment Postponement** [timestamp: 00:21:56] Motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by William Wilson. Postponed by roll call vote: 7 ayes, 2 nays, 1 abstention. Voted for postponement: Eunice Beatty, Carla Blanton, Patrick Brewer, Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, William Wilson Voted against postponement: Will Berkley, Mike Owens **MARC 2012-3: Zone Map Amendment for Victory Apostolic Church** [timestamp: 00:45:33] Motion by Carla Blanton, seconded by William Wilson. Approved by roll call vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Amendment from Agricultural Rural (A-R) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3). Approval includes 15 conditions including Urban County Council rezoning requirement, engineering and traffic approvals, landscaping standards, and tree inventory requirements. All members voted in favor: Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Patrick Brewer, Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Mike Owens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, William Wilson **MARC 2012-3: Conditional Use Permit for Church Use at Victory Apostolic Church** [timestamp: 00:46:05] Motion by Carla Blanton, seconded by Eunice Beatty. Approved by roll call vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Approval includes 8 conditions addressing rezoning requirements, parking and landscaping standards, traffic engineering review, lighting specifications, and storm water management. All members voted in favor. **ZDP 2012-9: Preliminary Development Plan for Victory Apostolic Church** [timestamp: 00:46:37] Motion by Carla Blanton, seconded by Mike Owens. Approved by roll call vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Approval includes 15 conditions matching those of the zone map amendment. All members voted in favor. **MAR 2012-2: Neighborhood Design Character Overlay (ND-1) for Meadowthorpe** [timestamp: 01:55:55] Motion by Lynn Roche-Phillips, seconded by William Wilson. Approved by roll call vote: 6 ayes, 3 nays. Approval includes design standards for exterior materials, floor area ratio, building height, accessory structure size, setbacks, parking, and wall openings. Voted for: Eunice Beatty, Patrick Brewer, Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Mike Owens, William Wilson Voted against: Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Lynn Roche-Phillips **Approval of Amended Bylaws** [timestamp: 02:13:07] Motion by Lynn Roche-Phillips, seconded by Lynn Roche-Phillips. Approved by roll call vote: 9 ayes, 1 nay. Voted for: Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Patrick Brewer, Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Mike Owens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, William Wilson Voted against: Frank Penn **Election of New Chairperson by Acclamation** [timestamp: 02:15:53] Motion by Lynn Roche-Phillips, seconded by Lynn Roche-Phillips. Approved by roll call vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. All members voted in favor. ## Public Comment The meeting included ten public comments addressing three main topics: the Baptist Health Care System development, the Victory Apostolic Church development, and the proposed ND1 neighborhood overlay for Meadowthorpe. **Baptist Health Care System Development** Clarissa Spahn [timestamp: 0:16:28] requested a two-month postponement of DP 2012-4 to allow time for neighborhood notification and traffic engineering reassessment. She expressed concern that rerouted employee traffic through the Glendover neighborhood has created a hazardous corridor. **Victory Apostolic Church Development** Richard Murphy [timestamp: 0:41:15], representing the church, affirmed agreement with staff recommendations. He emphasized the importance of the gross acreage density calculation for financing and confirmed that the church would not require a dumpster initially. **ND1 Overlay for Meadowthorpe** Nine speakers addressed the proposed ND1 neighborhood overlay, with eight expressing support and one opposing it. **Support for ND1:** - Coleman Bush [timestamp: 1:13:10] presented historical and visual evidence of Meadowthorpe's character and emphasized 77.3% neighborhood support for the overlay. - Mark Fibus [timestamp: 1:26:29] read a quote emphasizing the importance of preserving entire neighborhoods and urged approval. - Terry Terry [timestamp: 1:28:06] shared personal experience of being drawn to Meadowthorpe for its green space and character, expressing concern that unchecked development could destroy the neighborhood's charm. - Shirley Young [timestamp: 1:30:45] highlighted generational family continuity in Meadowthorpe and stressed that ND1 would preserve historic character. - Joe Collins [timestamp: 1:33:00] briefly urged commissioners to approve the overlay. - Elizabeth Robertson [timestamp: 1:33:30] shared her family's experience moving to Meadowthorpe for its historic character and expressed strong support for ND1. - John Rohr [timestamp: 1:41:06], representing the Historic Preservation Commission, praised the neighborhood's thorough application and urged approval to preserve the area's cultural and architectural significance. **Opposition to ND1:** - Donna Blauvelt [timestamp: 1:35:17] expressed concern that ND1 would restrict her ability to expand her home, including adding a garage and deck, and argued that homeowners should not be subject to new rules after purchase. ## Appointments Mike Owens was appointed to the Urban County Planning Commission. ## Contested Items **ND1 Overlay for Meadowthorpe** The approval of the ND-1 overlay for Meadowthorpe generated community opposition. Resident Donna Blauvelt opposed the overlay on the grounds that it would restrict her ability to expand her home after purchase. She argued that the overlay infringed on property rights, raising concerns about limitations on future development of her property. **Approval of Victory Apostolic Church Development** The approval of the Victory Apostolic Church Development passed unanimously. However, the discussion surrounding this item revealed underlying concerns about the church's potential impact on the neighborhood. Despite these concerns being raised during deliberation, no formal opposition was voiced against the approval. ## Baptist Healthcare System (Central Baptist Hospital) - Development Plan Amendment The Planning Commission considered a development plan amendment for Baptist Healthcare System's Central Baptist Hospital (DP 2012-4) [timestamp: 0:16:28]. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Clarissa Spahn, Skip Alexander, Bill Sallee, and Patrick Brewer. **Concerns Raised** The Planning Commission identified two primary concerns with the proposed amendment: - **Traffic impacts**: Commissioners raised questions about the traffic effects of the development plan. - **Neighborhood notification**: There was concern that the neighborhood had not been adequately notified about the proposal. **Applicant Position** The applicant opposed postponing consideration of the amendment. **Outcome** The Planning Commission voted to postpone the development plan amendment to March 22, 2012. The motion passed 7-2, with the applicant's objections noted but not preventing the postponement. ## Victory Apostolic Church - Zone Map Amendment and Conditional Use The Planning Commission considered a zone map amendment and conditional use request for Victory Apostolic Church [timestamp: 0:24:20]. The proposal involved changing the property's zoning classification from A-R (Agricultural-Residential) to R-3 (Residential). **Key Participants** The discussion involved Planning Commission members Traci Wade, Tom Martin, Bill Sallee, and Richard Murphy. **Proposal and Approval** The Planning Commission approved the zone change from A-R to R-3 for Victory Apostolic Church. In addition to the zoning amendment, the Commission also approved conditional use and development plan applications for the property. **Conditions** The approval was subject to 15 conditions that the applicant must satisfy. These conditions included requirements for: - Tree inventory - Traffic approval - Design standards **Outcome** The agenda item was approved by the Planning Commission. ## Meadowthorpe Neighborhood - Neighborhood Design Character Overlay (ND-1) The Planning Commission considered the adoption of a Neighborhood Design Character Overlay (ND-1) for the Meadowthorpe neighborhood. The overlay was designed to establish design standards intended to preserve the neighborhood's character. **Key Speakers and Presentation** The discussion involved Planning Commission members Traci Wade, Coleman Bush, Mark Fibus, Donna Blauvelt, and John Rohr. Staff presented recommended design standards as part of the overlay proposal [timestamp: 0:49:11]. **Concerns Raised** Opposition to the overlay emerged from some residents who expressed concerns about development restrictions that would result from the ND-1 designation. These concerns centered on how the design standards might limit future development activities in the neighborhood. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the Neighborhood Design Character Overlay for Meadowthorpe with a 6-3 vote. The approval adopted the staff-recommended design standards despite the opposition voiced by concerned residents. ## Amendment of Commission Bylaws The Planning Commission considered revised bylaws establishing procedures for electing a nominating committee and conducting elections in July [timestamp: 2:05:25]. **Key Speakers** Chris King, Patrick Brewer, and Lynn Roche-Phillips participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Outcome** The Commission approved the amended bylaws by a vote of 9-1. ## Election of Chairperson [timestamp: 2:14:11] Mike Owens was elected chairperson by acclamation, following the resignation of Derek Paulson. The election received unanimous support from the commission. Lynn Roche-Phillips and Mike Owens were the key speakers during this agenda item. The chairperson position was filled without opposition, with all commission members supporting Owens' election to the role. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of minutes from January 26, 2012 - **DP 2012-4** — postponed (7-2): Postponement of Baptist Healthcare System (Central Baptist Hospital) development plan amendment - **MARC 2012-3** — passed (9-0): Approval of zone map amendment from Agricultural Rural (A-R) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) for Victory Apostolic Church - **MARC 2012-3** — passed (9-0): Approval of conditional use permit for church use at Victory Apostolic Church - **ZDP 2012-9** — passed (9-0): Approval of preliminary development plan for Victory Apostolic Church - **MAR 2012-2** — passed (6-3): Approval of Neighborhood Design Character Overlay (ND-1) for Meadowthorpe neighborhood - **Motion** — passed (9-1): Approval of amended bylaws - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Election of new chairperson by acclamation --- ## Full transcript Gold, shiny, shine like man new I'll never look behind me, my dreams will be true Do the last stranger, he's been lying I hope you'll find you, and I'm just trying to see you, or without you, I hope you'll drink you, or not through. Who's I wearing? Who's I changing? Will you ever be the king? Feel no sorrow, feel no shame, I hope you'll fall, feel no pain. Sweet devotion Just give me devotion Through the years I'll be in again In my sorrow I'll be in my tears I'll be in my tears I'll be in my tears Just give me devotion Through the years I'll be in again Through the years I'll be in again Now some they do and some they don't And some you just can't tell And some they will and some they won't And some it's just as well And they laugh at my behavior And that'll never bother me Say the devil is my savior And I don't pay no need And I will go and shine, it's shine like a new I'll never look behind you, my colors will be blue Goodbye, stranger, as you find Hope you find that very good Try to see a point of view Hope you'll change and hope I'm through Who's our baby? Who's our change? Will we ever meet again? Feel no sorrow, feel no shame Come tomorrow, feel no pain Just give me motion You said to me We are dead, we are dead, we are dead We are dead, we are dead We are dead, we are dead We are dead Thank you. I'm out. From a distance The world looks blue and green And the snow-capped mountains wide From a distance the ocean meets the stream And the eagle takes to flight From a distance there is harmony And it echoes through the land It's the voice of hope It's the voice of peace It's the voice of every man From a distance we all have no love And no one is in need And there are no darkness No mountains under no disease No hungry mouths to feed From a distance we are instruments Marching in Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. I'd like to file the meeting's order with the February 23rd Planning Commission. First, we'll have approval of the minutes. Do we have a motion? January 26th, minutes. Mr. Chair, I move that we accept the minutes as presented. Okay. We have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Will Berkeley second. Everybody vote. That motion carries. The minutes are approved. Okay. Next we'll go into postponements and withdrawals. Do we have any postponements or withdrawals today? Yes? You may come up front and give us your name and address. My name is Clarissa Spahn. I live at 1909 Belafonte Drive. I'm a founding member and current treasurer of the recently incorporated Glendover Neighborhood Association. I'm here to request a two-month postponement of your decision on Development Plan 2012-4 submitted by Baptist Health Care System, Incorporated. The BHS Corporation is currently allowing employee use of their back ER entrance of CBH in order to alleviate their parking lot traffic flow problems. This has created an extremely hazardous, high-volume, high-speed corridor through the Glendover neighborhood. It directly affects the 200 households living on this route, indirectly affects the other 250 households in our neighborhood, and introduces a potentially lethal and unnecessary danger into the lives of the children trying to cross at the Glendover Elementary School crosswalk. It is destroying the bike-friendly, walk-friendly character of our neighborhood. DP 2012-4 appears to permanently establish the ER entrance as an integral part of their non-emergency traffic flow solution. I'm requesting a postponement of this proposal for two reasons. The first is that although we are directly affected by the commuter traffic using the hospital ER entrance off of McDonald Road, we weren't made aware of this development proposal until late last week. Because we are a new organization and have not yet set up communication channels, we need time to notify the neighborhood. The second reason is that I do not believe that Traffic Engineering's evaluation of this proposal is valid. My understanding is that an applicant must provide a traffic study if an expansion puts more than 100 cars onto a major artery during peak traffic times. Over the past year, including during the evaluation period, BHS Corporation made available to its employees the use of the designated ER entrance. A significant number of employees were rerouted from the designated employee entrance at Nicholasville Road to the ER entrance onto McDonald, which is a neighborhood street. If the ER entrance is indeed not intended for general parking lot access, then any counts of traffic flowing through the parking lot and onto Nicholasville Road are understated. This proposal needs to be re-evaluated by traffic engineering based on the facts at hand so that the City can understand the true impact of this and recent development plans on Nicholasville Road traffic. Please recommend a two-month postponement of the Baptist Health Care System Corporation's proposal so that adequate time will be available for traffic engineering to accurately reassess the traffic situation so that both traffic enforcement and engineering can evaluate and address the neighborhood's concerns and so that both affected neighborhoods have an opportunity to evaluate the data and consider their options. Thank you very much for your time and your commitment. Thanks. Okay, thank you. Is the applicant present? Commission, thank you. I'm Skip Alexander with Central Baptist Hospital, Director of Construction. We would respectfully ask that we be heard today. We have already had a two-week delay. I can only say to the opposition that I just heard was that that opening at Hiltona has been there over 20 years. We've used it both for an ED entrance staff. I'm sure some patients come in that way and leave that way. So there's nothing new to this development plan that changes that. And, in fact, if we are heard today, I'll explain that there will not be any increased traffic demand by this application today. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, I guess I'm going to turn this over to the Commission to see if we want to postpone this or hear it today. Mr. Chairman, if I could just comment. Ms. Spahn asked for a two-month postponement without the hospital's agreement. The last meeting date that this could be postponed to without the consent of the applicant is your March 22nd meeting. The commission is obligated to consider this plan by April 2nd. Thank you. Okay, so that's our last meeting for April 2nd. Without the consent of the hospital going further, yes, sir. Okay. All right. And the hospital wants to hear it. The neighborhood doesn't. Patrick, would you? Yeah, I've heard from several people in the neighborhood. My understanding is there are still some significant questions that need to be worked out between the two parties, so I would agree to postponement. Okay, so is that a motion? No, the other person's right. Any other comments? I move for a postponement to 322. Second. Okay, we have a motion to postpone DP 2012-4 to March 22nd, and we have a second by Mr. Wilson. Any other discussion by the Commission? All right, let's vote. The motion carries to postpone until March 22nd. Okay, are there any other postponements or withdrawals? All right. Mr. Salley, do we have anything that, any of these cases that can be abbreviated? Mr. Chairman, you have two zoning items on your agenda. The first appears on page number two. However, we think there are a number of citizens here who wish to speak to that application. Your other item, which begins on the top of page 4, might qualify for an abbreviated hearing. That is MARC 2012-3, a zone change request by Victory Apostolic Church, Incorporated. This is a zone change from AR, Agricultural Rural, to R3, Planned Neighborhood Residential Zone, involving property at 1420 Greendale Road. At this time, the staff would ask if anyone is present today who wishes to comment or object to this proposed zone change at 1420 Greendale Road. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this item can be dealt with in abbreviated fashion. The staff is recommending approval of all three of the applications, the zone change, the conditional use, and the development plan. We'll set up for that hearing and begin in just a few moments. All right. Very good. Thanks. Yes. Lord, nice to meet you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Cravens, members of the Commission. The first item being considered by the Planning Commission today is MARC 2012-3. This is a request or application by Victory Apostolic Church Incorporated. They're requesting a zone change from an AR zone, which is our agricultural rural zone, to a planned neighborhood residential zone. The subject property is located at 1420 Greendale Road, and Greendale connects to the south to Leastown and Mercer Road, and then to the north to Spur Road. It does have a 90-degree curve in it that is kind of being redeveloped when Citation Boulevard will come through. So this is to the north of that, but to the south of the railroad crossing. The subject property is bordered to the north and then across to the west by other AR zones, And then the rest of the area to the west and south is already zoned R3 for the planned neighborhood residential. And it's planned or has been developed for residential, mostly single-family residential. And then across the railroad tracks to the east is light industrial zoning. And recently the Eagle distributor company redeveloped a portion of the property to the east. The property itself is about one and a half net acres, but two gross acres, which includes the right-of-way. Let's go through the quick aerial photos. The property was, in the past, had a home on it, but that's since been removed, so the property is currently vacant. and it is fairly wooded because of a large easement to the rear for the utilities and probably to buffer to the railroad track to some extent. The petitioner is requesting this zone change in order to develop a two-story church on the property, and there is a conditional use request associated with this zone change that will be presented in a few minutes. The church is proposed to be 13,200 square feet and also have associated parking on the property. Our 2007, I can show you a few photos of the property. This is Greendale Road looking to the south. You can see the subdivision that's been developed south of there with the sidewalk stops and the improvements to the roadway end. This is in front of the subject property looking to the north with the railroad tracks kind of in the background. On the adjoining property, there is a detention basin for the residential development. And this photo also shows on the left-hand side the existing utilities and also overhead utilities and also a tree line. And this is a front view of the subject property. A little bit further into the property. And the comprehensive plan for this location does recommend medium density residential. and typically the staff defines that for the commission through the comprehensive plan as 5 to 10 dwelling units per net acre, but that definition also includes a range for gross acreage of 0 to 8 units per gross acre. And I bring that up because the applicant has asked the staff to consider evaluating this zone change based on gross acreage rather than net acreage. Typically, a church is shown on our comprehensive plan as a semi-public use, but that is for existing churches, and in this case where a proposed church is coming in, it's not uncommon for that to not be shown on a plan, excuse me, the comprehensive plan. The petitioner is requesting the R3 zone in order to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and also the adjoining zoning in the area. The petitioner also needs a zone change because their proposed building is larger than the limit established in the AR zone of 10,000 square feet for church use. This proposed zoning, in the staff's opinion, can be found to be in agreement with the comprehensive plan because they are willing to restrict the density of the property. In most cases where the staff has an application or the commission has an application for a zone change where a semi-public use would be proposed, it's common to then propose conditional zoning restrictions that if that conditional use is not ever developed or ceases to exist in the future, that the conditional zoning restrictions would limit the density of the property should it redevelop for residential use. So the staff is recommending a conditional zoning restriction to limit the density of the property. And although the applicant's not proposing any dwelling units at two gross acres of property, the property could be developed with 16 dwelling units and still maintain its medium density designation as recommended by the comprehensive plan. The staff also found several goals and objectives that support the location of churches near neighborhoods so that they can become self-sustaining and also to provide adequate opportunities for non-residential facilities such as churches near neighborhoods. The staff is recommending approval of this request, as did the zoning committee three weeks ago. I would note that there is a blue sheet at your seat that shows the staff's proposed changes to findings and the conditional zoning restriction proposed by the staff to reflect a discussion that occurred at the zoning committee related to using the gross acreage of the property rather than net at the request of the applicant. So in this case, the property would be in agreement, or the proposed zone change would be in agreement with the comprehensive plan and would be in keeping with the density recommended by limiting it to 16 units because the medium density residential recommendation allows for 0 to 8 dwelling units per gross acre. I'd be happy to answer any questions about this request. Okay. Any questions, Ms. White? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the preliminary development plan that is associated with this own change is on page 5 of your agenda. It is ZDP 2012-9. The preliminary plan that you see depicted is, as was explained, fronts on Greendale Road. At the back here is the Norfolk Southern Railroad. These orange lines here show the 100-foot KU transmission easement to demonstrate the impact that it does have on this particular property. The proposed church, 13,200 square feet, two stories, is here. You can see a simple rectangular construction, associated parking. Here is, of course, the access point from Greendale Road. Dumpster location is proposed here. There is one-way circulation on this side of the building being proposed. This was reviewed by your subdivision committee and originally recommended for postponement. That was based on the staff's recommendation due to a lack of information on tree canopy information. As Stacey explained, and as the picture shows, it is a heavily treed. Tracy, it's in the public record that I got her name wrong. Now I am in trouble. The other lacking bit of information was a discussion on Greendale Road improvements. The issue for the improvements across their frontage has to do with the fact that as development has occurred on Greendale, it has been brought up to urban standards. There's a sidewalk across this frontage. The road has been widened in places. It has been widened in this area as well. We're headed towards the railroad crossing. In this area, along Greendale, there's transition of pavement. In this area, on Greendale, this way, there's a transition in the pavement. That's designed to warn motorists that you're getting back to a little narrow rural section. So we discussed this at length with the church and agreed that there should be a transition somewhere through this frontage. We are deferring that to the final development plan because of some of the issues that they have on this site, not the least of which is a utility pole in this location, and it's very large. It's carrying a lot of power and a lot of lines, and relocation of that would be quite expensive. So the exact nature and extent of that transition will be determined at the final development plan, of course, with the cooperation of our Division of Engineering and the Kentucky Department of Transportation as well. They have agreed to our request that they put a sidewalk across their frontage, and you can see its location will not only serve pedestrians, but will serve the churchgoers as well with their parking lot. We had several very productive meetings with the applicant. They submitted the revised plan that you see before you today. At your place, your seats, there should be revised recommendations. This revised plan cleaned up many of the typical cleanup conditions that we have on plans that are submitted. There are several remaining standard conditions. They are sign-off conditions, the first five. The final conditions, resolve the tree canopy I have covered with you, as well as the Greendale improvements. Those are appropriate at the time of the final development plan. Again, at such time that that is approved by this body, they can then pull permits and actually start construction. We believe that is the appropriate time to finalize those requirements. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Okay, any questions? Ms. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tom, and I apologize if I missed it in subdivision, dumpster location? I don't remember the dumpster location being out next to Greendale Road. Seems like a very odd place for it to me. Wouldn't necessarily be very nice for the traffic on Greendale Road. Is it possible to move it? It is possible to move it. There will be a final development plan. Of course, they have to be screened. The important thing for the dumpster is our ability, meaning the public entity, to serve that dumpster safely. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? All right. Thanks very much. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. It's my pleasure to present to you the staff report on the conditional use permit portion of this request. As this is a zone change, the Planning Commission at this time can consider whether or not to approve a conditional use permit for the property. As you may recall, a church is a conditional use in the proposed R3 zone. It is not a principal permitted use of the property. This item in our staff recommendation appears on the bottom of page 4 of your agenda and the top of page 5. This is the staff report on the conditional use for MARC 2012-3. As Mr. Martin presented, the development plan we have on the overhead, a photo, an aerial photo of the frontage of the property, as he described. It also shows the extensive trees along the perimeter of the property, and that does weigh into the staff's report on the conditional use portion of this request. The proposed use of the church will accommodate approximately 200 seats, and about 50 parking spaces as is currently proposed. Again, as Mr. Martin said, there will be a final development plan, so there may be some adjustments to those. But the perimeter of the property will be well screened by retaining some of the existing trees. And this is part in the staff's findings that the proposed use will not be a nuisance or adversely impact the residential uses that are generally in this area. Also, the staff finds that public facilities exist to support this use, including the sidewalk that will allow residents to the south of this location to walk to the church if they are desired. All of the utilities, police and fire protection are also available to this area. Also, the staff believes that the proposed parking will be adequate for the church use. Also, the site is large enough with the large easement in the back to accommodate even overflow traffic should they have an unusual event or have a very large attendance a few times a year. The staff did present at your place a beige sheet with revised conditions for the conditional use. As we told your zoning committee three weeks ago, the staff is recommending approval of the issuance of the conditional use permit at this time, but there was some discussion at your zoning committee meeting about the possibility that this church might want future outdoor recreational uses, such as a ball field or other very incidental uses. To save the church a trip back to the Board of Adjustments, the staff has added a condition, number 8, to the handout that would permit that, and that reads that outdoor recreational uses incidental to the church can be also approved at this time, provided that they are identified when the final development plan comes back to the Planning Commission. The easement area in particular along the railroad track would suffice for just about any type of soccer field or ball field, or other outdoor activities that the church might be interested in providing for their congregation. The other conditions recommended for approval by the staff are that the property be rezoned R3, otherwise any approval of this permit would be null and void. Also, that all necessary permits for the construction be obtained from the Division of Building Inspection, that a landscape buffer area be maintained along the northern and eastern property boundaries at least 20 feet in width, and we anticipate much of the existing tree stand will be preserved there. Finally, condition number six is of note. Any outdoor lighting proposed by the church for their parking, we're asking that be a shoebox type and directed downward so as not to disturb any adjoining residential areas. At this time, I'd be glad to answer any questions about our staff recommendation or the revised condition that we brought to you today. Any questions? All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Petitioner. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I'm pleased today to be representing Victory Apostolic Church, and a number of the church members are here with us today. They're on your left side. Pastor Greg Brooks is here, and also two of the deacons who have met along with Pastor Brooks with the staff a couple times. John Bruce and Willis Buster and we have a number of other members here obviously a lot of people couldn't come due to working right now but the church is now meeting in rented space on Anniston Drive and they're very anxious to get into their own facility here they purchased this lot eight months ago in June of 2011 the house had already been removed before they purchased the property and would like to build their structure here. Jason Banks is our engineer as well, and Chaz Hyde is our planner, who have been working on this with us. We agree with all the staff conditions of approval on the zone change and on the development plan and on the conditional use permit. We appreciate the staff working with us on a number of units, and that's important just to be able to borrow money on this property. In this lending climate right now, it's important to be able to establish the value we can so that the church can borrow money from a bank to build its buildings. So allowing us to the underlying density to be 16 rather than 15 makes it a little bit easier for the church to go to borrow money on this. So we appreciate the staff working with us on that. I think at the zoning committee, Ms. Phillips, you had mentioned about the recreation area, and we talked about that. It's obviously a very good idea, so that's the genesis of condition number eight on the conditional use permit request. Mr. Ellen, you'd ask about the dumpster, and it's our understanding from the technical committee that dumpsters will not be required, at least initially, because of the small size of this church. They do require us to show where a possible dumpster could be on the property, because we have to demonstrate that we could have one if needed, but we won't be having one at least very early on on this. And we will work with the staff through the final development plan stage to try to come up with a location for that. We do have some constraints on the site because it does slope downward from Greendale Pike. And obviously, as Mr. Silley mentioned, it's a consideration for ease of service by the Division of Solid Waste here as well. But we'll be back with you with the final development plan. but I wanted to emphasize that there's not going to be a dumpster out here initially. They said we could continue to serve it with the Herbys because of the small size of the church. So, as I said, we're in agreement with the staff conditions. I think this is a very good use for the site, especially since we're bordered by three zones on this. We have AR, we have R3, and we have I1, which is unusual for a piece of property here in Fayette County. And not only do we have the three zones that border us, we have a Norfolk Southern Railroad, and then just to the west of that, on our property, we have a 100-foot wide KU transmission easement. And if you've been out there, you see the big structures following the railroad. So there's a lot of things on this property, but I think a church building of this is an excellent sort of use, transitional use in the middle of all those different uses that are out there on Greendale Road. So we thank you very much. You know, I have a lot more I could say, but I think I've said enough on this. And we appreciate your attention to this very much. And we'd be, Jason or I, or members of the church, be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Okay, any questions? All right. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak to this? Okay. All right, then I'm going to close the hearing. and turn it over to the Commission. Are we ready for a motion? I move approval of MARC 2012-3 Victory Apostolic Church for the three reasons outlined by staff. All right. We have a motion for approval of the zone change. I second, Mr. Chair. We have a second by Mr. Wilson. Any discussion? Any further discussion? Okay. Let's vote. We'll have to have some more motion. All right. The zone change is approved. Now we'll need a motion for the conditional use. We have approval of the conditional use permit or conditional use with the eight conditions outlined by staff. All right. We have a motion for approval. Do Second. Second. Second. Ms. Beatty. Everybody vote. Conditional use has been passed, and now we need a motion for the development plan. Move approval of ZDP 2012-9 Victory Apostolic Church with the nine requirements outlined by staff. All right. We have a motion for approval of the development plan. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Owens. Everybody vote. Development plan is approved. So all three motions carry and then resume. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I'd like the record to show that I did not abstain on that second vote. I voted in the affirmative. Thank you. Let's get it right. I thought you were just being like me. Good afternoon, Chairman Cravens, members of the Commission. This is a proposal for an ND1 overlay zone for the Meadowthorpe neighborhood. And I have a few things to enter in the record. I handed out a copy of my PowerPoint presentation, as well as the green sheet is a summary of the staff's suggested alternative design standards. That's part of the staff report, but I thought it would be nice to have a quick and easy copy to have in front of you. So in addition, at your place is a notebook that the Neighborhood Association prepared when they asked the commission to initiate this request in October, and that has the data as well as their supporting information. It would be called the design study that they prepared in order to request the ND1 overlay. in addition there was one letter that was sent to each Commission member and I've given that to each each one of you ahead of time there's also a copy of it at the end here the rest of these letters are for individual ones and I'll send them around there we're all in support of the request And just for clarification, the individual one you have, that one was in opposition. In addition, if the commission wishes to see this, for the record, we're entering the actual ND1 ballots that the Neighborhood Association prepared when they submitted their request to the Planning Commission. Okay. This is MAR 2012-2. It was initiated by the Planning Commission in October of 2011. The staff report can be found behind tab 1 in your notebooks, and this is found on the agenda on page 2 and continues through page 4. The subject property is the Meadowthorpe neighborhood, and it consists of 484 individual properties, mostly single-family properties, 440 of those, and then a few duplexes and multifamily units throughout. Meadowthorpe is located on Leastown Road across from the Townley development and also a large shopping center. It is also bound to the north and west by New Circle Road and has been kind of cut off by industrial development to the east along Price Road. And along Leastown Road, the development in this area is mostly commercial. To the west, I'm sorry, to the east and to the north across New Circle, it's industrial in this area. The subject area of the neighborhood is almost completely zoned R1C. There are a few duplexes on Meadowthorpe Avenue, mostly duplexes, that are currently zoned B1, so they would be nonconforming. There are also other duplexes and multifamily units, as I mentioned, throughout the neighborhood, and they are zoned R1C, so they also are nonconforming in this area. you will notice there are a few large properties that were excluded from the neighborhood in terms of this request they include the Meadowthorpe Elementary School to the west two church sites Meadowthorpe Baptist Church and Meadowthorpe Presbyterian Church the Meadowthorpe Park owned by the city and also the Westchester on the circle apartments in addition there are a few single-family homes that were excluded, and those are on Pelican Lane for the commission here, because they were developed in the 1990s. That was the last piece of Meadowthorpe to develop. It's just an aerial photo of the area. Meadowthorpe was developed mostly in the 1940s and 1950s with the last subdivision occurring in 1961. Most of the neighborhood is a Cape Cod-style house, single-family home, and also some ranch-style homes with the addition, as I mentioned, of 29 duplexes and 15 multifamily buildings. construction of New Circle Road kind of cut off the or limited the neighborhood's expansion in the 1950s. Originally this area was the Meadowthorpe Stock Farm hence the name of the neighborhood and of interest for our history buffs is that this was the first airport location in Lexington called Haley Field in 1927 and was a landing spot for Charles Lindbergh and later it was developed by H.R. Taylor into the subdivision that's currently there today. The Meadowthorpe Neighborhood, in presenting their request, has done quite a bit of work. First, they needed to do a design study, and part of that design study was establishing whether they could meet, according to Article 29, the overlay district designation criteria. They have stated, and the staff agrees, that there were two criteria that they could meet, could meet, and the first appears in 29.3 of the ordinance. Number three, there's a need to protect the visual characteristics that give this neighborhood its distinct identity. And also number six, the area has a character that is geographically defined. It possesses a significant concentration of buildings or structures united by past events or has a plan or physical development that's united. and the neighborhood, according to the ordinance, has to meet one or more of the seven criteria that are established. Article 29 also establishes the need for the neighborhood in their design study to develop preservation goals. So the neighborhood did go through that process and developed four neighborhood preservation goals. Those are in front of you in the notebooks as well. When the neighborhood approached their members, they found that 67% of all of the property owners, so each parcel got a vote, 67% were in support of the request, 25% had no response, and a little over 8% opposed the request. when they asked the planning commission to initiate this zone change the staff also sent out postcards asking if there was enough support for this to go forward and the summary of that information is up on the overhead 40% of all of the postcards came back in support 8.7 came back in opposition 4% said they had no, I'm sorry, 4 cards or 0.8% said they had no opinion either way. And then there was a larger percentage that had no response when the Planning Commission or the Division of Planning sent out the postcards of 46.5%. So the neighborhood has gone through over a two-year process to establish their design standards, and they came up with four design standards that they would ask the commission to consider putting in an overlay for their neighborhood. And they are laid out here. There are seven. And the staff in reviewing them has divided them into two groups, structural changes and then site design and land development. The first design standard proposed deals with exterior building materials and would apply to all buildings in the neighborhood. They want or hope to ask for all wall coverings with the exclusion of garages and chimneys to be, I'm sorry, including garages and chimneys to be brick or natural stone that allows for an exception of dormers and porch coverings. And then in terms of, that's for our primary structure, in terms of an addition, the restriction would allow a different wall covering as long as it met local building codes. And that would have to be behind the front building. In their research, they found that the primary exterior cladding of structures in the neighborhood is either brick or stone, 100%. and the additions that they're seeing are often made with alternative materials, and this restriction is aimed to preserve the quality of the environment and maintain some commonality between all of the structures. Design Standard 2 is a proposal to restrict floor area or floor area ratio for both single-family and duplexes to a 0.25 ratio, which would exclude basements, and this restriction is aimed to keep homes in scale with the neighborhood and maintain the streetscape. In looking at the floor area ratio, the one opposition letter you all received dealt mostly with that concern. The staff looked at the data that the neighborhood presented and found that only single-family residences because duplexes are already nonconforming so they wouldn't be able to expand. And only five of the single-family homes in the neighborhood exceed the .5 FAR, and the greatest they go up to is .3, so from .26 to .3. And then there are another two homes that are at that limit currently. So the red properties show where they're exceeding that .25. They would become nonconforming. They would not be able to expand. And then the other two homes are kind of shown in a pink color, or looks like a dark gray on the overhead. And they also would not be able to expand. Design standard number three that is being proposed deals with building heights. They're suggesting a maximum height of 30 feet to the ridge. And the applicants or the requesting party of the neighborhood, their data showed that almost all of the buildings in the neighborhood are either one, one-and-a-half or two-story buildings, and none exceeded the 30-foot limit. And this is, of course, again, aimed to keep homes in scale with the neighborhood and maintain that streetscape appearance. I'm skipping number four because it deals with the site design. But design number five deals with accessory structures. It would apply to all the buildings or all structures uses in the neighborhood, but it is bifurcated. The maximum footprint for single-family and duplex uses would be for 800 square feet, and that would be a footprint, largest footprint for those uses. In the multifamily, for the multifamily buildings, the largest footprint would be, or square footage would be 250 per unit. So that's based on the number of units for each building. And also restricts the height of those structures to 22 feet. In looking at the data for this request, single-family or residential and duplexes, the accessory structures ranged in size from 180 square feet to 1,700 square feet, and the average size was well below that max, but 472, 62 square feet, And the 95th percentile is still within the 800 square feet that they are suggesting that limit. So over 95% of the properties currently meet that limit. The multifamily structures, only eight structures actually have any accessory garages or anything. And two would have more square footage than would be permitted in the future, so they wouldn't be able to expand their accessory structures. This standard would be important for maintaining the existing visual streetscape and maintain that the accessory structures are to the rear and secondary to the primary structure. Standard number six deals with wall openings for windows and doors and vents. This is also very similar to an infill and redevelopment area requirement. The neighborhood did not take a survey of each property to assess whether they met that 10%. What they did is a sample, and they estimate that all the structures in the neighborhood would fall within the 16% to 22% range in terms of meeting this restriction currently. And there's the openings highlighted. But this eliminates completely blank walls, which would be out of character in the neighborhood. Coming back to design standard number four, rear yard setbacks, the neighborhood is proposing those in order to maintain green space, which the neighborhood considers vital. And the way that this would be proposed to be measured, instead of from the rear property line, it would be measured from the front building plane of the building 60 feet back. So you'd be allowed a house or duplex that was 60 feet deep. the staff looked at whether that would create nonconformities there were a number that were greater than 60 feet deep already so these structures may be able to expand to one side or another but wouldn't be able to expand to the rear any further and that encompasses seven and a half percent of the properties 35 of the parcels And lastly, design standard number seven is dealing with parking. Parking is almost exclusively to the rear in this neighborhood with detached garages, and even the apartment complexes have their parking to the rear. So for multifamily dwellings, the parking would be maintained to the rear or to the side. and for a single family, there's an allowance for driveways if you're a driveway to be allowed in front of a garage but not for it to be expanded beyond that. So to provide a parking space in your front yard would still not be allowed as they're proposing it. This reinforces the existing character of the neighborhood. But again, the staff looked if there were any nonconformities. There seemed to be four properties that had parking areas that were not in front of the garage as asked for by the neighborhood. And just some photos there. They're a little bit hard to see. But like this concrete area here, this property goes to the right. this one has pavement not directly in front of the garage so those are the standards as presented by the neighborhood the staff when we looked at them suggest would suggest some changes and those are shown on the green sheet again some more really clarification so that interpretation is easier when they any of the residents in the neighborhood come in for a zoning compliance permit or a building permit. In terms of the comprehensive plan, the neighborhood is recommended mostly for low-density residential use, with the exception of those B1 properties on Meadowthorpe. It's recommended for medium-density residential there. The comprehensive plan also identifies eight overriding themes, one of which is preserving and protecting the neighborhoods for improving their quality of life. And then Goal 15, Objective I, specifically recommends neighborhood overlay zoning as a tool to protect our established neighborhoods. In conclusion, the staff does recommend approval of this request with the small changes shown on the green sheet. I can go over those in detail if you'd like. This ND1 will help maintain the existing character of the Meadowthorpe neighborhood, ensuring that any new development or additions to existing homes will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The residents have done the work required by the zoning ordinance to review the current and also historic character of the neighborhood and completed the design study very thoroughly. and the staff would also note that it meets all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance and then meets the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. Go ahead. Can you tell me, is this area defined infill and redevelopment? It is not. All right, Marie Copeland. It seems to me that the Leastown Road Shopping Center is included in this, isn't it? No, ma'am. The Leastown Road Shopping Center would be across the property. Is it the Kroger Shopping Center? If McDonald's is across Leastown Road, this would be the boundary. Leastown, north, the backside of Taylor Drive, New Circle, excluding the church property, and would come and exclude kind of the back of Boiling Springs Drive. Includes Larch Lane with the exception of the church and the park. Comes down north Forbes, and then the back property line of Townley here. It does include Meadowthorpe Avenue. And these are all single-family homes along Meadowthorpe Avenue, and it's now called Old Leastown Road. This would be the Meadowthorpe Shopping Center. Oh, okay. This area is Zone B1. I got it. Yeah, thanks. Okay, any other questions? Yeah, Mr. Owens. Thank you. Tracy? Yes, sir. Two things, I guess. One, as far as an accessory building, specifically a duplex, you said a duplex would be allowed 800 square feet. Is that per unit in a duplex, or is that 800 square feet for the two units? I believe it's stated as per lot. Per lot. Okay. All right. Thank you. I noticed out there, speaking of driveways, parking in front, there are a few front-facing garages, obviously. There are. My question would be, I noticed there were a few that had garages already enclosed for living space. Obviously, the driveway went up there. I would say that would be allowed, still nonconforming. What happens down the road if someone wants to enclose their garage as far as parking? Or I would think the garage enclosure would be allowed, but what happens to the parking? The parking would have to be somewhere on the property if they couldn't meet the parking requirement, which has to be behind the building line. So if it's a home with a garage at the end of, I mean, a ranch with a garage at the end, they couldn't wall off the garage and have their parking in the front. Okay. Thank you. In fact, the rear yard setback issue, most of those have come about the depth of the houses as people have connected, built detached garages in the back and connected them to the primary structure. Okay. I guess one other question, floor area ratio. Did I see anything? Do you have anything that shows maybe what the average would be as far as presently? I don't have that calculation. The neighborhood may have done it. Okay. Thank you. I believe somewhere in the notebook there's the data they collected by street, and there's probably an average for each street. if that helps. I would say it's probably 0.19 or 0.2. 0.17. Thank you. You're welcome. Tracy, I have a question. The parking restriction in the front yard, isn't that already, isn't there already a rule against that in other parts of the city? You can't have your required parking in front of the building line, but you can have non-required parking. So if you already have a parking space to the rear, but you want to pave your front yard for a non-required spot, an extra spot, for ease of people getting in and out, if you only have a single lane driveway, which is the case in this neighborhood for most properties, that would be allowed, as long as there's a restriction, as long as you don't pave more than 50% of the front yard. So if someone wanted to add parking, obviously maybe a turnaround lane or something that tees off of the main driveway would be prohibited. What about doubling the width of the driveway or extending the width in some way? I think that's what at least two or three of those structures have done. But when they did it, it wasn't directly in front of a garage door anymore. I think if they have a double garage door, it would be permitted. But if they only have a single, and this is only in front of the building line again, if it's to the rear, past the structure, there wouldn't be any restrictions. Would this restrict widening of the garage in front of the house? Excuse me, widening of the drive in front of the house? Yes, it would. If it's a single, I think it would. if it's a single garage and they widen the driveway to two, that second lane is no longer in front of the garage. It has to be the way the staff suggested we're going to be directly in front of. Thank you. Okay, any more questions? Okay. Thank you. Does that conclude the staff report? It does, and then the Neighborhood Association has the requesting party. They have a short presentation as well. All right, very good. Do you have the clicker tracing? It's loading right now. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, we really do appreciate this opportunity. And, Tracy, could you tell me if the letter from the Historic Preservation Commission, has that been entered into the record? It was part of the group of letters that went around. Thank you. And I believe Mr. Rohrer from the Historic Preservation Commission is here. And Mr. Fibus is passing out a copy of the slideshow in case we have technical difficulties, and also a copy of Metathorpe's history booklet, which I know you may have seen, but I wanted you to have your own copy. Okay, we're there. Can you give us your name and address? Oh, yes, I certainly can. Coleman Bush, 324 Pelican Lane. Okay, ND1, it's been a long process, three years. Tracy did a great job going through a lot of my slideshows, so this will be briefer than I even thought. Now, what I want to do, I know some of you have gone to Mettathorpe and you've taken a look, but just in case you haven't, I wanted to give you a short slideshow which will give you a little bit of a flavor for its homes and for its history, and it's a great history. That is our entrance, our main entrance at Boiling Springs. A lot of neighbors spend a lot of time working on that garden, and it's quite an attraction for us. That is our largest home. I got on a ladder and measured from the peak to the foundation at 29 feet. And where that sits, it sits on a hill, so it's not remarkable for its size, but it is an impressive home, and we're lucky to have it. We don't have any others that size. This particular home was built originally for the Hillenmeyer family, and it's an excellent example. It's on Metathorpe Avenue, an excellent example of one of our larger homes. And this home sits on Boiling Springs Drive. This was originally built for the Pirat family. And interestingly, some of the framing members were reclaimed from the old post office on Main Street. This house also has a solid stone foundation taken from some of the stones on the farm fences. It's unfortunate the fences are no longer there, but they were preserved in many of the homes in Metathor. This is an excellent example of a Hugh Taylor built home. As Tracy mentioned, H.R. Taylor developed Metathorpe. He was also an excellent builder. Many of his homes stand in Metathorpe. We haven't cataloged them all, but we'll be doing that. This is on Taylor Drive. Helen Evans, for those of you that know Helen, resides in this home. This is a home on Hillsborough Avenue that's gone through extensive renovation, and yet they have maintained the character and the scale of the original home. The first home in Metathorpe from Boiling Springs, again built from the rock fences. They're not there, but they are preserved in the structure and in other structures. I love this picture. We haven't seen much of the white stuff this year, but this home in particular represents an awful lot. There are 313 of these Metathorpe Cape Cods in Metathorpe. My friends Russ and Kim DiBella own this home, and this went through extensive rehabilitation. It was in terrible, terrible shape. And I know it had vines growing all over it, and I think Russ pretty much used up a whole set of kitchen silverware scraping those vines off this house. And they brought it back to just wonderful condition. It exists just as it was when it was built in the 1950s. They've added a little bit out back, but virtually it's unchanged. And it's wonderful what they've done. This is a view north on Taylor Drive, and I like this shot because it shows you the different styles, the different materials. It shows you the consistent setback. It just shows you a real rhythm to Metathorpe homes. Another shot on Larch Lane looking north. A lot of similarities in these homes, but on the other hand, a lot of differences. A lot of subtle differences, a lot of not-so-subtle differences. Metathorpe's not all the big homes you saw at first. It's not all the story and a half. A lot of Metathorpe are smaller homes. We have about 149 ranch homes. A lot of them are the 1,000-square-foot homes. Many of those have been added to in the rear with left-siding additions, which are totally acceptable under our proposed standards. In Metathorpe is a neighborhood for everyone. These are some of our duplexes on Metathorpe Avenue, large duplexes. In fact, my grandfather used to own the one to the left. Our multifamilies are strategically placed at intersections on large lots. They're not all joined together at one place, and they are well-maintained. They're well-built. Now, our standards, I won't go through those because Tracy did an excellent job, but I do want to give you an idea of why we chose the standards we chose. We are a brick-and-stone neighborhood. Now, people can get quite creative in construction projects. This is a home in a different neighborhood, but I just wanted to give you an example of some creative building, which we simply want to avoid that type of building in Metathorpe. This is an example of a home in a newer neighborhood, a perfectly fine home, well built, well maintained, but you can see different materials, different construction, different design altogether. This would not fit in Metathorpe. It would not help us retain our character. The floor area ratio, you wanted some statistics. The current floor area ratio for all properties in Metathorpe is 0.17. That excludes basements. Now, keep in mind that that is as they exist today. So the original structures, which had not been added on to, would have even been smaller than that. And taking all those nonconforming use properties out, as Tracy mentioned, we do have five single families that don't fit, 0.26, 0.26, 0.28, 0.28, and 0.30, so they are very close. And if you remove all those, then our average floor area ratio is 0.16. Our average square footage, I looked at that this morning, is 1749, and that includes the large multifamilies. The building heights, I don't need to say any more about that. Our largest structure is 29 feet. We want to keep the properties in scale. Tracy mentioned the rear yard setbacks. You can see a property here, where they have developed an awful lot of the lot, and this is in Metathorpe. But this is more what Metathorpe looks like. Lots and lots of green space, good sight lines. Accessory structures, this is Metathorpe. We want to avoid a continuation of this type of building. That structure is out of character. That structure is out of scale with what's there, and we hope that our accessory structure design standard will prevent that in the future. Here's an example of a home on Metathorpe Avenue, and it has a large three-car garage just under 800 square feet, totally acceptable under our proposed design standard. And this is a huge garage for Metathorpe. Our minimum wall openings. This is an example of another neighborhood, new construction, totally acceptable, well-built home, but a different design than Metathorpe. Meta Thorpe has lots and lots of window and door openings, and to not preserve those would be to not preserve the character of Meta Thorpe. Our parking, all we're trying to do with parking is maintain what we have today. We're not trying to put any restrictions that don't exist. This is a typical attached garage parking. We don't have as many attached garages as we do detached, and this is typical detached. What we want to prevent is parking in front of the living space. that would just hurt the view of the neighborhood. And this is typical parking on one of our multifamilies, to the rear or to the side. Now, our most important, and Tracy did mention this, this is our most important slide, I believe. We had overwhelming neighborhood support. It wasn't easy. We started our petition drive in February, and we had to go back several times. We had to call several times. But in the end, out of all the petitions, 484 properties, we had a 77.3% response rate, which I think is very, very good. And we had almost 87% approval out of those that responded. I broke that down between resident owners and absentee owners to get a flavor for that. The resident owners, 80% response, 87% approval. The absentee owners, not quite as high. And I will say this, we sent at minimum two postage paid envelopes for returns on those, so we had a very transparent and a very open and a very dedicated effort, and we got 64% back, but a very high approval rate, 87%. Now, in comparison, Chevy Chase, just so we had a benchmark, they had almost as many returns, 73%, and 84% approval. So we're right there. I didn't have information on Montclair to share. It's interesting on the postcards. We did have postcard results on Montclair, and those results did not look as good, and I understand that. Where our approval rate was 44%, Montclair's was actually a little bit lower than that at 40.2%. Chevy Chase at the time, I don't believe they were using the postcards. We don't have any information on that. So does Metathorpe fit the overlay district designation criteria? Well, I believe without hesitation that we do. There is a need to protect the visual characteristics that give Metathorpe its distinct identity. And Metathorpe does have character as a geographically definable area possessing a significant concentration of buildings, united by past events or by its plan for physical development. And to that end, I have passed out those history booklets. I hope you keep them. You will understand a little better if you look at those, the importance of Metathorpe to the history of Lexington. and this slide sort of represents, in a way, Metathorpe's future. That home has since been torn down, fortunately, and this is how that lot exists today, albeit in a different season. But what is going to happen to that lot? It's waiting for a master commissioner sale, and without ND1, we're not sure. With ND1, we do have the assurance that the home that goes on that lot will be in character and will be in scale with the original homes of Mittathorpe, which were built post-World War II in the late 40s and early 50s. So thank you, and I'll be happy to answer questions. Okay, thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Bush? Okay, is there anyone in? I've got one quick one. Okay, go ahead. Oh, I have a question. The stat you showed of 77.3, you've got it broken out into seven categories. on page 8, that represents a yes on any of those categories? What I did, I averaged those categories. The slide, frankly, was so busy, and they were so close, I was maybe a low of 85.5 to a high of 88.1. So I averaged them so the slide would be more readable. Okay, and was it ever done just a yes or no vote? A yes or no vote we wanted or not, not specified by exterior building materials or separate characteristics. The yes or no vote was to they could vote for all of the standards, which most people did, and we probably had 30 who selectively, we gave them the opportunity, if they didn't like a standard, to selectively indicate those. And we found the range of the total yeses with that included was, I believe, 85-1 to probably 88-something percent. So for ease of presentation, I averaged those. That's fine. And the total no's that just came back and said, no, we don't want anything to do with it? Well, I did the same thing. Some people said no, and then where they said, I don't like standard seven, for example, that went into the no category as well on that standard. On the seven sections? On the seven, on the seven standards individually, yes, sir. Okay, thanks. Does that answer it? Okay. All right. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Now, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak to this? Yes, sir. Hi, my name is Mark Fibus. I live at 288 Large Lane. And, oh, you already turned off the slides. If you look at your handouts, I think it's the last page, or second to last page, there's a quote. And I'd like to read that. It's from a book. Apparently, Coleman has lots of interests, and one of the books he found is called Rock Fences of the Bluegrass. And there's a really interesting quote in there that I think really applies to ND1. I'd like to read that. What you have there is a little abbreviated. I'm going to read the whole thing. It says, Our society does aspire to preserve some of the artifacts of the past, but we do this selectively. It is simpler to argue that a great building designed by a great architect or occupied by a great man merits preservation than it is to argue that a neighborhood market or a row of common working people's houses are worthy of the same effort. The unfortunate result of such selective preservation is that the geographic, historic, and cultural past is lost, and what is left is a unique artifact out of context amidst other structures to which it has no functional attachment. Such artifacts tell very little of their place in the events during the time they flourished. Meadowthorpe is pretty much as it was when it was started 50 to 60 years ago. So out of the 484 homes, there are only two homes that have been torn down. One of them was to build a Presbyterian church, and then the other one was the side that you saw of the home that burned. So right now is a perfect time for ND1 for Meadowthorpe, and I hope you vote in favor of it. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. One at a time. We didn't plan an order. It was just kind of who said, I'll go next. My name is Terry Terry. I live at 1490 Townley Drive. Mr. Bush gave you a picture of 1470 Townley Drive. It's just a few houses downhill from my house. When we purchased, my husband's in the audience with me When we purchased our home 16 years ago One of the things that was of prime importance to us Was the size of the lot and the size of the houses around us So that we have a lot of green space We spend a lot of time outdoors and we enjoy that green space That's the primary reason for us choosing Meadowthorpe If I lived right next door to 1470 or right behind it, I would be considering leaving Meadowthorpe because that picture doesn't do justice what they did to the property. And the people who did it were nice people. They've since moved and somebody else lives there. They're nice people. Nothing against the people or that kind of dwelling someplace else. But in Meadowthorpe, it doesn't belong. They built an addition behind the house that was at least as big as the house, in addition to the two-car garage with space above it with windows opening to the front, and you were able to see only the front view. There was no backyard left, just a little trim of green that I'm sure was all legal, but not at all fitting to Metathorpe. We wanted ND1 to happen in time to prevent things like that, And unfortunately, it's too late for the neighbors around that house. But we want to be proactive and keep other properties from similar types of overdevelopment that don't fit our neighborhood. So I hope that you vote to pass our ND1 proposal. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Next. Good afternoon. I'm Shirley Young. I live at 220 Bowling Springs Drive, and I'm a former president of the Metathorpe Neighborhood Association. I became acquainted with Metathorpe in 1980 while visiting friends, and in 1983, I made a very hasty decision because I had learned to love Metathorpe. I sold a perfectly good seven-year-old house on the south side of Lexington and bought a 30-year-old house in Metathorpe. I'm still there to this day. Metathorpe does have lots of important history, but I think one of the important things that I want to point out to you is that the best history of Metathorpe is its people and the generations of families that continue to make up our community. Second on the importance list is the wonderful homes in Metathorpe that do deserve and are worthy of preservation. Metathorpe was developed in 1948 by forward-thinking people with duplexes, single-family homes, and multifamily units. They made it possible for anyone looking for a home could find a fit that met their needs, and that's still true today. I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge Mary Owen Bush. Mary and her husband bought their home in Metathorpe in 1956. Mary's son Coleman, her daughter Nora, both live in Metathorpe. She also has a granddaughter and two great-grandsons who live there. This is just one story about current residents whose families were the first residents of Metathorpe, and their parents and in-laws were the first residents of Metathorpe. We're a neighborhood of generations, an important fact that says Metathorpe is a special place. We feel that our application does not exclude any individual, nor does it prevent anyone from making improvements to their existing home. Our goal is to be proactive by asking for additional standards that will preserve the character and the style of the homes in our beautiful neighborhood. I truly appreciate your opportunity, your letting me speak to you today, and I urge each of you to approve our application. Thank you. All right, thank you. Next. Let's get this together right there. I'll make this quick. I am Joe Collins, the current president of Mettathorpe Neighborhood Association, and I just want to say today is a great day for you guys because you have the opportunity to help protect and preserve this wonderful, wonderful neighborhood. And I hope you do so. Take that. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Hi, my name is Elizabeth Robertson, and I live at 1602 Metathorpe. You saw a picture of my beautiful home on a slideshow. Originally from Bourbon County, I decided to return to Lexington after college because I like having roots. I like knowing history behind families, businesses, buildings. I like tradition. We are a new family to Metathorpe. purchasing our home in 2010 a few months prior to the birth of our son. We were drawn to Metathorpe for the character of the homes, the proximity to downtown life, but most importantly, Metathorpe allowed us to feel like we were part of a smaller, historic community, giving our son some roots. I soon realized we had made the best decision. We are surrounded by neighbors with similar priorities, home, family, history. We live in a historic home built by the Hill and Meyer family, beautifully maintained in its original state for the last 40-plus years by the Collier family. Every day I look around our home and am in awe of the craftsmanship and maintenance. I often tell friends that we live in a battleship of a house. I strongly support the ND1 overlay because it will encourage the maintenance of the original homes, attract those who wish to preserve a small part of old Lexington while having the conveniences of downtown life. I represent the next generation to the neighborhood and believe that ND1 will allow for Metathorpe's historic element to continue and attract residents with similar priorities. I do not see this as an exclusionary step, rather as a preservation of the original charm of one of the few remaining gems in Lexington, which in my opinion is as necessary as preserving our historic farmland. Thanks. All right, thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Donna Blauvelt, and I live at 252 Boiling Springs. Actually, 252 is my second home in Mattathorpe. We owned, many years ago when our children were young, we owned 344 Boiling Springs. The home we're in now, we bought when my father-in-law died, so it is a generational house. however I suspect I'm probably the only one in the gallery that is against ND1 when we bought my father-in-law's home it was in a complete state of disrepair it was appraised at such a value no one would buy it we bought it in fact we did the same thing with 344 when we bought it it was in horrendous shape we rehabbed it We made that home into something that was consistent with the neighborhood and was a beautiful home. Then when we came back from living on the other side of town, we bought 252. We have done the exact same thing. We have rehabbed the house. We have kept the flooring. We've done everything that we could do to keep the original character of the house. We did put a dormer on the house because we have three children, and it was a three-bedroom, one-bath house, which, as you could imagine, would be a little small. So we put a dormer on the back of the home. It cannot be seen from the street. It was done all permitted, and I do not think that it does anything to detract from the neighborhood. That was phase one of our plan. Then we were supposed to start phase two this summer, which was to build a nice-sized deck in the back and to tear down the two-car concrete block existing garage, which, quite frankly, is ugly, and replace it with a brick facade three-car garage, since we're about to have three driving teenagers, and to add an extra parking space onto the side of the garage. Now, if I have read ND1 correctly, it would prohibit us from being able to do that. So here's my problem with the situation. We left a neighborhood on the other side of town that had a homeowners association. We came back to Metathorpe. We bought a home where there were no existing issues about what we could do with our property. And everything we've done up to this point has been, I would say, very, very consistent with the neighborhood. And now they want to come in and say, no, you can't do these things because we think it detracts from our view. so I don't want to get into a battle over this but the simple issue is when I bought the house with my husband there were no conditions and now that I'm getting ready to finish phase two of our project to finish this house up now suddenly there's going to be conditions on what I can do with my property now if they want to pass conditions on people that are new to the neighborhood when they buy in, I can see that as an option because they would know there's going to be certain things you can and cannot do with your property. That was not the case when I bought the property. So I would ask you to consider rights of homeowners, and obviously I'm the only one that was available to make it today, but obviously there are other dissenters there. I would ask you to take that into view and look at the fact that they're trying to put in place a set of rules which dictates what I can and what I cannot do with property that I bought is completely paid for, tax is paid, and yet I'm going to be dictated to this is what you can and can't do. And I just don't think that that's appropriate. Now, are there things in Indy one I like? Absolutely. Are there other things I'd like to add? Absolutely. I'd like to paint every curb in the neighborhood yellow so you can't park on it. My son cannot ride his bicycle down the street because there are so many cars parked on the street. Metathorpe is the absolute worst that I've ever seen. but I understand there are battles we can tackle and battles we can't but I do not think that ND1 in its current form is what we need in our neighborhood and I do believe me I do appreciate the history it's wonderfully unique and like I said we've owned two homes there But as a whole, dictating to a homeowner after they've bought their house what you can and cannot do to your property is not the American way. It's not the way we do things here. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair and fellow commissioners, my name is John Rohr. I'm an attorney at Densmore & Scholl, and I am the chair of the current Historic Preservation Commission. It's the first time we've had a chance to be before you, and in our current iteration, we've got 14 new members, so we're kind of learning our way, but I appreciate the opportunity to be here today in support of this application. As you know, the ordinance sets out our HPC's jurisdiction as providing guidance to the LFUCG in all matters concerning historic preservation, conservation, or enhancement of structures, premises, areas, or historic cultural and architectural significance. And I have not seen anything. I used to be on the Bluegrass Trust Board and whatnot, and I've been involved in these preservation efforts, and I have to say I'm in awe of the neighborhood here. at the work they have done for three years, the data they have collected, the efforts they have made to toe the line and cross every T and dot every I on this application. And so we're happy as the Historic Preservation Commission to be here in support of this. I had a letter that we had submitted. I'd be glad to give you another copy, but I think it may have been part of your materials. So I appreciate the opportunity to be here and ask you all to approve this application. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Seeing none, we will now close this hearing and turn it over to the commissioners for discussion, motions, whatever. I've got one question, I guess clarification for Tracy. Is she coming to say anything? Yes, sir. Are you going to say something first? No. I'm sorry. My question would be front yard setbacks were mentioned. And they are front yard setbacks, restrictions? It's not a front yard setback. It's a rear yard setback, but measured from the front face of the building. Right. I understand that. Okay. But currently? Oh, yes. In the R1C zone, there's a 30-foot setback. Okay. All right. Thank you. Tracy, I have a question. Ms. Blakely's comments. If she builds an 800-square-foot garage, three-car garage, that's permitted, correct? Yes, ma'am. Are decks permitted? Yes, they are. So the only issue is the additional parking space, if I understand Ms. Blakely's request? I think the parking space could be in the rear. But does it have to be in front of the garage? Can it be adjacent to the garage? I think the way it's worded, the restriction only restricts the parking when it's between the front facade of the primary structure and the street. So how I understood Ms. Blakely's request, that would be permitted? Yes. The only thing I understood that could be an issue was the size of the garage and possibly the height. If they were opting to build a second story on the garage or have dormers, those wouldn't be allowed. Dormers are prohibited, but a three-car garage typically is about 820, 830 square feet. I had a three-car garage once that was 820 square feet. That seems reasonable. Yes. All right. Marie Copeland. Tracy, we have several other ND1s. This would be the fourth one? Yes, ma'am, it would. Are there any market differences? Do you see a trend? This is like usual and customary, or is there something radically different about this one? I don't think there's anything radically different. It's actually fairly, I mean, compared to the other three, it's not the strictest, and it's not the least restrictive either. It's kind of down the middle. All right. Any further comments? I wanted to ask one of our fellow commissioners a question based on his expertise. What is the standard size for a parking garage, for a two-car garage, since you're a real estate appraiser and probably have this in your hip pocket? I'm primarily a commercial appraiser. but I'm going to say probably 20 by 20, 20 by 25 on a two-car. Is that right, Mike? Would you agree? Okay, so a three-car garage? Three-car, you're going to be another 15 feet maybe, 10 to 15 feet. 250 square feet? Yeah. Okay, so 750 square feet? I would say that's a standard size. That doesn't include extra storage to the back. My three-car garage that I used to have had storage in the back behind, you know, where you would park, that you could have a workbench or, you know, tool boxes, what have you. But, yeah, I was 820 square feet. 20 feet is pretty standard for the depth of a garage. So beyond that, you have extra room for storage, a lawnmower, all those things. Well, all I'm thinking is, you know, I've experienced personally 820, and I wondered if the commission would be amenable to expanding 800 to 820, how that people of Metathorpe would feel about that. Because I did have one that was 820. It was in Texas, though, and everything's bigger in Texas. Okay. Mr. Burger. Yeah, one other quick question. I'm not sure if the neighborhood spokesman, if it would be addressed this, but we have alternative design standards from the staff. Are you all okay? Have you read those, and are you okay with these? Yes, we have, and we've worked closely with them, and we're fine. I'd like to make a motion if the Commission's ready. I would like a few comments. Oh, okay, great. Go ahead. I would just like to applaud the neighborhood for seeking this kind of action, particularly in this area of Lexington. Thank you. If I may. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Comments, I guess, my feelings. I'm driving through it. I've known Meadowthorpe for a long time, but driving through it for the first time in 20 years, I guess, yesterday, to me it's one of the most uniform neighborhoods around. I didn't realize until I drove through it, and it was mentioned here today that I knew this close, but everything is brick or stone. And what I saw and what's being asked here for today I think is very acceptable and very reasonable. It does allow for expansions, and there's some expansions there. There's a couple that would have to follow the nonconforming ranks if this was passed, simply because they go well past that. However, my simple feelings are that everybody's worked hard on this, and there's a lot of good information. And with the desire to protect the character of an existing neighborhood, I think all of this is very reasonable. All right. Ms. Blanton. Clearly, it's a beautiful neighborhood with beautiful homes. I grew up in homes that were built in that era, and I can tell you that they're not functional by a lot of family standards today, two and three bedrooms, one bathroom, no master suite, no family room. I'm concerned that this is just too restrictive, and it might have an adverse and the opposite effect that the neighbors are trying to do into maintaining the thriving nature of the neighborhood. You look at old neighborhoods throughout Lexington, and they're very viable. They're flourishing. They're great neighborhoods. And part of the reason is because they've been able to accommodate more modern lifestyles and standards in the homes today. Okay. I might say that I've heard a lot of testimony about how well the neighborhood is kept and how the houses remain intact much like they were built 60 years ago. And I guess that brings me to the point that why do you need this in the overlay if over the last 60 years the houses were kept intact and the pride of the neighborhood keeps them that way. I would hate to come home one day and find one of these cards in my mailbox saying that my neighbors want to rezone my house and they want to take my right away to build an addition on the back and they want to take my right away to build a garage and then I might want to put a circle driveway in the front. I might be handicapped and I might need that to come out, get to the front door. and I don't get it. I mean, I just don't want to, I wouldn't want to give up my rights to do what I bought the house for to do. And it's zoned R1C, and, you know, when you buy a house, that's the decision you make. You would look at the zoning and the restrictions, and somebody might have bought a house over there 10 years ago still saving up money to build a room on the back of their house. Kind of like the woman said, in her long-range plans, was to build a garage on the back. And here comes a few neighbors saying, no, we want these houses like we want them, you know, not like you yourself want it. And there are a lot of obsolescence in houses that age. Sometimes you need to build onto the back to build master bedrooms with bathrooms or family rooms. A lot of people like kitchens and great rooms all in one room today. And the .25 pretty much prohibits all that. Even in our infill areas, we have .35 that you can do. And I guess there's no deed restrictions that exist over there. And so to change it, if there were deed restrictions, and to change the deed restrictions, it takes 100 percent of the neighborhood. It doesn't take just 70 percent or 60 percent or 70 percent of who responded. It takes 100 percent, and I think that's where we ought to be with this. So those are my two cents worth. Ms. Blanton. You raised a point that I wanted to ask a question about. There have been some well-publicized ADA issues with another homeowners association. Are there any accommodations in this if someone were to have a disability that needed to be able to park closer to the house or have some kind of drive or area to the side of the driveway? Is that an issue or consideration we should be discussing? I think that there is a process by which that owner could seek a change in the restrictions for their property, but it would not be an automatic type of situation. I think there would have to be an application notice and a public hearing. Ms. Phillips. What I was going to say is, given the fact that these people have been working towards an ND1 overlay for over two years, And we have how many properties? 484, almost 500 property owners, potentially 500 different property owners. And it's very challenging to get 100 percent consent, which is why we never do see deed restrictions amended, because you can't get 100 percent agreement. So considering the years of effort that this group has put forth, They've clearly done their homework. They have everyone's best interest in mind to preserve everyone's property values, to be able to maintain the integrity, the historical integrity of this neighborhood for another 60 years. If we're ready, I'm ready to make a motion. Okay. Mr. Chair, I move that we accept the petition by the Metathorpe Neighborhood Association for the Neighborhood Character Design Overlay ND1 Zone for MAR 2012-2 with the design standards, the green sheet, alternative design standards, as presented by the staff. Mr. Chairman, I also second that motion. All right. We have a motion for approval, and we have a second by Mr. Wilson. Any further discussion? All right. Everybody vote. The motion passes, 6 to 3. So your Indy Overlay has passed this step of the way. Okay, let's take a short recess. Thank you. I hereby reconvene the meeting to our last. Is that all the staff items? Yes, Mr. Chairman. There are just two commission items on your addendum. Okay. So we have some commission items, and we have the bylaws, and we have the election of a chairperson. So do you want to do the bylaws today first? Okay. Do we have a draft of that somewhere? All right, there it is. That draft is by, who did that draft? Chris. Is that the latest one? Yes, it is. Okay. Just to summarize, I think everybody can read it, the way that is set up, the nominating committee would be elected by the commission at our first regular meeting in June, which would be the second Thursday of June. At that point in time, the nominating committee would come back to report what they have discussed and their wishes at a work session the following week in June for discussion. And then at that point in time, we had some discussion, and the information I got is that we did need to vote in a regular meeting, hearing. And it seemed like that most were in favor of doing it in July. So that's where we are. The process taking one month from the first regular meeting in June, a discussion and work session, and then a voting, either slate or nominations from the floor, the second week of July. So if, yeah. Okay, thank you. Is there any discussion on this? I might like to say something about it. I didn't swing at it last week. I didn't feel like it, but I'm back now. When this started out, in fact, I prompted this to the nominating committee to change the dates so we would have the elections in July, but I didn't envision them taking it this far. I would still like to see the chairman appoint the nominating committee, and I don't see the need to have the slate brought out in a work session. I would prefer it be done similar to the way we've been doing it. Those would just be my two changes that I would like, but I can't do anything about it sitting right here. So I guess we'll have any more discussion or motion. Ms. Phillips. I have a question. We had talked at some point about breaking apart the slate to elect individual offices, and I don't know if this... That would still be allowed. If anyone has concerns or wishes to nominate someone from the floor, then that can be done. That's right in the middle of the paragraph. Does that say which work session in June? I think we typically only have one work session in June, and I don't think there would be a fifth week in June in most situations. If we need to define it further, we can. Bill, do you know of any? I don't know about this year. Most years you do only have one work session. would be a month where you'd have five Thursdays, possibly. All right. Okay. I've got one other question. We had talked when we had the discussion before, and Rochelle, you weren't here, so we had to ask that you clarify it. I think you did with Mike Owens. But I still would like to understand why it is that this would, whether it's a work session or a public hearing, it still is a public meeting, and why is it that we couldn't have a vote during a work session? Your work sessions, although they're public meetings, there is not a published agenda. It has always been the practice that official action is not taken at a work session because this is a public body. The policy is official actions of this body will be televised. And recorded, yes. Yes, that's correct. Did you have that stated somewhere? I mean, is that in our bylaws anywhere? I mean, just, I know it's been policy, but is it codified anywhere? Because I agree with what Patrick said. I mean, a public meeting is... I think the problem is the law is that you act officially through your meetings and official actions are recorded in minutes. You do not do minutes of a work session because it is not considered to be an official meeting. I think you would have to completely change your policy and start also having minutes that have to be formally approved, and literally you would end up having to change your work session into an official meeting. But even the matters that concern the commission and its bylaws are considered official business by the commission? Yes, they are. Thank you. Rochelle, this is somewhat of a sidebar, but in making that an official vote, could we take the vote in other ways other than a voice vote? Can we use a ballot vote if we chose to do that? I don't think that. Go ahead, go ahead. According to parliamentary procedure, you could do it that way. I mean, I would agree. I don't think there's a prohibition on that in an election of officers. But I think there's a difference between parliamentary procedure and openness and transparency. And if we're talking about doing a ballot where we just pass it down and someone reads off five yeas and four nays, I have a real concern about that. Well, just due to, and I'm not saying yay or nay on that, However, just due to our previous discussions and deliberations, I was trying to find a way that we could handle this in a little more professional way. All right. Any other comments? Let's move it. I make a motion to approve the bylaws as amended and presented here today. Okay, we have a motion to amend the bylaws as written up there. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second by Ms. Phillips. We're going to have to vote manually. Or by roll call. By roll call. Call the roll. It's 9 to 1. Okay, that motion carries. All right, the bylaws have been amended. Next, we have the election of a chairperson due to the recent resignation of our current commission chair, Derek Paulson. And in accordance with the commission, bylaws, the commission must elect a new chair at this time. So I guess I will open up the floor for nominations for chairperson. Ms. Phillips. Mr. Chair, I would like to nominate Mike Owens as our chair. Mr. Owens has shown tremendous leadership, has done considerable work to advance the goals of this commission, and I think that he would serve very well as a chair. All right, very well. Are there any other nominations from the floor? All right, hearing none, we need a motion to close the nominations. No, we don't need a second yet. We need a motion to close the nominations. Could you say that on the record? If it's okay with the commission, I move that the nominations are closed. All right. We have a motion to close the nomination. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Okay. The nominations are now closed. Now we need a motion. Well, we don't have anybody running, but we need a motion to elect Mr. Owens as chairperson. I don't want to hear that Robert stuff out of you. Okay. All right. Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, I move that we nominate Mr. Owens for Chairman by acclamation. Okay. We have a motion to elect Mr. Owens by acclamation. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Ms. Phillips. It's done. That's the motion carries. You did. Okay, anything else? All right. I have a motion to adjourn. Motion carries. Thank you.