# Planning Commission Meeting - July 12, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 12, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2621 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2621?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-07-12 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 26,178 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 July 12, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which addressed 15 agenda items including subdivision approvals, property amendments, and zoning ordinance modifications. The Commission took 19 motions and votes during the session and heard 4 public comments. Of the 15 agenda items considered, 12 were approved, including The Fairways at Andover (Forker Property), multiple units of the Marshall Property, the George Carey Property (The Enclave at Tates Creek), Patchen-Wilkes Unit 1-D, the Sharkey Property Unit 4, and Brock McVeigh & Barry Dotson Property Unit 2A, Lot 7. The Commission also approved the Pearson & Trapp Company/Dawahares Association proposal for Gardenside Shopping Center, Park Hills Subdivision Unit 6 Block A Lot 1, Cove Lake Unit 2, Jericho Property Track B Amendment No. 11, Richmond Estates Consolidation Plat Revocation, and a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment concerning Adult Daycare Centers. Two items were postponed: Masterston Hills & Masterston Station Unit 10 and Santa Barbara Land Company Lots 3 & 4 (Kinemetrix). ## Attendance **Present:** Mike Owens, Mike Cravens, Frank Penn, Will Berkley, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Patrick Brewer, Eunice Beatty, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Chris King, Bill Sallee, Tom Martin, Cheryl Gallt, Chris Taylor, Dave Jarman, Denice Bullock, Chuck Saylor, Jeff Neal, Captain Charles Bowen, Tim Queary, Billy Van Pelt, Rochelle Boland, and Tracy Jones. **Absent:** Carla Blanton and William Wilson. **Late:** Lynn Roche-Phillips and Patrick Brewer. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included 19 votes, all of which passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes or abstentions. **Minutes and Postponements** The minutes from May 24, 2012 were approved [timestamp: 0:10:35]. Two items were postponed to August 9, 2012: Plan 2003-209P [timestamp: 0:12:15] and BOAR 2012-1 [timestamp: 0:13:50]. **Consent Agenda and Development Plans** The Consent Agenda items were approved [timestamp: 0:18:29]. Plan 2012-61P: The Fairways at Andover was approved with conditions including Urban County Council rezoning to R-3, acceptance of drainage and sewers by the Urban County Engineer, and approvals from the Traffic Engineer, Building Inspection, Addressing Office, Urban Forester, and Bike & Pedestrian Planner [timestamp: 0:24:43]. Plan 2012-59F: Marshall Property, Unit 2K was approved with standard conditions regarding drainage, traffic, landscaping, and other municipal approvals [timestamp: 0:32:57]. DP 2012-51: Marshall Property, Unit 2 was approved with conditions including revisions to notes and waivers regarding access easements [timestamp: 0:33:30]. Plan 2012-60F: George Carey Property was approved with conditions addressing drainage, traffic, landscaping, and lot irregularities [timestamp: 0:39:47]. Plan 2012-73F: Patchen-Wilkes, Unit 1-D was approved with conditions including Technical Committee review and discussion of buildable area on Lot 4 [timestamp: 0:44:34]. Plan 2007-177F: Sharkey Property, Unit 4 was approved with conditions regarding drainage, traffic, landscaping, and compliance with approved development plans [timestamp: 0:48:11]. DP 2012-44: Brock McVeigh & Barry Dotson Property was approved with conditions addressing building setbacks, loading spaces, and stormwater basin location [timestamp: 0:53:15]. DP 2012-45: Pearson & Trapp Company/Dawahares Assoc. was approved with conditions including graphic scale, developer information, and tent use details [timestamp: 0:56:40]. DP 2012-46: Santa Barbara Land Company, Lots 3 & 4 was postponed [timestamp: 0:57:53]. DP 2012-50: Park Hills Subdivision, Unit 6, Block A, Lot 1 was approved with conditions addressing tree canopy coverage and garage access [timestamp: 1:32:02]. DP 2012-58: Cove Lake Unit 2 was approved with conditions regarding floodplain setbacks and sidewalk clarification [timestamp: 1:41:01]. DP 2004-46: Jericho Property, Track B, Amendment No. 11 was approved with conditions [timestamp: 1:50:31]. Plan 2003-232C: Richmond Estates revocation was approved with conditions requiring federal government approval and executed affidavit [timestamp: 2:24:43]. ZOTA 2012-10: Adult daycare center zoning amendment was approved with conditions establishing conditional use provisions and notification requirements [timestamp: 3:11:05]. Officers were elected [timestamp: 3:23:59]. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed the following financial action: * **Release and Call of Bonds** — An amendment was considered via Memorandum dated July 12, 2012. This item pertained to the release and call of bonds, though specific dollar amounts and additional details were not specified in the meeting materials. ## Public Comment Four members of the public addressed the council regarding adult daycare center regulations and notification procedures. **School Notification Requests** Linda Carroll opened public comment [timestamp: 2:41:26] requesting that schools be included in conditional use notifications for adult daycare centers, particularly those facilities proposed within 500 feet of school properties. She cited a specific concern about a facility on Martin Luther King Boulevard for which schools had not received prior notice. Dawn Cluse [timestamp: 2:44:56] seconded Carroll's request, urging the inclusion of schools in the conditional use notification process to ensure community involvement in decisions about nearby facilities. Jean Miller [timestamp: 2:45:34] also supported notification to schools, speaking from her role at St. Peter and Paul School and emphasizing the importance of schools being informed when adult daycare centers are proposed in their vicinity. **Support for Staff Alternative Text** Rick Christman [timestamp: 2:43:48] expressed support for the staff's revised alternative text regarding adult daycare center regulations. He emphasized the need for adult daycare centers to be designated as a principal use in certain zones to ensure accessibility and prevent over-restriction of these facilities. ## Contested Items The meeting included three items that generated significant disagreement among participants. **Approval of DP 2012-46: Santa Barbara Land Company** This item sparked heated discussion centered on a development plan's encroachment into the right-of-way for Old Frankfort Pike. Participants debated multiple concerns, including whether the state would approve the encroachment, how maintenance responsibilities would be handled, and whether approving the plan would set a problematic precedent for future projects. The intensity of the debate led to a decision to postpone the plan, allowing the applicant time to make revisions before resubmission. **Revocation of Plan 2003-232C: Richmond Estates** A procedural dispute emerged over a proposal to revoke a consolidation plat in order to restore a farm to its original size. The core disagreement centered on whether this action would establish a concerning precedent. Specific concerns included the implications for nonconforming lots and how the revocation would interact with existing conservation easements on the property. **ZOTA 2012-10: Adult Daycare Center Zoning** This zoning text amendment produced a split vote among decision-makers. The division reflected disagreement over how to regulate adult daycare centers in the zoning code. One position favored making adult daycare centers a conditional use across all zones, while another supported allowing them as a principal use in certain designated areas. Additional concerns raised during discussion included the need for school notification procedures and worries that overly restrictive regulations could limit the availability of these facilities. ## Masterston Hills & Masterston Station, Unit 10 **Identifier:** 2003-209P The council discussed the Masterston Hills & Masterston Station, Unit 10 development plan [timestamp: 0:11:42]. Rory Kahly was the key speaker on this agenda item. **Outcome** The plan was postponed to August 9, 2012. The postponement was requested to allow additional time to address outstanding compliance issues and concerns that had been raised during the discussion. **Key Concerns** The primary concern raised during the discussion involved cemetery protection measures. The applicant and council needed additional time to resolve how the development would adequately protect the cemetery and ensure compliance with relevant regulations. ## The Fairways at Andover (Forker Property) **Agenda Item 2012-61P** The Fairways at Andover project involving the Forker Property was discussed and approved with conditions [timestamp: 0:19:40]. **Key Speakers** Chris Taylor and Bruce Simpson were the primary speakers on this agenda item. **Approval and Conditions** The project received approval subject to several conditions: - Rezoning to R-3 designation - Implementation of stormwater management measures - Removal of a golf course access easement **Easement Removal** Staff confirmed that the golf course access easement would be removed as part of the project requirements. **Outcome** The proposal was approved. ## Marshall Property, Unit 2K (AMD) **Agenda Item:** 2012-59F **Type:** Discussion **Outcome:** Approved with conditions This agenda item concerning the Marshall Property, Unit 2K (AMD) was discussed at approximately 25 minutes and 44 seconds into the meeting. [timestamp: 25:44] The item was presented by Tom Martin and Rory Kahly. Following discussion, the proposal was approved subject to specific conditions: - A waiver was granted for access easement timing - Specific lots must be identified with dashed lines on the submitted materials The approval with these conditions represents the final action taken on this matter during the meeting. ## Marshall Property, Unit 2 (AMD) **Item 2012-51** This agenda item involved discussion and approval of the Marshall Property, Unit 2 (AMD) [timestamp: 0:25:44]. **Key Participants** Tom Martin and Rory Kahly were the primary speakers on this matter. **Outcome** The proposal was approved with conditions. The approval included a waiver for an access easement and required clarification of building lines and access easements as part of the conditions of approval. ## George Carey Property (The Enclave at Tates Creek) [timestamp: 00:34:05] This agenda item addressed the George Carey Property development, known as The Enclave at Tates Creek. Kevin Phillips presented the matter to the board. The project was approved with conditions. The approval required resolution of two specific issues: - The irregular shape of Lot 5A needed to be addressed - Street tree information must be added to the project plans The discussion resulted in conditional approval of the development, contingent upon these modifications being completed and incorporated into the final plans. ## Patchen-Wilkes, Unit 1-D (AMD) **Identifier:** 2012-73F **Type:** Discussion **Key Speakers:** Tom Martin, Rory Kahly **Timestamp:** [0:40:20] This agenda item addressed the Patchen-Wilkes, Unit 1-D project. The discussion resulted in approval of the proposal, contingent upon specific conditions being met. **Approval Conditions:** The approval was granted with the following requirements: - Technical committee review must be completed - Clarification of buildable area following zoning correction **Outcome:** Approved ## Sharkey Property, Unit 4 **Discussion and Outcome** The board discussed and approved the Sharkey Property, Unit 4 agenda item [timestamp: 0:45:10]. Key speakers in this discussion included Tom Martin and Rory Kahly. **Approval with Conditions** The item was approved with specific conditions that must be satisfied: - Federal approval of a conservation easement revision - Completion of an affidavit These conditions were established as requirements for the approval to move forward. ## Brock McVeigh & Barry Dotson Property, Unit 2A, Lot 7 **Agenda Item 2012-44** This agenda item addressed the Brock McVeigh & Barry Dotson Property, Unit 2A, Lot 7. [timestamp: 0:48:43] **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Chris Taylor and Tom Lambden. **Outcome** The property was approved with conditions. The approval required resolution of two specific issues: * Stormwater basin location * Paving concerns The conditions must be addressed before the project can proceed to the next phase. ## Pearson & Trapp Company/Dawahares Assoc. (Gardenside Shopping Center) **Agenda Item 2012-45** This agenda item addressed a proposal from Pearson & Trapp Company and Dawahares Associates regarding the Gardenside Shopping Center. [timestamp: 0:53:45] **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Cheryl Gallt and Joe Dahl. **Outcome** The proposal was approved with conditions. The approval required the addition of tent information and verification of parking provided for the project. ## Santa Barbara Land Company, Lots 3 & 4 (Kinemetrix) **Agenda Item 2012-46** This agenda item was postponed due to unresolved issues [timestamp: 0:57:53]. **Key Speakers** - Tom Martin - Mark Abbott **Issues Identified** The discussion centered on two primary concerns preventing approval: - **Old Frankfort Pike Landscape Ordinance conflict**: The proposal conflicts with existing landscape ordinance requirements for Old Frankfort Pike. - **Right-of-way encroachment**: The project includes encroachment into the right-of-way. - **Lack of written state approval**: Required written approval from the state has not been obtained. **Outcome** The agenda item was postponed pending resolution of these outstanding issues. ## Park Hills Subdivision, Unit 6, Block A, Lot 1 (AMD) **Discussion and Presentation** Rory Kahly presented this agenda item to the board [timestamp: 1:28:38]. The discussion focused on an amendment to the Park Hills Subdivision, Unit 6, Block A, Lot 1 project. **Key Issues and Conditions** The board identified two primary concerns that required resolution: - **Tree canopy coverage** – The applicant was required to address tree canopy coverage issues on the property - **Garage access** – Concerns were raised regarding garage access that needed to be resolved **Outcome** The board **approved** the amendment with conditions. Approval was contingent upon the applicant resolving both the tree canopy coverage and garage access issues as identified during the discussion. ## Cove Lake Unit 2 (AMD) **Agenda Item 2012-58** This agenda item involved a discussion and approval of Cove Lake Unit 2 (AMD). Key speakers included Tom Martin and Kevin Warner. [timestamp: 1:32:33] **Outcome** The item was approved with conditions. The approval required clarification of the 100-year floodplain and documentation of a nonconforming garage. ## Jericho Property, Track B, Amendment No. 11 **Agenda Item 2004-46** Tom Martin presented on the Jericho Property, Track B, Amendment No. 11 [timestamp: 1:48:21]. The amendment was approved with conditions. The approval required updated stormwater and traffic plans to be submitted as part of the project requirements. **Outcome:** Approved ## Richmond Estates (Consolidation Plat Revocation) **Agenda Item:** 2003-232C **Type:** Discussion **Outcome:** Approved with conditions The Richmond Estates consolidation plat revocation was discussed at approximately 1 hour 51 minutes into the meeting [timestamp: 1:51:01]. **Key Speakers:** - Bill Sallee - Dick Murphy **Action Taken:** The item was approved subject to the following conditions: - Federal approval of the conservation easement revision - Completion of an affidavit ## Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Adult Daycare Center **Identifier:** ZOTA 2012-10 The meeting included discussion of a zoning ordinance text amendment regarding adult daycare centers. Key speakers on this item included Bill Sallee, Linda Carroll, Rick Christman, Dawn Cluse, and Jean Miller. The amendment was presented for consideration and discussion by the body. The proposal addressed how adult daycare centers would be regulated under the zoning ordinance, including where such facilities could be located and under what conditions. **Outcome** The amendment was approved with revisions to the staff-recommended text. The approved version includes the following provisions: * Conditional use designation in all zones * Requirement for notification of schools located within 500 feet of a proposed adult daycare center The revised staff alternative text was adopted as the basis for the final approval, incorporating these modifications to the original proposal. [timestamp: 2:26:48] --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of minutes from May 24, 2012 - **Motion** — passed: Postponement of Plan 2003-209P to August 9, 2012 - **Motion** — passed: Postponement of BOAR 2012-1 to August 9, 2012 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Consent Agenda items - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2012-61P: The Fairways at Andover - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2012-59F: Marshall Property, Unit 2K - **Motion** — passed: Approval of DP 2012-51: Marshall Property, Unit 2 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2012-60F: George Carey Property - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2012-73F: Patchen-Wilkes, Unit 1-D - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2007-177F: Sharkey Property, Unit 4 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of DP 2012-44: Brock McVeigh & Barry Dotson Property - **Motion** — passed: Approval of DP 2012-45: Pearson & Trapp Company/Dawahares Assoc. - **Motion** — postponed: Approval of DP 2012-46: Santa Barbara Land Company, Lots 3 & 4 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of DP 2012-50: Park Hills Subdivision, Unit 6, Block A, Lot 1 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of DP 2012-58: Cove Lake Unit 2 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of DP 2004-46: Jericho Property, Track B, Amendment No. 11 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of revocation of Plan 2003-232C: Richmond Estates - **ZOTA 2012-10** — passed: Approval of revised staff alternative text for adult daycare center zoning amendment - **Motion** — passed: Election of officers --- ## Full transcript Was PDR part of the alchemy of getting the farm, or was it something after you were already here that you explored? I knew about it when we bought the place, or when we were looking after it, and we applied relatively soon after buying the place, but we bought the place understanding that we may never be accepted into the program. Okay, that's a very important fact. Right, right. But it has helped tremendously, primarily because it's lightened the debt load considerably. So it's made the improvements possible so that, from our standpoint, we can run a more effective, safer, more efficient business. It's a beautiful operation. Thank you. I mean, and I'm sure PDR helped that come about faster or better or something. When we bought the place, we thought we would be where we are right now in 10 or 12 years. because of the PDR and some other fortunate circumstances, we're three years into where we would have been in 12 without the money. How was the application process? I mean, was it like getting tickets to Rupp Arena or something? No. I contacted Billy. We had several phone conversations. He basically explained the process, which he had talked about before. But there is a very brief, very simple application process and a small application fee for a perpetual application from year to year. I turned all that in, and then it scored. And one of the things that I really appreciate, and I've told a lot of people about, is how objective it is. You mentioned that, Billy. There's not, you know, with a lot of programs, there's lots of politics involved. And in this, it was a relatively straightforward, here are the, and that's not a shot at anybody, but that's just, we know how things are. I'm smiling. I know. But it's a very simple scored thing. He sends you the score, and they start at the top of the list with how much money they have to buy acreage until they get down. And we were fortunate enough to be chosen. Actually, the first year we weren't chosen. The first year we weren't chosen. So you made two? Right. Do you then reapply? How does it work, Billy? It only takes one application. Okay. So once you apply, your application will roll forward from year to year until your ranking is such that you can receive an offer. Now, there's no guarantee there because we're subject to an annual appropriation just like everybody else. Or not. Or it can be cut because it's been cut the last couple of years. So what we do is we look at those top-ranked farms, and we work our way down, and you all did move up in the ranking, and there are other farms in this area that are in the PDR program. We have 1,500 acres conserved on military pike. And that's where we are. It is, and this is a critical mass of conserved farmland. We're going to run out of time. You all, beautiful family, wonderful farm. We're glad to have you in Fayette County and to keep you in Fayette County. Is there any sort of, I mean, is there a fraternity of PDR-protected farms? Do you all have an annual picnic or anything? Well, we are planning an event that will recognize everyone that has a conservation easement on their farm. Okay, all right. Probably by the end of this year. And we've done that in the past. We did it in 2004 when the American Farmland Trust held their national conference in Lexington. And we had a dinner, and every person in the state of Kentucky with a conservation easement was at that dinner. I just wonder, because I think it's interesting for people to exchange their stories, their successes, and maybe find out more about how to do things. And we have had a private citizen donate the money for that event. So you'll hear more about that in the future. We may have to do a part two at some point. Is that all right? Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Two clocks up there are a little bit different. My third clock says it's 1.30, so we'll go on and get started. The first order of business today would be approval of minutes. I think there were some, were there some sent to us by email for today? Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the May 24th minutes. Thank you. Hopefully everybody's had a chance to look at them. If there's no corrections, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Approval of the May 24th minutes. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of May 24, 2012 minutes. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Let me take a show of hands for that. You in there? Okay. Everybody in favor, please raise your hands. Any opposed? Motion passes. We'll let Denise keep working on that. Postponements or withdrawals? Do we have any postponements or withdrawals from this agenda? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Rory Cayley with EA Partners. Page 1, Item 1, Plan 2003-209P, Masterston Hills and Masterston Station, Unit 10, request a one-month postponement. Thank you. Mr. Sally, do you have a date on that? For one month, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That date in August for your subdivision items is the 16th. Okay. August 16th. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request for postponement? Any commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for postponement of plan 2003, days 209P, to the August 16th meeting. Thank you. Motion's been made for postponement. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. There you go, Mr. Kaley. It does pass. Do you have any other requests for postponements? Isn't it August 9th for the subdivision? Thank you. It is August 9th. Can we do an amendment to that motion? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend my motion to state August 9th. Is that okay with the second? Second. Okay. Okay. All those in favor of an amended motion to August 9, 2012 for postponement, please vote. And that motion passes as well. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chairman, if there are none other from the audience, if I could refer the Commission to page 10 of your agenda. Pardon me, page 11 of your agenda. Under commission items, we have an appeal of a decision of the Board of Architectural Review on page 11, BOAR 2012-1, request by Mr. Michael Hayes. The staff has received an email from Mr. Hayes asking for a postponement of this item to your August 9th meeting. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this postponement request? Any commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion for postponement until August 9th. Move to postponement to August 9th. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement until August 9th of BOAR 2012-1. Michael Hayes, please vote when he comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Do we have any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? If not, we'll move to the reading of the sounding of the Kassin agenda that's on a tan called sheet in front of you. Mr. Saleh, if you could guide us through that. Gladly, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. There is a long list of plans that appears on your consent agenda this afternoon. There are four final subdivision plats that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee, which appear on the consent agenda. The first appears on page 2, item A of your meeting agenda, plan 2012-54F, a final record plat for Tanbark Unit 1, Block B, Lot 1, located at 1128 Tanbark Road. The next item on your meeting agenda, page 2, item B, is also on the consent agenda. Plan 2012-56F, a final record plat for Ellerslie Place, also known as Midland Crossing, for property at 225 Walton Avenue. On page 2, item C, plan 2012-58F, Transit Authority of Lexington, Kentucky, is on the consent agenda. This involves property at 109 West Loudoun Avenue. The final plat is on page 3, item F, Plan 2012-72F, Highwood Center, also known as Lexmark International, Inc., an amended final plat for property at 740 West New Circle Road. There are a number of development plans also on your consent agenda. The first appears on page 4, item A of your meeting agenda, DP 2012-43, a final development plan for Santa Barbara Land Company, Lot 1, also known as Bluegrass Volleyball Center, for property located at 709 Miles Point Way. The next item on your consent agenda appears on page 6, item E, DP 2012-47, an amended final development plan for Manchester Development LLC for property located at 920 Manchester Street. It's important to note that there are two items associated with this as well. You have a memo from staff for a finding that this project does meet the requirements of the adaptive reuse ordinance. That's a memo from Mr. Martin. And secondly, this requires posting of a sign, and the staff did receive the affidavit for the posting of the sign ahead of today's meeting. The next item on the consent agenda appears on page 6, item F, DP 2012-48, the FEARS property located at 150 Shoreside Drive. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 6, item G, an amended final development plan for DP 2012-49 Lakeview Estates Unit 2B and 2E, located at 527 Lake Tower Drive. Next on your consent agenda is page 7, item J, DP 2012-55, an amended final development plan for Highwood Center, also known as Lexmark International, Inc., located at 740 West New Circle Road. The next item on your meeting agenda, page 8, item K, is also on the consent agenda, DP2012-56, an amended final development plan for the George West property, also known as the Howard property, located at 4538 Georgetown Road. The final item on your consent agenda appears on page 9, item L, DP 2012-57, an amended final development plan for L.C. Berry and Bella Vista subdivision located at 2433 Nicholasville Road. Mr. Chairman, at this time the Commission can consider approval of these plans as recommended by your subdivision committee unless a member of the Commission or a member of the audience would wish an item to be removed for further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Anyone in the audience or a commission member wish for any of these items to be removed for our hearing? If not, I'll entertain a motion for approval of the consent agenda as read. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the consent agenda. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. We do have several items to be heard today. I have asked our staff to keep their presentations brief. We want to hear from anyone and everyone that wants to speak. However, let's try and keep this moving. And our first item to be heard today is on page 2, item B, Plan 2012-61P, the fairways at Andover. And we do have revisions, which you should have in front of you on a yellow sheet. Mr. Taylor. All right. The first item on your agenda for today is at the top of page 2 under item B. It's plan 2012-61P, the fairways at Andover, the Forker property. It's for property located at 3435 McFarland Lane. This is a preliminary subdivision plan. The property was recently before you with a zone change that was just granted in the past week at the Urban County Council. the development plan is probably easier to locate off of this property McFarland Lane off of Todd's Road is to the south this is McFarland Lane, it's an old rural road it runs the length of this property, this is the last property that is served by McFarland Lane Autumn Ridge and Cavanaugh are the two collectors that come together and intersect within the property. The preliminary subdivision plan does propose 91 single-family lots in compliance with the conditional zoning restrictions that were placed upon the property when it was rezoned. The subdivision committee reviewed this plan and recommended approval subject to the 11 conditions as shown on your agenda. After subdivision committee, the staff did receive a revised development plan that did address a couple of the conditions. It's in yellow. It's handed out in front of you. Primarily, conditions related to noting the no building permits on the areas where the FEMA floodplain will be going away with an official letter of map revision. They've added their conditional zoning restrictions. There was one unresolved item, which was related to the 10-foot access easement to serve the golf course that you see in this location. We did receive an email from the applicant this afternoon letting us know that they will be removing, it is their intention to remove that golf course access easement. As such, that is how the staff intends to resolve the issue. At the time of Subdivision Committee, there was a question about the stormwater management plan for the property. As you can see, this is the exhibit that was shown to the commission at the time of the zone change. It shows the floodplain coming down, the stormwater coming down this way. There is a lot, a sediment lot in this area before the water comes on down into this area. As you can see, there's still the same layout proposed. The staff is not aware of any changes to the proposed stormwater plan for this property. With that, the staff is recommending approval and subject to the seven conditions on your agenda, but I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Ms. Phillips? Could you speak to the golf course easement, the 10-foot easement? Was the easement removed as access to the golf course, but there still is a 10-foot easement there that would be used for utilities? The access that's proposed, as our understanding, that will go away. The access that they were proposing to the golf course will go away. So there's no access to the golf course unless an individual goes all the way around? Correct. There are other access points in other areas of the neighborhood, but they are not proposing to keep this in this location. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Chris? If not, thank you, Chris. We'll ask for the applicant to come forward and provide us with any additional information. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Bruce Simpson, and I'm here on behalf of the applicants. and much like your admonition to the staff, I will take your admonition without you stating it to be brief. Based upon the revisions and the staff recommendation of approval, we are in agreement to accept the conditions and ask that you approve this preliminary subdivision plan. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request? Thank you, Mr. Simpson. If not, I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion within the Commission members and or motion. Mr. Penn? Does that mean we're going to completely do away from the sale? I think we're going to leave it. We'll need to leave it. The plan currently shows an access easement, and in this plan, the condition is there. The resolution of that will be to remove it. Anything else that would come back before us, Chris? That's correct. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Discussion? Mr. Cravens? Great for a motion. If there's no other questions. Yes, sir. Okay. Move approval of Plan 2012-61P with the revised conditions. Thank you. Motion's been made for approval. Do we have a second? Second. The motion has been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2012-61P. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Next would be on page 3, item D. It's Plan 2012-59F, the Marshall property. and I think we'll have a development plan as well, which is on page 7, item I. It's DP 2012-51. We do have a waiver request on this. Mr. Martin, good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the condition, on your agenda today, we are going to present two plans together, that being the plan on page 3, Plan 2012-59F, Marshall Property Unit 2K, and the final development plan, preliminary subdivision plan for this same development, located on page 7 of your agenda. Item I, DP 2012-51, Marshall Property Unit 2. These two plans apply to the identical same area of this development. The plan that you do see before you today involves an amendment to the existing development plan and preliminary subdivision plan of the Marshall property. The Marshall property is located to the south of Leastown Road across from the Masterson Station development. This particular area of the Marshall Development is close to the greenway and the rail line that goes through that area of our community. Previously, this was approved by the Planning Commission, and they are now proposing to amend this area of the plan. The record plat that's associated with this preliminary subdivision plan is doing the very same thing. It is the record plat that, in effect, this preliminary subdivision plan is creating. They are increasing the number of approved lots for the overall development with this change by three. The principal change is they are creating access points, access easements here and here to serve as the frontage for 12 of these lots. If you refer to the overall plan that this body approved before, you'll see there's townhouses. And here we tried to highlight for you areas where, that's a street, these were access easements. They were created for the same reason, to provide frontage for townhouse slots in this development. And again, this amendment, previously on the plan, all these lots through here had frontage. And they had an easement curling around behind here to serve the units. They are now oriented with this amendment on two access easements, which mimics several of the other areas. there is a waiver associated with this development it has been handed out to you it's on a white piece of paper as well as the amendment pardon me as well as the waiver there's a pink sheet of piece of paper and i know you probably have more than one pink piece of paper this is a findings for an access easement when this property was originally approved it was laid out as i pointed out to you and as you see there you had townhouses that were oriented both to mcconnell's trace and you had townhouses where they were oriented to access easements at that time the planning commission made a finding that that was appropriate for this development the primary reason being the innovative development that allowed green space to be used as an inherent part of this development. And again, with the green space here, you can see this large connection to it. These townhouses were laid out oriented to green space between them, and it provided a viewshed for the entire development. The waiver request is identical to the one that was previously granted on this property. The applicant came back to this body with an amended record plat. They had discovered that they had an issue with constructing the access easements and then going back and constructing the townhouses. They were having to tear up the access easements. So they asked this body for relief in order to coordinate the construction of those access easements and the townhouses together. together. That was granted by this body as well. The staff has reviewed these proposals, and again, we are recommending that you make the finding for the access easement, and we are also recommending approval of the waiver as well. The plan, both plans were reviewed by your subdivision committee, and both plans were recommended for approval by your subdivision committee subject to the conditions that you see on your agenda. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? If not, thank you, sir. And I'll hear from the applicant, Mr. Cayley. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. I'm in agreement with staff's presentation in both lists of conditions and request your approval. Any questions for Mr. Kaley? Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in regards to these plans? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion and or motions. I would ask that we have separate motions for the plat and plan. recognizing the waiver and then also the finding for the use of access easement. Mr. Ben, you ready for a motion? Yes, sir. On page 3, Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2012-59F. And is this the one the pink sheet goes with? I think it goes with both of them. Okay. And the findings on the pink sheet as presented by staff with nine conditions. Okay. Noting the waiver as well. And we'll look at the waiver on the white piece of paper. Four pages of waiver. Well, it's just the waiver. Okay. Thank you. Motion has been made for approval of Plan 2012-59F. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. We need a second motion for Plan 2012-51. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of DP 2012-51 with 12 conditions as presented by staff. Noting the request for the waiver and the findings. And the waiver and the findings will be requested. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded by Mr. Cravens for approval of DP 2012-51. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Our next plan would be on page 3, item E, plan 2012-60F, George Carey property. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the next item appears on page 3 of your agenda. It is plan 2012-60F. The George Carey property, also known as the Enclave at Tates Creek, is an amended final subdivision plat for property located at 1616-5 Tates Creek Road. The subject property is located off Tates Creek Road on the right side outbound near the intersection with Alumni Drive, and it backs up to the UK property and football stadium. The purpose of this plat is to subdivide one lot into two and to create an easement. The staff recommends approval subject to the standard conditions, plus a brief list of cleanup items, conditions 7, 8, 9, and 10. We did receive this morning from the applicant a revised plan, which is the plan you see before you, that reflects a revision to condition 10, creating a less irregular shaped lot, which is what you see here. And if the Commission has any questions regarding this plan or the staff's recommendation, we'll take those at this time. Thank you. Any questions in regards to the plan? Ms. Phillips? If I could just ask you, I'm confused as to where this property is located. It's on Castle, and I know that Castle dead ends into Montclair? Yes, ma'am. As well as Columbia. The Castle Road is actually farther up here. I replaced this here just to help orient. This is inside the gate? Yes. Okay. This Castle Road terminates up here. It's indicated as turning up this way. This is actually a private street that opens onto Tate's Creek, which runs out here. Okay. And how big is the second lot, 5B? Excuse me, 5A? The irregularly shaped lot? It's 0.4937 acres, roughly a half an acre. A bigger lot. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Any other questions? In our committee meeting, entrance, access, et cetera, to both lots were discussed somewhat. Can you show us anything as to the access for both those lots now? Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is adequate frontage on both lots. There is an existing driveway that exits on this side and ties into this property. Both properties are owned by Ms. Carey. In the future, at any given time, they could establish their own driveway on their own independent lot if they chose to do so. But at this time, there is a driveway entering here and is shared with this property and another driveway exiting over here on this lot 5A. Okay. If they decide to have their own access to the front of, I guess, the larger lot, obviously there's frontage considering the curb and so forth. Yes, sir. There's adequate frontage. That would be a civil matter between the owners, and they could each establish their own freestanding driveways. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Anything to add? Good afternoon. Kevin Phillips with Interest Engineering. No, I really don't have anything to add. We have straightened out that left side lot line so that it's – we can't do anything about the boot on the right-hand side. That's just the way it is now. But if you sort of can imagine ignoring this piece, it's a very regularly shaped lot. Again, we just can't do anything about that. It's just the way it is. But, again, we've tried to straighten that out and make it more regular for you. Don't really have anything else to add. We would request your approval, though. Okay. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Phillips? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and just open it up for discussion amongst the commission members and or entertain a motion. Yes, sir. I move for approval of 2012-60F, George Carey Property. Thank you. Motion's been made for approval. And I'm presuming, I'm sorry, I got ahead of myself. We're changing number 10 to resolve. Is that correct, or did it go away completely? Mr. Chairman, that is the Commission's option. It could be changed to delete or resolve. That's your pleasure. Delete number 10 altogether or resolve is what you're saying. Okay. I amend it to resolve. Okay. Thank you. Motion has been made for approval and seconded. seconded change in number 10 to read resolve irregular shape of proposed lot 5a so motion's been made and seconded for approval there's no further discussion please vote when it comes up on your screen motion passes thank you sir thank you very much next would be on page 4 item g at At the top of the page is Plan 2012-73L. We do have a revision on a light gray sheet. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Commission. The next item is item G on page 4. It is an amended final record plat. Plan 2012-73F Patchen-Wilkes Unit 1D. This is a development that is on the east end of our community off Richmond Road. It's beyond New Circle Road. And Patchen-Wilkes Drive is in this location. and this would take you back out to Winchester Road if you were going here. There's a Tuscany development across the road that some of you may recall having seen and approved. When this plan was brought before the subdivision committee, it had incorrect zoning information on it, and for that reason staff was concerned as to whether or not there was appropriate buildable area on this lot. We now have corrected that information. The correct zoning is R1C. And you can see here, this is the floodplain on the property. Here's the 25-foot setback. There's ample buildable room on all these lots. The purpose of the amendment is to reconfigure three lots into four lots. We do have a revised handout. gray colored that has addressed the two conditions that were a reflection of the staff's concern on the zoning information. The remaining conditions are standard sign-off conditions for a record plat, with the seventh condition being reviewed by technical committee prior to certification, as this was a late plan. And staff does recommend approval. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions for Mr. Martin at this point? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Does Mr. Cayley have anything to add? I'm all in favor of it and request approval. Thank you, sir. Ms. Phillips? Mr. Cayley, I had a quick question. What was the issue here? It says on our notes that there was a question about the lack of buildable area on lot four. Is that the first one in this direction or the other? No. As we filed it and as we found out with the city mapping, there was an incorrect zone line shown. So it was split between R1C and R1T. Okay. And the house is not supposed to extend into an R1T area. Okay. Is it? Yes. It's all the same zone. We fixed it. So the buildable area had to do with the zoning as opposed to the flood zone. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And Ms. Phillips, it was the lot in question, the one on the right. Any other questions? If not, anyone in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion among the commission members and or entertain a motion. Mr. Finn. Yes, sir. We do have revisions, remember. That's right. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2012-73F with the staff recommendation on the gray sheet, deleting No. 7, No. 9, and making No. 7 the technical committee prior to certification. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made, and we've got secondings all over the place. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Next would be Plan 2007-177L, Sharkey Property. This is an extension. and please note there would be two revisions of the two conditions down at the bottom of the page. That's what happens when you late file. Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the next item is Item H on your agenda on page 4, Plan 2007-177F Sharkey Property Unit 4. we are going back out Lee's Town Road to the west of our community to the Sharky property which is just inside New Circle Road next to Metathorpe Shopping Center. The plat that you see before you is a request for an extension. It was previously re-approved. This is the plat on the Sharky property that contains the apartment complex that was built. On this area of the property right here, you may recall, those of you that were on the commission, the large detention basin and the discussion about that and the need to ensure that nothing encroached on that. There is a development plan on this property. The apartments have been built. You may also recall there was a waiver on the termination of this street at this location as well. This is the section that has been recorded. This is the location of the maintenance building for all of the Anderson properties that is located right here on this little piece of I-1 lot at that point. This is in the far corner, back corner of the property. Back over in here is the treatment center and the Lexington-Fed Urban County Town Branch Treatment Center. Again, you may recall, the Metathorpe Shopping Center is here. The staff is recommending approval of this plan subject to the conditions that you see on your agenda. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Cayley? How did you get all these in a row? That would be nice. I'm in agreement and request approval. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Cayley? Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this plan? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion for this extension. Ms. Beatty? Are you ready for a motion? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Mr. Chair, I move that we accept Plan 2007-177F, Sharkey Property, with the 11 noted conditions from the staff, as well as the three notes from staff. Thank you. The motion has been made for approval of this extension. Do we have a second? I second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Are you still hanging around? Okay. Okay. Next is on page 5, item B. It's DP 2012-44 Brock McVeigh and Barry Dotson property. We do have a revision. It's on the green sheet. Mr. Taylor. All right. The next item in your agenda is page 5. It's item B, DP 2012-44, Brock McVeigh and Barry Dotson property, Unit 2A, Lot 7. This is for property located at 2380 Fortune Drive. This property is located at the intersection with Fortune Drive and Trade Center Drive. This area directly behind the property is the Tuscany Development. Over here on Trade Center Continued, on the other side of Fortune, There is the Sam's Club and the New Circle Road on out this direction. This proposal does add 24,000 square feet of buildable area to a B6P zone, an existing B6P. It's sort of a remnant left over of the overall B6P zoning out here. It does propose an access point here and here on Fortune Drive, as well as parking around the building with two loading areas. The subdivision committee reviewed this plan and recommended approval at its last meeting. The applicant did submit a revised plan to us this week, resolving a number of conditions that you see on the green sheet in front of you. In particular, the second exhibit that you see here is related to the staff's concern of a considerable amount of extra paving in this area and up in this area. I thought the staff believed that it was perhaps unjustified to have quite that much pavement. The applicant did submit to us his drawings for his turning movements for the semis out of the loading areas in order to resolve that condition and give the staff comfort about the need for those wide-access easements there around the building. So you do see that condition removed today on your revised handout. The only remaining item was condition number nine, to resolve the stormwater basin location. The applicant did let us know that there is a regional basin that serves properties in this area. We've revised that condition to simply denote that that stormwater detention area and basin is workable into the approval of the Division of Engineering. But with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Traylor. Any questions? Thank you. If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Tom Lambden with Midwest Engineering. We are in agreement with the revised recommendations prepared by the staff, and unless you have any questions, we'd just ask for your approval. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Lambden? Thank you, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing. Mr. Penn? Are we going to change resolve on 12 and 13, or are we going to leave resolve? Green sheet, Mr. Penn. Number 9 on the green sheet says there's all a stormwater basin to the Proof of the Division of Engineering. If we're doing an off-site region, do you need number 9 on there? We'd just like to have a sign-off from the Division of Engineering that that regional basin is equipped to handle disk development as part of their sign-off. I understand. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, I'll – Mr. Cravens, are you – Yeah, I was just going to make a motion. Hold on one second. Go ahead. Okay. All right. So if there's no further discussion, we'll entertain a motion, and either one of you all may make it. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion for approval of DP 2012-44, Rockwood Bay and Barry Dotson property. Thank you. Motion's been made. Do we have a second? And seconded for approval of DP 2012-44. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Landrum. Thank you. Our next plan is still on page 5, item C. It's DP 2012-45, Pearson Trapp Company, Dahlhares Associated. And we do have a revision. It's on a pink sheet. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. Yes, we are looking at the pink sheet for DP 2012-45 Pearson & Trapp Company, Dahl, Harris & Associates. This property is located in the Gardenside Shopping Center off of Alexandria Drive, across from the Kroger's, between Versailles and Lane Allen. Since the subdivision committee meeting, we have received an amendment to the revised copy to this plan, and we have been able to reduce some of the cleanup conditions on the plan. We still have our standard conditions for sign-offs and some additional plans, additional cleanup conditions to be able to revise this plan. After reviewing this development plan, the staff recommends approval. Sorry. Thank you. Any questions for Cheryl? If not, we'll ask the applicant if he has anything to add. Nothing to add. Just come out and buy some fresh vegetables. Your name, sir? I'm Joe Dahl here. Thank you, sir. Appreciate you being here. Thank you for the revisions. Any questions for Mr. Dahl here? Yes, sir. Mr. Dahlher, we talked about this in the subdivision committee, and I just wanted to get it on record. This tent's not going to go up and stay up for two or three years. It's going to be taken down every year and put back up. It'll be taken down probably September, October, and come back up again late April or May. Thank you, sir. Any other questions for Mr. Dahlher? Ms. Beatty? No? Okay. Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it for any discussion and or motion. Can I ask a question? Oh, yes. Mr. Dyer? May I ask Mr. Dyer? Yes, go ahead. What is the use of the tent? It's a fresh fruit and vegetable and flowers market. It's a fruit stand. Okay. Like a farmer's market? or is it out there, is it operational seven days a week? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, I'll entertain the motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept DP 2012-45 with the 14 recommendations from staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval with the revision noting 14 conditions. I think our screen is locked up. Please vote by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Our next on the agenda is still on page 5 right at the bottom. Here's over page 6. It's DP 2012-46, Santa Barbara Land Company. We do have revisions which are on a yellow sheet. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda begins on the bottom of page 5, item D, Development Plan 2012-46, Santa Barbara Land Company, lots 3 and 4. This is property that is located out on the intersection of Miles Point Way and Old Frankfurt Pike. You're a short distance from New Circle Road and in this direction on your plan, and the traffic circle on Old Frankfurt Pike in Alexandria is in this direction. You recently approved a plat that created the lots at this corner, and you just approved on your consent agenda a volleyball facility on this lot in this location. The development plan that you see before you today proposes a manufacturing facility of approximately 24,000 square feet in this location with access here with one-way traffic movement to this point here. There are 23 parking spaces provided. This area in green you see is most of the two lots. There are two lots here, and this is most of the remnant of a second lot that they are proposing. Again, here's Miles Point Way again, and here's Old Frankfort Pike. As you can see from your agenda, this plan had a considerable number of cleanup conditions associated with it. and there were two discussion items. The discussion items concerned access and the floodplain on the property. The revised plan that you see before you, which is addressed by these revised conditions on the yellow gold sheet, have addressed those two conditions. They shifted the building and the parking. They added the one-way access. reducing the access points to two that were recommended by both Planning and the Division of Traffic. By shifting the building and the access, they also removed the potential conflict with floodplain, which is located on this part of the property. The issue that now remains on this plan is the old Frankfurt Pike, along this frontage, landscape ordinance. That is an urban county council ordinance that requires landscaping along Old Frankfort Pike. That ordinance, which has been passed out to you, you should have copies, also requires that whenever you have a development plan or subdivision plan, that those requirements be on the plan. General practice has been that they show us an area on the plan, and in this case it would be 20 feet buffer, And then they include verbally the details, in this case a berm and plannings and that sort of thing. And depending on the landscape ordinance where it is in the community, that's how this has been handled. You indicate the plan has room to meet the requirements, and then you list those requirements on the plan. This particular revision has created a bit of a problem for the applicant in this regard. We've highlighted it in red right here. they do not have the 20 feet on their property. The ordinance requires that the buffer be parallel to the right-of-way, and this plan does not show that. They also are indicating some elements of the plan being in the right-of-way. If you review the conditions of approval that staff has prepared for you on this plan, you'll see item 13, which states, addition of details as required under the Old Frankfort Pike Landscape Ordinance or denote the council's approval of an amendment to the Old Frankfort Pike Landscape Ordinance. The applicant does have the right to ask the council to amend that ordinance, and it has been done in other circumstances along Richmond Road and other areas where they have a landscape ordinance associated with a corridor. So the applicant has the right to ask for relief to that ordinance. They also have the right to request Kentucky Department of Transportation to grant them the right to encroach upon the right-of-way. However, again, neither staff nor the Planning Commission has the right to grant that, so the applicant has to seek that. Staff is recommending approval of the plan. It has come a tremendous distance from the time it was first submitted for review. However, it cannot be certified by your staff until such time as they deal with the conflicts between the landscape ordinance and this particular plan. And again, this is not an uncommon circumstance where there are other landscape ordinance requirements. Richmond Road in front of the Sand Lake property may require those of you on the condition they had to amend that ordinance. Newtown Pike has an ordinance as well, as does Man of War. And, again, it's not uncommon for someone to seek an amendment to that ordinance. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Ms. Phillips. Tom, how much of an encroachment into the right-of-way is there? I didn't actually scale it off, but you can see they're showing trees and other elements of shrubs in the area, so it's a significant encroachment. One of the concerns would be, obviously, they'd need to get permission, but if the state ever did improvements, that would impact those, and they would have to be replaced elsewhere. Is that an existing stand of trees that they just wanted to keep intact? No, they are proposing. Plantings per the ordinance. They are actually proposing plantings per the ordinance. Would, if the shrubbery or the trees have a certain height element to them, won't that also impede on sight distances at that triangle? It's possible, although there's considerable distance here at that sight triangle, and these are at an angle, and again, there's 20 feet required. There's a berm and spacing of trees, and they're allowed to pick from a list of appropriate materials. Is the building already built? No, ma'am. This is the development plan. Once you approve it, once it is certified, they can pull permits and build this facility. Is there a reason why the building couldn't be located further south on the site? The challenge that they have, again, is to address this issue. Obviously, they could shift. How big is that lot? How big is that lot? How big is the lot? The square footage of the site is 3.4 acres, 151 plus square feet. So there may be future intentions to divide it? It is currently two independent lots. There may be future intentions to develop the remainder. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Ms. Beatty? I know we looked at this in a subdivision, and it had several cleanup items. So I'm not sure if we discussed item number 13 on the revised sheet, and you said that this is not uncommon, that there are other areas, for example, out in Richmond Road. For item number 13, in the past or in previous areas, have they already sought out the amendment to these things before we vote on them, or is that after we approve it? There's been, I believe, in my memory, they've done both. There's been applicants who have waited to your approval for obvious reasons, and they need your approval on a plan before they would seek that relief from the council. Then there's been some who, through experience, have taken it to the council before your actual approval. I can't think of any exact instances. And I would add on 13, the reason it wasn't discussed at committee is the previous plan showed 20 feet along this frontage that would meet the intent of that ordinance. It is this revision that has raised this issue. Okay. Yes, ma'am. That's it. Okay. All right. Mr. Brewer, did you have a question? Okay. All right. Ms. Phillips? Just following up on what Ms. Beatty said, you know, what comes first, the chicken or the egg? And if the council does not approve that landscaping buffer requirement, then we're going to have to see a revised development plan, right? They are going to have to amend that plan to meet the requirements of that ordinance. They will have to show it on the plan. They will have to shift the building and the drive-by. So we'll have to see it again. I don't know that you would absolutely have to see it again if the shifting was of a small scale to meet the requirements of that ordinance. With the council going on break for, what, four weeks? Five weeks? Yes, ma'am. We're going to part of August before they get back. Yes, ma'am. They do go on break. You're absolutely correct. Okay. Well, I'm not sure that it's premature for us to approve this before the council has taken a look and given us guidance as to whether or not they want to make an amendment to the ordinance there. Mr. Martin, the discussion is with the revision and their circulation pattern, they're pushing this landscape buffer out onto the right-of-way? With the revision of the circulation and a slight movement in the building, they have constricted themselves, yes. Obviously, their circulation driveway and so forth is still on their property. It seems like it's getting awfully close to the property line. Are there any requirements with that as far as their drive right next to their property line? and getting close to, say, Old Frankfurt Pike? They have room to meet the vehicle use area screening requirements in that area. Okay. I would add that this revision of the circulation is consistent with traffic's request to address their concerns on the previous plan. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Thank you. Yes, sir. I would say as you're coming forward, you have been working very hard in the past week, and we do appreciate that. Your name, sir? I'm Mark Abbott. I'm with Brashear Bolton. Hello, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I could speak to two or three things. I was originally just going to say that we have no objections to staff's recommendations, and we'd like to request approval, but I could speak to two or three items that have been brought up. one of the items that was brought up was the fact that there were two lots here. Originally we were designing to fit this facility on one lot, and it was a tight squeeze. As it turns out, the final recorded plot, which happened in the last month or so, created one single lot, so the fact is actually that it's one lot now. And as such, we were able to move the building a little bit and ease our circulation problems. to speak to the other issue of the landscape ordinance. It's our intention to meet the requirements and to comply with the Lexington intention of shielding vehicle use areas from Old Frankfort Pike. Originally, when we submitted this, we had actually shown the 20-foot landscaping area out of our right-of-way entirely. And so what we've done is we've actually pulled that in. we'd like to be able to work this out with Mr. Carpenter at the Department of Buildings and Inspection so that he can offer some relief and some, because of the unique characteristics of this site, there's quite a bit of grade drop-off, and so the natural birming wouldn't really be an effective way to accomplish the intention of the ordinance. But from what I understand from Mr. Martin, you guys have the authority to approve this, and then we can work out the details of compliance with that ordinance with Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Mr. Finn, question? If that's just one lot, why wouldn't you move that building before you present it to us rather than go to Mr. Carpenter and try to work it out? If you've got enough space to put in the berm and also put in landscaping, why are we seeing this plan today? well the the berming for one thing is is not an effective way to to accomplish the intent of the ordinance uh just because there's between a 15 to a 30 foot high hill from the roadway up to the property and so adding a berm on top of that really doesn't do much the other condition is that with the ordinance it's it's a very straightforward requirement for a line of trees it's not very imaginative and it looks very much like trees marching in a line along this edge it's our intention that with the grading of the property, including the steep hillside here and another fairly steep hillside here, we'd actually like to wrap the buffer around so that we accomplish, again, the intention of the ordinance, which is as you're coming up Old Frankfurt Pike, there's a tremendous amount of visibility in this direction as you're coming up the hill. So the line of trees here really wouldn't accomplish the goals or the intention. So we'd like to wrap that around. As far as answering your question, I know I haven't answered that. Oh, you haven't. Originally, it was two lots, and we had to squeeze everything in there. Since that time, it's been our client's desire to minimize the amount of site we actually use up. We've talked to the Kentucky Department of Transportation, and they've said that they have no problem with it. Initially, we just need to get the permit. I'll talk to them. That's a two-week process or something. So if I could follow up on that, what you're telling me is that we're going to put 11 pounds of flour in a 7-pound sack, and the spillage is going to be over on the Department of Highways. And the what is on the Department of Highways, please? The spillage. What we have to accomplish here, you want to put it in land you don't own in order to squeeze that up tight. I don't understand that at all. Well, again, it's our thinking that the intention of the ordinance is to shield the vehicle use areas and objectionable portions of the site, like loading areas and that sort of thing. And to meet the intention of the ordinance, we'd like to wrap the landscaping around the berm that's already there. And as part of that, we would like to minimize our use of the site and push it into the right-of-way. But the fact is, if you look at Old Frankfort Pike's traffic, they have an additional 70 feet next to the roadway that is probably never going to be expanded into for six or eight additional lanes, and we'd rather use that land than our land. It's only 20 feet. Ms. Mundy? Is the reason you are looking to push into the right-of-way because of the steep grade on the front and that one corner of the property, and so you don't really have, because it's a steep drop-off, you really don't have anywhere to put the landscaping on that steep area? The drop-off actually occurs right about at the edge of the property, so we do have enough buildable area. I believe ultimately this piece of the property may be subdivided later for another use. We're not certain of that yet, but for now it's all one parcel. The steep grade didn't force us to push the property up. So that's causing you then to put your landscape, if you will, possibly not on your property. Does that make sense? On the highway, Department of Highway, because of the steep grade? Because the steep grade is not what forces that. What we'd like to do is efficiently make our improvements on as little site areas as we can. And again, there are two or three points. One is the intention of the old Frankfurt Pike Ordinance, and we don't think the line of trees along this edge in strict compliance with those requirements accomplishes what the ordinance is after, which is to screen the building and the parking areas, that sort of thing. I think that would depend on the kind of trees. Right. Well, they're intended to be large trees that are 50 to 70 feet high, somewhere in that range. And again, with the approach from Old Frankfurt Pike being here and having the whole site very visible from probably a quarter mile away, we believe that this landscaping is more important to accomplish the intention. And this is just for the sake of efficiently utilizing the site area. Ms. Phillips? I think it's a really bad idea for us to approve anything that the state has not already, that we don't have something in writing from the state. We still are talking about a septic plan that was out on New Circle Road. I strongly recommend that we disapprove this plan. If I can speak to that. In our conversations with the Kentucky Department of Transportation, they had no objections. So we're the ones who are holding the bag on this. Once we approve it, you can record this. So we would like for you to bring us something written from the Kentucky Department of Transportation. I would like to see something about long-term maintenance. If you're putting your trees on their property, who's going to maintain it? Of course we need to be required to. Are you donating them to the state for them to trim and maintain during ice storms? I think it's just a bad idea. You don't put the fence that you want to build on your property over on someone else's property so that you can maximize the space on your land. That's just not the way that it works. I appreciate what you're saying, and it's our contention that the roadway will just never need another 70 feet of width, and the state seems on board with that. True. As I understand it, you guys have the authority to approve this pending that approval of the state. Let me try and move on a little bit. Do we have any other questions right now? Do we have anyone in the audience that wish to speak in regards to this plan? If Mr. Burr. Mike, I've been sort of letting everybody else talk about this. I understand where you're coming from. I think it makes sense in theory. But as you can tell, that's not the sense of the Commission at this point. So if I were in your shoes, I would seriously consider moving that building a little bit. So that it complies. And then you don't have to wait for the Council to get back. As I understand it, we wouldn't necessarily need the Council's approval for a slight deviation from the old Frankfurt-Pyke ordinance if Mr. Carpenter agrees that we meet the intention of the ordinance. Well, according to note 13 here, I don't think that's correct. I think you may want to consult with staff again or legal and see what your options are. But it seems to me, again, if I were in your shoes and you can move this building, it doesn't look like that much. I mean, I can't gauge it eyeball, but what is it, 10 feet we're talking about? 15 to 20 feet. 15 to 20 feet with all that land in the back, and you could get it passed today. It seems to me I would do that. I'll tell you what, I'm going to close this part of the hearing. I think we're at a point here I'm going to ask Mr. Martin's one to come forward. Mr. Martin, do you have something to add before I actually do close the hearing? I will add very quickly, the applicant is correct. You all approved a final record plat that created four lots. When they brought it in to be recorded, they did remove the lot line between those two lots, which normally would be a minor plat for staff, so that's an acceptable action. So the plat was recorded. What were three and four, it is one lot. They are correct. It was originally proposed to be two, but it was recorded at their request as one lot. So they do have one lot. They are correct. I hope I see some confusion. I don't want to confuse you. You can clarify if we are, Mr. Penn. Anybody? Mr. Martin, let's just say we approve this plan today. What's to keep them from coming back in and wanting to subdivide that one track into two? They can come back and subdivide. Yes, sir. under the I-1 zone, and there's certainly enough land there that they could resubdivide. Thank you. And I wanted to add, to make it very clear, that the Urban County Council has authority over the old Frankfort Pike Ordinance, and they have to amend it. No one on staff has any authority to amend that ordinance. Okay. Mr. Berkeley? Does the applicant or our staff, can you provide any examples of where these encroachments have been allowed? Not in terms of landscaping. I can't think of any offhand, no, sir. there's been some encroachments in some other areas. My institutional memory, I believe there was some slight encroachments for some temporary structures and that sort of thing at times, but I don't recall any offhand for any landscaping. Yeah, I'm not either. I mean, I do highway work, and one thing they always try to do is clear their right-of-way. So I think you probably need to be able to bring us a little more evidence, you know, that they're going to be willing to go along with something like this. Mr. Brewer? Yeah, Tom, if the applicant were amenable to this, can we add a condition to shift the building in such a way to allow him to move forward without having to wait for council? Yes, sir. if you wish to make that a condition of your approval, that he move his building and his drive aisle in order to be in compliance with existing regulations. So he can demonstrate the ability to comply with the old Frankfurt ordinance. Staff would be okay with that? Legal is okay with that? Oh, absolutely. Yes, sir. Staff recommends approval already with the burden on the applicant to meet those other requirements. Okay. Again, at the risk of beating this dead horse, it sounds to me like you've got your plan in front of you, sir. Ms. Beatty? I'd like to echo what Patrick just said. And I would like to say to the applicant, you know, we want to have industrial development, but we would really like for you to work with staff to stay within the guidelines. So I would strongly echo what Patrick Brewer, Mr. Brewer, just said to expedite this, not put it on hold based on the comments. Now, are we ready for a motion? In just a minute, I think. Mr. Abbott, I'll tell you what, I will give you just a brief moment to reply. I'm sure you're wanting to. I would concur with what's being said here. One, we've heard it many times from Mr. Penn. and it definitely seems like 11 pounds of flour in a 7-pound sack. And two, there's been some discussion as far as Old Frankfort Pike, and the Old Frankfort Pike has 70 feet there that they're never going to do anything with, and the berm being there, and is there a need for screening from the building and so forth. But Opring for Pike is a scenic corridor, and I think the ordinance is in here for a reason, just for that purpose, to protect the viewshed and so forth, and that's something that we need to do. Personally, as a personal recommendation, I'd be strongly thinking of, however you want to worry, postponing or continuing in this and bringing a revision back to us to work on our suggestions. Yes, sir. I just wanted to say that we're willing to move the building, and if you guys could authorize it on the condition that we move the building and show the 20 feet of landscape ordinance compliance on our property, we're totally willing to do that. It's not worth waiting another month or until council gets back or anything like that. We'll move the building. Okay, thank you, sir. That would be up to the Commission's wishes. So, in all actuality, I think I did close this part of the hearing. Any further discussion, or I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Penn. This whole episode, I just don't like the way this is played out. I don't think we ought to bring a plan to the Planning Commission and play, let's make a deal. This should have been done way ahead of bringing it to us. Our body is not to sit here and work back and forth to make something fit that they brought in, obviously knowing it didn't fit. And now we're trying to do something to help you when you could have helped yourself before you ever got here. So I don't know which way to go on this. I just know that we've seen the last half hour an example of how not to do a development plan. Thank you, Mr. Penn. I would concur and recognize, in fact, as I said earlier, Mr. Abbott and the company has been working very hard in the past week. But quite frankly, I don't think we're there yet. So we're still at the point of entertaining a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we postpone DP 2012-46 Santa Barbara Land Company. Thank you, Ms. Beatty. As far as legal staff, would postpone or continue be more appropriate? Or does it matter? I don't think it matters. I think it is. The staff is saying if we could postpone or continue it, I'm sorry, for two weeks, because we have started the hearing, so we need to do a continuance for two weeks, perhaps to allow the applicant to try to adjust to the comments he's heard today. I mean, you could do it either two weeks or 30 days, but I think two weeks would probably give him an opportunity because I think he adjusted this plan recently from what I heard to move the building forward, so it shouldn't be a problem for him to bring you a plan that addresses your concerns. I'd like to make a comment before anybody seconds. Okay. Without disagreeing with Frank in this sense, it seems to me if we continue it, we're going to have to hear it again. We've already got the agreement from the applicant to shift it. I think we can make a condition such that we can dispense with this today and move on with whatever the wording may be. but I would urge us not to continue it. I think we need to deal with it now. Thank you, Mr. Weir. Ms. Phillips? With all due respect, Patrick, I'd like to second the motion. Okay. And based on what legal just advised, I need to amend my motion from postponement to continue. Yes. Thank you, Ms. Beatty. Your second concurs with that. So at this point, if there's no further discussion, which I don't think there is, I'll entertain a – I'm sorry. We'll move to the vote. So do we have our screen working? We do. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, that's a two-week postponement or a one-month? This would be a two-week continuance, which is – I was trying to pull it up. July 26th. Thank you. Two-week continuance until July 26th. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. Thank you, sir. I think we moved on to page 7, Park Hill Subdivision. It's DP 2012-50. And we do have a revision, which is on the blue sheets. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, our next item appears on page 7 of your agenda. It is DP 2012-50, Park Hill Subdivision Unit 6, Block A, Lot 1, as amended. It is an amended final development plan for property located at 2500 Alumni Drive. The subject property is located at Alumni Drive at the intersection of Yellowstone Parkway outside of New Circle Road. That is, it's between New Circle Road and Manowar Boulevard. The purpose of the amendment is to revise the circulation and parking at 19 garages and relocate the pool building, which is a small building indicated here. The staff recommends approval on this amended DP subject to the standard conditions. plus a couple of cleanup items, conditions 11 and 12. Does the Commission have any questions regarding this plan or the staff's recommendation at this time? Any questions from the Commission? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Cayley, good afternoon again. Hello. Rory Cayley with EA Partners. Revised staff conditions. If I can just get one clarification on number eight, tree canopy is based on acreage of the property and not square footage of construction. So that this addition of a garage does not increase the canopy requirements. It will be the same canopy required as previously. I think we have to shift a couple of trees with the construction. I just want to make sure everyone's understanding this does not create new canopy calculations. Is that a question? Well, it's resolved, and I don't want to get stuck later. So since I had everyone here, I just want to make sure that staff's in everyone's understanding this doesn't constitute new calculations. Can we get a clarification from the staff? That is correct. We simply wanted to ascertain that the existing canopy coverage and ultimately the canopy coverage after this amendment was completed was adequate and met the statistics on the DP. Thank you. Mr. Kaley, you're okay with that? I'm okay. All right. Any questions from the Commission, Mr. Kaley? No, thank you, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion or entertain a motion. Mr. Cravens. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move approval of DP 2012-50, the revised staff recommendation. Thank you. Motion's been made for approval. Is there a second? Second. And seconded. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. I think we've moved on to page 8, item L, Cove Lake, Unit 2, DP 2012-58. We do have a revision, which is on the, what I'm being told, salmon color. We're trying to be colorful today. Thank you. Yes, we are looking at development plan DP 2012-58 for Cove Lake Unit 2 amendment. This is a final development to amend the building square footage for the clubhouse and to also revise the parking around the clubhouse. The staff had reviewed the plans and we had come up with a list of conditions, and this went to the committee and they recommended approval. and after they recommended approval, we have done a little more investigating and found that the question that we had was the floodplain as to the location of the floodplain and how it was shown on the plan. Since that meeting, we found out that the floodplain that they had drawn was for a 500-year floodplain and not for the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, we would like for them to clarify the floodplain information on the plan. Therefore, you see the list of conditions. We have modified two of the conditions to number 15 to add to clarify for the 100-year floodplain. This way it clears up any misunderstanding of where this location is. And then the floodplain is shown. It goes through the brick garage on the property, and so that's why we were asking for this. We would like for them to document where the floodplain is so that we can verify for the nonconforming parking garage or the garage they have on the property. If they cannot show a nonconforming information, then they would have to go in front of the Board of Adjustments for a variance on the floodplain setback. So we revised it for the floodplain information. If there are any questions. Questions from Ms. Taylor? Thank you, ma'am. We'll hear from the afternoon. Anything to add, sir? Yes, I'm Kevin Warner with Carmen. The original file plan did show the 500 and the 100-year floodplain, and so there was some confusion when there were comments made at Subvision Committee meeting. The brick garage in question is right at the edge of the 100-year floodplain. The 500-year line that showed going through the middle of it was the one I think everybody was concerned about. We have done some research to find out when that garage was built and how that relates to the 25-foot setback requirement, which came into requirements with the 2001 stormwater manuals. The garage does predate that requirement, so we feel confident that we can document as they've required here in the conditions. So we're in agreement with the conditions and request approval. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Warner? Seeing none. Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, thank you, sir. I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes? This is probably not for him, but for staff. Go right ahead. I'm trying to remember in subdivision if we saw this as a late plan. Can staff? It was. This was a late plan? Yes, that is why condition 21 is on there. Okay. Yes, that's reason for number 21 on it. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. any other questions if not uh yes yes ma'am question discussion with respect to the conditions cheryl on our on our orange revised recommendations yes ma'am 19 20 and 22 19 and 20 speak to buildings A1 and A2, and then 22 is about the garage. Where are A1 and A2? And is that relevant? This is why we needed clarification. A1, A2, we show that this is a line that they have drawn as a floodplain. Therefore, it shows it looks like it's clipping. That's the 500-foot, 500-year floodplain. That's why we wanted for them to better clarify which line is for which floodplain elevation. So all they have to do is remove that 500-foot line, and that elipses the need for 19 and 20, doesn't it? Yes, ma'am. But we wanted to have them make those changes to the plan, so therefore we want to verify that they follow through with those. Thank you. Ms. Phillips, to clarify, number 19, one of the buildings is also encroaching into an existing easement, and so that is more the reason for condition 19. It is farther to the east on the property. 13 and 14. There's easement right here, GTE easement. It's lined up through here, so we have to verify that for an encroachment. Any other discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. I'm still trying to recall how much of this we discussed in subdivision. So can you clarify the notations that you're asking for? And I understand you said that after you went back and did a little bit more research, you found these areas. So the notations are just to be placed on the development plan, but the structure itself that they're wanting to expand does not really affect those areas. Is that correct? Ms. Beatty, I remember the subdivision committee when I made the comment about the encroachment of the floodplain, and you specifically asked me what the relief may be, if you may recall. And I said they either had documented or possibly even removed the garage. and I remember you were a little bit concerned. On this plan, what has happened, we regulate to the 100-year floodplain. Their labeling of the floodplain indicated it was what we would normally assume to be the 100-year floodplain, but it actually does depict the 500-year floodplain on part of the property. The garage is in the 500 and not the 100-year floodplain. So since we don't regulate the 500, however, it does encroach into the 25-foot setback that is required now under our ordinance. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Anything else? If not, I'll ask again. Are we ready for a motion? Mr. Cravens. I'll make a motion. I'm not even sure what they're trying to do after all this grudge stuff. It's like they're trying to build onto the clubhouse. That's it. Okay. All right, well, then I'm going to move approval of DP 2012-58 Cove Lake Unit 2, the revised staff recommendation. Thank you. We have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Second. and seconded. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you, sir. We've been just past 3 o'clock hour. We're going to take just a brief break, like maybe five minutes, and we'll resume. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The attention will continue. And while staff's getting ready, I'll ask everyone to look at the memorandum for the release and call of bonds dated July 12, 2012, and ask for a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move release and call of bonds. Second. The motion has been made and seconded for the approval of the release and call of bonds on the memorandum dated July 12, 2012. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Mr. Martin, I think our next plan is DP-2012, 2004-46 Jericho property. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. You are absolutely correct. It's on page 9 of your agenda. Item N. It is Jericho Incorporated, Track B, Amendment No. 11. This is a re-approval request for a development plan. It's located out in the Jericho property area. Here we have Blazer Parkway with Yorkshire Boulevard, and this is Palumbo Drive through here. You can see existing parking and buildings that were constructed over time out on the Jericho development. This was brought back to staff for re-approval by the Planning Commission because they wished to build this little storage building here and add this little bit of pavement in this location. This was on the original approval, but was never built. Under our ordinance, if you don't build everything out on a development plan in five years, it expires and you have to get it re-approved. And that is very simply the case that happened here, as you can see, a 2004 plan. So they attempted to pull a permit. They could not. So they brought the plan back to you for re-approval. On your agenda, staff has given you the original ten conditions on this plan, along with a couple of new conditions that are appropriate to changes in our ordinance. And with that, we are recommending approval. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions? Mr. Martin? If not, I don't think anyone is in the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak? No. Okay. If not, I can close this part of the hearing, open it up for discussion, and or motion for re-approval, noting the revisions to the two conditions. Ms. Plumlee. I move approval of DP 2004-46 with the 10 recommendations from staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for reapproval of DP 2004-46. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. I think now on page 9, under item 4, we have a plant revocation. Mr. Salley, are you going to be speaking to us on this? Lightly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, next item is on page 9, item 4A of your agenda. This is a Platt revocation. Always helps to have your agenda. The plaque that is being requested for revocation is Plan 2003-232C, a consolidation plaque, which is a minor subdivision plaque for Richmond Estates, also known as the Betsy Toy Hall property. This involves two addresses, 1201 Evans Mill Road and 6041 Daymar Court. To orient you to the location of the subject property, this is the Platte 2003-232C. This is several miles to the southeast of the urban service area. Richmond Road extends to the northwest past Jack's Creek Road in this direction towards the urban area and then further to the southeast toward the Kentucky River in this direction. The main body of the property is located at the corner of Evans Mill Road. There is adjacent a 10-acre piece of land on the cul-de-sac of Damar Court. This is a 10-acre development that was approved in the 1970s, back when the minimum lot size, of course, for the subdivision regulations and the zoning was 10 acres in this area. Damar Drive is also a cul-de-sac that comes off the south side of Richmond Road in this area. The consolidation plat in 2003 took 10 acres from an adjoining farm that was over 100 acres in size and consolidated it with one of the 10-acre lots created in the 1970s. The action that the applicant is asking is that this plat be nullified, in essence be done away with. The result of that would be that the original farm would be 10 acres larger in size, and the original 10-acre plat for 6041 Daymark Court would be reinstated and go back into existence in essence for this particular property owner. There are no residential structures involved with the parcel that was transferred between the parties. the farm has one dwelling on it, as does the 10-acre lot here. I have one thing to hand out to the Commission very quickly. This is the third time that the staff can recall the commission's been asked to revoke a plat, so we had to go back to the state statute that allows the commission to consider this action. And as you can see on these two pages where the highlighting is, there are generally four conditions that have to be met with a revocation. Item number two is highlighted because until earlier today, this item had not been submitted as part of the application. However, Mr. Murphy, who is representing the applicant, and the law department have conversed and they have supplied the staff with a copy of the affidavit that's required under this. In speaking with Ms. Boland, she does find that it is in order and that this section that's highlighted has been met. If you like, I'd be glad to circulate that affidavit to the Commission. We do have it available for you to review. With that and with the completed application, the staff can recommend approval of this revocation. And again, this is very late-breaking information. We do have two conditions to recommend to you for approval, and I will put these on the overhead for you to review. On the 2nd of July, the Purchase of Development Rights Board reviewed the application because the larger parcel involved with the consolidation plat is now covered under a conservation easement that the PDR Board has approved. One of their recommended conditions for approving this revocation is that the federal government approve the revision to the conservation easement. So this first condition that appears on the overhead projector is to document that federal government approval so that the conservation easement can be revised as necessary. Secondly, the affidavit is not fully executed, perhaps because of its recent date and signing. So a second condition for this revocation would be completion of the executed affidavit. I think with those two conditions, the revocation could go forward. In essence, what would happen if the Commission does decide to revoke this plat is a note would be affixed to the plat in the county clerk's office informing all in the future that this plat is no longer valid and that the Planning Commission has acted to revoke this consolidation plat. At this time, I'd be glad to answer any questions that you have of our review or about what is being requested from the Planning Commission. Any questions for Mr. Sally at this point? Mr. Penn? Bill, I know that we've had this discussion in the past But I'd like to explain to the commission why you were allowed to take a 10-acre track in 2003 and add it to another 10-acre track, which made it a 20-acre track, and then we'll go from there. Okay. In 2003, the minimum lot size in the AR zone was 40 acres, And this lot became non-conforming in terms of size, I believe in 1999, when the AR restrictions went from a minimum of 10 acres to a minimum of 40 acres. Through consolidations like this, the general rules are a lot may not become less conforming in terms of the lot size, but they can become more conforming. The adjoining parcel is 102 acres, so obviously it is much larger than the minimum lot size in the zone. This track, going from 10 to 20 acres in size, became more conforming. It was still a nonconforming lot in terms of size, but this plat did allow it to become more conforming to the minimum size requirement. then to follow up on that when we do what we're doing now we're saying that we're making the 10-acre track that's in the subdivision if you will more non-conforming by revocating the plat is that correct i think if you were faced with a consolidation plat that was reversing the 2003 action, I think that would be exactly correct. And of course, under the rules of non-conforming lots, that could not be approved. The only means by which this property can go back to its original configuration is the voiding of this plat, which would then make the reliance on the 1974 plat for the property. What kind of precedence does this set, and are there other things out in the community that have 30 acres, less than 40 acres that are two or three tracks? Could they do the same thing, and if not, why? They could certainly always ask the Planning Commission to undo a revocation. Mr. Martin and I could not even remember the very first revocation plat. The last one was in, I believe, 2007 along Blackburn Avenue, and it also involved a consolidation plat that a church had three contiguous pieces of property that they asked the Planning Commission to undo that consolidation in essence. In terms of precedent, this particular consolidation did not involve an additional buildable parcel because each lot already had a residence on it. And I think that is the key as the Commission considers this revocation. I think the staff would be very leery of any revocation that would ask to increase the buildable number of dwelling units in a nonconforming situation. Other questions? Bill, I have one, I guess kind of as a follow-up. As far as a revocation, if this proceeds, can this occur on this lot in the future? Could there be a consolidation in the future? Could it revert back again? There would be nothing automatic. Theoretically, I believe if this plat is revoked, an engineer could submit something like this again in the future. I believe that would be possible. The only exception I would say to that, remembering that Mr. Van Pelt is behind me, is that there is now a conservation easement on the property that was not in effect in 2003 when the plat was originally approved. And those conservation easements do have restrictions on changing property lines, altering acreages, and things of that nature. The conservation easement is for the larger tract of land right now? Yes, sir. it doesn't include the 10 acres that's going to go back into that larger track though at the present? You're correct. At the present time, it does not. Okay. I believe it is proposed to also be encumbered by a conservation easement, but that has not been accomplished, I don't believe. Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Penn? I need to know, I think, when that 10 acres comes back to the 102, I'd like to ask Mr. Van Pelt if he would tell me, does the easement on the 101 acres automatically include the 10 acres that's added back to it? And if not, how do you handle that? Mr. Penn and members of the commission, as Mr. Sally explained, the larger parcel is subject to a deed of conservation easement on 102.16 acres. And as part of this process, the Rural Land Management Board approved amending the deed of conservation easement to increase the acreage of the area covered by the conservation easement by 10 acres. So it would go from 102.16 acres to 112.16 acres. A new conservation easement will be recorded as part of this process. And the Rural Land Management Board's approval is subject to your approval. It's also subject to our federal funding partner's approval. And now that we've approved it, it will go to the state office of our federal funding partner and then to their national office. So it's going to take some time. Once all those approvals are in place, there will be another closing, and we will close on a new deed of conservation easement, amending the original easement. And we will sign the new conservation easement, as will the current owners and our federal funding partner. Once the easement is recorded after the closing, we will not allow subdivision. So to Mr. Owen's point, there wouldn't be a way for that 10-acre parcel to go back to the adjoining parcel in the future. Have I answered your questions? I think for the moment, yes, sir, thank you. Ms. Phillips? No, go ahead. Get you in just a second, Will. Well, I'm not sure if Billy or Bill could answer this. With respect to Frank's question, the way that I understand, I apologize for walking in late. The 10-acre cutout is going to be reconsolidated into the larger tract to make 112 acres, right? So the remaining property, the remaining 10 acres on the other side of the property line, Are you suggesting that that may come, could potentially come back to add acreage, but it could potentially be less than 40 acres because it's an existing nonconforming lot? No. No, I was not. The revocation, if this plat is revoked, this property would rely upon the original plat for it. and as Mr. Van Pelt explained, there would be PDR restrictions against doing this type of consolidation again. So it, again, could get larger perhaps with consolidation with some of its neighboring properties on the other sides, but it could not get larger in this direction. But we're not going to see the 10 acres on the other side of the, by revoking this plat, we're consolidating on this side of the fence line and we're removing any lines on the other side of the property line. So that pre-existing 10-acre lot that then became a 20-acre lot will no longer exist, right? The 20-acre lot will no longer exist. The 10-acre lot will still exist. How? By virtue of this plat in 1974. this is the plat for the property the property line if the plat is revoked the property line would be right here the way it was before this plat was ever filed it would revert back to its original 10 years ago that 10 acres on the other side of the fence is an existing lot of record with the Richmond estates This is not a lot of record. No, not that one, the one on the other side of the field. Yes, that's correct. So that's an existing lot of record, and we're just putting back the 102 acres into 112. Exactly. And that existing lot will be there. Again, back to Frank's question, we could potentially see this again with the remaining Richmond Estates 10-acre lot, try to consolidate to grow that lot size to something less than 40. we could potentially see them try to combine on the other side of their property? The constraint with consolidations here in the Richmond Estate subdivision is all of these lots are nonconforming. In this situation, only one was nonconforming. So, yes, there can be consolidations, but the result after the consolidation is no lot can be smaller than it currently exists. so they can reconfigure the property lines. Let's say this neighbor built maybe their driveway three feet over on their neighbor. They could swap property in a way equal amounts. So, yes, you could have consolidations, but, for instance, this 10-acre lot could not buy five from that property because this one would then become less conformant. I hope that makes sense. Okay. Mr. Berkeley? Billy, is this being donated, or is it going to be a purchase, and is this an issue with just the size of the track? That's a good question. There is no financial impact to the PDR program. We are not paying for this 10 acres. And so we're increasing the number of conserved acres at no cost except for the cost of the title search that we'll do to make sure that there are no encumbrances as well as the recording fees, which are minimal. Okay. Thank you. I guess at this point in time, Mr. Sally, we've kind of heard from Mr. Van Pelt. I don't know if he's got anything else to add, but I might defer at this point to Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing all the property owners on this. Mr. and Mrs. Flam are the ones on the left side, and Mr. and Mrs. Foley are the ones on the right side. And this is really obviously a simple thing they want to do. It's a very complicated procedure they're having to do. If you could put the map, the aerial that showed the buildings back on there that you had up just a moment ago, it explains it pretty well. Well, this was in an estate about in 2003, and for some reason the executors thought it was a good idea to convey 10 acres over to the other one at that point. But everybody bought this back in 2003, and the Foley's owned the big tract, which is now 102 acres, which used to be the 112-acre farm. As you can see, here's Old Richmond Road right here. Here's Evans Mill Road right here. And then here is Daymar Court. It ends right about there going back. And then Daymar Drive comes up to Old Richmond Road. All this area on the left is the Richmond Estate Subdivision, which, as Bill mentioned, in 1973 was 10-acre lots. They're all almost exactly 10 acres. It's like 10.01, 10.02 acre lots all through all of the Richmond estates. But in any case, you can see here on the Foley property, you can see there's a pond there, and then the buildings are grouped around here. And it's always been a sore spot with the Foleys that, to use a non-technical term, a hunk of the farm is out in the middle, and they've got to go around to there. And it flows this way. It would be much more efficient to farm it, much more effective to farm it, to restore it back the way it had been and was up until 2003. So the neighbors got talking among themselves, and the flam said, yeah, you ought to take that back. And Foley said, we want it back. So that's when they came to me and said, how can we do this? So we have gone, searched this for this procedure. And I know it's unusual. It's not done very often. and I think that fact alone says this is not going to be a precedent for very much. I mean, the staff couldn't even remember the first time it was done. Apparently there's been three of these since whenever, 1970 or something like that. But the key things on this is that Mr. Foley did go, there is a PDR easement on the 102 acres right now protecting it, and he went to the Rural Land Management Board and told them what he wanted to do, and they agreed that he would, in essence, donate the rest of the easement on the 10 acres so it would all be covered by one easement. It's all going to merge into that one easement, be covered by the one easement, and that will make it impossible for him to convey pieces back out of it. The Rural Land Management Board did meet a week ago, Monday, I think July 2nd, and unanimously approved this, but they did make the two conditions. One is that you approve it, and the second is that their federal funder approve it as well on that. And, again, the key thing in this is that there's no house on this now. There won't be, as a result of their action, as a result of this revocation, there will not be any more residential units being built out in the rural area. We're going to restore it to the way it was in 2003, 2003 which is really where the farm has been and to me it's in keeping with the intent of the ar zone because this puts This 10 acres in a much more efficient agricultural use out there plus it results in 10 more acres being protected by the PDR at no cost to the urban county government, so That's where we are we're wanting to restore this to the way it was and it'll work much better for their farm out there there and i know it'll make the foley's feel a lot better to have the 10 acres back out of the middle of their farm so we appreciate mr van pell the rural land management board and bill cellie and the staff on this and we know this is not the last step in this process we still have to go through the federal funding and all the other requirements that will be have to be met on the the PDR on that. So thank you all very much. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Penn, question? Help me here just a minute. Let's assume there's no PDR involved in this. Let's say this is a 102-acre farm that was 112 acres. They sold off 10 to make the other 10 a less nonconforming use. let's say now that they wanted to buy it back to do all the things you talked about everybody would do for it that makes the 10 acre track more non-conforming by selling it back to the 102 acres so we completely reversed the strategy that we used to take it out of there in the first place the strategy we did to take it out the first place was to make that 10 acres it's going to be consolidated with more conforming instead of less conforming. I don't understand how you can do it backwards. I know why PDR board took it in. I mean, I understand that. What I don't understand is how you can take one logic going one way and not have that same logic work going back the other way. Well, the only reason this can be done is because there is that plat which can be revoked and put it back the way it was in 2003. If this plat didn't exist and there was just this hunk of land was part of the other property, we couldn't do this. But the only way it's able to be done is because that plat exists and because it can be revoked and it will go back to the way it was. I know we may be talking about semantics here. We may be talking about semantics. But as we've approached this throughout, it is in agreement with the intent of the agricultural zone because this is going to be used much more efficiently for agricultural use. I suppose any time you have anywhere in this community you have a smaller tract next to a large farm tract, you can possibly, somebody can approach you about doing a consolidation plan. This is an unusual configuration. If it were before you today, you probably would have questioned this about irregular lot lines or something like that for it. But other people can ask you for consolidations. We're not asking you for a consolidation. We're asking you to revoke one that was done before. It's such a unique procedure. And I know I can understand the issues you have in doing it. But Daymar Court, we're going to restore it the way it was in 2003. All those other 20 lots or whatever in Richmond Estates are exactly 10 acres. It's not going to change the atmosphere, the vistas, or anything in that subdivision from what it is. it's going to, Daymar Court's going to remain a 10-acre lot subdivision regardless of what you all do today. It's just that Foley's Farm is going to be a much better farm as a result of what you do today. Well, I just put two 100-acre tracks back together and did a consolidation plan. My understanding when I did that was, that's it. You've taken two 100-acre parcels, you've made a 200-acre parcel. What I've learned today is under the right circumstances, consolidation can be revoked. And that bothers me immensely. Under the very limited circumstances, and that's a state law, okay? If you want the state legislature to revoke the law and say you can never revoke a consolidation, that's something you can ask the state legislature. But that is a fact which exists. The state legislature has that statute in there that it can be done. And I don't think it's a major threat. the proof is nobody can remember the last time this was ever even done. I hope that's true going forward, and I'll have to say to the Commission, my reason for doing this today was to get this on the record so that if it does come down the road a little bit far, we'll be able to do this. But consolidation plates should be consolidation plates, not a holding pin in case we want to change them, and that really bothers me. Mr. Craven's question. Yeah, Mr. Murphy, could someone get a building permit to build a house on that 10 acres? No. The way it is now? No. Because you don't have any frontage? Pardon me? You don't have any road frontage, I guess. No. You don't have any way to get to it? No, you could not get a permit, I don't think, to build on it today. And if you revoke it, you could not get a permit to build on it tomorrow. The reason you couldn't get a permit today is because it doesn't have road frontage or what? Well, because of your limitation on units per lot and no road frontage, and there's already houses on each of these lots. I know, but some of these leftover 10-acre tracks are permittable. I mean, you can build houses on them. Right. There's a house. I don't know why you couldn't do that on that one unless it's, did it become part of the Richmond Estates when it was consolidated to that? Well, the. Which would probably say one house per lot or something like that. Oh, there's one house on the Flam property now. And, of course, the Foley's have a house. So this doesn't affect the number of lots. There's two lots today. and if you revoke it a month from now there will still only be two lots. So we're not entitled to any more houses on this. It's really because of the number of lots we have, I think. Well, I built a house out there back in about 1977 in Richmond States, and I'm familiar with that. But, I mean, that's all I'm asking. You don't think you can get a permit to build a house on that 10 acres there? No, there's no hidden agenda here. I'm not saying that. I mean, that would be a good thing for me. Well, unfortunately, I don't think you'd be able to get permission. Probably the rest of us don't agree with that. But if you were to... Let's get on with this. I lost it. Mr. Cravens did say his house in 1977 was still standing. Mr. Berkeley? I've got just a technical question, I guess, for Rochelle. This KRS that we're looking at here, it says revocation of a subdivision plat. Really what we are revoking is a consolidation plat? Sure. Well, it subdivided the 10 acres off of the main agricultural property. I mean, there really isn't a distinction in that regard with respect to the ability to revoke this. And a consolidation plan is a minor subdivision plan. Yes. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? Any other questions from the Commission? I guess I've got one, maybe for Mr. Van Pelt. But you're saying that the intent is for this 10 acres to go into the PDR for all practical purposes as a donated easement. Is that part of the conditions of all this? Well, it certainly could be. But we're not going to record an easement until we have a revoked plat because we're going to have a new legal description that we're recording that easement on, and that wouldn't happen until after the plat's been revoked and we have a new legal description of the new boundary. So, I mean, you could always add that as a condition, I guess. I don't want to speak for Bill. Okay. All right, then. Just a question at this point. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, ma'am. Just one question, and then I'm ready to make a motion. The Rural Land Management Board's motion was to correct things with the Federal Department of Agriculture with a PACE program, I suppose. Well, their motion was to amend the deed of conservation easement on the 102.16-acre parcel to reflect 10 additional acres with the revocation of this pledge. So the new deed of conservation easement will be for 112.96 acres. We sign the conservation easement, and our federal funding partner also signs the conservation easement as does the owner. So we will submit. We're already working with them to get their approval, and I don't know what that's going to be yet. There's no cost to the local government nor to the federal agency. No cost to the federal agency, but we will have to do a new title search and a recording fee. Okay. If there are no other questions, I'm ready to make a motion. That would be fine. Mr. Chairman, I move that we revoke Plan 2003-23C, Richmond Estates. Second. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for, I'm going to call it the approval of the revocation of Plan 2003-232C. if there's no further discussion please vote when it comes up on the screen yes thank you Patrick with the two conditions is that fine with you and Ms. Beatty thank you with the two conditions so please vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This next item appears on the bottom of page 9 of your agenda. This is ZOTA 2012-10, a zoning ordinance text amendment that's been initiated by the Urban County Council, which proposes to amend the zoning ordinance to create a new definition for a new land use that's not currently listed in the zoning ordinance, and also to amend the provisions of Article 8 of the zoning ordinance to insert the new use into the listing of uses. The staff has placed at your place our original staff report, which we presented to the zoning committee a week ago today, the original resolution passed by the Council with their text amendment proposal, and also a supplemental staff report that I will present to you in just a few moments. The Council proposed a new definition for an adult daycare center to be inserted into Article 1-11 of the ordinance and to make that use a conditional use in the P1, B1, and B2, and B2A zones. That definition would allow a new use that would allow for care being given and guidance for adults in a protective setting that did not involve any overnight type of accommodations. It was only to be done during part of a 24-hour day. In addition, we've provided in our staff report the definition of community center, which is probably the most similar use in the existing zoning ordinance to the more specific use that is being proposed with this text amendment. The text amendment was really prompted by a facility such as this locating in close proximity to an existing residential neighborhood, and that neighborhood was displeased to learn that they really had no advance notice of the facility and no means to engage the proponents of the facility ahead of its location. I think that is why the text amendment that's been forwarded to you by the Council proposes this new use as a conditional use in all of these zones. As a conditional use, there is an approval necessary from the Board of Adjustment that involves mail notice to property owners within 500 feet of the location, and in addition, a notification to the nearest neighborhood association. The definition is really crafted after similar definitions in four cities, those being Blacksburg, Virginia, Boulder, Colorado, Durham, North Carolina, and Wheaton, Illinois. And in Lexington, there are already some of these adult daycare centers in existence. We know of five, and there are two different types of daycare centers that are covered under this definition. One type is more of a medical facility that requires a certificate of need and different agency approvals at the state and national level. The other is a more social model that are less formal and don't involve the medical services in nearly the amount or formality that the more medical facilities provide. We know of three different locations currently, I think most people are familiar with the Senior Citizen Center on Nicholasville Road. There are other facilities farther out the Nicholasville Road corridor, and then one on North Martin Luther King, which really prompted this particular text amendment from the Council. When we first introduced this to the Planning Commission at your work session last month, there was some concern by Commission members that the regulation was too restrictive, and that as conditional uses in every instance, there might not be any real locations available for this new use under the ordinance. We had about a 30-minute discussion, and the staff very much took to heart your comments and your concerns with the proposed text amendment. As we reported to your zoning committee last week, we offered a staff alternative text that would set up a two-tiered system for regulating this use. It would leave intact the Council's proposal to make these conditional uses when they are in close proximity to residential zones, but when not in close proximity, they would be allowed as principal permitted uses by right use in certain zones. The staff alternative text affects the same zones as the Council proposed, but because of listing it as a principal use when more than 500 feet from a residential area, other zones are also impacted by the staff's alternative. recommendation, those being our mixed-use zones and the B6P zone, which is our planned shopping center zone. Under the staff alternative text, create this two-tiered system of principal use and conditional use. They would also be principal in B6P in our mixed-use zones when more than 500 feet from a residential zone. In preparing for your hearing, the staff was led to draft for you a supplemental staff report, which should be the last page of your handout, because we noted one anomaly that had not been intended by the staff. What is on the overhead now are the P1, B1, and business zones where the conditional use and the principal uses could locate in the community. If you think about the edges of these highlighted areas, most likely those are going to be the areas that are in close proximity to residential zones where an adult daycare center would still be a conditional use. Probably in the center of these larger areas, they would be more than 500 feet away and would be eligible for consideration and siting as a principal permitted use. If we could go to the map underneath that one, please. In one particular business zone, though, the staff is aware that there are already a lot of residential uses. That is basically in the area of the Constitution Historic District. There's a large area of B2A zoning that extends basically north of the core downtown from Pleasant Stone and Corral Street as far north as 3rd Street. And what you're seeing on the overhead now is a map of that zone shown with the dashed lines and the solid orange shading there. And areas highlighted in solid color are more than 500 feet from a residential zone. Once we came to this realization since your zoning committee meeting, we were prompted to reconsider our alternative text as it would relate to the B2A zone. The basic intent of this regulation was to allow residences and neighbors to get notice of the siting of these facilities when in close proximity to them. Because there are so many residences in this particular area, the revised staff alternate text would make a conditional use in all of the B2A zone for an adult daycare center. And that's what you'll see on the last sheet of the handout on the tan sheet titled Supplemental Staff Report. Specifically, if I could direct your attention to the bottom three lines of the report, and more specifically the top two of those three lines. The revision to the staff alternate text deals with the B2A zone, where the principal permitted uses in the B2 zone carry into that zone, and we would add the exception for adult acres. Yes, sir. Excuse me. I'm trying to find the tan sheet myself. It should, I hope, be stapled to the staff report and the... Hold on just one second. Let me see if it's not stapled. It's not stapled. I'm sorry. There we go. Okay. All right. We're together. I'm sorry. I thought those were stapled for you. The last three lines of the supplemental staff report is where the change is proposed from what you saw last week, those of you on the zoning committee. The B2A zone, there would be an exception for this use, where in that particular zone they would be conditional in all instances. Again, this affects, in our estimation, about all or parts of eight city blocks. Given the map that we had up there just a moment ago, we don't think that will have a huge impact to the general direction of the staff alternate text. We did not alter our findings that we presented to you last week at the Zoning Committee, and that is for approval, although I would say now it's approval of the revised staff alternate text for three reasons. The proposed text will make adult daycare centers a conditional use in many zones and a principal use when more than 500 feet from a residential zone. Secondly, the definition is crafted after four definitions that are generally referred to cities for use by the American Planning Association. And thirdly, staff believes our alternate text still is in agreement with the Council's goal for the text amendment to offer neighborhoods the opportunity to participate and have knowledge of the siting of these facilities when in close proximity to residential areas. I hope I haven't confused you by referring to two different staff reports today. I thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present this to you, and at this time I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission. Any questions for Mr. Salley at the moment? Oh, yes, Ms. Plumlee. I have a question about the zone. Is the zone relative to the size of the facility? It really is not related to the size of the facility. The location of the facility, generally how this regulation will work is if a facility wants to locate, a determination will be made as to where the nearest residential zone is. And then that determination will determine whether or not they have to go to the Board of Adjustment or whether they can bypass that step and go directly and get zoning and building permits. But it won't matter whether it's, say, a 2,000-square-foot building, a 20,000-square-foot building, or a very large facility like the Senior Citizen Center. That will not be part of the existing regulation. And these are all state regulated? Not all. The medical type facility. No, I'm referring to the non-medical. Right. The non-medical, I'm not sure that those have a state regulatory component to them. At this time, the state may be reconsidering that, but I don't believe they do today. Bill, the staff, I'm sorry, the council came to us with this request. At the time, they were asking for this to be a conditional use? Yes, sir, in the P1, B1, B2, and P2 zones. And I would say that B2 carries to B2A automatically. So it involved that zone as well. So they were asking for conditional use? Yes, sir. Thank you. Ms. Beatty? Bill, how does the current daycare centers that are in existing now, are they grandfathered in, or will they have to come into compliance of being either conditionally or principal use? The last part of your statement is exactly correct. Yes, they will be grandfathered, but should they want to expand, and if they are closer than 500 feet to a residential zone, they will have the opportunity to ask for a conditional use permit to consider that expansion. They won't be a nonconforming use where they absolutely cannot expand under any circumstance. Thank you. Ms. Phillips? Bill, the map that's provided up here, are those the B2A zones or are those the areas that are 500 feet outside where one could be sited? Let me explain what the map is showing. This is one area of B2A zoning, but it is the largest area. The B2A zone runs from Pleasant Stone and Corral, and then along here, I'm trying to think of a landmark here. This is the Central Christian Church facility. It used to be the cafeteria. Short Street is here, so it includes the properties on Short Street. and dropping off the map, this B2A area extends as far as the Woodland's development at Woodland and Main and generally is along both sides of Main Street here. What this map is showing, I should finish, Elm Tree Lane is here. This is the zoning boundary, and then it follows the center line of 3rd Street all the way to generally the Gratz Park area. The edges of this B2A zone are within 500 feet of a residential zone. So what is highlighted here in the solid color are the areas in this particular zone that are farther than 500 feet from those zones. And under this original staff alternate text, there would be a permitted use in this area and a conditional use in this area. What is significant about this area is this entire block is largely residential. So the staff alternative text had an unintended consequence of, in essence, negating what the Council's original intention for this regulation was. That's why we've altered it today. So this is an area where potentially they could be located in the B2A, but if we make them a conditional use, then because I remember we talked about this. My question was residential uses or residential zoning, and we agreed that it would be residential zoning, but this is the only, well, granted there will be other uses, residential uses, that could potentially be impacted, not within a 500-foot area. And certainly there are residences today in B1 and P1 zones, but the staff could not think of a concentration of an entire block or two-block area like this. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Sally at the moment? If not, I'd ask if there's anyone in the audience that I wish to speak in regards to this request. Yes, please come forward. Please give us your name and address. My name is Linda Carroll. I live at 343 North Limestone. And this is very nearly perfect, particularly if you adopt the B2A portion of this. What we found in the situation that evolved on Martin Luther King was there were three schools that were right in the vicinity of this facility when it opened, and there was no notification to those schools, and a couple of them are here with me today. I think in talking to Mr. Salee, I think one gap in all of this is the schools that in the downtown core are often not within 500 feet of a residential zone. And so they would be missed in any kind of notification process. And so what I might ask you to consider, and I need some advice from Bill and Chris on this, is to consider conditional use within 500 feet of a school or a daycare center. And there are a number of them downtown. And we were just trying to patch together a brief list. But St. Peter and Paul is physically located on Bar Street. one of its campuses is. Central Christian is on Short Street and not within a residential area. There's a tiny tot that's out on Main Street in Jefferson, and I think Maxwell Presbyterian also runs a daycare in Broadway Christian. So you might just consider an additional conditional use in this that would allow the schools to have notification before this opens up in their area. And I think Sarah and St. Peter and Paul are also here. Thank you, Ms. Carroll. I would say that I kind of want to speak to what Ms. Carroll has to say, but I do want to hear from the others first. So anyone else wish to speak? Yes. My name is Rick Christman. I'm the CEO of Employment Solutions. We operate what would be adult daycare centers. I'm also on the board of the New Beginnings Bluegrass, familiar with National Alliance for Mentally Ill. So I'm familiar with programs that would be day centers. And I just want to say, well, I understand why the need for this ordinance, I think the incident in question involved homeless people. they can sometimes congregate, create disruption. But there's many other adult daycare centers serving people with developmental disabilities, people with mental illness, people that we wouldn't even know they were in that facility. And so I would very much want to encourage you to adopt the staff recommendation modifying this So there could be adult daycare centers could be a principal use under certain conditions of the 500-foot boundary. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any others wish to speak on this? Good afternoon. I'm Dawn Cluse. I'm associate head for Sayre School, which is in the middle of that red area highlighted in the map. I just want to second Linda Carroll's request that schools be included in the conditional use amended text so that they have an opportunity to participate in the planning and discussion beforehand when adult daycare centers are located in the proximity. Thank you. Thank you. Others who wish to speak, please? Good afternoon. My name is Jean Miller, and I'm the president at St. Peter and Paul School. We have two campuses on 423 West Short Street and 133 Barr Street, and I also support Linda Carroll's request to include that the schools be notified for any types of requests as these. Okay. Thank you. Any others? Seeing none, any questions from the commission for Mr. Sally or anyone that's spoken? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion. Any discussion? I do have something. Mr. Brewer? My thoughts. One, I'd like to thank the staff for working so hard and diligently on a short time frame on this and coming up with a lot of good information. My thought, I guess, concern with the fact that where this started with a day center down on North Martin Luther King Boulevard, what I do remember from that was much as what has been discussed here concerns that it was a permitted use that went in without any notification. and what the staff has recommended as far as being within a residential zone going to a conditional use. What I remember from that is with the North Martin Luther King Boulevard was that there probably were some residential neighbors, but there were also some business neighbors that showed a concern as well. and I'm just wondering if we're giving business neighbors an opportunity or at this point I don't think we are giving them an opportunity to voice a concern. And I think that is needed. I don't want to hinder what we're trying to accomplish here, but a conditional use I don't think would put that much hindrance on it. the Board of Adjustment would be hearing it, and I think the Board of Adjustment is open-minded enough to realize when a use is merited or when the concerns are just simply what I would throw into a NIMBY-type situation. personally I would like to see this use go as conditional use throughout the zones at this point in time. Any other discussion? Ms. Beatty? Mike, I would just like to say that I do applaud all of the work that staff has put into this. And I know Carla is not here. I don't want to speak for Carla. But I just want to say that I know she felt strongly about having a nice balance, and I don't want us to lose sight of what her initial conversation was, I think last week or a week before when we talked about this, and making sure that we are respectful of our adult population. I realize that there are some challenged adults that need centers, but there also are just our traditional aging adults that want to come together in a center, to meet in a center way. And so I just want us to be sure that whatever we're doing, that there's a nice balance to that. I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you. Ms. Phillips? Mike Cravens and I are the only two who were at the zoning committee meeting last week where this was discussed. Bill Wilson attended as well as Carla, but neither of them were here, and Patrick wasn't able to join us. So Mike and I were the only ones who saw the staff alternative last week. And we discussed it, and we made a motion to approve it and recommend that the commission approve it. But the new B2A, we didn't see that. But the way that I had understood Carla's concerns, she did not want to make it prohibitive to where we would never see these kinds of facilities open anywhere through the community. Mike, maybe you can chime in. I think that the B2A alternative is more, I don't think that she would have heartburn with it. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but I think that it is we're providing enough opportunity in other zoning districts that I think she'd be good with it. But Mike? No, I think. Yes, Mr. Cravens. I guess how do we address their concerns about it? I mean, that's a good point about the schools. I guess if you were to file a conditional use permit, would the schools be notified because they're in the proximity of the notification zone? It wouldn't necessarily be a notice based on it being a school, but all property owners within 500 feet would receive a notice. So they would be notified if somebody were to do? If they were within 500 feet, yes. They could count on wherever the tax bill is sent. That same address would receive a notice letter. Okay. Do you have some way you could work in what they're saying? Well, I was speaking with our director for just a moment. Most of the issues that we've heard seem to deal, from our perspective, with the B2 zone. And we do have some text that we can put on the overhead for you to consider, and then I would like to make just a brief comment about it. I described this one on the overhead with the red ink portion. There is one change that we think we could make to the B2 zone that would address, we believe, most of the concerns you've heard today. In the B2 zone, you could add a provision where it would be a conditional use when located closer than 500 feet from a residential zone, school, or child care center. That is in the core of downtown where you have more mixture of those types of uses. To add that to P1 and B1, P2 would not be an issue. But those zones, there are a lot of large schools, but there are also a lot of small schools and small daycare centers. We think that would be very difficult to catch every one of those types of facilities in those zones. I think downtown, I think we probably could do it. So we would offer that to try and address the concerns that they brought to you. Thank you, Mr. Saling. Mr. Brewer? Yeah, Bill, sorry. So with the zoning or the colored red section we saw of downtown, would this capture all of that area? It would capture the area we were talking about, yes, that we saw on the map. Right, all the red area that we were talking about, the various schools that are included in that area, Grady Park, et cetera? Yes, our original revision would have captured that entire area. This goes then another step beyond that. This addition would go an additional step. Okay. That sounds good to me. Ms. Beatty? I would just ask, why would you treat the schools and the daycares downtown any differently from other schools and daycares? I mean, and I understand what they're saying, and I agree that they should be notified. And if they are outside 500 feet, I still think that somehow we should notify them. But my question is, why would we treat just those schools differently from other schools when we may have daycare owners or schools in other districts as soon as we approve this to come back and say, why didn't we know this? Exactly. You've addressed a very basic zoning theory issue right there in that one statement. This is merely an attempt to accommodate their requests, but certainly that's very valid. Mr. Salley, are you saying it's just too problematic to put it on the other zones? If we could go back to the original map we had up there. B2 is in one particular area, and it's all contiguous. B1 and P1 is hundreds of locations throughout the community, and I think that really is the difference from the staff perspective. It's just unwieldy to know everyone that's within 500 feet of those areas. I guess it goes back to my question and concern. If it's conditional use throughout, then the schools, the daycare centers, those would be notified? Any property owner within 500 feet, including schools and daycare centers, yes, would be notified. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salley. I'll just amplify a little bit. You know, it's almost all of one or the other. The downtown area is a finite area that we can manage. But in looking at all of these, every time someone came to the counter or any time someone was out trying to acquire a property and figure out what they had to do to get approval, you're talking about a major research because it's not like there's a list of every school or a list of every daycare center. So for each case, we would have to do a custom research project, basically, to find out what would be the requirements for obtaining a permit at that particular location. The downtown area, again, it would be much more manageable than everything that you see on this map. Personally, I can understand that. However, by the same token, I've voiced my concern and feel like we should have this as a conditional use. Other questions, discussion, and or motion? I'll defer to others if you have more questions. I'm not trying to cut it off, but I'm ready to make a motion if everybody else is comfortable. Sure. What I asked Patrick is I wanted to know what kind of timeline we're working with. As this text amendment will progress? Well, since this was 60 days. We've got 60 days, which expires before we meet again. I believe more days the Commission has to consider this. And then if we do not consider it, then will this become law? the council's action? As far as I know, that's never happened here, so I'd have to defer. Because we're the legislative body, right? They would come back to us. This commission must act on what the council sent you, either approve, disapprove, or recommend something different within the 60-day period. If that is reported back to council, then the council can do what it wills with that recommendation. And then at that point, if we send back the revised approval of the staff's revision with the slight revision we've talked about today, it goes back to council for approval, correct? For their review. For their review and approve. They would have to approve it again, correct? They would have to either. They could approve what you send them. They could go with their original or they can, within reason, modify something on their own. If they modify, would they come back to us then? If it's way outside the bounds of what this commission has discussed and what was noticed for this hearing, they would probably be recommended to remand to them. Of course, the council can do what the council wills. We just don't know. Okay. No. Since this is legislation, they would not necessarily, I will defer to law, but I don't think to do something different, they would have to have a separate hearing of their own. If they do something substantially different, I think it would have to, again, if it's substantial, as Chris said, I think it would have to go through the process again. They'd have to initiate something different. To pass something different from what you have proposed. In other words, if they go back to their original, what we have told them is that then they are overriding the decision of the Planning Commission, and they have to have eight votes to do so, a total of eight votes as opposed to just a simple majority of those that are present. So they can also end up putting this in committee and discussing it at great length because they're not on a time limit once it goes back to them. Also, to address your question, the only public hearing on a text amendment is before the Planning Commission. on the required hearing. This could be it. Right, but the concerned parties, including the ones who are here and any others who hear about it, can still write their council, but the council member are voicing their support for or opposition to this, correct? You know it's not a public hearing? Just like any other council meeting, the agenda is published, notice is given to the public, and certainly council has always allowed people to generally allow people to comment. I mean, that's up to them. There's not a required public hearing. But obviously everybody can communicate with their council members. They can appear at the council meeting knowing it's on the agenda. Okay. We have notified almost 250 neighborhood associations of today's hearing as well. Mr. Cravens. Okay. Yeah, I'd like to, agreeing with my chairman here, I'd like to see this as a conditional use in all zones. I guess removing the principal use language and make it conditional use globally, I guess is what I'm saying. Mr. Salley, is that what the original text was? The text that's been sent to you by the council would make this a conditional use in all P1, B1, B2, B2A, and B2A. And your original text stated that, correct? Either if you look on the staff report, the council text is at the very top of the staff report. And if you're looking at the agenda, it is on page 10, the top half of the page, the text that's been sent to you by the council. And that's how it reads, as a conditional? Yes, it'd be conditional in all zones there. Thank you. Well, okay, I've been around this two or three times now, and I've gotten completely confused. So we've got two different recommended texts from staff, and now we're going to go back to the original text, which would include the concerns that have been raised by the members of the audience or not. The question that Mr. Owens had was about the text, I think, forwarded, reviewed by the Commission, by the Council. The staff has recommended an alternate text. We've since revised that in the last week. and then on the overhead we had an additional revision based on the comments that you'd heard this afternoon. Okay, but then I think I heard from the mics that the question was going back to the original. If we go back to the original text that was sent to us by Council, would the concerns that had been raised by the members of the audience be addressed? Yes, they would because they're wanting notice of this. Okay, but I think from the sidebars that are going on, it would also raise a logistics issue of trying to notify everybody. So are there staff concerns about going back? Obviously, you've got concerns that you wouldn't give us the revised text. Well, the staff concerns were in response to the Commission's initial review of the text. But as a conditional use, the only way a facility could be cited is if all property owners are given notice in the particular area. So in my estimation, that would address their concerns. The commission can recommend the council text or the alternate text that you have. So are we ready for a motion? So, Mike, is the original text from the council more inclusive or less inclusive? I think that's where Brewer is at. The council's text has no provision for these adult daycare centers being a principal use in the community, except as a community center, which you have the definition for that, under the existing regulations. Dr. Bates, would you give me the floor for just one second? Okay, Bill, let me read this one more time. We go back to the original text, as Mike and Mike have discussed. Would there be notification of the schools that have raised their concerns in the audience before one of these centers was cited? Not necessarily. There would be notice only to the property owners within 500 feet of the proposed location. If there was a school within 500 feet, yes, they would get notice. If the school was farther than that, they would not. Okay, and the red-colored map that we saw before is within 500 feet and would be covered under that or not? The red-colored map is a B2A zone, and under the Council's proposal and under the revised staff proposal, they would be conditional in this entire area. And again, all property owners would receive a notice of a proposed conditional use permit in this area. Okay. Either the Council's or the revised staff recommendation. Both would require notification of everybody within that red zone? Yes, sir. Keith. Not necessarily notification of everyone in the red zone. I think you just need to forget that map. If you go with the Council text, there would be nowhere in Fayette County where this adult daycare center would be a by right use. So basically any time someone came to the counter requesting such a facility, they would be referred to the Board of Adjustment, and the normal Board of Adjustment rules would be applicable in terms of notice, which would include a newspaper notice, properties within 500 feet, and that type of thing. And now a sign as well on the property. Ms. Phillips. I think that making it a conditional use in all districts is overly restrictive, and I don't see where many of the instances that have been cited, medical or social, would be significantly different from facilities to accommodate children. And I don't think that we have a specific or restrictive requirement for child care facilities in these districts. So I don't think we should go conditional all the way. I think they need to be allowed by right in certain districts. I'm in favor of the staff, today's alternative. Thank you. Anything else? Okay. I'll ask for a motion. All right. Yes, sir. I feel like I've been beating around the head and shoulders with this one. I would like to propose approval of the revised, revised, revised text from staff, which includes what was included in the last thing on the overhead, which, as I understand it, encompasses notification to schools within the area that was outlined in the red. Correct? If the facility is within 500 feet of the school. Yes. Okay. Motion has been made for approval of ZOTA 2012-10 with the revision shown up, which was shown up on the screen, the latest revision which was shown up on the screen. Mr. Cravens? I'll just wait until the motion is on the floor. Okay. The motion has been made and seconded for approval. Do we have further discussion? Okay. I don't see where a conditional use would be. I mean, would you accept that amendment to your motion? Well, okay. All right. I would just say that take the principal use out and make it anywhere there is one of these of conditional use. I don't see where that's too much burden. I mean, it affects the neighbors tremendously. I mean, I work downtown on all these streets down here and go by a lot of these so-called adult daycare centers. Now, maybe they're not in the spirit of the law what they are, but anyway, they're pretty threatening to you going by, you know. well, they might. They're approved where they are now. And so I would just say all you've got to do is go to the Board of Adjustments and plead your case, and if it works, you get it, and if it doesn't, you don't. Further discussion? You know, I would, since I started it, I would still echo what Mike Craven said. But I think the Board of Adjustment is open-minded enough to realize when it merits use or if it's just a not-in-my-backward type situation. But we do have a motion on the floor, which has been seconded. I'll call for a vote at this time. Did you decline that? Okay. Well, then I'll just make a motion to amend it to that. We've got a motion on the floor. I have some, if I can voice some concerns. I don't think this is an amendment. I mean, you had the option of the Council originally proposed text, which is what your amendment is. He has made a motion to accept the revised staff alternative. I think that's an amendment saying I reject this motion and I want it to be a different motion. No, I'm accepting all of this motion except over on the other part. I just want it all to be changing the work principle to conditional. But that's what the council recommendation was, was that it be conditional uses everywhere. So that's what your amendment would go back to. And if this motion fails, I think that would be appropriate for the next motion. We're trying to get to a vote here. At this point, as I said, I'll call for the vote, so please vote when it comes up on the screen. It looks like the motion fails, so I'll entertain another motion. I'll entertain a motion. All right. I want to move approval of the councils. Is that what you said I was saying? Yes, because their proposed text would make it only a conditional use. It did not propose that it be a principal permitted use anywhere, so that's correct. All right, and that in turn notifies the... I think it's real important that these schools be notified and take care. Does it have just a second yet? Can I ask for a comment there? Yes, sir. Go ahead. I think we're circling this completely. My reason with going with the revision was to ensure that all the schools and others that have raised concerns were included. The last comment from Bill said yes, accept. And so there were certain instances where they would not be notified. That was my concern, which is why I raised this. So before we go with that, I would like legal clarification that the area that we're talking about, the people who have taken time out to come give their concerns, are addressed. And I agree with that. And that's a question I've gotten. Is this going to extend to the B2A? Yes. I don't know my motion. I think I do, but it would if it's what I'm thinking. Mr. Salley? Mr. Berkeley, the conditional uses in the B2A zone are the same conditional uses in the B2A zone, so it would carry to the B2A. Ms. Phillips? Bill, but isn't it true that the council's zones, the districts that they enumerated, is not inclusive? It didn't include the MUs. It didn't include the B6Ps. Correct. So we are, by adopting the council's language, we are making it so they cannot be allowed regardless in these other districts that were included on that first zoning map. Well, my motion is to make it a conditional use in all zones. well all these these uh i guess i'm i've got kind of a hybrid motion between the council and patrick so would it be that in every zone that was listed maybe in the staff recommended alternative right in every zone in that listing you want it to be a conditional use that's right that's exactly right okay that's clear enough okay and and i want and i'd like to also add that schools and daycare centers be notified? I mean, I know they get notified with conditional use. Well, I mean, the way it's worded, that would be every school and daycare in Fayette County. No, no, no. So, I mean, they're going to get notice if they're within 500 feet. Every property within 500 feet will get a notice. All right. Does that work for you all? Ms. Carroll? I think it works. I'm just kind of playing out school locations in my mind across Fayette County, and some of them sit on such a vast piece of property that that 500-foot boundary is never going to be met because of the size of the school and just their lot size. Now, you might come up against that and meet that 500-foot requirement, but if a facility were going to open up near a school, I would just hope that the school could receive notification. And I don't know how to address that. If the use is a conditional use, all properties within 500 feet will receive a notice, and that would include any schools that were located in that area. And as was said, it would be posted and signed and newspaper as well? Yes. Okay. I think that works. Thank you. your motion mr cravens is to well this was to take the advice staff report and change all these principal make it conditional use not principal use and those affected the p1 b1 b2 b2 to okay um sorry mike i'm again if if the intent was to go back to what i'm back up we send something back to change the council they can do whatever they want from here on out if the the language that's written encompasses the people here who have the concern, I'm not sure why we've spent an hour on it. But that's, I think, what Bill said with one caveat. Is that right? Does the council's version include, would that include notification to the schools and others that have raised concerns here? As a conditional use, any time there is a conditional use, there is mailed notice, now a sign posted on the property, and legally in the newspaper for any conditional use. So what are we getting by changing it at this point? If the concerns have been met, and the people in the audience, again, thank you all for coming down. If their concerns have been met, go ahead, Mike. I'm sorry to interrupt you. I just don't want to get to a motion without understanding what it means. If you go on the front page of this supplemental staff report, it says, just say 816B, principal use in the neighborhood business, B1 zone, principal, permit it. That means that they don't have to notify anybody. They can come down there and get a permit and open up. And what I'm saying is don't make it a principal use in that zone. Make it conditional use in those zones where it has to go before the Board of Adjustment. That's all I'm saying. Yes, sir, Mr. Finn. It's getting late in my simple mind. It isn't working too well. But I don't understand why you couldn't just take out like they talked about and just say all schools will be notified. Because if you try to put it within a 500-foot or a 1,000-foot or wherever else, all schools in that area, area becomes a judgmental call. You know, you're not going to notify a school on the south side of Lexington if the daycare center is out on North Lyme somewhere. If you word it as all schools will be notified, yes, you will have to. But you couldn't say all schools in the affected area? What's the affected area? That's a good point. I'll leave that for you to decide. I don't know. You can't do that. I don't. You have to define. And, you know, there are all kinds of private schools and trade schools and vocational schools. There could be schools that have 12, 15 students, and what they're saying is for them to try to identify all those And how far do you want them to go to identify those beyond the 500 feet? See, I think we're arguing the wrong argument. The argument ought to be how do you define an adult daycare center? Because, you know, that's not what's in front of us, but that's where the rubber is going to meet the road. It's not a question of whether they get a conditional permit or not. Well, you're raising the issue of who the staff is going to have to send or the applicant is going to have to send notification to. and it could be creating a situation where somebody can come out of the woodwork, well, I'm 1,000 feet away, but I'm affected, and you didn't send me notice, so everything you've done is null and void and you're back to zero, and basically you could potentially make it impossible for anyone to have an adult daycare facility in Fayette County. I understand what you're saying, and that's not my intent at all. Okay. I think we do have a motion on the floor, which is for the – let me try and phrase it this way, and Mike can clarify me if I'm wrong – amendment to define regulated adult day care centers in the P1, B1, B2, B2A, and P2 zones. With the definitions, as far as Articles 8, 1, and 11, Adult Day Care Center and Community Centers, and under Article 8, under the zones, all of the zones mentioned, P1, B1, B2, B2A, and P2, would an adult daycare center would be a conditional use. Is that it? Okay. So at this point, let me ask for a second on this and try and move this on. Okay, we do have a second. Any further discussion? Ms. Beatty? Just one comment here. I think staff has done a phenomenal job of this proposed text. Is it not possible with our discussion now to, and I know we have to vote, but if it is voted down, for staff to go back after our discussion and create a new something for us to look at, for us to vote on at our next meeting? I think that's where it is, Dr. Beatty, but we don't have time to do that. We have to act on it now, because by the time we come back the next time, it will have exceeded the 60-day notice. And I think what's on the board now is their attempt to address that concern that you and I both have raised. But it's my understanding we can't ask them to go back and rework it because the time limit will run out. That is correct. Okay. Yeah. If we cannot come to a decision, we can simply let the council know that we tried. We did not complete our project, and we're still working on it, though. So we do have a motion and a second. Let me call for a vote at this time. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks, for coming. Trying to try and find my agenda. We did do the bonds, and the other items have been postponed, to my knowledge. Two things, and it wasn't staff's fault on the last one. I would commend the staff for working diligently to get us through this agenda. The one remaining item that we do have is under commission items. which would be the election of officers. And what has taken place, nominating committee did make recommendations which essentially left the officers as they currently are. Discussion did take place during our work session. And we're at this point of approving officers at this point. election of officers. So I'm going to remove myself from this and ask the chairperson of the nominating committee to make his recommendation once again. The chairperson needs a point of clarification. Can we do this as a slate or do we have to do it individually? You can do it as a slate if that's, yeah. Then the intent of the nominating committee, as you'll see on page 11 for the four officers, The intent of the nominating committee was, as it is presented here today, to carry it forward. Well, I guess if I'm going to—you want me to just go ahead and do the vote? Yes, go ahead. Then we brought this slate to you. If somebody seconds that, then we can vote on it. If not, we'll take them individually and ask for a motion from the floor. Now, have a second. Is there any other discussion? If not, all in favor of electing the officers as is printed in your page 11, vote. Congratulations. After what we just went through, I'm not sure, but I probably instigated a lot of it. Just don't let that happen too often. Not too often, I hear you. Thank you, and I'll look to the staff. Any other items? No, Mr. Chairman, we do want to remind you, you do have a work session scheduled for next Thursday afternoon at 1.30. Thank you. Nothing else? A motion to adjourn? Second? Second. All in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? I didn't think so. Thank you. Thank you.