...dragging it up here every month until we have something to present to you on that. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Uh, we have a request for an indefinite postponement of MAR2007-9, Tates Creek Heights LLC. This is for property located at 1093, 1097, and 1099 Duvall Street. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Indefinite postponement. Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion for the indefinite postponement as well as the associated zoning development plan for, uh, MAR2007-9, Tates Creek Heights. Mr. Chairman, I move for indefinite postponement of MAR2007-9, um, as well as ZDP2007-50. Second. We have a motion and a second for indefinite postponement. All th- All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Also, on page six, item three, Southern Industrial LLC zoning map amendment and Metathorpe Community Business Center Unit One zoning development plan. Uh, we're requesting a one-month postponement on this. Due to some scheduling difficulties, we couldn't meet with the neighborhood association last month, but we do have a meeting scheduled this coming week, and we've agreed with the neighborhood association to request postponement for one month. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. What, uh ... Mr. Salley, a date on that? It'd be October 23rd. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, we have a request for a one-month postponement to the October 23rd meeting for MAR2008-24, Southern Industrial LLC. This is for property located at 1447 Antique Drive, uh, along with the associated zoning development plan. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a one-month postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for one-month postponement to the October 23rd meeting for MAR2008-24 and ZDP2008-108. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the one month sp- one month postponement, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of two, uh, development applications. They are, uh, companion-type developments. Uh, they're outlisted. The first one is on page seven, item number four, Multicon Development Company. Uh, we'd like to request a, uh, a postponement of one month. The staff had been recommending a postponement. I believe we've narrowed the issues pretty substantially, but, uh, we'd like a little more time to put them to the ... to final plan. And, uh, if we could get a one-month postponement on that one, then I have a similar request, uh, on the next page. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. We have a request for a one-month postponement to the October 23rd meeting for MARV2008-25, Multicon Development Company. Uh, this is for property located at 474, 475, and 497 Angeliana Avenue and 701 South Broadway. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a one-month postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that, uh, MARV2008-25 and ZDP2008-111 be postponed until October 23rd, 2008. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the one-month postponement, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Also, on page number eight, item five, again, Multicon Development Company, um, we would like a one-month postponement on that zone change request as well. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. We have a request for a one-month postponement to the October 23rd meeting m- for MARV2008-26, Multicon Development Company. Uh, this is for a property located at 300, 307, 313, 315, 317, 319, 321, 322, 324, 325, and 328 Scott Street and 701 South Broadway. Uh, this request for a one-month postponement for MARV2008-26 and the associated zoning development plan. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that, uh, MARV2008-26 and ZDP2008-112 be postponed for one month- Second. ... until October 23rd, 2008. 'Kay, we have a motion and a second. Uh, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Rory Kaylee with EA Partners on page five. Item Two, the Thomas & Corbett, LLC Zoning Map Amendment for the Reserve at Tates Creek and the, uh, zoning development plan Reserve at Tates Creek request a one-month postponement to October 23rd. Thank you, Mr. Kaylee. We have a request for a one-month postponement to the October 23rd meeting for MAR2008-23, Thomas & Corbett, LLC. This is for property located at 1060 through 1097 Bridlewood Lane, 5200 through 5205 Tikes, Tikes Pass, 5121 Middleton Place, and 5397 Tates Creek Road. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a one month, one-month postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement of MAR2008-23. And the Associated Zoning Development Plan? Okay. Second. We have a motion and a second to postpone MAR2008-23 for one month. All those in favor, signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Are there any other postponements or withdrawals? Mkay, at this term, we will move into our land subdivision items, and, uh, we'll give staff a moment to get set up. Yes, I have that piece. Great. Mr. Saleem. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. First item on your agenda appears on the first page. This is DP2008-114, a devel- final development plan for the Mitchell property. It's a portion of the Cope, Mitchell, and Cooper property. This is for, uh, land on Deerhaven Lane at 1290 and 1340 Deerhaven Lane. You may recall that this plan was presented two weeks ago at your meeting on the 11th and discussed considerably. Uh, after, uh, probably 45 minutes of discussion, this plan was continued to today's meeting. There were a number of issues with this development plan. On the south side of Deerhaven Lane for a five-acre lot and a 10-acre tract, uh, that proposes, proposed a total of eight dwelling units. There were issues with floodplain, uh, and wetlands and billable areas. In the intervening two weeks, the staff has received a revised submission for this property. It is to my immediate right. Again, to orient you, 10-acre tract is 1290 Deerhaven, five-acre tract is 1340 Deerhaven. There are still eight dwelling units proposed for the development, but as you can clearly see from the design, the floodplain information has been revised on this plan, and correspondingly, the billable areas for the eight individual units, uh, have been moved out of the environmentally sensitive areas. The street that is proposed as part of the development is essentially in the same location as before, um, and there is a temporary turnaround proposed, uh, near the end of the street that stubs into property immediately to the south, which is also a, uh, tract of about 10 acres in size that is within the urban service area, but is still zoned agricultural. The staff has presented to you a revised recommendation on this plan that, uh, accounts for the fact that we do have a revised submission since you last reviewed this plan two weeks ago. A number of conditions that we recommended to you on, at your meeting on the 11th are no longer necessary with the revised submission. However, there are two or three that I would like to highlight. If you could look at original condition nine, which is now the seventh condition on the list, uh, there is still a need to complete information on landscaping and fencing along the urban service area. In essence, the zoning ordinance allows, uh, four different options for landscaping and two different options for fencing, so we would like the plan when it's certified to delineate which of those options are gonna be used. If I could refer you to condition, original condition 19, now condition number 12 proposed. Uh, we'd like to resolve the cross-section of this street. The street does not count toward open space, and, uh, being in a, uh, scenic resource area, there is a requirement for this development to have 80% of the land area accounted for open space. A narrower street, which is allowable with buildable areas that have at least 100 feet of frontage, would allow a street as small as 23 feet with a 30-foot right of way. Not all of this street may qualify for that, but certainly a good portion of it would. That would, uh, help in the open space calculation, and the staff would recommend that that be resolved between today, should you approve this plan, and the time this plan would be completed and certified. Also, if I could refer to the following condition, related to that, we would just like to document that the 80% open space is being met on the development. Uh, as shown, it's very close. We think these numbers are okay. We will want to review that math exactly to ensure that we have 80% open space. The staff is recommending approval of this plan with the revised 13 conditions that have been presented to you. Uh, at this time, I would be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about the staff's review or about the revised submission that's before you this afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Solley. Any questions for Mr. Sol- Miss Phillips? Um, I have a question here. On, um, both the original as well as the revised set of, uh, staff recommendations, you have under number five, Department of Environmental Quality's approval of environmentally sensitive areas. Yes. Would that ... Um, a- is that, um, general enough to specify the need for a wetlands crossing permit, um, that may be applicable to get front, to create the driveway through that floodplain area? I believe that it would be. Yes. Th- and it would not only affect the floodplain area. It would also affect the setbacks associated with the identified wetlands area. But yes, we would look to the environmental planner and his approval of this plan to ensure that any necessary permits that are ne- uh, going to be needed for this development proceed, that there has been an allocation for that. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Penn? Bill, looking, looking at those two plans, I'm assuming that the second plan is result of the new FEMA floodplain maps? Yes, sir. That's correct. They are a little bit different, and if you'd like elaboration, uh, we can ask for that. But yes, we reviewed that carefully yesterday. It appears to me that there's a demolition of the existing house. Is that true? Under the revised plan, the existing house is approximately at this location. And we do have an aerial photograph that we can show you of the property as well. This is viewed from the south looking north, and the existing house is here. You'll see the road is in close proximity to the existing driveway. But yes, there is a difference between this buildable area and the location of the existing house. So the house would be demolished if that was implemented. Yes. There's been a big difference in the, uh, size of the footprint of the allowable housing. What- Mm-hmm. What is the existing? Just for information, w- what size footprint are those? On the, uh, proposed? New. Uh-huh. Mm-hmm. These are 70 by 75 feet in size. Three of them are 50 by 75 feet. The one on the five-acre tract is by far the largest at 100 feet by almost 300 feet in size. There is a note, though, restricting each of these buildable areas to one single family unit. But yes, they are much smaller than on the original submission. And what is the setback on the, um, where you've got four houses there side-by-side, what's the setback from the property line? The, uh, front setback is a 10-foot building line identified from the sidewalk. In the rear, it is about 15 feet from the rear property line. Got it. So it's closer to the property line than half this room? Uh, yes. Yes, and it is a little bit closer than the original submission as well. Yeah, a lot closer. Mm-hmm. And that's okay? I mean- It meets the requirements- I mean- ... of the EAR-1 Zone, yes, but certainly, the Commission can ask for modifications to that design standard, if, if you wish. But it does meet the, uh, EAR-1 Zone. Thank you, Mr. Solley. Any, any other questions for Mr. Solley at this time? Mr. Martin has a revised EAMP Compliance Report also to share with you at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, you have been handed out a revised EAMP Compliance Report in this colored paper. And again, I, I will not belabor the plan and by duplicating Mr. Solley's information, but I will briefly explain to you the EAMP requirements and their report. Uh, the future land use and density requirement of this area, because it's a scenic overlay area, is a maximum of eight units, and that is why you see, uh, just over 8,000 square feet. ... the eight units here, and therefore, the density and the land use, uh, requirement is being met under the AMP. Additionally, with the revised plan, with the correct information, the flood plain, the wetlands and similar environmental information, that also brings this plan into compliance with the community design element of the EAMP, and that includes, obviously, the- the conflicts from the previous plan having to be resolved by the alteration of the buildable areas. The infrastructure element under the EIMP, there are no major sewers required. It's- it's a local sewer that will be required to serve these areas. This house will be on a septic tank until such time as this develops. They will then be required to, uh, hook into the new sewer system. There was lacking, on the previous plan, as you may recall, a regional detention basin, which has now been added to the new plan, and that, of course, is a major infrastructure element and by adding that to this plan, it is in compliance with the EIMP. And so you'll see, this line is the regional detention basin. Now, it is somewhat outside of the floodplain. It does match the EIMP plan for the area. Uh, obviously, ultimate specific design may alter that exact geometrics of that. But in conclusion, this, uh, revised plan does meet and comply with the provisions of the EIMP. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Mr. Martin? Yep, I have one. Yes, sir. Um, uh, could you explain the sanitary... Now, are the seven units connected to a- a local system, or what do you mean? At such time as these are constructed, they will have to be served by- they will have to build a local sewer line and- and tap into the existing system. Oh, to the existing system. Yes, sir. Mm-hmm. And then, the f- the five-acre track, will that be required to tap into the existing system, or would that... They will have to hook into the new system that's constructed to serve these units. Okay. Until then, they will be served by a septic tank. A septic... Even the seven units? No, no. Right, just this one. They- they must have a sewer before they... Okay. Yeah, that's... Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Yeah. Mr. Penn. So we're gonna allow a s- a septic tank on a five-acre track on a temporary basis? The Health Department would have to approve that. It is an existing lot. It is allowable under our- our requirements and, of course, again, the building... I mean, the Health Department will also have to approve that. So provided the field lines work, it'll be- it'll be permissible? It would be permissible if it worked, yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Martin? It's- Go ahead. It's not only on a five-acre track. It's on top of a hill. A rocky hill. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Okay, petitioner? Good afternoon. I'm Fred Eastridge with Sherman, Carter, and Barnhart. I'm here with Martin Mitchell, the owner of the property, and Claire Sharon, the proposed buyer of the five-acre track. Uh, what we're trying to do here is, is that we do have a single f- one single-family lot, five-acre track that can be transferred and a building permit can be issued for it at the present day. Again, the purpose of the plan is, is to transfer one and a half building unit over to the 10-acre track or to keep the density allowable. Uh, Mr. Sharon has gone to buy the properties and has looked at this, and, um, he's agreeable with everything that's on it. Uh, the areas that are shown on this track as buildable areas are exactly what they are. As- as you know by the development plan, you show an area where the buildings can be built. It doesn't... We... Since we did not have any definite designs on buildings or anything like that, we tried to maximize the space where the building can be built, so it can be moved around within that rectangle or square so that it can be built according to the way the owner wants to do it. It doesn't mean that there's gonna be a 75 by 75-foot house on it. It's according to what person wants to build on the track. Uh, we're trying to keep this plan, since there's not much knowledge or any information on what's gonna be built there, it's gonna be the personal choice of the developers. We're trying to keep it as free and as loose as we can, so that we're not restricting them in any way, except to the ordinance of the subdivision regs. Uh, the... Mr. Clair Sharon has, I think, talked to the Health Department about sanitary sewers, septic tanks, and that is, the, uh, the Health Department will come out and look at the site and establish where the septic tank goes and the length of the field lines and things like that. So, he's done his due diligence on this, and he's- he's aware of what's going on. At such time that the seven units, the other side does develop, and there is a sewer available, he does understand that he'll have to tie into the sanitary sewer, and- and get... and abandon the septic field and the tank. We have made the changes to this... to the plan, as the ordinance required, and we would like to ask for approval subject to conditions. Thank you, Mr. Eastridge. Are there any questions for Mr. Eastridge? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to, uh, speak to this plan? Okay. Staff, do you have any additional comment? Okay. All right. Mr. Easter, do you have anything additional you'd like to add? No, sir. Okay. At this time, we'll, uh, close this portion of the public hearing and, uh, turn it over to the commission for, um, discussion, motion. We, um ... Staff has, uh, recommended approval on the revised recommendation. There are now 13 conditions on their revised recommendation. Um, so at this time, and we also note that we have a revised EAMP Compliance Report that, uh, staff has, uh, accepted and noted, uh, acceptance for the following three reasons. So at this time, uh, the Chair will entertain a motion, um, for the plan and acceptance of the EAMP Compliance Report. Mr. Chairman, I've mo- moved for approval of DP2008-114, the Mitchell property with the, uh, EAMP provisal. Okay. All right, we have a motion for approval of DP2008-114, with the, with the revised 13 conditions and acceptance of the EAMP Compliance Report. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, if I may direct your attention to the top of page two of your agenda. This is a final development plan, 2008-126 Miller Bird Commercial Park Subdivision, Block A, Unit 1 and Lots 1 through 6. This property is located out on Nicholasville Road and Moore Drive. You may recall the most recent development you've seen in the area was the redevelopment of the Wendy's property here. Shortly before that, you saw a proposal to increase the number of units in the Regency Point townhouse development, approximately here. In this area, and you can see a slight reference to it, was a m- r- zone change approximately a year or so ago for a retail operation, a building at this point. And prior to that, the most recent thing was the Chick-fil-A, which was approved in the parking lot of Kmart across the road from this development. Now, they are proposing a new restaurant, as you can see, 3500 square feet with a drive-through, along with a 15,000-square-foot retail building. It's our understanding that this is where Curry Shoes intends to relocate off of Southland Drive. Um, this, I believe, is a Raising Cane's restaurant is the proposal. Again, they front on the service road with Nicholasville Road here. Here is a new proposed access point. Here is the existing access point, as well as this is an existing access point that was serving the steakhouse restaurant that was previously on this property. The ... They have provided on-site parking. They meet the requirements with a slight overage of about six parking spaces. It, it's a tight site in this regard. Um, there was a previous plan submitted that the subdivision committee saw and recommended postponement, which you can see on your agenda. This is the new submission in reaction to that. And that plan had parking in the service area, which was of grave concern to the staff and to the subdivision committee. This revision has addressed that. It has, however, raised another issue and concern for the staff which is this existing access point, relative obviously to the service road, this intersection of Moore Drive and how it functions. And again, this is existing, this is existing, this is a new request. Um, you can see obviously the closeness of that. Uh, staff is very concerned about the functionality of that access point, particularly left turns would be a source of conflict. We, uh, we do have a couple of pictures, which I bet I neglected to give to my folks over there. They are in the folder. However, let me, uh, again direct you to the subdivision committee recommendation of postponement. We do have conditions should this plan be approved. Those are in fact standard conditions as you can see. They are standard sign-offs and then the addition of some information. ... uh, we have requested that they denote, in conformance with Article 21, the areas of detention on the plan. Uh, it is possible that once it comes time to develop and they work with engineering and, and they do calculations, that there may not be on-site detention required. That, that is a possibility. However, it is over an acre in size, and we've asked that, uh, should they need detention, that we would like to, to see it, uh, the potential sites identified on the plan. But again, our chief concern ... and thank you so very much for finding the photos, uh, and I apologize. We were handing out a lot of material, and I forgot to hand that out. But you can see, if you look at it very simply, the backup at that. Those are from our pictometry. They're not pictures that staff took. They were taken, uh, at a low traffic volume time. You can see how things stack up, uh, on Moore Drive, and you can see the relationship of the service drive and the access points. And, and that is the source of our concern on this plan. And again, I will rei- reiterate that on the previous plan, when they had the parking and the service road, they had removed this access point. But in answer to that concern, with the parking, they've brought this access point back. And, and again, from the very beginning, we've always been concerned about that as well. So, we wanted to present that to you. We think, um, that the intersection would work much better without that access point, and that is the concern that staff has. And if I can answer any questions, I'll be happy to. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Mr. Martin? I would just add. Also ... I mean, I, I agree with Mr. Martin. I have a lot of concern with that access point coming off on Moore Drive right there, that closeness to the service road. So, I, I agree with the staff on that one, and I see some problems. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Holmes. Ms. Copeland? Mr. Martin, would you please, with your pointer, show us how you see the conflict happening at the service road or at Moore Drive? They don't trust me with these very often. We see this area. And here's the service road, here's the access point. We would see the potential for left turn traffic coming out of here and having conflict with this traffic is our chief concern. Now, if you can hear me. Got it. And tha- that, that is our chief concern. I ... We believe the other can function. I would point out that here, that is currently signed for right turn only. There's been some effort made to try to manage that intersection. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Thank you. Petitioner? My name is Bob Cornett. I'm with the Roberts Group, uh, representing the developer of the property. Uh, as Mr. Martin said, uh, the access point is an existing access point, and we feel that, uh, w- that we need to keep it, uh, or we will end up with a dead-end parking that people are gonna have to back up and create even additional conflicts with the drive-through exit. Uh, I think we have, uh, nearly identical situations all along Nicholasville Road. Uh, we feel like that the access point there at the drive-through exit at, closest to the service road and Moore Drive, can be addressed with signage for right turn only. Uh, it could even, uh, include some modifications. We have been, uh, talking with Mr. Neal in traffic engineering about a way to compromise on that as well. Uh, the parking does meet the parking requirements. Um, the, uh, stacking and the drive-through complies w- with the zoning ordinance for stacking cars. Uh, we feel like we have, have made considerable compromises since, uh, we went before the subdivision committee meeting. Uh ... we have a few issues that we still need to work out with staff, but, uh, we feel like those issues are construction drawing issues. Uh, the detention areas are existing. They are not labeled on this plan. We have brought a revised plan just in case, and we did not get it distributed early enough before the meeting for staff to use. Um, we just feel like we have made a very good attempt here, and we think that working with traffic engineering, we can resolve the access point issue. I think we have almost identical at, uh, at Regency, or Lowery as you consider it. The new bank that was built right next to the Taco Bell has the same s- issue. It's about the same location to the, to the service access road, and their service road is a right turn only. And I think we can work all of that out with traffic engineering. Thank you, sir. Are there any questions at this time, Commission? Thank you very much. Thank you. Um, is there anyone in the audience wants ... that would like to speak to this particular plan? 'Kay. Seeing none, I see, Mr. Neal, you came forward. Would you, would you like to say something to this particular plan? Well, not knowing which way the direction of the, um, the driveway's gonna go today at this meeting, uh, we did have a, um, a direction to just to let you know which direction we were going in, as far as if the driveway stays, what we would like to see. ... as far as, uh, a little bit of public infrastructure improvements and basically a right turn out only of this private driveway as well. So, let me go over to the Elmo. I apologize, I sketched this up during my lunch, so it's, uh, not all that pretty. Uh, basically the- the service road and Moore Drive you can tell there on the, um, on the overhead. Basically, we would modify the, um, w... Excuse me? Okay. Basically, we would modify the driveway a bit to, uh, encourage drivers to turn right out of the driveway, um, and do thermoplastic striping on the driveway to make sure to reinforce the idea to turn right outta there. And also as a, as another option, or as in addition to this, there's basically no pedestrian, uh, facilities, uh, at the intersection of Nicholasville Road and Moore Drive. And what we would like to see is a, um, basically a ramp and a crosswalk across the service road, as well as sidewalk and ramps all the way up to the intersection. And that would be a- a nice improvement to the intersection. Thank you, Mr. Neal. I- I did have one question. So, uh, I see you show a right turn out, or right turn out only, so a person could turn left coming off Moore Drive in as well as right? Uh, yes, they would. So y- you have enough cross-section width to- to accommodate that with- Uh, yes, the driveway, I believe, is- is big enough. If not, it could be, uh, pulled out on that one side a little bit more. Okay, thank you. Mr. Day? That's the same question I'd like to ask, because, um, I'm- I mean, what I'm concerned more with is the left-hand turn for people that are headed towards Nicholasville Road. Because, I mean, right now, it pretty much works with the service road, but it doesn't always work. You know, people seem to let- let that thing go back and forth and then turn, but that light is a tremendously used light. Everybody on the other side of Nicholasville Road pretty much uses that, comes through Kmart, uses that light to get out on Nicholasville Road. You'd be surprised sometimes that's, there's probably 20 cars there in the parking lot at Nicholasville Road coming across. And- and I just don't know that we're not creating more conflict or more problems by- by putting a second left turn lane, because it kinda gives you two options. Well, if I don't, you know, I slow down if I don't make the first one. I scoot on up and make the second one onto the service road. And so that- that's- that's my main problem, is that left-hand turn across Moore Drive. I don't know, I'm just, as I said, I'm out there a lot and... That's, uh, that road isn't happening. No, there's not, there's not, uh, well, there's nothing there. And I mean, um, I don't re- There's, you know, there's just that whole area has changed so much as far as traffic since it would, you know, that's much, you know, it's- much more has been built up out there. Left turn allowed there now. Yep. Well, can- can we put the photograph up with Mr. Neal's sketch? Can we put both of those on the, on the overhead? That way we can see. This- this was just an option if the driveway stays. This is what we would recommend to happen. You know, certainly as- as Tom said, the, you know, we look for opportunities for access management wherever we can, um, and, you know, that would be the, I guess the best option for people traveling on Moore Drive and the service road. Uh, however, it is an existing driveway, so we were tr- trying to take that into consideration as well. Mr. Penn. Jeff, the best option for you, if in a perfect world, would not to have that there. Isn't that right? Uh, that- that'd be correct. So, if the traffic flow would work without that, it would, it would make the intersection work a lot better to use the service road rather than use that other access? Uh, it would, it would probably keep it working as good as it does now, which, um, you know, the service road is awfully close to Nicholasville Road, in fact. So it- it is a... I- I was there earlier today and sitting in the left turn lane approaching Nicholasville Road, and somebody passed me on the other side of the street to get to the service road. Yeah. So there's all kinds of strange things happening out there. It's... Okay, thanks. Are there any other questions for Mr. Neal? Just to... Uh, petitioner, do you have any comments to Mr. Neal's suggestion? Uh, well, we- we don't have a problem with what, uh, Mr. Neal has suggested. Uh, we feel like signage and the, uh, the painted island will help. But I think we all have experienced that, you know, you can, you can design things for safety, but you can't make a fool follow it. And we see it happen all over town, and, uh, we- we want to do whatever we can. And we have added, uh, an additional access onto the service road, because we don't feel like the patrons will end up sitting there waiting for a left turn. You're either going to use the rear entrance, the existing entrance up to get into the drive-through or into the shopping center, or most likely, you're gonna use the access off the service road. Uh, there is access from down near McDonald's and the townhouses to get to the service road to avoid this intersection. Uh, we live and shop in this area too, and I- I know it is a problem, uh, with left turn lanes, and a lot of times, I will turn around and go back down to Regency and- and go somewhere else instead of fighting this intersection at certain times of the day. Uh, but obviously, if there wasn't traffic, we wouldn't be interested in putting the business there- ... uh, so we feel like that the additional new entrants up on the service road, uh, will work as more or less a relief point. And, uh, with Mr. Neal's recommendations, I think we can make it work. Thank you. Thank you, Sir. Are there any other questions? I'm assuming, Mr. Neal, this would fall under your sign-off, uh, if this plan is, is approved as presented? Is that based on what we talked about or discussed today? Under my sign-off, without any additional guidance from the Commission, um, the, the driveway and the modifications to the driveway would be, um, a part of my sign-off. I would not have the ability to get the sidewalk improvements, ramps and cross walk. So we need to take action on your recommendation for the- Yes, if that's- ... sidewalk and ramp? ... yes, if you- Okay. ... would like to go that way. Okay. Uh, the petitioner has no problem with the ramps and the new sidewalks up to Nicholasville Road as well. Okay. Thank you, Sir. Mr. Owens, you had a question? Yes, thank you. Mr. Neal, uh, what you're suggesting, uh, is striping, not any sort of curb or island to ... m-make it so that they, you know, don't have that option to turn right ... I mean, turn left? We've, we've had mixed results with our curbing to discourage certain movements. Uh, in some cases it, it may have caused more problems than it solved. Uh, there's ... you know, with the striping, we, we didn't put, uh, a barrier median or anything on the service road. It was ... it's ... the only thing that's there is a sign that says, you know, right, right turn only. So, um, it ... like I said, we've had mixed results. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Um, you know, n-not sure if you want to punish people for making the wrong movement and missing the curb and busting a tire at some locations. What if that was exit right only with no option to, to pull into it or, or anything else? Uh, that, that would certainly be an option. I haven't looked at that. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Neal. Ms. Copeland? Yes, um, Mr. Neal, I'm just trying to go into Raising Cane and get myself a hamburger and if I drive through the drive through lane and come around and come out the service road exit and I ... ch- could I go south and exit or is ... if I cross Moore Drive and went straight across because there were polite people and let me go straight across, could I exit down the road or is that dead end? Down, down this way? Down here, yes. Uh-huh. Is that dead end? There ... actually, this, this road circles around and connects into Regency Drive, uh, back in ... you have to go through a car lot to get there but- Service road does ... Yeah. ... okay. So I could escape? Yes, you could. Okay. You couldn't get a hamburger though . Oh, I can't? I'm sorry. You can get chicken. Chicken? Well, I wanted chicken . Well, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, this, this is a bigger scale map to show you that, um, the service road would connect into Regency Road and how it would do so. Basically here's ... here ... here's the development here. Here's Wendy's, um, basically the service road connects back in here behind, um, the car dealership and you can go down to, uh, Regency Road here and then get back out to Moore Drive. Mr. Neal, I think Mr. Penn had a comment to make, question? Yeah, I'm ... I guess I'm a little perplexed at why we are even considering that exit. Uh, we got the service road, we got two ... well, one way in, one way out or two ways out and two ways out, and that third one, the one right there we're discussing right only or whatever, all that's going to do is stack traffic up and cause a problem. We've been making do on Nicholasville Road as long as I've been around here and because it's somewhere up two blocks up the road it ... there is one and it doesn't work very well, so why would we want to put that there just to make it work? If it's better to have it the other way and to have one out on Service Road and one out on Moore Drive, why isn't that your recommendation? Well, that, that, that is my recommendation. That, that would be the, the, the best, the best recommendation. Um, however, I didn't know which, which direction y'all were gonna, um, proceed with the discussions so the ... my recommendation, if the driveway stays, is to do, you know, the right out only and also put in the sidewalk with the ramps up to the intersection as, as a public infrastructure improvement. Perfect. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Neal. Um, I guess, Mr. Martin, are you still ... I had a question, I guess, for Mr. Martin. Does, uh, do, does that create, based on what we've heard from Mr. Neil, I know he said that would be a sign-off, but the walks and the ramp, does that require an additional condition to this plan? I believe as, uh, as Jeff said, that he would need your all's specific recommendation as to the sidewalk and those pedestrian improvements. I believe the other improvements would fall under his sign-off. Okay. So he would need, probably need another condit- we would need another condition to address- Yes, sir. ... the pedestrian movements. Yes, sir. Okay. Condition 13. Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any other comments? Petitioner, you have anything, any additional things you'd like to add? We just, we feel like that existing curb cut, even if it has to be configured as a right-out only and rebuild that curb cut, it just about has to be there in order to continue the circulation around the building and not have, not have a portion of your parking, your accessible spaces right here, be able to get out. This, if this is closed off and this is dead end, then you're gonna have cars coming out of the drive through, cars trying to back up, and creating an additional conflict right in here. Even if this is right-out only, at least these cars can back up and go. We just don't think that the restaurant can work without that curb cut in some type of configuration. I, I have a question. The, I, I think, according to Mr. Martin, there was a, in terms of parking requirements, you were, there were six over. Couldn't you eliminate, I don't know how many spaces there are on that, but if you eliminated those parking spots and then you'd just have free ... If there was no entrance, then just you, you could come through the drive through and go out without parking there. Well, you know, it's, it's kinda one of those things that we have an ordinance that has a minimum and then if we do the minimum, it doesn't seem like it's enough, and we've tried to maximize it. The original plan we had actually had parking along the service road, uh, building additional parking spaces off of that, um, and eliminating this curb cut and eliminating this parking in front. Uh, but staff felt like, uh, parking off the, uh, frontage road, which is an access easement, uh, was more of an unsafe condition, and, uh, so that's why we reworked it like this to get the parking back in. When you're building retail space and you don't have signed tenants, you don't have any idea who the tenant might be, and if you put only the exact number of parking spaces that is required by the code, then it can only be retail. You couldn't bring in a, uh, a small sandwich shop with carry-out service or something, because it falls into a restaurant use. So we really do need to keep the door open for a few additional parking spaces. It isn't gonna allow additional restaurants in there, but at least it would allow a little bit of flexibility. Mr. Johnston is, uh, is the franchisee and he says the franchise group is requiring some parking in front of the building. So we have to have some parking there. Okay. And there's no requirement from the franchise group, right, on, uh, the, uh, the traffic in the neighborhood, is there? No. They're worried about the, coming into a dead end- Excu- excuse me, sir, if you could come forward and, uh, grab the microphone. If you could give us your name and- I'm Johnston. Address, also. Uh, I'm sorry, our address? Address. 270 South Limestone, here in Lexington. Okay. Um, with the franchisor, of course, their concerns are getting people in the front door to the establishment, uh, which they required. We initially had thought about putting it on the property. The, the way it's drawn up, the actual service road falls on the, within our property line, so we initially had drawn those in there and that didn't work with traffic, concerns of safety and whatnot. So we went back to the franchisor, uh, and our engineers obviously, and reconfigured it to go back to exactly the way the parking lot sits right now, in order to allow, uh, for that parking in front of the building, even though we're having to move the building back off Nicholasville Road, which, you know, the more visibility you get obviously, the, uh, hopefully the more people you can draw into your establishment. So we moved it back to leave it currently where the building is now, allow for the parking in front, and the franchisor's concern, obviously, is to have the parking to get people in the front door, but then coming through the drive through, to come into a dead-end situation where you've got other people that are potentially trying to park, trying to back out into a dead end to go out towards the relief valve, uh, towards the other retail building, it makes for a traffic and a safety, not to mention pedestrian, nightmare, because if you've got people coming through that drive through lane, and if you all have been through different drive throughs, they move pretty quick. So if we've got cars flowing out of that fairly regularly during, you know, busy times, um, it's gonna be a huge problem with trying to turn left and avoid the people trying to back out or coming in and trying to park in those six spaces. So it just flows better to be able to have people come out and turn right, turn only, back down Moore Drive and away from the, the establishment and away from the congestion that's, you know, a concern on Nicholasville Road. Thank you, Mr. Johnston. Are there any other questions, uh, for petitioner or Mr. Johnston at this time? Okay. Um, at this point, we'll, uh, close this portion of the public hearing and, uh- Turn it over to the commission for any further comment and/or motion at this time. Uh, I believe we have a, should we approve this plan, uh, we have, uh, twelve conditions and note of a thirteenth condition for the addition of sidewalk and curb cut at Nicholasville Road, as requested by traffic. Sidewalk. Sidewalk, uh, I think it was sidewalk and curb cut at Nicholasville Road. Um... I may, I guess I may need to ask staff for some assistance on that condition, so we're all on the same page. So we do have a reg- um, twelve, potentially thirteen conditions, and this is for DP2008-126. Uh, is there a motion at this time? Or question? I'm not so sure what we're doing with the, with the entrance. Is it part, is it to be left as is, but to, for traffic sign-off to be right turn only, or in the, and the improvements, that's what we're voting on? Well, I think that's what Mr. Neal had recommended, and he said that would be part of his sign-off, is that, was that your, that's your recommendation, correct? Is that closed? Closed? Closed. Yeah. That, that would only be my recommendation if the driveway stays. Only if the driveway stays. So y- so your recommendation is to, to close it? Is that... Well, um, I, I agree with the planning staff. You know, the, w- it w- it would be best to close it for vehicular movement out on the, on the intersections. Um, it doesn't do much for the site, however, uh, so if, if the entrance closes, I, I guess that's one decision. If it stays, we would like to get the, the improvements and the right turn out only. If it stays, then it would be right turn out only and improvements. Yes. Okay. All right, thank you. Again, two alternatives, I guess. One would be, uh, recommendation to close it to clean up that, that intersection, or, as an alternative, right turn only with the improvements at the sidewalk and curb cut for pedestrian. So... Are there any other questions? Is that clear, the commission? Ms. Copeland? Where was detention going to happen? All I see is blacktop. D- is that... I'm sorry, yes? Do you have a scheme for where detention's going to happen? Just, I know it's not d- drawn in, but... There is existing detention, uh, there's a detention easement in this area right in here, in the green area, and it's already existing, carved out. Uh, we will go back with engineering- Okay. ... staff and go through the- Seed pitch. Seed pitch. Thank you. Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move DP2008-126 and close the exit closest to, uh, the service road. And with, with the twelve conditions as noted. Okay, we have... I'm sorry, is there a motion? Or a second, excuse me. We have a motion and second to approve DP2008-126, with the twelve conditions and no enclosure of the entrance point nearest the service road. All those in favor of the mo- I'll call the question, excuse me. Question? All those in favor of the motion, please... I'm sorry, Mr. Owens? Mr. Chairman, um, do we need anything as far as installation of ramps and sidewalks, or is that a, a non-issue? That's it, leave it open. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion. Uh, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, at this time, we'll move into our zoning items. Uh, as you note on the agenda, we do have the, uh, continuation of the Chevy Chase ND-1. Uh, I will say at this time, we're gonna move down the agenda. Uh, Commissioner Richardson, we will need her for that, uh, discussion of that application, so we're gonna move down the agenda and take, uh, remaining zoning items and at this time, I'll ask Mr. Salley if we have any of those that qualify for abbreviated status. Mr. Chairman, I do th- believe that some of the remaining items on your agenda might qualify for an abbreviated hearing. Excuse m- Excuse me, Mr. Salley, let me mention something. We understand Mrs. Richardson will be here very shortly, so I know that there's maybe others here in the audience wanting to know, will she show up. We've been advised that she will be here. Thank you... Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I believe the two remaining zone changes on your agenda may qualify for abbreviated hearing. The first remaining, other than the continued hearing, is on page 10, item 6, MAR2008-28, a rezoning request by Mr. John P. Elias for property at 223 Pasadena Drive. This is a proposed zone change from R1C, single family residential, to P1, professional office. At this time, the staff would ask if anyone's present in the audience who wishes either to comment or to object to this proposed rezoning at 223 Pasadena Drive? Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this can be our first abbreviated hearing this afternoon. The other item that may qualify is the following item on the bottom of page 10, item 7, MAR 2008-29, a zone change request by Town Properties Asset Management Company. This is a rezoning proposed from R3 Planned Neighborhood Residential to B1 Neighborhood Business for property, uh, portion of 3380 Tates Creek Road. Again, at this time, we would ask if anyone's present this afternoon who wishes to speak or object to this proposed rezoning in the Merrick Place development. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this also can be abbreviated item. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. We'll -- we'll give staff a moment, uh, to set up and make a presentation. Thank you. Ms. White. Good afternoon, Chairman Vaughan, members of the commission. The first zone change on your agenda to be heard today will be MAR 2008-28, and it's a request by John P. Alias. This is a zone change request from a single family R1C zone to a professional, uh, office P1 zone for property at 223 Pasadena Drive. The subject property is located on the north side of Pasadena Drive, with Pasadena Drive being a collector's street which connects Nicholasville Road to the east to Harrisburg Road, off our map here, to the west. Also in the general vicinity, Regency Road connects to the west of the subject property, uh, at an intersection, a lighted intersection, and then connects with Nicholasville Road, um, to the west ... I'm sorry, to the east, also at a signalized intersection. In addition, Huguenard Drive connects Pasadena Drive to West Lowery Lane just to the east of the subject property. Um, again, it's at 223, uh, Pasadena, and the general zoning in the area is P1, uh, with one remaining R1C lot just to the, uh, west of the subject property, um, and then also the exis- or the subject property remains R1C as well. Uh, other zoned, zoning in this vicinity includes the B6P for the Regency Shopping Center, um, B1 for a small shopping center on Pasadena, and then other B1, which is located on Dennis Drive. The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property in order to expand an existing daycare center that is on the, um, property just to the east that's already been zoned P1. Uh, the expansion is, uh, fairly small, but this zone change request, in terms of the comprehensive plan, is recommended. This property is recommended for professional services here, again, on Pasadena Drive, Nicholasville Road, the railroad tracks, and Regency, and the subject property here, uh, is recommended for professional services so this requested P1 zone is in agreement with the comprehensive plan and will help bring this portion of, um, this request would help bring this portion of Pasadena Drive into conformance with the comp plan's recommendations. The staff and the zoning committee are both recommending approval of the zone change, and it would be subject to approval of the associated development plan. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. White. Are there any questions for Ms. White? Mr. Brewer? Uh, uh, not for Ms.... Just to- just to understand this, we have no opposition, we've got a recommendation for approval from both staff and committee. Can we not just go ahead and approve both of these? Uh, we potentially can, yes. Th- Without a presentation? Well, we- we do want to give the petitioner a chance to state whether or not he's in agreement or disagreement. Uh ... Okay. But the- the- the abbreviated portion is, it takes away the potential for public- Oh. If public comment- Okay. ... regards to the application. Thank you. Good afternoon. If you all would turn to page 10 of your agenda, um, we're gonna look at the ZDP2008123 Berry Crest Subdivision Lot 7. As Tracy was explaining, this piece of property is zoned R1C, and they're asking for P1 zoning. The property that is adjacent to it that was rezoned P1 back in 2001, and then we had the development plan in 2006, um, they placed a daycare on it, and they wanna expand it. Um- Sorry. This is at the address of 223 Pasadena, adjacent to the daycare. Um, the Subdivision Committee recommended approval with 11 conditions. Uh, the first six... are just standard conditions, and then the last, um, s- six through 11 are just cleanup and note changes. Thank you, Ms. Galt. Are there any questions for Ms. Galt? Thank you. Petitioner, any comment? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, members of the staff, my name is Mike Robins. I'm here on behalf of Foster Roland Incorporated, and we are in a com- complete agreement with all the conditions, and, uh, I would like to request a motion for approval at this time. Thank you, Mr. Robins. All right, any... Are there any questions for Mr. Robins at this time? Okay. We'll, uh, close this portion of the hearing. Uh, is there a motion, comment from the Commission? I'll make a motion. I move to approve MAR2008-28 and the associated ZDP2008-123 with the, uh, associated, uh, conditions or recommendations below. And your approval's based on the reasons provided by staff? The approval- Okay. ... is based on the recommendations... ... that you have below. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve MAR2008-28, um, for the reasons provided by staff, and ZDP2008-123 for the 11 conditions. All those, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Chairman Vaughan, members- This way. ... of the Commission, our next item is MAR2008-29, which is a request by Town Properties Asset Management Company. This is on page 10 of your agenda, um, and behind tab eight in your notebook. This is, uh, property requested for a zone change from the Planned Neighborhood Residential, which is the R-3 Zone, to a Neighborhood Business B-1 Zone for property located at, uh, 3380 Tates Creek Road. It's a portion of that property, approximately 1.8 acres. The applicant is, um, requesting this zone change for the Merrick Inn. And the Merrick Inn is located on Merrick Drive inside of the Merrick Place Apartment Complex, which is actually a larger parcel, um, just off Tates Creek Road to the, um, north and east of the intersection of Tates Creek, or interchange of Tates Creek and New Circle Road. And again, Merrick Drive intersects Tates Creek Road and, um, does provide access to the Merrick Inn restaurant location. Uh, in the vicinity, Merrick Place Apartments are zoned R-3. In whole, there's also R-2 zoning to the east, and across New Circle Road, R-1C and R, R-1T zoning. So all residential zoning would surround this property. The applicant is proposing the zone change in order to bring the Merrick Inn, which is now a non-conforming use, uh, into a conforming status by going to a business zone, which, um, the B-1 zone has a... or allows restaurants as a principal permitted use. The, um, applicant is... does have a desire to expand their location, um, both in terms of square footage and then also, I believe, a few, uh, restaurant seats. The, uh, Board of Adjustment did find in 1986... 1986 that this was a non-conforming use. Uh, but the Comprehensive Plan for this location does recommend the existing zoning, which is the R-3 zone, or recommends a high density, uh, land use for the location, which, uh, is in agreement with the existing zone. So the proposed B-1 zone at this location would not be in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan. The, um, applicant, though does contend that the, uh, proposed zoning is appropriate and the existing zoning is inappropriate at this location. And that, uh, contention, um, is based on several things. First, that the Merrick Inn has operated here for over 40 years. Uh, the, the existing structure has been modified significantly to accommodate the restaurant use. Um, and also the rezoning would bring the property into conformance with the existing, or with the, uh, zoning ordinance for that location. And in terms of the R-3, they contend that that's no longer appropriate, because, again, of the, um, significant changes that have occurred to the property, it's no longer, uh, suitable for residential use, and, um, that adapting it back to a residential use would be extremely, uh, costly. The... and then lastly, the apartments have recently constructed a new clubhouse at a alternate location on the property, or for the Merrick Place Apartment Complex. And so, this property's no longer needed as a clubhouse, which originally it was proposed as when this, uh, development was built. The, um, staff does agree with these contentions, that the B-1 zone is more appropriate at this location than the R-3 zone. And the applicant did propose conditional zoning restrictions in terms of use, and the staff reviewed those and... ... recommended that a few additional uses be added and those are on the agenda, as well as the staff report in your notebook. There's a list of, I think, 11 or 12, uh, uses that this property be limited to. So, all other normal B1 uses would be prohibited and then these uses listed here would be allowed on that property. And I would just note that most of those uses are conditional uses in the R3 zone, like a lib- a community center, um, kindergartens, those sort of things would be conditional in the existing zone. So, the staff also recommended, um, some restrictions on signage for the property. The Board of Adjustment also made that recommendation in 1986 when it, um, allowed some, uh, change of square footage, uh, in '86. The staff is recommending approval of this zone change with the restricted or conditional zoning restrictions for the property, and, um, of course, that recommendation is made subject to approval of the development plan and the reasons that are listed on your agenda and staff report. Be happy to answer any questions at this time. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Are there any questions for Ms. Wade? Ms. Copeland? Yes, ma'am. The streets inside Merrick Place, I know there's a big gate out there. Mm-hmm. Do those streets belong to Merrick Place or do they belong to the city? They belong to Merrick Place. They are private streets. So if we, uh, proceed, suppose we proceed and we have a business zone up there- Mm-hmm. ... can the business zone say, "But we're entitled to our own address and our own city streets?" They, actually, the B1 zone does not have a frontage requirement on a public street, so they don't need, um, a certain s- size of frontage. And, um, th- I, I believe that this applicant has, has, well, the use has b- been maintained for 40 years without public streets and without any particular signage. I'm not sure that they would argue for public streets at this point. Does that answer your question? But let's say it sold, then could the new owner say, "I pay city taxes, I want my own city street. I don't want to come across somebody else's private street." If they- Is this gonna be a conflict? I don't believe it will be a conflict. Um, the, the way for them to get public streets w- would be to dedicate that property, the street, if it were up to standards, to the city. So, if they wanted to do that, it would be on c- incumbent upon them as a property owner to do so. But they're isolated from the road, aren't they? Well, at this loca- if they sold off that parcel, that would be true. If, if this is in, this is not an isolated parcel in and of, in and of itself. It's actually, um, part of a larger tract. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Are there any other questions for Ms. Wade? Thank you. Good afternoon. The development plan for this zone change is at the bottom of page 11, ZDP 2008-122, Merrick Place. This is a preliminary development plan, so you will see a final development plan at a later date. Proposal is to exist the existing restaurant use by approximately 460 square feet in these two locations. There is no other change on this plan to the actual structure. Subdivision committee recommended approval subject to 10 conditions and we would add that if you were to adopt the zone change to add an eleventh condition for the addition of the conditional zoning restrictions. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Are there any questions for Mr. Taylor? Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Petitioner? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Bruce Simpson here on behalf of, uh, applicant, uh, basically it's Merrick Inn. We agree with the staff recommendations of approval and the evidence. There's been no objectors, recommended by the subdivision committee for approval and the zoning committee for approval, and Mr. Brewer, if you want to make a motion to move things along- ... I'll be happy to entertain it. Or we can n- be here and respond to all your questions. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Are there any questions for Mr. Simpson at this time? Okay, all right, thank you, sir. Okay. Uh, we'll close this portion of the hearing and, uh, Chair will entertain a motion or if there's any further comment from the commission? I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman, uh, for approval of MAR 2008-29 and the associated ZDP 2008-122 based upon the, uh, the, uh, recommendit- recommendations and conditions as discussed. And picking up the, uh, conditional zoning restrictions, item four in the zone change? Yes. Okay. All right. And we've added, uh, the addition of the conditional zoning restrictions is part of ZDP as well. Okay. Did I hear- Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve MAR 2008-29 and the associated Zone and Development Plan, uh, 2008-122. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, at this time, uh, we'll, we'll call for a break. I was advised that, uh, Mr. Richardson would be here, uh, on or about the three o'clock hour. So, uh, anticipating a five, ten-minute break. Uh, we'll reconvene at that time. ... uh, I will have to recuse myself from that application. So Mr. Day, I will turn the meeting over to Mr. Day, and he will chair the meeting at that point. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I will have to recuse myself too, since I was not here. Okay. Uh, note recusal from Miss Whitman. Is there anyone else? I'll have to recuse, 'cause I didn't stay for the whole hearing. Mr. Penn, is there anyone else, recusal? Mr. Holmes, I think, were you at the last meeting? I don't- No, I wasn't. You wasn't, okay. You're recusing yourself? Okay. All right. So- I was here. I, I knew you were here. Okay. Please note those recusals and, uh, we'll reconvene, uh, hopefully in about 10 minutes. Thank you. But I miss you most of all, my darling. When autumn leaves begin to fall. Miss Otis regrets she's unable to lunch today. Madam, Miss Otis regrets she's unable to lunch today. She is sorry to be delayed. But last evening down in Lover's Lane she strayed. Madam, Miss Otis regrets she's unable to lunch today. When she woke from her dream and found that her love had gone. Madam, she ran to the man who had led her so far astray. And from under her velvet gown, she drew a gun and shot her lover down. Madam, Miss Otis regrets she's unable to lunch today. Then the mob came and got her and dragged her from the jail. Madam, they strung her upon a willow across the way. And the moment before she died, she lifted up her lovely head and cried. Madam, Miss Otis regrets she's unable to lunch today. Hold me close and hold me fast, until... ... today and members of the commission. Um, the next item on our agenda is MAR2008-27, which is a continuation of a zone change hearing that began on August 28th. There were, um, a few more letters I received since you all met last, and I will go ahead and give those to you since we're continuing the hearing. At the end of, um, actually before I start, I've presented everyone a, or left at everyone's place a kind of a little packet that begins with a brown tan sheet. Um, Ms. Copeland and Mr. Brewer, yours are up on that counter there. Up, yeah, right there. And, um, that's what I'll be speaking to today. Yours might be at your place setting. There were th-- I believe there were three issues, three main issues that were left at the end of our hearing, um, a month ago. And they were the language of the multi-family and single family attached standard or restriction, uh, the tweaks to the remaining restriction, um, which primarily involved numerical standards, and then third, an appeal process. And those were the three main issues that, uh, Mr. King kind of wrapped up our hearing with, that the staff would, and the neighborhood would try to address for the planning commission within our month, um, continuation. And the first one would be the language of the multi-family and single family attached- attached parking restriction. And I'll refer you to the tan page, which has the staff's revised, uh, recommendation. And, um, in section two, it speaks to the con- these standards, recommended standards via conditional zoning restrictions. And number five, this is the language that the staff put on the, um, ELMO or the overhead at the end of our hearing a month ago. And after that, um, we entered in- that into the record. The, um, property owners who, or representatives of the property owners who were in objection to the staff's original language about no parking in the side yard approached our staff and said that they were agreeable to this language. So we -- this was straight from the end of our hearing last time, number five. Parking for single family attached and multi-family dwellings, no parking in front of the front building plane of the principal structure on the lot, and garage doors shall not face the front building line. This would exclude detached garages. So I believe that issue has been resolved, um, by the staff and the neighborhood, um, and then the property owners for the multi-family structures. The second, um, concern was that the remaining restrictions for single family use needed to be tweaked. And the planning commission encouraged the neighborhood and those in opposition to get together over the course of the- that- ar- this past month and to try to come to some agreement. And the neighborhood, um, did do that, and they sent the staff last week, it's on the backside of the brown sheet, the, um, the changes that they were proposing, the propo- new proposed revisions which in- incorporated, um, what they came to agreement on. And, um, the staff then took that information and did provide a few more tweaks, and I would, um, summarize those tweaks as, uh, in response to either making language more consistent or in response to, um, concerns that building inspection, uh, expressed, and, um, just in general, the rear yard setbacks, instead of having 33% or a third setback from the rear yard lot- re- for the rear yard, the neighborhood came up with, um, a measurement that, in some cases, comes to the same number. And I, um, if I explain this a little bit better, uh, Mr. Hawkins from the neighborhood explained that a majority of the properties in Chevy Chase are 150 feet deep. And if the s- existing rear yard is- would be- requirement is 10 feet, the proposed restriction was to have a rear yard of one-third of the lot depth. So for 150 foot property, deep property, um, one-third of the lot depth is 50 feet. So you would have 100 feet from the front property to the back to work with, in terms of your house and adding additions, so forth. They have kept that idea of, um, that line, that 50-foot rear line in mind, and just approached it from the front. So if you measure 70 feet from the front building plane, in most cases in this neighborhood, buildings sit at a 30-foot building line. So you start 30 feet back from the front property line, and then add another 70, you get to 100 feet, which then again leaves you with 50 feet of a rear yard. In some cases, properties are not 150 feet deep, they're 120 feet deep. So that al- gives you a smaller, if you start at the front and work back, if you only have 120 feet to work with, you then get to 100, 30, 70 to work with on your house, and then the last 20 would be your rear yard. So this, the way they've approached it, is just from the front property line rather than how typically rear yards are measured, which is from the rear property line. I'd be happy to answer any questions on that. They also tried to approach it so that a few streets that tend to- tended to have less deep lots like Andover and Garden Road and Tates Creek Road, gave them 80 feet to work with rather than 70. Um, the changes for building heights, uh, were to address building inspections' concerns about eave measurements. And I do have a graphic that kind of helps to explain that. And the building height originally was proposed to be, I believe, 28 feet. Is that right? It was 28 feet. And the neighborhood agreed to change that to 30 feet at its highest ridge with, um- ... still the, uh, second floor ceiling height at, at the eave height. Um, roof pitch, the changes there included adding a gable, gabled as primary roofs. If it's not a gabled roof, you wouldn't have to match that, or you wouldn't have to have a 7:12 slope. In terms of wall openings, the suggested change was to add, um, an accommodation for vented openings and chimneys, um, as restrict- or as allowable exclusions for counting for that wall plane. And then the last one, number six, for accessory structures, the neighborhood, um, compromised for an 800 square foot footprint instead of 750 and a 22-foot height. Um, and they added another kind of caveat that a maximum 50% of the roof square footage would be allowed to be a shed dormer. And I tried to do a, a sketch of, of, for the accessory structure in terms of where, um, this would be the ground level and this is the gutter line or the eave that, um, building inspection wants to measure to, so 12 feet. And just to clarify, that would be the top of the fascia board, not the bottom. And when you add a, um, possible shed style dormer, building inspection pointed out that this edge would also be a, the top of the fascia board and would also be considered a gutter line. So in order to all- I mean if you said nothing above 12 feet, um, you wouldn't be able to have a shed dormer at all if you considered this gutter line, if, if we read the restriction the way it says, "Maximum of 22-foot height to roo- roof ridge and a maximum 12-feet height to the eave or gutter line." If we don't add an exclusion for dormers, you basically could never have a dormer because this line would have to be down here at 12 feet. If there's any questions about that, I can answer that too. On the fr- on the front page, um, accessory structures, eave heights are measured at top of fascia board and does not apply to dormers, the eave height restriction. And then no minimum roof pitch for accessory structures. The, um, again the neighborhood added a 50% maximum for any kind of shed dormer to be allowed on a, on a roof. And those are the, in general the, the changes to the standards, um, as proposed last time, and, um, I think the staff's understanding is that the neighborhood is generally in agreement with these. Um, and they propose them to us. The third issue, or propose them to the Planning Commission, the third issue that remains for the Planning Commission for the neighborhood was an appeal process. And the staff has reviewed, um, the ordinance, reviewed state legislation, um, specifically KRS100 which, um, is our enabling legislation for planning and zoning, and found that conditional zoning, well we, we knew some of this, but conditional zoning restrictions are, um, only allowed to be applied by urban county governments which, it so happens Lexington, Fayette County is the only one in Lex- or in Kentucky. But it has to be applied by the Planning Commission and they have to be changed by the Planning Commission or varied or amended by the Planning Commission, not by the Board of Adjustment. Board of Adjustment doesn't specifically ha- isn't specifically given the power to change a conditional zoning restriction. So this decision will still rest with the Planning Commission, and what we found was we still had the ability to amend the process by which an applicant came to you to ask for that amendment. It had always been that, um, an applicant would come to you and follow the map amendment request process which is typically a four to six month process and they have, um, applicants have always been required to go back to the council, and so the staff looked at what we could do to help, um, ND1 applicants amend what would be, what will be conditional zoning restrictions in not so, such an onerous manner, as a regular map amendment. So Rachel's going to kind of review with you a process that we think will work, um, and then we've done some work, um, in terms of preparing a new application, um, drafting a text amendment that we would ask the Planning Commission to consider at their work session next month for discussion, and I would say it's a first draft, but it's, um, what we've worked on to address that concern in this past month. So I'm gonna turn it over to Rachel for a minute. Thank you, Tracy. Um, if, if I could get the handout that's titled Planning Application Review Time. Just wanna briefly go over what we are proposing as far as an, uh, a modified ND1 appeal process. And as Tracy said, um, our goal was to provide a process that, um, meets the requirements of KRS100 and also our local ordinance of Article 6, uh, however, with some amendments to that article. Really, w- with having to do a map amendment process to remove or modify any restrictions through conditional zoning, we wanted to look at a process that would be more of a hybrid kind of process between a- ... standard zone change application, as well as a dimensional variance, which is heard through the Board of Adjustment. And what I've provided for you all is basically a timeline, uh, for each of both of those processes, including a modified ND1 amendment. Uh, looks at the timeline as well as submittal requirements and, uh, fee schedule. Our goal was to keep it more streamlined with the Board of Adjustment application process and hearing process and to be more in lined with the BOA fee schedule, as well as submittal requirements. Uh, if you look at the top of th- the chart, it talks about application type, um, dimensional variance, standard zone change, and modified ND1. If we look at the time fra- timeframe for 27 to 41 days, what that would include is from the time they submit, which would be any standard filing, um, submittal that would be in keeping with a map amendment, 'cause technically this would still be a map amendment process. It would be in more of an expedited and, uh, timeframe than a standard map amendment or also known as a zone change. So it would follow the following schedule as a s- as a zone change application. Uh, with that said, it would be more likely or what we would be proposing is to go to the subdivision meeting opposed to the hearing for zone changes, such as today would be the- the meeting before this meeting. So it would reduce the number of days opposed to a standard zone change. Uh, there would not be a development plan required, however, there would be other, uh, building elevations and, uh, site plan submittals that would be required for, uh, an appeal. And it would also file notification requirements of a map amendment, which is the 400 f- feet from the center line of the property, whereas the Board of Adjustment is 200 feet. So e- some things that kind of bleeds over into keeping with a map amendment process, but it also as far as the- the reduction of fees and the re- reduction of timeline, we were trying to keep more in line with the- the Board of Adjustment. And if you could put the flow chart up that shows the ND1 modification. This really is trying to represent from when you submit the application to the final decis- Board decision, which in this case would be the Planning Commission, that the applicant would still have to go through a pre-application conference as they do with a s- zone change or a map amendment. Then they would need a file, which would be that same submittal date, and they would be required to have building elevations or anything that they could provide to show what- what they're amending. Uh, it may not be buildi- building elevations. It may be just a site plan showing that they're wanting to encroach that rear setback. It just depends on what the standards are and what they're wanting to modify. Um, it would also require notification letters and legal advertisement, just like a map amendment or zone change. It would be heard by the Zoning Review Committee, s- um, like a map amendment or a zone change. Then it would go if- if the Planning Commission wishes to the Subdivision Committee or the s- the Subdivision Hearing Meeting opposed to the- the Zone Change Hearing. So that we- we're thinking would cut down to more of the four weeks than the four to six weeks, stopping at the Planning Commission, meaning that the final authority v- would be rested with you all, and it would not be forwarded to the Urban County Council. And then I've just provided some highlights of the process. Again, more of a four to six week timeframe versus a four to six month, um, that it would be the Planning Commission Subdivision Idol Meeting. One thing that would be required is an amendment to Article 6 that would amend the findings for these types of, uh, amendments of restrictions. And- and we can go into that if we want to t- today, uh, but that would be part of the process of changing this whole procedure and process of an ND1 application. The reduction in fee would be more in line with the Board of Adjustment, uh, residential component of 100 to $150. Uh, the 100 based on the intensity of the residential zone, starting at the lowest and also, uh, the submittal requirements be more in line with the site plan or building elevations. Procedurally, the things that we would need to do to create this ND1 appeal would be the text amendment to it- to Article 6. Um, we would also need to create a new application and the- amend the fee schedule, which currently the Urban County Council does, um, have to approve the fee schedule if we were to make those changes. And one thing I don't think we have mentioned that, um, keeping the Urban County Council out of being the final decision maker where the Planning Commission would be the final would be at the tire- at the time of an ordinance going to the Urban County Council, at that time they could say, "We don't want this to come back to us. It's gonna rest with the Planning Commission." And I think Rochelle has, uh, said that we could do that through the ordinance, each ordinance that goes to the Urban County Council for the- for their final decision in this process of hearing of the entire ND1 application opposed to appeal process. I tried to be succinct. I don't know if I was. Uh, it is a little, um, can be a little complicated, but I, if you all have any questions to the appeal process, I'm... What we would like to do is at least present this, let you all know what we're thinking, understanding that there's a lot of other things that have to, uh, be done. We have to work out some of the details. We can bring this back to you at your October 18th work session meeting, and then possibly at the next, um, meeting in October and look at an initiation. But we did wanna present to you all something that we've been working on, knowing that this was part of the, uh, concern from the neighborhood as well as the planning commission and that we wanted to at least get somewhere for discussion and give us some direction of, of where to go next. Thank you, Rachel. Um, all right. At this point, we're going to, Tracy, you have another comment? Just one other thing that, that we've had, um, questions about since a month ago, uh, was whether the planning commission or the council could make the zone change effective, um, either on a certain date after the process, this process, appeal process was in place, or, um, make it effective when the appeal process was in place. And the Department of Law has advised that a, an effective date can be added to the ordinance, but it would have to be a specific date. It cannot be something that, where it's passed or a zone change occurs contingent upon another action happening. So, the staff felt that sometime next spring, if an effective date were to be put in place, would be an appropriate timeframe to allow the planning commission to vet the text amendment, initiate it, have a hearing, send it to the council for a hearing or approval, would be likely enough time. Thank you. Thank you. All right, at this time we're going to continue the hearing that we ended, uh, when, I, I don't know the date, but we all know when it was. Two weeks ago. Um, so w- with that said, what we're, we're talking about now is new, new material, new information. I think at the time that we ended our last meeting, one of the big concerns was an appeal process and how we were gonna work through this. I think you've heard Tracy and Rachel explain this to you, so I think that that is where we need to start our process tonight. If you have comments or questions, we're gonna start with this process. Is that, is that understood? Uh, we're gonna do it same way as we did before. We're gonna limit it to three minutes per person. Uh, if one person talks for three people, you can do nine minutes, but we're gonna, we're gonna limit the, the process. Um, we basically wanna hear what, what you all think. You've h- you've heard the, uh, proposal as far as an appeal process, so that we can go f- go forward from here. So, um, I guess I'd like to see who would like to speak in favor of what they've heard, or d- would you rather make them in questions to the staff? Um, h- you know, the, I, I don't know. I, I, I would say, why don't we do this? O- why don't people that would like to ask favorable questions or favorable comments raise your hand? How about people that would like to make questionable comments and questions raise your hand. All right. Well, all right. Okay. Let's start then with the, um, people that would like s- to speak in favor or comments. Thank you. Uh, Brad Hawkins, uh, Dudley Road, here on behalf of the Chevy Chase Neighborhood Association, the original applicant. Uh, would like to address just briefly the, the two issues regarding the guidelines themselves. Those have been resolved. I wanna applaud all the neighbors for getting together and a lot of extra time and effort was put forth to try and get some consensus, and I think I can honestly say there's overwhelming support. Um, we have those who are philosophically opposed to any kind of overlay, but in terms of the guidelines, I think we've got some solid support. Worked really hard to make sure these guidelines fit with some unique property owners and those who had odd conditions, but I think we've achieved that. A- as it relates to the review appeal process, I wanna applaud Tracy and Rachel and Planning and Legal for all their hard work. Uh, we put some pressure on 'em 'cause we wanted to get some, uh, closure or at least a template of what we thought we'd have, and I think this is a fantastic tool. This allows those homeowners, property owners in the overlay who have, um, unique situations or special circumstances to come forward and, and, and seek what we've, have called a variance all along. We now know correctly it's a mapped amendment. But, um, we would ask that the commission at this time, uh, pass, approve, if you will, the staff recommendation for the overlay for the guidelines, and I would leave it to your wisdom as to whether or not an effective date should be put upon that. Um, I know from a, um, a strategic or tactical perspective, we've considered what it would be like to go to the city council without this review appeal process put to bed. So, if it's possible to have these things wedded and move forward simultaneous so that they all get to the city council at the same time, that might be a perfect world, but we've worked real hard on this. Unfortunately, the legislation had some deficiencies that were exposed 'cause we were the first people to step forward. I think everybody together has ironed those out. It would be a shame for our application not to move forward because of some legislative difficulties that are, look like to me are gonna be put to bed. So, we'd ask for an up vote from everybody present. Uh, the majority of the neighborhood wants this to happen. It's a good thing. I think the home builders are in favor now that this review process is in place. Mr. Bunch indicated earlier his group's in favor, so it looks like we're all on the same page. So, I'd, I'd urge you to give us a thumbs up. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Good afternoon. Thomas Bunch II. I'm an attorney and was the b-before you a month ago when we talked about -talked about the deficiencies that we had and the tweaking that needed to be done. Uh, just briefly, again, I'll, uh, reiterate what Brad said. Um, oh, and I'm on Dudley Road. I think you also wanted to hear where we live. Um, though I-I was really gratified that the group that I worked with, my little ad hoc opposition group, you know, an architect, two engineers, a businessman, a retired planning and zoning, Joe Lenny, you know, we worked really hard with, uh, the homeowners association and this product that we've come up with is superior to what was originally presented to you a month ago. Um, with respect to the amendments, um, I'm sorry, it would be the, uh, uh, the appeal process. Uh, it looks good to me just on the... I just was able to look at this today. Uh, my only comment would be that there was a talk about a burden at the very end. The burden shall be on the applicant to establish said finding by a clear preponderance of the evidence. Uh, just the legal standard ought to be, it's a preponderance of the evidence or it's clear and convincing evidence that's a criminal standard. It really ought to just say by finding... Uh, finding by a clear... By a preponderance of the evidence. That's all it really ought to say. Um, and with that, I, I would urge that whatever your wisdom is about delay or, uh, to another date with respect to the, to the enforcement, uh, of ND1 or again, you know, if you want to do it, make it effective immediately, I don't think we're at odds at all on that. Uh, just so long as somehow this amendment is, um, the amendment to the ordinance is passed to permit an appeal process. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, I'm PJ Blackburn. I live at 200 Chenault Road. Uh, I'm not a public speaker. You're welcome to cut me off anytime you want to. Um, I hear everybody talking about, uh, it's the general consensus and most all of us are in agreement. When I, I was here for the... Till 10:30 last time. I asked directly to be in this meeting where we were all supposed to come together and, and come to a consensus of opinion. I asked and I was told by one that there, there just wasn't room in the, in the living room for me, and I sent an email to the Chevy Chase Neighborhood Association, um, but I was told... I, I never received any response, not during the times that the ND1, uh, petitions were sent out and I had questions, nor was I allowed. So there are many who are not represented here, and I would just like to read my statement because I don't know anything else to do. Years ago, the City of Lexington did use great wisdom in laying down the building parameters for Chevy Chase. Those parameters were strong enough to protect us, but not so strong that we lost our liberties. While ND1 restrictions are well-intended, they do nothing to guarantee the look and the feel of Chevy Chase. However, they do take away the liberties provided by the... Provided by the wisdom of those that came before us all. Houses can still be painted any bright, garish color, be built in a contemporary design, be hexagon or A-framed shape, and anyone could permanently submit yard art in their front yards, et cetera. When I asked petitioners why these aforementioned restrictions were not listed in ND1, because I would certainly be in favor of that, they were... I was told, "Well, we can't, you can't legislate good taste." But this is exactly what the proponents of ND1 are trying to do, legislate or force the taste of a small group, this is not a, a large group of people, on the rest of us while taking away our liberties, yet failing to preserve the look and feel of Chevy Chase. Further, if a full zone change is required, and this was written before any of these other still burdensome requirements are yet to be faced, is required for any, um, remodeling outside the ND1 proposed restrictions, I submit to this commission, empowered for your experience and your wisdom, that getting a zone change or these still burdensome restrictions are far too great a burden to place on a single homeowner to achieve, not to mention probably cost-prohibitive. Therefore, I respectfully ask you to vote against the ND1 overlay for Chevy Chase. This initiative is unprecedented in the state of Kentucky and a slippery slope to venture down without knowing all of the unintended, unintended consequences it will result, which you will have to deal with in the future. Relative to that, has, relative to that, has the commission since August 28th researched all the additional burden and time and cost placed on the city's building inspectors to facilitate exact compliance relative to all the new idiosyncrasies of ND1? Talking about all the lots. Surely the petition signed by less than half of the 800 affected homeowners was considered null and void at the close of the first August 28th hearing since it was clear to the commission members that homeowners had signed it based on misstatements to them. Please know that throughout all ND1 meetings, homeowners were told all we had to do to build outside ND1 restrictions was get a simple variance from the Board of Adjustments. This probably is the reason they gathered as many signatures as they did. Even at the final ND1 meeting, after present signatures were on the petition, the same question was asked and answered the same way. Residents I have spoken to did not understand the huge negative implications of what they were signing and how it would, it would adversely affect the future sale of their property. This was because some of us do not want to remodel again, but we're not aware of the absorbative cost of the zone change required by future buyers. ... then at the eleventh hour, on e- two days before the August 28th hearing, uh, the proponents of ND-1 circulated a brief letter in our mailboxes, letting us know, and I quote, "that in a recent meeting with planning staff, we learned that the process for appealing ND-1 standards requires a complete zone change." Then the brief letter proceeded to gloss over a few very general steps and listed some very minimal cost involved for the zone change process, as if getting a zone change was no big deal. Why did this happen if proponents for ND-1 have been working on this for two years prior to circulating that petition? Simple due diligence would have revealed a complete zone change was always and the only option Chevy Chase residents ever had from the onset. Further, I believe any petition on this, on an issue of this magnitude should be signed by two thirds of all affected homeowners prior to placing it before this esteemed commission, with frequently asked questions and answers circulated to all who cannot attend the meetings. Anything less wastes homeowners and the Commission's time and money. Most of us do- many of us do not belong to the Chevy Chase Neighborhood Association. I could not attend the meetings prior to the 28th hearing, so I used the email address they gave us to get questions and objections addressed about the ND-1 overlay. I emailed a simple question asking the names of those who were leading this initiative so I could voice those objections. I never received any response, nor, as I've repeated before, was I allowed to attend any meetings to iron out differences leading to today's vote. So much for open neighborhood communication to address objections. You, our commission, are empowered in your experience and wisdom to prevent this mistake from harshly affecting 800 homeowners. I again call on you to vote no on ND-1 and fulfill your obligation to your fellow homeowners, for it's too burdensome, and that a single appeal procedure must be in place before any ND-1 initiative in the city of Lexington is ever passed. And I thank you for hearing me. Thanks. Thank you very much. Other- other comments? Yes, sir. Uh, Brian Sawyer, Andover Drive. Um, I'm fine with the revisions. I worked with Tom Bunch on the committee, working with him and am in agreement with everything being proposed. My only comments, um, are regarding the appeals and keeping it as simple as possible. If there's any way we could go back to something like the 200-foot notification that Board- Board of Architectural, or Board of Adjustment enjoys. Um, and maybe we can't do that because of the map amendment requirements, but if we could, I'd certainly like to go there. And then, uh, my only other comment is about, um, implementing it. Um, I'd like to get the appeals process in place before enactment, and I know it can't be conditional on that, but, um, if enough time could be the enactment placed in the future where that can be in place, that would be the best deal. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Steve Slade. I live on Teaks Creek Road. Um, I was one of the, uh, I guess, what the opposition, or what Susan Lewis called me, a contributor, um, to trying to tweak the standards with Tom Bunch and- and- and Brian and others. One of the things that we- we did do, and I think we did very well in working with the committee, and they were very good to work with, is that we've tweaked these standards such that, um, the potential for appeals now are very minimal. Um, we- we looked at all the different possibilities of what- what- what- what could happen, or what would a property owner want to do on a certain property to do an addition or re- or remodeling. And- and I think we've done a good job. I don't- I don't- really don't think there's going to be a- a- a very much of a poten- potential for appeals, and, um, and- and you won't have a whole lot of people coming in here to- to see you on it. Um, and- and the- and I will comment that the committee was very open, um, with the- with the neighborhood association, and they were always, um, willing to answer emails and provide information, and, um, we appreciate that. Thanks. Thank you. Anyone else would like to make a comment? All right. If not, we are going to call this hearing to an end. Now, I'd like to talk to, um, our commission and figure out, I mean, I'm- I don't know whether we, what the process is. Do we want to approve or disapprove the ND-1, then do we want to work on the appeals process? Um, how- the way I understand it, the appeals process, we'd have to do through a text amendment, would have to be sent to the Irvin County government. So if- if the appeals process and the text amendment does not get approved from the Urban county government, are we going to tie our approval or disapproval to this ND-1, to that approval prior process? Do- It- it's not legally possible to pass an ordinance which is contingent upon another action. I mean, the ordinance has to be a final decision. So what you can do is you can recommend that this zone change not go into effect until a specific date, because the end of every resolution or ordinance passed by council will say, this resolution or ordinance shall be effective on... You know, in- in the case of zoning change, zone change ordinances, it usually says upon the date of passage, but that obviously can be changed to say- ... um, a specific date, but it's, it's really not possible to say it will never go into effect if the appeals process doesn't pass. Okay, um, what, what I would take from this is, we, we've seen, uh, I think an extro- again, an extraordinary amount of work put in by all parties involved, and I think the staff and the people that have been involved deserve compliment on this. Um, I, I understand that you can't procedurally make it contingent upon that, so I don't think that's an option any longer, but we do need to move this forward, um, in my opinion, and, um, believe that since the opposition and the, the proponents of this have come together, the staff have worked out, I think a, an, an excellent, uh, compromise on the amendment process. I can't imagine that there would be a huge, uh, opposition to that. Um, so unless there's another way that somebody can come up with that we can move this forward with a contingency, then I would say we move it forward with a date certain, as re- as recommended by legal, um, that will make this effective as quickly as possible. Um- Go ahead. ... um, I would agree with what, um, Patrick has said, and, um, I think if we try to go for a 1 January effective date, I think that- How about 1 February? ... how about 1 February to maybe, um, incite a little- How about March 1st? ... speed under council? So the council knows that they don't have- I, I don't know. You all tell me. You asked me March, for March 1st, so you, you, what, what do you think? I think we've done enough work to, to-date that at, at the, um, at your all's work session, I think we've got a lot to go by. Tracy's put together a brand new application. We have at least, if, if you all make the decision on these, that this is the, the direction you want to go, I mean, I think we can just- Well- ... move it forward. ... and, and maybe in lieu of waiting until 18 October for our work session, which by the way, the OKI planning- Yes. ... meeting will be going on. I don't know how many of us can be gone- Tracy and I won't be here, but Mr. Sally has graciously, um, said he would graciously take over the discussion of the Indy One appeals process, but- I mean, maybe we could take it up in committee. Um, since it is a text amendment, we could take it to Zoning Committee- The Zoning Committee. ... which is next week, and you've already gotten, you know, 90% of the work done, which would save two weeks in approval process time. Um, and then I think that probably, I don't think January is an unreasonable... I don't know when council takes their Christmas break. That would be the only thing. Council's usually off, um, somewhere between the 10th and the 15th of December. They ho- hold their last meeting and then are off until, like, the early January, first, second week in January, so. All right. If we're ready for a motion, and this would be to approve the ND-1 overlay. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the ND-1 overlay as proposed by staff with an effective date of 1 January. Second. All right. Everyone understand the motion? All in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Aye. Opposed by an x sign. All right, we're passed. Mr. Chairman- Thank you. ... we can also put this, uh, new process on your zoning committee agenda for next week. And then depending on the committee's take, we can either bring it back to your work session or proceed. Thank you. That's fine. All right, Randall's supposed to be here to step in, so. Uh, we're done, but I don't know if he wants to adjourn this. Do we have any other, uh, business from the, uh, staff? Mr. Chairman, the only staff item that I would refer to is that there is a training opportunity upcoming on page 15. On October 7th, uh, there is a, uh, training opportunity identified on your agenda. Thank you. Excuse me, the audio conference is on October 8th. It's on a Wednesday. I just need to know by Tuesday, the 7th as to whether or not you can come. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, if there is, um, no further business, I will entertain, entertain a motion to, uh, adjourn. So moved. Second. I'd like to, um, compliment Tracy and Rachel for the work that's gone on in the last couple weeks and- Woo! ... we give you thanks. We're adjourned.