# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - July 25, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 25, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3064 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3064?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-07-25 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 26,751 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 25, 2013, at 1:29 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which included eight agenda items, 16 public comments, and eight motions and votes. The Commission addressed a range of planning and zoning matters. Four items were approved: Ball Homes, LLC's Zoning Map Amendment and Harvey Property Zoning Development Plan; regulations on Parking and Storage of Business Vehicles, Trailers, Equipment, and Associated Materials; the Abatement of Zoning Ordinance Violations; Fayette County Public Schools' Purchase of Property for Early Childhood Program; and the Initiation of Expansion to Existing H-1 Overlay Zone. Two items were postponed: the Distillery District West (AMD) Subdivision Plan and Temporary Signs. One item, Vehicle Repair Accessory to Residential Use, was deferred. ## Attendance **Present:** - Eunice Beatty - Carla Blanton - Patrick Brewer - Mike Cravens - David Drake - Karen Mundy - Mike Owens - Frank Penn - Carolyn Plumlee - Bill Wilson **Absent:** - Will Berkley **Late:** None recorded ## Votes and Decisions **MAR 2013-13: Ball Homes, LLC Zoning Map Amendment** [timestamp: 2:13:52] Motion by Mike Brewer, seconded by Mike Cravens. The motion to approve a zoning map amendment from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) for 24.88 net acres at 4500 & 4524 Old Schoolhouse Lane passed by roll call vote 10-0. All members voted in favor: Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, and Bill Wilson. The approval is conditioned on Urban County Council rezoning the property to R-3 and includes 17 conditions addressing drainage, traffic, landscaping, tree inventory, greenways, environmental quality, and archaeological documentation. **ZDP 2013-58: Harvey Property Revised Preliminary Development Plan** [timestamp: 2:14:59] Motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Mike Cravens. The motion to approve the revised preliminary development plan for Harvey Property (E. Maurice Neal, W.E. Savage, and Hampton Springs) passed by roll call vote 10-0. All 11 members voted in favor. The approval includes 17 conditions addressing infrastructure, landscaping, environmental review, and design elements. **ZODA 2013-4: Vehicle Repair Accessory Text Amendment** [timestamp: 2:46:49] Motion by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Cravens. The motion to approve a text amendment for vehicle repair accessory to residential use failed by roll call vote 5-5. Voting in favor: Eunice Beatty, Carla Blanton, Patrick Brewer, David Drake, and Mike Owens. Voting against: Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, and Bill Wilson. **ZODA 2013-5: Business Vehicles and Equipment Storage Text Amendment** [timestamp: 2:37:10] Motion by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Ms. Plumlee. The motion to approve a text amendment for parking and storage of business vehicles, trailers, equipment, and associated materials passed by roll call vote 10-0. All members voted in favor. **ZODA 2013-6: Temporary Signs Text Amendment** [timestamp: 2:48:59] Motion by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Ms. Plumlee. The motion to approve a text amendment for temporary signs resulted in a 5-5 tie vote and was postponed. Voting in favor: Eunice Beatty, Carla Blanton, Patrick Brewer, David Drake, and Mike Owens. Voting against: Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, and Bill Wilson. **ZODA 2013-7: Zoning Ordinance Violations Abatement Text Amendment** [timestamp: 2:58:41] Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Ms. Plumlee. The motion to approve a text amendment for abatement of zoning ordinance violations passed by roll call vote 10-0. All members voted in favor. **PFR 2013-4: Fayette County Public Schools Public Facility Review** [timestamp: 3:06:26] Motion by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Cravens. The motion to approve a public facility review for Fayette County Public Schools' purchase of property at 465 Spring Hill Drive for an early childhood program passed by roll call vote 10-0. All members voted in favor. **H-1 Overlay Expansion: Western Suburb Historic District** [timestamp: 3:18:59] Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Ms. Plumlee. The motion to initiate expansion of the existing H-1 overlay zone for Western Suburb Historic District passed by roll call vote 10-0. All members voted in favor. ## Public Comment Sixteen residents provided public comment on the development proposal, raising concerns across multiple areas. **Support for the Plan** Jeff Stringer, owner of the historic South Elkhorn Schoolhouse, expressed satisfaction with the development plan and agreements with Ball Homes, particularly regarding protection of the historic structure and appropriate buffering [1:01:09]. **Traffic and Road Safety Concerns** Multiple residents questioned the viability of Agape Drive as a collector street. John Yoswick argued that the Twain Ridge bridge will never be built and that Agape Drive is too narrow for projected traffic [1:11:01]. Lenita Clark emphasized that the narrow road would make the area more dangerous, especially with children present [1:14:50]. Bob Patti, a former DOT supervisor, stated that Agape Drive is only 31 feet wide and cannot function as a collector street [1:17:39]. David Kolpeck argued the development plan fails to address real traffic flow issues [1:19:45]. Roger Schnabel urged commissioners to test the road before voting [1:33:19]. Fred Wolstein raised concerns about the sewer system's capacity and the corridor's high accident rate [1:45:14]. Justin Williamson, president of the Dogwood Trace Neighborhood Association, summarized widespread neighborhood opposition citing traffic and road width concerns [1:53:55]. **Environmental and Tree Protection** Christina Dudak raised concerns about a bur oak tree, school district overcrowding, green space, and lack of transparency regarding a burial mound issue disclosed only at 1 p.m. [1:13:14]. Kenneth Collins expressed concern that the development contradicts green sensibilities, particularly regarding the 300-year-old bur oak tree [1:27:21]. Dr. Lauren Larson raised concerns about the bur oak tree, underground springs, and lack of geotechnical surveys [1:34:23]. **Other Concerns** Ray Waits expressed security concerns due to increased development and requested a fence to protect his property from trespassers [1:04:19]. Shannon Mazzard opposed the rezoning, arguing that converting agricultural land to high-density housing contradicts the comprehensive plan [1:23:34]. Roger Marion, a retired geologist, warned of potential risks from blasting and construction, including ground vibration and water contamination [1:29:31]. Josh Fane argued the area is already overdeveloped [1:39:10]. Tom Keeler argued the development should be rezoned to R1 or R2 due to excessive density [1:41:27]. ## Contested Items **Zoning of Harvey Property** The proposal to rezone the Harvey Property encountered substantial community opposition centered on multiple concerns. Residents raised objections regarding traffic impacts and road capacity, particularly regarding the narrow width of Agape Drive and the absence of a bridge to Twain Ridge. Environmental protection emerged as a key issue, with community members advocating for the preservation of a 300-year-old bur oak tree on the property. Additional concerns focused on public safety, with residents worried about potential increases in accidents resulting from the proposed development. **Temporary Signs Amendment** The motion to approve a temporary signs amendment resulted in a tied vote of 5-5, preventing passage and necessitating postponement for additional discussion. The division reflected disagreement over the permitting and enforcement burden associated with the amendment, indicating deep splits among decision-makers about the practical implications of the proposed changes. **Archaeological Site and Burial Mound** A newly discovered pre-Columbian burial mound on or near the development site generated heated discussion among meeting participants. The central dispute concerned whether the developer's archaeological report provided sufficient documentation and analysis. Additional debate focused on whether supplementary conditions should be imposed to verify the precise location of the archaeological site and ensure appropriate protections for the burial mound. ## Ball Homes, LLC – Zoning Map Amendment & Harvey Property (E. Maurice Neal Property, W.E. Savage Property & Hampton Springs) Zoning Development Plan The Planning Commission considered a zoning map amendment request by Ball Homes, LLC to rezone 24.88 net acres from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) [timestamp: 0:10:05]. **Proposal Details** The proposed development includes 196 multi-family units and 45 single-family homes on the rezoned property, which encompasses the E. Maurice Neal Property, W.E. Savage Property, and Hampton Springs areas. **Key Speakers and Discussion** Ms. Wade, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Lear participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Conditions and Requirements** The Planning Commission approved the zoning map amendment with 14 conditions. These conditions addressed multiple areas including: - Infrastructure requirements - Environmental protection measures - Historic preservation considerations **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the zoning map amendment request. ## Distillery District West (AMD) (9/19/13) – Subdivision Plan **Plan Identifier:** PLAN 2013-78F The Planning Commission discussed the Distillery District West subdivision plan amendment during this meeting. [timestamp: 0:08:31] **Key Speaker:** Justin Drury **Concerns Raised:** The Commission identified concerns regarding sanitary sewer service for the proposed subdivision. These infrastructure concerns required additional attention before the plan could move forward. **Action Taken:** The Planning Commission postponed consideration of PLAN 2013-78F to allow for necessary revisions to the plan. The petitioner requested a two-week postponement, which the Commission granted. The item was rescheduled for the August 8, 2013 meeting. **Outcome:** Postponed ## Vehicle Repair Accessory to Residential Use The Planning Commission considered a text amendment (ZODA 2013-4) to allow vehicle repairs as an accessory use to residential properties, subject to specific restrictions on vehicle size, location, and ownership [timestamp: 2:24:08]. **Proposal Overview** The amendment would permit vehicle repair activities on residential properties with limitations designed to minimize impacts on neighboring properties. The proposed restrictions addressed vehicle dimensions, where repairs could occur on a lot, and requirements related to vehicle ownership. **Discussion and Speakers** Mr. Marks participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Outcome** The motion to approve the text amendment resulted in a tie vote, which prevented passage. Due to this outcome, the matter was deferred and referred back for further discussion rather than being approved or rejected outright. This allows the Planning Commission to revisit the proposal with the opportunity to address concerns or modifications that may have contributed to the divided vote. ## Parking and Storage of Business Vehicles, Trailers, Equipment, and Associated Materials The Planning Commission considered a text amendment (ZODA 2013-5) to regulate the parking and storage of business vehicles, trailers, equipment, and associated materials [timestamp: 2:27:54]. **Presentation and Discussion** Mr. Marks presented the proposed ordinance amendment, which addressed regulations for business vehicle storage, including specifications for trailer size and permitted contents. **Key Changes** The Commission approved the amendment with modifications to the original proposal: - The restriction on equipment types was removed - Axle requirements were clarified **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the text amendment as modified. ## Temporary Signs The Planning Commission considered a text amendment (ZODA 2013-6) regarding temporary signs, which would require permits for temporary signs and reduce their duration. [timestamp: 2:37:45] Mr. Marks participated in the discussion of this agenda item. The motion on the proposed amendment resulted in a tie vote, which prevented the measure from passing. Due to this outcome, the item was postponed for further discussion at a future meeting. ## Abatement of Zoning Ordinance Violations The Planning Commission considered a text amendment (ZODA 2013-7) to expand the city's abatement authority for zoning ordinance violations [timestamp: 2:49:31]. **Proposal** The amendment would broaden abatement authority to include continuing public nuisances, such as persistent signage violations. The expansion would allow city staff to resolve certain violations without requiring court action. **Discussion** Mr. Marks presented the item to the Planning Commission. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the text amendment to expand abatement authority for zoning ordinance violations. ## Fayette County Public Schools – Purchase of Property for Early Childhood Program The Planning Commission reviewed a request from Fayette County Public Schools to purchase a property located at 465 Spring Hill Drive for use as an early childhood education program [timestamp: 3:00:19]. **Property and Program Details** The property is currently zoned residential. The early childhood program will serve children with special needs. **Commission Action** Barbara Rackers presented the request to the Commission. Following review, the Planning Commission approved the purchase of the property for the early childhood program. ## Initiation of Expansion to Existing H-1 Overlay Zone [timestamp: 3:07:11] The Planning Commission considered a request to expand the Western Suburb Historic District by adding five additional parcels to the existing H-1 Overlay Zone. Ms. Wade and Bill Johnston presented the expansion proposal to the Commission. The expansion request received unanimous support from the affected property owners and was endorsed by the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation, indicating broad community backing for the initiative. The Commission approved the expansion of the H-1 Overlay Zone. --- ## Decisions - **MAR 2013-13** — passed (10-0): Approval of Ball Homes, LLC zoning map amendment from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) for 24.88 net acres at 4500 & 4524 Old Schoolhouse Lane - **ZDP 2013-58** — passed (10-0): Approval of revised preliminary development plan for Harvey Property (E. Maurice Neal, W.E. Savage, and Hampton Springs) with 14 conditions - **ZODA 2013-4** — failed (5-5): Approval of text amendment for vehicle repair accessory to residential use - **ZODA 2013-5** — passed (10-0): Approval of text amendment for parking and storage of business vehicles, trailers, equipment, and associated materials - **ZODA 2013-6** — postponed (5-5): Approval of text amendment for temporary signs - **ZODA 2013-7** — passed (10-0): Approval of text amendment for abatement of zoning ordinance violations - **PFR 2013-4** — passed (10-0): Approval of public facility review for Fayette County Public Schools' purchase of property at 465 Spring Hill Drive for early childhood program - **H-1 Overlay Expansion** — passed (10-0): Initiation of expansion to existing H-1 overlay zone for Western Suburb Historic District --- ## Full transcript being received by a city. Cities across the country have struggled with declining federal funds. This is a place where we have received them. So doing it right, doing it properly, engaging the project properly is significant because our city's reputation is at stake. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Okay, Mayor. Thank you, sir. Pleasure doing business with you. I appreciate the hits you up on, man. Yeah, well, let me now look it up. Thank you. We're the ones who had an ocean On an ocean deep inside There ain't no sin To be glad you're alive I wanna find one face That ain't looking through me I wanna find one place I wanna spit it in the face of these Hey, love, you've got A little love, a little love The rest of the day. Keep going. The rest of the day. This is the rest of the day. Oh, yes, I'm the great pretender Pretending that I'm doing well My need is such I pretend too much I'm lonely, but no one can tell Oh yes, I'm the great pretender Adrift in a world of my own I play the game, but to my real shame You've left me to dream all alone Too real is this feeling of make-believe Too real when I feel what my heart can't conceal Yes, I'm the great pretender Just laughing and gay like a clown I seem to be what I'm not You see, I'm wearing my heart like a crown When they get a bad coach, he's a scared part of it. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to welcome everyone to the July 25th, 2013 meeting. I will call this meeting to order. I'd first like to welcome our new Planning Commission member, Mr. David Drake, who's sitting to my left. And Mr. Lear, be nice to him. I'm kidding. Exactly, I'm sure. We have no minutes for approval for today's meeting. I would ask if there's any postponements or withdrawals from the agenda today. Yes, sir. Afternoon. Justin Drury with 2020 land surveying. First page of the agenda, A, item 1, distiller district west, plan 2013-78-F. We'd like to request a two-week postponement. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? That would be until August the 8th, I believe. That's correct. Okay. Seeing no one, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move postponement of Plan 2013-78F to August 8th. Thank you. Do we have a second and seconded? Please vote when he comes up on the screen. The motion passes. We'll see you in a couple of weeks. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, we'll go to our first item, which we'll start on page 2, Ball Homes, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment, and Harvey Properties. E. Morris Neal Property W.E. Savage Property and Hampton Springs Zone and Development Plan it's M.A.R. 2013-13 This way? Yes. Yes. Thank you. a blue sheet that's before you it's revisions for the zoning development plan that we'll discuss here in a little bit. Good afternoon Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. As mentioned, this item appears on page two of your agenda. It is item 1A, and it can be found behind tab 1 in your notebooks at your place. This is a map amendment request, 2013-13, a request by Ball Homes, LLC, to rezone property at 4500 and 4524 Old Schoolhouse Lane. They are requesting a zone change from an agricultural urban AU zone to a planned neighborhood residential zone, which is our R3 zone. In terms of the location of the subject property, it does have frontage on Old Schoolhouse Lane, which is somewhat of a service road for Harrodsburg Road in the vicinity of where Military Pike intersects with Harrodsburg Road. The subject property also has a stub street from the east, which is Twain Ridge Drive. It's a collector street. And just in the general vicinity, the county line is to the south for Jessamine County, and Manowar Boulevard is to the northeast a little bit. Other zoning in the vicinity, the subject property remains agricultural urban, as do several properties to the north and northeast of the property. Other zoning then is all residential on the other three sides of the property. R3 to the south where there's an existing church site, and then it's vacant behind the church. And there continues to be single-family residential to the south in the Dogwood Trace and English Station neighborhoods. Single-family in an R3 zone to the west in Firebrook. and then a single family to the east along Twain Ridge Drive, which as we look at an aerial photograph, you'll notice there is a significant floodplain to the rear of the subject property, and so Twain Ridge would need to bridge that floodplain in order to continue. At this time, that connection is not proposed, but the applicant does propose to utilize another collector street in the area, Agape Drive, and continue that from the south and then utilize Old Schoolhouse Lane and its existing configuration for the most part. The applicant is proposing an R3 zone in order to construct a mix of apartments and single-family residences. They propose 196 multifamily dwellings in seven buildings and 45 single-family residential homes. And I want to clarify, the subject property for the zone change is about 25 acres. It includes one acre parcel, which is the 4524 address, and then the large, almost 24-a-fraction acre parcel that is 4,500 Old School House Lane. But the applicant is proposing to utilize the rear portion of the church property in their development as well. So that adds an additional six acres of developable land that you'll see on their development plan, but is not part of the zone change. That property was actually rezoned in 1996 when the church moved there, and they had plans at that time and were approved for 100 townhouse units behind the church. Obviously, those were never built, and now Ball Homes is proposing to purchase that property from the church and incorporate it into their development plan for this, the subject property of the zone change. the 2007 comprehensive plan actually let me show you a few photographs of the property before we move to that this is an existing view from the Harrisburg right away old school house lane is in the foreground of the property you can see there is a significant ridge or height difference from where Harrodsburg Road and Old School House Lane are, looking up towards the property. This is a view from on top of the property. This is a bur oak, approximately 300 years old. It is a significant tree according to our zoning ordinance, and there was a lot of concern in a previous zone change request about this particular tree and saving it. and then from the Twain Ridge Drive stub that I mentioned on the east side of the property this is a view towards it as well as you can see the site is not developed and it is mostly treed from the roadways that you can see so really the best way to look at the property is from an aerial and I apologize for anything here but the subject property is I'm outlining it with my laser pointer here on the overhead and you can see Agape Drive is in segments to the south this is a view looking to the south with Harrodsburg Road north and then military Pike intersection so you can see the existing commercial development nearby as well as Palomar subdivision Twain Ridge here and old schoolhouse I'm sorry English station. There's some existing characteristics in the area. The comprehensive plan does recommend medium density residential for this particular property, as well as the six acres to the south where the church has owned it. That is defined by our comprehensive plan as five to ten dwelling units per acre. And the applicant is, we can look at it really two ways, the area that they're rezoning or the area on their development plan. In both cases, they fall within the medium density recommendation, the 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre. So of all of the property proposed for development today, their density proposed with 241 units is 7.74 dwelling units per acre. So it falls within the land use recommendation for this property. Even if we remove the church's property and the units located there, they are around nine dwelling units per acre, so still within the density recommendation for this property. In addition, the comprehensive plan recommends the continuation of Twain Ridge and Agape Drive, the two collector streets in this area. Because of the significant tree at the ridge line, the tree is located basically directly in line with military pike. So if we were to continue Twain Ridge and connect that with a kind of appropriate or best practices intersection with military pike, it would require removal of the tree. In the 2008 zone change that previously came forward, there was much concern about that tree, and the applicant is now proposing not to configure Twain Ridge as the comprehensive plan shows, but basically utilizing their existing driveway and widening it. So it does save that tree and still provides for some connectivity. But they do also plan to connect Agape Drive to the south, and it would connect, if developed as proposed, to the English Station subdivision, as you see here. and that leaves one piece of property between English Station and the rest of kind of the Dogwood Trace neighborhood before Agape would continue to the south, basically to Jessamine County where there's a Kroger Shopping Center. Let me see if there's anything else. There was a traffic study that was prepared with this zone change and the MPO and transportation section will address that. The staff would last note that we proposed some conditional zoning restrictions for this property, specifically because there is a historic resource located almost right on the property line here. It is the old schoolhouse, and the staff suggested three conditional zoning restrictions that would protect that historic resource and then also limit the density in this location for the subject property only because obviously the six acres to the south have already been rezoned and they have a conditional zoning restriction for density as well. So the staff is recommending approval. The zoning committee did likewise because the proposal is in agreement with our comprehensive plan and I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Ms. Whiten? No? Thank you. Thank you. And I think Mr. Martin is next. Yes. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, good afternoon. The associated preliminary development plan with this zone change is located on page 3 of your agenda, ZDP 2013-58, Harvey Property. You should also have found at your seats a blue sheet. The staff has provided you with a revised staff recommendation on this plan. the property in question as Ms. Wade has explained to you is located out on Herodsburg Road in this location Military Pike here here is the English station development along with the Agape connection which will come through here into the subject property Rima Way is at the rear along the flood plain area in this location. Here's Twain Ridge. This, of course, is the collector street that serves this area of the community. Runs from Clay's Mill and was intended to run all the way over and again to Herodsburg Road to serve this area of the community. This is the floodplain in the greenway area at the rear of the property. There is a trail to be located along this greenway which will hook up with another part of our greenway system and allow people to cross under Harrodsburg Road. It's all part of the planned greenway system. The applicant is proposing to build Twain Ridge to their property here in this location, on this property line down, and intersect with Old Schoolhouse Lane. Old Schoolhouse Lane operates as a service road adjacent to Harrodsburg Road. You can see they have seven buildings planned with associated parking, pool, clubhouse. This is the large bur oak indicated here. Their gazebos are planned. They're planning a walking trail along through here, bring back in here, which will provide a connection, perhaps one of several, to this area. Here are your single-family homes that are proposed, 45 single-family units. The gap that you see here from Twain Ridge to here, this is the area that you on the Planning Commission may know the history. This was the subject of a lawsuit many years ago, and the Kentucky Supreme Court said this is a public need that needs to be paid for by the public. So sometime in the future, when the money is available, the government is going to have to find a way to complete this connection. the subdivision committee initially recommended postponement of this plan based on the staff recommendation there was concern initially about the open space that was proposed on the plan and the need for them to meet that open space requirement on their lot and again although we've got open space here gazebo we've got nice facilities obviously this is a beautiful amenity for the community and its development as well but they have to meet their open space here that was our initial concern they revised their plan they're meeting the open space subsequently we were a little concerned about lot coverage they again revised the plan we received it on the 18th of this month, have reviewed it, they do meet their lot coverage. Now they're within 16 feet of the 25 percent, so they are maxing out their lot coverage in this instance. And we've seen that a lot lately on developments. They have plenty of FAR, that's floor area ratio, which is total square footage. Lot coverage is simply the footprint of the structures. So it's a very, as you all are aware, it's a very different number, But it's a limiting number on any development, whether it be the lot coverage in this case or even FAR in another case or other cases. The buildings are three stories. There are a total of 196 units. They're going to vary from one to two to three bedroom units. There will be 348 total bedrooms. The square footage, by the way, on the lot coverage is 115,800 square feet. It's here in this location. Staff had some initial concerns with access to this property as well. This plan has shifted this access point to this location. We had some concerns on the cul-de-sac here. Here is an access point into a parking area that they have shifted off this intersection. They're still maintaining an access point here into the apartment development. And, of course, as you know, when we have this type of development, we like for our emergency vehicles to have more than one way in and out of a development. So they are addressing that with these locations. There was a discussion, as you may recall, on the previous zone change about a spring that's located in this location. The spring is there. The spring had some preliminary work done, and it is a significant amount of water. It does tend to flow, not all the time, but in that spring. Staff is concerned with the appropriate protection, and that generated considerable discussion on the staff level, and it has resulted in a revised condition that I will address on your blue sheet. And again, with single lotting in this area, with a spring, a natural environmental sensitive area that we'd like to protect, staff had concern about the appropriate way to protect it. Conservation easements on private property are hard to enforce, for instance. You know, there's just issues. People buying property have concerns about those types of features on their property and their ability to build or utilize their property. So we've had a lot of discussions about perhaps incorporating this into this adjacent greenway to ensure the appropriate protection. However, as you can see on your blue sheet, we're recommending that that be resolved at the time of the final development plan and or a preliminary subdivision plan. Because that's when ultimately this lotting will be approved by this body. This is a preliminary development plan. You are going to see a final development plan on the apartments. You will see a preliminary subdivision plan on this area. You may see a combined plan. That's going to be up to the applicant, but you're going to see this. The preliminary subdivision plan will allow them to build the infrastructure and build the streets, at which time, for instance, the Agape connection, once it's built, it would then come before this body to be dedicated on a final record plan. At that time, it's important to note that when Agape is connected, this access easement that serves English Station is intended to be closed. And that's been that way since day one of English Station development. So that this development will then utilize this connection and utilize Twain Ridge to Herdsburg Road. In the future, when the intervening property develops, they will be able to use agape into this area and on to other locations as they desire. That's the intent of how this system will ultimately work. This pink area that you see, we outlined for you, this is already zoned R3. That's what Ms. Wade mentioned to you. This is the area of the zone change. and again just this little dash line of pink that's already zoned up here we wanted to highlight for you a little area of right of way that's being reserved to allow this adjoining property to connect back in at such time it develops into this collector street so that this property will have good access to a collector and good access to Harrodsburg Road There's been talk about a buffer. The applicant is offering a buffer along this property line. It's a six-foot diamond mesh fence with trees, and I believe, as Ms. Wade explained, there's conditional zoning that there's a berm, and should it go away, a seven-foot fence would be required under conditional zoning. But at this time, they've worked with the adjoining neighbors, and they are offering trees and a fence to protect that area. there is already a requirement to screen the church in this location. There was an issue brought up today at 1 o'clock this afternoon that staff would like to share with you very briefly. This is an exhibit that was done in conjunction with the study that was done for the Herdsburg Road project some years ago. These are federally funded projects and they require extensive cultural, archaeological and environmental studies. You can see on that exhibit, burial mound, approximate location, right there. It's a pre-Columbian burial mound. impact, according to that exhibit on this property, would place it somewhere in this general vicinity on the property, obviously having an impact on the property. Now, again, staff just learned of this at 1 o'clock. The applicant is aware of this. They have some materials to address this issue. We briefly were able to discuss it with them before this meeting. As I said, they were aware of it. They've looked into it. They have some resource material that places this location of this burial mound south of this property. Staff at this time would recommend that there be a condition on the plan that would address this issue and that the applicant will need to verify that the location is not on their property. The information that they have seems to indicate that it's about a half a mile south of the Elkhorn Creek, which would place it further to the south or west of this property, if that is accurate. And I'm sure they're going to be happy to elaborate on that with you. Again, this is information that was contained in the highway study that was done for U.S. 68. Very quickly, I will point out that we have our standard conditions of approval on this plan, a few clean-up conditions. As I stated, we would like for them to denote that the treatment and ownership and appropriate protection measures for the spring shall be determined at the time of the final development plan or the preliminary subdivision plan. We would like to state that they resolve the All Street road improvements at the time of the final development plan and or preliminary subdivision plan. Staff and the Division of Traffic Engineering have concerns about some additional improvements to Twain Ridge, an old schoolhouse to ensure that traffic needs are met that are created by this development and additional traffic that Twain Ridge will have to serve once it's connected and fully in place. And then there's been a lot of discussion about the bur oak. And this plan is amended. They've provided additional space to protect that bur oak. It is a preliminary plan. And at the time of your final development plan, that's the time where a tree protection plan is actually required. So staff is recommending on 13 that they denote that additional mitigation and protection measures for the bur oak shall be determined at the final development plan. This is somewhat of a redundant condition because that is the purpose of a tree protection plan. But again, they've provided a lot more room for that burrow. It's still close to the right-of-way. There's still going to be some road construction in the area. It may be staff feels appropriate to perhaps address some best management practices and that sort of thing at the time that they're prepared to actually begin construction. I did not cover this, but I'll add very briefly that the parking that they are proposing for this project, there are 346 parking spaces required. They are only proposing 358. That's not a large surplus. And this does also include 84 garages associated with these units. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Penn, did you have anything? I've got one, Mike. Go ahead. One second, Mr. Wilson. Tom, I know the spring is going to be dealt with at the final development plan, but the way that thing is lined out now, does that spring take up one whole lot? No, sir, it does not. But it could impact, depending on how you lotted that property, more than one lot. And that's part of our concern, and I'm sure the applicants as well. So it's your contention that it is a billable lot or it's not a billable lot? I believe it's billable. Okay. Thank you. Again, the market may decide otherwise. Mr. Wilson? Mr. Martin, right now you've got 13 conditions, but you mentioned about this issue that has just come up. Is this going to be a 14th condition? I believe it would be appropriate after you heard their testimony, if you felt it was necessary, that there be a 14th. And, of course, that's independent of the conditional zoning that may go on the plan as well. but to verify that this cultural feature, this pre-Columbian barrel mount, is not, in fact, located on their property. Other questions? Mr. Martin, go back to English Station, the closing of the temporary connection. Yes, sir. Reasons for that? It sounded like it was planned to go that way. From day one, Mr. Chairman, when English Station was developed and there was a lot of vacant property and it was being developed piecemeal, which is not unusual. However, the collector system has been planned out there for a long time and been on the comp plan for a considerable amount of time. And so the intent was for English Station to be served by the collector system and not directly to the arterial, which is Harrisburg Road. So there is a provision on that plan that was part of its approval that it be closed. I would add, and you have reminded me, that the property owner, when English Station was developed, it was developed by an old-time engineer who did a lot of work in this area, quite a character. He lived right here. And so there's a single-family home right here, and then he developed all this. He has passed away. the purchaser recently brought the issue up and asked and said, hey, I'd like for this to be just my driveway for my single-family home, so don't forget me. And there is a provision. And it's our understanding that most residents in this area are aware of that provision, that this be closed. And again, so that these single-family residences be served by the collector system, that being Agape and Twain Ridge. Okay. Other questions? If not, thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, Will. Back to the English station. When that was developed, that was with the old Harrisburg Road, right? Yes, sir. Okay. And with the new one, that comes out on like a frontage road, right? Yes, our old schoolhouse. Okay. And then you said something about there being a provision when it could connect, but it's only going to connect on one side. Yes, sir. So how does that play into it? I think we would have some options available to review that situation, to close it at the time that Agape is connected to Twain Ridge through the subject property. We could, if we felt it necessary, discuss the option of waiting to close that when Agape was fully connected through that area and to the south through the adjoining undeveloped property. I think that's a legitimate question. Anything else? Thank you, Mr. Martin. Thank you. Applicant? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Mr. Lehrer, let me put you on hold for a second. Before Mr. Conyers comes up for the traffic study, I do have some emails of correspondence for the Planning Commission to consider as well. I'll start those with Mr. Brewer. I'm sorry. Go right ahead. Good afternoon. I'll be brief. I'm just here to present our review by Mr. Rob Hammonds of the applicant's traffic impact study. My name is Max Conyers, by the way, Traffic Planning Section, LFUCG staff. This was conducted by Mrs. Diane Zimmerman, Jacobs Engineering Group, for the applicant. Full development year would be 2015. and that's when they projected their traffic, their full build-out. Of course, you know there's been some major improvements to the principal arterial there, US-68, recently. It has plenty of capacity, but it is carrying a lot of traffic, arterial-level traffic. About 33,000 was the latest average daily count from that point up to Man-of-War. about drops off to 26,000 just south of there, so you can tell some pretty good arterial levels of service. As far as the trips generated by the site itself, the ordinance requires that the applicant look at peak hour. This is when everybody would be going to work in the morning and coming home in the evening, basically. Those are concentrated points, worst-case scenario, if you will. If you look at the site-generated trips for those times, the AM would produce a total of 141 new trips, 30 entering and 111 exiting. And in the PM, you have 176, so a little more in the PM, 113 entering and 63 exiting. And where are they going to and coming from? The distribution is very important because that's where the trips would leave and come to the site. As you can imagine, pretty common sense that the applicant has determined from existing traffic patterns that about 95% would be headed to and from the north, our urbanized area where all the attractions are. Not all the attractions, but the lion's share, of course. About the rest of the 5% is divided south and military pike. So that's a good thing. In the morning, everybody would be turning right. And then coming in in the afternoon, a lot of left turns probably coming in. So that would be handled at the signal on the arterial mostly. In your handout, you can see the levels of service. Not a lot of change in levels of service. some pretty small increases in delay per vehicle during the a.m. and p.m. when you look at the no-build versus the build scenarios for year 2015. So there's plenty of road system to handle this additional traffic. Don't let the level service E's and F's alarm you at the intersections of Military Pike and Old Higby Mill. Well that is where they're giving all the green time to the arterial at that time. So if you're coming out on a minor street, then you're probably going to have to wait a couple of clicks of the light to access. They don't want that arterial level volume to back up. Same at all on all of the arterials. And so just to conclude, we agree that the traffic impact studies met the zoning requirements and agree with their findings. And we just encourage that the conditions that Mr. Martin mentioned on the final development plan as far as not just vehicular traffic for the future, but also multimodal like pedestrian connections and bicycle connections be considered in that final development plan. And that's it, Mr. Chairman. If you have any questions for me, I'd be glad to try to answer them. Any questions on the traffic? No? Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Mr. Lehrer, I think it's your turn now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. For the record, my name is Bill Lear. I'm here with Nick Nicholson on behalf of the applicant, Ball Holmes. Also here from Ball Holmes is Ray Ball and his and my new boss, Rena Wiseman. Rory Cayley and Al Gross are here from EA Partners. The request, as you know, is fully supported by the staff, so I'm not going to take a great deal of time except to just note a few significant items. It is a residential development that features a mix of multifamily and single-family housing. It's in complete compliance with the comprehensive plan, not just as it has existed today, but as it has existed for many years, and I'm going to come back and comment on that in just a second. And it's the type of housing that one would expect to find in the medium-density residential category, category, which is sometimes some mix of multifamily and single-family, and it's in the place you would expect to find it. Herdsburg Road is a mixed-use corridor, primarily residential. If you look at examples of our other major primarily residential corridor in the south, southeast, or southwest, Tate's Creek Pike, you will find that apartment complexes, quality apartment complexes, are integrated very nicely and very successfully with single-family homes. On Tate's Creek Pike, for example, you'll find Merrick Place, Saddlebrook, Old Farm, Kirk Levington, Park Place, and Grand Reserve. Some inside, at least one of them outside, Manowar. So this is not just an appropriate development as the comprehensive plan envisions it. It's an appropriate development as as we would like to see creating a mix of residential types, even within a predominantly residential corridor. I mentioned the comprehensive plan. It calls for medium density. I think you heard from the staff that we hit right at the midrange of density, almost exactly between 5 and 10 units per acre. I will tell you that this property was shown as early as the 1980 comprehensive plan, about half in high density and half in medium density. Then on the 88 comprehensive plan and carrying through to the current one, it's been shown for medium density development at ranges of the type that we're talking about, except in earlier plans the units went from zero to a certain level, whereas under our current plan there is a minimum number, so the expectation is that it will be someplace between 5 and 10. We follow the road connections that are called for on the comprehensive plan. As you heard earlier, we've provided for Twain Ridge. We do not propose to build it. If it's built, it will be an extensive infrastructure item across a major floodway. Actually, it was on the other side, I believe, of this very street that the case came out of, which Ms. Wiseman and I actually handled, which demonstrated that for a relatively small development, you couldn't impose the burden of a major infrastructure improvement that's designed to benefit an entire area. That case is what gave rise to the exactions that we put in place in the expansion area to account for that circumstance. The road connections, for example, to Twain Ridge and Agape have been shown since the 1988 comprehensive plan. And so the fact of or the anticipation of those road connections should come as a surprise to no one, just as is true of the type and density of development. As far as the development plan is concerned, I think you heard we do support the conditions as proposed, as now modified, and I will address this issue about the archaeological site referenced. We have investigated that, and based on our investigation, if it exists at all today, it doesn't exist on this site and never existed on this site, but I'll come back to that. But we meet the open space requirements. We meet the floor area requirements. We meet the lot coverage requirements. The developer has worked a good deal with neighbors, the porters, the stringers, to come up with some agreements and conditions which will offer protections for them. One that we have worked out with the stringers would modify somewhat one of the conditional zoning restrictions that you're considering. That one has three subparts, A, B, and C. B is the one that, by agreement, and we've shown this to the staff, and I believe it's acceptable to them, the revised conditional zoning agreement in Sub-B would read a 20-foot-wide landscape buffer area shall be provided along the common property line of the subject property and 4420 Old Schoolhouse Lane, In the Stringer property, existing trees with a DBH, Ringer wrote this, I think it means caliper, greater than 3 inches within 20 feet of the Stringer property line and extending as far as 150 feet from the northwest property corner to the east and 10 feet thereafter shall be preserved and maintained in this buffer, except that dead or diseased trees or trees that may present a hazard due to their formation, branching, or other condition may be removed. Trees within a proposed right-of-way or easement may be removed. Bush, honeysuckle, everybody hates honeysuckle, bush, honeysuckle, and other invasive plant growth may be removed. That has been designed with a good deal of give and take with the stringers, and it is what they would like to see and what we would like to see, and I believe it's acceptable with the staff. We've also worked with the porters and reached an agreement with them. One thing that we have agreed is that we would make it clear that the developer, Ball Homes, acknowledges their deep concern for proper stormwater management for the development of the property, and Ball Homes commits to comply with all requirements of the LFUCG Stormwater Manual as those are determined and applied by the Department of Environmental Quality and Public Works. In addition, Ball Homes has agreed to provide Porter with copies of all documentations related to any watershed studies and stormwater mitigation plans submitted to the urban county government in conjunction with the plans for the development of the property. and we've also agreed with them is if they look at them after they review them, if they find them incomplete or deficient or want to raise any issue about them, they're not waiving their right to bring those concerns to the urban county government, obviously without prejudice to the ball's right to present their position as well. So I'm happy to tell you that we have worked a good deal, and I say we, It's been primarily Ms. Wiseman and others at Ball have worked a good deal with those adjoining property owners to hash out those agreements. The borough is something that has received attention before this body in a previous zone change, and it's something that we've given attention to in this case. We retained Ian Hoffman with Big Beaver Tree Service, whose expertise is acknowledged by Mr. Tim Query. It was his recommendation that we do certain things. He agrees with the 50-foot protection radius that was mentioned. I actually went out there yesterday and stepped it off, and it appears that that captures the so-called drip edge of the tree. He did note that there's actually already a driveway on the site that's been built in that area without apparently harming the tree. But that driveway, the 50-foot protection area would extend out beyond that. So there won't be construction in there. and he believes if this tree protection plan, which I'm going to put in the record, is followed that that tree, I'll read his conclusion, following this tree protection plan will increase the probability that the tree will survive and flourish. So that's, I'm going to put two or three things in the record at the same time rather than walking up multiple times. Now, I do want to make reference to the issue of the archaeological site, the pre-Columbian burial ground. Boholm's retained the services of cultural resource analysts. They're a national company that has one of their offices here in Lexington. In fact, it may be their headquarters. They conducted a study, both an on-site study of the site and review of records. I'm going to put their report in the record, but the cover letter says, this letter is to inform you of the results of the archaeological records review and reconnaissance survey. We conducted at your request for the proposed development of the Harvey property. No prehistoric cultural material was identified during the reconnaissance survey of the property and no obvious evidence for the presence of human remains was noted. The records review indicated that one previously recorded archaeological site was located on the property. This site, however, was later determined to be located well outside of the project boundary, meaning that the state files were in error. The summary, which deals specifically with that, states as follows. The OSA, that's the Office of State Archaeology, I believe, review indicated that one prehistoric archaeological site, and it has the number designation, was located within the proposed project area. The OSA location data for that site, however, is very likely incorrect. According to Webb and Funkhauser, 1932, who first recorded it, the site is actually .5, half a mile, south of South Elkhorn Creek along Harrodsburg Road, placing it well outside the proposed project area. Additionally, a reconnaissance survey of the project area did not reveal any obvious prehistoric burial locations, cemeteries, or mounds. Based on these results, there does not appear to be any prehistoric burials located within the proposed project area. There are also no previously recorded archaeological sites within the project area that are eligible for or listed on the NRHP, which is a national register. Lastly, based on the environmental assessment report by Childress and Associates, the majority of the project area has been extensively modified by modern landscaping activities, including the use of heavy equipment and infilling. If prehistoric archaeological sites were ever present in this area, then they have likely been destroyed by modern use. So I want to put that in the record. Based on that, Bill, I don't have any specific language for a condition to impose. This is a study by an accredited source that I think puts to rest this issue. Why do we do this? Well, the reason we did it was that people asked us, some of the people in the area said there's a rumor that there's an Indian burial ground out there, and we heard it more than once. It is obviously more than just a rumor if it's reflected on the map that you saw, but that was enough to get Ball Holmes to commission this particular report. As far as the traffic study is concerned, I don't think there's any need to comment on that. The staff concluded the same thing that Diane Zimmerman did in her report, which is that the impact of the development is minimal, and I'm particularly looking at the Harrodsburg Road, Military Road, that intersection where all this traffic would come out, level of service in the AM. Is D now, will stay D at build out, and in the PM peak it's B, and would move a few seconds into C. still, by urban standards, those are very acceptable levels of service. So with that, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'll be happy to conclude. I want to put these documents that I've made reference to in the record, and we'll be happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you, Mr. Lear. Excuse me, any questions for Mr. Lear? Mr. Lear, one thing. As far as the report that you just read on the burial ground, when was that performed or commissioned? Okay. Okay. Their field came up for us more quickly than it did for staff, obviously, but it was the field study. I'm not sure exactly. We probably need to get you back to the microphone. I'm sorry. Sorry about that. I'm not sure exactly when they were retained, but the field study that says in the report was conducted July 11, 2013. And this cover letter is actually dated the 23rd. Okay, thank you. Mr. Wilson? I have a question related to the study as such. When such a case like this comes about, and I think it's understood it was by rumor, I guess, that this Indian burial ground was somewhere in the vicinity, whose responsibility is it to investigate it? Does the onus always fall on the developer, or does it fall on the independent body? When it is recognized like this, we would certainly request that the owner, developer, certify the investigate. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Penn? Yeah, I guess this is Mr. Lear or Nick, whichever one wants to answer. You stated that you think that it's half a mile south of this site. There's no reason to know where that is. I mean, that study didn't say where it was south of there. In a subdivision? That's what I was afraid of. Thank you. Any other questions? We've got several in the audience that I'm sure some want to speak. Let me first ask if there's others in favor that would like to speak in favor of this plan, zone change. If so, please come forward. My name is Jeff Stringer, and my wife and I own the historic resource that was mentioned earlier. We live at 4420 Old Schoolhouse Lane, which is the South Elkhorn one-room schoolhouse. We purchased that property in 83 and endeavored not only to live there, but to maintain the structure and the historic nature of the structure that was left to us at that time, which we did. It's on the Bluegrass Trust. It's recorded with the state. all those kind of things. Of course, there was a development issue that came up in 2008 involving the property we're discussing now. We spent considerable time, energy, money, tears, all that kind of thing to try to figure out whether we were going to be able to live there or not and whether we were going to be protected by that development. Of course, that fell by the wayside, a very difficult time to go through. Fast forward to 2013, and the Balls came to us and indicated that they were interested in developing and purchasing a property and immediately worked with us to try to come up with a scenario that protected the historic nature of our property. The women's school outset is literally 10 foot from the boundary. So it's very close. And we don't have the ability to protect ourselves. There's a historic tree line in there and all that kind of thing. So they came to us immediately with a plan that, in our mind, was sensitive to keeping us there over the course of the last six months. We worked out agreements with them that we believe satisfy and protect us in the historic nature of the dwelling and the fence line, appropriate buffering, and given the conditions we've developed with them and the agreements we've come to them, we're very actually pleased with this development, seeing what it could be otherwise. So to us, it's been an issue that's been fairly satisfying. And we feel very comfortable with supporting this recommendation with the layout that's proposed and that kind of thing. Thank you. Thank you. Any others that would like to speak in favor of this plan? Okay. How many would like to speak in opposition? Please raise your hands. Okay, thank you. Are they a spokesperson by chance to get things started? No one's volunteering? Okay. I would ask everyone to come forward with that number. I'm going to ask you, let's not be repetitive. Let's stay to the point and be concise. Yes, we will put a time limit on this. I was asking for a spokesperson, but seeing none, we will limit everyone, as mentioned in the agenda, to three minutes. So anyone that wishes to speak, please come forward. Anyone in opposition, please come forward and give us your name, and we'll go with it. Stephanie? Okay. Yes, sir. Ray Waits, 2200 old Higby Mill Road. I'm on the line, as they'd say, figuratively and literally here. I'm not opposing the development. I'm not harrowing the development. But they've worked with my neighbors. We've been there a lot longer than any of them all put together. You want to know the rest of that story. 170 years, very few people can match that longevity around the neighborhood, and they've been there a whole lot of it. But we have a security problem that's going to start to develop. They've negotiated, and Mr. Ball has assured me that he'll do what is allowable under the law. That is a big white door there. And that means that I need a fence to keep the new residents that are going to invade our area after that long of time. I need a fence to keep me protected from those people. Yeah, there is a creek right next to it. Oh, we can't do that. That doesn't stop those kids. And it didn't stop any of them when they destroyed my trailer. They destroyed my property. They harassed my animals when I used to have animals to the point of killing them. Nobody could do anything about it. But I do need a fence from the porter property over to my property or our family's property. and then a little bit of stretch that jumps over there to Plain Ridge. It crosses the creek, yeah. But kids use the creek to get around to inflict the damage and harassment on my family and my property. And I would like for someone, Mr. Ball assures me that he will, and he's gone by his word before with me, sold off property to him. but I need to have something to keep these youngsters out of there for as long as I'm going to be there. Now, that clock is not set by me. That's set by a whole family together. But I've got more property line, I think, than all of them put out here. But I'm the one that they come over in the attractive nuisance. John and Mimi Porter, they have an attractive nuisance. And these kids are very, very resourceful today because they've got a lot of time on their hands. They can think of more ways than you can imagine on how you invade and destroy. I even had them come on and steal my little john boat and take it and cut it for scrap out of Clements Heights. I mean, this whole area is really bad. Witnesses and everything. We can't do anything about it. So I would like for it to be assured that I can talk to Mr. Ball and come up with something, even though the creek that the majority of my line is in the flow of the creek. They say floodplain, floodplain. But if it's in the flow of the creek, the fence has been there since the beginning of time. We never owned the opposite property. So there's where I'm at. Is this thing telling me how much time? Yes, sir, it is. Okay, I've got another minute to pay. Oh, no, your time is up. Please wrap up. Here's wrong. Quick question, Mr. Waits. Where is your property? Okay, the property is where the Porter Point quits. John Porter and my family owned that, and of course the purchase was for Bollies. At that point, crosses the creek, going to the easterly direction to where the Twain Ridge, the Bolls bought all of that land from our family. And that's where they stopped it. . Go back to the microphone. Go back to the microphone, if you will, after seeing it burning up people's time. Quickly. I've chased the kids to last me the rest of these few years. Quickly. Okay. But it's where Tween Ridge comes into the proposed property. You step right across, right there, is my property line, right down to Twain Ridge. Then our family owns from here over to where the barn sits. That's where the barn would be sitting on the Porter property. And that's the open area that they will use the creek. That's their champ. That's how the kids come through and enter our property and come into the back door of my house that I have not access to. And all we can do is watch them. We can catch them. The court system, let them go. Like I said, I've had cows killed, harassed, and everything else over these years. I've been there 40-some years with the development. So in 170 years, that encompassed that whole time. So I would like to have it. Mr. Ball says, I'll work with you within the bounds of what I can do. Well, the kids are going to come whether I can come up with something or not. I just feel like I, as a resident, need a better chance. Thank you, Mr. Wade. Dr. Beatty, do you have a question? I just wanted to ask, is your property currently fenced in that area that you were pointing out now? Up here. The property has been fenced. There is evidence of that fence all along there. Like I said, the creek runs parallel to that property line. And I've been there all my life, and I have never seen water. I wasn't there for the 32 flood, but I have not seen water come up here where I want my security fence to be put. And I would have the right, as I understand, to keep my cattle out of their development. Of course, I gave that up because of development. You can't afford to take a house liability. But it's a very, very hard thing to do is put up with your stuff being destroyed in the tune of just thousands of dollars of my equipment's been destroyed. Thank you, Mr. Waits. Others, please come forward. Good afternoon. My name is John Yoswick. I live at 4860 Bud Lane in Dogwood Trace. What I want to point out was the fact that the staff has recommended approval for the following reasons. Item C under that says, Proposal provides for the collector street system to connect via the intersection of Twain Ridge and Agape. Well, we've all heard that the bridge to Twain Ridge is never going to happen. Mr. Lear just stated that the developer is not under any obligation to provide that bridge. So you can write that off as being the connector. So that says to me, as a resident of Daugwood Trace, the only connector is Agape. So a lot of traffic is going to be flooding to the south through Agape. So I question why the staff can recommend approval in light of the fact that Twain Ridge Bridge will never happen. Point one. Point two is, you know, I was here five years ago with the Premier Villages thing. We went through that. And I think this actually, from a density point of view, is probably worse than we had then. The fact that the numbers are cooked because you've got a lot of wasted space there that can never be developed on. That's the floodplain. So they come up with a number that says 7.4, and really I think it's much higher. I think this thing is really a high-density plan with that number of apartments. so and Mr. Lear will rebut that saying it satisfies the computation formula I realize that but I don't think the people with the comprehensive plan ever intended this to be a high density situation that's all thank you thank you sir next please hi I'm not dressed very well I drove 18 hours back from Florida to be here for this meeting so I am Christina Dudak I live in Firebrook neighborhood. I, too, was here five years ago. My biggest issue then was the bur oak. I still have concerns with the plants now. The driveway that is running by that is very skinny, which is a very different situation than would be with large construction vehicles, a parking lot, a large driveway. The root system, I don't think the drip edge is going to protect that tree. As we all know, the roots go well two, three times what the tree is. So I'm really concerned with the borough. I'm also concerned with the school districting, with there being 250 houses slash apartments there. We already have overcrowding in our school district there. We also have a development that's on the other side of Old Hoopy Mill that's condos that's never been built out. It's only halfway built. Most of those are for sale. Some of them are bank-owned because they're not being sold. and I'm just questioning the need for this subdivision there. Also, the green space is an issue for me. The traffic study, I'd like to know when that was done, if it was done during the summer months or if it was done during the school season because traffic is really an issue at that intersection of Military and Harrodsburg Road. This would give another 250 cars coming in and out at high time. I'd like to know why the burial ground was not addressed or given to the committee until 1 o'clock today. I think that's not very good. And I think that it's still kind of iffy, the answers that we've been given on where it's located. I think that we have enough technology, we should be able to find that. And if we can find it, we should protect it. Thank you, ma'am. My name is Lenita Clark. I'm sorry, go ahead. My name is Lenita Clark. I've lived in Dogwood Trace for 23 years, and I thank you so much for giving us this opportunity and for listening to our concerns as well. Building a little bit on what Mr. Yoswick said previously, we know Train Ridge is not going to go through. That's a fairy tale. Nobody's going to build it. It costs too much money, which means all the traffic will be funneled through Agape. Whenever the land is released, we understand there's some land there that is not even available now to put it through, so I don't know where all this traffic is going to go. Am I wrong about that, that there's a woman who owns a strip of land that will not surrender that land that would prevent Agape from going through? But even when her heirs sell that property, Agape is not wide enough to be a collector street. Last week there was an emergency vehicle there picking up someone, and you couldn't get through then, let alone with 250, 400, whatever more cars. You know with 241 residents there's going to be at least 400 cars. So all this traffic is going to come through Dolgitres, which is already backed up. it's supposed we heard figures that from Manowar to Dogwood Trace Intersection is one of the highest accident areas in the county, in the urban service area. So why would you consider making it more dangerous? Plus, Agape is so narrow now, there are many little children along there. Many people bought there and on La Crosse because it was quiet and there wasn't traffic going through. But it's really not wide enough. Kroger, Agape is a connector to the Kroger Shopping Center. If I lived in this new development, I'm not going to go out, Dwayne Ridge, if that road ever goes down to Harrodsburg, which I don't know. I guess that's what the plan is. I'm not going to go there and stop at three traffic lights to get to Kroger when I can zip right across Agape. That's not realistic. Nobody's going to do that. So again, all the traffic is going to go right through Agape and make it even more dangerous and more congested. Thank you very much for listening. I appreciate it. Thank you. My name is Bob Patti. I live at 2500 Sun Gale Court, which is in Farbrook. The back of my house faces this area that we're talking about, the old schoolhouse road and all that area. Last yesterday afternoon, I decided to do something really strange. After reading some papers about sizes of connector roads, I went and measured Agape and Rhema. They're both 29 1⁄2 feet across. to get there I had to wait for a delivery truck because their cars parked on both sides of the road and there's no restriction about parking and there shouldn't be but to get to the end of Agape I had to wait for a delivery truck so I could get back there and what's going to happen if this is one of the only connector roads and we do have deliveries you can't stop UPS and FedEx and all the other thing is I'm a retired supervisor I'm the Observer State Department of Transportation working in traffic division. I'm very familiar with signals. I'm also familiar with road beds and what's expected. Old Schoolhouse Road is not capable of holding the type of traffic you all are talking about unless you want to tear it completely out and put a new road in it. And that's all I have to say, but I'm concerned because it's my community. We're all neighbors. I've met many of these people, and I think that this is something we all need to look at. And there will be a gentleman come up to tell you about blasting, because I've had a problem with blasting when they built Harrods Park Road. It did some damage to my house, and the lower lake at Firebrook has always leaked, but it leaks much more now, and they've had engineers out to try to figure out what to do with it and all. And you know you're going to have to blast to build. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, sir. I'm David Kolpeck. I live in Dogwood Trace at 2408 Doubletree Court, and that's a write-off of Agape. Some people have already stolen my thunder a little bit, but I wanted to make a few points. I know there's been a lot of statements that say that this development plan is in complete compliance with the comprehensive plan. And I think, you know, regarding the connector streets, I just totally disagree with that position. You know, we've heard about the bridge. There's basically three connections to the outside world from this development. One is the bridge, the other is Agape, and the third one is supposed to be the extension of Twain Ridge directly into the military pike. We know the Burr Oaks there. In fact, the representative standing up here said that it's not the most desirable, but they're going to reroute around that. The traffic is going to dump, according to the current plan that I've seen, it dumps onto the frontage road off Harrodsburg Road, and then they're going to have to go north and zigzag onto Harrodsburg Road. So that's not the best solution there. The bridge isn't going to be done at all, or at least there's no plan for that. And Agape is only, you know, it's originally been on the plans forever for it being a collector street. However, in 1990 or 1988, about that time when they developed the north side of Dogwood Trace, the developer got permission to put in a narrower street. So while Agape is 40 feet wide south of Dogwood Trace Boulevard, which divides the Dogwood Trace, north of it, it narrows down to 30 feet wide. So you're going to have 1,000 feet going extending on up, and Twain Ridge, excuse me, English Station Road also has a stub, cross stub in there, which is also 30 feet wide. So that road is going to be 30 feet wide up and down there, Basically wide enough for two cars on either side parked, two trucks, and maybe one truck through the middle. I'm not sure emergency trucks can get through there, just like somebody mentioned. So it's definitely, you know, the planning was, you can call it a connector street or a collector street, but a long time ago, that boat sailed. It was no longer a collector street. It was built as a local street, not a collector street, when they narrowed it down. So trying to open it up and say that that's the main route now because we've got this baroque, we've got a limited route out off of Harrisburg Road, and now we're going to have the main route being the Collector Street down through Dogwood Trace, that's really not a viable plan. So we've got basically no bridge, a local street we're going to connect to, and a weak entrance off of Harrisburg Road at Military Pike. I think there needs to be a lot more planning to understand what the traffic flow. Also, the traffic study addressed the traffic on Harrisburg Road. I heard no mention of Collector Street. I heard no mention of the local streets and the impact on those at all in that traffic study. So I urge you to – perhaps this would support R1. I don't know. I'd be even skeptical of that at this point to see unless they have a better approach. a road running north up to Higby Mill, which is already a collector street across there, that would be a viable option because that could be built to support it with the right width. But Agape is basically not an option as a collector street anymore. It's just a regular residential street 30 feet wide. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Command. Hi, my name is Shannon Mazzard. I'm on 4779 Scenic View Road. I oppose the rezoning of the proposed development by Ball Homes. The current intent of the AU zone reads as follows. This zone is intended to control the development of rural land within the urban service area over a period of time so as to manage the growth of the community. In order to avoid premature or improved development, land should remain in this zone until public facilities and services are or will be adequate to serve urban uses. The intent of the R3 zone reads as follows. This zone is primarily for multifamily dwellings and other residential uses. This zone should be at locations at the density recommended by the comprehensive plan and in the areas of the community where necessary services and facilities will be adequate to serve the anticipated population. Both these descriptions hold the decision-making process accountable to prove to be adequate with an anticipated growth in population. This does not appear fully evident anywhere in the current proposal that turns a stable, healthy, vibrant agricultural rural land with agricultural potential into a disturbed land of double density compared to surrounding areas and creating instability of its future outcome. Mr. Lear has claimed the proposed project meets several of the goals for the comprehensive plan suggesting not all of the goals are met. The project appears to only show that it may be in line with the required density terms but has not shown to be adequate or necessary. Mr. Lear claimed the project upholds the urban service area preservation strategy yet how does developing high-density project onto a beautiful rural zone, disturbing the land in low-density area, preserve anything? And in regards to connecting communities, the property owners and citizens of Lexington should have the right to determine the so-called requirement of the comprehensive plan as they are directly affected by its outcome regarding safety, crime, extended use of the road system, disturbance of structures, health of creek economics and overall quality of life as advocated by mr. Clark and many on the council in addressing the adequacy of services it should be noted that currently our schools in our districts are over capacity with the Paul Lawrence Dunbar currently 681 over capacity in 2012 as an example also in 2010 the fate County census cited a total of 12 117 vacant housing units in which that number may have increased as we have witnessed in our own area from the downturn of the economy, local business closings, and higher unemployment rates. While in opposition, we request that the Ball Homes and the City Council provide thorough and detailed information regarding the intent use and type of apartment complex proposed in the project, such as rentals for purchase, any subleasing, any subsidizing, future additions, pricing, etc. In conclusion, I would like to quote the Kentucky statute from your site regarding the comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission of each unit shall prepare a comprehensive plan which shall serve as a guide for public and private actions and decisions to assure the development of public and private property in the most appropriate relationships. The elements of the plan may be expressed in words, graphics, and other appropriate forms. They shall be interrelated, and each element shall describe how it relates to each of the other elements. This statute requires a comprehensive plan, but clearly states the plan shall serve as a guide, not as a mandate, and therefore our Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Section 2, states, absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty, and property of free men exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority. Thank you. My name is Kenneth Collins. I live on Trace Court in the Dogwood Trace subdivision. I'm from the generation that grew up reading Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and Charles Reich's The Greening of America. I moved to Kentucky in 1995 to find an urban environment that had green sensibilities and commitments, and I'm pleased to live where I live right now. I've listened to the developer, I've listened also to counsel, and I am not convinced that those sensibilities continue. The Burrow tree goes back to 1708, quite a long period of time. Their own arborist, using the language probabilities, when you're talking about 1708 and that kind of heritage, probabilities are not enough. Secondly, people have addressed the access issue. How many on this committee here have actually gone up that road that leads to the Burr Oak Tree? I've been up that road. It's very steep because the Burr Oak Tree sits high above 68. In order to manage a new road to make a connection to 68, it is going to have to be also very steep. It's a bottleneck right now. It'll be a bottleneck in the future, especially because they're cutting off the east end of Twain Ridge Road. The developer refuses to build the infrastructure necessary. This is not moving in a green direction. Building and development can be done in a better fashion. Thank you. Thank you, sir. My name is Roger Marion. I live at 2430 Dogwood Trace Boulevard. I'm a retired geologist and 12-year resident of the Dogwood Trace subdivision. I have over 30 years' experience in geology, seismology, mining, and blasting. I've worked in Kentucky and with development proposals involving blasting and excavation in limestone rocks and karst, which is underground limestone solution features. I have received extensive training on karst geology and associated surface structures and groundwater flow. I have taken blasting certification training and held professional geologist registration. I am concerned about a number of possible effects from proposed construction-related drilling and blasting for recontouring and leveling at the subject site. These can range from ground vibration and airwave blasts to effects on vegetation, groundwater, karst features. Other possible effects are excessive noise and interruption of traffic. As a minimum, I believe development plans must include pre-blast survey of adjacent properties and plans to monitor and record findings during and after blasting to demonstrate compliance with governmental standards. There should also be a detailed characterization of the site and area geology with attention to significant trees and their support route system, karst structures, surface and groundwater flow, and interconnections of these features with the surrounding area. This is especially important considering the potential impact on nearby residents and the historical nature of several adjacent properties and buildings. There are reports of property damage in Firebrook, which you've heard about already, and blasting associated with the widening of Harrisburg Road a few years ago. I am concerned also about the possible effects from blasting and construction on water, specifically groundwater and surface water flow, and the contamination or alteration of potential delicate subsurface water chemistry. Karst structures frequently protect a unique and delicate balance of water and associated flora and fauna, and any drilling intrusion or change in the balance of water flow rates, chemistry, or pollutants can be disastrous. stormwater infiltration and runoff can be affected by blasting activities and in turn can seriously affect the balance I've previously discussed in a broader sense the general viability of the environment and the adjacent green space could be diminished if the surface and groundwater were disturbed by blasting and construction activities there's an active spring which you've heard about which empties into south Elkhorn Creek One additional factor that concerns me is the possible effect from blasting on any karst sinkholes or overburden arches as a matter of safety and its contribution to changing the delicate balance of water quality established over time. I'm sure you're all familiar with the numerous karst underground solution cavities in this Lexington area. Drilling and blasting the native limestone on site will create safety concerns, noise, and interruption of traffic. during certain periods of the day. Heavy traffic on the adjacent roads will be inconvenienced. Safety will be a concern. Drivers and nearby homeowners will need to be aware of potential for dust and flying rock particles. Please wrap up, Mr. Merritt. In conclusion, not only might blasting result in some or all of the effects I have discussed, but you may want to consider that these impacts could well affect any recommendation to rezone to R3 or to approve this development plan, including the proposed number of units, the density of development, the proposed buffers, the location and configuration of ingress and egress roads, and environmental mitigation. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Others? Hello. My name is Roger Schnabel. I live at 4780 Agape Drive. I've been there 24 years. I've seen this subdivision grow, and when it's added on in the back, I'm interested in the traffic. If we have 241 houses, dwelling units, what is that, four people per house approximately? That's close to 1,000 more people there. That's about 500 more cars there. If any of you have been on the part of Agape that everybody's talking about, you'll see that it cannot handle that type of traffic. And if they try to build a road out to 68, that's been discussed. That has not been a good idea either. So, as I say, my concern is 500 more cars in there, 1,000 more people there. It's just not going to work. And I'd invite every one of you, all driving your own car, don't get two or three people per car, to come up and drive through there and then make your vote. And you'll see that it's not going to work. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Others, please come forward. Hello. My name is Dr. Lauren Larson. I live in Dogwood Trace Subdivision, and I want to formally submit my disapproval of this zone change. This is an environmentally restricted area due to the 300-year-old bur oak tree and the South Helcorn Creek, which we see because they are above ground. but there are also underground springs that we don't even know about. We are finding. When did they find that spring that was underground? How do we know that there aren't more under there? Blasting, filling, grating can affect this entire area, and we are concerned about the impact of traffic, the density of the housing, preserving the natural beauty of the greenway, as well as maintaining the survival of the 300-year-old bur oak tree, which is a significant tree as defined by the zoning ordinance, Article 26. I do not want to see this tree unprotected from nearby development that could damage its extensive root system. I do not want to see this tree die for a road that will never be constructed or connected by a bridge that should never be built by a taxpayer's expense. I understand while Holmes has said that they are hiring an arborist consult. How do we know they will follow his recommendations? And what are his recommendations? They obviously haven't followed the recommendations when designing this plan, since there's a picture of the road abutting the tree. According to the Zoning Ordinance Article 26, Tree Protection Standards, for every one inch in diameter of breast height of a tree, there will be 1.5 feet radius defined as a critical root zone. This tree is over 70 inches in diameter. We addressed this five years ago, since this tree needed at least a 150-foot buffer, not 50 feet, that Mr. Learhead said. And he referred to a driveway leading up to this tree. That driveway has probably not been ridden on for a long time since this property has been vacant. And I can't imagine this driveway going by this tree absorbing 400-plus cars and the tree root system not being affected. Lexington has been a tree city, USA, since 1989, which is the first and longest in Kentucky. We need to protect the tree from nearby blasting and development. We also need to protect the historic South Elkhorn area where the tree grows. We should not relinquish this historic area to developers with no concerns about the beauty of our community with plans for what looks like high-density housing, even if they don't define it that way with numbers. This is an environmentally sensitive area, and according to Article 611a subdivision regulations, it is defined as an area, due to its natural or physical setting, which may have environmental problems with regard to development. It also states that detailed site planning will be necessary to overcome the physical limitations of the land. Environmental sensitive areas will be subject to more restrictive regulations. In what way is an R3 zone with 196 apartments and 45 houses restrictive? But in this case, there has been no geotechnical survey regarding the underground caverns and karst formations, no hydrogenic hydraulic calculations, no calculations of post-development floodplain, no post-development stormwater analysis, no blasting analysis, and I suppose a traffic analysis, but I question the number of ins and outs, and I would really like to see those numbers explained to me in detail. These issues are important when discussing how the land will be used. When this project is done, the developer moves on, and we, the neighbors, are the ones living with the possible repercussions due to these ongoing unresolved issues. I am asking that you not approve this on Change to R3. I do have a petition that I have gone around for only four days, because this is all the time that I had, to get the neighborhoods that aren't Dogwood Trace, that aren't Firebrook, that aren't the big guys, that don't even know that this stuff was going on. And I went door to door, and I got people from Clements Heights subdivision that were connecting to Twain Ridge, and I got people from Old English Station, which is right across from Military Park. And these are little subdivisions that really have no say. So if they don't have somebody act who knows, then they won't know anything. And so that's what I did, and I'd like to submit those and another letter for their opposed. Thank you. Thank you. Others, please? Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak. Josh Fane, 4801's resident way. Born and raised in Lexington, true Lexingtonian. Went to Dunbar High School, went to Transit for undergrad, went to UK for law school. I love this city. I want nothing but the best for this city. I currently reside in Dogwood Glen, which is a development that was added to Dogwood Trace. It's a ball development. I point these things out because, for one, I don't oppose development in general. I don't oppose ball realty in general. I oppose development for development's sake. If there's no need for development, then I oppose it. Currently, Bull Realty, through an entity known as Winthrop LLC, is developing property. I believe approximately 252 apartment units and townhouses, one, two, and three bedroom. At the corner of Winthrop and Manowar, it's known as RM Lexington. Those are supposed to be developed and completed at the end of fall of this year. They're flooding this area with development. This is property that's being developed. We don't know if it's going to be full. We don't know what the vacancy rate is, as was mentioned previously. There is development at the corner of Higbee Mill and Harrisburg Road, which has a higher rate of vacancy. I know each one is independently considered, but it's my understanding that there is also zoning request changes to add additional units there, as well as to develop property behind Palomar and develop townhouses there. It just seems that there is no need for this additional development. In the grand scheme of Lexington, this is a very small piece of property. Within this small piece of property, you've got a 300-year-old tree. You've got a natural spring. You've got a potential burial mound, which has come forth today. You've got an old schoolhouse not 10 feet away. In the grand scheme of Lexington, this is not a big piece of property, and I don't see that those things are worth developing and taking the chance of ruining things that have been around for hundreds of years, especially if there's no documented need to show that we need to develop and we need more property in this area. So I would just request that this zoning change is denied. And in the future, it may be appropriate that it be zoned differently. There may be a need, but at this point I don't believe that's been documented. So thank you. Thank you, sir. Others, please come forward. Tom Keeler. I reside at 2310 Harrods Point Trace in Lexington, and I too am opposed to the development as it is being proposed. And I think it's before you consider the rezoning that you really need to think about rezoning from the AU, not to necessarily R3, but maybe it would need to be R1 or R2. So for that reason, I believe there's going to be too much density proposed in this particular development. And I'd like to just point out four other points. Proposed access onto US-68 cannot be designed properly to align with military pipe, where the existing traffic light is. The topography and the saving of the large oak tree makes this very connection less desirable. In addition, access is limited only onto the old schoolhouse lane rather than Harrodsburg Road directly. This, too, will be inadequate for servicing the traffic needs from the combined development of this proposed development and with English Station and other things that are being considered. Number two, city staff and the developer would like the Collective Street system and the proposed development connected to the Agape Drive and Twain Ridge. But think about it for a second. New residents in the proposed development want to travel north, not south, because they're going to be heading north, which is where Lexington is. So why drag those folks to Dogwood Trace when, in fact, that's not the direction they're going to wish to go? And they probably won't go, except unless they consider going to the Kroger store. Number three, then there is the issue of building a bridge for access to Twain Ridge when the government funding is inadequate, and that's been talked about before. And my last point concerns the lack of strategically located park space for the higher-density housing. The green space proposed east of the single-family housing will not be useful for children living in the proposed apartments. We're looking at maybe 200 to 500 children being in this development. And the children from the apartments will need a park space adjacent to their living units, where crossing roads is not a requirement and parents can provide safety and supervision for their children. It is not unusual today in proposed developments for subdivisions where 20% of the developed area is set aside for parks, street trees, and other landscape amenities. A solution for correcting this issue and others is revising the zoning amendment. Don't put the carriage ahead of the horse in this case when these issues and others, such as sewage deficiencies, may not be available for years. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Any others? Yes, sir. Please come forward. My name is Fred Wolstein. I live at 4765 Reema Way. I'm opposed to the zone change. I just don't want to rehash and waste your time, so I'm just going to hit some highlights and identify some things that people have mentioned previously. One, the bridge we're talking about is the cost would be to the taxpayers in excess of $3 million. I assure you that our Lexington Fair and county government is not going to allocate those funds, nor are they ever going to be approved. English Station currently has a road that connects to the schoolhouse lane. It hasn't been brought to light that in the winter their vehicles are not able to go up that street. Hence, they park down along the schoolhouse lane frontage roads, which we're talking about. This is not once in a while. This is routine. As far as the Agape connection, the Dogwood residents requested a stop sign be placed because of traffic issues that are already occurring at the intersection of Agape and Dogwood Trace. That was requested by the residents. As far as the total collector street system, the ingress and egress most likely will be and continue to be US 68, which we made great inroads in the double lane both ways was great. The only problem is now we're going to circumvent that. The double diamond was a great improvement. That helped with traffic. Now we're looking to circumvent that by adding this additional traffic. In this corridor in 2012, we had 24 accidents occurring between the Dogwood Trace entrance and the Man O' War on Harrisburg Road, just to qualify that. And finally, I haven't heard anybody mention the capacity assurance of the sewer system yet. and currently the pumping station that services our area is under capacity, and if we were going to add an additional subdivision, I believe per the consent decree that the capacity would have to be increased, and I haven't heard anybody mention that. It currently does not meet the one-hour flow rate for a two-year period of a 24-hour storm event. I think a lot of the council are familiar with that. So hopefully I have brought to light some of the items that have been gone over and over. At this time, I don't think the Harvey property is in the community's best interest to be developed. I think we should wait and look. The 1980 Comprehensive Plan, the 1988 Comprehensive Plan, is dated. Referring back to it, we're no longer there. We're talking about green space. We're talking about mature trees. We're talking about burial mounds that we would like to preserve. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. As a matter of procedure, I just want to confirm there will be an opportunity for citizen comments and rebuttal. There will be. I'd like to reserve my comments for that. Okay. Anyone else like to speak at this time? Seeing none, speaking of rebuttals, we'll move on to that phase. Before I get there, Commission need a break? Finished up. Okay. Rebuttals. Yes, sir. Thank you. I just want to hit three or four things very quickly. One is road connections. This connection is not dictated by the developer. It's dictated by the planning principles enforced by the staff. That's a connection to a collector street. That's what the comprehensive plan shows. There's another connection shown down here, which ultimately will be built when this property is developed, and that's how we do it. We brought in this particular tract, and we're linking up in those directions that are required. We're putting the stubs in that are required for us to link this property up. We are staying clear of this tree, and when I said there's a driveway next to it, I don't mean there's a driveway where this road is. There's a driveway right next to the tree, not 50 feet out from it. Maybe it's 10 or 15 feet, but it's not out where this road is shown. The bridge, we're making provision for it. I'll make you a bet. If the urban county government proposes to build that bridge tomorrow, there are some people in this room today that will be there objecting to it because it will bring traffic across this way. It will bring traffic across Clemens Heights. And I love to hear the mention of Clemens Heights. This is a little historical footnote. The very first zone change that I ever handled was Clemens Heights, 1976, which means, and speaking of the green sensitivity of Lexington, like some of you, I remember what this area was before Dogwood Trace and before Firebrook. And what this area was was farmland. and it's all been developed with blasting and cutting of roads and all the other things that you heard were going to go on on this property. When Firebrook was zoned, if you look at your minutes, you will see seven pages of notes devoted to objectors who came in and said the same thing about Firebrook, which was a beautiful horse farm, which was owned by the Firestone family, which is why it got its name of Firebrook. What you've heard today is primarily objections from people who live on property that was a farm, in some cases a horse farm, who live in the South Elkhorn Creek area, who live on the same type of karst topography that this property is on, whose property was developed in much the same way that this one is proposed to be developed. I don't object to their sentiments. I understand why they have them, but I think if you listen, if you look at what history shows us, this is simply an example of those who live in properties developed earlier objecting to a later property being developed. Now some specifics. Blasting. We always have to do, Ball Homes always has to do a pre-blasting survey. They'll do it this time. It's as much for their benefit as it is for the homeowners. So that is nothing different than what we would do anyway. Mr. Waits, we did reach out to Mr. Waits. We didn't reach a specific agreement. One minute left. We didn't reach a specific agreement with Ray, but we agreed to work with him. The issue is whether a fence has to be built in the floodplain, which we are not allowed to do, or how best to provide the protection that he wants. You cannot go into a federally designated floodplain today and build a new fence across it, even if there was historically one built across it back in the day. So we've got that to deal with. And then finally, the CAP program, we've already dealt with Charlie Martin. We know we'll have to be subject to it and meet all of the requirements of it. That's just part of what the rules are, and we'll comply with those. Thank you. Thank you, sir. As far as the opposition rebuttal, let me go with that, and then we'll go to the staff. Yes, sir. Hello, and thank you for your time. I'm Justin Williamson. I live on formerly farmland known as Dogwood Trace. I'd like to try to summarize what a lot of my neighbors have had to say and respond to a few final comments here. I'm the president of Dogwood Trace Neighborhood Association. First of all, I want to say this isn't a small group of individuals that feel passionately about this. earlier this week I had a house full of 40 individuals in our neighborhood alone that were very concerned about this, whether they're present today or not. Regarding the tree and the existing road, what I would say to that, referring back to the comment about probabilities in the existence of that tree for 300 years, because there's a road there today, we are fortunate that we still have a bur oak tree. I would say that the sins of the past are not a reason to repeat them. So I would not encourage us to take risks in line with things that we've done in the past that could jeopardize that tree. In general, the comprehensive plan shows a medium density plan for this property. The devil's in the details, as they say. So this is a big look at the city. We've got to put people somewhere, and we all understand that. Most of us aren't opposed to development. Like you mentioned, we live in a development. I think what you find with this property are a lot of unique aspects of it that cause issues when you try to apply the comprehensive plan as it was originally anticipated. You see the plan for Twain Ridge to be run across the property with a bridge that today we realize is probably not economically feasible. If the developer is not going to build it, the odds are the city is not going to build it for the number of individuals we're talking about. We have the issue with the bur oak tree that's in the path of that road. So we're going to circle a road around it, but then you have to feed it into a side road that's not built to handle that sort of traffic. And the issue of the topography of the land, you know, is mentioned about having to park at the bottom of it whenever it's icy. That's real. If you drive down Harrisburg, you look at this property in the winter, that's what you'll see. The concerns about the connector into Agape, which is something that you would think would have to happen in the future to provide travel for this development, all the issues of the size of that road, changes that were made on the fly in the past that weren't anticipating future development. We have a small road feeding through neighborhoods. and these people are going to take these roads to get to the nearby grocery store. That's just the reality. In summary, I would just say that as a whole, you know, our neighborhood, outside of our own personal interests, we have a number of concerns about it as members of the community in general, and we'd like to oppose the rezoning of this property as it's proposed today. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes, Ms. Wade. I just wanted to take this opportunity to remind the Commission that the staff is available for questions, and there are other City staff members in the back as well that might be able to answer specific questions if you have them. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from Planning Commission members? Anyone? Let me, I'll start. I might be the only one, I don't know. So whether it's for you, Tracy, or Tom, or maybe Traffic, a lot of discussion about agape. Can any light be shed on when that might be opened up? It seems like there's one landowner that might be in the way. And then also any discussion as far as varying widths as far as agape. Can anyone address that as well? I can try to address the connectivity in terms of the width of the street. Traffic engineering may have that information or be able to answer those questions, but I don't believe the Division of Planning has that available today. Agape would connect today except for the Carrick property, which is located south of the subject property at 4630 Harrodsburg Road, and our understanding is that the property owner is not interested in developing that property at this time. So until that piece comes in, there is not going to be a connection of Agape. But when that does come in for redevelopment, they have, I guess, a personal access on Harrodsburg Road, but they don't have access to Desdemona, along to the east. What they do have is Rima Way, stubbing on both sides, and Agape Drive, stubbing on both sides. And our subdivision regulations require stub streets to continue. And especially when they are named the same road name on both sides, the intent is clear that that street is planned to continue. And I believe individuals that purchase property in these areas were aware of that when the streets are named the same that they are intended to connect. Okay. Anyone in traffic have anything to add as far as agape or width of agape? Maybe. I see her. She's coming. Hey, I'm Casey Kalker with Traffic Engineering. There was discussion about the width of Agape. Agape, make sure I get this right, Agape at Dogwood Trace at the intersection is 41 foot wide, And then when you venture out each side, probably about 200 foot each side, it narrows down to 31 foot roadway width. And that's adequate. Here, here. We're asking questions here. Casey. Yes. 31 feet, that's collector street size? That is below standards. Right now, a standard collector street would be 36-foot roadway width. That's right. Okay. So that is more than the collector standard. Okay. Thank you. Other questions from Planning Commission members? I've got one, Mike. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Tracy, or maybe Casey, let's try Tracy first. Okay. When we looked at Agape on some of these other developments, Has it always intended to be a collector's street? On the comprehensive plan, yes. Agape was going to be a collector's street all the way through? Yes. If that's the case, why did we let them narrow it down from 36 to 31? I cannot answer that question. Well, I said we because I might have been here when that happened. The Planning Commission made those decisions, yes. Those unintended consequences. Thank you. Other questions? Yes, sir. Tracy, there's not a lot has been said about REMA Way. How much of a connector, is that the same width of the, I guess I'm asking a very awkward question, but no one has mentioned the fact that that's an alternative way out of there? And that is actually a good question. And Rimaway was intended to continue as well. And it stubs into, on our development plan, the larger space, it stubs into the, I guess, southeast corner of the church property. But there is a spring here. So the last time the church brought this area in for development, the spring was located, and it became clear that a continuation of Rimaway to the north would actually impact the spring, and it was determined that that was not a positive decision. So at this point, there's no intention to continue Rimaway into the area we're looking at today, but I think it's still, in our knowledge, that it's still feasible to come to the south. it's not a collector street it's a local street and it continues down and also connects to Dogwood Trace on a map you can see Agape continues into Jessamine County and I believe there's a road here I'm not sure of the name that's also a collector and then on just the other side is a commercial development the Kroger Shopping Center there aren't any connections to the other side over here this would be the only connection short of coming out to Old Higbee Mill and then to Harrodsburg Road so the connection again in the past there was an argument for connecting down here but that didn't occur or down here Ms. Mundy? And I'm not sure if this is for you, Tracy, but there was an allusion made to the fact that a lot of these little subdivisions didn't know about this coming forth. We send out notice. Is that not correct? Yes, ma'am, we do. Okay, thank you. We notify all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, and then we are also required to notify registered neighborhood associations as well. So Dogwood Trace and Firebrook received notice within about 10 days of the application being filed. And I don't know their internal communication strategies for relaying that information to individual property owners, but the neighborhood associations are also notified. So the smaller neighborhoods would have gotten that as well? The old English station road, those property owners probably individually got letters. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? If not, I'm going to close this part of the hearing then and open it up for any discussion among commission members and or subsequently a motion. We'll start this time. Normally I'm last. I'd like to thank everyone for coming today and expressing their concern. Living in Lexington for 40 years, I can remember when Firebrook was a farm and had horses running on it. We have seen one zone change request a few years ago on this, and here's a second one. Unfortunately, I can say something's going to happen with this property at some point in time. But I do appreciate everyone's concern. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. I do echo that concern, and thank you to the neighbors. There were many letters that we've read, and there are many neighbors in the audience, and we are most appreciative of that because it's when neighbors and developers work together that really everyone comes out with a better situation. That being said, the goals and objectives of 2012, number E, B, states, encourage compact, contiguous, and are mixed-use sustainable development within the urban service area. as guided by market demand to accommodate future growth needs. And from that, I would think that this development probably meets the criteria. Otherwise, though, I have concerns about agape. As a collector's street, it should be 36 feet. But we've learned that it's at some point only 31. So I really question that at this point. Thank you. Others? Dr. Heidi. First of all, I would like to say that I am very sensitive to hearing what the neighbors and the residents have said regarding both their support and their non-support of the development. I am most concerned about the traffic, the green space, particularly the oak tree. We've thrown in here, and I still have some questions about the borough ground and would like at some point maybe if staff feels like that they need additional time to investigate that more, should we consider that because they were just notified today. On the other hand, I am pro-development, and there's development all around this area. And so I think if an applicant has property and they want to develop it in this way and it meets the comprehensive plan, that we should be supportive of that because it does meet the comprehensive plan. Now, with that being said, I would just like to have, and I'm saying to my peers here on the commission, more time it just seems to make this work a little bit better. I don't know what we can do about the traffic, but there obviously is going to be a traffic problem or concern. I don't know what we can do with that from the development, the applicant's standpoint. I don't know about the road. It doesn't sound like the bridge is going to be built. Certainly we want to respect the tree. So I'm just wondering if we need just a bit more time to look at those things. I realize we're dealing with the zoning and not the final development plan, but I want to say that all in conclusion, that I just feel like both the neighborhood associations and the applicant and the staff maybe could make this a little bit easier for us to move through this while we're in discussion. Thank you. Mr. Penn? I've looked at this piece of property at least twice since I've been on the Planning Commission. This is a lot better thing than we saw the first time. The tree, I think, can be done. It does create challenges. The spring is an issue to me, and I'm hoping you all will do that in the final development plan. That's what I would assume that you would do. That's what I would hope you do, and that's what I'm going to be looking for. this piece of property is going to be developed. It's not going to be kept as AU. It's not going to be kept. Nobody's going to farm it. It has significant challenges, as a lot of things do. I'm going to support this today, and I'm going to support it for two reasons. One is I believe that the two things that I'm most concerned about, which is the tree and the spring, can be managed and can be handled. The other thing is that if Agape was allowed to be, and I know it was, down to 31 feet, I'm going to go back and look on the minutes. I probably voted for that, and that's an unintended consequence, and that bothers me. I did not think Agape was always intended to be a collector's street. But if that's the case, then it's too narrow. How do you fix that? Well, you fix that by not allowing people to park on one or both sides of the street. Now, you all can fuss, you all can do whatever. If it winds up being a collector street, and if that's what staff says it is, then that's the way you do it. Now, nobody's going to like that, but if you don't build a bridge, and if you don't adapt to Agape, and you don't have a helicopter, you've got to drive out of there somewhere or other. So I don't like this plan as far as being ideal, but I don't know what you're going to do entirely to make it better, and so therefore I'm going to support it as bad as I hold my nose to do it. Please give us a little bit of respect. We've been here listening to everyone. Mr. Brewer? Yeah, so to everybody in the audience, we are listening to what you say, Regardless of how the vote goes today, we appreciate you coming down, expressing your opinions. This is clearly not an easy decision to make. I'm along the lines of Frank who said I think it's the best we're going to get. So I'm ready to make a motion for approval if the commission is ready. Any other comments from commission members? Mr. Wilson. I don't know where this would fit in, but I would like to include in the staff's recommendations that were approved right now that they're 13. And I would like to add the 14th. I understand that the architectural surveys indicate, but I have two issues connected with that. One is no one really actually knows where this Indian burial ground is. And so I'd like to add in something to the fact that if it's determined during the excavation or during the development portion of this that an Indian burial ground is on that property, that appropriate action would be taken to remove the remains and appropriately place them in another acceptable place. That's what I would like to recommend for them. I don't know what. I believe we could probably take care of that at the zoning development motion. Okay. with revised conditions. Any other comments? If not, we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of MAR 2013-13. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of MAR 2013-13. If I may, let me ask one question. We've got revised conditions that was submitted. I believe it's before you all, or it's revised conditions for zoning restrictions. This is what was submitted by the applicant? Yes. Are you okay with it? I'm fine. Sure. Including the revised conditional use. Okay. And you're okay with the second? Yes. For the reasons supported by the staff. We've got a motion for approval with the revised conditional zoning restrictions that was submitted by the applicant, subject to the approval of us and reasons submitted by the staff. Motion was made and seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Now we need a motion for the Zone and Development Plan 2013-58 revisions on the blue sheet that's before you. And, Mr. Wilson, in regards to your question, we could add something in regards to the possible burial grounds. I believe Mr. Martin, didn't you, I think I wrote it down, and anyone's welcome to change to resolve location of burial grounds at time of final development plan? Would that be appropriate? Beep that, please, sir. Resolve location of burial grounds at time of final development plan? I think the issue is that it's not on the subject property. So I had my condition. That would certainly work. But I believe the applicant will document that the archaeological site is not on the subject property at the time of a final development plan. I believe that's the heart of the issue is that it's not on their property. Okay. Yes, Mr. Wilson. I think the reason, I don't think it hurts anybody, quite frankly, as it is. But here's the issue that I'm making. First of all, the only people that have done actually a survey is the developer, and they've got a vested interest in this, which is why I felt like a little bit of protection would be helpful because based on what I heard, too, is that the Indian burial grounds might be somewhere south where they've already built houses on it. So I felt like it wouldn't hurt the developer in one hour. They feel confident and confident and comfortable in their assessment. But since it was not done by an independent entity as such, I just want to be sure that we're protected on that. We're fine with the condition as he described it. Excuse me, would you please? I'm not going to put it up on the screen because you won't be able to leave my writing. And I get fussed at a lot by some staff members about that. Read it back to us. I denote the applicant will document that the archaeological site is not on the subject property at the time of final development. Has that already been done? Has that already been done? Okay. So there's a possible 14th condition. We still need a motion. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of ZDP 2013-58 with the 13 previous conditions, as well as the addition of the 14th. Mr. Martin, just right? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of ZDP 2013-58 with now 14 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion also passes. I would once again like to thank everyone for coming. We're going to take five-minute recess and be back for a few text amendments. Thank you. We have a few text amendments that Mr. Jim Marks is going to walk us through. The first one, I believe, is on page 3, the Zota 2013-4 Vehicle Repair Accessory to a Residential Use. Mr. Marks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon, everyone. Some of these you all have seen three or four times, with the exception of Mr. Drake. This will be your first time, lucky guy. So my plan is to kind of go through these fairly briefly along the way, identify any issues that have come up in the various work sessions or the zoning committee meeting. That was fairly recently. This first one, vehicle repairs, I guess has been the smoothest of all so far. The zoning committee actually recommended approval of this one. I'm not aware of any significant issues on this one at this point. Just to kind of get your juices flowing, we really need to identify some criteria for what kind of vehicle repairs can be undertaken accessory to residential use for private purposes, not for business purposes. The ordinance is really not clear in that regard. The most critical features of this one on your draft text there is items B, C, and D. Under B, major repairs would only be allowed in the interior of a building, things like repairing an engine, rebuilding a transmission, that kind of thing. At outdoor locations, only one vehicle could be repaired at a time for a limited duration of time. And then item D, which is probably the most important of all these, you can only work on whether or not you're thinking it's for a business or for private purposes. You can only work on cars that are owned by actual occupants of that property, that residence. This one's really important because a big problem we get into with enforcing vehicle repairs is having to prove in some instances that it's a business. And it's really hard to document that money exchange has taken place and we get lots of stories from people. You know, I'm repairing my friend's car, a family member's car that lives across town, all that kind of thing. So with item D here, we won't have to get into all that about whether it's a business or not. Regardless of whether it's a business or for private purposes, you can only work on cars that are owned by occupants of the residence. So do you want to do these one by one, Mr. Chairman? Okay. Do you all have any questions on vehicle repairs? Any questions? If anyone in the audience wishes to speak on this text amendment, if not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Plumlee? Okay, move approval of ZODA 2013-4 Vehicle Repair Accessory to Residential Use. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Mr. Marks, before I forget, Stephanie, on that zone change, I voted yes on both of those. The zone and development plan, I think, registered me as abstaining for some reason. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Marks, please continue. Okay. We're ready for the next one? Yes, sir. Okay. 2013-5. This is parking and storage of business vehicles, trailers, equipment, and associated materials. This is probably the one of the four that's gotten the most attention so far. It's probably the most complicated. A couple of issues that have come up. One's relatively minor. One's fairly major. If you look on your draft there, item B, I think a couple of times we've had a request that if we're going to limit folks to a 12-foot trailer, a business trailer at a residential area, that we shouldn't limit it to a single axle. And we've verified that, yes, indeed, 12-foot trailers do frequently have twin axles, and we don't want to penalize somebody that happens to have a two-axle trailer. so we're willing to modify that just to delete single axle in the way B is written there so it would just read one business trailer per dwelling and on. So we consider that a fairly minor change. We don't have any concerns at all with making that change. The other perhaps more significant issue, I think, centered around item D, especially at the zoning committee, there was a lot of confusion and misunderstanding, and I'm taking all the blame for that with regard to how D is going to work. The idea there was to limit the types of stuff that could be put in, especially with the rudder equipment, in that 12-foot trailer or less that's allowed. And I think this came down to something that maybe looked good on paper, but really in practical reality is not going to work that well. The idea that maybe what should be allowed is stuff that's customarily seen at a residential property for residential use. We went back and looked at some of our old cases and have kind of come to the conclusion at this point that this provision, letter D, really is not going to help us all that much in responding what we think is the right way to complaints from neighbors. It may actually make it more difficult. For example, you can imagine the arguments we'll get into with people about, well, what's customarily used by a residential homeowner. or I can guarantee you we'll get into arguments with people about that. And I think to illustrate this point, maybe I can show a photo or two. This is an example of a vehicle under the proposed revision to the text that certainly would fall under the allowed vehicle. The trailer is less than 12 feet or less, so it would be allowed. But look at this. This is a water storage tank. This particular business was some kind of detailing and pressure cleaning business. That wouldn't be allowed under this provision D as it's currently written because that's not the type of equipment that customarily a homeowner has around the property to use for residential purposes. If you imagine that particular trailer loaded with maybe landscaping equipment, a couple of lawnmowers and some weed eaters, is that any more or less likely to disturb a neighbor than the water tank? And we kind of came to the conclusion that no, not really. So maybe we shouldn't be nitpicking with folks about what they can put in their 12-foot trailers. That's where I'm getting at here. So that kind of illustrates this dilemma of maybe being too detailed about what's allowed in that 12-foot trailer. So those are the two issues. We're willing to make those changes. I imagine we might want to discuss Item D a bit, especially the zoning committee members that are here again today, because I think that was the source of confusion or concern, Item D. So we would be willing to just take out D entirely. I don't think there would be a really big downside to doing that, to be honest with you. I'm sorry, that last statement, you were willing to take out what? Just delete item D there entirely. Basically what that would do is say if you get your 12-foot trailer, as far as equipment goes, you can put what you need for your business in that 12-foot trailer. We're not going to nitpick with you about what goes in the trailer. Okay. Mr. Kravins, you've got a question. Yeah, the 12 feet, is that the total length of the trailer including the tongue, or is that the storage part of it? I looked at that again this morning to see how manufacturers measure it, and they measure it by the deck length or the bed length. So that would be what we would be consistent with how the manufacturers measure their trailer. So it would not include the tongue length. It would be the usable space in the trailer, either the bed or the deck. Ms. Blandon? I just wanted to, for those of you who are in zoning committee, to kind of expand upon the comments on item D. I guess one of my points was just, is that any uglier than two lawnmowers and some leaf blowers? And so if it's not, then why would we care about it? That goes to D. Yeah. Okay. Mr. Penn? I think you're exactly right on the two wheels and the two axles because most new 12, 14-foot trailers are dual axles. And so it'd have to be an old one or one you bought at Walmart or something to be a one axle. The other thing is that if you really will hold the line on construction materials, junk, scrap, that kind of stuff, you can focus on that. And, you know, I agree with what Carla just said. There's, you know, beauties in the eyes of the beholder, and how do you differentiate between those types of things? So I think you've done it very well, but I was going to bring up the two-axle thing because I couldn't find one that wasn't dual-axle. Okay, good. We're on the same page there. Anything else? Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this? Yes, sir? How was this handled before? I mean, this is a whole new article, right? This is 3-9. Yes, it is. This was handled before entirely based on how the word storage is defined. A real strict interpretation of that is that a single vehicle is allowed as it's described with the weight limits and the axle limits. A real strict interpretation might be that trailers at all aren't allowed. We have got into circumstances where we had to ask our law department, well, if the trailer is attached to the vehicle, is it really considered part of the vehicle or not? And they said, well, in some circumstances somebody might have a good argument that the trailer is actually part of the vehicle. So there's a need here to clarify what is intended in terms of what's allowable in terms of a trailer. So that's why we got into this amount of detail. as far as trailers go. Of course, the definition as it's written doesn't get into what you can store in the one truck. It's allowed. We have cases. I can show you pictures of scrap metal piled really high up in the bed of a truck, and that's really what's disturbing to a neighbor. So there was a need to clarify what kind of stuff you can put in the vehicle as well as the trailers. And that's addressed by item E, which we feel pretty strongly that should remain in the revision. Anything else? Yes, sir. I have a question, Mr. Chairman, so that I understand this correctly. Is this saying that none of these prohibited vehicles can be parked overnight? Is that what it's actually saying? That's correct. And this all applies to just residential zones. So now a number of these vehicles are permitted to be parked overnight. Well, no, they're subject to the limit as it's in the top of this draft where it says storage. That's how it's defined right now, and it says storage does not include overnight parking in residential zones of a single vehicle with no more than two axles and no more than three tons. So certain types of vehicles that don't meet that exception are not allowed right now. The problem with that is it doesn't specify what the three tons is, gross vehicle weight rating or curb weight, so we're trying to clear that up as well with this text amendment. Thank you. Anything else? If not, I'll entertain a motion. You want to do it? Go right ahead. Anyone? Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of ZOTA 2013-5, eliminating D and changing single axle to dual axle. Just to clarify, I thought that Jim's recommendation was to delete single axle entirely and make it one business trailer. One business trailer, whether it's got a single axle or a dual axle. Okay. All right. Excuse me. I stand corrected. So the motion is, let's change single axle to business trailer. Yes. Check out D. Delete D. Okay. Okay. And second? Yes. Motion has been made and seconded. Everyone clear? Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Next. Okay, number three here is 2013-6 relating to temporary signs. The current provisions for temporary signs are that permits aren't required. You can have a temporary sign up for 30 days at a time and for up to 150 days over the course of a year, which is a pretty long time period for what's something that was intended to be a temporary sign to advertise a special event or a change in operation in a business, that kind of thing. So under what we're proposing here, we want to kind of significantly reduce that time frame down to two weeks at a time, no more than eight weeks for an entire year. The permitting question is actually what came up at the zoning committee as a pretty significant concern. I can tell you we've kind of gone back and gone over the different alternatives to permitting that we looked at pretty seriously because we knew that the permitting question, that's a big jump from something not requiring permits at all to requiring permits. The various alternatives we looked at were, number one, just having people that wanted to put up a temporary sign send us a notice so we know what's going on. We actually looked at whether or not we could issue little registration stickers that you could put on temporary signs just to verify that they're okay for a certain time period. The kind of problem with that is it's still a lot of work. Stickers don't stick on certain materials so well, and a lot of these temporary signs are very flimsy, flexible material that it would be hard to get something to stick to those. And our third idea we looked at, which is something I actually kind of promoted for a while, was the idea of totally abandoning the whole concept of temporary signs, just up the square footage that's allowed on a property and let people decide whether they want it to be permanent signage or temporary signage, so it would just be a blanket square footage allotment for a property. For various reasons, all three of these were discarded as not being workable or the best way to do it. That's where we ended up at the conclusion that we really do need to start requiring permits for temporary signs. In recognition of it's going to be a burden, maybe for building inspection to take this on, We are recommending that it be done on an annual basis. You don't have to get a permit for every two-week time slot that you want to have a temporary sign-up. You could do it for the course of a year. So we're hoping that would be a pretty major simplification to the overall process. So I think I'm ready for questions on that one. Ms. Blanton? Can you walk me through how I would go about getting this stuff to come down? Do I have to pay a fee? what's the process as a business? Okay. I know that came up with the abatement question. So if you want to pull out your abatement one, which is number four, and temporary signage are closely related because signage is one of the major reasons we thought we needed to expand our abatement authority. But the last page of your handout there, and I'll go ahead and put this up on the overhead. Get set the process. That was your question, right? Kind of what's the overall process? Yeah, okay. Make sure we're on the right track here. When a zoning compliance issue comes up, whether it's signage or something else, or we get a complaint about a zoning issue, this is kind of a very general rundown of how we go about addressing that. First, of course, we investigate and attempt to document whether or not an actual zoning violation has taken place, And that involves a lot of work looking at different things. If we do document that a zoning violation has taken place. I'm sorry to interrupt. That wasn't my question. I apologize. My question is to get the permit, to get a temporary sign put up. Right now there's no permitting at all required, so you can just put it up. Okay, if this passes. Under the proposed, we'd have to work with building inspection to see how they wanted to run that permitting program. An applicant would have to come in the office, fill out an application, give them a certain amount of information. Typically a fee is required for a permit. The minimum amount, what is it, someone help me out here, maybe $25, is pretty much the minimum fee for getting a permit. Ms. Mundy? I just want to be sure that I'm not going to get in trouble. I'm going to ask one more time. What do I do about my temporary signs on Sunday for open house when I put them out by the street? I think for now, and this is touchy, so I'll try to word this the right way, but for now I think you're safe as long as you're not putting them up where they're more than three foot tall and interfering with driver visibility. If such a sign goes up on a Friday afternoon and is removed on a Sunday evening, then it hasn't been a problem with enforcement. And this is primarily since most of those go kind of in the right-of-way. I've talked to David Jarvis, who's director of code enforcement, and he's indicated to me that it hasn't been a problem. So I just have to make sure the ground is soft so I can get it down below 350. Get that thing low enough where we don't get a complaint from somebody that they can't see and somebody got blindsided because they couldn't see a car coming at an intersection. Yeah, that's a big safety issue. Yeah, and I could see that. Okay, because now that I'm in this position, I don't want to know what I'm saying. Thank you. Ms. Finn. I don't want to see Ms. Mundy go to the penitentiary. Thank you. I wouldn't do that well. What about political signs and that type of thing, candidate signs? Are they going to have to come get a permit to put those up? No, those are exempt. They're specifically listed in the ordinance as exempt. As exempt. And they're even more exempt than how it's listed in the ordinance based on the input we got from our law department. Yeah, I mean, what else is exempt? I don't know if it's listed in the draft there. It probably is. Let me look real quick. And I'm looking at a bait. Real estate signs. Construction signs. Government signs. Yeah, real estate, government signs. All those that are listed that way as exempt won't have to get permits. So that's a pretty big category of signage there that won't have to get permits. Incidental signs, nameplains. Okay. All right. Other questions? Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this? If not, yes, sir. Mr. I see all this list of exempted signs, but what's a temporary sign that somebody would have to come down and get a permit for? Most of those are business signs, banners, and I can show some pictures of the ones typically you see around town if that will help. Signs attached in windows of storefronts or along walls of storefronts. They're typically very flexible, like poster-like material. I saw one out at a car dealership that was about 40 feet tall that had Coach Cal on it, so I guess it's okay or not. Yeah, maybe, maybe not. Other questions? That raises a question. Did I understand you to say then that banners on the front of a business are a temporary sign? Yes. If you're having a weekend sale or something like that, you put up a campus banner? Yes. Right now the... Podes are not prohibited now, is that right? If they're attached to a window or a wall, they're not prohibited. There's size limits, and like I said, you can only have them up for 30 days, and most people leave them up. But with this change, they would have to obtain a permit. Yes. Other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. I appreciate all the work that you've done on all of these and looking into other things. I think you're creating a lot of work for yourself, and I think you're creating an onus on a business owner that I just don't think is necessary. So I'm going to move disapproval of COTA 2013-4. Second. Did she move disapproval? Disapproval. The motion was for disapproval. Carl? Yeah. Motion is made by Ms. Blanton, seconded by Mr. Cravens for disapproval. Any further discussion? If not, please vote when it comes up. Motion failed. Maybe not. One, two, three, four. The motion is tied. Yes, sir. May I suggest then with the tie vote that we refer this back for further discussion. It is the Commission's amendment. We would not want to advance, obviously, any text amendment to the Council that was commission-initiated at this point with a disapproval. But we would like to work on this. I would just like to point out, again, I know we're done with the voting, that there's been a significant cost with us in trying to enforce these as well. And not knowing when the clock starts on any sign, when we get myriad complaints on these signs, we'd like to continue to work with these, see if we can find something that will satisfy the majority of the commission on this. Very good. With a tie vote, do we need another vote? or just postpone it? I don't think so, or postpone it. Refer the review by committee. Want to postpone it? Sure. So we would have an opportunity to discuss this again in a work session? Work session? Yes. Okay. Can I ask one quick question? Is the main concern the permitting, or are you also concerned about the reduced time that's allowed for temporary signs? I'm happy to answer that. I'm concerned about the permitting. Okay. It just helps us a lot to know what more research to do and where to go. Right. I mean, I understand that there's a big problem for you, and I'd like that we could solve that. If there could be an online, I'm a business owner, I can fill something out online, you have a record of it so you know when the clock starts ticking, I have a record of it in case there's a complaint, boom, we're done, I'm okay with that. We'll take a close look at that and see if there's something workable there. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we postpone COTA 2013, Day 6, and consider it a work session. Motion has been made for postponement. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Mr. Marks, one more. Okay, last one, abatement. Under the current provisions of the ordinance, we have authority to do abatement, which is basically going to fix the problem ourselves, a zoning violation, or by hiring a contractor. But that authority is very limited to just something that's considered a public health safety or welfare issue. or a situation where there's some sort of irreparable harm being created or done. Those two things are a very high standard, and to my knowledge, in the 12 years I've been Board of Adjustment, which frequently got involved in enforcement cases, and in the year and a half I've done it since it got transferred from building inspection, we've never had a case come up where it met that standard. So for all practical purposes, that really hasn't been a tool as far as resolving zoning violations. I mean, it may come up in the future. I'm not saying abandon that. and it needs to stay there, but what we want to do is expand abatement authority to include what we're calling a continuing public nuisance. This is probably pretty bad timing based on what you did, but I'll just do it anyway. This is first sign, pictures of a signage situation. Sorry, I jumped ahead too fast. A question came up at Zoning Committee, well, where does abatement fit into the overall process of enforcement? So that's this description here. So let me finish that real quickly. We talked about investigate and document, attempt to resolve informally if we can. If that doesn't work and there's a zoning violation, we have to issue what's called a notice of violation, a formal legal document that identifies specifically what provision in the zoning ordinance has been violated and also gives the person a time frame to fix the violation. If they don't fix the violation within that time frame, then we move on to D here, which is to assess civil penalties. The first assessment defines $75, and then there's a progression with successive fines up to $300 for a fourth offense. And this is where it kind of all starts to fall apart to some extent. If you're dealing with someone who's just uncooperative, whether they pay their fine or they don't pay their fine, and they just leave the violation in place, what do we do? Well, historically, what we've done is have to make a decision whether to take somebody to court or not. There's basically two court options that are available. One is to file a criminal complaint with the Fayette County Attorney's Office. If they accept that and are willing to prosecute the person, it ends up going to district court. The other option which has come into play very recently with the Boone Creek situation is to file an injunctive relief request with circuit court. Again, another court action. So our position is that there are certain categories of violation where you get to this step D and finding somebody just doesn't work. Surely there's a way to resolve the problem without having to go to court. So this first picture is of a temporary signage. This is the kind of thing, y'all, that we get complaints about all the time. I think we'll have to rotate that. There we go. Thanks, Barb. This is just flat out a legal type of signage that you find pretty much all over town. So what if the person just doesn't want to take these down? They either pay a fine or don't pay a fine. Does it make sense to take this person to court? No, it doesn't make sense at all in our mind to do that. So all we're asking for is once a violation has been confirmed, if the owner doesn't fix the problem, if we go through the legal process of their appeal options and the violation is confirmed or upheld, for example, through the Infrastructure Hearing Board, then this text amendment would give staff the authority to go there and just take the signs down ourselves or hire a contractor to take the signs down. So that's what we're asking for. And it's not just signage. This is a site in a residential zone. What's the most reasonable way to try to get something like this cleaned up? Again, we don't think we should have to go to court to try to get that cleaned up. we should be able to, in that case, probably hire a contractor to go in there and clean it up. And this is another site, all kinds of debris on a residential property. The next one was actually, I think, a roofing business in the driveway in a residential zone. So these are the kind of situations where, you know, going to court is a big step. It's very timely, to be frank with you. They don't like dealing with this kind of issue. there's got to be a simpler way, a more efficient, timely way that we can get some of these problems cleaned up more efficiently. So that's what we're asking for. We understand it's a big step, and we understand we're going to have to be very careful. And we also understand we're going to be working with Tracy, our attorney, to come up with some very well-thought-out procedures on how to give everybody their chance to do this before we do the abatement. So that's it for me on that one. I'd be happy to answer questions. Questions? Ms. Plumlee. Yeah. Did I read that correctly? Like you started at 75 and then went up in increments? Yes. So that's been very patient of you. That's what the ordinance says, so that's what we've got to do for now. Mr. Cravens. Yeah, I don't know. I hate to, I think there's something wrong with this, the way you have it there. Does the threat of court taking somebody to court, does that help them decide they're going to clean their, take their sign down or clean their yard up? It might in some cases. I can tell you a little bit about a recent court case that was a junkyard situation. pretty similar to one of those pictures you saw where the owner was just uncooperative and we took him to court. We just had a trial. Believe it or not, a junkyard case went to trial with a six-person jury. Can you believe that? They don't know anything about zoning issues. The judge said he didn't know anything about zoning issues. It was just the most bizarre experience you could ever imagine, sitting there and having a jury attempt to address a zoning issue. It's just something we should try to avoid at all costs if we can. Okay, well, did you think about, I mean, in real estate cases, we have mediation. I mean, is there some way you could go to mediation? Well, that particular case, we did go to mediation, and the person promised to do this and that and didn't do a single thing. So it just delayed the whole thing by another four months. So it doesn't always work out that way. That's one case you're talking about. Yeah, I understand. That's the one case this year we had to go to court on, at least criminal court. I mean, I wouldn't want to put you all in a position of having to go out there and take a beer sign down off of that fence. Of course, it looked like I was on a horse farm. What in your farm was it, Frank? But, you know, somebody, I mean, that's dangerous to go out, walk on there and start taking people's property down and removing it. I think in that case we would probably walk in the store and say, you know, we've sent you all notices. We gave you the deadline. This is your last chance. Can you want to go over there and remove those, or do you want us to do it? Jim, let me ask you this. The civil penalty, 75-150-225-300, is that for the first violation, and then the second violation for the same thing, and the third violation? Yes, the same. When they don't clean it up or take it out? Right, exactly. Each time we have to document that the violation is still there. I know I can't do it today, but I would offer a suggestion to get something started and let's just eliminate the $75 charge. You know, $75 for the effort that you all put forth and so forth just really doesn't go anywhere. And, you know, that's after they've already been notified and given a chance to fix the problem. I would say just eliminate that and go straight to 150, but that will possibly come later. Other questions? If not, anyone in the audience wishes to speak on this. If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Wilson. Well, first of all, I think all this is, and I say it again, you have my deepest condolences trying to figure this out. and what have you. But I look at this as though you all of the staff have thought about this and you've thought about the best way you can go about it. And so I'm willing to support you to the degree I can. So I'll make a motion that we approve the ZOTA 2013-7 Abatement of Zoning Ordinance Violations with the conditions approved by staff. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, Jim. Thank you all very much. I guess I'll be back in touch with you on that other. Next would be under Commission items on page 6, a request for initiation of expansion to an existing H-1 overlay zone. It's my understanding of this before addresses of 611, 638, and 640. and 644 Ballard Street, and then 149, 151, and 153 Jefferson Street, and a real portion of 509 West Short Street. Did Ms. Wade leave? Who's presenting this? Do we give it? I thought it was going to be Tracy. While we're waiting for Tracy or someone, can we go on with Barb and do the public facility review, 201-3-4 Fayette County Public Schools. This will be for an early childhood program at 465 Spring Hill Drive. It's under Commission Items B on your agenda on page 6. and I believe you do have a tan colored sheet before you that has that. Yes. Good afternoon. This is a request by Bayek County Public Schools for a purchase of a property of 465 Spring Hill Drive. It is right across from Lafayette High School and it's totally zoned residentially all around it. We have Lafayette Parkway here and Spring Hill Drive and this is the property right there that is in question. They purchased the property recently to locate their early childhood education program. The property is about two acres in size, and it's got an existing building on there. If you want to put the next slide up there, please. Thank you. It has an existing building. It's almost 56,000 square feet in size, and it's one story. and if you can clear that up a little bit but it's this property right here you can see the building there and I think there's a play area in the back and then the parking area is all right here in the front they're not proposing any major changes to the property they're only going to do minor renovation on the inside like painting and that kind of thing to get it ready for Fayette County Public Schools to occupy the property the comp plan recommends public education for this property which includes all facilities for the public schools. This was formerly the Child Development Center of the Bluegrass property. They were located there for several years. They were started in 1958 and they offer several services to children from age six weeks to kindergarten age. They have a full-day preschool program and they offer speech, physical, and occupational therapy when needed and they also offer evaluation and assessment for children. The Fayette County Preschool Center will continue to do these same services at this location. They'll have three classrooms. They'll serve about 96 children. And their program consists of three-year-olds with diagnosed special needs and four-year-olds that qualify based on income and or the fact that they have a special need. There are two half-day sessions, preschool sessions. One goes from early morning to mid-morning, and the other one goes from late morning to early afternoon. And in addition to the education classes, they also offer therapy as needed, and that's based on the child's individualized educational program or plan. They'll have screening and evaluation meetings to determine the level of need for each child, and then they also have annual review meetings, and the faculty and the staff and the families all participate in these meetings. There will be several specialists, educational specialists, as well as an audiologist on site, and there will be about 26 staff members in all. And they plan to collaborate with the Head Start program as far as assessing hearing disabilities in the children. And then in addition to the staff, Lafayette High School students, they're right across the street, Lafayette High School students will help with the volunteer as far as answering telephones and working in the classrooms with the children. and some of these students have disabilities and some don't it will not matter there are several goals and objectives that apply to this as well as the text and it's all in support and the goals and objectives are listed on pages two and three of your staff report and the early childhood program as you know the fayette county public schools has an overall goal of being a world class school system by 2020 the early childhood program is one aspect of this it's not an academic school in and of itself, but it does prepare the children for their school experience, and in that way, it helps to go towards this larger overall goal. There is one issue with the property. As you can see, there is a large amount of FEMA floodplain along here, and this area has historically suffered from flooding problems. And so there aren't any reasons to require them to do any mitigation as far as the building goes or anything like that and make any kind of changes for flood proofing or anything like that because they're not doing anything to the outside of the building, and it is 35 feet from the floodplain. But in the event that they do in the future, we ask that they go through the Division of Engineering to be sure that they comply with the floodplain resolution or the floodplain ordinances and that there is no problem with their expansion or whatever they choose to do, if they choose to do it in the future. We have found this to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. It's supported by the goals and objectives, the land use element, and the text of the plan. The only recommendation is, as I said, even though they're exempt from zoning ordinance requirements, it has to comply with state building code requirements, and it's recommended that any applicable reviews be conducted and permits obtained from the State of Kentucky's Division of Building and any kind of exterior changes to the property be reviewed by our Division of Engineering just for the purpose of health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the building. If you have any questions about the staff report, I'd be glad to answer them. Ms. Whitney Stevenson is here from the Early Childhood Program to answer any questions you might have about that. Any questions for Barbara or Ms. Stevenson? This wasn't a home. Was this part of the old bus garage, or what was this? I don't think so. I think it's been the early childhood center for a long time, the Bluegrass. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this? If not, if there are no other questions, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Move approval of PFR 2013-4, staff report on Fayette County Public Schools' purchase of property for early childhood program for the reasons outlined in the staff report and with the recommendation. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of PFR 2013-4. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, Bart. Thank you. Ms. Wade, hi. We missed you a moment ago. I'm sorry. I apologize for stepping away. This is simple. I believe the last item on our agenda today is a request to initiate an expansion to an existing historic district in Lexington. It's the Western Suburb Historic District. and we've had a request from Bill Johnston, who's the president of the neighborhood, to add initially five parcels to the H-1 overlay. And as we've gone through the process, an additional property has been requested to be added. Let me just go through this. The existing H-1 boundaries are a little irregular. They're shown in a red outline on our map on the overhead. And in general, we have Newtown Pike on this side. And this is Main Street. So it does cross Main Street. And Short Street, West Short Street. And Ballard Street. And then this is Second Street. So this historic district does not get all the way to 2nd Street, but does cross Main Street towards the Cox Street parking lot. The properties proposed for addition are shown in green here. There are three that have Ballard Street addresses, and they are 611 Ballard Street, 638 and 640 Ballard Street, 644 Ballard Street. There's a West Short Street address, which is the rear portion of this lot, and then two addresses on Jefferson Street. One is 149 and 151, I think, and then 153 Jefferson. Excuse me. I think it's 149 and 151. This is the 149 and 151 Jefferson Street. It's the yellow house kind of behind the trees there that you can't really make out very well. That was the best picture I could manage of that property. Adjacent, the 153 Jefferson Street is a larger two-story green structure, residential structure this is the front of 609 West short Street and then it is the front is already in the Western suburb historic district but the back where the tree or where the trees are and the cars are parked along Ballard is not included yet this is across the street from that at 611 Ballard Street and then this is 638 and 640 Ballard Street it's a duplex and then lastly 644 Ballard Street. Mr. Johnston proposed that these properties be added to the historic district in order to protect them. And he is currently the owner of several of the properties or they are within a trust that he is, I believe, a member of. Is that correct? Or beneficiary of, maybe? I'm not a trustee. Okay. He's involved, and he has preserved or protected many of these properties, and so he has an interest in seeing them protected into the future. There are technically four property owners, and we had postcards mailed out per our bylaws for any proposed overlay, and we received a response rate of 100%, which is wonderful. and all respondents were supportive of the expansion of the H-1 boundary. So I didn't prepare a map of that since everyone was in support. Normally you'd see my red and yellow and green map, but the change from the zoning committee was that the Naylor's property at 609 West Short Street, Mr. Johnson approached them and asked if they'd be willing to have the rear portion of their property included in this proposal for initiation, and they were agreeable to that. In fact, they thought because they consolidated it to the rest of the parcel several years ago that it was just by that action part of the H-1. So in that regard, it won't change their activity on the property in any way. The next step for this, if the commission initiates the H-1, is for that to go to historic preservation, and they would do a study of the parcels and a report about whether this should be included in the existing historic district. That would go in front of the Board of Architectural Review. They would make a recommendation back to the Planning Commission, and then the Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the Council as per a regular zone change. Questions for Ms. Vain? You answered the one I had. We had a letter as well from the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation that supports this expansion. Yes, sir. Mr. Drake. Yes. Just to help me orient myself, on this plat here, the property adjacent to one of the requested changes, 159, is that Nick Ryan's Steakhouse? It is. Thank you. And then along Jefferson, the two properties that are on the opposite side of Ballard that aren't included. Let me go back. Probably helps if they're on here. Like Stella's Deli. it was logical across Ballard here to include them here in a small parking lot, but at this point they were not interested in being included because they had plans to make some improvements on their property that they think would not be approved, I guess, by the BOAR or would be modified in some regard, so they opted not to be included, and Mr. Johnson was really trying to find a way to connect the three parcels on the other side of Ballard with the rest of the existing historic district. Other questions? If not, anyone in the audience wish to comment? Well, maybe so. I'm Bill Johnston. I live at 645 West Short. We moved down on West Short Street about 25 years ago, and Ballard Street was in need of some repair. And those two little houses at the corner, the red house and the yellow house, were in horrible condition. The one that had not been lived in for about five years was in better condition, even though the kids in the neighborhood had been playing in it, the one that had been lived in, the one that had been lived in was so bad that the people that I hired to clean it out went home at noon to take showers. And they're not kind of the people that usually take showers at noon. So they were awful, and they were falling down. In fact, the little yellow house, half the brick wall fell down, and we had to rebuild that, and the floors were rotten and sagging, so we fixed those houses up and eventually fixed that little shotgun that is prettier than it looks in the picture actually was about to fall down we fixed that up and I've maintained them over the years recently within the last five or six years we bought what's down the greenhouse next to Nick Ryan's and there was a house next to that that we had to tear down because it was literally resting on the greenhouse's side. And there was an empty lot where people were already torn and launched down, so we consolidated the lot, sold that to Don Walthin from Dick Lyons, and fixed up the greenhouse next to it. So we've got, I personally have a lot of my energy and money in those houses, and I want to make sure that after I'm no longer around to protect them, that somebody is. So that's my motive. Thank you, sir. Ms. Blandon? The greenhouse on Jefferson has been sold, correct, or is being sold? It's being sold, right. Okay. The people that, when I had the listing, when I put the property up for sale in the listing, I stated that the property was in the process of being put into the historic district. Other questions? Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. I really don't have any presentation or comments to make to you all about this. I'm Betty Kerr, Director of Historic Preservation. But I did just want to let you know I'm here should you have any questions. and we are positioned, should you decide today to initiate this application, which we fully support, we're positioned to do the designation study and then get it in the works to go on through the process, as Ms. Wade has noted. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Pimm? Ms. Kerr, let me ask you, because a house is in the historic district, doesn't mean it can't be a restaurant or it can't be a bar? No, sir. The land use or appropriate use is not affected at all. It's just keeping it exterior. It's a design protection for any exterior changes and site improvements. That's what I assume, but I don't like the word assume. Yes, I understand. Well, your, quote, assumption is totally correct. Any other questions? Any other comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion. This is for just that initiation for the request for H-1, expanding the H-1 overlay. Yeah, sure. Go right ahead. Mr. Chairman, I move for starting the process to expand the H-1 overlay on 644 Ballard Street, 639 and 640 Ballard Street, 611 Ballard Street, 149 Jefferson Street, 151 and 153 Jefferson Street for them to be included in the historic H1 overlay. It's not in Mr. Johnston's letter, but in addition, the rear of 609 West Short, did you include that? The rear of 609 West Short would be included in that. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Plumney, are you seconding? Yes. Okay, motion has been made and seconded for the initiation of this H-1 overlay expansion. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Other commission items? Nothing? Anyone from the commission? No? If not, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. And a second? Motion has been made and seconded. Please say aye. Thank you. The break of we had has made me long time insane I realize I love you cause I want you back I spent the evening with the radio Regret the moment that I let you go Our quarrel was such a way of learning so much I know now that I love you cause I need your touch Hey, hey, reunited and it feels so good