So let's go ahead and call the meeting to order. Madam Clerk, if you'll call the roll, please. That shouldn't surprise you. Ms. James? Here. Mr. Lane? Mr. McCord? Here. Mr. Meyers? Here. Dr. Stephens? Present. Mr. Stennet? Here. Mr. Beard? Present. Mr. Blevins? Here. Mr. Bluez? Here. Ms. Crosby? Here. Mr. DeCamp? Here. Mr. Ehlinger? Here. Ms. Gorton? Here. Mr. Gray? Here. And Ms. Hinson. Here. Thank you. Thank you. We have a quorum, so we'll proceed. With us this evening is, um, Clarence Thomas, a minister with First Baptist Church of Bragtown, to give our invocation. Mr. Thomas. Let us pray, let us pray. Most wise in Heaven Father, we come to You tonight, Father, just saying thank you, first of all, Father. Father, ask You to open this meeting, Father. Let us be on like there was a pinnacle, so let us be on one accord, Father. Father, we ask You, let us be respectful to each other here, Father. Father, we ask You that we just don't let Satan come in here and make no bad decisions, Father. We ask You to bless the mayor of this town, Father. We ask You to let him lean on You, Father, so decisions will be made, Father, will be godly decisions, Father. Move any thoughts of us, Father, and let You pr- Your presence in here, Father. Again, ask You to bless this meeting, Father, and just have Your way. In these things we ask in Jesus' name. Amen. Thank you. We're ready to proceed with ordinances entitled to second reading, so Madam Clerk, floor is yours. Ordinance number one, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute and submit a grant application to the US Department of Justice to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application, and to accept this grant if the application is approved, which grant funds are in the amount of $94,065 federal funds, are for Project Safe Neighborhoods Program for the US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Irvin County government for the expenditure of funds, appropriating funds pursuant to FY 2009 schedule number 27, and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number two, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Housing Corporation, which grant funds are in the amount of w- $12,000 Commonwealth of Kentucky funds, are under the Emergency Shelter Grant matching funds program, are for the provision of essential services to the homeless and for homelessness prevention activities, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Irvin County government for the expenditure of funds, appropriating funds pursuant to FY 2009 schedule number tw- two, 26, and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number three, an ordinance creating and establishing a non-exclusive electric franchise, and providing for the placement of facilities for the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electrical energy within the public rights of way, the incorporation of the provisions of code of ordinances and the applicable zoning laws, definitions, a l- police power limitation, construction, installation, maintenance and facility standards, due regard for rights of government and others, compliance with the government's permitting process for projects, additional performance guarantees of up to $200,000 on projects with construction costs exceeding $100,000, and an in- an indemnification and hold harmless provision, compliance with non-discrimination and affirmative action requirements, commercial general liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1 million per occurrence and $2 million aggregate, access inspection and auditing by the government, notification of rate cases before the Public Service Commission, and an agreement not to contest intervention by the gov- government, a three-year duration to v- no vested rights for installation or replacement of facilities and right to require removal of facilities at company's expense if no franchise exists, notification of assignment with consent not to be a- unreasonably held- withheld, no objection to government intervention and a transfer of control case before the Public Service Commission, the following penalties rev- recoverable for violations after a company is provided the opportunity to present evidence to the Commissioner of Public Works and Development or his designee, with such decisions appealable to a competent- a court of competent jurisdiction. $500 a day for failure to commercially-- uh, excuse me, to commence removal of a pending construction project upon expiration of the franchise, $100 a day for failure to provide data and reports requested by the government as required by the ordinance or for failure to timely pay the franchise fee or an itemized bill, a $100 a day penalty appealable to a court of competent jurisdiction for failure to comply within 30 days to a council resolution directing compliance with the provision of the ordinance, non-wavier and continued performance and enforcement upon the government's failure to insist on specific performance, the payment of penalties, not an excuse for non-performance, reservation of rights to regulate rites- rates and services with acknowledgment of Public Service Commission authority, rights of subscribers defined in Customer Bill of Rights. Company will abide by orders and tariffs pertaining to service and operations in Fayette County. Company shall work to improve iden- identification and replacement or repair of non-functioning street lights, termination upon willful violations of the franchise, willful evasion of provisions of the franchise, fraud and deceit upon the government, knowingly making material rep- misrepresentations upon a foreclosure or judicial sale of all or a substantial portion of the company's facilities or upon company's failure to provide regular and customary service and procedures for terminating the franchise, government's right to cancel franchise 30 days after the appointment of a receiver or trustee unless certain conditions are met, sale at public auction of the franchise, and due advertisement requirements thereon, written bids, right to reject, payment of 5% of the estimated cost of the system unless the company already has sufficient facilities to provide the franchise services, and payment of $500 for advertisement and administrative costs with any excess amounts exceeding actual costs to be returned to bidders within 30 days, payment of the sum of at least 3% of the company's gross annual revenues from the provision of electrical service, electric service within Fayette County, agreement to work with the government to provide certain redundant power sources, agreement to provide pole attachment space unless otherwise provided in an agreement, payment of permitting fees for filing of an application or tariff with the Kentucky Public Service Commission within ta- ten days of acceptance of the bid, suspension of payment of the franchise fee if no final determination regarding tariff approval is made and allowing the government to terminate the franchise upon such condition, right to terminate if deregulation results and material shortfall in revenue, all payments to be made monthly or quarterly within 30 days of the preceding payment period. Payment is not an accord and satisfaction, right to audit and to payment of cost if the company is found to have withheld 5% or more for any six-month period, interest of 8% on any late or recomputed payments and an adjustment. For overpayments, bids must accept the conditions of this ordinance and may include additional consideration payments. Violations of the franchise shall be condition for forfeiture law of Kentucky appl- applies, venue in Faye- County, no third party rights, any unlawful provision of is severable and franchise effective when the council accepts the bids, all effective on date of passage. That's number three. Number four, a, um, an ordinance, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irwin County Government to execute a contract addendum with the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department for additional state and federal funds in the amount of $74,329 for FY2008 for the Home Network Project at the Family Care Center and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 29. Number five, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irwin County Government to execute an agreement with the Faith Community Housing Foundation, Incorporated for HOME funds for the development of a rental housing project at a cost not to exceed $113,000 and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 30. Number six, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irwin County Government to execute an agreement with Fayette Fiscal Court and Sandra M. Varelas, Fayette County Judge Executive, for the FY2009 County Road Aid Fund Program for Fayette County in the amount of $1,343,240.98 and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 28. Number seven, an ordinance amending Ordinance Number 104-2008 to change the name of the project for which the grant application is submitted and the grant funds accepted from the South Elkhorn Force Main Project to the South Elkhorn Pump Station Project, and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 25. Number eight, an ordinance amending sections 21-25, 22-22, 22-5, 22-53.2, and 23-28 of the Code of Ordinances providing a two and 3/10ths percent structure movement to the salary schedules applicable to classified civil service employees, unclassified civil service employees, including council staff and traffic school guards, and a two and 3/10ths percent increase to the maximum of the pay range of program assistant, part-time, providing that all classified and unclassified civil service employees, except seasonal employees in account 332 who receive a satisfactory score on their performance evaluation pursuant to sections 21-29D and 22-26(5) of the Code of Ordinances shall rel- receive a two and 3/10ths percent pay increase, amending section 23-28 of the Code of Ordinances, modifying the existing step structure for the positions of Police Chief, grade 324E, and Fire Chief, grade 324E, increasing the salary by two and 3/10ths of one position of Friend of the Court, grade 000, within the Office of the Circuit Judges, one position of ABC Administrator, part-time, grade 000, within the Office of Alcohol Beverage Control, three positions of Law Clerk, part-time, grade 000, within the Department of Law, three positions of Skilled Trade Worker- Part-time grade 000 within the division of Community Corrections, and one position of Park Patrol Coordinator, part-time grade 000, and 30 positions of Park Patrol Officer, part-time grade 000, within the Division of Parks and Recreation, replacing the existing salary structure for the Community Corrections Officer and Sergeants and Community Corrections Lieutenants and Captains be replaced pursuant to their respective collective bargaining agreements all to become effective retroactive to June 23rd, 2008. Number nine, an ordinance repealing Chapter 2, Article 19, Sections 2-246 through 2-248 of the Code of Ordinances to abolish the Horse Patrol Commission. Uh, number ten, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and reappropriating funds Schedule number 31. Council Member Crosby. Mayor, I have a motion to amend Item number 11 under second reading of ordinances to remove the creation of the two positions of Deputy, Deputy Director of Facilities and Fleet Management, Grade 122E, and to change the title of the Director of Fleet Services to the Deputy Director of Fleet, Grade 120E, and the Director of Building Maintenance and Construction to the Deputy Director of Building Maintenance, Grade 121E. This is not a material change and does not require a first new reading. Second. Have a motion by Council Member Crosby, a second by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion? I actually have just one question, and, um, I don't know if some other council members may have asked this question, uh, off... as a sidebar after our first meeting. But, um, I put... wh- when I pulled the ordinance, some of them just don't have, um, codes with the jobs descriptions. Can somebody explain why some of them are missing, um, codes, class codes? Thank you. Sorry, could you give me an example? I'm, I'm- Um, uh, yeah, Director of Facilities and Fleet Management, um, Real Property Manager, uh, Facilities Planner, Capital- Uh- Projects Coordinator. Those are because they're, um, new positions, and they haven't been graded out yet. They don't get graded out until the, the PAQs are developed, and we actually see, um, what the qualifications are gonna be for the job. You don't, you don't decide how much you want to pay for the job before you do the job description. So the job descriptions for these will be written, and then they'll be... then they'll go through the process of, of what you would pay for that particular job description. In, in what we put in the budget- So we're, we're approving positions without a job description basically, and then- The- these are positions that were created in the budget. Okay. So, so, um, and, and they are new positions to government, so there's, there's nothing like them to compare them to. S- most of the others that you saw, they're s- So will you have to come back to us with a, I guess, w- w- We'll come back to you- ... with a class... when you have a cl- ... with the appointment of the posit- with an appointment to the position. You, you've already approved the money for the person, for the budget, in the budget. Understand. And you're approving the establishment of the position through this ordinance. So our next step would be to begin to develop the PAQ, and then cost it out, and advertise and hire. Makes sense, yeah. Council Member Gordon. Well, it's also... I, I had a conversation with Commissioner Cole about this also, and it was my understanding that once the PAQ, and job description, and all of that is complete, if it costs out above or below what is in here, uh, or what we've allocated, then you would come back to us for- That's true. That's true. ... Yes. Yes. If there's a difference. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Yes. Then that's more answers my question. Thank you. Any further discussion? Those in favor of the motion by Council Member Crosby, please let it be known by saying, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk, if you'll proceed to give Item 11, I think it is. It's second reading. Okay. Ordinance number 11. An ordinance pursuant to Section 6.12 of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Charter consolidating the Divisions of Environmental and Emergency Management, and enhance 911, and creating the Division of Emergency Management 911. Consolidating the Divisions of Fleet Services and divi- and Building Maintenance, and creating the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, and transferring the Division of Risk Management from the Department of Law to the Department of Finance and Administration. Amending Section 21-52 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of Staff Assistant, Grade 107N, two positions of Information Officer, Grade 113E, one position of Graphic Assistant, Grade 109N, and one position of Recreation Manager, Grade 114E in the Division of Government Communications. Amending Section 21-52 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing one position of Finance and Investment Analyst, Grade 116E, and one position of Financial Management Administrator, Grade 119E in the Department of Finance and Administration. Amending Section 21-52 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of Financial Management Administrator, Grade 119E, one position of Finance and Investment Analyst, Grade 116E, one position of Accountant Senior, Grade 116E, one posit- one position of Accountant, Grade 113E, and one position of Administrative Specialist, Grade 110N in the Division of Accounting. Amending Section 215, Subsection 2 of the Code of Ordinances, creating six positions of GIS Specialists, Grade 114N, three positions of GIS Programmer Analyst, Grade 117E, three positions of Engineering Technician, Grade 111N, one position of Telecom Support Specialist, Grade 113N, one position of Database Administrator, Grade 117E, and one position of Computer Analyst, Grade 115E in the Division of Computer Services. Amending Section 21-52 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of Accountant, Grade 113E, one position of Administrative Specialist Senior, Grade 112N, one position of Administrative Specialist, Grade 110N, and one position of Staff Assistant Senior, Grade 108N in the Division of Revenue. Amending Section 21-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of buyer senior, grade 116E, in the Division of Central Purchasing. Amending Section 21-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing two positions of GIS specialist, grade 114N, one position of engineering technician, grade 111N, and one position of GIS programmer analyst, grade 117E, in the Division of Engineering. Amending Section 21-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of traffic signal technician master, grade 114N, one position of traffic signal technician senior, grade 112N, and one position of traffic signal technician, grade 108N, in the Division of Traffic Engineering. Amending Section 21-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of attorney senior, grade 121E, two positions of staff assistant senior, grade 108N, one position of administrative specialist senior, grade 112N, and one position of risk manager, grade 120E, in the Department of Law. Amending Section 21-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing two positions of staff assistant senior, grade 108N, one position of administrative specialist senior, grade 112N, one position of risk manager, grade 120E, and one position of attorney senior, grade 121E, in the Division of Risk Management. Amending Section 21-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing one position of staff assistant, grade 107N, two positions of administrative specialists, grade 110N, one position of director of environmental and emergency management, grade 120E, one position of deemed preparedness coordinator, grade 113N, and two positions of DEEM program manager, grade 117E, in the Division of Environmental Emergency Management. Amending Section 22-5-- 21-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of director of envi-- director of environmental and emergency management, grade 120E, one position of director of enhanced 911, grade 119E, one position of public safety answering part-time manager, grade 117E, one position of DEEM program manager, grade 117E, 11 positions of telecommunicator supervisor, grade 116E, 35 positions of telecommunicator senior, grade 113N, one position of DEEM preparedness coordinator, grade 113N, 31 positions of telecommunicator, grade 111N, three positions of administrative specialist, grade 110N, and two positions of staff assistant, grade 107N, in the Division of Emergency Management 911. Amending Section 21-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing two positions of GIS specialist, grade 114EN, 114N, one position of GIS programmer analyst, grade 117E, thir-- 31 positions of telecommunicator, grade 111N, 35 positions of telecommunicator senior, grade 113N, 11 positions of telecommunicator supervisor, grade 116E, one position of public safety answering part-time manager, grade 117E, one position of director of enhanced 911, grade 119E, one position of staff assistant, grade 107N, and one position of administrative specialist, grade 110N, in the Division of Enhanced 911. Amending Section 21-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing two positions of skilled trades worker senior, grade 112N, one position of trades supervisor, grade 113N, in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services. Amending Section 21-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing two positions of eligibility counselor, grade 110E, in the Department of Com-- Commissioner of Social Services. Amending Section 21-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances, creating two positions of eligibility counselor, grade 110E, in the Division of Adult Services. Amending Section 21-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances, uh, abolishing two positions of administrative officer, grade 118E, one position of telecom support specialist, grade 113N, 17 positions of security officer, grade 106N, and one position of security supervisor, grade 112N, in the Department of General Services. Amending Section 21-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of director of facilities and fleet management, grade 123E, one position of real property manager, grade 121E, two positions of administrative officer, grade 118E, three positions of facility manager, grade 118E, one position of contract manager, grade 118E, two positions of fleet operations manager, grade 116E, one position of fleet systems manager, grade 116E, one position of operations manager, grade 116E, three positions of fleet operations supervisor, grade 115E, two positions of administrative specialist principal, grade 114E, one position of electrical t-- instrument technician senior, grade 114E, one position of facilities planner, grade 114E, one position of capital projects coordinator, grade 114E, one-- 16 positions of heavy equipment technician, grade 113N, ten positions of trades supervisor, grade 113N, three positions of electrical s-- instrument technician, grade 113E, one position of engineering technician senior, grade 113E, 16 position of skilled trades worker senior, grade 112N, 11 positions of vehicle and equipment technician, grade 112N, one position of securities supervisor, grade 112N, one position of information systems specialist, grade 111N, five positions of public service supervisor, grade 111N, two positions of body and paint mechanic certified, grade 111N, 18 positions of skilled trades worker, grade 111N, one position of fleet parts specialist senior, grade 110N, one position of fleet parts specialist, grade 109N, one position of fleet, of one position of service writer, grade 109N, three positions of staff assistant senior, grade 108N, two positions of heavy equipment mechanic apprentice, grade 108N, two positions of vehicle and equipment mechanic apprentice, grade 107N, two positions of public service worker senior, grade 107N, three positions of stores clerk, grade 107N, four positions of trades worker, grade 107N, five positions public service worker, grade 106N, 17 positions of security officer, grade 106N, and 11 positions of custodial worker, grade 102N, in the Division of Fle-- Facilities and Fleet Management. Amending Section 21-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances, changing the name of the Director of Fleet Services, grade 120E, to the Deputy Director of Fleet, grade 120E, creating two positions of fleet operations Manager, grade 116E, one position of fleet s-systems manager, grade 116E... Three positions of fleet operations supervisor, grade 115E. One position of administrative specialist principal, grade 114E. Six-- 16 positions of heavy equipment technician, grade 113N. 11 positions of vehicle and equipment technician, grade 112N. Two positions of body and paint mechanic certified, grade 111N. One position of information systems specialist, grade 111N. One position of fleet parts specialist senior, grade 110N. One position of fleet parts specialist, grade 109N. One position of service writer, grade 109N. One position of staff assistant senior, grade 108N. Two positions of heavy equipment mechanic apprentice, grade 108N. Two positions of vehicle and equipment mechanic apprentice, grade 107N. And one position of public service worker, grade 106N in the Division of Fleet Services. Amending section 21-52 of the Code of Ordinances, changing the name of the Director of Building Maintenance and Construction, grade 121E, to the Dep- Deputy Director of Building Maintenance, grade 121E. Abolishing three positions of facility manager, grade 118E. One position of electrical instrument technician senior, grade 114E. One position of administrative specialist principal, grade 114E. One position of engineering technician senior, grade 113E. Five positions of trade supervisor, grade 113N. Three positions of electrical instrumentation technician, grade 113N. Seven positions of skilled trades worker senior, grade 112N. Four positions of public service worker, excuse me, public service supervisor, grade 111N. 13 positions of skilled trades worker, grade 111N. Two positions of staff assistant senior, grade 108- 08N. Two positions of stores clerk, grade 107N. One position of public service worker senior, grade 107N. And four positions of public service worker, grade 106N, amending section 21-52 of the Code of Ordinances. Abolishing one position of staff assistant, grade 107N. One position of staff assistant senior, grade 108N. And two positions of information officer, grade 113E. One position of graphic assistant, grade 109N. One position of public service worker, grade 106N. One position of public service worker senior, grade 107N. One position of public service worker sa- supervisor, grade 111N. One position of stores clerk, grade 107N. Four positions of trades worker, grade 107N. Five positions of skr- skilled trades worker, grade 111N. Four positions of skilled trades worker senior, grade 112N. Four positions of trades supervisor, grade 113N. One position of operations manager, grade 116E. One position of operations manager, grade 114E. And creating one position of management analyst, grade 114E in the Division of Parks and Recreation. Amending section 21-52 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing two positions of GIS specialists, grade 114N. In the Division of Planning, amending section 22-52, abolishing one position of administrative aide to the mayor, grade 118E. In the Office of the Mayor, amending section 22-52 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of administrative aide to the mayor, grade 118E. In the Department of Social Services, amending section 22-52 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing one position of administrative specialist senior, grade 112N in the Department of Finance and Administration. Amending section 22-52 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of administrative specialist senior, grade 112N in the Division of Accounting. Amending section 22-52 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing one position of program supervisor, grade 115E in the Department of General Services. Amending section 22-52 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of program supervisor, grade 115E in the Division of Parks and Recreation. Amending section 22-52 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of vehicle and equipment technician part-time, grade 112N. And two positions of public service worker part-time, grade 106N in the Division of Fleet Services, amending section 22-52 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of vehicle and equipment technician part-time, grade 112N. Two positions of public service worker part-time, grade 106N. And one position of custodial worker part-time, grade 102N in the Division of Fac- Facilities and Fleet Management. Amending section 22-52 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing one position of MMRS project coordinator, grade 114E. And one position of CSEPP planner part-time, grade 113N in the Division of Environmental and Emergency Management. Amending section 22-52 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of MMRS project coordinator, grade 114E. And one position of CSEPP planner part-time, grade 113N in the Division of Emergency Management 911. Amending section 22-52 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing one position of custodial worker part-time, grade 102N in the Division of Building Maintenance and Instruction. Amending section 22-52 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of social worker senior, grade 113E in the Office of the Friend of the Court, transferring all incumbents in all vacant positions at their current job classification, pay grade, and salary. Amending section 21-52 and 22-52 of the Code of Ordinances to renumber the affected sections upon, effective upon date of passage. Number 12, an ordinance num- amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures related to vehicle fuel, vehicle repairs, utilities, and personnel, and appropriating and reappropriating funds, schedule number 200. And that's all the ordinances for second reading. Thank you very much. Is there a motion to approve those ordinances? Move approval. I have a motion from, uh, Council Member Gordon to approve the ordinances receiving their second reading, and a second by Council Member Lane. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's proceed to vote. I think our ... The machine, uh, the machines are not working, so Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Ms. James? Mr. Lane? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Meyers? Dr. Stephens? Mr. Stennet? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blevins? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. Miss Crosby? Yes. Mr. Decamp? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Miss, Miss Gorton? Aye. Mr. Gray? Yes. And Miss Henson? Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Those ordinances are approved. We're now ready for ordinances entitled a first reading. Madam Clerk. Ordinance Number 14. An ordinance change in the zone from a light industrial I-1 zone to a planned neighborhood residential R-3 zone for t- 15.21 net, 17.10 gross acres, and from a light industrial I-1 zone to a highway business B-3 zone, subject to certai- r- certain use restrictions imposed as conditions of granting the zone change for a 0.87 net, 1.94 gross acres for properties located at 709 through 715 Byers Street- We voted that amendment. ... 701 through 870 Dorotey Street, excluding 757 and 763 Dorotey, 714 through 726 Deshort Circle, 906 West High Street, a portion of 555 through 621 McKinley Street, odd addresses only, 800 through 833 Neville Street- May I come down? ... 565 through 637 Patterson Street, portions of odd addresses only, and 812 through 820 Pine Street. May I come down? And Number 15, an ordinance closing a walkway right of way, located between the properties at 3336 Mount Four Acre, Four Acre Drive and 3340 Mount Four Acre Drive, determining that all property owners abutting the portion of the walkway to be closed have been identified, provided with written notice of the proposed closing and consented thereto in writing, and authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a quitclaim deed, transferring the former right of way to the abutting owners, subject to the reservation of easements for access and maintenance of existing util- utilities in the former right of way. Council member Henson? Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on the docket, under first reading ordinances, an ordinance abolishing 11 positions of custodial worker grade 102 in, in the Division of Building Maintenance and Construction. These pos- positions have been created in the Divil- Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, and are included in the personnel ordinance, which is on the docket for second reading. So moved. Second. Have a motion by Council Member Henson, second by Council Member Stennet. Is there any discussion? Seeing none. Those in favor of placing that item on the docket, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk. Ordinance Number 16, an ordinance amending Section 21-5 of th- two of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing 11 positions of Custodial Worker Grade 102 in the Division of Building Maintenance and Instruction. Thank you. Council Member Stennet? Mayor, I make a motion to suspend the rules and give second reading to, uh, 14, 15, and the new 16. We- Seriously. ... we can't do 14, because it's on for a public hearing. 15 and 16 then. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The motion is to- Second. ... suspend the rules. I'll second that. Second by Council Member Stevens. Any discussion? Those in favor, please vote aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk. Ordinance Number 15, an ordinance closing a walkway right of way, located between the properties at 3336 Mount Four Acre Drive and 3340 Mount Four Acre Drive, determining that all property owners abutting the portion of the walkway to be closed have been identified, providing with written notice of the proposed closing, and consenting thereto in writing, and authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a quitclaim deed, transferring the former right of way to the abutting owners, subject to the reservation of easements for access and maintenance of existing utilities in the former right of way. And Number 16, an ordinance , amending Section 21-52 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing eleve- 11 positions of Custodial Worker Par- Grade 102 in the Division of Building Maintenance and Construction. And that's it. Thank you very much. A motion to approve those two items would be in order. So moved. Motion by Council Member Blevins has been made to prove those two items. I hear a second from Council Member Stevens, I believe. Or Council Member Ellinger. Um, any discussion? Seeing none. We'll proceed to vote. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Miss James? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Dr. Stephens? Aye. Mr. Stennet? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blevins? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. Miss Crosby? Yes. Mr. Decamp? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Miss Gorton? Aye. Mr. Gray? Yes. And Miss Henson? Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Those ordinances are approved. We're now ready for resolutions entitled A Second Reading. Madam Clerk. Resolution number one, resolution accepting the bid of Southern Drywall Supply- ... establishing a price contract for drywall materials and ceiling tiles for the Division of Building Maintenance and Construction. Number two, a resolution accepting the bid of Pedal Power, establishing a price contract for police bicycles for the Division of Police. Number three, a resolution accepting the bid of Adam Chemical, establishing a price contract for water treatment for heating and cooling systems for the Division of Building Maintenance and Construction. Number four, a resolution accepting the bid of R&L Cleaning Service, establishing a price contract for custodial services for the day treatment facility for the Division of Building Maintenance and Construction. Number five, a resolution accepting the bid of Spectrum Contracting Services Incorporated in the amount of $828,520 for the Gainesway Pond and Educational Trail Project. Number six, an or- a resolution, uh, ratifying the probationary civil service appointments of Marcus Ashford, equipment operator senior, grade 109N 12.911 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective July 7, 2008, ratifying the permanent civil service appointments of Martricia Pendleton, customer service specialist, grade 110N in the Division of Government Communications, effective July 7, 2008, Jeffrey Estes, com- customer service specialist, grade 110N in the Division of Government Communications, effective July 7, 2008, approving the unclassified civil service appointment of Joy- LaJoyce Mullins Williams, project engineer coordinator, grade 119E 2003-07 bi-weekly in the Division of Water Quality, effective June 30, 2008, Alicia Roddy, social worker senior, grade 113E 1314.24 bi-weekly in the Division of Family Services, effective July 7, 2008. Council member Blues, please. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I'd like to make a motion to amend number seven to change the, uh, the number of the proposed, uh, council committee. F- now at three to five, I'd like to, to change that to seven. And the reason for that is that over the next several weeks, council members will be in and out of town, uh, on vacation here and there. And, and as the, uh, committee, if this resolution passes, we'll, we'll want to be meeting, uh, if we have more members, we'll have, we'll have greater continuity. So that's the reason for, uh, for moving this change. Do I hear a second? Second. We have a second by Council Member Beard. The motion is to amend number seven to substitute, um, for three to five, the number seven. Any discussion? Seeing none. Those in favor of the amendment, please let it be known by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed, "No." Motion carries. Madam Clerk. Who was the second on that motion, please? Thank you. Resolution... Okay. Resolution number seven as amended for second reading. A resolution of the Urban County Council encouraging developers with projects that meet the requirements for the tax increment financing to work with the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to submit tax increment finan- financing applications to the Commonwealth of Kentucky to obtain financing for public improvements in Fayette County, and providing that a delegation from the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government consisting of the mayor and three to seven council members selected by the council be created to meet with appropriate developers to negotiate the TIF elements in a project and other, such other matters that the parties may agree to, and that these discussions respect the history and heritage of the, our downtown and its enormous ec- economic o- opportunity for the region, and providing that the delegation shall report the results to the council. Number eight, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Ross and Bar- Barrazzuti, Incorporated for professional services relating to the system design and integration related to the Public Safety Operations Center at a cost not to exceed $1,473,570. Number nine, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Messer Construction Company for professional services related to the construction management at risk of the Public Safety Operations Center at a cost not to exceed $1,760,851. Number ten, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a purchase of service agreement with Road to Homeownership Incorporated for the provision of educational programs to economically disadvantaged and low-to-moderate income families at a cost not to exceed $33,750. Number eleven, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a purchase of service agreement with Urban League of Lexington-Fayette County for support of initiatives designed to enable African-Americans and then disadvantaged citizens to achieve social and economic equality at a cost not to exceed $70,000. Number twelve, an ord- a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an amendment to agreement with Omni Architects for additional design services related to the Public Safety Operations Center at an additional cost not to exceed the sum of $154,485. Number thirteen, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number one to the contract with Free Contracting Incorporated for lower Glen Dover West drainage improvements, increasing the contract price by the sum of $102,210.02 from $469,853 to $572,853. ... five hundred and seventy-two thousand sixty-three dollars and two cents. Number 14, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban county government to execute change order number one final to the contract with ATS Construction for East Reynolds Road and Lansdowne Drive Improvement Project, increasing the contract price by the sum of three thousand five hundred and ten dollars and ten cents, from three hundred and nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-three dollars and nineteen cents to three hundred and thirteen thousand five hundred and three dollars and twenty-nine cents. Number 15, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute change order number tw- two, show the contract with Kenny Incorporated for Brack Town Sanitary Sewer Project, increasing the contract price by the sum of $80,237.40 from one million one hundred and eighty-five thousand two hundred and ninety-three dollars and fifteen cents to one million two hundred and sixty-five thousand five hundred and thirty dollars and fifty cents. Number 16, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irwin County government to execute change order number three to the contract with Leak Eliminators LLC for Wilderness Road Sanitary Sewer Project, increasing the contract price by the sum of $27,142.12 from one million nine hundred and ninety-seven thousand four hundred and eighty-two cen- dollars and ten cents to two million twenty-four thousand six hundred and twenty-four dollars and twenty cents. Number 17, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a certificate of consideration and to accept a deed for the property located at 4024 Lilydale Court from Adolfo and Carol Dewitt for the Whitemark Court Storm Water Improvements Project and authorizing payment in the amount of $306,700 plus usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 18, a resolution amending section two of resolution number 672-2007, which authorized and directed the may- the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed conveying permanent storm sewer and temporary construction easements from Jeffrey and Terry Lutz for property located at 224 Forest Park Road for the Elizabeth Street Drainage Improvement Project, increasing the amount of compensation from $3,450 to $7,600 plus usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 19, a resolution authorizing and directing the Department of Law on behalf of the Irvin County government to accept a deed from Ball Bryant LLC and Jason Justice for a temporary construction easement and a permanent sanitary sewer easement at 6600 Man O War Boulevard, and authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute the deed of easement to certify the consideration at no cost to the Irvin County government. Number 20, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a release of easement releasing a streetlight easement on property located on lots 70, 71, and 76 and gas property unit 4C at no cost to the Irvin County government. 21, a resolution accepting the bid of Columbia Gas of Kentucky Inc. in accordance with the provisions of ordinance number 135-2008 creating and offering for sale a three-year franchise for the operation of a non-exclusive gas distribution system in Fayette County, and authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute franchise agreement with Columbia Gas of Kentucky Inc., incorporating the terms and conditions of ordinance number 135-2008. 22, a resolution accepting the bid of Delta Natural Gas Company Incorporated in accordance with the revisions of Ordinance Number 135-2008, creating and offering for sale a three-year franchise for the operation of a non-exclusive gas distribution system in Fayette County, and authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a franchise agreement with Delta Natural Gas Company Incorporated, incor-porating the terms and conditions of Ordinance Number 135-2008. 23, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a release of easement releasing a storm sewer easement at 410 Sporting Court Quest Community Church at no cost to the Irvin County government. 24, a resolution accepting the bid of Jerry N. Brought Electric Inc. in the amount of $119,800 for a generator for the coroner's office. And that's all. Thank you very much. Motion to approve is in order. Move to approval. Second. Councilmember Beard has moved approval. Councilmember Meyers has seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, we appear ready to vote. Madam Clerk. Miss James. No on seven, yes on the rest. Mr. Lane. Yes. Excuse me. Mr. McCord. Yes. Mr. Meyers. Yes. Dr. Stephens. Aye. Mr. Stennet. Yes ma'am. Mr. Beard. Mr. Blevins. No on seven, yes on the rest. Mr. Blues. Yes. Ms. Crosby. Yes. Mr. Decamp. Yes. Mr. Ellinger. Yes. Ms. Gorton. Aye. Mr. Gray. Yes. Ms. Hinson. Yes. Thank you. Those resolutions are approved. We're now ready for resolutions entitled To First Reading. Madam Clerk. Resolution number 25, a resolution red-ratifying the probationary civil service appointments of Karen Confides, Telecommunicator Grade 111N18.237R in the Division of Enhanced 911, effective July 7, 2008. Felina Wingate, Telecommunicator Grade 111N14.643R in the Division of Enhanced 911, effective July 21, 2008. Lori Sosanski, Telecommunicator Grade 111N15.575R in the Division of Enhanced 911, effective July 21, 2008. Number 26, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute as, and submit a grant application to the Environmental Protection Agency and to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application which grant funds are in the amount of $20,000 federal funds, and are for health, education, and outreach to the undeserved Medicaid pediatric population in Fayette, Bourbon, Clark, Jessamine, and Madison Counties regarding exposure to lead-based paint poisoning. 27, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Bluegrass Regional Mental Health Mental Retardation Board Incorporated doing business as Comprehensive Care Center for mental health services for inmates at the detention center at a cost not to exceed $811,724.95. I hope -- Number 28, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute- ... an agreement with the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security for extension of the Metropolitan Medical Response System project through June 30th, 2009 at no cost to the Urban County Government. Right. 29, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Marriott Griffin Gate Resort and Spa for the annual Police Awards Banquet at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 30, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute agreements with Cardinal Valley Elementary PTA Incorporated, $500, Gulf View Estates Neighborhood Association Incorporated, $1,000, and LexLink fi-, $1,500 for the Office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. 31, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number two to the contract with Jarbo Construction Incorporated for the Gainesway Community Center, increasing the contract price by the sum of $4,420 from $30,750 to $35,170. 32, a resolution amending s- sections one and two of resolution number 330-2008, which accepted the bid of Alertus Technologies, L.L.C., in the amount of $85,825- Through Russian, I think, -- ... for a F-M emergency alert system for the Division of Environmental and Emergency Management- Do this quickly, finish the rest. ... to amend the dollar amount from $85,825 to $50,998 and reserve the right to purchase additional quantities- You got it. ... at the unit prices bid. Go ahead, Bill. 33, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a donation of up to 210 mattresses, value of $1,199 each from the Tempur-Pedic Incorporated for the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Urban County Government for the expenditure of funds. We got you, -- go ahead, Mayor. Number 34, a resolution authorizing and directing the Division of Traffic Engineering pursuant to Code of Ordinances Section 18-86 to install multi-way stop controls at Sandersville Road and Bay Colony Lane and at Sandersville Road and Prichard Drive. And number 35, a resolution expressing the support of the mayor and the Council of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government for the Kentucky Horse Park's application for transportation enhancement funds. Thank you very much. Is there, by chance, a motion to suspend the rules to give second- Second. ... reading to all? So moved. Second. Second. Motion by Councilmember Myers and a second by Councilmember DeCamp to give second reading to all of those, uh, resolutions. Any discussion? Those in favor, please vote aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries. Madame Clerk. Resolution number 25 for second reading. A resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointments of Karen Confides, Telecommunicator, grade 111N18.237R0 in the Division of Enhanced 911, effective July 7th, 2008. Felena Wingate, Telecommunicator, grade 111N14.643R0 in the Division of Enhanced 911, effective July 21st, 2008. Lori Sasanska, Telecommunicator, grade 111N15.575R0 in the Division of Enhanced 911, effective July 21st, 2008. Number 26, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the Environmental Protection Agency and to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application which grant funds are in the amount of $20,000 federal funds, and are for the health, education, and outreach to the undeserved Medicaid pediatric population in Fayette, Bourbon, Clark, Jessamine, and Madison Counties regarding the exposure to lead-based point, paint poisoning. 27, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Bluegrass Regional Mental Health Mental Retardation Board Incorporated, doing business as Comprehensive Care Center for mental health services for inmates at the detention center at a cost not to exceed $811,724.95. Number 28, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security for extension of the Metropolitan Medical Response System project through June 30th, 2009 at no cost to the Urban County Government. 29, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Marriott Griffin Gate Resort and Spa for the annual Police Awards Banquet at no cost to the Urban County Government. And number 30, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute agreements with Cardinal Valley Elementary PTA Incorporated, $500, Golf View Estates Neighborhood Association Incorporated, $1,000, and LexLink, $1,500, for the Office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. Number 31, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number two to the contract with Jarbo Construction Incorporated for the Gainesway Community Center, increasing the contract price by the sum of $4,420 from $30,750 to $35,170. 32, a resolution amending sections one and two of resolution number 330-2008, which accepted the bid of Alertus Technologies, LLC, in the amount of $85,825 for a FM emergency alert system for the Division of Environmental and Emergency Management to amend the dollar amount from $85,825 to $50,998 and reserve the right to purchase additional quantities- ... at a qu- unit at the unit prices bid. Number 33, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irwin County Government to accept a donation of up to 210 mattresses, value of $1,199 each, from the Tempur-Pedic Incorporated for the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Irwin County Government for the expenditure of funds. 34, a resolution authorizing and directing the Division of Traff- Traffic Engineering pursuant to Code of Ordinances Section 18-86 to install multi-way stop controls at Sandersville Road and Bay Colony Lane and at Sandersville Road and Prichard Drive. And number 35, a resolution expressing the support of the mayor and the council of the Lexington-Fayette Irwin County Government for the Kentucky Horse Park's application for transportation of enhancement funds. Thank you very much. A motion to approve those ordinances would be in order. So moved. Second. We have a motion by Councilmember Meyers and a second by Councilmember Blevins that, uh, those resolutions be approved. Is there any discussion? I see none, so we'll proceed to vote. Madam Clerk. Okay. Uh, Ms. James. Yes. Mr. Lane. Yes. Mr. McCord. Yes. Mr. Meyers. Dr. Stephens. Aye. Mr. Stennet. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard. Aye. Mr. Blevins. Aye. Mr. Blue. Yes. Miss Crosby. Yes. Mr. Decamp. Yes. Mr. Ellinger. Yes. Miss Gorton. Yes. Aye. Mr. Gray. Yes. And Miss Henson. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Those resolutions are approved. Um, I yield the floor to Councilmember Stephens now. Um, the council is well aware that they have selected, uh, the mechanism of working with the developer for North Poin- or CenterPoint to, uh, form a delegation of up to seven people from our council who will go with the mayor to meet with the appropriate parties to discuss and work out a tax increment financing package, if such is desired, and we'll present to the council as we go along. Uh, because the, uh, many of us will be in and out of town during the next several months, I agree with the expansion to seven, which should give us an adequate body. And we can also use, I believe, um, a conference calls, uh, mechanism to include more people. And, uh, we talked about how we go about this, and I suggested earlier that we use the technique that has been done to select chairman of our standing committees, and that is call for volunteers and then those people, uh, who volunteer, then we can pass, uh, indicate on the ballot your choice for the seven or less. And that way we can select this committee. And I think that seems to be about as fair a way as any we could do it. So, I would ask those who, um, would like to serve on this delegation to please raise your hand. Okay, let me write these down. Uh, Miss Henson, um, Mr. Blue, Mr. Beard, um, Mr. Gray. Gray and Gray. Mrs., uh, Mrs. Gorton, Mr. Decamp, uh, and Mr. McCord. Do I have everybody? I'll read the names again. Uh, Gray, Gorton, Blue, Decamp, Beard, Stephens, McCord, and Henson. That gives us one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Got them? Oh, Dr. Stephens, I'm happy to drop off because I'm gonna be out of town the next two weeks anyway. Uh... That would give seven. So we can't use this pretty ballot? Oh. No? Well, it, I think it's a friendlier thing if somebody drops off, and then, you know, one person doesn't have to feel like they got voted off the island. Okay. And you're free, you're free to attend, too. Yeah, these meetings are- I will be, I will be- ... open public meetings, and, uh, of course you're invited. Wait, more counts. Uh, so I have now, uh, Mr. Gray, Mr. Blue, Mr. Decamp, Mr. Beard, Stephens, Mr. McCord, and Mrs. Henson. Any other volunteers? If not, I would suggest that is the group, and no ballot will be necessary. Uh, I think we'll do that by consent. If there's no objection, th- that will constitute the delegation, and, um, I'll be in touch to notify you and, of the time and place of our meeting, and, um, we'll get the notice out, a public notice. Councilmember Lane. Thank you, Mayor. The, uh, Commission of Public Safety noted an, uh, error in the resolution that was just passed, so I'd like to request that we amend that. Uh, the resolution is not numbered, but it i- was with, uh, reference to the compensation. Uh, let me read this, one second, to Omni, uh, Architects, and the, in Section Two, it said that, "An additional cost not to exceed the sum of $154,485." And it should have included, in addition to that, "plus 8.99% of its construction cost, be it hereby as approved for payment to Omni." ... uh, for the account number 2516-505001-71206 percent to the terms of the, uh, amendment to agreement. And, uh, the commissioner pointed out to me that on June 24th that, uh, there was a letter, um, to the members of the council and the mayor that specified this information, and it was left out by accident when the, uh, resolution was prepared. So, I'd like to make a motion to, uh, add that provision into this, uh, motion. I would suggest that we need to have a motion to reconsider that resolution as it's already been passed in the form it was presented, and we can make the correction if we reconsider it. I so move to reconsider that. That would seem to be appropriate since you voted in the, uh, on the prevailing side. We have a motion to reconsider which resolution, uh- Yeah, can you give me the resolution number? Resolution number 12 under resolutions for second reading. 12. That's at the bottom of page 11. All right, the motion on the floor is to reconsider resolution number 12. Any discussion? Those in favor of reconsidering that motion or that resolution, please let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. As a result of that vote, resolution number 12 is on the floor for reconsideration now. All right. Uh, may I read the, uh, section two that will be amended or do you want to read the whole motion, or how would you like to do that, Mayor? Um, I guess wh- what would be appropriate is to entertain a motion to amend, and then if you could describe for us what you believe the appropriate amendment would be- Okay. ... we'll do it in that fashion. All right. I'd like to make a motion, uh, to amend, uh, resolution number 12, bottom of page 11, to add the language immediately following the amount of $154,485. It would be added to say, plus 8.99% of the construction cost. So moved. Second. Have a motion and a second to entertain that amendment. Any discussion? Those in favor of the amendment indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Now, uh, with that amendment, I guess we need some advice from our Department of Law as to whether that is a material amendment to the resolution. I don't think so. We talked about it. We think you can go ahead and give it two readings. Or one. No, it's not material. Just a new second reading. Right. Okay. A new, a new second reading 'cause it's already had first reading, so it's not a material change. All right. Then, Madam Clerk, if there's no objection, we'll proceed to second reading. Okay, this is for resolution number 12 for second reading as amended. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute an amendment to agreement with Omni Architects for additional design services related to the Public Safety Operations Center at an additional cost not to exceed the sum of $154,485 plus 8.99% of the construction costs. Motion to approve would be in order. So moved. Second. Council member Beards moved approval. Council member Gordon has seconded that motion. Any discussion? Those in favor then please indicate d- by voting aye when the roll is called. Those opposed vote nay. Miss James? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Meyers? Yes. Dr. Stephens? Aye. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blevins? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. Miss Crosby? Yes. Mr. DeCamp? Yes. Mr. Dec-, uh, Ellinger. Thank you. Yes. Sorry. Miss Gordon? Aye. Mr. Gray? Yes. And Miss Henson? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. That resolution is approved. Unless there's further business to come before- May I- Council member DeCamp. Yes. Um, under communications from the mayor, uh, I move to remove items number two and four in communications to the mayor to provide time for confirmation hearings by the Irvin County Council prior to August 19th, 2008. Second. Have a motion in second to remove items two and four for purposes of providing confirmation hearing prior to August 19th. Correct. And I believe, u- uh, I believe we have a date s- said August 12th. Is that correct? Uh, yes. The proposal, council members, is to meet August 12th, that's a Tuesday, at 11:30 because we believe we'll have a third planning commission nominee, and that would give us time to do all four. Au- August 12th at 11:30. All right. I have a motion and a second, I think, from, uh, council member Gordon to remove items two and four pending the confirmation hearing on August 12th at 11:30. Any discussion? Those in favor, please vote aye. Aye. Oppose, no. Motion carries. That being the case, uh, motion to, uh, approve- I move- ... items one, three, and five would be in order. I move approval o- and communications from the mayor of items one, three, and five. Second. Have a motion and a second by council member Gordon. Um, any discussion? Those in favor, please vote aye. Aye. Aye. Oppose, no. Motion carries. We're now to the point for announcements. Does any council member have any announcements? Seeing none, we're ready for public comment. I only have one person who has indicated a desire to speak, um, this evening, and that's Mr. Throckmorton, John Throckmorton. Mr. Throckmorton, if you'll step to the podium. You'll have three minutes, and if we could get your, uh, address as well, please. John Throckmorton, 143 Dunrovian Drive, Versailles, Kentucky 40383. Go right ahead. Okay. First of all, greetings, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and all members of the council. I want to thank you all that tried to find the funds to get us, the classified and unclassified civil service employees, a 3.9% wage increase. I also thank you all for the 2.3% wage increase that was just voted on and passed here tonight. But my heart is saddened that we, LFUCG, cannot find the funds to allot us a 3.9% wage increase. I believe that a 3.9% wage increase is more than fair and right. A 4.5%, of course, wage increase would be better, but I would be more than happy with a 3.9% wage increase, which I also again want to thank you for the 2.3% wage increase. I just think that we could find the funds, which is not that much for a city of this size and resources and income. 800,000 is, far as I know, is the total, you know, so I believe, but I could be wrong. But I also saw in the newspaper that we, LFUCG, are getting $1.5 million from the state, and of course, I know money has to go all kinds of different places. I don't know how much time I have. I don't... There's nothing working. About a minute and a half. Now, I know that times are hard for everybody, and I don't want y'all to take me the wrong way concerning this topic. I'm just asking that you all really continue to think, dwell, and pray about this topic, and look deep into your hearts and ask yourselves if this wage increase is right and fair. Just please consider this deeply. The Bible says, "Servants, obey your masters," but it also says for masters to treat their servants fair and right. Of course, this is paraphrased, but you all get the gist of the moral of the story, uh. And again, I just want to thank you all for the 2.3% wage increase. It's better than 2.2 or 1.9 or 0.0. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Throckmorton. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council this evening? If not, my understanding is that a motion to adjourn is in order. Move to adjourn. No. No, wait just a minute. Oh. We don't adjourn. We just move on to the, to the hearing. Recess. Recess. Okay, all right. Then allow us to recess in order to convene the, uh, zoning hearing. Five minutes? Yes. Five is enough for me. We'll recess for five minutes. Resolution number thirt- um, excuse me, it's an ordinance. Ordinance number 13. An ordinance changing the zone from a single family residential R1E zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for 0.267 net, 0.347 gross acres of property located at 135 through 139 East 3rd Street, subject to certain use restrictions imposed as conditions of granting the zone change. GCL Properties LLC. Thank you, Clerk. Uh, procedurally, the next thing on th- that, uh, we need to do is to swear in anybody who's gonna testify. So, anybody who's gonna testify tonight, who's going to speak to this issue, if you'll please stand. And just hold your right arm up and say yes after this. Do you swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but s- but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Okay. I've done this enough time I should, enough times now that I should be able to remember this, but I don't. So, y'all bear with me while I go through this. Uh, Jimmy Emmons is with the st- is our staff representative from the city. Jimmy will present the staff findings. Is that correct, Jimmy? Yes, sir. Right. All right. And, eh, he'll take about 15 minutes for that. And then the petitioner, I believe the petitioner's represented by council today, right? Okay, Ms. Wiseman. And the petitioner, will 15 minutes be adequate, you think, for presentation? Will 15 minutes roughly... I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude on time. For our presentation? For your presentation. More? Probably more. Probably around 20. Okay. Okay. All right. And then, um, and then the, those who oppose... Those who oppose will be given time as well. Um, the typically, the time for the... Oh, is there counsel for the... Yes. There is counsel for the appliance. Okay. Jess- So, I'll be asking if we would be allowed the same amount of time for our presentation. Okay, Jessica. So, you're gonna, um, do that again. Would you tell, maybe come up to the mic and just tell us so we got it on record. I'll just make a formal request that we be given the same amount of time for our presentation. Okay. All right. Um, that's it, Jimmy. Yes, sir. I- Okay, you're up. Ready to, uh, begin. Uh, for those who don't know me, my name is Jimmy Emmons. I'm a senior planner in the Division of Planning, and I'll be representing, uh, the Division of Planning Staff and the Planning Commission on this zone change hearing. This zone change is, uh, is MARV2008-12 for GCL Properties, LLC. This is a zone change, uh, for a very small piece of property. It's about a third of an acre or a quarter of an acre. It's a zone change request from an R1E zone, which is a single family residential zone to a B1 zone, which is a neighborhood business zone. Uh, the Planning Commission, before I get started, I need to enter a few things for the record. The first is the, uh, legal no- uh, copy of the legal notice that was done for the hearing. An affidavit from Bill Saline, uh, saying that the notice letters were sent out. The Planning Commission's final report to the council on this zone change request, the 2007 comprehensive plan, and the Downtown Lexington Master Plan, a copy of the current zoning ordinance, and the current land subdivision regulations. As I begin, I can... I'd like to start looking at a few pictures of the property. And this, the subject property is located right here in the center of the screen. We'll get the... This is, uh, from the 2007 aerial photography. Uh, the buildings that you see on this are no longer existing on the site. Uh, for the audience, this is the site that we're talking about. Some of the surrounding uses, uh, we have the Carrick property, which is, uh, a, uh, banquet facility. This property is located at 135 to 139 East 3rd Street. It's located roughly in betw- about the middle of 3rd Street in between North Limestone Street and Martin Luther King Boulevard. It's directly north of the Sayres School, uh, located on North Limestone, and just south of the Lexington Traditional Magnet School. ... another, um, to keep everybody, the l- Transylvania University athletic fields are up at the corner of North Limestone and 3rd Street. If we can get the n- next couple of pages. The first one is just a pictometry of the, of the current site. You can see the site. Uh, this is, the buildings, uh, you'll see in some of the later photographs, have been, uh, demolished and they are not, no longer on the site. It's an, it's a odd-shaped piece of property, not exactly rectangular piece of property that is out, located with its frontage along 3rd Street. It also has frontage along Lake Alley. This is a public street alley, uh, that goes up along the side of the property. It is surrounded, uh, by the Carrick House Banquet Facility on the, on the other two sides. Yep. This is just a, um, a more recent photo of the site. You can see the buildings, as I mentioned earlier, have been demolished, uh, and there is a, uh, essentially gravel has been laid down on the site, and some, uh, shrubs have been planted. And I think we can go through the rest of the pictures fairly quickly. These are just some more, um, pictures of the site. You can see the hedges, which along 3rd Street would be right here, and looking towards the Carrick House. Uh, much the same picture. And this is into the property, uh, looking towards North Limestone Street. This is on the property looking out towards the structures that are across the street on 3rd Street. And if... A few more. This is also more, uh, of the structures along 3rd Street to just kinda give you a character and flavor of the area. And finally, the, uh, the Carrick House that is located along North Limestone Street. So, this is from North Limestone looking at, looking towards it. Finally, this is a, uh, close-up view of our 2007 comprehensive plan. The large purple area that you see, uh, the 2007 comprehensive plan land use map recommends that the, uh, that you follow the land uses recommended in the downtown master plan. Uh, it's located on our overall area. You can see the large purple area, which is our, uh, downtown core and the surrounding uses. That's all encompassed by the downtown master plan. The subject property is right here where the thumbtack is, uh, just north of Main Street. It's only about, about a quarter of a mile away from Main Street. And that's all the slides. The 2007 comprehensive plan, as I recomme-, as I mentioned, uh, does recommend the downtown master plan, uh, be followed for this area. The, the downtown master plan tends to get away from your traditional land uses of saying, "This is residential, this is going to be commercial, and this is gonna be industrial." Uh, really what it kinda gets at is the human interaction, uh, with the built environment. Uh, it's really a plan where form and function of the, of the built environment and how it operates with the, with the people that are living there is really the main focus of the downtown master plan. If I can, I'll show you, um, a couple of last things to orient everyone. This is our, uh, map of the surrounding zones of the subject property. Subject property, as I mentioned, is very small. It's the white s- dot in the middle of this. Uh, w- we're in between North Limestone Street and East, and Martin Luther King Boulevard with 3rd Street here. As you can see by the red, everything is in this block on the north side of 3rd, 3rd Street is currently zoned B-1. The subject property is surrounded by B-1 on three sides. Across the street in the darker red is an area that's, uh, currently zoned B-2-a, which is our downtown business zone. So, the proper- And on the very corner, where it's, uh, colored in in gray, is a site that's zoned B-4. Lexington Traditional Magnet is zoned R-4 for residentials. So, this subject site is surrounded on all four sides by, uh, commercial zoning. However, the uses along 3rd Street are varied. Uh, there truly is a mixture of uses. There's a mixture of residential, and those pictures of the structures that you saw, you saw a mixture of offices, businesses, and residential along that street. Just below that is the development plan, the preliminary development plan that the, I'm sorry, final development plan that the Planning Commission did approve. Once again, we have 3rd Street and Lake Alley. This is the subject property. The applicants are proposing to use this property as a parking lot, which is a principal permitted use, and they request it be one zone. Uh, they are proposing about 35 spaces along in through there. Uh, and if you notice from the, from the staff reports, that the Planning Commission did grant a landscaping variance that would go along with that. I wanna explain that really quick. This site, uh, should it be approved, uh, is proposed to be used as a parking lot. The applicant is proposing to keep this lot as a free-standing lot, uh, but it would be used in conjunction with the parking lot of the, uh, adjacent banquet facility. Uh, from a zoning perspective, that's not a problem since the parking is a principal permitted use. However, that would also require that this area in through here be landscaped. Uh, the Planning Commission did approve a variance to the landscaping so that they don't have to put landscaping in here as long as this is used functionally as an extension of the, uh, banquet facility parking lots. So as long as... As long as they use it for what they say they're gonna use it, they don't have to put the landscaping in. However, if they... If another use came in, then the Planning Commission can look at the... Any landscaping between these two properties The Planning Commission did have a public hearing on this on April 24th, 2008. Uh, at that time, the staff was recommending approval of the... Of the requested zone change for the B-1. Uh, the staff was looking at that. At first, we could not see how the proposed parking lot actually furthered that interaction of the humans with the built environment. But then we looked at what was existing there as, uh, as... What was existing there before it was torn down is the Ashley Furniture with the building shoved all the way back with a parking lot out in front of it, and we couldn't really see how the existing use of either a vacant property or the previous use of that, we couldn't see that that also helped with the interaction of the govern-... Uh, with the human... With the built environment. Uh, we did look at this and w-... The planning staff did determine that the B-1 zoning is appropriate for the subject property because it is, as I mentioned earlier, it's surrounded on all four sides by commercial zoning. Uh, also, the staff felt that the B-1 zoning, um, would allow the possibility of a more substantial redevelopment of this site that would be in context with the buildings and the facades that were along 3rd Street. It would allow that, uh, should it ever be anything other than a parking lot. At the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant proposed a list of conditional zoning restrictions which prohibited several uses, uh, that would be allowed in the B-1 zone, and that is, uh, listed in... In the staff report here. I believe there were 14, uh, uses. I've also pre-... The planning staff prepared earlier today, uh, should you like it, kind of the inverse. Uh, the, the, the staff report says what's prohibited. I do have a... An exhibit, uh, should you wish to get one, that essentially shows what would be allowed on the subject property. The Planning Commission felt that it was important, uh, to... Uh, to do the conditional zoning restrictions. Uh, they felt that they were appropriate due to the close proximity... Residential uses and the school uses. Uh, with that being said, the Planning Commission did approve the zone change after about a 45-minute to an hour hearing, and they approved it 10 to 0. I believe that would essentially conclude the, the staff's report on this, uh, zone change application. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to. And if you would like me to pass these out, I'll be happy to do that also. Okay. Thank you, Jimmy . Any questions for Mr. Edmonds? Mm-hmm. None? Okay. Ms. Wiseman? I don't wanna give Jimmy's presentation over again. I'm sorry, Rena. What'd you say? I had his outline in front of me and I might- Oh, okay. ... start presenting that again- Mm-hmm. Thank you. ... just to see if you notice. Uh, while I'm gonna introduce myself, my associate, Nick Nicholson, is going to hand out s-... The exhibit books that we will go through, uh, quickly. I'd like to, again, to introduce. Uh, I, I am Rena Wiseman. I am here today on behalf... Oh, let me do one other housekeeping thing. I wanna give the clerk the photograph of the notification sign and the affidavit saying that it was timely posted for... To advertise this hearing. With that being said, again, I'm Rena Wiseman. I'm here, uh, this evening for GCL Properties, LLC. That stands for Jerry Lundrgen. He and his wife Charlotte are with us this evening. They are the owners of the property and the applicant for, uh, the zone change that we wanna discuss tonight. Uh, this is, in my view, a straightforward zone change that should be approved without hesitation by this council. It was one that was recommended for approval by the staff, as Jimmy has just outlined to you. It is one that was recommended for approval by your Planning Commission unanimously by a vote of 10 to 0. There was one person who was not there. It is a zone change that helps a new downtown business, not a new business, because the Lundrgen family have run a catering business of one sort or the other for many, many years in this community, and I think Mr. Lundrgen himself has over 35 years of experience. But it will help a new downtown business, uh, succeed, and that is one of the goals that we are trying to encourage, uh, in our downtown. A facility... A banquet facility, Carrick House, I'll explain that more in a moment, which is not part of the zone change, but this small 22 hundredths of an acre will allow us to have some more room to provide parking for this facility. And it's going to be a facility that will draw people downtown for weddings, for reunions, receptions. People that might not otherwise come downtown, will come downtown to a wedding. They'll come downtown for a reunion. We think that is a good thing. Uh- This is a zone change that takes a property right now that's vacant, that's not producing anything, and which was formally used as auto repair for over 30 years and puts a productive use on it, that being a parking lot to accommodate the Carrick House. This zone change, if you approve it, it will accomplish a redevelopment of property using private money, significant investment by the Lundregan family. It will not require the removal, demolition of any historic structures. In fact, this zone change is going to allow the preservation and in fact the enhancement of the historic Carrick House. This zone change will not displace any local businesses. It will take a vacant lot that's not being produced, not productive, and put it into a use that is something that provides a service to the community. It's a zone change that will not intrude in a residential neighborhood. You heard Jimmy describe the street, and there are some residences, but we'll show you that overwhelmingly the character of this area is business, and this is not going to intrude into a residential area. This is a business area. There are businesses across the street, businesses next door. There are r- businesses across Limestone. This is not a zone change that's gonna take up, uh, any green space. It will not remove a historic overlay because the development plan that you see cannot be built upon until we go to the Board of Architecture review. So, based on everything I've told you, it seems to me that this is a zone change that ought to be approved without any further debate. But yet we're here to have this hearing, so I want to tell you some things that you're gonna hear tonight that we believe are extraneous to this case. You're going to hear, I believe, a lot from the, uh, other owners that are here about temporary structures, and that's because banquet facilities, by definition, uh, ad- adopted by you, uh, in 2006 as part of your zoning ordinance, allows banquet facilities to have accessory tents and temporary facilities. And we have a temporary facility on Carrick House now. It's not the tent that was in the slides. I've got some photos of it. It is a very, uh, expensive, nice portable facility that was custom designed and made in Germany for this, and it is temporary. The only definition we have of temporary is under the building code, and that is a structure that stays less than 180 days. That's what you're gonna hear a lot about tonight, and that's not the big picture. The other thing I want to say about my clients is they have worked very hard, very hard to make this new business compatible and tried to satisfy the other landowners. You heard Jimmy mention conditional zoning restrictions. You heard him say that the applicant submitted those. Those were not proposed by the staff. The staff did not recogni- recommend those use restrictions. Mr. Lundregan did in order to assuage the concerns of those that are gonna speak later about, "What will happen if this is no longer a parking lot for Carrick House?" We did that to try to get, uh, to, in a good, a spirit of goodwill. Nonetheless, they were still not, uh, convinced, uh, they feel, felt like we should give more and that we should not be allowed to use this two-tenths of an acre for anything but a parking lot and not even put a tent on there. That was the restriction, and we could not agree to that. Mr. Lundregan's company didn't spend $500,000 to buy 22-hundredths of an acre to use for a banquet facility and not be able to use it for a banquet facility. I think you can understand why you would not agree to that. We tried to work with the neighbors up till the time the public hearing was scheduled, and again, we've met a point of departure on that issue. We tried as late as this evening when they asked if we would agree to some time limits, and we said we would. We said we would. And we were told at 6:00 they no longer would agree with that, even though that was their proposal. I'm only sharing this with you because you're gonna hear not that the Carrick House is a bad thing, not that residential is appropriate and that there should be a single-family home on this property, not that business is inappropriate. You're gonna hear a lot of talk about, "What's a temporary structure?" That's not the issue that's before you. Please keep the big picture in mind. The big picture is, we have an opportunity to allow a private business, a longtime Lexington business who wants to come downtown, invest significant money to a use that will draw families, the elderly, young people, all sorts of people who don't usually come downtown to come downtown, something we say we want to encourage. And all he's asked to do is to be able to use this 22-hundredths of an acre to have parking and, if necessary, to put up a temporary facility to allow for larger events. We haven't asked to try to add a wing onto the Carrick House and destroy the integrity of that. We haven't asked to put a parking lot in the eight-tenths of an acre front yard that Carrick House has. That lawn is eight-tenths of an acre. ... four times the size of what we're asking for. We're trying to do this in the right way, and I hope you appreciate, and if we're going to encourage investment downtown, we ought to be approving these sorts of requests without hesitation and without debate. But we're here, so I'm gonna go through whatever time I've got left and tell you why, under the law and the facts, you ought to approve this. Excuse me. Let me give you the background quickly. Uh, as I say, GCL h- owns this property, and they also own 329 North Limestone, which I refer to tonight as Carrick House. As many of you know, that was the White Hall Funeral Home. It was a funeral home for, uh, 40 years, and then it was sold, uh, in the early two- uh, few years ago to another owner, who wanted to convert it into a banquet facility and obtained a text amendment, uh, from this council and the Planning Commission to allow banquet facilities to be permitted in the B-1 zone. And that text amendment is in tab three, and it defines banquet facility, which I quoted earlier, which it says what it does and what kind of events can be held there. Uh, that owner decided not to consen- pursue that business and sold it to Mr. Lundregan who, this is his business. This was the perfect location, because one thing, if you've tried to schedule events or receptions, there aren't that many opportunities, and if you don't join, if you're not a member of a club or a large organization, there are limited options. And so this provides another venue for people to have events and to have them in a lovely historic home in downtown Lexington. Uh, about a month later, uh, let me back up. In... A year before that, o- another owner on the street bought what was known as Ashley Wheel and Brake, which had been there since the '70s, zoned B-1. It was her intention to put two single family homes on that property, and she purchased it and, uh, uh, got a zone change, uh, for that for single family. And I've got a picture that Jimmy showed at tab four is what the property looked like when Ashley's was there. Uh, so th- this property was rezoned from B-1 to R-1E in 2006. So basically, we're asking you to take it back to the B-1 zone, but with numerous restrictions that weren't on there before. Uh, the commercial buildings were removed by the previous owner, and the lot stood vacant and no houses were ever built on it. Mr. Lundregan saw an opportunity to build... to use that lot right next door to Carrick for parking and approached the, uh, owner, and she agreed to sell, and as she told the Planning Commission, it's in your minutes, uh, at that time the housing market had taken a downturn. She could not afford to just hold onto it and ride that out or build houses not knowing if she'd get a tenant or, uh, sell it, so she sold it to Mr. Lundregan for that purpose. So... And I've included a copy of the deed in there. So in order to use it for parking, we'd have to get a zone change. So we filed a request in March of this year, uh, to get a B-1 zone change. Prior to filing it, we have met with Building Inspection numerous times. We've met with Historic Preservation, we have met with the planning staff to go through this process, and we're here before you on July 8th to ask that this be approved. The legal justification, there's two. The first one and the most compelling is that the business zoning is the appropriate zone, and the single family zone is not appropriate. This property has never been used as a single family home, at least not since the late '60s as far as we can tell. It was never used for an R-1E purpose. Uh, as Jimmy pointed out, it is surrounded on four sides by property which is zoned B-1. We have a picture in your book, this is the notification map, and the red signifies all the commercial zoning that surrounds this property. It's just one little dot of single family residential in a sea of commercial. Yes, there are properties that are used for residences today, but they could convert those residences to a business without coming to you, without going to the Planning Commission, they would just go through the building permit Certificate of Occupancy process, and put a restaurant or a bar or a cocktail lounge, because the properties across the street from us are zoned B-2A. We're B-1. B-2A is much more open. You can have cocktail lounges and nightclubs with live entertainment in B-2A. You can't have them in our, on our property and certainly not the way we've restricted it. We can't even have a restaurant. So, clearly it's appropriate based upon what's surrounding it. If you go to the next picture, if you take a walk up North Limestone and you come from Main to 3rd Street, the pink, uh, that was supposed to be red but it's pink or oc- I don't know what that is, it's sort of like your tie, um, it's all commercial. All commercial up and down that corridor. B- it's a mixture of B-2, B-2A, B-2B, B-1, there's even some B-4. The only residential zone in that whole area is this one 22 hundredths of an acre property. Not only that, but there are 14 parking lots- ... in that corridor, so, uh, putting a parking lot on this property is certainly not an anomaly. There are five properties used as residences. There are 35 used as businesses and there are six vacant buildings. Clearly, clearly, this is not an appropriate place for single family residential. Uh, if so, if it had been, I imagine that houses would have been built and we would not be here tonight talking about it. Comprehensive plan. Uh, Jimmy made reference to the downtown master plan, and this property is shown as part of the downtown master plan. But the comprehensive plan also says that while we are implementing the downtown master plan, and it is a phased... it's a process to implement all the recommendations of that plan. It says that the, um, we should, the Planning Commission should consider the recommendations of the 2001 comprehensive plan along with other relevant information to guide redevelopment decisions. So, if you go back to the 2001 comprehensive plan, which I've exerted here, the recommendation for this property was retail trade, high density mixture. B-1 is the classic zone for a mixed use, because it's one of the few zones that allows residential and commercial on the same property. So, should this parking lot ever redevelop, you could have a storefront with an apartment on the next floor. So the B-1 zone is consistent with what the land use plan says for this property. And I've also included the, uh, land use relationships from the comp plan that guides where we put things. We don't put warehouse and industry next to single family, and if you look at that, you can see that low density residential does not go next to business. This is- would be an inappropriate land use relationship to say, "We're going to require that this property be a single family home." Last, what the plan does say about the downtown master plan is that the need for a vibrant, dynamic, and growing downtown area continues to be one of the most important elements of the overall growth strategy of the 2000 comprehensive plan. And again, as I said, uh, uh, putting this sort of business that will draw people downtown will help downtown not only stay vibrant, but become more vibrant and provide a reason for older people to come downtown. I think it's important to try to attract a wide segment of the community to our downtown. I said I'd show some pictures, and let me go ahead and do that real quickly with help of somebody. Some of these you've seen before. Again, the, the first one is Carrick House, formerly Whitehall, uh, which a lot have wo- of work has, is being done to that with a lot of care to maintaining the integrity of the interior. I think that's important, that we're not trying to add on to this. We're trying to maintain the look of a nice, uh, southern-type mansion on this property. It has a beautiful vista from North Limestone. We measured it, and that front lawn is eight tenths of an acre, which would be a great place to do a parking lot or a great place to add some wings, but it was the feeling of the Lundrigans that they wanted the... What drew them to this was that this was a welcoming location for you to have a very special event, and this would be ruining that if you tried to put something in front of it. So having a vacant lot next door seemed like the perfect solution to having space needs. Now, you can see in- to the right is the temporary facility that I referred to, and the one that you're gonna hear about tonight. That is not the tent that was there. That is what is there now. That is not before you tonight. That has been permitted. It's permitted because it's accessory to a banquet facility, and under state building code, it- it can't be there more than 180 days, and it's a portable facility. It doesn't have plumbing, it doesn't have sewers. You pick it up, and if he decides that he's- doesn't want to do this anymore, uh, he'd take it away and never bring it back. It has to be removed in 180 days nonetheless, but it can be replaced. But that's what is contemplated. But it, again, I wanted to show you what it looks like, and it's not unlike what most of you have been in, these sorts of facilities all the time. If you've gone to any events on the horse farms fundraisers, you've been in these types of facilities. You've been in these facilities at Keeneland. You've been in these facilities at country clubs. This is what goes along with a catered event, and we think that that's an appropriate, uh, compatible with the Carrick House. It was designed with the Carrick House in mind at some expense, uh, but I show you that we're not hiding that. We're not ashamed of that. We've gone through all the proper channels to do that, uh, and it allows us to accommodate larger groups in this facility without having to add on to the Carrick Home. Uh, the last thing I want to talk about is, uh, the conditional zoning restrictions. As Jimmy said, we, they're in, uh, the staff report. I've also, uh, made a copy of them for you at the next-to-last tab in your book, that we went through literally in the hall and said... If you've got concerns about what's gonna happen if this should go away and no longer be a parking lot, then we will agree to eliminate these. And that's what, uh, we have done and we still ask you to impose these on us tonight because we think that, that, it's our commitment to be a good business and a good neighbor in this community. And if we should ever have to leave Carrick House or this parking lot, there's some assurances to what this property cannot be. It can't be a liquor store. It can't have certain retail sales. It, Ashley's sadly enough could not come back here because we would have prohibited Ashley's from coming back by these, uh, restrictions. And keep in mind that while we propose these, the folks you're gonna hear about, I believe, who own property, the majority of them are businesses across the street, have B2A zoning with no restrictions, no conditions and can do everything that's on this list because B2A incorporates B1 and they have less restrictions. Less on-street park, off-street parking is required. Taller buildings are allowed. More intense uses are allowed in B2A. So we could be facing more intense things across the street. But yet we are, uh, asking you to impose those on us and we will abide that. Um, that's what I have for my, um, presentation, um, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. Uh, we will reserve our time for rebuttal but just to sum up quickly one is, what I say at the outset, this should be approved with no debate. No debate. Unanimous recommendation, staff approval and it does all the things that we want a business to do to come to downtown and come in an appropriate way. Um, we would ask and I'll come back and ask you again to approve this based on the recommendation and, and the staff and at the end I will submit findings when I make my summation. Uh, Rochelle can you get, help me with this protocol here? Is the, uh, is it now cross-examination or the part- or the opponent presentation? Is that- Uh, you can- ... on the presentation? You can do cross-examination now or you can allow, um, all parties to present their case and then allow the Council- Right. ... to ask their questions. Um- Is that okay with you all, that we have the, the, uh, opponent then present now, Ms. Case? All right. Thank you. Pardon? Jessica, you're okay with the 25 minutes too? Yes, that's fine. Including your... Um, while I'm doing my introductory remarks, I'll have, um, John or Linda Morgan pass out the materials that we have for you. I guess first I should introduce myself. My name is Jessica Case and I'm an attorney here in Lexington. I've been engaged to represent the interests of the neighbors surrounding the Carrick House. Um, my clients are businesses that operate in the neighborhood, people who live in the neighborhood, members of the Constitution Historic District and they do not object to the zone change. They support the j- zone change to B1 to allow for parking as long as there is a restriction preventing temporary structures. Now while these residents object to the zone change unless there is a restriction against temporary structures, this is not about objecting for the sake of objecting. What this is really about is being a good neighbor. The neighbors on whose behalf I speak here tonight have invested substantial time, effort and money into rehabilitating various historic structures on Third Street and into rebuilding a sense of community on the block that contains the properties in question. They are proud of their neighborhood and are excited about its future. These neighbors and this neighborhood welcome the Carrick House and view its location in the historic property on North Limestone as an exciting opportunity for continued growth and revitalization of their neighborhood. They love to see people being brought downtown by the events hosted at the Carrick House and they have tried to be good neighbors to the Carrick House, um, by being understanding about the increased street parking that's occasioned by events there and by being understanding about the increased noise that comes as a result of the activities in the house. But they are here tonight because they don't feel that the Carrick House has been a good neighbor in return. They are disappointed that the Carrick House has placed a large and seemingly permanent temporary structure in its parking lot and feel that this structure does not meet the requirements for additions to their historic neighborhood, requirements that they have worked diligently to meet in their own projects. Yet because of the way our zoning ordinance is written, the BOAR has taken the position that this temporary structure is outside their jurisdiction and may remain by virtue of Section 107 of the Building Code which permits the Office of Building Inspection to issue a permit for occupancy, um, for a period of a 180 days, a permit which can later then be renewed for cause. Ms. Wiseman said that this temporary structure is irrelevant. I submit to you that it is relevant. ... because in essence, the reason these neighbors are objecting is only because they are afraid the property owner will place similar structures on the lots in question unless the use is restricted to parking only with no temporary structures. That's the only reason they're here tonight. That's the only reason they're objecting. They do not want to see similar temporary structures placed on this lot. And if the zone change is granted without a restriction specifically prohibiting temporary structures, then they will be able to put similar structures on that lot. Um, the first part, I just want to introduce myself, but now we're gonna have a couple of the neighbors speak and kind of give their perspective on the issue. And then I'll come back and follow up with a few more points for your consideration. First of all, we will have John Morgan, then David Helmers, and then, excuse me, Marsha Gray. Good evening, Mr. Vice Mayor, members of council. Sorry to extend your last, uh, session of the year. Um, this is an important issue, and I think Ms. Wiseman covered most of the points to give you a really good background. But first of all, I really want to say we appreciate as neighbors Mr. Lundigan and his wife moving into the neighborhood and making the Carrick House a viable venture. We, by our own actions, I think have shown very clearly we strongly believe in downtown. My wife and I live on North Limestone. We've raised two teenage boys there. Sorry, one's an adult now. And we also, uh, own three properties on 3rd Street. Uh, one of them is our office. Uh, one door next door to that at, uh, one tw- 120 East 3rd Street is a single-family residence, and another property at 126 is also going to be a single-family residence. So what we're trying to do is to mix commercial, business, and residential, which is the vibrant part of downtown. Also, entertainment establishments, such as Mr. Lundigan's provided, are very beneficial to downtown, as is his commitment to historic preservation of the Carrick House, uh, which Mr. VanMetre petted. I believe one of the letters you've got, his, uh, great-grandparents lived there and his great-grandmother was born there. So this is an important property. One other thing which we've done is that we've always complied with the historic preservation overlay. Some people on this council might have some arguments about some specifics of the H-1, but we fought through it, we've adhered by it, and we really appreciate what it's done for our neighborhood. I think if all of you go down 3rd Street, you'll see that the south side of 3rd Street is a great representation of adaptive reuse of older buildings. Our office was built in the 1830s, as were the houses next door to it. And our house on North Limestone was built in 1797. So we believe in the use of older historic properties. The only issue in front of you tonight is to say, we want you to grant Mr. Lundigan exactly what he asked for, which is parking. If in the packet in front of you, you've got the letter that Ms. Wiseman submitted, um, back in March of '08, in that whole letter, um, to the, uh, planning commission, she stated Mr. Lundigan wants parking. Ms. Wiseman then said, "Mr. Lundigan wants parking," and he needs parking. Um, I think it's also good for the neighborhood not to have too much on-street parking for the events. But what we don't want is other uses. And I think that it's a whole point of trying to say if you want parking, that's what the zone change is for, and we fully support their zone change. Ms. Wiseman also made a big issue of saying it's not about temporary structures and then spent about five minutes talking about temporary structures. I'm gonna talk about them because of what we have facing us on 3rd Street. We have a large tent, which was made in Germany and was expensive, and is very attractive and took five days to put up. It's temporary, meaning it's there for 180 days according to the building permit. It can be taken down and put straight back up again. That's something which is a separate occasion we can discuss and debate of whether that is the correct use for a temporary structure, a temporary structure which did not need a building permit, which did not need to go before BOAR. So again, as Ms. Wiseman said, you've got a wonderful view of the front of the Carrick House, which has got a majestic lines, and to the right of it is a modern tent-like structure or mobile structure, which has not been in front of BOAR to work out how it's going to be fitted into the neighborhood. So all we're saying is we just don't want that situation to be exacerbated and have another tent structure for 180 days with associated porta-potties on this property in question. So all I'm requesting this evening is to allow Mr. Lundigan the zone change to B-1 and keeping, allowing him to have parking, which is exactly what he asked for in the application in the letter from Ms. Wiseman and in all the discussions we've had, and to preclude, uh, all uses except parking and also to preclude temporary structures. Thank you. Good evening, honorable vice mayor and council members. My name is David Helmers. I'm an attorney. Uh, I own the building at 110 East 3rd Street that faces the Carrick House. It's the closest building to, uh, Limestone other than the, the corner which has a parking lot. Um, by way of introduction, I'm an attorney. I've practiced law for 10 years in Lexington. I've lived in the downtown core, uh, I've practiced... My professional address has been in the downtown core for that entire time period. Um, I'm a vestry member at Good Shepherd Downtown. And in addition to owning and restoring the building at 110 East 3rd, I'm also a partner in a major renovation residential project about a block from here. And I'm committed to the success of downtown. I live in town, work in town, worship in town, and have invested downtown. Uh, in going through the restoration process, uh, at 110 East Third, uh, I had preliminary meetings, I hired, uh, great contractors, very well respected architects, and we went before the Board of Architectural Review, we met with Planning and Zoning, uh, did an extensive renovation and are presently doing an addition on that building. I've invested my time and my effort and my money into downtown. I've written a letter and submitted it to you and I ask that you read it. I must tell you that I was dismayed when I saw, uh, what's been called a tent here go up, and I learned that it was intended to stay there for an extended period of time. Uh, I don't view it as a temporary structure. Uh, I view it as a permanent structure being erected under the guise of being a temporary structure, and I do think it's important. We're here talking about it today because the requested zone change of the adjacent property would allow for additional temporary structures, whether they're temporary in reality or not, to be erected, and those would cause a problem to those of us who have invested in 3rd Street and are trying to operate, uh, our businesses, uh, on this, on this corridor. Um, we have complied with the rules. We've tried to be good neighbors. If there's mistrust that's been generated, it's because I never met the owners, uh, at, at Carrick House, the new owners. They never came and introduced themselves to me, they never told me what their intentions were, and it was only when I saw lattice work going up and other indicia of permanency around this temporary structure that I realized, uh, through contacting the Board of Architectural Review, what their actual, uh, intent was. Um, I think Ms. Wiseman asked that you approve this zoning change without hesitation and without debate. And I'm asking that you hesitate and that we do have debate, and you educate yourself on what has happened in the property thus far. It's harmful to the other property owners and it's, there, there's been a lot of polite phrasing for, uh, the, the tent so far tonight, but if you talk to the neighbors and if the master plan is based upon the interaction between businesses and neighbors, what you'll hear f- talking to people on the street is that a UFO has landed in the neighborhood, that there's a quadruple wide that's parked in the property in front of, of our house and, or our business. And, uh, it's, in my opinion, a, a cancer on the block and what I'm asking you not to do is allow it to spread to the adjacent property. We support business downtown. The folks that are here objecting today are those who have led the renaissance of 3rd Street. We operate our businesses downtown, we reside downtown, we want success downtown, uh, but we don't want what we view as a blight on the neighborhood to spread onto the three adjacent properties where the zoning change has been requested, so are the 135 through 139. So we, again, we support the zoning change, we ask for a simple restriction that allows the property owners to use the property as they have told you and told us they intend to as a parking lot, uh, but we don't want more temporary structures there. So thank you for your time this evening. Good evening, um, Mr. Vice Mayor, Council Members. My name is Marcia Gray. Um, I'm a new resident of Lexington. I moved here a year ago from Baltimore, Maryland, and I particularly chose Lexington because it was a community that I wanted to live in. It had a historic presence to it, it had a viable downtown residential area. I bought a piece of property on Gratz Park and for the past year have spent a lot of time and money, as you can well imagine, renovating the house, and I've been living temporarily in a rental house on North Limestone just north of, uh, Carrick House across from the high s- um, the public school. Uh, I too was horrified when I saw the tent was going up and I like to walk around the neighborhood. It's a beautiful neighborhood. It's, it's a joyous place to live. I spoke to Mr. Lundigan, uh, in May and asked him how long the tent was gonna be up and he frankly told me it was permanent. Well, I called the city and I was told it was only a temporary structure, but it seems to me with all of the port-a-potties that have been put out, the flapping material that you can hear at my house during the evening when the wind is blowing, it's an awful permanent structure and it is not very pretty. Um, Ms. Wiseman showed you pictures of the house, but she didn't show you pictures of it from across the street on 3rd Avenue, 3rd Street. It is not pretty. I, I'm sorry it cost a lot of money, but at the same time, we are all spending a lot of money to live in downtown Lexington and to keep it pretty. Uh, Carrick House is a beautiful southern mansion. The tent is not. Uh, I wrote a letter, uh, a week ago or so to the council and I'll leave copies of it here for you all. Thank you for giving me time to express my opinion on this issue. And I would just like to follow up, um, those comments by reading you just a few excerpts of the letters that we printed out and handed you just to make it clear that- We are not objecting to the zone change to B1, we simply are asking for a minor restriction that would prohibit a temporary structure. The first letter I'll quote from is that of Van Meter Pettit. He writes that, "The Weir house at the corner of Lime and Third is one of the most outstanding historic landmarks in our city. My three great grandfathers lived there, and my great grandmother was born there." Further down in the letter, he says, "I do not oppose this zone change, but I do suggest that conditions relating to the use of temporary structures be considered. It is my goal to see this property succeed as an enterprise while not compromising the design standards to which we all must adhere." Next letter is from John Morgan and Linda Carol, which I won't quote from since John spoke to you all directly. Uh, the next letter is Kim Comstock, who couldn't be here this evening because she's out of town. She lives directly opposite the lot, which is currently being used as a parking lot for the CGL Properties Carrick House. She says she's, "not at all opposed to the changing of the zone to B1 so that the Carrick House may use it for additional parking." Further down she says, "However, this so-called temporary structure which is up next to Carrick House has unfortunately become a permanent str- fixture in our landscape and is allowed to exist because of a regulation that says temporary structures may remain in place for up to 180 days. CGL Properties intends to take the structure down at the 180-day mark, and then immediately reassemble it. This violates the spirit of the regulation, if not the technical language." Again, she reiterates that she, "does not object to the lot at 135 to 139 East Third being used for parking, but is greatly concerned that it might be used for another permanent quote/unquote temporary structure. If this happens, Carrick House will not have sufficient parking space to handle their guests and parking will become an enormous problem for the neighborhood." The next is the letter from David Helmers, who's also spoken with you this evening. And the last... well, we've got two. The next is an email from Lindy Brown. Um, her- she says that, "My husband and I are in the process of restoring a hist- historic home at 114 East Third Street. We love being in the midst of a new and thriving mix of events, activities, and restaurants in our area. Since we have put considerable time and money into maintaining the historic integrity of our home, we were wondering what we will now face across the street with GCL- GLC's very permanent-looking temporary tent. If this structure is allowed, why in the world did we have to jump through so many hoops in our personal historic construction efforts to now be faced with this incredible spaceship eyesore?" This change resulted in greatly reduced parking because of the size of the quote/unquote tent, uncontrolled noise because of the lack of proper acoustics in the quote/unquote tent, protection under the structure which has provided sleeping facilities because of the tent, and a large porta-potty hookup trailer was needed because of the tent. And the final letter is from Lyle and Betty Nijhoff. He writes, "My wife, Betty, and I have run Lyle's Bluegrass Automotive from Mechanic Street and recognize the balance between running a business and the responsibility of maintaining the appearance pleasing to our community. We support the zone change to B1 for parking as requested by GCL Properties. We do not support an increase in temporary structures on the new parking lot." That's just to give you a bit more flavor that there are more than people here tonight that want to see the Carrick House downtown. They want to see the business downtown. They don't even oppose changing to B1 for the use proposed by the applicant, which is parking. Their only concern is that there will be additional temporary structures placed there which they feel are an eyesore to their neighborhood. I'll follow up these comments by just a few points. Number one, we would say that the use should be restricted because it is what the property owner asked for. And I have a PowerPoint here. As you can see, the application submitted by the applicant clearly identifies parking and nothing else as the intended use. As Ms. Weisman pointed out earlier, the applicant's letter requests the zone change for parking, and states that the only reason for the B1 change is to allow this lot to be used for parking, because they do not currently have enough parking on their lot. Now, we lead to the question of why they currently do not have enough parking. One of the major reasons they do not have enough parking is because this tent that everyone's been talking about this evening covers up 24 parking spaces located directly adjacent to the Carrick House. By placing the temporary tent structure where they have placed it, they have obliterated 24 parking spaces that would otherwise be available for their use. This has led to the need for additional parking. This has led to the request for the B1 zone change, and this has led to the neighborhood's objection for fear that there will be more temporary structures placed on this parking lot. Now, we have the temporary structure. We've seen views of the temporary structure from the front. This is a view of the temporary structure from Third Street. As you can see, not maybe so much from this picture, but from Third Street, when you look up you can't even see the Carrick House anymore. It, this structure completely hides the house from Third Street. It is as tall as the house from Third Street when you're looking up. This is what it looks like. It was placed here almost four months ago pursuant to a tent application filed with the city, by the property owner. Yet, this structure is anything but a tent. In fact, it would seem to fit the definition of trailer contained in our zoning ordinance, which is defined as, "Any portable structure having no foundation other than wheels, jacks, or skirtings, or any vehicle so designed or constructed so as to permit to the conduct of any business, trade, or occupation, or used as a selling or advertising device." This structure has a solid raised platform floor, glass walls, and a skirting of wood lattice. It has expanded over the four months with the addition of a trailer containing toilet facilities, which you can spot in my left hand, your right-hand corner of the picture there. ... and various operational systems that have been placed on the asphalt at the back of the structure. It has become an eyesore that towers over the neighborhood and blocks the neighbors' view of the beautiful historic building that is Carrick House proper. It has, as one letter referenced, even attracted vagrants who sleep under its raised foundation at night. This is what the neighbors are trying to prevent by requesting that the use of the lots in question be restricted to parking only in the event that a j- zone change is finally approved. The reason this use restriction must be so specific, and must specifically exclude temporary structures, is because if the zone change is enacted as it currently has been proposed by the Planning Commission, the restrictions that are, uh, pertinent to it right now would not prevent its use as a banquet facility. And under Article 1-11, banquet facility is defined to include, um, to allow a property owner to operate events and temporary structures on a ph- on a B-1 property that is being used as a banquet facility. And there's no definition of temporary structures that could restrict the size or aesthetics of such a structure. If the property owner wishes to use the lot as a banquet facility at a later time, and not just as a parking lot, the neighborhood would not object if they were wanting to build a permanent structure onto the back of the Carrick House. The property owner at that time could simply request a modification of the zone applicable to these lots, and request that the use restrictions relating to the banquet facility be lifted to per- permit the construction. In fact, the neighbors here tonight would welcome this, because it would reduce the noise that flows from events held in the existing temporary structure, and because the project would then have to comply with the historic district requirements and be approved by the BOAR, something that existing temporary structure does not have to do. And any t- temporary structure that might be placed on the properties in question would not have to comply with BOAR. The temporary structure and simple, similar temporary structures that the residents are afraid will be placed on the property in question do not further the intent of the zoning ordinance governing B-1 districts. In Article 8-16A, the intent is stated as, "This zone is intended to accommodate neighborhood shopping facilities to serve the needs of the surrounding residential area. Generally, they should be planned facilities and should be located as recommended in the comprehensive plan. This zone should be oriented to the residential neighborhood." That's the intent of the B-1 zone. That is what we're trying to protect, the intent, which is also the function. And I might just add in closing that, oh, my pictures went away. Uh, oh. This picture shows the, uh, temporary toilet facilities that have been attached to the tent. And this, oops. As you can see, the lots in question, which are currently gravel lots that have not been improved upon, that have not been developed according to the developmental plan submitted to the Planning Commission, are already being used as a parking lot. And they're being used as a parking lot in coordination with the Carrick House events. And there has not been the proper BOAR approval of the development plan for the parking lot, and that's what we're dealing with. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Miss Case. Um, Miss Wiseman, you, y- no, no, I'm sorry. Uh, Jimmy, you got any additional comments from what you've heard? The staff has no rebuttal. Of course, we're available for any questions- Okay. ... that the council may have. All right. Miss Wiseman, do you have any rebuttal? I do, I do. All right. Uh, let me, if you, if I might just hand out my proposed findings, uh, while I'm going through my rebuttal. Okay. I'll just let y'all pass them. That's fine. Just... I will not spend a lot of time on these, 'cause as you've heard, no one seems to have a problem with the B-1 zone change, and no one seems to have a problem with the Lundrigans operating this business and it being a success, but they seem to have a problem with trying to give us any sort of flexibility to ensure that we can handle, um, uh, to provide benefits to the property, uh, provide additional space should we need it. Let me make a couple of points. The text amendment that's been referred to that's in tab three of your book has a definition for banquet facility, and it says in there that you can have events conducted outside the main building in tents or other temporary facilities subject to the issuance of permits by the Division of Building Inspection. This text amendment was tailor-made. It was specifically written for this building, for the Carrick House. Solly Van Meter purchased it and, and had this text amendment proposed it specifically to use this property for that purpose with this definition. You may not know, but when there is a text amendment proposed, every neighborhood association in the county that's registered gets notice of it. Constitution Neighborhood got notice of it, I'm confident. If you look at the minutes of those hearings, no one came from this neighborhood to say, "Wait a minute, there's a residence in our neighborhood and they're B-1, and you can have tents or temporary facilities." No one said anything about that, and the law was the same then as it is now. There was no definition of temporary other than what's in the building code. This was approved under what the rules are, and no one had a problem with it. And they had the opportunity, and it wasn't a secret. This was written for Carrick House with this definition. No one ever came to say, "Wait, what, what about this tent? What's a temporary facility?" That was never raised. Now, we're hearing about it. Yes. Of course, we bought this for parking. Do you think you spend half a million dollars not to put a parking lot? That's what that plan shows. And no, we haven't developed that plan yet. No, we haven't paved it yet. We have to have a zone change. This development plan can't be acted upon until we get the zoning. And then, we have to go to the Board of Architecture Review. We would love to pave the parking lot today. We cannot do that under your rules. We are following the rules and I've heard a lot about that tonight, that they follow the rules. They've asked you to change the rules for us. The rules are fine, but for us, they get to be changed. No, we don't have a definition of temporary, so you all just can't have any. So you can't have a tent there. If we wanna have an event for the World Games and we have a big crowd for that night, we can't put a tent up. But I bet if 3rd Street Stuff wants to have a tent, they get to have one, or Lowell's in their parking lot, or Jonathan's has a parking lot. There's lots of parking lot. Sayre, they've got a parking lot. Ev- all the other parking lots downtown will get to have tents for these functions for the World Games, but not the one business that's in the business of doing that, because we want to change the rules for this business. Now, I've heard it, every speaker, "We want to support the Carrick House. We want to support downtown." And you say it too. Well, here's how you support a business that wants to come downtown. We're as- all we're asking is to be able to use this 22 hundredths of an acre for a parking lot. That's not a secret. Yes, that's what the letter said. That's what it's gonna be, but they don't want us to have any flexibility to ever put a tent on that 22 hundredths of an acre or even a part of it. That is completely unreasonable. It's not a reasonable request. We were reasonable and we proposed all these other restrictions. If this were a reasonable request, we wouldn't be here tonight, but it wasn't reasonable. We couldn't agree to it, so we're looking to you to be reasonable about this. We're just asking to let the rules that are in place today that were in place when this was passed apply to us. They leave tonight with B2A zoned property. Most of the people that spoke don't live on the street. I don't think any of them that spoke live on the street. They own businesses. Their businesses do not have any restrictions, only Mr. Lundgren's company. They have B2A zoning and they can change that. We have no guarantees from them, and they want total guarantees from us. We think that's unreasonable. We think what we're asking is appropriate. We think this is a great development for downtown, and I'll say it again, it ought to be approved without hesitation, and we ask you to do that. Thank you. Mr. Gray, I'm not sure if I reserved any time for rebuttal or not. Yeah, you do. Uh, but wait just a minute. Okay. We have a closing summation by the, by the opponent, so you're up next. I really don't have much to add except that I just wanted to address one point, maybe two. Hindsight is always 20/20. I think when people saw this text amendment and saw that events could be had in temporary structures or tents, they were thinking about the temporary structures and tents that we usually go to weddings in. These are the kind that are put up on a Saturday morning for a wedding. They have open sides or maybe at the most, fabric on the sides. They have dirt floors, maybe with a parquet dance floor in the middle, and then they're taken down after the wedding is over. I'm sure that is what con- was contemplated at the time. Of course now, the neighbors have been faced with a temporary structure of quite a different nature, as you've seen. Hindsight is 2020. We are trying to prevent similar structures on this new lot, and you have the power to do it through the conditional use restriction. You are granting, if you approve it, you will be granting a zone change from residential to B1, and it is a very simple matter to simply say, "No temporary structures." This is a reasonable request. Anyone who has walked down 3rd Street and seen what's there now would know that it is reasonable for the neighborhood and the neighbors not to want similar structures on the lot in question. I would ask you not to judge the reasonableness of this until you've fully considered the pictures, the photographic evidence, and maybe even taken a trip down there yourself to see what it actually looks like in person. The revitalization of the 3rd Street corridor is a huge project for Lexington. They received a grant from the Knight Foundation. They're trying to revitalize a, a corridor that has been recently neglected and blighted in anticipation of the World Games and as a way to sustain this community into the future past the World Games, and in order to do that, every neighbor has to participate, and every neighbor has to do things that are in keeping with the spirit of this revitalization and in keeping with the integrity of this historic district. Thank you. Ms. Wiseman, closing, you, closing summation. You're good? All right. Okay. That's what the rules are. Just following the rules. Yep, let's do it. All right, next, ah, what we got next is the, um, okay, it's time for the council members to ask questions of staff. No, there is none. Mr.... Okay. Mr. Blues, then Mr. Decamp. Okay. Andrew, do you want, uh... Ms. James, then. Is it Mr. Blues first? Okay. There you go. And then, uh- I've got a question for the applicant, uh, or Ms., Ms. Wiseman or any of the petitioners. What, uh... The, the, the current temporary structure has been up for roughly, what, four months, I, I gather? I'll have to ask. I don't know. Since around the end of, sort of put it up around the end of March. End of March. So what, what happens now at the end of 180 days with, with, with the, uh, structure? Will it be taken down and away? Yes, it will be removed. It will. Be taken down before then. Uh, as I mentioned in my presentation, before we began this process, we met with building inspection, we met with Betty Kerr, uh, and Dewey Crow, and talked about that. And we wrote a letter, they asked for a letter that would commit that that's what would be done, that it would be removed before the 180 days, and that's what we committed to do. And again, it can be, it can go up, but it can't stay longer than 180 continuous days. And we have a record on file with Building Inspection and Historic Preservation that says that will be done. I don't recall the date of that letter, but whatever the date is, it, it is. So it, it, it will be taken down and, and, and, and, and rebuilt then or... I'm sorry, or brought back? It can be reinstalled, yes- Yes. ... after the 180 days. Have to come take it down, then come back. My second question is this, uh, getting back to, uh, the, the attorney for the opponent's point. Uh, w- what would be the problem with a temporary structure for a weekend, five days, seven days, as opposed to 180 days infinitely renewable? The... I mean, that's not, quote, a problem. It's, uh, that's not what's been asked. What's been asked is that we have none at all for one day. Uh, the only problem is that, you know, if you have to take it down every time you put it up, sometimes you have an event on Friday, sometimes you have an event on Saturday, an event on Sunday, and then the following Thursday. And it's just not efficient to take the tent down on Sunday and put it back up on Thursday. This is primarily going to be used for parking. Please understand that. That's what the development plan shows. It doesn't show a temporary structure because you don't show temporary structures on a permanent development plan. But that, for those time limits, that's if it's, if it's not, there, there is some inefficiency in taking it, putting it up, taking it down. But... Oh, as I understand it, then the, the subject property is to be used for parking, but if it were to be used for a, a, a tent or a temporary structure, it would be inefficient to have a temporary structure that didn't have a 180-day- No, no, I don't think that's what we're saying, is that most of the time, this will be parking. Uh, again, a lot of money was invested to get additional parking. Uh, we do have arrangements with other properties to have shared parking, but what we're trying to do is to make sure that there's enough on site for older people who have trouble getting into this facility. Now, if we do not anticipate that there's gonna be a temporary facility there for anything like 180 days on that property, because it's going to be used for parking. But will we need to have something up for three weeks when there's a major event in town? Possibly. Will we need to have one in the summer when there's a wedding every weekend in June, and then there's reunions and banquets, and that needs to be up 30 days? Possibly. I can't say. We do know that we want to use it mainly for parking. All we're asking is that we have flexibility as to what we can do with this property. And again, there's lots of other parking lots downtown that will be able to put up tents for 179 days. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Decamp. Thank you. Um, first of all, I'd like to say, I think, I mean, I spent 30 years in this business, and I think what, uh, the Lundagons have done is a great thing for downtown. Uh, it's gonna add a lot of life and, uh, vibrance to our city, and I think everyone in the neighborhood would agree. At the same time, I, I, uh, for years have gone down Third Street, and, uh, Ms. Letter was, Ms. Letter was first, and, uh, she stuck with it, and then the Morgans came along and bought a couple, and I thought, "Gosh, I think it's gonna happen. I think it's gonna happen," and it has happened. And it's really wonderful that we've taken that whole block there of wonderfully, historically, architecturally important house- houses and seen a real turnabout. So, you know, it's, it's been a win-win from that. ... from that point of view, um, and I'm not gonna talk about tents, but the one thing that did concern me, uh, of, for the people that live on 3rd Street, uh, the landscaping, uh, in front of this pro- proposed parking lot. Um, I would like to see us really do something out of the ordinary. Uh, too many times I've seen, I mean, I saw some pictures and they said, "Oh, there's, there's been some landscaping there." That isn't landscaping to me. I think we should do s- that, that, I challenge you to do something with blooming trees and bushes and things that will really enhance 3rd Street and, and, um, and hide the parking lot, uh, behind something that really will be a great addition to Lexington. And, um, I don't know if we can put some sort of condition on it or just say, "I challenge you to do this, uh, with a landscape architect who can really put in something that will be more than is required, uh, to surround a parking lot." One of the problems that we have in this city, we got a heck of a lot of parking lots and they're not very pretty. And I, I would like to see us before, uh, to begin to look at some more restrictions on plantings around parking lots, whether they be permanent fencing, like brick fencing, or, uh, some planting that is more restrictive than what we have on the books at this point. And I think with the new renaissance of this street, it deserves to have the best. Um, if that was a question, I'll answer it. All right. Um, two things. The, the trees that you see there were just put up to do something, because again, we can't do anything to improve the parking lot in the state it's in right now, in terms of permitting. Uh, this plan, this property is in the H-1, so we have to present the parking lot plan, including the landscaping to the Board of Architecture review, so they will be giving it the full review. And I think, uh, we certainly will work with them and follow their direction as to what we do. So there is another level of scrutiny you don't typically have on a development plan, which is going through the BOAR. I just, I throw it out as a challenge. Certainly. I, I just think it's, uh, really important and, and, uh, and, uh, to have parking for you, but I think it'd be awfully nice to do something nice for the city to have something really beautiful there, which will hide the parking lot and also be a pleasure to see in different times of the year. Council member Crosby. Uh, yes, this message is, or this message, this question is for Jimmy. Um, this is regarding, uh, B-1 zoning and temporary structures. Um, my question is, uh, I guess we've heard a lot tonight about just the fact that one in particular is placed on a par- happens to be placed on a parking lot, but, um, could you answer, in fact, if, if, say, any business, um, or say Sayre School or some of the law firms, I mean, they could place it really wherever they want on that property once it's zoned. Is that correct? So... The, the zoning ordinance does not define a temporary structure. Um, so, and, and I'm not an expert on the, the building code, but I believe Ms. Wiseman is correct in saying that the building code, uh, which is enforced by building inspection, defines it as 180 days. But I can tell you that our zoning ordinance does not define a temporary structure. No, that was- And I'm, I'm sorry, I didn't- ... I guess that's not my question. My question is, can it be placed anywhere on the property? It doesn't have to be pla- Like, I, I guess, I'm trying to figure out, this just happens to be on the, the one that's, that's been brought up a lot tonight happens to be placed in a parking lot taking up spaces, therefore there's a need for additional parking. Um, but in fact, could that structure indeed be placed, the temporary structure, be placed anywhere on any property? Whether it's, I'm not trying to mention this property in general, say it's a law firm. They could put a tent up in their front yard, a temporary structure, if indeed they wanted to for 180 days or 179 days. I believe that the answer is yes to your question. They can put it up wherever they want to, because I don't believe that temporary structures require building permits. So it could go in a front yard, it could go anywhere? I believe that is- On the property. ... correct. Thank you. Council member Blevins. My question's been answered. Okay, Council Man Beard? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, I had a whole list of them, but they've kind of gotten, uh, leveled somewhat. I'm, uh, one of curiosity, how old is the Carrick House? 1830. 1813. That's close enough for me. That, um, and this other is, is not so much a question as it is a comment. Uh, ma- maybe there needs to be some work done on the definition of temporary structures. Like a Class A temporary structure would be 180 days, and a Class B would be 30 days, and a Class C would be 10 days or something of that sort. Because we don't have the flexibility now to, uh, uh, refine or granulate, uh, uh, to, to meet everybody's needs and, and, uh, uh, at the same time, uh, uh, have some control over what happens where. It seems like it's, uh, it's somewhat open-ended and a- a- again, f- following up on council member, uh, Crosby's comments, it's, uh, it, it's a situation where, uh, uh, this type of thing could happen, the temporary structure thing could happen anywhere, uh, actually within Fayette County, I suppose. Um- So, uh, uh, I'm still, uh, uh, stewing a little bit about which way I, I lean on this and, um, I'll probably be back a little later, Vice Mayor, as you well, as you well know. Surely not. Okay, thank you, Julian. Uh, Council Member Gordon? Thank you, Vice Mayor. Um, Ms. Wiseman, on that... uh, when a temporary structure is put up like that and left for 180 days and has a bathroom trailer, is that bathroom trailer hooked to any sewer system? That, I forgot to point that out. I'm glad that you mentioned that. Those that you saw in the photo are only there during an event if necessary. The, the bathroom and that other tent, they are self-contained, just like the- They're a true port-a-potty. ... ones you put out for the Fourth of July. They're not- So, they're d- dumped away? ... They're, yeah, they're just nicer looking port-a-potties, if there is such a thing. Okay, that was my only question. Uh, the question of what a temporary structure is and its definition, and where it can be located and under what circumstances, has been referred to the Intergovernmental Committee and will be a topic of discussion over the next several months. Anything else? That's it? Okay. Council Member James? Um, I plan to make a motion, Vice Mayor, so if anyone else has any comments prior to, they may wanna do so. Otherwise, um, I do want to say that, um, something that Ms. Wiseman stated, um, really, I think, um, is something that I, I saw council members kind of looking at one another, um, when you made the statement about, you know, that it's kind of a difficult thing to take, take down and put back up again, that kind of thing, so it's not extremely versatile. So, thinking that possibly this area could be used mainly or primarily will be for parking, but to think that there would be a structure there and the difficulty, it kind of makes me wonder whether it would be there for a longer amount of time than the three-day or three-week, or something of that sort. Um, and after hearing everything here tonight and seeing and reading through all the information, um, I make a motion to adopt, um, the recommendations of the planning commission with an additional, um, prohibitive use, um, of the letter O, which would be prohibiting temporary structures. Um, and some background information on that, or supportive information, um, the prohi- prohibition of temporary structures is appropriate to comply with the H-1 overlay zoning and to promote future development of the property in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Second. Second. Okay, there's a motion and a second. Uh, is there discussion on the motion? Mr. Blevins? Thank you. I wasn't clear on how we were gonna get to comment, so I'm glad we've got a motion on the floor. Uh, the, the take down and the put up of the tent is the, is the core issue here. It, it is clearly unfeasible for the Lundrigans to, once a week or twice a week, put up a tent, take it down, put up and take it down. Because evidently they need extra space for their dining and banquet hall. So, from a practical standpoint, I think everybody in the room understands that. But that's the point. The reason they're temporary structures is that you use them on a temporary basis. It's clear that you all are not using your current, whatever it's called, as a temporary structure. It's a permanent structure. Let's all admit that. So, that places us in sort of an awkward position here for a zone change hearing. What I think the, the laws and the building codes were intended to do was to allow you to do a temporary structure on a temporary basis. If you have a large event where you need a tent and port-a-potties, you put up the tent and the port, port-a-potties. And when it's over, you're done. If your business needs are such that that happens so often that you really almost need a permanent structure, then the laws provide for you to build a permanent structure, which is what ought to be done here. I agree with the residents, having that thing between Third Street and the Carrick House is ugly. And i- it would bother me as well if I lived there. So, I, I, I'm a little perturbed because I also think that using a zoning, a zone change as our mechanism to enforce that is probably not the right thing either. The argument that Ms. Wiseman has made about other parking lots and so forth not being similarly restricted carries weight with me, 'cause any law, uh, office or any other parking lot in, in the downtown area could also host a tent with port-a-potties and have the same effect. Further, I'm experiencing this in another painful way in my own district with several churches who constantly put up church, put up tents without permits or leave them f- far longer than they're supposed to. So, I'm seeing a, a common problem, not just with this situation, but across town and I'm very glad that Dr. Stephens reminded us that we're gonna be taking a look at this. So, my opinion, after netting all that out is, I don't believe that using the zone change tonight on the Lundrigans is the right way to solve this particular problem. But I will look forward to making you all take that down in another way, 'cause I don't think what you're doing is, is fair or equitable to your neighbors. That's my opinion. Other comments on the motion? Uh, Council Member James, would you restate the motion please? Yes, sir. I'd be happy to. Um, I move to adopt the findings of the planning commission, um, adding an additional prohibited, prohibitive u- prohibited use of item O... ... which would state temporary structures. And the supportive documentation on that would be the prohibition of temporary structures is appropriate to comply with the H-1 overlay zoning and to promote future development of the property in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Okay. Is that clear? I got a question for Mr. Blevins. So, after you netted all that out, how do you... What does that say to the motion? W- in my opinion, I, I will not support the motion as is. Okay. I'll support the zone change as it was done. For my part, as it was from the Planning Commission- So you're saying as, as it, as it, as the, um, Planning Commission adopted? Yes. Now let me be very clear. I very much support the sentiment behind this motion. Right. Right. Right. Very much. I just don't happen to believe this is the mechanism we should use as a council to do it. But I very much agree with what Council Member James is trying to do. And m- maybe, uh, we've been forced into a situation where we have to play Solomon here and just do it the best we can. I just choose to do it a slightly different way. I was thinking Solomonic myself. Um, I got a question to the staff. Um, in the commission hearing, were these questions introduced then? It was discussed, yes. And it's, uh, reflected in the minutes. That we got here, right? Go a-... Tell us about that. I was not at that hearing, um, but, uh, having read the minutes and, um, and watched the hearing and the, and preparing for this, the, uh, I believe that it was discussed and ultimately the Planning Commission through their action, um, adopted the findings as proposed by the applicant. Not ma- not the findings, but the conditional zoning restrictions that were proposed by the applicant. Okay. Council Member Gordon. Uh, I just had one comment in response to Council Member Blevins. I am going to support your motion, because this is absolutely our prerogative to add whatever conditions we choose to add. And this is what the neighborhood has brought to us as their concern. It's their one concern. And this is the mechanism through the law that we have to deal with this concern, so I'm absolutely supportive of your motion. Council Member James. If I may add just a little bit. I, the issue of the temporary structures being put into the Intergovernmental Committee came because of this issue. So w- we, we do, Council Member Blevins and all council members, understand that, um, similar to other issues that we go through where it's the first time we're, we're getting an issue, we understand that there's a flaw within our government and it's something we need to work on. Do we allow something to continuously go through that we will have to deal with the ramifications of this issue and then later on, say August, when it comes up in Intergovernmental, make a decision that we say, "Dang, I wish we had been able to do that two months ago, because that would have changed the outcome of, of what we did at that zone change." I think we do need to be proactive in this sense and, um, and I appreciate the residents for bringing this issue forward and, and coming forward and they did try to compromise, um, with the petitioner. And, um, I'm, I'm very supportive of this and I feel very strongly that, that c- council members should be, should move forward with this recommendation. Still, um, debate on the motion. Is there any further? All right. So everybody understands the motion. Uh, we're voting on the motion now. Next we'll have the findings of fact, right? No. This is the findings of fact. This is the finding- Well, Rachelle, help me. Y- you know, this is always confusing to me, so go through it, please. The motion is basically adopting the findings of fact and the recommendation of the Planning Commission. There will then be, um, uh, additional readings of the ordinance itself, which you would vote on, which would actually implement the zone change. And if this motion were to pass, I believe the amendment that's proposed, which has to pass by eight votes because it is changing the basic recommendation of the Planning Commission, would be a material change. We would do a new first reading just adding "as amended" to the title and then another second reading, and then you would vote on that if this motion were to pass. Okay. Is everybody clear of then? Okay. All in favor of the motion. Let's have a roll call. Roll call. Mr. Beard. Another question I have for, um, um, I guess Ms. Wi- Ms. Weiss. When, if we look at your pictures under tab four. Yes? What's... Wait a minute, we have a point of order here. Yeah, what's the, s- question? What's the point of order? The point of order is there's a motion on the floor, Vice Mayor. Okay. So it's speaking to the motion. All right. All right. I'll be good with that. Withdrawal, yes. All right. All right. Roll call vote then on the motion. Miss James? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Meyers? Yes. Dr. Stephens? Aye. Mr. Stennett? No. Mr. Beard? No. Mr. Blevins? No. Mr. Bluez? Yes. Miss Crosby? No. Mr. Decamp? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? No. Miss Gordon? Aye. Mr. Gray? No. Miss Henson? Yes. Three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. The vote on that is nine to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9-6. So it is, it passes. All right. So... Now we close the hearing, right? Yes, - And we get the votes on the finding. Okay, we've already closed that. Votes on the finding of fact now, right? Now we have to do a reading. She got to read it. All right. New first reading. Can you do that then? You, you need a motion. Help us here. Um, you have adopted findings of fact through that motion, you now need to do a new first reading on the ordinance, and then a second reading and a vote on that. A motion to amend the ordinance. Um, yeah. Do a mo... You need to do a motion to amend the ordinance in accordance with- So is there a motion? ... just passed. Chair will entertain a motion. I make a motion to amend. Second. There's a motion and a second. Discussion? Hearing none. We need a roll call vote here. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no? Motion carries. Okay. Now a second. The, the ordinance for, as amended for number 13 for a new first reading. An ordinance change in the zone from a single family residential R1E zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for 0.267 net, 0.347 gross acres of property, located at 135 through 139 East 3rd Street, subject to certain use restrictions imposed as grant, as conditions of granting the zone change, uh, as amended GCL Properties, LLC. And now a motion to suspend the rules, if you so choose. I make a motion to suspend the rules and give second reading. Motion and second to suspend the rules. All in favor? Please say- Excuse me, uh, Vice Mayor. Could I have clarification? Yes, sir. Uh, would you go into what as amended means, please? I mean that's- Somebody help me here. The as amended refers to the fact that you have altered the conditions through that motion. It's going to add the temporary structures as a prohibited use, and it will, um, add the justification of, uh, that was read by Miss James to support that addi- that added prohibited use. All right. So let me make sure I understand. The first vote was to approve the recommendation from the Planning Commission. The second vote to amend was to put the amendment on that would, um- No. ... not allow temporary use of the property. The first, the first motion was to adopt findings which included a finding that an additional condition, restrictive condition of the zone change, was necessary, which was the banning the pro- the temporary structures, and the finding to support that. That was the first motion adopted those findings and recommendations. The second motion was to amend the actual wording of the ordinance, which had already received a first reading, and since we altered what the Planning Commission had recommended just a little bit, we had to, to agree to amend that ordinance. So, that was the second motion, and then we gave it a first reading. And now the motion is to s- suspend the rules so we can give it as amended, the second reading, so that it will be implemented as of tonight. Okay. Well, I, I misunderstood the vote. So, um... Too late? No. We still got to vote again. One second. One more second reading. All right. But there was nine. If it had been eight, it would have been different. You can do it on the second reading. Okay. I'll do it on the second reading then. Thank you. Since it was nine. - Okay. Where are we? We got a motion, but where are we? We need to suspend the rules. We have a motion to suspend the rules, and we have a second? Yes. All right. All in favor? Aye. All opposed, no? Motion carries. And, and who made that motion to suspend? I'm sorry, I- Council, Councilmember James made the motion to suspend. And Gordon seconded. Thank you. To suspend the rules. Thank you. All right. Now, that's ordinance number 13 for second reading, and ordinance change in the zone from a single family residential R1E zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for 0.267 net, 0.347 gross, acres of property, located at 135 through 139 East 3rd Street, subject to certain use restrictions imposed as conditions of granting the zone change, as amended GCL Properties, LLC. We need a roll call on this? Yes, sir. All right, we do need a roll call. Was that, Councilmember Ellinger? This is where there's always confusion. Yeah. Just what a yes vote and a no vote is. Yes. Yes. It's very important. Right. At this point, so everybody knows what they're voting on. If you would. A yes vote will approve the zone change with the amendments, um, that were adopted in the motion. In other words, it will implement the zone change to be B1, with conditional zoning, including a condition that prohibits the temporary structures, and also including the finding that prohibiting temporary structures is appropriate to support the H1 overlay and to promote future development in accordance with the comp plan. So, a yes vote will implement all of that. All right. We prepared to vote then. Miss James? Yes. Mr. Lane? No. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Meyers? Yes. Dr. Stephens? Aye. Mr. Stennett? Sorry. What's your vote? No? Thank you. Mr. Beard? No. Mr. Blevins? No. Mr. Blues? Yes. Miss Crosby? No. Mr. Decamp? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? No. Miss Gordon? Aye. Excuse me. Certainly. Mr. Gray? No. And Miss Henson? Yes. Five, six, seven, eight. That passes, eight to seven. Move we adjourn. There is a motion- Second. ... to adjourn. Is there a second? Again. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Oppose, no. Motion carries. We're adjourned. .