# Planning Commission Public Hearing - Zoning Items - March 27, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · March 27, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/436 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/436?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-03-27 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: February 2, 2026 - **Length**: 19,373 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and 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 convened on March 27, 2008, at 1:32 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Randall Vaughn presiding as chair. The Commission addressed 10 agenda items during the session, taking 10 votes and hearing 2 public comments throughout the proceedings. The meeting resulted in a mix of outcomes, with three items being postponed for future consideration and seven items receiving approval. The postponed items included the Tates Creek Heights, LLC Zoning Map Amendment, an amendment to Article 17-7(g) regarding digital advertising signs, and the CMW, Inc. Zoning Map Amendment. Among the approved items were several development-related matters, including the Ingleside Apartments Final Development Plan, the Woodall Realty Company, LLC Zone Change, and the Magna Entertainment Corporation Preliminary Development Plan. The Commission also approved the U.S. Postal Service Disposal of Surplus Property and initiated two text amendments - one concerning Article 19 Floodplain Conservation & Protection and another to allow the Division of Engineering to issue grading permits. Additionally, the Commission approved an amendment to their own bylaws regarding time limitations for proceedings. The session demonstrated the Commission's ongoing work in managing urban development, zoning changes, and regulatory updates while balancing public input and procedural requirements in their decision-making process. ## Attendance The Commission meeting on March 27, 2008 had eight members present and three absent. **Present:** • Lyle Aten • Mike Cravens • Neill Day • Frank Penn • Carolyn Richardson • Lynn Roche-Phillips • Randall Vaughn • Joan Whitman **Absent:** • Linda Godfrey • Ed Holmes • Jim Mahan No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took action on ten items during the March 27, 2008 meeting, with eight commissioners present for all votes. **Postponements** Three items were postponed by unanimous voice votes. Frank Penn motioned to postpone MAR 2007-9 Tates Creek Heights, LLC to May 22, 2008, seconded by Joan Whitman [timestamp: 02:30]. Joan Whitman motioned to postpone ZOTA 2007-8 to June 26, 2008, seconded by Neill Day [timestamp: 06:45]. Neill Day motioned to postpone MARV 2008-7 CMW, Inc. to April 24, 2008, seconded by Lyle Aten [timestamp: 09:30]. All three motions passed 8-0. **Development Plan Approval** Frank Penn motioned to reaffirm approval of DP 2008-19 Ingleside Apartments with conditions, seconded by Joan Whitman [timestamp: 16:45]. The motion passed 8-0 with the condition that access to Devonshire Avenue shall be restricted access with gates, subject to approval by the Division of Fire & Emergency Services. **Zone Change** The most contentious vote involved MAR 2008-2 Woodall Realty Company, LLC zone change. Mike Cravens' motion passed 5-3 in a roll call vote [timestamp: 2:05:00]. Voting in favor were Lyle Aten, Mike Cravens, Frank Penn, Lynn Roche-Phillips, and Joan Whitman. Voting against were Neill Day, Carolyn Richardson, and Randall Vaughn. **Additional Approvals** Mike Cravens motioned to approve ZDP 2008-05 Magna Entertainment Corporation with modified conditions, passing 8-0 [timestamp: 2:45:00]. Lynn Roche-Phillips motioned to approve PFR 2008-1 U.S. Postal Service disposal of surplus property, passing 8-0 subject to encroachment agreements and consolidation plan [timestamp: 3:15:00]. **Text Amendments and Bylaws** The Commission unanimously approved initiating two text amendments: Frank Penn motioned for Article 19 Floodplain Conservation & Protection [timestamp: 3:30:00], and Mike Cravens motioned to allow the Division of Engineering to issue grading permits [timestamp: 3:35:00]. Finally, Carolyn Richardson's motion to approve changes to the Commission's bylaws passed 8-0 [timestamp: 3:45:00]. ## Public Comment Two community members spoke during the public comment period to express opposition to a proposed zone change. **Reverend Polk** [timestamp: 2:20:00] addressed the Commission regarding concerns about a proposed zone change near Imani Baptist Church. Reverend Polk outlined potential negative impacts the zone change could have on the church's activities and the surrounding community. **Cynthia Bryant** [timestamp: 2:25:00], a resident of Polk Lane, also spoke in opposition to the zone change. Bryant stated that the proposed change was not conducive for families in the area. She additionally raised concerns about the notification process, indicating that she had not received proper notifications regarding the zone change proposal. Both speakers focused their comments on the same zone change proposal, presenting unified community opposition based on concerns about family-friendly development and impacts on local religious institutions. ## Appointments The Commission made three appointments to the Housing Market Study Selection Committee during the March 27, 2008 meeting. The following individuals were appointed to serve on the Housing Market Study Selection Committee: • **Carolyn Richardson** - appointed to the Housing Market Study Selection Committee • **Joan Whitman** - appointed to the Housing Market Study Selection Committee • **Lyle Aten** - appointed to the Housing Market Study Selection Committee These appointments establish the membership of the Housing Market Study Selection Committee, which will be responsible for evaluating and selecting consultants or firms to conduct a housing market study for the community. ## Contested Items Two items on the March 27, 2008 Commission agenda generated significant debate and opposition. **Woodall Realty Company, LLC Zone Change** The Commission faced a divided decision on a zone change request from Woodall Realty Company, LLC to rezone property from R-3 (residential) to I-1 (industrial). The proposal ultimately passed with a narrow 5-3 vote, highlighting a clear split among commission members regarding the appropriateness of converting residential zoning to industrial use. The close margin suggests substantial disagreement about the potential impacts of allowing industrial development in what was previously designated for residential purposes. **Magna Entertainment Corporation Preliminary Development Plan** The Magna Entertainment Corporation's preliminary development plan encountered strong community opposition during the meeting. Local residents voiced concerns about the proposed development's potential negative effects on their neighborhood. Reverend Polk and Cynthia Bryant were among the community members who spoke against the plan, specifically citing worries about how the development would impact nearby church activities and the overall character of the area. The community opposition centered on concerns that the proposed development would be incompatible with existing neighborhood uses, particularly religious facilities and their associated activities. Residents appeared concerned about potential disruptions to established community patterns and the precedent such a development might set for future projects in the area. Both contested items reflect common municipal planning tensions between development interests and community preservation concerns, with the Woodall Realty zone change showing division within the Commission itself, while the Magna Entertainment plan faced organized community resistance from affected residents and religious leaders. ## Tates Creek Heights, LLC Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 02:30] The Commission considered a petition from Tates Creek Heights, LLC for a zone map amendment involving property currently zoned as Neighborhood Business (B-1) with conditional zoning restrictions. The petitioner sought to modify the existing conditional zoning restrictions while maintaining the B-1 zoning classification. Dick Murphy served as the key speaker presenting information about this zoning amendment request. The petition represented a relatively narrow scope of change, as it did not involve rezoning to a different zoning category but rather sought modifications to the specific conditional restrictions that currently govern the B-1 zoned property. The Commission ultimately decided to postpone consideration of this zoning map amendment. No details were provided in the available materials regarding the specific nature of the conditional zoning modifications being requested, the reasons for the postponement, or when the item might return to the Commission for further consideration. This type of conditional zoning modification typically involves adjustments to development standards, permitted uses, or operational restrictions that were previously negotiated as part of the original zoning approval, while keeping the underlying B-1 Neighborhood Business zoning classification intact. ## Amendment to Article 17-7(g) to Allow Advertising Signs to Use Digital Technology [timestamp: 06:45] The Commission considered a petition for a zoning ordinance text amendment that would allow advertising signs, commonly known as billboards, to incorporate digital technology under Article 17-7(g) of the zoning code. Dick Murphy served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the Commission. The proposed amendment would modify existing regulations governing advertising signage to permit the use of digital displays and electronic messaging capabilities on billboard structures. The Commission ultimately decided to postpone action on this zoning ordinance text amendment. No immediate vote was taken on the proposal, indicating that additional review, discussion, or information gathering may be needed before the Commission is prepared to make a final determination on allowing digital technology for advertising signs. The postponement suggests that commissioners may have had questions about the technical specifications, potential visual impact, safety considerations, or other regulatory aspects of permitting digital billboard technology within the current zoning framework. The item will likely return to a future Commission meeting agenda for further consideration once any outstanding issues are addressed. ## CMW, Inc. Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 09:30] The Commission considered a petition from CMW, Inc. requesting a zoning map amendment to change property from Mixed Use 2 – Neighborhood Corridor (MU-2) zone to Downtown Frame Business (B-2A) zone. Brian Hill served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the zoning change request to the Commission. The Commission ultimately decided to postpone action on the CMW, Inc. zoning map amendment rather than approve or deny the petition at this meeting. No further details about the specific reasons for postponement or timeline for future consideration were provided in the available meeting materials. This zoning change would have represented a shift from a mixed-use designation that typically allows residential and commercial uses in neighborhood corridor settings to a downtown business zone classification that generally permits more intensive commercial activities within the downtown frame area. ## Ingleside Apartments Final Development Plan [timestamp: 16:45] The Commission considered a resolution to reaffirm approval of the final development plan for Ingleside Apartments, with specific conditions regarding access to Devonshire Avenue. Chris King served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the details of the development plan to the Commission. The resolution focused on reaffirming the previously approved final development plan while establishing specific conditions related to access arrangements for Devonshire Avenue. The development plan had apparently received prior approval, but required this reaffirmation with the additional access-related stipulations. The Commission approved the resolution, formally reaffirming the Ingleside Apartments final development plan with the specified conditions regarding Devonshire Avenue access. ## Woodall Realty Company, LLC Zone Change [timestamp: 2:05:00] The Commission considered a zone change request from Woodall Realty Company, LLC to rezone property located at 2040 Sandersville Road from Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) to Light Industrial (I-1). John Woodall spoke on behalf of the application during the public hearing portion of the meeting. The Commission approved the ordinance to change the zoning designation for the property at 2040 Sandersville Road from R-3 to I-1 as requested. *Note: The meeting transcript and additional details about the discussion, concerns raised, or specific reasons for approval were not available in the provided materials.* ## Magna Entertainment Corporation Preliminary Development Plan [timestamp: 2:45:00] The Commission considered a resolution to approve the preliminary development plan for Magna Entertainment Corporation with conditions. Tom Martin served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the Commission. The proposal involved reviewing and potentially approving Magna Entertainment Corporation's preliminary development plan, which required Commission authorization to proceed. The agenda item was structured as a resolution requiring formal Commission action. While the specific details of the development plan, conditions attached to the approval, and any discussion points were not detailed in the available materials, the Commission ultimately moved forward with the proposal. The Commission approved the Magna Entertainment Corporation preliminary development plan with the conditions as presented. This approval allows the company to advance to the next phase of their development process under the terms and conditions established by the Commission. The resolution format indicates this was a significant development proposal requiring formal Commission oversight and approval before the project could proceed further in the development process. ## U.S. Postal Service Disposal of Surplus Property [timestamp: 3:15:00] The Commission reviewed a Public Facility Review for the U.S. Postal Service's disposal of surplus property located at 1088 Nandino Boulevard. Barbara Rackers presented the item to the Commission. The review concerned the Postal Service's plan to dispose of property that had been deemed surplus to their operational needs. As part of the public facility review process, the Commission was required to evaluate the proposed disposal to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and procedures. The Commission approved the U.S. Postal Service's disposal of the surplus property at 1088 Nandino Boulevard. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this item. This approval allows the U.S. Postal Service to proceed with disposing of the property in accordance with their surplus property disposal procedures and federal regulations governing the sale or transfer of government-owned real estate. ## Initiation of Text Amendment for Article 19 Floodplain Conservation & Protection [timestamp: 3:30:00] The Commission considered initiating a text amendment to Article 19 of the zoning ordinance regarding Floodplain Conservation & Protection. Chris King presented the item, which involves updating the effective date of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) following the acceptance of new maps by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The proposed text amendment is necessary to ensure the county's floodplain regulations remain current with the most recent FEMA flood mapping data. When FEMA updates and accepts new Flood Insurance Rate Maps, local jurisdictions must correspondingly update their ordinances to reference the correct effective dates of these maps to maintain compliance with federal flood insurance requirements. The Commission approved the initiation of this text amendment, allowing staff to proceed with the formal amendment process. This procedural step enables the county to begin the required public hearing process and formal review of the proposed changes to Article 19. The amendment represents a routine administrative update required to maintain the county's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and ensure property owners have access to federal flood insurance coverage. ## Initiation of Text Amendment to Allow Division of Engineering to Issue Grading Permits [timestamp: 3:35:00] The Commission considered initiating a text amendment to transfer the authority for issuing grading permits from the Division of Building Inspection to the Division of Engineering. Traci Wade presented the proposed text amendment, which would reorganize the administrative structure for grading permit issuance. The amendment seeks to move this responsibility from the Division of Building Inspection to the Division of Engineering, presumably to better align the permitting process with the technical expertise required for grading oversight. The Commission approved the initiation of this text amendment, allowing staff to proceed with the formal amendment process. This approval represents the first step in what will likely be a multi-stage process to modify the relevant municipal code sections governing grading permits. The transfer of grading permit authority to the Division of Engineering would represent a shift in how the city manages construction-related permitting, potentially streamlining the process by placing grading oversight under the department most directly involved with engineering and infrastructure considerations. ## Amendment to Commission's Bylaws for Time Limitations [timestamp: 3:45:00] The Commission considered an amendment to its bylaws establishing time limitations for presentations related to zoning changes, Comprehensive Plan amendments, and development or subdivision plans. Chris King presented the proposed bylaw amendment, which would create structured time limits for various types of presentations before the Commission. The amendment specifically addressed presentations concerning: • Proposed zoning changes • Comprehensive Plan amendments • Development plans • Subdivision plans The proposed time limitations were designed to improve meeting efficiency and ensure consistent procedures for public presentations and developer proposals. By establishing clear time parameters, the Commission aimed to better manage meeting duration while still allowing adequate opportunity for stakeholders to present their cases. The amendment represents a procedural change to formalize presentation protocols that would apply to future Commission meetings when these types of land use matters are considered. Following discussion of the proposed bylaw changes, the Commission voted to approve the amendment. The new time limitation provisions will be incorporated into the Commission's official bylaws and will govern future presentations on zoning, comprehensive planning, and development matters. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone MAR 2007-9 Tates Creek Heights, LLC to May 22, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone ZOTA 2007-8 to June 26, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone MARV 2008-7 CMW, Inc. to April 24, 2008 - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Reaffirm approval of DP 2008-19 Ingleside Apartments with conditions - **Motion** — passed (5-3): Approve MAR 2008-2 Woodall Realty Company, LLC zone change - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approve ZDP 2008-05 Magna Entertainment Corporation with conditions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approve PFR 2008-1 U.S. Postal Service disposal of surplus property - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Initiate text amendment for Article 19 Floodplain Conservation & Protection - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Initiate text amendment to allow Division of Engineering to issue grading permits - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approve changes to Commission's bylaws --- ## Full transcript Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order the March 27th meeting of the Planning Commission. And at this time, we do not have any approval of the minutes, and so we'll move quickly into any requests for postponements or withdrawals. We will consider those at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. On page 1, item 1, Tate's Creek Heights LLC Zoning Map Amendment and Pinnacle Lot 1 Amendment Zoning Development Plan, we continue to be in contact with the Neighborhood Association, and we're requesting a two-month delay. Since next month, you have a pretty heavy schedule already, so we're asking for May 22nd on that one. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Just to verify that with staff, May 22nd, is that the correct date? At any time. Thank you very much. We have a request for a two-month postponement for MAR 2007-9, Tate's Creek Heights. This is located for properties located at 1093, 1097, 1099 Duval Street, as well as the Associated Zoning Development Plan. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a two-month postponement to the May 22nd meeting to MAR 2007-9. Okay. And is that the Associated Zoning Development Plan? And I also associate ZDP 2007-50. Thank you very much. We have a motion and a second to approve postponement for two months. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I have another one on page 5 under public hearings on zoning ordinance text amendments. Number 1, ZOTA 2007, amendment to Article 177G to allow advertising signs to use digital technology. Rena Wiseman and I are representing the applicant on that. We apologize that our expert was not able to be at your last work session. We have worked with him, and we understand your next work session is filled up in April, so we're arranging with the staff to have him here for work session in May. And because of that, we're asking for a postponement of the hearing until June, which would be June the 26th. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. We have a request for a postponement until our June hearing for ZOTA 2007-8, amendment to Article 17-7 to allow advertising signs to use digital technology. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. And that is a postponement until June 26th. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of ZOTA 2007-8 until June the 26th. We have a motion and a second to postpone. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Motion carries. Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, since both of your items were multiple postponements, normally we would get new postponement letters mailed out since they're multiple month postponements. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Brian Hill with CMW. On page 4, item 3, CMW zoning map amendment and Mark Aker Properties, LLC. We have some concerns, issues with the Neighborhood Association that we need to work out, and we were asking for a one-month postponement. I believe the next meeting is April 24th. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Staff, is that correct, April 24th? Yes. Okay. We have a request for a one-month postponement to the April 24th meeting for MARV 2008-7, CMW Inc. This is for properties located at 502, 526 South Broadway, 320 Pine, and 319 Cedar Street. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain the motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we postpone MARV 2008-7 until April meeting. Okay. We have a motion and a second to postpone. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you, sir. Thank you all. Okay. I'd like to refer the Commission to we have an addendum to the back of our agenda, and that addendum has to do with a land subdivision item, and I will turn it over to Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commission members. This item is a little bit unique, and since I presented it to you in your work session last week, I'm going to go ahead and present this to you today. This is the final development plan for the Ingleside Mobile Home Park apartment project, which you will recall was the subject of a zone change in the preliminary development plan and a final development plan, and I believe we have that up. I'm going to approach the stand. As the process for certification of this final development plan was proceeding, a situation regarding this came to staff's attention, which led me to take a little bit of action, a little bit out of the ordinary, and I'll explain to you what we are talking about and why I'm asking you for a little conversation about this plan today. I'm going to orient you to this drawing first. You may recall the property is located off of Red Mile Road and off of Devonshire Avenue, and it's located off of Gibson Avenue, which connects to South Broadway. And if you recall, this is a residential neighborhood which surrounds this property, and this site is the site of the Ingleside Mobile Home Park, which has been under demolition and relocation over the past little bit. You recall that there was a zone change to convert this into a residential housing project with a number of units, multifamily, three- and four-story buildings, and there was a lot of conversation about that at the time of rezoning. At the time of rezoning, there was an attempt that had not been finalized to getting access to this site from Red Mile Road through an adjoining professional office property, which this property had never had access to Red Mile Road before, but it was seen as desirable, and the neighborhood, by and large, supported the zone change on the understanding that if that access could occur and that access internal to the neighborhood would be restricted to emergency-type access. There, apparently, when the matter left you and went on to the Urban County Council, there was, in that process and in that timeframe, they were able to finalize obtaining of the Red Mile Road access, and that was communicated, and the council decided not to have a hearing and went ahead and approved the zone change. The final development plan came in, and again, the primary access shown to Red Mile Road and the developer, as they had agreed at the time of the zoning in front of you, submitted this as a restricted access, which would have a fire gate access, would not be open typically to the neighborhood, but would be available for secondary access and for fire and emergency services. When the plan went through your review process, there were comments stating a preference for perhaps having that as open access rather than restricted access, and as it went through the process, and that notion was supported as a preference by the Traffic Engineering Fire and the planning staff, and the developer did file a revised plan and showed it as an unrestricted access. The plan virtually is the same. They did make some internal adjustments, but basically the plan remained the same. However, there was, since their final development plan, there was no notification, there was no notice, there had been no objections raised on the record of the zoning hearing against the restricted access, and therefore, when neighbors and council members who had been involved in the discussion found out that that had changed, there was much concern expressed to me. And with that in mind and concern about transparency of our processes and when people feel that there is a commitment when these decisions are made, making sure those are respected, I requested a meeting between our staff, the Fire staff, and the Traffic Engineering staff, that we converse over this, and the bottom line was that although it was a preference for the open, there was no objection from any of those folks to going back and having this, as understood by the neighborhood and by the council, to be a restricted access. So, again, in the interest of transparency, since the plan that was before you the day you acted had had that restrictive note taken off it, and I believe your subdivision committee members had seen it without the restriction and had been informed that it had been changed, I requested that we put this back on the docket before I certify it and run this by you, explain the situation to you, and get hopefully your assent in concurrence that going ahead and doing it with the restricted access is acceptable will be a development that is in agreement with what the understanding of the neighborhood and council members. Thank you, Mr. King. Do we have any questions for Chris at this time? Okay. Thank you, sir. Is Petitioner present? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Steve Rochelle representing the applicant, members of the commission. I think Chris's rendition is totally accurate. We told the neighbors we would try to have a restricted access, and when we filed our development plan, we kept with that promise. And through the process, fire and roads were pretty vociferous that they wanted another access. And we are pleased and want to compliment Chris and his staff for negotiating this through, and we would ask for your approval as recommended by the staff. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rochelle. Any questions for Petitioner? Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this particular application? Okay. Seeing none, any questions or comments? Yes, sir. I was under the impression that the plan that we adopted with the limited access for the fire was the plan that was going to be there. I was surprised when it wasn't. I commend Chris for bringing it back to us. But if we're going to have public hearings and we're going to agree to things and the developers are going to agree to them, then I really think that that ought to be the development plan that's developed unless we're shown some significant reason why that can't happen. And we're not seeing it here today, so I'm in favor of the original development plan. Thank you, Mr. Spence. Any other questions, comments? And I guess I'm going to ask Mr. King, we should probably take action on this. I would request for clarification's sake, I would request that you take action reaffirming your 13 conditions that you, when you originally approved this final development plan last February, but with the additional number 14 indicating the access to Devonshire to be a restricted access with gates to the approval of the division of fire. Thank you, Chris. Okay, we have before us DP 2008-19 Ingleside Apartments located at 1201 Devonshire Avenue. There are 13 conditions. We've added a 14th condition indicating access to Devonshire to be restricted with the final approval of fire, I think is what Mr. King stated. So at this time, we'll, the chair will entertain a motion from the commission. Mr. Chairman, I move for, would that be a reapproval, Chris? I think, right, reaffirming the previous approval. I move for, to reaffirm the previous plan of DP 2008-19 with the 13 conditions adding number 14 that the access to Devonshire would be restricted to a crash gate type of situation at the approval of the fire department. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Mr. King. Thank you. Okay, at this time, we will enter into our zoning items. And do we have any, I guess, as far as abbreviated, I guess we... Chairman, I believe we have one rezoning request left on the agenda. Okay. Probably just go ahead and take them in order at this point. Great, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I don't know how to decide that's what they want to do. Right. But I don't know how to... Mr. Chairman. Ready to present our one zone change hearing that we have today. It's on your agenda on page 3 and the development plan carries forward on to page 4. It's MAR 2008-2 for the Woodall Realty Company, LLC. This is a zone change request from an R3 zone, which is a planned neighborhood residential zone that has conditional zoning on this particular piece of property to a light industrial zoning or an I-1 zone. The property is 13.63 net and gross acres. It's located at 2040 Sandersville Road. And just for some housekeeping, the first thing I'd like to tell you is that as it appears on the agenda, the staff recommendation for the zoning is postponement. We do have a revised staff report in your notebooks behind tab number 2 that I will be doing my presentation from. Also, we've passed out to you, and I'll refer to it during my presentation, a handout at your seat that looks like this. At the top it says recommendation of the Urban County Planning Commission. And that has already been passed out. And if there's anybody in the audience, it looks like this, the handout. I'll refer to it later in my presentation. And if there's anybody in the audience who needs a revised staff report, we have some additional copies, and our staff can pass those out. Okay, I've already gone over some of the basics. This property is located on a portion of 2040 Sandersville Road. However, the property doesn't actually have a Sandersville Road address. It doesn't actually have any Sandersville Road frontage. To orient the commission on our map here, we have Georgetown Road as it heads north in the intersection of Sandersville Road. We have the Connor Woods residential subdivision up at the very corner of that. And you can see in this space right here is the site of the new Imani Baptist Church that has been under construction and is recently constructed. The subject property is to the rear here. Its actual street frontage is at the Jaggie Fox Way, which comes off of Sandersville Road, comes around and stubs into the most southern portion of the subject property. Jaggie Fox Way is planned to go through the subject property, through several other properties, and eventually connect out to Georgetown Road as a collector street. As I go over what the comprehensive plan recommends, if we can put up on SAM, we've got the comprehensive plan right here, but I've also got a blow-up on the screen that shows the subject property. Once again, we have Georgetown Road. Sandersville Road is just off of the screen with Jaggie Fox coming down in the dash lines, indicating its proposed path to go out to Georgetown Road. Some of the existing, what the comprehensive plan recommends in the area in the orange, is recommended for medium density, and that's this area here for the audience. The subject property is highlighted in yellow. What appears greenish-yellow on the screen is the Imani Baptist Church. It is recommended for semi-public. The comprehensive plan recognizes the property for that. To the south, we have lands that are recommended for light industrial, heavy industrial, in the sharper purple, and light industrial to the north. If we can go ahead and look at the surrounding zoning, and the colors are not coming across as like I thought, so I can refer to either this map or up on here, but essentially to the west of the subject property, we have heavy industrial, I-2 zoning. To the south, we have light industrial in the lighter purple. The subject property, the Connor Woods residential subdivision, and the Imani Baptist Church are all zoned R-3, and there is one AU tract of land kind of in the middle of everything. On our color up here, you can see the light industrial in the light purple. The heavier purple is the heavy industrial. The brown is the R-3, and the AU is in green. The applicant proposes to rezone this property, which as I mentioned is about a 13-acre property, from the existing R-3 zoning to a light industrial zone. It is adjacent to, in the heavy industrial zoning just to the southwest, this lot right here, it's adjacent to an asphalt transfer station. The proposed use of the property are uses that would be accessory to the asphalt transfer station. That's what's the proposed use. They also have some buildings like storage buildings, warehouse buildings, and a vehicular storage yard. One of the things that we do want to point out is that the vehicular storage yard portion of the property, if that's what it's used for, would be a conditional use in the requested light industrial zoning, so that would have to go forward to the Board of Adjustment. If it turns out that it's just a, if it's not actually, doesn't meet the definition of a vehicular use area, it might just be a parking lot. That's something that would have to be determined if they get the zoning, and then if they came back with a final development plan. The staff did, we did write a revised staff report on this, this week, because earlier the applicant had given us a revised development plan, which attempted to deal with some of the concerns that were in the staff's original recommendation of postponement. If you'll remember at your March 6th Zoning Committee hearing, the applicant did mention that they were going to be sending in a revised plan, and that they would not be asking for a postponement. When the staff got the revised plan, we reviewed it, we discussed it, and we are recommending disapproval of the requested zone change. There is a lot of history on this subject property. For our newer commission members, I'll just kind of go through a very brief history. The 13 acres that are shown, that are up for a rezoning request today, was actually part of a larger, about a 60-acre zone change request that included the residential subdivision, the Imani Baptist Church, we have a homeowner's association lot that is in between the northern portion of Connor Woods and the heavy industrial zoning, and this area in through here. Originally, there was a request for an R3 zone, and the entire property was proposed for residential development. The planning commission disapproved that request. Then another developer came in, took over the development of the site, and asked for an early filing request, which asked to come back with a new zone change request for the same R3 zoning before the one-year time period was up, after a disapproval recommendation. At that time, there was a different proposal. At that time, there was about 70 dwelling units for the main part of the Connor Woods subdivision, which is up at the corner of Sandersville Road in Georgetown. It showed the church and an outdoor recreational facility that was proposed in the area that's part of our subject of our zone change. I am going to file for the record. I have copies available should you want it, but I am going to file for the record the staff report and the minutes of that early filing request. If you would like more paper, I can do that. But essentially, the recreational facility, along with some other changes, it was a major factor in the reason why the Planning Commission granted the early filing request. That sends me to the point where I will refer to my handouts, our staff exhibits. The first exhibit that I have is actually the final report that we send to the Urban County Council following one of your zone change hearings. As you can see, this is from the actual, after the early filing request. This is the rezoning to the R3. One of the reasons why the Planning Commission did approve this was that the athletic facilities proposed provided a beneficial land use buffer from the adjoining industrial uses for both the church and the residential properties planned for the remainder of the subject property. As you can see, there were also several conditional zoning restrictions that were placed on the overall 60 acres at that time. That was spacing requirements so that the residential could get no closer to the existing industrial sites. And it basically kept any type of use that would have a permanent residential use of the subject property. Essentially, you wouldn't have anybody living next to the industrial zoning. The second page of the report is just the minutes. If you read through the minutes, it just goes on to confirm what I said. It's no doubt that the athletic facilities and the recreational facilities that were proposed in this area were of major importance in the decision to rezone this property. And finally, the last thing on my handout, since this site is very heavily restricted in its use through conditional zoning, I've prepared essentially a handout that kind of at a glance can tell you which uses are allowed on the subject property. If it's not used as its originally intended purpose, there are still several uses that could be used on the subject property. As the staff was reviewing the application, we reviewed this application as we do all zone change applications. The first thing that we looked at was the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan, of course, recommends medium-density residential, as I mentioned earlier, for the subject property, which is defined as a residential use between 5 and 10 units per acre. That the 2007 comprehensive plan changed to the medium-density residential, essentially acknowledging the 2003 decision that the residential uses were inappropriate, that the R3 zoning was an appropriate zoning for this piece of land. So the 2007 comprehensive plan showed the medium-density residential land use there. It cannot be said that the proposed light industrial zoning is in agreement with the 2007 comprehensive plan. Next, we looked at the appropriateness. State law does allow for the planning commission to approve a zone change if the existing zoning is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate. We do believe, and as I kind of pointed out on our handout, that the existing R3 zoning on this site is an appropriate zoning category for this site. There are several uses in addition to the outdoor recreational facilities that could be built on the subject property. Having this property in one of those uses would be a much more appropriate land use and still give us that land use buffer that we need to keep the newly developed residential subdivision appropriately buffered from those heavy industrial uses and zoning. But not only did we find that the existing R3 zoning is appropriate, we think that the proposed I-1 zoning is inappropriate for the subject property. That's important for several reasons. Whenever you look at the development plan, essentially there is much concern about the proposed zoning on the industrial uses getting too close and too intrusive on this newly developed residential subdivision. And the final reason why, of course, you can grant a zone change if there was an unanticipated change of a physical, social, economic character that has changed the basic character of the area. And although the staff does recognize that the fact that a recreational facility was proposed and it's no longer proposed to be built, we do recognize that that could be construed as a social or an economic unanticipated change since the 2007 comprehensive plan. However, there has been no physical change on the property in this time. And also, regardless, even if you do find that that is a change, it doesn't mean that the proposed I-1 zoning is an appropriate zone to go in there. As we pointed out, there are several uses that would be more appropriate under the existing zoning to grant that residential buffer. I have prepared a handout, not a handout, but a drawing that kind of illustrates several of the points that are made in the body and text of your staff report. To explain this in the different colors, I'll start off here. The subject property includes the extension of Jaggie Fox Way, all of the area that you see in white, and the area that's colored in in turquoise. The area that's in the light green is not a part of this zoning application. It is a separate lot that is going to be, it either is today or is going to be a homeowners association lot that will be in open space that buffers the main part of Connorwood subdivision from the industrial uses to this side. The applicant is proposing in the revised plan that we got, and I don't want to step too much into the development plan because Mr. Martin will go over that, but it did have an increased landscape and land use buffer that was proposed since the original application. However, we do not believe that even with the revised buffering that the applicant is proposing that it is enough to make this an acceptable zone change. This area, I want to talk a little bit about the existing HOA lot that's to the north of the subject property. At its least up towards Sandersville Road at the north, it's about 130 feet wide. At its most, it's a little over 300 feet wide. It averages out at about 215 feet wide if you do the math. Just to kind of give you a point of reference, where the coal dust sack is, it's 207 from the property lines to the property line of the, or where the property line carries forward in through there. So that's about the 200 foot mark in through there. The applicant's proposed buffer, even the revised buffer, has an area that's a little bit larger in this area that is about 200 feet. The area that comes along through here and is intended to buffer the residential uses that are on, I believe this is Polk Circle, the name of this coal dust sack. It's about 100 feet wide. On the scale of this map, it's scaled off at 95 feet, but whenever you're talking about five feet on scaling, that could be line widths or anything. So I want to say that it's about 100 feet wide in through there. They have added an additional landscape and land use buffer in through here that's about 90 feet wide next to the church property and the AU tract of land that's right here. The land use buffer portion, they are proposing a berm with landscaping. The land use buffer is a passive recreational trail that they would build throughout that open space in between the berm and the residential units. The red line that you see on this plan is the line that, under the existing conditional zoning in the R3 zone, no residential use on the original proposed 60-acre development, no residential use was allowed to get any closer to the industrial uses than this red line. You can see my point that the industrial uses are getting closer to the residential uses than was originally inspected. But it's not just the width of the buffer, because if you think about it, as an R3 zone, with the number of uses that could go there, you not only have these residences separated by that amount of space or by the 200 feet or so, you had some sort of proposed land use buffer here. Everything that's in the white was the land use buffer between the existing industrial properties and the residential subdivision. I also have a handout that shows graphically. If we can show the one with the green on it. The difference in the area highlighted in green is the additional landscape buffer, just the land of the additional landscape buffer area that is being proposed between what was originally proposed on the first development plan and what's proposed on the revised development plan that will be before you today. You can see it's a sliver of land along the residential and an increased buffer next to the church and the agricultural piece of property. In conclusion, the staff could not find a reason to approve this zone change and we are recommending disapproval of this zone change for all of the reasons that I've mentioned in my presentation and in the staff report. If you have any questions for me about the zoning and our recommendation about it, I would be happy to try and answer them now. Otherwise, I'll turn it over to Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Evans. Mr. Ayton, you have a question? I was wondering if there's been any description as to the intensity of this industrial type of development. On the revised plan, they are showing some different uses than the original plan. The original plan essentially had one big parking lot. And now they are showing some buildings and parking and everything like that. I'll let Mr. Martin go over the development plan. I did forget, as part of my presentation, I should have shown the pictures. We have some pictometry that I can show you and explain those. All right. This first aerial photograph, we're getting it as bright as we can. This shows up in the upper right-hand corner. This is the Polk Lane, the cul-de-sac and residential units. This is from our 2007 aerial photography. You can see several of the houses, if not all of them, are already under construction. Many houses in this residential neighborhood are already occupied. Jaggie Fox Way currently stubs into here. Not too long in the past, you did approve an expansion of the asphalt facility. This is actually an asphalt transfer facility. There's no production of asphalt or anything like that on this site. During our previous zone changes, the people that owned the asphalt transfer station at that time were very active in the previous hearings. You can see that in the minutes. Jaggie does refer to their comments on this at that time. This right in here is the most recent expansion. The subject property is essentially this area right here, down in through here. We've got one other aerial photograph that looks just a little bit to the north that focuses more on, you can see the tip of the subject property here and the Conner Woods subdivision with Sandersville Road being to the north and at the top of the page there. One last thing, if we can, zoom in on the previous one. There we go. Part of where the staff's concern on this as being an inappropriate use for this is that essentially we're talking about these types of uses that were there on this expansion being about 100 feet away from the back of people's residential lots. That is the main point that we're concerned about. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to try and answer them. Thank you, Ms. Simmons. Ms. Cravens, you have a question? Yeah. You said you can't build 100 units on the... There is an existing conditional zoning restriction, which of course applies to the whole 60 acres. It was capped out at 100 residential units for the entire property and all 100 residential lots have been created. I think most already have houses on them, if not all of them. On the proposed land? No. You said something about the conditional zoning on the... Okay. In our previous postponement report, we had incorrectly indicated that there were four residential units that were still left on the overall that are subject to the conditional zoning. I did go back and checked ourselves with the planning that's occurred in through there and all 100 residential units that are allowed have been lotted off. There are no residential dwelling units that are allowed in this site. However, there are a number of conditional uses, such as the recreational facilities, churches, and things like that that are in the list that I handed you out earlier that can go on this property should the Board of Adjustment approve them. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Any other questions for Mr. Emmons? Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, at the bottom of page three, you will find ZDP 2008-05, Magna Entertainment Corporation. This is the preliminary development plan in conjunction with the zone change request. Jimmy did a great job, of course, of orienting you to where the property was. I will do it very briefly once again. Sandersonville Road, Georgetown, Jaggie Fox Way with its frontage on their area before you for the zone change. The Cul-de-Sac Danforth Drive enters in up here. This is the Connor Woods subdivision with its street system. The development plan in this area, as I show you, here's Jaggie Fox Way. It's a collector street that will be constructed should you approve this plan along their frontage with two access points. This access point lines up with an approved access point on the current property that they use. They are showing us a 50,000 square foot warehouse. These are called bays. This is a little storage area as we understand it. They want to keep out of weather. It would be stored there. Here we have a steam building. It's our understanding that they steam clean the trucks. That would be the purpose of that building. This area through here would be asphalt pavement. This is the parking area that Jimmy referred to they originally proposed. This is, again, a revised plan. The previous plan just showed a parking lot. It also showed a buffer system that was smaller than this one. It did not have the trail. It did have the berm, and over here you can see the berm that they have suggested being 10 feet tall with the plantings. Again, it would run through this area. With this revised plan, they did, again, give us this trail, and it ties into this trail. This is a trail that's been proposed to serve the residential subdivision, and so they have done that. They have added that into this buffer area so it would incorporate that trail system and incorporate the use with what is proposed here. The subdivision committee, when they reviewed the plan, recommended referral. There are standard conditions at the bottom of your page and at the top of the next page. Those standard conditions continue. However, we do get to 14, 15, and 16, which are less standard. Number 14 is discuss the lighting and fence security requirements. Upon review of this plan, we have determined that this could resolve lighting and fence security requirements at the time of the final development plan. Again, this is a preliminary development plan, and we do have standards on lighting and fencing in our ordinance, and these could be details that we think could appropriately be worked out at the final development plan. I'm going to jump to 16. Discuss detention basin relative to the quality of water runoff. Jimmy ran off with my microphone, so let me explain to you the reason for that concern. On the original plan, again, we had a parking lot, we had a buffer. The detention for Connor Woods is up here, and this is what they were showing us. They didn't show us any detention. So we were concerned about the fact this is industrial use, asphalt trucks, et cetera, and this is a residential detention area, which has been the city's practice in recent years to assume control of those. So we had some concern about the quality of the runoff and that sort of thing going into what is, in effect, a residential detention basin. They have solved that problem, you can see. They are now showing a detention area of their own, and, of course, the construction of that area and the standards that they have to meet in terms of water quality are in our engineering manuals and will be subject to engineering's approval. So they have addressed that one, and I do believe that that one could be deleted from your conditions. 15, discuss the landscape buffer and the relationship. That one, of course, speaks to Jimmy's presentation and staff's concern about the adequacy of the buffer and the relationship of this land use to the residential area, particularly. So that's why that remained. Go ahead. Yes, sir. Again, discuss that, that item. Is this area too huge? A long period of this height? I don't think the mic is up. It's not working? No. I'll check if it's too much. Well, again, Mr. Aiken, the buffer in Jimmy Island here, which is the concern, is this use relative to the residential, and that's why he demonstrated to you, again, the use here. Of course, there's a development plan he wanted to highlight for you. Again, this is the same area with the trailer, which you couldn't see as well there, to tie that in. And again, they originally proposed a 10-foot berm, but the area wasn't as wide, so they still proposed a 10-foot berm with trees and shrubbery and landscape proposed in this area. But again, our concern is, is it adequate? Since that goes to the heart of your decision today, one of the items that goes to the heart of your decision today, on the adequacy of the zoning and their request, that remains as a discussion item. If you all should see fit to approve the zone change and address this with your action, then 15 should resolve itself, I believe, with your action today. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any further questions? I have a question. Yes, sir. What's adequate? Pardon me? What is adequate? Adequate. I believe that's something that should be determined today with your discussion of the issue. Are you going to give us some criteria? Pardon? Are you going to give us some criteria? Well, we have stated that we believe that currently as proposed it is inadequate. Why? So it's not a large enough area is our primary concern at this point. What about sound line? What about sonal lines? We have not discussed that. That's a reasonable interest. But the impact is at different angles, you know. Yes, sir. It is. I will add that at one point in the discussion of the adequacy of this area, we actually discussed a hardscape offense. So your point is well taken. That was a concern initially with the adequacy of this area. I will say, obviously, that tying this in, we feel, is very much an improvement over the previous plan. But, again, is the ten feet, the trees, is that adequate in and of itself is a very good question. That's what I'd like to see proven is the sound wave angles and how the impact might be on adjacent properties with regard to a ten-foot mound or a 20-foot mound and or screening. Now, vegetation does not screen sound. It's okay for sight, but it does not screen sound. And that's an important interrelationship here. The other question that I have is the parking area here has the same requirements as any parking area? It will have similar screening and lighting requirements, but it is just a parking area for the storage of vehicles. It's not a parking lot per se. I'm just talking about the information of the landscape ordinance. It will have vehicular lease area requirements. This, of course, would exceed those, and they'll have to meet it along the other. The interior would still have to meet the ordinance. The interior of the parking area? I believe it would. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Ray. Ms. Cravens, I'm sorry. I'm out. Ms. King. Just for clarification, this is an industrial storage yard. The interior landscaping requirements do not apply. Okay. Chris, I'm sorry. Could you repeat that for Ms. Richardson? Certainly. The proposed facility is an industrial storage yard. It would be paved with industrial-type vehicles. The ordinances that have the interior tree and planning requirements do not apply in that situation in this sum. Thank you. Mr. Cravens. Okay. Tom, what would you guess the size of the residential lots are that are up there? I hesitate to guess. Not the size of the lots, but the size of that. How many acres is that area? This area? Just the residential part. Honestly, I can tell you this is eight acres. So if we just took this area right in here and not the separate area and apply it here, it's somewhat greater than that. Out of the total 60 acres, 20, I'd say, about a third. We may have that information. I guess where I was going, just it seemed like, I mean, you're saying this, you can't build on this area down here, the proposed area, residential, and you're saying you need it for a buffer when it's actually almost the same size as the area you're trying to buffer. It is similar in size. It seems extreme. Well, and I understand what you're saying, but, again, we feel the importance is the use buffer. And, of course, that relates, as Jimmy said, to the previous use and its role as a buffer for the residential area. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any further questions for Mr. Martin? Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Afternoon, Commission. John Woodall on behalf of the applicant. I'm going to try to answer some of these questions. And let me give you a little bit of the background that you don't have, which is really how this particular request came to be. My father and brother, who are here in the audience, partners with me in Woodall Realty, their construction company actually did the site work in this area for the owner, for Greenview. So we were familiar with the fact that the property was there and became familiar with the fact that the athletic complex that was planned for this location would not, in fact, be built. I'm not privy to all the reasons why, but simply I think what it comes down to is it's pure and simple economics. Just to be perfectly candid with you, the company that owns the asphalt transfer station across the, well, will be across the street, Jaggie Fox, is one of my clients. And they had inquired, you know, I knew that they had issues with the size of their facility and had inquired about what would happen with that property. So at that point, we began to work with the owner of the property and American Founders Bank to try to bring the property forward for a zone change. We filed an application to rezone this property to industrial, back to, I believe, what the comp plan or what it had been before. And, you know, in the course of that, I know in our first meeting, we had submitted the plan that we initially submitted, which showed the entire property being developed with very little buffer and so forth. And in my mind, the whole purpose of, you know, the zone change process and why you have a TRT and why you have the subdivision committees and so forth is so you can find out things that you might not otherwise know and give the public the opportunity to do the same thing. Well, it was at that time that we learned that the Imani Baptist Church might have something to say about this zone change, that they had, in fact, been involved with the former developer in terms of, you know, his prior zone change and the construction of that church and so forth. I won't say that whether there were commitments made or not, but nonetheless, they thought there were. Okay. So based upon that, you know, I think, you know, they can speak for themselves, but I think at first they felt a little blindsided having this just come up and get a letter in the mail about it. But once again, I think that's what the process worked. And from that point, we began to sit down with them, sit down with them, sit down with staff, and figure out what it was that we were going to have to do to make this palatable for everybody. Now, you saw the photographs, and you can see what surrounds this property, and clearly there are industrial uses on all sides of it just about other than the residential and the church. And Mr. Craven said it on the head. I mean, the residential is built out. There were 100 lots allowed, and that's it, 100 homes, and that's it. And some of those homes are in foreclosure, and some of them are not. But nonetheless, they are all built. What's there is there. The issue then we had to confront with the staff, and I fully respect Mr. Emmons' comments and Tom's comments and understand their history with this particular property. What we had to confront is, as Mr. Aden asked, what is adequate? What kind of a buffer are you needing? What kind of a land use buffer? What kind of a landscape buffer? What will satisfy? What we tried to do then was go back to our end user and simply say in a very frank and point-blank way, here's what we're up against. This property has a lot of history. We're going to have to make some big strides here. I think we've got the use that we're proposing is a good, efficient use of the property. But nonetheless, it does in fact have a history, and the records reflect that we're going to have to propose a very significant land use and landscape buffer in order to make this work. We sat down and tried to lay out what they might put here. Of course, this is a preliminary development plan. You see, as Mr. Martin pointed out, bays and a warehouse, and we labeled that steam building. It doesn't have to be a steam building. Conditional zoning or conditions placed on the development plan could take care of all these particular issues. The church, when we met with them, what we kept hearing was, well, you're not showing us what it is you're going to put there. So we tried to sit down at least without having this thing approved and without spending a whole lot of money on it with an architect and so forth, just try to lay something out that might be there. One thing about this end user, if you look at their facilities around town, be it down on old Frankfort Pike where the ATS office is there, anywhere they are, it's top-flight, first-rate stuff. They just don't build anything that's not the best, and they have the resources to do that, and that's super. So when we sat down with them, and the question was, how much land can you live with, and what makes this just not doable? We didn't try to fudge on it. We didn't try to go back to the staff thinking, well, let's offer this, knowing we can do this. What we came back with was we basically lopped five acres off of this 13-acre tract. What you see there, this entire, the berm, the distance, the walking trail inside it, it's maybe 100 feet in some areas and it's more in others, but it all equates to about five acres. So you can take the 13.63 acres that this site equates to and basically take five acres out of commission on it, and that's before any conditions were placed upon the property. We thought that was a very, very substantial stride, quite frankly, and given the fact that what we're buffering is more or less an equipment storage yard, it's not the transfer station aspect from across the street, from the residential we thought that was more than adequate. Moreover, I don't know what I'll hear here today, but we hadn't heard any comments or objections whatsoever in any of the meetings from any of the residents in those particular homes, and maybe that's because they would rather their homes and their backyards back up to something like we're proposing other than ball fields with lights and so forth that are going to be, especially in the spring and summer months, constant use versus our use of the facility, which most of the equipment, Mr. Aitken, would be stored there. It's seasonal business. It would be there in the winter, and not a whole lot goes on in the asphalt business in the winter, I can tell you, other than maintaining some equipment. But essentially, that's how we got to where we are today. I will respectfully disagree with the staff that this particular zoning classification I-1 that we're asking for is inappropriate for this property. I think it is very appropriate given the use that we're proposing. I also would vehemently disagree that there's not been a substantial economic change here. You know, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not privy to it all. I don't know exactly why we're not going to have an athletic facility there, but we're not. And that's just the facts of life. This, if we don't do this, staff I think says, well, you've got several other uses that you can look to before we go to something like this that therefore makes this an appropriate zone. Community centers, we've already got a YMCA on that point of town. I think community garage, I'm not really sure what a community garage is, but I think storage is much what we're talking about. I don't see anybody putting a kindergarten or a nursery school up close to an asphalt transfer yard, which is across the street or right there in that particular area. It just doesn't make any sense to me. And, you know, you can run down the list. A cemetery, outdoor recreational facilities such as a golf course, none of these are feasible for this property. They just don't work. And this does. And, you know, I'm not standing here before you vociferously objecting to some condition or something that staff is trying to impose. Frankly, we haven't gotten to that point. I mean, staff has sat down with us, and we just have a disagreement about what's adequate and what's not. They want, frankly, they wanted a 200-foot buffer, and we just can't go there. Because what that gets us down to, ladies and gentlemen, and if there's a 200-foot buffer on this property, that leaves you with 7.19, by our calculations, acres remaining out of 13. I mean, that's almost half of it. It just doesn't make sense. This is a good use for the property. The folks that would probably end up there are a great success story in our community and would build a fantastic facility. And, you know, this is a situation where I think we can take care of any concerns anyone has by conditional zoning or conditions on the development plan, no question about it. I could talk all day, but I think I'll just leave it at that. Thank you very much, Mr. Woodall. Any questions for Mr. Woodall? Okay. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this application? Okay. Anyone like to speak in opposition? Yes. Mr. Chairman and to the Commission, my name is Reverend Polk, and I pastor the Imani Baptist Church that is located at 1555 Georgetown Road. And I do know that some of the conversation that's taken place as it relates to this request, we were just made aware of it, I think, back in January about the efforts to rezone. And as Mr. Woodall expressed or stated, we've had some conversation but very little. And in terms of the facts of, you know, what else is going to take place there, the church has always been kind of like in the dark about what is really being proposed. All I do know is that when all is said and done, we will have a substantial investment in that area, close to $16 million when all is said and done. If you take the 120,000 square foot facility that we have and what construction cost is today, it would be nearly $16 million. And we are concerned about what's going to be there on that particular piece of property. We do know that with the previous landowner, we tried in good faith to work with Mr. Miller when we had all 57 acres to ourselves. We weren't planning on keeping all of them. We did work to carve out what was necessary for him to do the sports complex. And if you look at the configuration of our property, we kind of yielded just to allow all that to fit there because of all the project programs and all that we were planning to address the needs of children and youth. We do know that there was going to be a huge amount of green space there, and what was being proposed versus even what we've created, you know, fit like a hand in a glove. So we are concerned, and we do know that based on just some of what has been presented, we're still a bit in the dark. The first time we met, we just knew that there was a request for zone change. The second time we met, we got a little bit of what was going to be proposed there. And, you know, I met with our church executive committee on Tuesday. They just did not feel comfortable giving this project a nod as well. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Polk, I think we have a question here from one of the commissioners. Is it the I use that's bothering Mr. Polk? Right here. I'll do it like this. I don't think anybody will accuse me of doing that. Is your resistance to this because it's I-2, or is your resistance because of the actual intended use of the property? Well, when you hear a storage facility, that, in our minds, just doesn't fit too well, you know. So when you talk about I use usage, I mean, I don't know what all that would involve if it was not this project. But, I mean, just hearing that it's a storage facility, you know, and we were in a position to do a whole lot more with the partnership that would have been there. So to hear this, this just doesn't. It's almost like somebody rubbed their nails against a chalkboard, you know. So that's when we heard that that was disturbing. So adequate buffering would be a concern also, no matter what was there? Oh, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Ayton, did you have a question? Would you consider the impacts that have been described as being something that would be critically adverse to your environment there in your church and so forth? Well, you know. The type of development that they described. You're talking about the other types or the type that they've described? No, the type that they've described they're proposing. Well, you know, initially the facilities that were going to be built back there were going to look, were going to complement what we have designed, you know, ourselves. But, I mean, how can, when I look at or hear this thing about storage facilities and the facilities that we have there, I mean, we'll be close to that part of the property with our soccer programs and with our tennis programs and T-ball programs. So just to look over there and see that kind of facility, in my mind, will have adverse effect on just the look that's there. Tell me, if you couldn't see it or hear it, would you be acceptable to it? If I could not see it or hear it? Yes. I don't know how to answer that because, I mean, how high would the buffer have to be? That's what we're talking about. That's what I would be talking about. Oh, well, it'd have to be awful high. There are ways of judging this. My previous question was that a buffer can be designed such that it can be visually and, as far as sound control, acceptable to adjacent properties. And that's sort of a scientific application in the relationship of leases here. And that's what I'm asking is, is it the aspect of having different uses adjacent to you or is it the implication of what might be there as far as sound or sight and activity? It's probably not sound or sight as much as it is the type of usage with storage facilities. I mean, I don't know what that's going to look like when it's all said and done. I mean, I don't have an idea. I haven't seen any elevations or anything like that of what these facilities are going to look like. I don't know even how much noise will be generated. I don't know. All I've seen is a couple of drawings. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ayton. Do we have any other questions for Mr. Polk? Okay. Thank you, sir. I believe we have a resident of the neighborhood that would like to speak. And I'll turn the floor over to the resident. My name is Cynthia Bryant, and I live on Polk Lane. And I have never received any notifications of any meetings that are coming up to discuss any proposal or any new ideas for this proposed property. One of the things that attracted me to build a home in this community was the proposed land use and the fact that I am a member of Imani Baptist Church. And I'm raising two grandsons, and there are a lot of families with children in this community. And I really don't think that this proposed idea is conducive for that community, for the families in that community, or for what is planned for that land, for that community. Thank you very much. Can I get your name again? I'm sorry. I'm Cynthia Bryant. Okay. Ms. Bryant, you said you didn't receive any notice? No, I've never received any notification of any meetings. As far as a rezoning, you didn't get a rezoning? Nothing as it relates to this new idea. And I live at 2009 Polk Lane. Can you tell us where that is relative? Is it within the notification area? Yes, it is. That is. I'm on the other end of Polk Lane. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. You had your hand. I'm Jim Fisher. I'm also a member of Imani Baptist Church. If you could come to the microphone and give us your name and address, please. Jim Fisher. I live at 5458 Denman Lane behind the airport, and I am a member of Imani also. I've also talked to about three other residents up there where Cynthia lives, and they said they did not get notices about the meetings either. I don't know how that's supposed to be done. My concern, I guess, is similar to Reverend Polk's. I have seen all kinds of buffer zones and all kinds of fences and trees. There's one on Broadway, and it's an ugly sight. I don't care how you do it. It's going to be an ugly sight. And I guess it's kind of disappointing to us that we even planned the similar type roofs with Jeff Miller when he was proposing the athletic fields. We were going to have all of this stuff to match and to look real good all over the area. There's nothing you can do to a buffer zone that would replace that. Now, whatever goes in, if this doesn't go, it might not look good either, but I think this is the worst thing you could do. I was raised up on a farm. You can't keep equipment quiet. It's going to have smells. It's going to have fumes. Most of them use diesel fuel. It's just not conducive to our health or anything else. So I would beg you, please consider that. Thank you, sir. Okay. Are there any other comments from and opposition from the audience? Okay, seeing none, staff, do you have any rebuttal at this time? One second. Okay. Yes, Ms. Phillips, do you have a question? Sure. I think that would be appropriate. I'm wondering if you could tell me a little bit about this is an expansion of the asphalt plant. I wouldn't call it an expansion. It would be owned by the same folks. You're not going to have the same use. Across the road where the transfer plant is at I-2, this would be light industrial where we are here now, and it would only be used to take the storage pressure off of the other side, storage in the way of equipment. And, you know, once again, to reiterate, as far as what could be placed upon this particular site, all that can be handled by condition, which I know this user would be amenable to. And, frankly, if I were the church, this is actually a fantastic opportunity for them as far as what type of construction, architecturally and aesthetically speaking, will go on this site because they are clearly at the table. And, you know, being involved in this particular process and with this particular user, I know that they would work with them. As I said, what they're going to build is going to be first rate, as long as they deem what they're going to build to be equivalent or better than what the church has. I know that they would work with them, and I know that there clearly wouldn't be a problem with that. The other question I kind of have here is I don't know how this church is used, whether it's a school, whether it's used every day. Obviously, it would seem to me if it's like my church, the most intense use is going to be on Sunday. Most folks in the construction business don't work on Sunday. They clearly don't work on Sunday in the wintertime, most of them. So I think that has to be taken into consideration when we're talking about the intensity of this use and its potential intrusion on the adjacent properties. But as far as what's going to be done here, that can all be resolved through conditioned, I think, everybody's satisfaction. It's not going to be – you won't have storage tanks over there, in other words, with emulsion in them. My question referred to whether there would be any new employees. The expansion may require any additional hires for the construction of these facilities. For the construction of the facilities, I don't know precisely which contractors would build them and what their needs are from a labor standpoint. I suppose that's a possibility. Construction is seasonal. But I'd say that's very much a possibility, depending on who built it. Mr. Cravens? Yes, Mr. Woodall. About how tall is the equipment, the trucks? Ten or 12 feet? Ten feet at the most. Ten feet. Because any taller, they wouldn't go under the bridges. I ought to know this, due to my misspent youth. One too many hours at the wheel of a dump truck is what got me right here. So they're no taller than the berm, I guess. I wouldn't think so. As I understand it, this is going to have to be a very large berm with trees to boot. And to construct this berm, is material on site? Do you have to bring it in? Is this a borrow? It's a borrow site. It will have to be brought in. So that's a five-acre berm. I mean, I'm trying to calculate what that would cost. The entire five acres won't be berm, but it will run along the entire boundary line. I think you've got berm in addition to land because that's what staff wanted, was not only landscape, but land use. We just couldn't come up with enough. That's not a light cost. No, and you're giving up five acres. Five acres of industrial land is, I don't know what that costs, $750,000, something like that? It'll be expensive. Yeah. Okay, any other questions for? Yes, ma'am. Since, based on what Chris had told us, since there is no interior buffering requirement because of the zoning classification, then would Mr. Woodall's clients be held to the landscaping requirements for buffering? Perimeter requirements of the zone and vehicular use area would apply, and I believe what they are proposing actually exceeds those expressed in the ordinance with the berm and the extra plannings, but there is no interior plans. But the exterior boundary, yes, it is required. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Staff, do you have a rebuttal at this time? Mr. Chairman, I don't have any rebuttal. I just do have one clarification. On the question that was brought up about notice, we did look up that address, and it is outside of the required 400-foot notification boundary. Thank you. We did check, and all of the notice did go out for within the boundary. We also notified three neighborhood associations, Highlands Park and Oakwood. We do not believe that we had on record a neighborhood association for the newly developed neighborhood, Connor Woods. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Emmits. Okay, do we have a – there will be a moment for rebuttal, Reverend Polk. Any other? Unless, of course, the commission has any questions for the staff. The staff doesn't really – we feel that we've laid out our argument with our presentation, and we don't really have anything to rebut. Thank you, sir. Petitioner, do you have a rebuttal at this time? No rebuttal? Okay. Reverend Polk, did you have a rebuttal comment? Yes, I guess if the activities of the church are concerned, you know, there's no way in the world that we would create a facility that size on 22.3 acres and not be an active church the other days of the week aside from Sunday morning. We do have two regulation-sized soccer fields there that can play four games at one time, really. And then we have several tennis courts that would be there along that same area where the – you know, that's being considered. We have three baseball fields there as well. And inside our facility, we have already started to market our summer camp program that will have about 250 to 300 kids this summer on the campus. And we have a childcare space in there that can accommodate about 300 children as well. We have two regulation-sized basketball courts where upward basketball will be involved. So we plan on making use of that campus seven days a week. It won't just be a – Sunday morning will just be reserved for celebration. Thank you, sir. Okay. At this time, we'll close this portion of the public hearing, I will turn it over to Commission for any comments at this time. I've got a few comments, and it's just – and somebody can set me straight if I misremember how we did this. One of the things that would make me feel better today if the president of the asphalt plant was here. I remember at the last hearing, he was specifically here because he was opposed to this residential. I remember him standing up and making a comment like, you know, we're a bad neighbor, and we know that, but we're nobody's neighbor right now. And if you put this residential next to us, you're going to make us a bad neighbor. And I think CMW might have represented him, and that's the thing that I remember him saying. And that's also the reason I thought we put this big buffer down here where the ball fields were going to be, because they pretty much said, you know, we're not good neighbors. We're never going to – there ain't going to be anybody that can be next to us and be close to us and be happy. So now it's just like anything. I realize times have changed, and that was maybe five years ago, but hearing the commitments that they would build their buildings to look like the church and so forth, you know, I would rather hear that from the same man that told us that we need to have this buffer here four or five years ago when we approved this. I mean, that's my recollection. That's why there wasn't any more residential down there, because the only way they could get this approved was to make sure we didn't have any residential down near the asphalt transfer station. And, Mr. Day, I would agree with you in terms of asphalt emulsion, asphalt petroleum byproduct and storage and so forth, which is, in fact, in the I-2 use, but that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about here is simply equipment and light storage, not what we're going across Jaggy Fox right away. I agree it's not the best thing in the world to have a house up against, you know, a facility of that size. You saw the pictures that has petroleum and so forth and asphalt distillates stored there. But that's a totally different use. I'm telling you what I remember, kind of where I come from. Thank you, Mr. Day. Any further? Mr. Penn? Yeah, I'd like for Jim to give me some idea of what would be an acceptable use there. And the reason I say that is I don't think residential is an acceptable use there, even though it's an R-3. So my question is, if it's not going to be this, what would be an acceptable use? Because that property is going to be used for something at some time. I'm not going to read the list to you, but that's part of what I was attempting to answer whenever I prepared this exhibit, of what uses that are allowed. And at the time, it's the one that has the strikethrough and the boxed uses in through there. You can see it encompasses both the R-3 and the R-1A zones. And the thing that is in common with most of the uses that are allowable on this use, much like the proposed recreational facility was, is that it's all temporary people there. You had your cemeteries. You had your outdoor commercial recreational facilities, churches, schools for academic construction. You had kindergartens, community garages, community centers, such as the YMCA. The thing that is in common with all of those uses is that you had temporary people there. They weren't there long term. That's the reason why whenever the original conditional zoning restrictions were placed on the entire 60 properties, it was critical to have that 100-dwelling unit minimum residential thing. At that time, they were only proposing, I believe, 74-dwelling units. They came back with the additional cul-de-sac at a later date and added more and brought the residential units up to the 100 units. But the conditional zoning restrictions on the original plan were designed to try and buffer the new residential subdivision from the industrial while at the same time providing that kind of residential look and feel next to the church and across from Oakwood and Highlands and all of those areas along Georgetown. I understand what you're saying. But I also understand that the fact is that this, on two sides, is an I zone. Yes, sir. It's an industrial zone. And I have a hard time in my mind. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just trying to think through this. I have a hard time in my mind believing that kindergarten, nursery schools, child care centers, community centers, would want to be located next to any I zone. So if you look at it that way, the question that keeps coming back to my mind is what are we going to do with this 13 acres? Because R3 is just not appropriate. I mean, I can't see that that is an R. You know, I can see what your argument is as far as the conditions are. But in my own mind, I have a hard time coming to the conclusion that there is a really good use for this in an R3 zone. Thank you, Mr. Finn. Mr. Briggs, do you have anything? If that were to remain R3 and some of those other uses were put over there, I mean, there's no need for any landscaping or buffer or anything then, right? Because there's not a change of zone. Correct. There would not unless all of the uses that are basically left for this property are conditional uses. And so the Board of Adjustment would have to review each one of them on a case-by-case basis. And the Board of Adjustment, depending on the use and exactly what they're proposing, could impose additional landscaping requirements or buffers. Basically, R3 and R3 requires no? The zoning ordinance would not require any. No berm, no landscaping, no anything. But the Board of Adjustment might. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Crudence. Mr. Aitken, you have a question? Well, Jimmy, aren't we really talking about a situation that we get into quite often? Is it transitional? Because we had some residential and we had some industrial and on all sides. And the predominant exposure is industrial. Well, maybe it's half and half, but on the west and south, it's industrial. So we have a transitional concern that we have between that and when we have residential areas. And that's what we're up against, is seeing what sort of use or what sort of intensity can be instigated here or proposed here that would be acceptable to both. It's one of those really kind of marginal situations, isn't it? So it comes down pretty much to how that's going to be developed and what the activity level is, doesn't it? And we would talk – in zoning, we talk about likes and dislikes and similarities and so forth. So that one of those things that people experience are noise and sight and relationships with traffic or movement and so forth. And so you have to sort of analyze each one of these uses, not maybe in their broad category, but in more of their specific everyday uses and concerns. And that's what I'm looking at on this one. And I see a great distance in the development plan so far anyway. And I think that's what we're judging. We're judging the development plan now too, aren't we? If you're asking me, I believe that we're actually looking at the zoning and the uses. Just the zoning? Those transitional uses that you were talking about and the fact that you need to look at it on a case-by-case basis is accomplished under the existing R3 zoning with the existing community. So we aren't looking at the development plan that we see here? You are looking at the development plan. You're looking at both the zone change request today and the development plan. Okay, that's what I thought. That's what I thought. But I think there's a lot to be said about what is proposed in the actual activity of the development plan as well as the zoning. That's why I say where zoning doesn't work in a lot of places. You know, it has to be the intensity or the use and what the conflicts are in relationship to those uses and intensities. That's the way I look at it. And that's the reason we have these laws and so forth. But they're not just working with a lawyer. Well, that's one thing. But working with someone who, you know, as a designer as I have been, I look at the relationships and the livability and the relationship that they might have in a particular one thing to another. And in relationship to those, some of them can be mitigated. Some of those adverse relationships can be mitigated, can't they? And we try to do that with screens and zoning separations and so forth. So that's what I'm looking at here. This is not a black or white situation for me. I look at it as being something that could be designed properly and having the right use in the right place. Thank you, Mr. Aydin. I guess I will follow along his lines. It seems as though the mitigating situation here falls back to the screening, what's out of sight. If you can't see it or hear it, I think those are some of the things we need to look at in this particular case. And with that, I'll leave that. I do want to remind the Commission that should you see that R3 is not appropriate and not another use, we would need findings for that in this zone request. But staff, again, in their report did recommend disapproval, but would say that should you see that the R3 is inappropriate and we would need findings in this. Thank you. Any other comments? Mr. Cravens? Yeah, I'd like to make a motion. Yes, sir. To approve the zone change MAR 2008-2 for these findings. I'm going to try and read them, the writing. Major justification for previously rezoning the property from I-1 to R3 was the land use buffer from the athletic facilities which were to be constructed on the subject property. And the beneficial land use buffer that would have been provided by previously proposed athletic facilities is no longer going to be provided. And the subject property is bounded on three sides by parcels already being used for industrial purposes so that I-1 zoning is consistent with the uses in close proximity. Okay, we have a motion and a second to take a vote. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. No. No. No. Can we take a roll call on that? Ms. Whitman? Yes. Ms. Richardson? No. Mr. Ayton? Aye. Mr. Penn? Yes. Mr. Day? No. Ms. Rush-Phillips? Yes. Mr. Cravens? Yes. Mr. Vaughn? No. Five yes, three no. Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Zoning preliminary development plan, is that? I'm sure we can. We have some conditions to the preliminary development plan. Can we hear those? You're asking for some conditional uses? I'm asking for some action on that. We didn't have any. Just the I-1 condition. I can handle the answer to that. If you did want to put those on, somebody on the prevailing side would need to make a motion to reopen and impose conditions on the granting of the zone structure. Okay. Is there a motion to rescind the previous motion? I think that's what I'm hearing. Or reopen the motion. Either rescind or amend. Is there a motion to amend the previous motion? Is there a motion? Second. Okay, there's a motion and a second to amend the previous motion. Okay. Possible conditions that would be justified based on the evidence would be buffering, certain types, certain requirements of a minimal amount of buffering that they've offered, which would exceed what otherwise would be required. Also conditions as to the specific types of uses that could be put on there could also be considered. As previously passed, it would permit any I-1 use. So those are things that you might want to consider. Okay. All right. I believe we had the rezoning, conditions to approve the rezoning. Do we have any of those conditions that you would like to consider, commission? One other possibility would be to take a break and let the staff. Okay. We'll take what he says, 10 minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. For the recess, we had a motion to amend the previous motion. And I think part of that was to look at conditional zoning as well as prohibited uses. And the B4 and I1, I believe, is correct. So, Mr. Chairman, if you could assist us with some of those uses. The staff would be happy to try and assist you in coming to your decision. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Craven. Did you need to take a vote on that motion? Oh, I did not. No. You don't? No. The motion, if the motion on the floor is to rescind, you should go ahead and vote to rescind. Okay. And then come back with a new motion. Okay. I'm just doing my parliamentary job. Thank you, sir. But I can't remember. If it was phrased as amend, then you ought to wait until this whole discussion takes place and then amend it after that. Okay. I can't remember what y'all said. I thought it was amend. Okay. Well, then, you all should have your discussion and figure out what conditions you're going to put on it and then make a new motion. Or make an amended motion. Amend a motion. Right. Okay. So, Mr. Emmons, could you assist us with? Yes, sir. And as I was saying, we'll be happy to try and assist you in coming to your decision. The first thing that we think would be a good, just logically going through it, would be to address the buffer itself. Because the rest of the uses, as we go through the uses, whether or not you have that buffer, it'll be important to you to know whether those uses are not being buffered. I'm going to put up on SAM, the son of Elmo, a proposed language for the buffering restriction first. Of course, we've got the standard language under the provisions of Article 6-7 of the Zoning Ordinance. We are proposing for your buffer, I'm making a recommendation to you, that a minimum 100-foot buffer in landscape area adjacent to the existing R3 zoning, which contains a 10-foot tall earthen berm and passive recreational use, shall be provided. We are not recommending through conditional zoning that you address the vegetative plant material that's in there. Obviously, according to the applicant's development plan, they are proposing vegetative material that would be above and beyond our minimum requirements of our zoning ordinance. But from that development plan, we don't feel that we can really describe particular species or number of trees or anything like that. What we would suggest, as far as the vegetation, if you want to do the buffering as we're proposing it, that would mean that you would have a 100-foot buffer with the berm and the passive recreational facilities. And then on the development plan, when you take action on that, we would suggest that you resolve the landscaping within the required landscape buffer, resolve the landscaping and vegetative material at the time of the final development plan. I'm trying to facilitate your all's decision here. Do you all want to take it all kind of part and parcel, or would you like to make a decision on whether the proposed language, whether you want the buffer or not, and whether the proposed language and proposal is good, or do you want me to kind of then go into the prohibited uses? I think we can go forward in the prohibited uses if that's, yes. If we can put up on Sam, the uses that are allowed in the I-1 zone start in our B-4 zone. And these are the principle permitted uses are carried forward into that. And, Barbara, if we can go ahead and just zoom all the way in so that we can read essentially just one column. And we will give you our experience and expertise there. Wholesale, first we have, the first uses are wholesale and warehouse establishment. Storage, warehousing is principle permitted uses. Shops of special trade, you know, your general contractors. Laundry, ice plant. Tire retreading and recapping, that is one that is oftentimes recommended as a prohibited use whenever you have industrial uses near residential uses because of the noise that's associated with that business. Do we kind of just want to do this as far as scratching them? Parking lots and structures. Machine shop, that's another one that is typically prohibited in this type of a situation. And please, Mr. King or other staff members, jump in if you hear me say anything wrong or if you need to add anything to this. Kennels, animal hospitals, clinics, that one is kind of, sometimes it is prohibited and sometimes it's not. Offices, that's offices for agricultural products. That's a very specific use. Sale of feed and grain, garden centers, establishments for the lots, display and rental of trucks, automobiles, mobile homes, recreational vehicles, boats, car lots. And it also allows big tractors and RVs and everything like that. Sometimes the commission in the past for prohibited uses has allowed, say, like automobile and truck sale lots, but have prohibited the bigger things like RVs. Sometimes you've prohibited them altogether. Sometimes some of the things that have been considered in the past when it comes to car lots are things like the loudspeakers and stuff that typically go along with most car lot establishments. Truck terminals and freight yards. I'm sorry, which one? Truck terminals and freight yards. Automobile service stations, that's a gas station, and it also allows the service of vehicles. Essentially, in the definition of an automobile service station, it inherently allows minor auto repair, fixing flat tires, changing oil, things of that nature. Major and minor automobile and truck repair. The difference between major and minor is essentially with major automobile and truck repair, you can do transmissions, pulling out transmissions and fixing those. In minor, it's things like the oil changes and other stuff. That's the basic difference there. The establishments for pre-cut, prefabricated, or shell homes, that's manufactured housing. Circus to carnivals on a temporary basis. Retail sale of building materials and lumber is what it says. The pawn shops, which is not going to apply in this one because it's only when they're in operation prior to a certain date. Mail order businesses, office uses, and an office warehouse mixed use project, which is further regulated, I believe. Let me check. The accessory uses in the B4 zone do not carry forward into the I1. I1 has its own accessory uses, so there's no sense in us going over that section. And I believe the conditional uses are also, the I1 zone has its own conditional uses. It does not refer back. So it's only the principal permitted uses in the B4 zone that carry forward into the I1 zone. So can we recap those? According to what I've heard while I was standing up here, we would strike number five, which is tire and retreading and recapping. We would strike number seven, which is the machine shop. I have down on my notes a question mark about kennels. I couldn't tell from the commission whether the kennels, animal hospitals, and clinics, whether that was something that you all did or didn't want to. I think that would be fine. I'll leave it in. The next use that I have down that is to strike would be number 13, truck terminals and freight yards. And that is all the notes that I have. The major and minor automobile and truck repair, I think if you did want to get into that and with the applicant's proposed use of the property, you might. If you wanted them to allow them to work on their own equipment while that's there, then that's that. If you wanted to prevent, say, just the major automobile and truck repair, a separate shop coming in, should this applicant not have their intended use there, that would be one thing. One of the ways that you could possibly do that, you could say major and minor automobile truck repair as a principal permitted use, which would essentially allow it as the accessory use to the applicant's proposed business, if you wanted to do that. If that's your desire, my proposed language would be major and minor automobile and truck repair as a principal permitted use, which would allow it as an accessory use. Perhaps a better way for clarity for those that will be long gone after all of us would be to say that major and minor automobile and truck repair as an accessory use to the storage of vehicles on the property. Do it as a positive thing rather than as a negative thing. Chris, can you help me out on this? I had a question about what is a machine shop, and I don't have my definitions up here, but do you know off the top of your head a good layman's definition of that? I don't recall that. We can go on while we're looking through the definitions in our zoning ordinance and see if we have a specific definition of a machine shop. We don't for a machine shop. Okay. What's the definition of a truck terminal? Truck terminal? First of all, I'm going to ask my colleagues to see if we have a specific definition in the zoning ordinance. There is an Article 1. There is? Yes. Tracy can read that one. Page 1-14. I don't want to read it. There we go. If you want a mental picture, think of the facility on Blue Sky Parkway, if you have been out there. They're usually very intensely paved with some storage, and they're also usually intensely lit, typically, freight yards are. And go all day and all night. I think with the lighting and lighting concerns and activity, yeah, I think we could strike that particular one. I'm having second thoughts on kennels, too. I'm thinking kennels would be a noisy use, adjacent to the residential. Okay. Did everyone hear Ms. Phelps about the kennels? Strike that one also. Would that be the whole thing? Because oftentimes the whole thing. Okay, Jimmy, does that? It would be all of number eight, if I'm understanding this correctly. All of eight? And the main reason why we're having to do this and kind of, if it gets too prohibited, and there's not enough available uses, then we're just asking for another zone change hearing on the property. Understood. So are there any other uses that the commission feels? We do need one clarification in number two. Yes, I was going to ask about 17. Ms. Whitman asked about 17. 17, circuses, carnivals. Staff has no objection. Before we get off of the B4 zone, it was pointed out to me in number two, if you notice under shops of special trade, they do have one of the listings as a shop of special trade is major automobile and truck repairing. Since we've cut that out as the use, we want to strike those lines out of number two. Okay. And if the commission is ready, we can move on to the I-1 zone? I think so. Commission? Any other? I think we can roll this list into the next list as well and make it one complete list. Yes. Let's just move to the I-1, I guess. Okay. Obviously, the reason why we just went through the B4, the principal permitted uses in the B4. Number two, you can see manufacturing, compounding, and assembling. Things like asbestos, bone, cellophane, precious and semi-precious metals, textiles, tobacco, wax, wire, wood. Once you get into two, three, and four, you really get into the, you go from just basically storage of materials and warehousing of materials into the actual manufacturing of materials. The reason why the lists do get so long is because there are some distinctions between this and the I-2, the heavy industrial zone where some of those uses in manufacturing processes are even heavier than the ones that are listed on this list. I would ask that you not get rid of the ice cream, manufacturing of ice cream. We're the bakery. If you have any questions, if you would like me to go through each of those, I'd be happy to. The one that stands out, it's in number four, based on what we did in the B4 zone. I think we want the railway or truck terminal. Yes. And that language there would need to be stricken. I think it would, by operational law, since it was prohibited, it wouldn't be allowed anyway. Delete crematory. Not the cemetery, but the crematory. Oh, and the conditional uses. Number four. Oh, there we go. Got it. Jimmy, there appears to be a lot of those operations and activities in the last section of four. You know, I question whether we would have as close to residential enameling, lacquering, those types of things. I don't know. Ironworks. Ironworking. I mean, sort of. Stone monument. Those are things that typically will have a lot of heavy equipment. But with the applicant's proposed use, they are going to have some heavy equipment on there also. So trying to weigh out basically what's before you today and what would or wouldn't be appropriate. I don't see anything in the accessory uses of the I-1 zone that would necessarily be a nuisance to the neighbors. Okay. Any other comments from the Commission? We still have the conditional uses in the I-1 zone if you would choose to go through those. Now those, it's really on that. Also remember on a conditional use, there would be a specific hearing allowing any of these. So it's really on if there's any of them that you just don't want to allow them to have a hearing. I would suggest the conditional uses you would need to get into since that Board of Adjustment would have the discretion to decide on any of those. The only thing I was going to say, when you were mentioning crematories, that is a conditional use. And I don't know what the difference is between number four as a principal permitted use and number three as a conditional use. Jimmy, in number five it mentions junkyards. I'm sorry. Building material salvage, junkyards and other uses first permitted in the I-2 zone. Strike junkyards. Yeah. Do you want the... Oh, or other uses. Oh, but not exactly. But there's a semicolon after wrecking yard and then it goes on. Oh, number five, the actual use is recycling, sorting, baling and processing of materials. But it says not including. And after the but not including, everything there is, it's to make a distinction that you can't call a junkyard on recycling cars. Definition by exclusion. Definition by exclusion. So you don't want to strike that language junkyard. Okay. Can we recap the ones in the I-1? I guess you've only stricken crematory. Is that right? I think we've only stricken crematory, railway or truck terminal. And crematories as the conditional use to stay consistent. Do you want the columbariums? Barb or Chris, can you help me out on the difference between a columbarium and a crematory? I think Barb's had to deal with this before. The crematory is where they actually cremate people. And then the columbarium is like a standalone kind of thing where they put the ashes into a wall. It's like a building and they have separate things along the wall. It's the above ground cemetery. It's the above ground cemetery, the wall where you place the ashes. You good? Yeah, it's good. The applicant said that they would not mind. Can you recap Forest Jimmy where we are? I think we had initially in the. . . And after I go over, no need to go over the B-4 uses again. No. And after I go over this, I've got one last thing to kind of make sure we do everything right. In addition to the B-4 changes that we talked about, we have striking crematories and railway and truck terminals in the I-1 zone, and both in the principal and the conditional uses. And I believe that we are leaving all of the accessory and conditional uses as they're otherwise listed in the zoning ordinance. Anytime the Planning Commission does place conditional zoning restrictions, you need to have a reason for that. We have prepared a finding for that, that these restrictions are appropriate and necessary to protect the existing residential neighborhood and church from the proposed industrial use and to maintain an adequate land use buffer in the immediate area. I'll go ahead and put this up. Thank you, Jimmy. If you have any other questions for the staff, of course, we'll be. . . Okay, do we have any other questions for Mr. Emmons at this time? Ready for an amendment to that motion? Mr. Chairman, I've moved to amend the motion previously made by Mr. Cravens to include the restrictions that we just cited for the B-3. . . For the buffer? For the screening and buffering, as well as the list of uses. Restricted uses. And making the findings. Dot, dot, dot, and the findings. And the findings, thank you. Mr. Chairman. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Mr. Chairman. I'll call. Would it be appropriate to ask the applicant if he has any rebuttal to those? Sure. Applicant, do you have any questions for the record? We were listening. No, we do not. Okay. Acceptable. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cravens. I still will. I guess I have one thing. I'm not really sure what a machine shop is because there's not a definition of it. Okay. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Cravens. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move the ZDP-2008-05. The conditions 14 and 16 changing to resolve. And I think Mr. Martin said we can eliminate number 15. Well, we would recommend at this time that you do change 14 to resolve lighting and fence security requirements at the time of the final development plan. And as I stated before, you can delete 16. Oh, delete 16. Okay. Yes, sir. But we would recommend that 15 be changed to landscaping and vegetative material in the approved buffer to be determined at the time of the final development plan. Okay. I so move. And I believe there would need to be one additional condition to add the conditional zoning restrictions. That is correct. Yes, sir. Thank you. And to add the conditional zoning. Okay. I move and second to approve ZDP-2008-05 subject to the conditions as noted, adding condition 17. So all those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Our next item, we have a public facility review, I believe. We're under item six, commission items. We have a public facility review. Yeah, that's a hard one. Good afternoon. Ms. Rikers. This is on page six of your agenda, and again, it's item A under commission items. It's PFR-2008-1. It's a request by the U.S. Postal Service to dispose of a piece of property that's at the corner of Georgetown and Nandino Boulevard. This is the post office over here, and this is the property that they're asking to dispose of. This is a Thornton Oil. It's at Nandino Boulevard and Georgetown Road. A letter was submitted by the person that's the retail real estate specialist for the Eastern Facilities Division of the post office, and that was received in our office on February 19th, which gives the deadline of April 19th for this public facility review. We have to do that within 60 days. That's dictated by Kentucky state law. The property is actually only .07 acre. It's a very small property, and like I said, it's at the northwest corner of Nandino and Georgetown, and it's currently leased from the post office to Thornton Oil, and Thornton Oil has built a building over the property line, and they've got some of their parking over the property line. Cynthia, if you could put up the aerial, and that shows that. And we may need the lights off for this because it's really, really hard to see. Here is the Thornton Oil property right here. The property, this is the post office over here, and this building right here, and there's parking right there that encroach over the property line. The property line goes about along there. With regard to the comprehensive plan, the comp plan recommends other public uses for this property, and those are uses that benefit the public, contribute to the general welfare of the community, or are service oriented. Because it's surplus land and the post office doesn't use it anymore, and because it's leased by Thornton Oil, it doesn't exactly comply with that recommendation of the comprehensive plan anymore. And there aren't any comprehensive plan goals or objectives that are either in support of this request or in opposition to it. There are only four that even relate to this, and that would be goal two, objective G, which is to pursue greater planning, cooperation, and coordination with entities of state and federal government to ensure that governmental land use is not subject to local zoning control, do not unduly burden urban county government infrastructure, or adversely impact land uses in the general vicinity. Goal 17, objective B, talks about protecting and enhancing the overall quality of stream and rivers. Goal 17, objective E, which is the most applicable here, is to ensure that there is a continual source of potable groundwater from the Royal Spring water system for Scott and Fayette County residents. And then goal 19, objective E, is to comply with the Clean Air Act of 1990. Like I said, there are only those four that generally relate to this, but there are two issues that we would want to be concerned with, and one is the fact that there are easements on the property that the building encroaches on. If you could put up that last one, Cynthia, the plaque that shows the easements. You've got the easement goes, it's a 25-foot gas planting and utility easement that goes along here, and the building, as it showed on the aerial photograph, encroaches into this portion of the property right here. And then there is this easement that goes along here that has a sanitary sewer line in it. This easement has nothing, the urban county government has nothing in that easement as of right now, but we do have the right to use that easement because it is a general utility easement. But there is, like I said, there's a sanitary sewer line that goes along here and extends on up in front of the post office property, and the Division of Water and Air Quality has asked that that remain as it is with no buildings over top of it. The other easement is going to require encroachment agreements from the utility companies and possibly the urban county government, depending. If that has not already been done, it's going to be required. And that would be before they close the sale of the property. That's our recommendation. But because there aren't any comprehensive plan goals or objectives that are in opposition to this or in favor of this particularly, and because it is surplus land that's no longer used by the post office, we're recommending approval of this subject to the encroachment agreements being obtained and subject to a consolidation plan, which is this right here. This has already been drafted, but it's not been submitted, and they can't really do that until the property is transferred. But they can't transfer the property if you make this recommendation until they do the encroachment agreements. So anyway, if there are any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. Thank you, Ms. Rikers. Any questions for Ms. Rikers? So that doesn't impact their access off of Georgetown Road? They don't have access from Georgetown Road. Their access is from Andino Boulevard. Oh, it is? I always thought that was access from Georgetown. Trucks. Okay. All right. Excellent. Any other questions for Ms. Rikers? Are you here from the post office? Okay. Thank you. I don't think there's anybody here to represent them. All right. Staff has recommended approval. I did have one other question. There's no nonconformity with this lot, this dispersal of property? No, it's zoned I-1. It's zoned I-1. And there's no lot size. Okay. All right. If there's no further questions or comments, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of PFR 2008-1 based on the findings that are provided in our staff report and contingent upon the encroachment agreements that Ms. Rikers made reference to. Second. Okay. We have a motion second to approve. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. We have two text amendments that we would like you to initiate. Item B, this relates to Article 19, the floodplain conservation and protection. We do have new flood insurance rate maps, the map delineation project. You had approved this once before, and then the federal government delayed the implementation of those maps, so we had to undo what was recommended before, and now under the requirements of the program and to put these maps into effect, we need you to initiate a text amendment where basically we will change a few dates and a few words in the ordinance and put everything in effect. Jimmy, do you have anything you'd like to add to that? The only other possible change to just the dates and things like that is that we may add detention basins and, of course, we can, if that becomes too controversial, we'll pull it out, but we've learned that they are allowed in the engineering manuals, but it's just unclear, and so we just want to clear up that discrepancy while we have the opportunity. Yeah, it's time to do it. So this text amendment will come before, if we initiate this, it will come before us in the next two weeks? This will be a very easy text amendment to write, considering that we've written it before. Okay, any other questions for Mr. King or Mr. Evans? Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move that we initiate the text amendment for Article 19, the floodplain protection. Second. There's a motion and a second to initiate the text amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. We have another text amendment. The next one is initiate some text amendments to allow the Division of Engineering to issue grading permits. We've had some conversation about this request, basically transferring the actual issuance of the permits, which is usually done now by the Division of Building Inspection, but only upon the recommendation of the Division of Engineering, basically transferring the actual issuance of the permit to them. Again, this will just initiate the text amendment. The matter and the specific recommendations will come back to this body in a public hearing for comment. Tracy, would you like to add anything? The only thing I would add is we spoke about this in November at your work session, and there was quite a bit of discussion. Since that time, the Division of Engineering spoke with the Home Builders Association, and they worked on an agreement to strike just a small portion of what we had spoke about in November, and that's on page one, under building permits for single-family and two-family dwellings. Division of Engineering had kind of a sign-off requirement with building inspection for those lots, and they were asking to approve erosion control plans and issue grading permits where required, and that language about grading permits is now being stricken. So grading permits wouldn't be required for a single-family and two-family lot, but an erosion control plan would, which I guess is very similar. Okay. Mr. Graves, do you have a question? No. I'll make a motion, if you want. Oh, yes, sir. I move approval of the initiation of the text amendment to allow Division of Engineering to issue grading permits. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you. Next item, I'd like to turn your attention to item E on page 9. I had a dream last night that at this point in the hearing, there was a lineup of every zoning attorney all the way from the podium back to speak in opposition to this, so I'm glad that dreams do not come true. This is the amendment to the bylaws that we have had some discussion about over the past months in terms of doing two things. First of all, to develop a consent agenda program and procedure for your subdivision development plan items. That is one of the changes, as appears on page 7 of this document. And also to put in place time limits, suggested and actually enforceable time limits, for zoning matters and presentations on staff, the petitioner, and objectors, with provisions for in cases where anyone feels that the timing would not be sufficient to petition the chair to allow additional time. Again, we've been over these. These do represent the changes that you had suggested after our conversations and work session. Staff recommends that you go ahead and adopt this amendment to the bylaws. Thank you, Mr. King. I had one question. On the consent agenda, when would we, as far as a timeline, that's going to be new for us and how we, the procedure and so forth? It may take a, we would hopefully implement it as soon as possible. That could be as early as the April 10th meeting. And we'll see if we can come up with a procedure that we're comfortable with and inform the applicants that we've got coming through on your committee process next week. So that's a pretty quick turnaround, but we can see if we can do that. If we cannot, we would certainly try to implement that in May. And, again, it may take a month or two to kind of debug it and get it moving as smoothly as we all envision and making it facilitate your subdivision hearings. But, again, we think it's a good move and strongly support it. We'll do everything we can to implement it quickly. Excellent. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. King? And I want to thank the commission for patience on the consent agenda and the revisions to the time limits. I know, actually, this has been discussed and actually entered in long before I sat at this position at the commission. So it's a long time coming. So I'm looking forward to this. If there's no other questions, the chair will entertain a motion to – and I guess, Law, we just need a majority on this for a bylaw revision, correct? That is correct. Okay. The chair will entertain a motion for these revisions to our bylaws as provided. Mr. Chairman, I would move for approval of the changes in the bylaw as put forth in our handout today. Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the changes in the bylaws. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you. I'm anxiously awaiting how our chairman will implement these. I just might have to nominate Mr. Penn to be our timekeeper there. That's the real challenge. I know. He did a real good job today. We do have the time clock. May have to amend the bylaws to create a new position, officer of the commission official timekeeper. Okay. I see someone in the audience, but I'm not sure if there's an audience item. No? Okay. Thank you. Mr. King, yes. We only have one other item, Mr. Chairman, that we'd like to discuss with you, and you can maybe take action on this today, but if not today, certainly it could be follow-up. It's not something the commission itself needs to ask, but given our shortened meeting before the meeting today because of the ad hoc committee that met, I did want to bring to the commission's attention that the Division of Planning had put out an RFP for a planning study that we thought was of major significance, one of the ones that we identified when we made our pitch in the urban county government budget process last year, and this is for a comprehensive short- and long-term housing market study to go ahead and look at all aspects of that, affordable housing and affordability of housing both, and we've come to discuss those terms, expectations in the region, how this might influence policy, how our supply meets what our likely demands are now and in the future, and we think that will be a very informative study that will help our infill and redevelopment efforts, help our regulatory changes, help with comprehensive planning and small area planning and all those types of functions. So we put that out, and we had four responses. Under urban county government procurement rules, we do have to have a selection committee that has various members, and given the importance of this to the planning commission, we would like to ask for two planning commission members to also sit with us to help us evaluate the proposals that we have received. Probably take one, certainly no more than two meetings, but a little bit of light reading to go along with that to look at these proposals, and again, we think we would appreciate if we do have the ability to name a couple of folks today. That's fine. We can give them their bedtime reading today. If you need a little time to consider and discuss with members, that would be fine, too, but we do want to move ahead as soon as we can with this. Thank you, Mr. King. I do believe we have some interested parties. They're pulling on my right arm over here. Ms. Richardson and Ms. Whitman said that they would be more than happy to serve, and if there's others loud, is it okay to need two, three, more than Mary? You'll have to get another copy of the materials because we only have two available, but we would be glad to welcome another member. Excellent. So, Mr. Aden, Ms. Richardson, and Ms. Whitman would love to serve tonight. Certainly. Thank you. Thank you. That's all we have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. Is there any other business to commission today? If there's none, the chair will entertain a motion for adjournment. I'll move. Thank you. Thank you.