# Planning Commission Subdivision Public Hearing - August 14, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 14, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3431 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3431?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-08-14 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 10,470 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 August 14, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which addressed ten agenda items and resulted in eleven motions and votes. The Commission heard two public comments during the session. Of the ten items on the agenda, eight were approved, one was postponed, and one was deferred. The approved items included amendments to the Distillery LLC Properties, Apiary Property LLC, Deerfield Shopping Center (Ollie's Trolley), Distillery District West Unit 1, Lynn Grove Addition, and Manchester Development. The Commission also approved the reapproval of Section 2 of NewMarket Phase I Unit 1E and the LFUCG Compressed Natural Gas Fueling Facility. The Pinehurst Subdivision Lot 33 amendment was postponed, while the Boone Creek Properties LLC reactivation was deferred. ## Attendance **Present:** - Mike Owens - Mike Cravens - Karen Mundy - Carolyn Plumlee - Bill Wilson - Will Berkley - Carolyn Richardson - David Drake - Patrick Brewer **Absent:** - Frank Penn - Joseph Smith **Late:** None reported ## Votes and Decisions All votes taken during this meeting passed unanimously. **Approval of Minutes** [timestamp: 00:09:27] The minutes from July 10, 2014 were approved on a motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Karen Mundy. The vote was 8-0 in favor. **Postponement of DP 2014-64: South Broadway Place (Phases IIA & III), Lynn Grove Addition (AMD)** [timestamp: 00:10:38] A motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Bill Wilson, to postpone this item passed 9-0. **Approval of Consent Agenda Items** [timestamp: 00:15:41] Patrick Brewer moved approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion passed 9-0. **Approval of Release and Call of Bonds** [timestamp: 00:16:46] Mike Cravens moved approval, seconded by Karen Mundy. The vote was 9-0 in favor. **Continuance of Plan 2014-49F: Pinehurst Subdivision, Lot 33 (AMD) for Two Weeks** [timestamp: 00:41:37] Patrick Brewer moved to continue this item, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion passed 9-0. **Approval of Plan 2014-50F: Distillery LLC Properties (AMD) with Revised Condition** [timestamp: 00:51:57] Karen Mundy moved approval of this plan with a revised condition requiring that no zoning compliance permit and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for lots 1, 2, 3, or 4 until sanitary sewer service is provided to the site meeting Kentucky State Plumbing Code requirements and accepted by the Division of Engineering and Division of Water Quality. The motion passed 9-0. **Approval of Waiver for Plan 2013-78F Distillery District** [timestamp: 00:53:09] Karen Mundy moved approval of the waiver. The motion passed 9-0. **Approval of Floodplain Appeals Committee Membership** [timestamp: 00:54:13] Patrick Brewer moved approval of the committee membership. The motion passed 9-0. **Approval of PFR 2014-5: LFUCG Compressed Natural Gas Fueling Facility** [timestamp: 01:05:25] Karen Mundy moved approval. The motion passed 9-0. **Hearing of MARC 2014-1: Boone Creek Properties, LLC on September 25, 2014** [timestamp: 01:17:20] Bill Wilson moved to schedule a hearing on this matter for September 25, 2014, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion passed 9-0. **Review of MARC 2014-1: Boone Creek Properties, LLC in Subdivision Committee** [timestamp: 01:22:14] Carolyn Plumlee moved to have this item reviewed in Subdivision Committee. This motion failed 0-9. ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the meeting regarding the proposed hearing schedule for MARC 2014-1: Boone Creek Properties, LLC. **Dick Murphy** [timestamp: 01:11:19] requested that the hearing be held on August 28th. He emphasized the seasonal nature of the outdoor activity involved and noted a six-month delay in the process. Murphy stressed that the application is not new and that the court ordered the hearing to proceed. **Don Todd** [timestamp: 01:13:58] opposed the August 28th hearing date. He argued that the short notice would unfairly limit neighborhood associations' ability to present their case and that the matter deserves full consideration without time constraints. Todd raised concerns about the lack of safety ordinances and noted that improvements were built before approval was obtained. ## Appointments The following appointments were made during this meeting: * **Fred Eastridge** was reappointed to the Floodplain Appeals Committee * **Doug Mynear** was reappointed to the Floodplain Appeals Committee ## Contested Items **Hearing Date for MARC 2014-1: Boone Creek Properties, LLC** [timestamp: unavailable] A heated discussion arose regarding the scheduling of a hearing for MARC 2014-1 concerning Boone Creek Properties, LLC. The primary point of contention was whether the case should be heard on August 28th or September 25th. Opponents of the August 28th date argued that the short notice period would significantly limit their ability to adequately prepare and present their case. They expressed concern that insufficient time would prevent them from gathering necessary materials and organizing their response. The applicant, conversely, emphasized the urgency of scheduling the hearing as soon as possible, citing seasonal constraints that made timely resolution important to their project timeline. After the discussion, the Commission resolved the dispute by selecting September 25th as the hearing date, rejecting the earlier August 28th option. ## Pinehurst Subdivision, Lot 33 (AMD) **Item 2014-49F** [timestamp: 00:16:11] The Commission discussed a proposal to subdivide Lot 33 into two lots. Key participants in the discussion included Tom Martin, Mike Robbins, Will Berkley, and Karen Mundy. **Concerns and Issues** Staff and the Commission raised two primary concerns about the subdivision plan: * The adequacy of the existing 50-foot access easement * The feasibility of connecting the proposed lots to the sanitary sewer system **Presentations and Solutions** The applicant and staff presented revised plans to address these concerns. A potential solution was discussed involving a proposed sewer line configured at a 45-degree angle to facilitate connection to the sanitary sewer system. **Outcome** The Commission continued the item for two weeks to allow additional time for further review of the revised plans and proposed solutions. The item was not approved at this time. ## Distillery LLC Properties (AMD) The Commission discussed a proposal to subdivide a lot in the Distillery District [timestamp: 00:42:58]. Key speakers included Tom Martin, Justin Jury, Karen Mundy, and Bill Wilson. **Proposal and Key Issue** The primary focus of the discussion centered on a private sewer system that had previously been granted a waiver due to floodplain constraints. The applicant confirmed that this sewer system was currently under construction. **Commission Action** The plan to subdivide the lot was recommended for approval with conditions. The Commission approved the proposal contingent upon a specific requirement: no occupancy permits would be issued until the private sewer system received full approval. This condition ensured that the project could not proceed to occupancy until the sewer infrastructure—a critical component given the floodplain considerations—was completely approved and operational. ## NewMarket, Ph I, Unit 1E (Reapproval of Section 2) **Identifier:** 2006-240F The reapproval of Section 2 of NewMarket, Phase I, Unit 1E was considered as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:11:39]. Key speakers on this item included Chris King and Bill Sallee. The item involved the reapproval of Section 2 with conditions consistent with prior approvals and revisions to the project. No specific concerns or debate regarding this agenda item were documented in the meeting record. **Outcome:** The reapproval was approved. ## Apiary Property, LLC (AMD) **Agenda Item 2014-59** An amendment for Apiary Property, LLC was presented as part of the consent agenda. [timestamp: 00:13:30] **Presentation and Approval** Bill Sallee presented this item, which involved an amendment to cover two patios. The amendment was approved as part of the consent agenda. **Conditions** The approval included conditions related to: - Signage requirements - Drainage specifications - Utility approvals **Outcome** The amendment was approved. ## Deerfield Shopping Center (Ollie's Trolley) (AMD) **Item Number:** 2014-60 **Type:** Consent Agenda Item **Outcome:** Approved The addition of a 4,000 square foot office building to the Deerfield Shopping Center was approved as part of the consent agenda. [timestamp: 00:14:05] Bill Sallee presented this item. The proposal included standard conditions for utility and safety approvals as part of the approval process. ## Distillery District West, Unit 1 (AMD) This item was presented as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:14:35]. **Item Details** The agenda item (2014-62) concerned an amendment to Distillery District West, Unit 1 related to FEMA documentation requirements. **Key Speaker** Bill Sallee presented this item. **Action Taken** The amendment to remove a note about the required LOMR (Letter of Map Revision) from FEMA was approved. The approval included conditions requiring documentation and revisions to project plans. **Outcome** The item was approved as part of the consent agenda. ## Lynn Grove Addition (AMD) The amendment to revise the development of the Lynn Grove Addition was presented as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:15:10]. Bill Sallee addressed this item. The amendment was approved with conditions related to site statistics and utility approvals. No specific concerns or debate regarding this item were documented in the meeting record. The outcome of this agenda item was approval. ## Manchester Development (AMD) The reapproval of the Manchester Development amendment was considered as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:15:10]. Bill Sallee presented this item to the body. The amendment was approved with conditions related to site statistics and use clarification. The approval was granted as part of the consent agenda process, indicating the item was handled among other routine matters requiring formal approval. **Outcome:** Approved ## LFUCG Compressed Natural Gas Fueling Facility The Commission considered a proposal for a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fueling facility at 675 Byrd Thurman Drive [timestamp: 00:55:15]. **Presentation and Compliance** The proposal was presented by Barb Rackers and Troy Poyonk. The facility was found to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Destination 2040. **Project Benefits** The Commission approved the project based on its environmental, economic, and sustainability benefits. **Outcome** The Commission approved the CNG fueling facility proposal (PFR 2014-5). ## Boone Creek Properties, LLC (Reactivation) **Identifier:** MARC 2014-1 Staff presented the reactivated Boone Creek Properties, LLC application to the Commission and requested a decision on whether to schedule a public hearing for the matter. [timestamp: 01:06:25] **Key Speakers:** - Chris King - Dick Murphy - Don Todd **Discussion and Outcome:** Following staff presentation and Commission discussion, the members voted to schedule a public hearing for the case on September 25, 2014. The Commission also declined to require the application to return to the subdivision committee before proceeding to the public hearing. The agenda item was deferred, with the public hearing date set for the September 25, 2014 meeting. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of minutes from July 10, 2014 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Postponement of DP 2014-64: South Broadway Place (Phases IIA & III), Lynn Grove Addition (AMD) - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of Consent Agenda items - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of release and call of bonds - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Continuance of Plan 2014-49F: Pinehurst Subdivision, Lot 33 (AMD) for two weeks - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of Plan 2014-50F: Distillery LLC Properties (AMD) with revised condition - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of waiver for Plan 2013-78F Distillery District - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of Floodplain Appeals Committee membership - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of PFR 2014-5: LFUCG Compressed Natural Gas Fueling Facility - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Hearing of MARC 2014-1: Boone Creek Properties, LLC on September 25, 2014 - **Motion** — failed (0-9): Review of MARC 2014-1: Boone Creek Properties, LLC in Subdivision Committee --- ## Full transcript That you will find the same The biggest fool that ever hit the big time And all I gotta do is crack that believe We'll make a scene about a man that's sad and lonely I beg him down upon his bended knee I'll play the part But I won't need rehearsing All I have to do is act naturally Well, I'll bet you I'm gonna be a big star Might wait an Oscar You can never tell The movies are gonna make me a big star Hey kids, plug into the babies Maybe they're blinded But then it makes them endless We shout to survive Let us take ourselves along We'll fight our parents out in the streets To find this right and wrong Oh, kind of new mom They haven't seen that yet Oh, but the soul stays out B-b-b-b-b-b-banny and the Jets Oh, it's a weird and wonderful Oh, man, she's a red and clean She's got a lefty boot I'm gonna have to And now I read it in a magazine Oh, oh B-b-banny and the Jets Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo For August 14, 2014, first on the agenda, minutes to be approved on July 10, 2014. These were emailed to commission members, and I think maybe there was one correction that got changed as far as who was in attendance at a committee meeting. if there's no other changes I'll entertain a motion Mr. Chairman I'm going to move approval of the July 10th 2014 minutes thank you do we have a second motion has been made and seconded for approval of minutes from July 10th 2014 please vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes thank you folks moving to postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Do we have any? Good afternoon, Mr. Barrett. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Tony Barrett. Page 5, IMD, South Broadway, South 14, 64, South Broadway Place. I'd like to request a one-month postponement. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Ms. Plumlee? Mr. Chair, move to postpone DP 2014-64 South Broadway Place for one month. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded to postpone DP 2014-64 for one month, which officially would be September 11th. No. Yes, sir, I'm sorry. Yes. If there's no further questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Staff know of any? If not, we'll move to consent agenda and ask Mr. Saleh to run through the consent agenda, which should be before you on a tan sheet of paper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. I'm very glad to report we have a lengthy consent agenda this afternoon. I'm very glad to read this to you. The first category of plans, you have three final subdivision plans that are recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first of those appears on page 2, item C of your meeting agenda. This is plan 2014-51F, Johnson subdivision, lot 26. This is an amended final record plat involving property at 455 and 457 North Martin Luther King Boulevard. The second plat is the very next item on your agenda, page 2, item D, plan 2014-52F, Grasmere Subdivision Unit 5, and this involves property at 916 Brovington Way. On page 3, item F of your meeting agenda, plan 2014-57F, an amended final record plat for Kirk-Levington Hills Apartments at 3050 Kirk-Levington Drive. There is one final subdivision plat recommended for re-approval by your subdivision committee. That appears on page 3, item E, of your meeting agenda, Plan 2006-240F, New Market, Phase 1, Unit 1E. This involves property with an address of 1201 Deerhaven Lane. In addition to these plats, there are a number of development plans also on your consent agenda. There are four that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee, The first is on page 4, item A of your meeting agenda, DP 2014-59, an amended final development plan for the AP area property, LLC, located at 218 Jefferson Street. This plan is required to have an affidavit, and the staff has been supplied with that affidavit for the signposting that is required as part of this development plan. We'll enter this into the record. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda. Page 4, item B, DP 2014-60, an amended final development plan for the Deerfield Shopping Center, also known as Ollie's Trolley, located at 205 Southland Drive. The next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda. Page 4, item C, DP 2014-62, an amended final development plan for the Distillery District West, Unit 1. This involves property with an address of 1170 Manchester Street. This plan also requires an affidavit, and just before the meeting, the staff was supplied with the affidavit and photographic evidence of the signed postings. We'll also enter this into the record. On page 5, item D, this item is on your consent agenda, DP 2014-63, the Lynn Grove edition. This involves property at 186 Simpson Avenue, 101 through 111 Fern Avenue, and 1100 through 1110 Stillwell Avenue. The even address is on that block. This item is recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. There is one additional item on your consent agenda. It appears on page 5, item F of your meeting agenda, DP 2013-5, an amended final development plan for the Manchester Development located at 922, 926, and 930 Manchester Street. This plan has been recommended for reapproval by your staff. This plan also requires an affidavit and a signed posting, and the staff has been supplied with this documentation, and we will enter it into the record as well. With that, Mr. Chairman, all these items can be considered for approval as have been recommended at this time unless a member of the commission, a member of the audience, or an applicant would wish to remove one of the items to allow to have further discussions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Selle. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to hear any one of these items that's on the consent agenda? Any commission member? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval. The consent agenda is read. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Thank you. We'll take everything that is left in order. First would be at the bottom of page one under final subdivision plans. It's plan 2014-49F, continuing on to page two of the agenda. While the staff is setting up, it's all right for the commission. We'll take the release and call of bonds. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of the release and call of bonds. Second. Thank you. The motion's been made and seconded for the release and call of bonds. approval of memorandum dated August 14, 2014. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. While Mr. Martin is coming to the podium, You do have a couple of sheets that were passed out, a diagram of the lots involved, and a letter from ECSI dated August 14th. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the first item on your agenda is Plan 2014-49F, Pinehurst Subdivision, Lot 33. This is a proposed subdivision of an existing lot, and its current configuration is like this. This is located on Beverly Avenue. Beverly Avenue is off of Old Paris Pike, beyond New Circle Road. Here is I-64, I-75 in this location. And again, if you're headed out Old Paris Pike, this would be on your right, and you would come back into Beverly, which extends this way, and then with this leg of Beverly stops here adjacent to the I-64, I-75 right-of-way. This was originally platted in 1980. They are proposing to create this lot in this location, leaving the rest of the parent tract here. There is an access easement that currently exists that was created and serves the property and these adjoining properties. in this location. The plan was reviewed by technical committee and staff and presented to your subdivision committee. We have standard approvals for a record plat that you can see. Of course, engineering, traffic, building inspection, urban forester. We have a number of cleanup items, as you can see as well, on your agenda, including tree protection information, purpose of amendment, just as, again, some general cleanup items. And we have two important discussion items on this particular plan. It was recommended for postponement by staff and by your sub-digit committee based on concerns with these two discussion items. Again, as you can see the layout of this property, it exists here. There's frontage with the parent tract on Beverly. There's a little, what I refer to as a dogleg in this location, providing frontage here, and there's this access easement. This easement appears to will be to serve as the primary access to this property. So the initial discussion was the adequacy of this easement to serve the property and provide the necessary public services. The frontage for this lot is legal frontage based on its frontage on this right of way. That does meet the requirements of the land subdivision regulations. The second issue and discussion issue that you see on your agenda is the sanitary sewer issue. Several years ago, the government did a sewer project for this neighborhood in this area. I believe the folks in this area are entering into their last year, and they'll be required to hook up to the public sewer. and in this case, of course, under your land subdivision regulations, they have to have sewer provided to this lot for it to be created, be certified and recorded. What we've highlighted for you in these locations right here are existing manholes, which would allow this lot options for service. The issue and the paramount issue is which option is the best and what will be necessary to achieve that. We recommended postponement. There has been a flurry of activity in the last two days, including a few hours ago. Staff did receive a letter that has been distributed to you from an engineer who has reviewed a lot of this information that was provided to him from the applicant stating the options to sewer this property. One of the issues, and a very important issue, is the topography change from the lot to these manholes. it's roughly a foot and it would result in a very minimal amount of billable area on the lot right here so it does not appear to be a very viable option in this situation to try to come here and meet the proper grade and get the depth of the line so the option that's been explored are these two in particularly this manhole in order to provide Again, public sewer has to be rided, and they have to tie in to the public sewer. We have distributed to you a revised plan. As I said, we've had a flurry of activity. It's staff's understanding. They met with our Division of Engineering out on the site, and they discussed what may need to be done and some of the issues that face this property and the ability to sewer it. Place this. And you have this handout. We're going to put it up on. There we go. Thank you. If you see highlighted in yellow, that's the proposed lot. and as I pointed out to you you got your little dog leg here one of their proposals or their proposed solution is to run the lot line in this location you can see it's highlighted in yellow on the handout and create an additional dog leg with the lot line what that does is shorten the distance and the amount of public sewer that would be required to actually reach the property One of the options, of course, would be if this was just an easement. If it was an easement, the public line would have to come down, would have to turn, and you'd have to have another manhole. So that is one of the concerns we believe the applicant has in trying to create this as part of the lot. It is an odd configuration. Your land subdivision regulations discourage odd geometry. However, it's not an absolute. We understand sometimes there's a need to make exceptions to that in order to make something work. And, of course, sewer is of paramount importance and certainly has to, that lot has to be sewered. Now, again, as I said, there's been a flurry of activity just in the last day or two on this property. Back on your technical committee meeting, we recommended postponement because of this concern. The same was true at your subdivision committee last week. Again, it's a good sign that there's been some activity. And again, you can see a letter that was handed out to you that they received from an engineer. Put that up, please. Here's an aerial photograph of the property. And I think several issues can be illustrated by this aerial. You can see I-75. You can see the large green lot next to I-75. That's the lot in question. There we go. Oops. When you look at the aerial photograph, this is the green area next to the interstate. and you can see the access easement in the pale gray coming up, how it works. There we go. Well, thank you. That's oriented as my draw. Here's your Beverly frontage with the two driveways up at the top of the photograph in the existing house. If you'd look at this corner where they're proposing to extend this, you see the barn? Okay. They're going to have to run their lot line into the barn. So that's an issue, again, with utilizing this area for the sewer line. It may be their best choice, but that's an issue that would have to be dealt with. In conjunction, you may notice, again, on your agenda, we have to approve tree protection areas. Now, if you look at the aerial photograph, there's no doubt in staff's mind there's going to be some consideration given to the trees along the I-75 area. If you look at this property line, you'll see significant tree line down through there. We would anticipate that that would be reviewed as a potential tree protection area. Sanitary sewer easement for the 8-inch line has to be 15 feet wide. So again, there's a potential conflict in that location. There's a conflict with the structure in this location. So again, staff would concur that yes, the property can be sewered. I think the question is what's the appropriate way to do so? And it appears that those discussions have just become a little more central to the development of the property. And so staff, again, has recommended, as you see, postponement of the plan. It's not that these things can't be worked out. We think they can. Our concern would be that there's going to be more time required, possibly considerable more time. And they have to be dealt with and resolved before this plan can actually be certified and recorded. So there can't be any transfer of the property. This lot will not be created legally until this issue is resolved, until the urban county engineer can sign off on the plan, and then we can have it certified and recorded. So staff just has a lot of concerns about the timing, particularly with solving the sanitary sewer issue, and that was the principal reason we have recommended postponement of the plan. If you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to try to answer them. I think we do have a question, Mr. Martin. Mr. Berkeley. Tom, is it possible, as far as the building encroachment issue, I don't know about the other one, but is it possible to use the access easement for the sanitary? Again, yes, sir, it's possible. But the issue is the topographic drop here is so slight. I'm talking about the other way. Oh, this way? Whereas you use that access easement instead of having to go into the other lot. Well, they're going to have to get an easement on this property utilizing either this manhole or that manhole. I'm talking about where the building encroaches the barn. Here? Yeah. See, if they could use the access easement, there's, what, a 50-foot access easement that goes back to that property. why can't they use that access easement versus having to come over onto, what is that, Lot 33A? Am I missing something? Based on how we understand their best option to sewer the property, they're going to have to come off Beverly, and they're going to have to, based on what they've given us, they're going to come to that location. So that conflict exists with the proposed sewer line. Mr. Berkley, if I can try and address your question also. The access easement is less than half on the subject property. So if they wanted to expand that easement to also be, say, a sanitary sewer easement in addition, they would have to negotiate that with those other property owners. Right. I realize that, but they're going to have to do that anyway. Either way, aren't they? Some of it they have control from the other Beverly Avenue frontage. Is the lot 33A a part of this? It's the parent tract. It'll be the remnant tract, yes. So they're going to be able to get the easements on that tract? Yes, sir. And again, that gives them enough drop over the distance to get the sewer line in and meet our regulations. Getting the easement, again, the issue will be the conflict with the tree line and the building in this location. so it may necessitate the removal of the building for instance and then locating the easement appropriate to the tree protection area so that's again this all kind of points to uh interesting challenges facing this property and creating this lot and those challenges were a concern with your staff and engineering, again, why we recommend postponement. So you mentioned the flurry of activity. I take it the flurry of activity has not addressed the concerns of staff sufficient to change your recommendation for postponement? Not at this time, no, sir. We would like more time to have it reviewed and have engineering work with their engineer to come up with an appropriate solution. Thank you. Ms. Mundy? Tom, is it possible for them to come to the, I'm going to say the lower Beverly Avenue with a grinder pump or something like that in there to make that work? It's possible. It requires specific action by this body for that to be okay. Yes. They've not requested any relief of that sort or any waivers, which would be another way to address the timing issue on this property. Okay. Thank you. At this time, let me ask for the applicant to come and add what he feels necessary, and we'll continue on. Mr. Chairman, does this work? Can you hear me? Was that working? I didn't think it was. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, members of staff, my name is Mike Robbins and I'm here representing Foster Rowland Incorporated. Alicia Ritter is here with me. She is the realtor for the seller. Before I begin, I'd like to thank Tom for that really excellent presentation. He and I have been working on this almost daily trying to find out what the best situation is. Yesterday, Alicia and I, the owner, and Hiller Newman were out at the site, and we discussed what the best way to deal with this situation is. These two manholes here, the invert elevation, the bottom part of the sewer where the flow line is, is, which is what you'd have to get something to gravity feed into, or almost tabletop flat with the building side. So these two points right here are essentially non-usable. This one over here, you would have to go, there's a depression in the ground here, which Hillard says is indicative of most likely being a sinkhole, and you don't want to run a sewer through a sinkhole area because it could collapse and the whole sewer would break because it would be counterproductive. That left us with this one right here. This manhole here presently has a 15-foot easement to it. There is a four-plank fence here, and there are some trees in here, but nothing that would really prevent us from putting a 45-degree angle over to another manhole and then running down here and then they would return here and service the subject property there. There's at least, if not exactly, just barely less than 25 feet of fall from here to there. So you only need a 1% grade to make a sewer work and that's like one foot in every 100 feet and it will definitely do the job. This manhole here was put in because that is how the house that is across the lane here is presently sewered. So I've talked to the fire marshal, and he was at the subdivision committee meeting, and we talked about this, the concern about turning around things like fire engines or garbage trucks. And presently what they're doing is they're just turning around right here in this part of the access easement. So that essential part of services is already being taken care of. The fire marshal told me that this is, you know, there's already a house sitting right here. If it caught on fire, it would be coming right down this easement to put that fire out, just like we would if there were a house over here that was on fire. So it's not really a major concern. Let me get back to my notes here and see if I... The barn, the barn issue, the barn is really an old barn, and it's not a concern to the buyer about having to take part or all this barn down to get this sewer to work. So that's off the table as a concern. So, I don't know that there was any other concern that Tom expressed. I know that the sewer situation has been looked at. We've gone out and we've shot the elevations of the rim and the invert elevations on the sewers. Fred Eastridge is the professional engineer who took that data and analyzed it, and he said, yeah, we can make this work. Look, what I'm hoping is that Debbie Nichols, the lady who owns this property, can be assured that if she goes through all the expense of building this sewer that she will get the okay to go ahead and sell this parcel. Let me ask Tom or Chris or Bill if there's any kind of a note that can be put on a drawing that says no building permits will be issued until and unless the Lexington-Veett Urban County government approves of the construction of the sewer. Is that a possibility? Thank you. To answer his question and to inform the committee, Commission, pardon me, that would be an aspect of a waiver request. I mean, public sewer is necessary to the creation of the lot. If they build it, then the plan can be certified. It can be signed by the engineer, our engineer, the city engineer, and then certified by planning and recorded. So if a waiver was requested to waive public sewer, and you've had those waivers in the past, they're not as uncommon as they used to be, a note would be placed on the plan as a condition of that waiver request. So as I understand it, you're telling me that we're looking at a BOA to get a waiver for that? No. This body would grant the waiver. There's a waiver that this body could grant. Can they grant it today? They could. They've never had an official request. We always do a report. There's a waiver deadline that was not met. So, I mean, so. Do any of you all have any questions for me or from Alicia? Thank you, Mr. Robbins. Yes, Mr. Wilson. Yes, I have one. The indication that you've had a flurry of activities in the last couple days, seems like you're all on the right path to getting these things resolved. What challenges would you face with the postponement? The challenges that are not really challenges that would be focused primarily on me or the engineering aspects of the project so much as it would be on the seller and the buyer. The buyers are anxious to get this project moving as soon as possible. We're already sitting here in the middle of August, and if we postpone it for a month, then we'll be looking at September, and pretty soon we'll be into colder weather, and it's already kind of chilly for in August, which is usually one of the warmer parts of the year. So building-wise, the construction people would like to get the footers poured and raise footers in place and try and get the place under roof so they could work in the inside while it's cold. Otherwise, the project may be pushed down the road. Most people don't realize that if it gets too cold, concrete won't set up. It freezes the water in the concrete. So that could push them into April or something of next year. So as far as building is concerned, time is of the essence, and there's a legitimate concern that the buyers may walk away from the deal. So anyway, that's the kind of challenges that we're faced with. Other questions for Mr. Robbins? Mr. Robbins, you mentioned a month, you know, and concerned the flurry of activities that came on the scene late. You know, I would like, personally, I'd like to see this thing nailed down a little bit more. There's still some ifs, ands, or buts, it seems like. Would two weeks give you the time to get those things hammered out? Yeah, two weeks would be helpful. One of the reasons why the flurry of activity is happening now instead of earlier is because my wife and I were on vacation in Virginia when the technical review committee meeting took place, and I wasn't able to attend that. So I was kind of catching up on some of this stuff. So if we can get to two weeks, we'd be happy. Let me ask if there's others in the audience who want to speak on this plan. Okay. Commission have any other questions okay do you have anything else to add mr. Roberts I have nothing further than that thank you I think at that point then we could probably move on if there's no other questions from the Commission I'll go on entertain a motion mr. chairman before emotions maybe we would probably suggest at this point a continuance continuance yes thank you thank you mr. Sally. Okay, so Mr. Chairman, I move for a continuance for two weeks of plan 2014-49F. Motion's been made and seconded for the continuance of this plan until August 28, 2014. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. motion passes thank you thank you mr roland miss ritter and uh love to see a revision in a couple of weeks um check one two can you hear me okay there you go that was working right now yep okay Thank you, sir. Next on the agenda, page 2, plan 2014-50F, distillery LLC properties. We do have a waiver that should be for you on a white sheet, I believe. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Next item is item B. It's plan 2014-50F, the Distillery District, LLC. This is an amended final record plat for the Distillery District, which is out on Manchester Street in this location. Here is Thompson Road. We have the floodplain you can see outlined in blue with the creek behind this property. You just recently saw a plan that subdivided and created the lots in this location and this location out of this parent lot. The development plan you just was on your consent agenda, the slight amendment to the development plan for this property, which is addressing the floodplain map revision issue. Of course, as you all are aware, the floodplain is of a tremendous impact on this property. This particular amended plat is asking to create this lot out of the remaining parent lot. Each of these, as they have been approved, with the exception here, the large distillery building is here. There's a little building back here. There's a building, and in essence, they're wanting to subdivide this property for the building in this location so they can transfer the property. The subdivision committee did recommend approval, as you can see from your agenda, with very standard conditions for a record plat. Of course, we have documentation of the Division of Water Quality. Denote that the property shall be developed in accordance with the approved development final development plan. A few cleanup items are necessary. And we have the one discussion item, which is why we are presenting it to you today. We have distributed to you a waiver request from the previous plat. As you may recall, the original or previous plat that you approved had a waiver request, a sewer waiver request. And a big part of that discussion centered on the fact that the floodplain created such a situation that they had to have a pump station in their building, and they had to build what, in essence, was their own private sewer system to serve this development. What you see on the screen is the layout for that system. And it will serve this building that is on the lot that they're requesting to be created with this plat. This system will serve as it is intended to do this development. The staff will have to report to you at this time, we're not aware of the status of this system. Whether it's complete, this is the layout. It's our understanding this is the layout, this is how it's intended to serve. We're not aware of its status with inspections from the Division of Water who has jurisdiction over this particular system. So hence, we want to discuss that status with you, and hopefully the applicant can report to you what the status of that system is. We had discussed a possible need for a waiver. Again, similar to the previous plan, your subdivision regulations require that public sewer be available. And again, the previous waiver which we distributed to you addresses that issue on this property, not the creation of this specific lot, but you did grant a waiver. There are considerable notes that govern the use of this property to ensure that this system does get constructed appropriately, inspected prior to any occupancy of the building. So there is an inherent waiver of it within their request. You could say in the discussion of this property, the creation of this lot, and what the status of that sewer system is at this time. The last discussion staff had was we were aware that it was under construction, and that's the best at this time that we could report to you. Again, we are recommending approval, and that being because of the governance of the development plan, the fact that the system is being put in place. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Captain, anything to add? Afternoon. Justin Jury with 2020 Land Surveying. The status and documentation of the sewer, I believe, has been given to water quality. I don't know if it's filtered back up to this entity yet. I do, one thing I will say about it is the governing notes on the plat do spell out that any, you know, for any occupancy permits can be provided for any of the lots that the sewer pass, state plumbing inspections, and so forth. each individual building will have its own lift station and pressure line to the city point east of the five-story building. So this is a third plaid of such like this that the waiver has been granted for the – since each building is kind of its own phase in the development of this particular property. So I feel like the governing notes on the plat should supply a way to check the status or the completion of the sewer once that starts construction. I don't have any documentation right now of the immediate status of each specific sewer line, but that will be provided to water quality. Thank you. Any questions? No? Yes, sir, Mr. Mark. I would just add that those notes will need to be revised to include this specific lot in those notes, and that would then address concerns over the availability of sewer and the appropriate timing of such. Ms. Plumlee, question? Yes, I guess this is for Tom. Is this a plan where the sewer would be dedicated to the city after the trail was? No? No, sir. No, ma'am, pardon me. No, you may recall the discussion. The city doesn't want any part of this particular system. Okay, thank you. The Platinum specifically says it will stay and maintain as a private sewer system. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Cravens? Yeah, Tom. How is this way different from the one we just saw other than the waiver? Is that the only difference? It is. We just saw they didn't have they didn't be working on it. You know, but this is different in the sense that you did grant a waiver on the previous plat based on the sewer system, which was complicated by FEMA floodplain. The previous one, they had the ability to ask for a waiver in order to move forward and did not. Thank you. Any other questions? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion. Ms. Mundy? I think this is the way we want to go. I'm going to move for approval of Plan 2014-50F Distillery LLC properties with 12 of the 13 items noted by staff, changing number 13 to their recommendation, which is on the back of the waiver, which is denote no zoning compliance permit and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for lots 1, 2, 3, or 4 until the sanitary sewer service is provided to the site meeting the requirements of the Kentucky State Plumbing Code and accepted by the Division of Engineering and the Division of Water Quality. Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2014-50F with the one noted change. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And now for the waiver. And I'm also going to move for approval of the waiver, the findings for the petition of waiver for Plan 2013-78F Distillery District. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. And seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you. moving on I believe next on the agenda is would be page six we've done the performance bonds letter of credits commission items under a appointment of floodplain appeals committee member membership what we need to do is have a motion to approve the members that's on that and since Mr. Joe Smith is not here, I'm volunteering him to take my place. In all actuality, I did speak to him today, and he did agree to volunteer, even though he's not here today. So with that, I'd like a motion for those that's listed, being David Holmes, Commissioner of Public Works, Mr. Joe Smith taking my place, Fred Estridge, Doug Minear, and Bill Hodges. so with that I'll entertain a motion so moved do we have a second motion has been made and seconded for approval of the floodplain appeals committee membership as stated please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes thank you and I really did speak to him next PFR 2014-5 LFUCG compressed natural gas fueling facility. Ms. Barb Rackers will present this to us and we do have text and language before somewhere on a sheet, on a brown sheet. Thank you, Ms. Mundy. Good afternoon. This is PFR 2014-5. 5. It is a request made by Clean Energy on behalf of the Urban County Government Department of General Services for a compressed natural gas fueling facility at 675 Bird Thurman Drive. The property is this 46 acres, well it goes around like this, 46 acres of land off of Old Frankfort Pike. It is zoned I-1, which allows compressed natural gas fueling facilities, and it is surrounded by light industrial zoning and uses, except for this property right here. That's zoned AU, and it's a vacant property. This is the corrections facility right here. Here's old Frankfort Pike. This is the town branch creek, and as you can see, it's got a large flood plan associated with it. The property is the location of the urban county government fleet services and solid waste management offices and they have already a fueling facility, a standard fueling facility, and they want to do the compressed natural gas and they also have a maintenance facility for all of their urban county government fleet vehicles and that includes the solid waste vehicles. As you all know the 2013 plan does not have a land use map that It has a recommendation for individual properties, but the 2007 land use map recommended it for other public uses, which are large facilities that benefit the public, and that includes government offices. We've reviewed the 2013 plan and Destination 2040, and there is a lot of support in both documents. The mission statement and the goals and objectives and the text of the comprehensive plan support this as does Destination 2040. The mission statement states that the 2012 comprehensive plan seeks to provide flexible planning guidance to ensure that development of our community's resources and infrastructure preserves our quality of life and fosters regional planning and economic development. This will be accomplished while protecting the environment, promoting successful, accessible neighborhoods, and preserving the unique bluegrass landscape that has made Lexington Fayette County the horse capital of the world. The goals and objectives that support this are on page two of your staff report. There aren't a lot, but we don't have many goals and objectives anymore. And then Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan is totally dedicated to environmental protection, so that does provide a lot of support for this. Destination 2040, the support is found in the discussion on sustainability and the action approaches, which are similar to comp plan objectives and in the areas of opportunity. With regard to sustainability, it says we will lead in sustainability through our use of practical, environment-friendly practices and emerging technologies to bring about a safer, more resilient community. We value initiatives that improve energy efficiency through reduced energy consumption and develop responsible energy resources for transportation and built infrastructure, increase the available supply of locally produced food and energy, sustain quality and self-sufficiency in our water supply, and build the community's capacity to be adaptable and flexible in response to future change. And then Action Approach 4D states that we should make Lexington a leader in improving air quality by reducing greenhouse gases and employing sustainable choices in housing, transportation, energy, and other community activities. As part of this approach, ensure that LFUCG, LexTran, and other public sector entities continue to invest in energy-efficient vehicles. And LexTran and the LFUCG were listed as primary initiators of this action plan. And then with regard to the areas of opportunity, it says, In response to the current uncertainty and higher price of petroleum-based energy sources, we are seeing some changes in travel patterns. less driving, more carpooling, increased ridership for LexTran, and increased interest in expanding public transit. Alternative fuels, electric-powered cars in mass transit, solar and wind energy, and the shifting of funds that were previously unavailable to the research, development, and implementation of these new technologies are changing the way we will move about in the future. The grip of the petroleum-based transportation system will be loosened by consumer pressure to innovate. New transportation alternatives will rise, and if they are good, they will thrive. And the urban county government is taking the initiative in this by providing new fleet vehicles, solid waste vehicles that will be fueled by compressed natural gas. And also the text amendment that we did about a year and a half ago for the fueling facilities at compressed natural gas fueling facilities allows these facilities as a principal use in some zones and a conditional use in other zones. But the council initiated that text amendment. It went through the Planning Commission process, and then the council adopted that in January of 2013. The one that they're going to have in fleet services will be the first one in Fayette County. And a typical facility has above-ground storage tanks. It has an inlet gas dryer, a compressor system that compresses the gas to a desired pounds per square inch, and then it has dispensing pumps. And Chris, if you could put that up. Yeah, thank you. You've got the gas storage tanks here, and the compressor system is here, and the dryer is right there in the middle, and then these are the fueling pumps. The fueling facility for this property will be near the rear of the property, near where they put the solid waste trucks when they're not in use. And if you could put that picture up, please, Chris. This is in the area in the back of the property. it's this little area right here and then the fueling pumps will be in here and then the layout the site plan if you could put that up also this will show you how it's going to be laid out this is that area that i just showed you and this is the building where the fueling fueling stations are going to be we've got the gas pumps storage right in here, the dryer will be here, and then the compressor will be those two little boxes right there. And the information provided by Clean Energy, it says that leaks are rare, if at all, and there are sensors located throughout the compressor system. And if a leak does occur, it doesn't pull, the gas does not pull because it's lighter than air, and so it just dissipates into the air. It doesn't pool, and so there wouldn't be any chance for it to pool and then get washed off into the town branch creek. So that's one good thing about it. It is flammable, but it has a narrow range of flammability, and so it's inherently safer than petroleum-based products. Clean Energy was chosen to be the provider and the contractor, and they're a national leader in the field. They'll also be maintaining the facility. And there are several reasons that compressed natural gas is desirable. It's less costly. It's safer than petroleum-based fuels. It's cleaner burning. It benefits the environment and the vehicles that you put it into because there's less maintenance on the vehicles because it is cleaner. Its use is endorsed by the Environmental Protection Agency. It's domestically sourced, and so there will be likely an abundant source of energy for the next 120 years at least, and that will result in less reliance on foreign oil, which contributes to the sustainability that is described in Destination 2040 as well as protection of the environment. All of the reasons that were given there will contribute to those. We find that this is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for the reasons that are listed on the agenda and your staff report. And that would be that it's supported by the 2013 Comprehensive Plan's mission statement. The text goals and objectives also support this. and it's in compliance with the land use element of the 2007 plan, which recommended other public uses for the property. It's in compliance with the zoning ordinance because the property is zoned I-1 and it allows this as a principal permitted use. And it's in compliance with Destination 2040. It supports Destination 2040. And we recommend that you find it in compliance with the comprehensive plan. And I do need to make one little correction on the findings. It's not on your agenda. And on the second paragraph of findings where it says that it's 460 feet from the nearest property line, it should say that it's 460 feet from the nearest property line, not used for industrial purposes. There's a big difference there because there is a property that's closer than that. But anyway, we recommend approval of this. And Mr. Troy Poyonk is here from Clean Energy. If you have any questions about the facility itself, you can answer those. And I would be glad to answer any questions about the staff report. Thank you. Do we have any questions at this point? Ms. Plumlee? Yes. Is this just for garbage trucks and not LexTran because LexTran is converting to CNG also? As far as I know, it's just going to be for the Irving County government vehicles, and LexTran may have their own CNG fueling facility when they build their new facility. Thank you. I don't know that for sure, though. Thank you for your patience today. Anything to add? No. No? Any other questions? One question, Barb. I'm just curious. Page four, next to last paragraph, which talks about refueling, says require a refuel Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. What happened to Wednesday? That's just what the fleet services says. They put that in their RFP. Don't know. Okay. Maybe they don't run on Wednesday. I don't know. Very good. any other questions if not anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this if not we need a motion on this that it is in agreement with the comprehensive plan there's no recommendations so it would be just with the staff findings anyone Ms. Mundy You got drafted, it looks like. Yeah, really. I guess the way to phrase this is that I move for approval that we are in agreement with staff on their findings on PFR 2014-5. Thank you. That will work. Do we have a second? Second. Motion to make and second it for approval of PFR 2014-5. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Next on the agenda is under staff items. It's a request for public hearing for MARC 2014-1 Boone Creek Properties, LLC. At the present time, Mr. Sally, I think, is going to explain where we are, and we'll continue from there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, the staff has placed this item on your agenda. At your place, we have provided you with a letter dated August 4th from Mr. Murphy asking that MARC 2014-1, a zone change request and the associated conditional use permit request be reactivated. The reason the staff is referring this to you is in the second to last line of the letter. They have asked that it be heard on August the 28th, which is your next meeting. On the attachment, you'll see the meeting and filing schedule. Ordinarily, items that are brought to us on August 4th are docketed for your September 25th meeting. They provided notice letters for hearing on August 28th, and at the advice of the Department of Law, the staff has mailed those out. So the commission definitely has the ability to schedule this hearing whenever you like. The staff advised, though, that because it was for an odd date, in our opinion, that we would have the commission set the hearing on whichever day you wish to hold this public hearing. With that, I'll be glad to answer any questions from the Planning Commission. Any questions? Mr. Wilson? Just one. Bill, help me with the process. Does this mean because it's a reactivation, but is it a new application, it's a reactivation of an old, does it have to go through the same process both with the zoning committee and the planning commission, subdivision committees? It certainly can. In this case, there are no new development plans. There's no amendment to the application that would require it. this is an unusual circumstance where you have an application that is postponed indefinitely that then gets reactivated. The staff seems to remember one in the past 15 years but the last record we could find was in 1998 of this happening and in that instance the applicant did amend their application so it did go through the entire cycle. It was filed early in one month and heard late in the following month. That's the last one we could find in our records like this. It is a rare event, obviously. Okay, any other questions? Let me ask Bill, put Bill on the spot. What would the staff's wishes be, if there are any? I don't think we have a staff recommendation on this for you. I think we're glad to docket it for whichever day the commission would like to proceed. We'll be prepared to go forward. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? If not, at this point, oh, sorry. Yes, sir. What do we look like already on that day? An excellent question. Right now we have, I can't remember if it's four or five zone changes on your agenda, and I believe one text amendment on that agenda. So right now it is a very lengthy agenda. Also, we will tell you that the council is scheduled to meet at 6. that evening. So if we did not get through everything, either the commission would have to postpone items or we'd have to relocate maybe to the Phoenix building to continue your review of the applications we already have in. Okay. And I guess with that, as we discussed earlier, we did just postpone one for two weeks to put it on the 28th. Bill, real quick, and after that we'll move to interested parties that's in the audience. with Mr. Berkeley asking about the 28th. What's your foresight on September 25th? Right now we have one zone change that's been filed for that meeting and two text amendments that are currently slated. So unless something postpones at your next meeting a month, we only have three items right now on that agenda. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, Mr. Murphy, you asked for this reactivation. And as we did several months ago, obviously this is just whether we're going to hear or when we're going to hear this. So I think Mr. Salley did offer a three-minute time limit. I don't know if you'll need that or not, but you're welcome to it. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Dick Murphy. I'm representing Boone Creek Properties. And when we received the court's ruling, we didn't think probably we needed to do anything technically to reactivate it because of the nature of the judge's order that it be heard. But we do understand the need for notice, and we did file the reactivation letter with you all at the staff's request. We filed it in plenty of time to meet all legal notice requirements for August 28th hearing date. This is not a new application. It's an existing application. We have not filed any amendment to it or anything of that nature, so it's basically the same thing you had. We hope you all understand why speed is important to us on this, and that is because this is an outdoor activity. If it's heard on August 28th, and hopefully if you all approved it, that would give us a chance to have this open this year, in the year 2014. Bearing in mind that it was supposed to have been heard in February, and it's been six months since then, I think we're being reasonable in asking that it be heard on August 28th. The agenda for each meeting is set in the order a case is filed. If this is placed on the 28th agenda, we would be the first one on your agenda because, as I said, it's an order of the filing date. The numbers were 2014-1. We understand that you all set your agenda. We understand that. At the same time, we hope that you understand why we'd like to get this heard as soon as possible, and that's in light of the seasonal nature of it and the light that we've already had a six-month delay in this. I would also, we would request August 28th, I would also point to you September 11th. Your subdivision day is another possibility there, which is usually like today, quite a bit shorter than your zoning items agenda. So, again, we're requesting the 28th, and thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Todd. Mr. Chairman, Don Todd, on behalf of the two neighborhood associations, Boone Creek and Old Richmond Road, that are involved in this, obviously our neighborhoods would like to have a chance to be heard. This case will take a considerable amount of time given the tenor of previous discussions before the Board of Adjustment. Our people have worked on this case for a number of years, and quite frankly, if it were to be scheduled in August and you had three or four other cases, I suspect that we would be placed under a time constraint again in terms of presentation, and that would be really unfair to the neighborhoods involved. This case deserves to be heard on its merits. It deserves to be heard in full, not in an abbreviated fashion. Dick indicates that speed's important to his people, and I might quickly add that in light of his Mr., well, in light of the owner's activities involved in this case, I mean, his activities is what has created this lengthy time span for consideration of the case. had he followed the accepted procedures and applied for the zone change and conditional use and not have constructed his facility in advance, I dare say he would have had his day in court and had been over with. So I don't think he should benefit by the creation of his own problem. More importantly, you know, this is a case that if you do consider it, you will not have in place an ordinance dealing with this kind of activity in the agricultural natural area. So you're going to pass on a piece of proposed zone change without any conditions in place, without any measuring stick to determine, you know, what should be appropriate conditions, what safety ordinances do we have in place, what inspection ordinances do we have in place. You're going to be flying blind. And I think it's really a problem of fairness and safety as far as the public's concerned. I would simply ask that if you were going to place it on the calendar, put it in September. Give everybody a chance to be heard. Give us time to consider all the elements of the case. To set this down for a hearing within two weeks of today is really unfair to those opponents who want to be heard and may have scheduling conflicts on such short notice. And I'd ask you to look at the development plan. The development plan does not even show the location of the zip line improvements, and they're already built. Mr. Todd, let's... Time frame? No, let's just stick to the points of the hearing and not get into the case itself. I understand. I'm asking you to look at the development plan in light of taking more time to consider this case and let it go through the normal process. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience that's not represented by council that would like to speak on this? If not, thank you, folks. I think we agreed to three minutes, and I'm going to leave it at that, Mr. Murphy. You know, I think most of us know this case fairly well. At this point, I'll turn it over to the wishes of the commission, and we'll move forward. Mr. Wilson. I make it simple I I move that we hear this case on September the 25th. Okay we do have a motion to hear this on which is MARC 2014-1 Boone Creek properties LLC on September 25th it has been seconded discussion Mr. Cravens? Yeah, I believe we ought to hear it on August 28th. This applicant's been, we decided not to hear it in February, and now we're ordered to hear it, and I don't see any reason to postpone it any longer. Mr. Murphy says he's filed the stuff, everything required in a timely manner. So I think we ought to hear it to 28. Mr. Drake? In line with what Mr. Cravens has just said, is there a question of justice here? Did we abuse the applicant when we refused to hear it? The court seems to have found that. And if that's the case, do we now have an obligation to expedite as quickly as we can? You know, I think we should have an obligation to do this in a correct and proper manner. And it's up to us to decide what the correct and proper manner is. My thoughts on this is that, one, we have two new commission members. that really have not seen any of this. It has been six months, and I really feel like we benefited by having a refresher and taking it back through committee and proceeding in that direction. And in all fairness, the expediency of this, It is within our ordinance, but, you know, having two weeks for anyone that wishes to speak on this might be a little constrained. I would personally have a preference for doing it September 25th. You know, with all things considered, you know, yes, Mr. Murphy says this would be first on the agenda. We already have things that's on the docket for that time. September 25th is coming up rather light and I simply think September 25th would be appropriate. Other comments? If not, I'll call for a vote. So the motion is to hear this. Once again, MARC 2014-1 Boone Creek Properties on September 25th. It was seconded by Ms. Plumlee. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. motion passes so that will be heard on september 25th 2014. thank you folks um do we have any audience items chairman owens yes ma'am um in deciding to hear it on the 25th are you all asking for it to go back through the committee process? Mr. Wilson, is your motion? The motion didn't address that, so that's why we're asking. You're right. Well, as I understood it, it doesn't have to come back before the subcommittees again. I mean, unless there's some protocol that we're breaching here, because I was going to take the advice of the staff here and simply say we'll get on September the 25th, and then we can delete the other two elements. So my motion did not include going back through the subdivision and the zoning committees. Mr. Wilson, just for clarification, on an item like this that's been postponed, we usually list them near, well, on your zoning committee at the top as a postponed item, and on your subdivision committee at the bottom as a postponed item, rather than listing them as a new item. Okay. Mr. Wilson, any desires? I flat don't care. in this particular instance. Ms. Plumlee? I would like to see it reviewed in subdivision just because it's been a while. Would we actually need a motion for that? Probably would be best in this case. Ms. Plumlee? If I may, we do not plan on presenting any new information. We did not plan on going back through committees on this one. Okay. Ms. Plumlee? I move that we review this plan in subdivision committee, just as a refresher. Thank you. Do we have a second? Okay. Motion's been made and seconded forward to go through committees. Or, as she said, at least, the subdivision committee. Question? Yes, sir? You know, it doesn't matter what the committee. I mean, the committee can review it, but it doesn't matter what their outcome is. They could disapprove it, approve it, postpone it. It still goes to the September 25th hearing. So I don't see any reason. The applicant doesn't want to present it again, and maybe the opponent doesn't want to have to attend that meeting either. So I don't see any reason for it to go back. I would simply reiterate, with it being six months, I think it would be a good refresher for everyone. to see it and continue on from there. But any other discussion? If not, I'll call for a motion. The motion was for it to go back through committees. That motion fails. So, Ms. Jones, you got your answer? I guess. Okay. Okay, so with that, our next meeting is a work session next week. There has been some talk, conversation, asking to hear a presentation as far as horse country tours. That will be done next week, and I think we'll continue discussion as far as our Zodiac Recreation. Mr. Brewer? question no okay okay thank you if there's nothing else um i'll entertain a motion for adjournment second motion to remain second and all those in favor please say aye any opposed thank you