# Planning Commission Public Hearing - Zoning Items - June 26, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · June 26, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/536 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/536?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-06-26 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: March 2, 2026 - **Length**: 11,080 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 June 26, 2008, at 1:33 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 the presiding officer. The Commission addressed five main agenda items during the session, including the approval of minutes, postponements and withdrawals, land subdivision items, zoning items, and a Chevy Chase Neighborhood Zone Change Initiation Request. All five agenda items were approved by the Commission. The meeting included 11 motions and votes throughout the proceedings, with one public comment heard during the session. ## Attendance The Commission meeting on June 26, 2008 had nine members present and two absent. **Present:** • Lyle Aten (arrived late) • Mike Cravens • Neill Day • Linda Godfrey (arrived late) • James Mahan • Frank Penn • Carolyn Richardson • Lynn Roche-Phillips • Randall Vaughn **Absent:** • Ed Holmes • Joan Whitman **Late Arrivals:** • Lyle Aten • Linda Godfrey The meeting proceeded with a quorum of nine commissioners in attendance, representing the majority of the commission membership. ## Votes and Decisions The Planning Commission took action on eleven items during the June 26, 2008 meeting, with all motions passing unanimously by voice vote. **Administrative Items** The Commission approved the minutes from the May 22, 2008 meeting on a motion by Frank Penn, seconded by James Mahan, with all seven present commissioners voting in favor [timestamp: 00:30]. Later in the meeting, commissioners unanimously approved releasing and calling the bond on the 2429 (2417) Georgetown Road property on a motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Lyle Aten [timestamp: 15:00]. **Postponements** Four items were postponed indefinitely. MAR 2007-9 (Tates Creek Heights, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Pinnacle, Lot 1 Development Plan) was postponed on a motion by James Mahan, seconded by Frank Penn [timestamp: 03:00]. MAR 2007-20 (Fortune Offices, LLC amendment and Eastwood development plan) was postponed on a motion by Neill Day, seconded by James Mahan [timestamp: 06:00]. MAR 2008-14 (Kevin Crouse Premier Villages amendment and Old School House Lane development plan) was postponed on a motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 09:00]. ZOTA 2007-8, an amendment to allow digital advertising signs, was postponed indefinitely on a motion by Neill Day, seconded by Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 12:00]. **Approvals** The Commission approved several development projects. MARV 2008-7 (CMW, Inc. Zoning Map Amendment) passed with conditional zoning restrictions and a variance from 10 feet to 0 feet on a motion by Frank Penn [timestamp: 45:00]. ZDP 2008-34 (Mark Acre Properties development plan) was approved with seven conditions [timestamp: 50:00]. MAR 2008-19 (DJ Acquisition, LLC Zoning Map Amendment) passed with 12 prohibited uses and outdoor lighting restrictions on a motion by James Mahan [timestamp: 1:15:00]. ZDP 2008-81 (Overbrook Land Company development plan) was approved with nine conditions and additional zoning restrictions [timestamp: 1:20:00]. Finally, the Commission voted to initiate an ND-1 overlay zone for the Chevy Chase neighborhood on a motion by James Mahan, seconded by Neill Day [timestamp: 1:40:00]. ## Public Comment During the public comment period, one resident addressed the Commission regarding a proposed development project. **Elaine Spaliatsos** spoke in opposition to a proposed drive-through coffee shop at the Tates Creek Heights site [timestamp: 03:30]. Spaliatsos noted that her home directly faces the property in question and expressed concerns about the proposed development. The public comment period was brief, with only one speaker addressing the Commission during this portion of the meeting. ## Appointments The Commission made one appointment during the June 26, 2008 meeting. • **Neill Day** was appointed as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission This appointment fills the Vice Chair position on the Planning Commission, providing leadership support to the Commission's operations and decision-making processes. ## Contested Items The Commission meeting on June 26, 2008, featured one contested item that drew community opposition. **Tates Creek Heights Drive-Through Coffee Shop** The proposed drive-through coffee shop in the Tates Creek Heights area faced opposition from at least one community member. Elaine Spaliatsos spoke against the proposal, expressing concerns about how the development would impact her property. The specific nature of the property impacts she cited was not detailed in the available meeting materials. The outcome of this contested item and any Commission action taken was not specified in the provided meeting documentation. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:30] The Commission addressed the approval of minutes from their previous meeting held on May 22, 2008. Frank Penn and James Mahan were the key speakers during this agenda item discussion. The commissioners reviewed the minutes from the May 22, 2008 meeting for accuracy and completeness. Following their review and discussion, the Commission voted to approve the minutes from the May 22, 2008 meeting. No significant concerns or corrections were raised during the review process. The minutes were officially approved as presented. ## Postponements and Withdrawals [timestamp: 03:00] The Commission addressed several requests for postponements and withdrawals of pending zoning map amendments and development plans during this agenda item. Dick Murphy and Rena Wiseman served as the key speakers presenting the various postponement and withdrawal requests to the Commission for consideration. The Commission reviewed multiple cases where applicants had requested either to postpone their hearings to a future meeting date or to withdraw their applications entirely. These requests typically occur when applicants need additional time to address technical issues, respond to staff comments, or make revisions to their proposed developments. The Commission approved the postponement and withdrawal requests as presented. This procedural item allows the Commission to efficiently manage its docket by removing cases that are not ready for hearing and rescheduling others to appropriate future meeting dates. By approving these requests, the Commission ensured that only cases ready for full consideration would proceed to public hearing, helping to streamline the meeting process and make better use of both Commission and public time. ## Land Subdivision Items [timestamp: 15:00] The Commission addressed Land Subdivision Items as agenda item 3, with Tom Martin serving as the key speaker for this discussion. The primary focus of this agenda item centered on financial instruments related to land development projects, specifically performance bonds and letters of credit. These instruments are typically required to ensure that developers complete required infrastructure improvements and meet their obligations to the municipality. The Commission reviewed and discussed a specific case involving a performance bond on Georgetown Road. Performance bonds serve as financial guarantees that developers will complete required improvements such as roads, utilities, and other infrastructure elements associated with their subdivision projects. Following their discussion of the bond requirements and the status of the Georgetown Road project, the Commission took action to approve both the release and call of the bond. This dual action suggests that while one aspect of the bonded work may have been completed satisfactorily (warranting a release), another portion required the bond to be called upon to ensure completion or address deficiencies. The Commission's approval of this bond action represents a routine but important aspect of municipal oversight of development projects, ensuring that public infrastructure standards are met and that the municipality's interests are protected throughout the development process. The agenda item was resolved with the Commission's approval of the recommended actions regarding the Georgetown Road performance bond. ## Zoning Items [timestamp: 45:00] The Commission reviewed multiple zoning map amendments and development plans during agenda item 4. Key speakers included Jimmy Emmons and Traci Wade, who presented the various zoning requests to the Commission. The zoning items under consideration included applications from CMW, Inc. and DJ Acquisition, LLC, among other petitioners seeking map amendments and development approvals. The Commission examined each request individually, reviewing the proposed changes to zoning designations and associated development plans. Staff presentations covered the technical aspects of each zoning amendment, including compatibility with surrounding land uses, compliance with the comprehensive plan, and adherence to zoning ordinance requirements. The Commission evaluated how each proposed amendment would impact the surrounding area and whether the requests met the criteria for approval. Following their review and discussion of the zoning matters, the Commission approved the zoning map amendments and development plans that were presented. The approvals allow the applicants to proceed with their proposed developments under the newly designated zoning classifications. The zoning items represented routine business for the Commission, involving the standard process of reviewing petitions for zoning changes and ensuring they align with the city's planning objectives and regulatory requirements. ## Chevy Chase Neighborhood Zone Change Initiation Request [timestamp: 1:40:00] The Planning Commission considered a request to initiate a zone change process for the Chevy Chase neighborhood during agenda item 5. The proposal involved establishing an ND-1 (Neighborhood Development-1) overlay zone for the area. Brad Hawkins served as a key speaker during the discussion, presenting information about the neighborhood's request for the zone change initiation. Neighborhood representatives made a presentation to the commission outlining their rationale for seeking the ND-1 overlay designation. The ND-1 overlay zone is typically used to provide additional development standards and protections for established residential neighborhoods while maintaining compatibility with existing neighborhood character. The overlay would work in conjunction with the area's underlying zoning to provide enhanced regulatory controls. Following the presentation and commission discussion, the Planning Commission approved the initiation of the zone change process for the Chevy Chase neighborhood. This approval allows staff to begin the formal zoning amendment process, which will include additional public hearings, technical analysis, and community input opportunities before any final zoning decisions are made. The approval represents the first step in what will be a comprehensive review process to determine whether the ND-1 overlay zone is appropriate for the Chevy Chase neighborhood and meets the city's zoning criteria and comprehensive plan policies. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of the minutes of the May 22, 2008, Planning Commission meeting - **MAR 2007-9** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Tates Creek Heights, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Pinnacle, Lot 1 (Amd.) Zoning Development Plan - **MAR 2007-20** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Fortune Offices, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Eastwood, Unit 6, Section 1, Lot 6 Zoning Development Plan - **MAR 2008-14** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Kevin Crouse, Premier Villages Zoning Map Amendment & Old School House Lane Zoning Development Plan - **ZOTA 2007-8** — postponed (8-0): Indefinite postponement of amendment to Article 17-7(g) to allow advertising signs to use digital technology - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Release and call the bond on the 2429 (2417) Georgetown Road property - **MARV 2008-7** — passed (9-0): Approval of CMW, Inc. Zoning Map Amendment & Mark Acre Properties, LLC Zoning Development Plan - **ZDP 2008-34** — passed (9-0): Approval of Mark Acre Properties, LLC Zoning Development Plan - **MAR 2008-19** — passed (9-0): Approval of DJ Acquisition, LLC Zoning Map Amendment - **ZDP 2008-81** — passed (9-0): Approval of Overbrook Land Company Zoning Development Plan - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Initiation of ND-1 overlay zone for Chevy Chase neighborhood --- ## Full transcript Order, the June 26th meeting of the Planning Commission, and at this time we will approve the minutes. We have the May 22nd, 2008 minutes, and I could direct the members of the Commission to the minutes of the May 22nd meeting. Are there any corrections, clarifications? Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the May 22nd minutes. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve the May 22nd meeting minutes. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed, say no. Minutes accepted. Thank you. At this time, we will accept requests for postponements and or withdrawals at this time. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. On page 1, item 1, Tate's Creek Heights LLC Zoning Map Amendment and Pinnacle Lot 1 Amended Zoning Development Plan, we're requesting an additional one-month postponement on that as before we have been in contact with the Neighborhood Association about that. Okay, so an additional one-month postponement on that? Yes. Mr. Stanley, what's the date on that? The date, I believe, is July 24th. It is. July 24th. Okay. Thank you. We have a request for a one-month postponement of MAR 2007-9, Tate's Creek Heights. This is located at 1093, 1097, and 1099 Duval Street. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Yes. Could you come forward, please? My name is Elaine Spoletos, and I live at 4364 Jasmine Roseway. My property faces the business on Duval Street, and I would like to know what it is that they are trying to do there. And I am against the drive-thru for the coffee shop, and I don't know anything about what to do. Okay. Well, at this point, there has been a request by the petitioner for a one-month postponement that this case will be heard on July 24th. So if you would like to come back at that time to state your objection and hear the case in itself, we will have a full hearing on the 24th. I won't be in town on the 24th. Is it possible to hear my? I'm sorry. You said you will not be in town? I will not be in town on the 24th. Okay. Can you, I guess, meet perhaps with the petitioner in absence, or? Sure. And speak with Mr. Murphy? Sure. He's representing the applicant, perhaps. I'd be happy to. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. Excuse me, ma'am. I was advised that you could also provide any written comments in response to this particular application as well. Okay. Thank you very much. Sure thing. Thank you. Thank you for coming down. Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak to this particular request for postponement of MAR-2009, Tates Creek Heights, LLC, located 1093, 1097, 1099 Duvall? Okay. Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move the postponement of MAR-2007-9, one month, until the July 24th meeting. Okay. We have a motion and a second for one month postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Similarly, on page 3, item 2, Fortune Offices, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment and Eastwood Unit 6, Section 1, Lot 6, Zoning Development Plan, we're requesting a one month postponement. I've talked to Mr. Simpson, the attorney from one of the neighbors, and two other neighbors as well to get their agreement to the postponement. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. We have a request for a one month postponement for MAR-2007-20, Fortune Offices, LLC. This is for property located at 2472 Fortune Drive. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Mr. Chairman, seeing none, the staff would ask if new notice letters could be sent. It's been, I think, two or three months since notice letters were sent on this application. Okay. That would be okay. That's agreeable. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salih. All right. At this time, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we postpone MAR-2007-20 until the July 24th meeting. Second. We have a motion and a second to postpone. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Rena Wiseman. I have two items. On page 6, Kevin Krause, Premier Villages and Old School House Lane Zoning Development Plan. We have been contacted by Bruce Simpson, who was just this week hired by two of the adjoining landowners. And we're in the process of trying to work out some agreeable buffering between those properties. And he's asked and we've agreed to put this off for 30 days to try to work that out. So we would request a 30-day postponement to July 24th. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Wiseman. We have a request for a one-month postponement for MAR-2008-14. Kevin Krause, Premier Villages. This is for property located at 4500 and 4524 Old School House Lane. 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 postponement of MAR-2008-14 to the July 24th meeting. Second. We have a motion and a second for a postponement. All those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. And I have one final request. At the bottom of page 7, the first text amendment regarding advertising signs with digital technology. We would request that that be indefinitely postponed. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Wiseman. We have a request for an indefinite postponement of ZOTA-2007-8. Amendment to Article 17-7G 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? Indefinite postponement. Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for indefinite postponement of ZOTA-2007-8, the advertisement of technology signs. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second for indefinite postponement. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Are there any additional postponements or withdrawals? Okay. Seeing none, we will move into our land subdivision items. And at this time, we do not have any. Our first item, of course, is performance bonds and letters of credit. And I think the staff is going to give us a brief presentation on that. Mr. Chairman, you have a handout. You can see here. And I will let you know that we met with the applicant on this issue, both planning, law, and engineering. The applicant has indicated to us that they are going to renew this bond. And, therefore, you may act on this plan as you would normally any other bond that's been brought to you from the Division of Engineering. Okay. And that will accomplish now the need. So the property in question or the bond in question is what's highlighted on the back? Yes. Okay. Yes, sir. That was the bond in question that you removed from your last meeting's action. And you would just need now to take action on it. Again, as I said, they have agreed to renew the bond. Okay. Thank you. All right. At this time, the Chair will entertain a motion to release and call the bonds on the attached memo. Mr. Chairman, I move to release and call the bond on the Georgetown Road 22429 that we deleted from our last bond call. Is that the way you want to do it? That's correct. Thank you, sir. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to release and call the bonds at Georgetown Road property 2429. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. At this time, we'll give the staff time to set up for our first zoning item. I guess, Mr. Salley, we don't have any qualified for abbreviated today, do we? Mr. Chairman, I believe the two remaining zone changes both would qualify for abbreviated hearing. Okay. Both are recommended for approval by the staff and the zoning subcommittee. The first appears on page four of your agenda, item number three, MARV 2008-7. This is a zone change request by CMW Incorporated for property located at 502 through 526 South Broadway, also including 320 Pine Street and 319 Cedar Street. At this time, the staff would ask if anyone is present who wishes to either speak to or to object to this proposed rezoning from MU2 to B2A on this block. Okay. The applicants represent no one else is present. Okay. This can be our first abbreviated item. Thank you. The second item, I believe, is number five on the bottom of page six. This would be MAR 2008-19, a request by DJ Acquisition, LLC. This is a proposed rezoning from P1 Professional Office to B3 Highway Service Business for property at 1264 East New Circle Road. That is a portion of that property. Again, at this time, the staff would ask if anyone is present who wishes either to discuss or object to this proposed rezoning from P1 to B3. Okay. The applicant is present. Is there anyone else present? Okay. Thank you. Both items, Mr. Chairman, can be handled in an abbreviated fashion if you wish. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Salley. address those two abbreviated items. Mr. Emmons? Yes, sir. I'd like to present to you, as you mentioned on page four of your agenda, this is MARV 2007, CNW Incorporated. This is for a zone change request from a mixed-use two MU2 zone to a downtown-framed business zone, or our B2A zone, for a property that's about an acre, located at several addresses, but it's for an entire block that is bounded by South Broadway, Pine Street and Cedar, and Plunkett Street. I'll show you where it is located on our maps. Before I get started, I would just like to, we have received actually two letters, but they're both from the same South Hill Historic Neighborhood, South Hill Neighborhood Association. And if you want to see them, I'll be happy to pass them out, but I'll just let you know the first one was asking you to disapprove it, and the second one is from the same people saying that they have worked out their disagreements with the applicant and would like to withdraw that letter. So I'll just, if you would like to see them, I'll pass them out. Otherwise, I'll just present them for the record. I'd like to start off as we do. There we go. Showing the aerial photograph of this site, this is a site that the Planning Commission rezoned to the MU2 zone about two years ago. The site is bounded, as I mentioned earlier, by South Broadway, Cedar Street, Pine Street and Plunkett Street. It's best known as the Popeye Sign Company property. The Popeye Sign Company being this building right here, the site essentially has vacant of the site, gravel parking lot and some older warehouse buildings on the site. It is directly across South Broadway from the farther northern portion of the Shelburne development, the mixed-use development across the road. As you look at the site, once again, this is the entire block. It is actually, it didn't show up on this graphic as well as I wanted. Historic South Hill neighborhood, the H1 zoning bounds this property on two sides, but this block itself is not part of the South Hill historic neighborhood zoning. What we do have, there's a mixture of residential, commercial and mixed-use zoning that surrounds the property. I'm not going to go over each of the little zones, but I think you can see that there is a mixture of residential zoning and commercial zoning. Most of the commercial zoning and mixed-use zoning are geared towards the higher arterials and the mix of Broadway and Upper Street, and most of your residential zoning is more interior to the area. This is a portion of the downtown master plan. The area that we're looking at, we've got Main Street and Vice Street, the downtown core area. As you come down Broadway, we're very much in this area right here. This is the Newtown Pike extension, which will be named Bolivar in that area. Just looking in at it, a little bit closer view, the subject property will be right here located in between Pine and Cedar Street, right along the North Broadway corridor, just south of Maxwell Street, and right across from the Shelburne project. If we can pull that out. Thank you. As the staff was reviewing this zone change request to the B2A zoning, the applicant's main justification for this is not so much to have a different type of development, but to allow different use of the property. I think you'll see whenever the development plan presentation is given to you, we're dealing with pretty much the exact same development of the property as how the building can be used inside. What generated the request for the B2A zoning is the applicant's desire to run a boutique hotel on the subject property. A boutique hotel is not technically defined in our zoning ordinance, but in general, it's a very small hotel, somewhere between three and a hundred rooms. In this particular instance, what the applicant wishes to do is to set up a condominium, condominiumize, I have trouble saying that word, they're trying to do condos inside each individual dwelling unit, and it would be up to each individual condo owner if they wanted to join in and rent them out on a basis of less than a week. Each individual condo unit might be part of an association that is a larger association that would rent them out for less than a week. That, by our definition, would be a hotel for that. In general, you would have a conglomeration of one-unit hotels within this one building. As the staff was looking at it, the hotel use is not allowed in the mixed-use zoning that they have. In fact, none of our mixed-use zones currently allow hotels. The B2A zoning was the applicant's best fit for this. Whenever the staff looked at it and we noticed that it's essentially the exact same proposal, it's just allowing a different set of uses, we felt very comfortable that this proposal also meets the intent and the comprehensive plan. I apologize. I've had a long week, and I just got back from vacation. But let me get back to what I know. This particular plan, I do want to make one correction that is in our staff report. We did report out that this was going to have 54 units, and that is the amount of dwelling units that were on the previously approved plan. It is now proposed for 80 units. However, the intensity of the use is really not changing, and I can kind of summarize that up if you look at the number of bedrooms. Even under the 54 units, they were proposing 102 bedrooms. With these 80 units, they're proposing 100 beds. So, I mean, it's really the intensity of the use is not really changing. It's just coming down to who can stay there with this B2A zoning. The staff did feel that it was important, in order to keep this plan in agreement with the comprehensive plan, and also in order to protect the historic South Hill neighborhood, that we propose conditional zoning restrictions so that the B2A zoning that's proposed for this site most closely matches the mixed-use 2 zoning that currently is there in place today. Also, we feel that it's important so that we cut down on those uses that will have a high volume of traffic and parking. You can see under condition number three, under article 6-7 of the zoning ordinance, the following uses are prohibited. I'm not going to read that list to you, but we do have A through M on that list. In short, the Division of Planning and, I believe, the Zoning Committee are recommending approval of this plan because we did find that it is in agreement with our 2007 comprehensive plan, which recommends mixed-use for the subject property. It's also in agreement with several of the goals and objectives of our downtown master plan, which this area is also subject to. In particular, the goals for increasing residential development for this. If you have any questions for me, I realize that I've kind of jumped around in my presentation, which is, I don't think that's quite usual of me, but if you have any questions for me, I would be happy to try and answer them. Also, along with this zone change application, there is a development plan and a variance request. The staff will be happy to report on those before the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. We certainly forgive you for the missteps. Good afternoon. The zoning development plan for this zone change appears on page 5 of your agenda. It is plant ZDP 2008-34, Mark Acre property. This is an amended preliminary development plan, so you will see a final development plan at some point down the road. As Jimmy laid out the property pretty well, I'm going to go ahead and talk about the change in the proposal. This change is to change the use from a mixed use with residential to basically a mixed use with rentable condominium units. The changes to the plan include, from the previous preliminary plan, is an increase in the number of units, as Jimmy said, from 54 to 80 units and a decrease in the number of beds from 102 to 100. There's also a slight decrease in the amount of parking from 140 to 100. 140, excuse me, from 100 to, I'm sorry, there's a two. I'll just show you where they are then. They have dropped two spaces in this location and widened their entrance at this spot. The subdivision committee recommended approval with seven standard conditions, five sign-off and two basic clean-up conditions. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Any questions for Mr. Taylor? Thank you, sir. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. This is the variance portion of the request, and it's on page 5 of the agenda, and it can be found behind tab 3 behind the regular staff report for the zone change request. They're asking for a variance from 10 feet to zero feet for the three street frontages, South Broadway, Plunkett Street, and Cedar Street. And most of you probably remember the 2006 zone change where they asked for the variance for the front yards for all four frontages from 15 feet to zero feet, and then they also asked for the height variance from 55 feet to 70 feet. The reason that they asked for the variance from 15 to zero was just for the third through the sixth floors of the building. The MU2 zone has a requirement that the building be set at zero feet for the first two floors and then for the third floor and above, it's 15 feet. So they wanted to build the building as – Chris, can you put that up on the overhead? They wanted to build the building so that it was uniform set back all the way up. The proposed use at that time was primarily residential, which it is this time too, but it's a different kind of residential. It was – the first floor had retail and it had a partially underground parking garage. The current zone change to B2A, it will have the same building, as you can see, and the same layout and the same basic proposed use, but it is – Jimmy and Chris had said it would be for a boutique hotel. They're now only asking for the one variance, which is to the front yard on – I forgot my pointer – the front yard along here from 10 to zero, along here from 10 to zero, and along here from 10 to zero. They don't need it on Pine Street. Because the variance was granted for the previous zone change, if it remained MU2, then they could build the building as it is now. They just couldn't use it as they're proposing to use it. And the B2A zone does have a 10-foot setback regardless of the number of floors. That's why they're asking for the 10-foot to zero for this zone change. The property is just over a little – a little over an acre in size, which is small for a mixed-use development, and it's only about 150 feet wide. That limits the design flexibility for the building. And if it was required to be at the 10-foot setback, then possibly it would take away from the size of the building, the number of rooms, or the courtyard area. And the courtyard area is a significant design feature in this proposal, and it accounts for a lot of open space. So that is why we're recommending – basically recommending approval of this – of the variance because of that reason. And the wide sidewalk around the building will also help to mitigate any possible negative impacts that the zero-foot setback might have, which it probably wouldn't, but just in case anybody thought that there was going to be a negative impact from the building being at zero feet, it's not going to. It's got the wide sidewalk all the way around. The Zoning Committee recommended approval of this for the reasons that the staff provided, and the staff recommended approval for the reasons that I just gave you, and subject to four conditions, and those four conditions would be provided the Urban County Council rezones the property B2A. Otherwise, any commission action of approval of this variance is null and void. Should the property be rezoned, it shall be developed in accordance with the approved preliminary development plan or as approved by the Planning Commission via a certified final development plan. Three, a note shall be placed on the preliminary development plan indicating the dimensional variance that the Planning Commission has approved for this property under Article 64C of the Zoning Ordinance. And four, all necessary permits shall be obtained from building inspection prior to construction after certification of a final development plan should this property be rezoned. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you, Ms. Rackers. Any questions for Ms. Rackers? Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Okay. Petitioner? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Brian Hill with CMW. I don't have a whole lot to add. I'll just kind of, I guess, maybe fill in a few of the little gaps here. Jimmy presented the letter to you all where the South Hill Neighborhood Association has withdrawn their opposition. I've been down here a few times over the last few months asking for a postponement, and the reason being is that we were trying to get the declaration of restrictions worked out with them, and I'm happy to report that those have been recorded and they will run with the property. And what these do is they safeguard this development with respect to the MU2 uses, just the hotel overlay in terms of the B2A, and also the architectural integrity that you saw in that rendering just a moment ago. Our client was always very willing to work with them. It was just a matter of semantics and language, and they just all got balled up in verbiage that took several months to get worked out. But anyway, that's been resolved. This is still primarily intended to be a condominium development. Our client has been living out in Phoenix, Arizona for several years now and intends to move to Lexington. Has had this property under option, under contract for two, three years now, with the full intent of building a condominium. With all of his travels, if you will, to Lexington and the market studies and what they've read in the paper and so on, and what they're doing in the Phoenix area, he thought that there would be sort of a niche for a boutique hotel, but he didn't want to give up the condominium, since a lot of these clients probably will not live here necessarily year-round. I mean, they may live in the condominium for six months or nine months in Florida or wherever. He said that this is being done out west where, as Jimmy said and Barb said, they're actually pooling the condominiums and putting them in a rental pool where they can be rented out on a nightly basis as a boutique hotel. Well, you know, two blocks from Upper Arena and downtown and the university and the campus, it just seemed like just a great fit. So we had many discussions with the staff to figure out, as Jimmy said, the appropriate zoning and we think we landed on the B2A. And, again, I do want to say that this declaration of restriction with the Neighborhood Association safeguards this development in terms of just the hotel overlay as well as the staff's recommendation. It can't be a B2A and then we go in there and do something else. It's specific to what's being presented today. So with that, I would ask for your all's approval. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Questions? Mr. Penn? Yes, sir. Let me ask you a question. What size are these units? I assume they're not all the same size. What size are these units? They vary. They're in that range of 900 to maybe 1,800. Some of the one bedrooms are a little on the small side. The two bedrooms are ñ and the upper floor are still the suites. The upper floor are the high-end suites. We don't anticipate that top floor, those units being rented out. Those are 1,800 to 2,000 square feet. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Mr. Aitken? Brian, what is your parking and automobile storage ratio? We exceed, as has been pointed out, there are 100 beds. We've got, I believe, 107 parking spaces. I believe that's right. I have to look. In the garage down below. So we actually exceed the number of beds, and we exceed the criteria greatly, in terms of that .9 per bed or two parking spaces for every three units. So the idea is that before when we had the fewer units, it is 107 parking spaces because we were one short of having two parking spaces for every unit. We went from the 54 units mix to 80 because if they're going to be rented out for boutique hotels, the developer tried to get a few more units in there. Because of its proximity, didn't think that there would be a need to have two parking spaces for every unit, but we exceed the one parking space for every bed. So there's 107 parking spaces and 100 beds. And then we have 33 surface spaces for the retail component, which primarily will be for the needs of the folks that are staying there. There's intended to be a spa and perhaps a restaurant and, you know, some boutique shops and that kind of thing. They do expect some customer traffic, but I think they're going to gear the retail component for the folks staying there. Again, a lot of the space will be utilized by a spa, coffee shop, that kind of thing. They would like to put a small restaurant in there, but it's going to be driven by parking. So we have 33 surface parking spaces out in front of the facility that have nothing to do with the folks living there in Lyle. One other question, Brian. How would you expect a visitor to access and where would his automobile be stored or parked? A visitor. Would this be just in the commercial aspect of it? Would he be in that area? There are 33 parking spaces that are intended to be for customers slash visitors out in front of the facility at the main entrance. I suspect that some of those would be signed visitor parking only. I also would think, and we just haven't quite gotten there, Lyle, but I would also think that perhaps underneath, depending on just the dynamics of how the parking works out and if it appears that there's 107 underneath and let's say that their case study and history shows that at any given time, maybe only, I'm just making this up, 90 of them are being utilized on a full-time basis, then they may make a decision to say, let's go ahead and sign 10 of these for visitor spaces and figure out a way where we can have the gate that would allow visitors to come in. But there are 33 spaces on the surface, to answer your question. Thank you. Mr. Penn. Is the access off Cedar and off Broadway or just off Cedar? Just off Cedar. And there's two curb cuts into the site. You kind of go down a semi-ramp. It will be gated. And it will be a full circle underneath so it's not a dead-end situation. If you can get back in there, there's two ways to get out. And I also might add, on the right-hand side of that rendering, you'll kind of see that corridor between the two bays of parking. That's intended to be kind of a locker space for each condominium so that if they want to store golf clubs or lawn chairs, that kind of thing, they don't have to wag them up and down to their unit. And then you can see the elevator would be keyed so that it would be a private elevator from that ground floor up to the units. And then I'm sure you are also aware that on South Broadway, there's a signal proposed for Cedar Street. And we worked with traffic engineering back months and months ago to be allowed to actually have that left-turn lane on the Cedar to facilitate the circulation. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Any other questions for Mr. Hill at this time? Okay. Staff, do you have anything you'd like to add? Just one item, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Just in Mr. Emmons' defense, the agenda does have the correct number of dwelling units, and the density shown is correct in item number 1B at 77.82 dwelling units. The original staff report did report 54 units, but the agenda does have correct information on it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salih. All right. Are there any other questions, I guess, at this time from the Commission? Petitioner, do you have anything you'd like to add additional? Okay. Thank you. All right. Okay. At this time, we'll close this portion of the hearing. And the Zoning Committee has recommended approval for the reasons provided by staff for MAR 2008-7. And they've recognized under item 3 some conditional zoning restrictions. I'm sorry. Excuse me. Prohibited uses via conditional zoning. And we also have a variance. And staff has recommended approval of the variance along with the Zoning Committee from 10 feet to zero. And then we have the Zoning Development Plan 2008-34 with seven conditions. So at this time, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move for approval of MAR 2008-7 with the three reasons provided by staff. Number three, noting all of the prohibited uses in this zone change request and adopting the variances noted for the reasons provided by staff. Okay. I move to approve MAR 2008-7 for the reasons provided by staff and acceptance of the approval of the variance from 10 feet to zero feet. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move for approval of CDP 2008-38 with the seven conditions. Seven conditions as noted. Okay. We have... Sorry. It's CDP 2008-34. Okay. Duly noted. We have a motion and a second for approval of CDP 2008-34 with the seven conditions. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Hill. This is D.J. on page 5 or 6, I'm sorry, 5 or 6. Ms. White? Good afternoon, Chairman Vaughn, members of the Commission. Our next item on the agenda is MAR 2008-19, a request by D.J. Acquisition, LLC. This is on page 6 and continues on to page 7 of your agenda. This is a zone change request from a professional office P1 zone to a highway service business B3 zone for approximately just a fraction of an acre, looks like half an acre, of property at an address of 1264 East New Circle Road. This is a portion of that larger property, and just recently it was consolidated, so our map here may not show the correct property lines. Generally the property includes the subject property, which is half an acre, and then comes out to New Circle Road and comes down here along the Parkette property line. And the rest of the property is already zoned B3, so this would bring the subject portion of the property into agreement with the rest of the property. Existing zoning in this area, New Circle Road here, B3 along New Circle Road and some I-1 across New Circle. Along Liberty Road there's B3 zoning as well as I-1 and some residential just to the west, and B4 zoning also to the west of the subject property. The comprehensive plan for this area recommends for these, this portion of the property actually recommends professional services, and again we have Liberty Road here in the corner of this map and New Circle Road and the subject parcel along Liberty Road. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property in order to have a, I guess, have a automobile display area rather than employee parking. This development plan has been in front of you previously, but this area was indicated for employee parking, and that was approved by the Board of Adjustment in a P1 zone. However, now the applicant has decided to rearrange their parking somewhat on site and want to have display parking along Liberty Road at that location. Although the B3 zone is not in agreement with the comprehensive plan for this location and the existing zoning is, the staff did look at the appropriateness of the proposed zone for this location and did find that the B3 zone would be appropriate at this location because of the, because it's surrounded by more intent zones, B3, B4, and I1 in this location, and also because it would become more compatible with the existing area. The existing P1 is found to be inappropriate at this location because it is just this little half acre portion that is currently zone P1, and it, although originally was intended to provide a buffer for a residential area, that residential area was rezoned 20-some years ago to B4 in this location, so it no longer provides that buffer. And the staff would recommend this zone change with some conditional zoning restrictions for the B3 zone, and those are listed on your agenda. There are 11 use restrictions that we would like to have prohibited or recommend being prohibited, and then one additional restriction for outdoor lighting, that it be directed away from any of the nearby residential areas or away from the right-of-way. And those restrictions are appropriate in order to ensure that the proposed commercial development of the subject property will not be a detriment to any of the nearby residential areas. And then, of course, we are recommending approval subject to the associated development plan being certified within two weeks. I can answer any questions that you might have. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Any questions for Ms. Wade at this time? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, if I may direct your attention to page 7, item B. This is the associated preliminary development plan for this zone change, ZDP 2008-81 Overbrook Land Company. You've seen, I believe, three parking lots in about three months. This is, in fact, the third time you've seen this plan. There's a certain symmetry there. Again, for the purposes of this zone change, this is the area of the zone change. This is where the parking lot is being changed and where the zone is being changed as well. This is the overall plan that you have seen, and, in fact, you approved this. The second time you saw this plan, it was a continuing discussion that affected this layout with the display area and added this number became 42,000. I just want to point out you have approved 42,000 square feet on this plan. But for the purposes of this zone change, it is this area here that is subject to the zone change, and in this area the parking has been reconfigured. If you notice here and here, here, and here, those are double stalls, and that's for the purpose of storage of the cars. Numerically, the current plan has 89 parking spaces. This plan, if approved, will have 112 parking spaces. That's the numerical change with this zone change proposal. But, again, it is for storage of the vehicles for the parking lot is the principal reason for that change. Our subdivision committee did review this and recommend approval to what you can see are very standard notes, including number six, which is there shall be no development of the property until you approve a final development plan. Now, they can, once that previous plan that you have approved be certified, proceed with building permits and construction. However, this area, they will need to amend that development plan before they can proceed with constructing that part of their development. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Martin. I did have one question, but I'll defer to Ms. Phillips. On the notification map that's in our booklets, it appears on the site plan it notes a future right-of-way. Is that consistent with the preliminary development plan? It's noting a future right-of-way off Liberty Road in our notification map. We have, on the previous approved plan, we do have, and this does reflect the correct right-of-way, and we are getting, and it's shown in their cross-section, additional right-of-way and improvements along Liberty Road. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Thank you. My question pertains to stormwater management. Is there a stormwater detention retention system on site, and will the addition of these extra 20-odd parking spaces kick it into that requirement, or is there some sort of a threshold by which stormwater regulations are required with incremental increases in impervious surface areas? This entire site is governed by those standards, and they are proposing underground detention in these areas. Now, of course, the ultimate configuration and size will be determined by the infrastructure plans that they submit to engineering, but these are the proposed areas for detention. So, yes, ma'am, detention is required. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Phillips. Mr. Martin. Are there any other questions for Mr. Martin at this time? Thank you, sir. Petitioner. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jihad Hallani, and there's not much to add than what Tracy and Tom has talked about this project. We apologize that we bother you twice. First time was a mistake from my part. I did the area wrong. We amend it for continuing into hearing. But the amount of square footage right now is 42,000 square feet, and the purpose is to have display cars when we do the zone change from P1 to B3 zone. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jihad. Any questions for Mr. Jihad at this time? Thank you very much. Anything from staff? Anything additional to add? Okay. All right. Chairman Vaughn, I'm sorry. This is Tracy. I just wanted to correct that there are 12 prohibited uses listed on your agenda. I had the staff report, and it had two number 10s, so I apologize for that. Okay. I'm sorry, Ms. Wade. It kind of faded in and out. Can you? I'll repeat, Mr. Chairman. Okay. The information on the agenda shows the 12 restricted uses by the staff. I think Ms. Wade may have misidentified the number of prohibited uses recommended by the staff. Okay. All right. Thank you for the clarification. Okay. At this time, we will close this portion of the hearing and turn it over to the commission for discussion and or a motion. Yes, sir. Ms. Fann. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of MAR 2008-19 for reasons provided by staff, noting the 12 prohibited uses. Item A. And also note item A regarding outdoor lighting. Second. Okay. I move and second to approve MAR 2008-19 for the reasons provided by staff, and noting prohibited following use restrictions and the other restrictions regarding outdoor lighting. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. The motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of ZDP 2008-81, noting the nine conditions. Second. Okay. Do we have the additional zoning restrictions on that as well? I believe you need to add the condition with the conditional zoning restrictions on the development plan. On the development plan. I believe. Okay. So we add a tenth condition. Okay. That was your motion, Mr. Penn. Do we have a second on that? Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second to approve ZDP 2008-81 with the nine conditions adding a tenth, noting the conditional zoning restrictions. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Blast. At this time, we conclude our zoning items and we move into our commission items. And the first item up is Chevy Chase Neighborhood Zone Change Initiation Request, and we'll have a presentation by staff. Thank you, Chairman Vaughn, members of the commission. The first thing I'd like to do is just enter into the record the application request and petitions that the neighborhood has put together. And then secondly, I would just like to orient you to the area that is being requested for an ND1 overlay zone. And actually, the request is not today. The request at this point is for the application to be initiated and for the planning commission to act as the applicant for the neighborhood. This area covers actually, I believe, encompasses four neighborhood associations but is bounded by Tate's Creek Road along Providence and then Cassidy Avenue, Hart Road, and back along Tate's Creek to the north, and then generally follows the rear line of properties along Fontaine Road, includes properties on the west side of Shinaway Road, and properties on the north side of Cooper. So that includes generally this whole area, but does exclude the church properties and then the commercial property between and along Duke and Romney Roads in this area. So again, the ND1 overlay zone is only applicable to residential areas, so that would explain the exclusion of Cassidy and Morton School, the churches, and then the commercial areas in terms of the study area for the Chevy Chase ND1 overlay. The area includes 675 residential properties, and the neighborhood has worked closely with strategic planning of the division of planning and have completed a significant amount of work to compile their application and then collect petition signatures to ask the planning commission to initiate this request. And the primary goal for them was to maintain the character of their neighborhood and conserve the size and scale of development, and reinforce the architecture and historic integrity of their neighborhood. The specifics of their application, there's a packet that we've handed out to you, and I've tabbed with a yellow Post-it several things. The first page that I thought was important for the planning commission to see were the statistics of the petition results, and of the 675 residential properties that were asked for a petition signature, there was a response rate of almost 72 percent, 73 percent, and of that 73 percent, 61 percent of the total responded that they were in favor of the ND1 overlay being requested, and 11.4 percent were in opposition, and then 27.5 percent of the total didn't respond to the request. So of those who did respond, there was an 84.5 percent approval or in agreement with the neighborhood asking for this overlay and asking the planning commission to move forward as the applicant. And there's a map directly behind that that shows where the yes, no, and no responses are located within this area. The third tab that I've highlighted is the executive summary for their application, and I would just bring to your attention the seven restrictions that the neighborhood is asking be included with their ND1 overlay, and generally those are in regard to rear yard restriction, height restriction for principal structures, a roof pitch requirement, window and door openings restrictions, requiring scale drawings with building permits, having rear parking in the R1T and R3 zone being required, and then maximum garage size. Those are the seven restrictions that they're interested in having included with their ND1 overlay, and those items are graphically depicted towards the rear of this packet on the fourth post-it I've marked. The last thing that I would say is that the zoning committee did review this and recommended approval of the initiation of the ND1 zone for the full commission, and I'd be happy to answer any questions, and Ms. Phillips from strategic planning is also here, as well as several members of the neighborhood who would be happy to answer any questions about either their process or any specific questions about the ND1 overlay. Thank you, Ms. Waite. Are there any questions for Ms. Waite at this time? Ms. Phillips, do you have anything you'd like to add at this time? Okay. All right. I see quite a few folks in the audience that I'm sure are wishing to speak. Is the petitioner that made the application present? Brad, would you like to? Petitioner present, if you could come forward. Thank you, Mr. Vaughn. My name is Brad Hawkins. I'm a resident of the Chevy Chase neighborhood. I live on Dudley Road. I represent a committee of neighbors who were volunteered, if you were, to evaluate ND1 as an initiative and an overlay zone for the neighborhood. I'm prepared this afternoon to talk about the process and the support that this initiative has. I'm also prepared to a limited extent to talk about the guidelines. I wanted to tell you that we have some other committee members here who have some expertise in some areas that may help the commission make their decision today. Jeff Duncan, who's our president, he's an architect. He worked with this committee. Tom Burke is here. He's an architect. He worked on this committee. Susan Lewis is near her Master's in Historic Preservation. She was on this committee. Some of you may recall Henry Jackson, who worked with this committee. You're shaking your heads no. I call him. He's sitting in the chief seats in the back. I call him Professor Planner Emeritus. He helped with our efforts. Mary Margaret Bell, who's a realtor, helped with this process. Carla Van Hoos, a health care professional, helped with this process. I think I've named everyone on the committee. I happen to be a lawyer. I'm not a land-use lawyer like you see before you lots of times, like Mr. Simpson and Mr. Murphy. I restore some bungalows mostly under the guise of Dudley Road Bungalow. So we have a good mix of people with a lot of relevant life experiences who looked at this issue. It started over two years ago, back in 2006, when we became aware of ND1 as a tool that was available to neighborhoods to help them preserve and conserve and maintain what I call a non-renewable resource. The older neighborhoods in Lexington really are non-renewable resources. They're classic examples of what developers today are trying to create, which is new urbanism. And we have that in Chevy Chase. We have it all over Lexington in old neighborhoods. And it's the neighbor's desire, really the overwhelming desire of the neighborhood to implement ND1 in some fashion. We have seven or eight proposed guidelines that we think address some of the critical issues in Chevy Chase. When we started this process two years ago, we were really the blind leading the blind, I guess you will. There's been no neighborhood to get this far with this process. We embraced it because we thought it was a great tool that allowed neighbors and property owners to enhance their property, improve their investments, live how they want to live, but also reduce the speculation of homeownership so that there's some degree of certainty that neighbors know what's going to happen in their neighborhood and that it's going to be maintained for future generations. So when we started this, we tried to maintain a process of what I call neighbor initiated, neighbor staffed, and neighbor supported. And it's been open and notorious. We've tried to be very public and open about our efforts and welcome all sorts of input from neighbors. We've had, I think, 16 monthly meetings over the last two years where this was a topic on the agenda. The agenda was passed out to every residence in Chevy Chase, so there was notice to everybody that these meetings were occurring. When we came up with some proposed guidelines, we spent a good portion of this past winter, January through May, presenting these to neighbors, fleshing them out, modifying them, revising them to where we thought we had the kind of support that the commission would be comfortable with. Staff has told you of all property owners, 61% said yes. I think what's really important is those people we talked face-to-face with were able to tell them about what we're trying to do. Eighty-four and a half percent of the neighbors are in support of this initiative. We even reached out to absentee property owners. There's about 120, 125 in Chevy Chase. We sent them letters two times, got, I think, 20 or 22 letters back in response, and of those 20 or 22 responders, 18 to 20 said yes. Even absentee property owners overwhelmingly are in favor of this initiative, which will, I think, for future generations, maintain this non-renewable resource that people have invested in heavily and want to see continue to be a real treasure for Lexington. When we started, we also wanted to find out what were neighbors concerned about, so we held focus groups, and overwhelmingly the focus groups, the neighbors who participated, were concerned with what I call new redevelopment or new development. Sometimes we have homes that are destroyed and new homes are built or tops of homes are ripped off and they're built up. Overwhelmingly, I'd characterize the concerns with size and scale of new development and new redevelopment. So when we undertook this process, we tried to look at the enumerated guidelines. There's 15 of them under Article 29 that a neighborhood can choose from. That was what city council gave the neighbors to work with, and thinking that size and scale was the thing that people were most concerned about, we tried to work with those 15 enumerated guidelines to come up with the ones we thought would address size and scale. What we then undertook, and this again is neighbors volunteering their time, we did an architectural survey of every structure in Chevy Chase. Whether we're successful or not with this initiative, it's a great snapshot in history of what we have, because what we did is we took a picture of every structure. We noted its architectural details, those things that you can see from the street, style of house, exterior building materials, roof pitches, all those sorts of things that catch your eye when you look at a structure. That's all been documented and compiled into a database with photographs, and we used that information to then go back and look at the guidelines and see what we could work with to maintain that look and feel that you associate with Chevy Chase. We then, as I said, starting in January, went back to the neighbors with these proposed guidelines. We had an article published in the Chevy Chaser magazine that was delivered to every neighbor. I think the Planning Commission can be comfortable with that overwhelming support of the neighbors. We've gone above and beyond, I think, what most neighborhood groups do to generate a consensus, and that's what we have. That really concludes what I was hoping to talk with you about was the consensus, because I think that's the position we are right now is do we have support for this initiative? I believe it's overwhelming that we do. If you want to talk about the proposed guidelines, we welcome that opportunity as well. We think they're eminently reasonable. We think they give people a lot of leeway. A lot of creativity could be applied to them to allow homeowners to create the sort of lifestyle that they want while fitting in with neighbors and delivering what I call that degree of certainty about what your neighbor is going to do and help you maintain your own property. Any questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Hawkins. Are there any questions for Mr. Hawkins at this time? Mr. Penn? Yeah, I'm going to ask a question. It's probably ignorance, but I don't know. I'm looking at your map. Yes, sir. Which map would that be? This map right here. Okay. Is that the one that's color-coded? That's the one that's color-coded. All right. I'm colorblind, so help me out here. Well, you're colorblind, and I'm going to show my ignorance, so this ought to be fun. We'll be a good team, won't we? If you look on Cochran-Chenault coming toward Tate's Creek and you see 125 and 117, and then across the road you see 180 and 170, what was the --? Is that the line of demarcation? Is that where you split the what's in and what's out? You're speaking of what are multifamily structures near what people know to be Billy's Barbecue. Is that multifamily on both sides of the street there? Yes, sir. All right. Yes, sir. That answers that question. The other question is on Tate's Creek Road you've included 901 through 10,015, but you excluded all along Fontaine. Yes. We surveyed an area that we felt and have included in our application an area that we felt was traditionally the Chevy Chase neighborhood. Those properties that front Fontaine Road are considered, and if you ask the residents, they'll tell you they're part of Ashland Park. Okay. So we tried to kind of stay within color within the lines, if you will, and work with those neighbors that traditionally consider themselves to be residents of Chevy Chase. Now, staff told you there's three or four different neighborhood associations here. Within that broad area we have a Louisiana Avenue neighborhood association, there's a Chenault Road neighborhood association, there's a Chevy Chase neighborhood association, and then there's a Dudley Road, Ridgeway Road, defunct neighborhood association that's no longer active. So we've included that area that really by neighbor input over the last couple of years everybody felt comfortable that that was Chevy Chase as people know it to be. Does that answer your question? It does. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Hawkins right now? Okay. I see a number of folks in the audience. I will apologize. I'm seeing these circles, and if you sit up here as often as we do and we see circles with lines through them, but I think they're check marks. It's a check. Okay. For support of ND1. So, you know, from here it looks like a line through it, so I have to do my due diligence and say, can I see a show of hands that are in favor of this, just so I know? Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that's opposed to this initiation request? Okay. Thank you. We do have stickers for the commission, too, if they'd like one. Okay. Thank you. We do have stickers for the commission. That might be against protocol for us. That's a very good report, Mr. Hawkins. Thank you. I know you mentioned some other folks on your committee. Would any of those like to come forward and say a few words or have anything to add in addition to what Mr. Hawkins added? More than welcome to at this time. Okay. All right. Commission, I guess we'll ask if there's any comments or questions. I guess if nobody's going to comment, I would like to make a motion that we move forward with the recommendation to initiate the ND1 overlay for the Chevy Chase neighborhood. And I'd like to comment that this is the most comprehensive, the best plan we have ever been presented from a neighborhood for all the work. Thank you. Before I second it, I, too, would like to comment that it's sure refreshing to see a group come together, do it the right way, be well prepared. And two years, that's a long time. But I salute you for your efforts in doing this right. Nice project. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mahan. We have a motion to initiate this request by the residents of Chevy Chase for the ND1 overlay zone. We have a second from Mr. Mahan. At this time, I'll call for question. Is there a question? Okay. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. At this time, we do have one additional commission item. As most of you know, this is the last meeting for a couple of our commission members whose terms are expiring, who I guess at this point, as a result of their long dedicated service to the planning commission, cannot be reappointed. And I would say it's been a number of years, and I don't want to say how many, for fear I might get it wrong. But as a result of that, one of our commissioners, Ms. Guyfree, whose term will expire at the end of this month, is our current vice chair, and I asked the nominating committee to put forth a slate to select a vice chair. So at this time, I'd like to turn that over to the nominating committee for a report. The nominating committee would like to nominate Mr. Neal Day, Commissioner Neal Day, to serve as vice chair. Okay. Are there any other nominations from the floor? Okay. Is there a motion to close the nominations? Second. Second, okay. There's a motion and a second to close. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. All right. At this time, we'll take a motion to accept the slate as presented by the nominating committee. So moved. So moved. Okay. We have a motion and a second to accept the slate as presented by the nominating committee. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No. Motion carries. Mr. Day, I look forward to working with you. This spot's dedicated to you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I guess at this time, staff, do you have anything you'd like to? Mr. Chairman, we do. Of course, the staff would also like to thank Ms. Godfrey and Mr. Aiden for their many years of service. We've enjoyed working with you. There is also a staff member that especially those of you on the subdivision committee may not be seeing much of anymore. Captain Bill Woodward is retiring after 29 years of service with the Division of Fire. He is not here today, but I think that the subdivision committee meeting next week will be his last official day working for the Urban County Government. I just want to mainly put on the record how much the planning staff has enjoyed working with Captain Woodward. He has been a very loyal member of your technical committee over the last five years, and we have developed quite a good relationship, especially a working relationship. And I know those of you on the subdivision committee have also appreciated his contributions. So we'd like to recognize him, and thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. I know I would like to say I've enjoyed working with Captain Woodward and wish him all the best in his endeavors beyond Urban County Government. And I do also want to say at this time I know there is a third term member that's expiring. That's Mr. Mahan. His term expires as well. So we do have three commission members whose terms are expiring, and I didn't know if Ms. Skyfrey or Mr. Ayton or Mr. Mahan, if you all wanted to say anything at this time. I would just like to say it's been interesting. It's been a learning experience. I've enjoyed working with everybody. I'm not quite sure how I'm going to use all this extra time I'm going to get now, but I'll figure it out. I think you'll figure it out. Yes. But I do want to thank everybody for all the work that they do. And my hat's off to the staff because in the eight years since I've been down here, I've seen a lot of change, a lot of detail that's evolved in terms of the amount of development, the nature of the development. And I think the work that the staff does to present information to us to act on has just been phenomenal. And I wanted to thank everybody for that. Now my colleagues here on the podium. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Skyfrey. Mr. Ayton. Well, I'm particularly saddened that I'm no longer involved in this. I've been involved in one side of this bar or the other for about 40 years, I guess. And so I leave this position with some regret and some sadness and some happiness, too, because I think that I've seen the planning commission really grow and mature over that period of time. I can remember some of the earlier commissions that we had, that we worked for, that really didn't understand the word planning to begin with. And I'm not kidding. They really didn't understand the process or the word or anything like that. The staff has matured so beautifully. It's well-trained. It's professional. And I think there's an understanding in the community now that has never, ever happened before. I've seen that. It just has made me feel so good that the community has grown and matured so well in its planning efforts and its planning strategies and concepts and all of those kind of things. But it just makes me feel that I'm going out on a high note on this that I'm very happy to be a part of. Thank you, Mr. Aitken. Mr. Mahan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you. I, too, would just like to say thanks to a great commission and enjoyed working with each of you, and especially our staff, very talented and good staff. And I have enjoyed my time here. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, certainly for me, I'm going to miss these two, my right hand and my left hand here. And obviously some big shoes to fill at this side of the dais. I know I've sat on zoning committees with both and subdivision, and really that's where we roll up our sleeves and get a lot of our work done. It's been a real pleasure working with you guys, and I'm going to miss you. But with that said, I do want to say thanks also to the staff for their tremendous help over the time. So, Mr. Bennett. It's our pleasure. Thank you. I just can't let the opportunity go without saying that. Mr. Chairman, I got to go. No, you stay right here. Mr. Mahan is leaving because he's so busy. He has so many other things to do. But we appreciate the four years he's given us. If you all don't believe that Mr. Mahan cuts a wide swath, just try to walk over his farm. If you don't believe he cuts a wide swath, just try to go to Frankfort and follow him on the Ag Development Board. But what I want to say to Jim is that Jim came down here to help us when he had many other things he could do. He's much in demand on a lot of committees and he's much in demand in the state. He was the state director of Kentucky Farm Bureau's chair of their equine committee. And to come down here and give the time for four years, I appreciate it personally, but I think the commission is better off for it. But, Jim, when you get home every Thursday for the next four years, I want you to think about us because that opportunity could have been yours and you chose not to take it. So thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Okay. I see we do have some audience members. And, of course, one of the items on our agenda is if there's anything from the audience, unless nothing from the audience. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. No further business. Is there a motion for adjournment? Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. I second. All right. We're adjourned.