# URBAN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-SUBDIVISION ITEMS - December 11, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · December 11, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/683 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/683?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-12-11 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: June 17, 2026 - **Length**: 21,517 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on December 11, 2008, at 1:32 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Randall Vaughn presiding. The meeting addressed 5 agenda items spanning a range of planning matters, including postponements or withdrawals, land subdivision items, development plans, and performance bonds and letters of credit. The Commission took a total of 7 votes during the session, with agenda items related to postponements or withdrawals, land subdivision, development plans, and performance bonds and letters of credit all receiving approval. Additionally, the meeting included an informational presentation on the PDR Program Annual Update, which was not subject to a vote. One public comment was heard during the proceedings. ## Attendance Eleven members were present at the December 11, 2008 Commission meeting. Four of those members arrived late. **Present:** - Randall Vaughn - Neill Day *(late)* - Carolyn Richardson - Lynn Roche-Phillips *(late)* - Mike Cravens - Marie Copeland - Frank Penn - Mike Owens - Joan Whitman *(late)* - Ed Holmes - Patrick Brewer *(late)* **Absent:** None No members were recorded as absent. All eleven listed commissioners attended the meeting, though Neill Day, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Joan Whitman, and Patrick Brewer were not present at the start of the session and arrived after the meeting had begun. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took action on seven items during the December 11, 2008 meeting, with three matters postponed and four approved. All votes were conducted by voice. **Postponements** - **PLAN 2008-71P: HAMPTON SPRINGS** — Moved by Mike Cravens, seconded by Mike Owens, the Commission voted 7–0 to postpone this item to January 15, 2009. [timestamp: 0:04:31] - **PLAN 2008-76F: BOGIE ESTATE, LOT 1** — Moved by Mike Owens, seconded by Frank Penn, the Commission voted 10–0 to postpone this item to January 15, 2009. [timestamp: 0:05:48] - **DP 2008-137: MOHAMMAD SERAJI PROPERTY** — Moved by Frank Penn, seconded by Joan Whitman, the Commission voted 10–0 to postpone this item to January 15, 2009. [timestamp: 0:06:53] **Approvals** - **PLAN 2008-156F: MILLER BIRD COMMERCIAL PARK SUBDIVISION, BLOCK A, UNIT 1, LOT 1** — Moved by Frank Penn, seconded by Ed Holmes, the Commission voted 11–0 to approve, subject to the conditions listed by staff. [timestamp: 0:37:52] - **PLAN 2008-157F: GESS PROPERTY, UNIT 11-A** — Moved by Frank Penn, seconded by Marie Copeland, the Commission voted 11–0 to approve, subject to 15 conditions. [timestamp: 1:03:51] - **DP 2008-139: DISTILLERY DISTRICT WEST, UNIT 1** — Moved by Mike Cravens, seconded by Marie Copeland, the Commission voted 11–0 to approve, subject to 17 conditions, with a modification to condition 12 changing the reference from "occupancy" to "building." [timestamp: 1:42:10] - **DP 2008-142: OVERBROOK LAND COMPANY** — Moved by Mike Owens, seconded by Marie Copeland, the Commission voted 11–0 to approve, subject to the eight conditions as recommended by staff. [timestamp: 2:07:43] All votes were unanimous. No roll call votes were recorded, so individual member votes for or against are not available beyond the motions and seconds noted above. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Commission during the public comment period. - **John Tucker** spoke regarding stormwater management concerns and their effect on his property. [timestamp: 47:54] Tucker raised questions about the legality of a retention pond and sought clarification from the Commission regarding who holds responsibility for stormwater management. His comments indicated concern that existing stormwater infrastructure or practices may be adversely impacting his property, and he appeared to be looking for guidance or action from the Commission on the matter. ## Appointments The Commission took action on two appointments during the meeting. - **Mike Owens** was appointed to the **Flood Plain Appeals Committee**. - **Mike Cravens** was appointed to the **Exaction Appeals Committee**. ## Contested Items **Addressing of Miller Bird Commercial Park** A procedural dispute arose over the appropriate street address for Miller Bird Commercial Park. The disagreement centered on whether the property should retain a Nicholasville Road address or be reassigned a Moore Drive address. Concerns were raised relating to public safety implications as well as potential effects on property value. The structured data does not indicate a final resolution recorded at this meeting. **Stormwater Management for the Gess Property** A community member named John Tucker raised objections regarding stormwater management practices affecting his property in connection with the Gess Property. Tucker questioned the legality of a retention pond associated with the development and sought clarification on which parties bore responsibility for managing stormwater runoff. His concerns reflected broader questions about whether proper procedures had been followed and whether his property was being adversely impacted as a result. The record does not indicate a definitive outcome from this exchange at the meeting. ## Postponements or Withdrawals [timestamp: 03:57] The commission took up requests for postponements and withdrawals of several plans at the outset of the meeting. The items under consideration included the Hampton Springs and Bogie Estate plans. Key speakers during this portion of the meeting were Rory Kahly, Mike Cravens, and Mike Owens. The commission reviewed the requests and ultimately approved the postponements and withdrawals as presented. ## Land Subdivision Items [timestamp: 07:23] The Commission reviewed a series of land subdivision items during this portion of the meeting, covering preliminary and final subdivision plans as well as development plans. Key speakers during this agenda item included **Bill Sallee** and **Tom Martin**. The Commission considered multiple subdivision-related proposals, with outcomes varying by item — some were approved while others were postponed for further review. The overall agenda item was recorded as approved. *Note: Detailed case-by-case information, including specific parcel identifiers, applicant names, acreage figures, and the particular concerns or conditions discussed for individual subdivision items, is not available in the provided data for this meeting.* ## Development Plans [timestamp: 1:05:27] The Commission took up Agenda Item 3, a discussion of Development Plans, featuring presentations related to the Distillery District West and the Overbrook Land Company. Key speakers during this portion of the meeting included **Jimmy Emmons** and **Marwan Rayon**, who addressed the Commission on the development proposals under consideration. The discussion centered on the specifics of each plan, with the Commission reviewing the proposals alongside associated conditions for approval. The Commission ultimately **approved** the development plans, with conditions attached to the approvals as part of the review process. *Note: Additional detail regarding specific conditions, concerns raised, or the substance of individual presentations was not available in the source materials for this agenda item.* ## Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit [timestamp: 2:08:52] The Commission took up Agenda Item 4, a discussion and action item regarding the release and call of performance bonds and letters of credit. Mike Cravens presented the item to the Commission, reviewing the performance bonds and letters of credit as outlined in the accompanying memorandum. The presentation covered the recommended releases and calls as prepared in the memo for the Commission's consideration. - **Outcome:** The Commission approved the release and call of performance bonds and letters of credit as presented in the memorandum. No additional speakers, concerns, or points of debate are reflected in the available record for this item. ## PDR Program Annual Update [timestamp: 2:09:58] Billy Van Pelt delivered the annual update on the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program to the Commission. The presentation was informational in nature, providing the Commission with a summary of the program's progress and benefits. No additional detail on specific figures, acreage totals, transaction counts, or other program metrics are available from the provided materials. The outcome of the agenda item was informational, with no vote or formal action taken by the Commission. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (7-0): Postpone PLAN 2008-71P: HAMPTON SPRINGS to January 15, 2009 - **Motion** — postponed (10-0): Postpone PLAN 2008-76F: BOGIE ESTATE, LOT 1 to January 15, 2009 - **Motion** — postponed (10-0): Postpone DP 2008-137: MOHAMMAD SERAJI PROPERTY to January 15, 2009 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approve PLAN 2008-156F: MILLER BIRD COMMERCIAL PARK SUBDIVISION, BLOCK A, UNIT 1, LOT 1 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approve PLAN 2008-157F: GESS PROPERTY, UNIT 11-A - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approve DP 2008-139: DISTILLERY DISTRICT WEST, UNIT 1 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approve DP 2008-142: OVERBROOK LAND COMPANY --- ## Full transcript One of these mornings, you're gonna rise up singing. Then you'll spread your wings and take to the sky. But til that morning, there's nothing can harm you. With your mama and your daddy standing by. Standing by. Standing by. I want a little girl to love a lot. I'd give her everything that I've got. For a little girl to fall in love with me. I want a little girl who may not look like what you'd find in a picture book, but if she can cook she'll suit me to a T. She don't have to wave her hair, or dress in fancy clothes. And I wouldn't even care if she didn't wear silken hose. Send me a little girl to call my own. I'd give her everything that I know. December 11th, meeting of Planning Commission, and at this time, uh, we do not have any minutes, uh, to approve. Uh, we will then, uh, move into, uh, postponements and withdrawals. Uh, we will request, we will entertain any requests for postponements or withdrawal at this time. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Rory Kayley with EA Partners. Uh, page one, item one, Plan 2008-71P, Hampton Springs, request a one-month postponement to January 15th. Thank you, Mr. Kayley. Uh, Mr. Salley, is that, is that correct, January 15th, one month? Is that- Yes, sir. Okay. Uh, we have a request for a one-month postponement for Plan 2008-71P, Hampton Springs. This is a property located at 4574 Harrodsburg Road. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? I'm seeing none. The Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, uh, move postponement of Plan 2008-71P till January 15th. I second the motion. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. And on Page Two, under Final Subdivision Plans, Item A, Plan 2008-76F Bogey Estate, Lot 1, request a one-month postponement to January 15th as well. Thank you, Mr. Kayley. We have a request for a one-month postponement to January 15th, 2009, for Plan 2008-76F, Bogey Estate, Lot 1. This is for property located at 5846 Old Richmond Road. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for a postponement of Plan 2008-76F, uh, until January 15th, 2009. Second. We 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. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Okay. Are there any additional postponements or withdrawals? Okay. Thank you. Ah, I guess from staff, do we have any? Are there any from staff? Uh, yes, sir. On page five of your agenda, under development plans, item A, we have received a communication from that applicant requesting a one-month postponement. That is DP 2008-137, Mohammed Soraji property, amended. Thank you, Mr. Martin. We have a request, uh, via, uh, via the applicant to the staff for a one-month postponement of DP 2008-137, Mohammed Soraji property, located at 432 South Broadway. Uh, 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 for a one-month postponement of DP 2008-137 to the January 15th meeting. We 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. Okay. I guess at this time, we will move into our land subdivision items. Um, and I'll call on Mr. Sal Lee, to review the applications that qualify for the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the commission, good afternoon. Uh, I'm pleased to tell you that a number of your items on your regular meeting agenda are also listed on your consent agenda, uh, and can be considered for abbreviated hearings at this time. Uh, the first, uh, is an item that appears on page two, item 1B of your meeting agenda. This is an amended preliminary subdivision plan, Plan 2008-155P, Highland Lakes Unit 1-Phase 1. This is for property in the right-of-way of South Point Drive. There are a number of subdivi- final subdivision plans also on your consent agenda. The first appears on page two, item 2B, Plan 2008-156F, an Amended Final Record Plat for Miller Bird Commercial Park Subdivision, Block A, Unit 1, Lot 1. This is for property at 2555 Nicholasville Road. Another item is the next item on the agenda, page three, item C, Plan 2008-157F, Guest Property, Unit 11A. This is for property located at 4618 Wilman Way. The next item on the consent agenda is page three, item D, Plan 2008-158F, an Amended Final Record Plat for Bluegrass Business Park, also known as Pen- Pemberton Farm, Plots 3A and 3B. This is for property at 2570 Spur Road and 2201 Jackie Fox Way. The next item on your meeting agenda also appears on the consent agenda, Plan 2008-159F, Castle Gate Unit 1, Lot 15, Amended. This is for property at 3540 Castle Gate Wind. The next item on your agenda, page three, item F, is also on the consent agenda, Plan 2008-160F, an Amended Final Record Plat for Melbourne Industrial Park, Unit 1G, Block C, Lot 12. This is for property at 884 Nandino Boulevard. On page four, item G of your meeting agenda, another item on the consent agenda is Plan 2008-161F, Johnson Plaza Unit One, Lot One, Amended. This is for property at 1306 South Broadway. Next item on the consent agenda is Plan 2008-162F, appearing on page four, item H of your meeting agenda, Denton Farm Inc., Unit 3, Section A, Amended. This is for property located on Richmond Road at Ellerslie Park. Next item on your consent agenda is Pu- Plan 2008-168F, an Amended Final Record Plat for Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 5, Lot 3. This appears on page five, item J of your meeting agenda. This is for property at 3194 Beaumont Center Circle. The last subdivision item appears on page five, item K of your meeting agenda, Plan 2008-169F, Miller Street Properties. These are lots, proposed lots at 220 through 242 Miller Street. Flipping now to page two of the consent agenda, there are a number of final development plans recommended for conditional approval by the subdivision committee that can be considered on your consent agenda. The first one appears on page six, item B of your meeting agenda, DP 2008-138, Covey Ridge Development Company, Lot 1, Amended, an Amended Final Development Plan for property at 5527 Athens Boonesboro Road. On page six, item D of your meeting agenda is the next item on the consent agenda, DP 2008-140, Magna Entertainment Corporation. This is for property located at 2040 Sandersville Road. The next item on your meeting agenda, page seven, item E, is also on the consent agenda, DP 2008-141, Sharkey Property, Unit 2D, Amended, also known as Town Center. This is for property at 149 Old Town Walk. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page seven, item F. DP2008-142, Overbrook Land Company Amended, an amended final development plan for property near East New Circle Road and Liberty Road. The next item is DP2008-143, appearing on page seven, item G of your meeting agenda, Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section IV, Lot 2, for property located at 937 Midnight Pass. Next item on your meeting agenda also is on the consent agenda, page seven, item H., DP2008-144 Johnson Plaza Unit 1, Lots 1 and 1A, for property located at 1306 South Broadway. On page eight, item I of your meeting agenda, an item on the consent agenda is DP2008-145 Bradley Subdivision Faith Community Housing, for property located at 372 and 372 and a half Glen Arvin Avenue. The next item on your consent agenda is also the next item on the agenda, page eight, item J., DP2008-146 Beaumont Farm, a portion of Unit 1 and Unit 3, for property located at Wall Street and Beaumont Center Circle. On page eight, item K of your agenda, DP2008-151, Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section V, Lots 3 and 4. This is for property at 3194 Beaumont Center Circle. And finally, the last item on your consent agenda is on page nine, item L of your meeting agenda, DP2008-152, an amended final development plan for Miller Street Townhomes, also known as the Rope Walk, again for property at 220 through 242 Miller Street. Mr. Chairman, at this time, ah, items can be considered for removal from the consent agenda prior to your action, either by commission members, members of the audience, or by applicants or their representatives. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Solley. At this time, I would like to ask if there are any applicants that would like to, ah, have any of the, ah, applications on the consent agenda removed for discussion? If they would come forward. If you could, just state your name and the application and we'll remove it from the consent agenda. Ah, my name is Bob Cornet. I'm with Roberts Group and, ah, on your consent agenda, I think it was the second item, ah, DP2008... Ah, I'm sorry, Plan 2008-156F Millenburg Commercial, we'd like that moved to the consen- or to the discussion agenda. Certainly. Will do. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Chris Westover. I'm representing the applicant Overbrook Land Company. That item is on page seven, item, ah, F. Ah, we would request a very brief discussion of, ah, ah, a note on the development plans, so if you would please put that on your regular docket. Thank you, Ms. Westover. That's on page two of the consent agenda, DP2008-142. Yes. Okay. Yes. It's a final development plan. Duly noted. Thank you. Yes, sir. Yeah, we're here, we're here today, my name's John Tucker, I'm here with, ah, s- personal property down below, the Guest Property Development. We'd like to discuss a few of the items on it today, if we don't mind. Certainly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. I believe that's on page one of the consent agenda, 2008-157F Guest Property. Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to have, ah, any of the applications removed from the consent agenda for discussion? I'll ask the Commission at this time. Are there any applications on the consent agenda that the Commission would like to have removed to be heard at this time? Okay, um, seeing none, the, ah, chair has noted three applications on the consent agenda to be removed and for discussion, so, ah, those three are planned, 2008-156F Millenburg Commercial, planned 2008-157F Guest Property, and DP2008-142. With that said, the chair will entertain a motion for acceptance of the consent agenda, ah, removing those three applications from the consent agenda. Mr. Chairman, I move for acceptance of the consent agenda, noting the three, ah, removals that you requested. Second. We have a motion and a second to accept the consent agenda, ah, with the three applications removed. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, we'll, ah, give staff a moment to, ah, get set up for first presentation. Oh, Mike and those guys were busy, weren't they? I'm telling you, they were rolling. They must have been kidding. ??? Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. If you would turn to page two, at the bottom of page two, Plan 2008-156F, Millenburg Commercial Property, Park Subdivision Block A, Unit 1, Lot 1, property located at 2555 Nicholasville Road. This property is proposed... ... Yep. Try this one. Okay. Have a good one. Sorry. There you go. Okay. The property is located at the corner of Nicholas Road... Nicholasville Road and Moore Drive. It's one not... one lot, and they're asking to have this subdivided into two lots. We just approved a development plan to have two buildings located on this lot, so now they're coming back to divide it into two separate lots. It was approved by the Subdivision Committee with the seven conditions. Um, the property lines that they show here s- subdividing the property into two individual lots are at their access points that they have on the development plan. And so, the S- Subdivision Committee recommended approval with those seven conditions. Thank you very much. Are there... Are there any questions for Cheryl, um, commission? Thank you. Yes, sir. Again, my name is Bob Cornet with Roberts Group. Uh, as you notice on your agenda, the item is listed as located at 2555 Nicholasville Road. Uh, this property has been recognized as a Nicholasville Road address, uh, way back, uh, I can't remember, Steak and Ale, T.W. Lee's. Uh, several restaurants have been on that site. One of the conditions of the approval is a approval by street addressing. Uh, when we submitted the plant to street addressing, they would like to change these to Moore Drive addresses. Uh, I discussed that with my client and, uh, they were just adamant that they needed to remain Nicholasville Road addresses. Uh, the property value, they purchased the property was a Nicholasville Road value and, uh, we feel like the property is, uh... It, it fronts on Nicholasville Road, both of the lots do. Uh, why would we take a Nicholasville Road address and turn it to a Moore Drive address? Um, in a lot of cases, a corner lot like this would be assigned dual addresses. It could have a Moore Drive and a Nicholasville Road addresses. That's happened many times in the past. Uh, as I said, both lots do front on the Nicholasville right of way. Um, it's been Nicholasville Road address for 20 plus years. It... Moore Drive, uh, if you're not... don't live or, or work around or shop around the south end of town, you might not know where Moore Drive is, but you know where Nicholasville Road is. Uh, if you're out of town, you might not know where Moore Drive is, but you would know where Nicholasville Road is. Uh, we just feel like the Wendy's across the street, on the other side of Moore Drive, just recently scraped a lot, built a brand new Wendy's. It's been 2575 Nicholasville Road for years. It's still 2575 Nicholasville Road. We'd like to keep our Nicholasville Road address. Uh, we don't really see any reasoning why it shouldn't remain a Nicholasville Road address. That's the only thing we really wanted to discuss. Thank you, sir. Are there any questions for the applicant, from commission? Thank you, sir. Um, I guess, um, I wanted to ask, or I'm gonna ask legal, uh, Ms. Boland, um, who has on, on these addresses, who takes... uh, who has the ultimate authority on addressing? I think you can authorize that note to be removed. Um, is it... is there anyone here from that office today? I think we, we asked for someone to be here from that office to explain the reasoning behind th- this recommendation. Okay. All right. Is that correct? Need the mic. Good afternoon. My name is Phillip Stiefel. I'm actually the GIS Manager and, uh, manage folks that are in the Addressing Office. It's a... The Addressing Office is a c- collaboration of staff from Enhanced 911 and GIS. This is Paul Hockensmith and he's familiar with the plan, but, um, there's... One of... One of the things is the Moore Drive addresses were assigned. Addresses are assigned on based on access to the structures for emergency purposes. Um, this is on a... This is a corner and sometimes those issues are a little bit gray. Um, the Addressing Office has a committee and we review and evaluate all the plans. Uh, members of those are w- uh, the United States Postal Service, the Division of Fire, uh, there's a staff from the Division of Planning, who's now a GIS person, but also Enhanced 911 staff. Uh, when the... When the development plan was reviewed first, there was some proposed parking in a grassy area and access off of Nicholasville Road was impractical. And based on where the buildings were going to be built, by looking at the development plan, using the addressing standards, they applied Moore Drive addresses. Um, so now, what we're seeing, I believe, is a plat with chopping the one lot into two lots. And we like to make the address that's serviced there, if you want to drive there, send mail there, we like those to agree with the actual parcel of the property address. It eliminates having multiple addresses at a location. So the Addressing Office, per their committee, believes that, as the development plan was presented to us, it's most logical to access these buildings for service off of Moore Drive. Um- And now, there also may be that there's been a new development plan submitted, that the parking is no longer there. I've been told that the addressing office has not seen that new development plan. So based on the new development plan, when the addressing committee sees those and reviews those, if there's access off of the Nicholasville Road, then, then those issues can be looked at again. I'd also like to just add that the existing restaurant has a front door which actually faces Nicholasville Road, that you can actually see- Excuse me, can we get you to sp- speak into the microphone? I'm sorry. Not like that mic though. The existing- Excu- excuse me, yeah, if we could lift the microphone up. There we go. There we go. Thank you. The existing restaurant that we're talking about has a front door which actually faces out on Nicholasville Road and it's very clear, if you drive down there, that you're looking at the front door of that restaurant. The proposed retail shop that we're talking about has a front door that's only going to be visible from Moore Drive. And from our perspective, is how do we get police, fire, EMS to these buildings? We don't want to tell them that you go down Nicholasville Road to find it, when in fact, you would really have to turn off onto Moore Drive to even be able to see the front door of this retail structure that we're talking about. Additionally, the new restaurant that they're proposing here does not have a front door that faces out Nicholasville Road either. It actually faces towards the other building. So in our view, and this was done by committee, this is not something that an individual dreamed up. Like Phillip said, our view was that it's more descriptive from a 911 perspective to say that these are Moore Drive addresses and not Nicholasville Road addresses. Thank you, sir. Phillip, can I get your last name again, sir? Last name is Stiefel. Stiefel? S-T-I-E- yeah. Okay. Okay, thank you. Um, yes, sir, Mr. Holmes, you have a question? Just had a question. You know, can the plan be approved without the addresses? And kind of like that's something that needs to be worked out with the Address Committee and the developer. Well, this is the first time in my experience with assigning addresses that we've had a discussion like this with, uh, with this body. Um, generally, you know, we assign addresses to development plans and we, you know, we, they're resolved prior to this point. Um, sometimes if they don't, we end up, we end up communicating with the developer or the owner after the fact. Um, in this case, both the plat and the development plan are kind of coming together at the same time. Um, I'm kind of thinking the same thing. If there is a ca- if, if the, if the addressing office hasn't seen the new plan yet with the parking removed, certainly we want to see that before any address is assigned. You know, we assign addresses based on how we get to things and service things. Um, not based on... Yeah. Maybe the building permit, I mean, it's an address that we're getting a building permit. Yes, sir. Actually, uh, when they come to apply for a building permit, an addressing is, is one of the sign-offs and that's why we, we want an addressing sign-off on development plans also, because when, as soon as they're certified, they show up at building inspection and that's, we need to know which building they're talking about. So when we have multiple buildings on one lot, we need to be able to distinguish which, you know, which one. Thank you. Mr. Owens? Yes, uh, are we talking about add, more add- Moore Drive addresses on both lots or just the one corner lot? Well, based on the development plan that the addressing office has seen, we're talking about a Moore Drive for both, because we want the property addresses, the parcel addresses to agree with the addresses that are assigned to the buildings. And again, the buildings are assigned addresses based off of the most logical way to access them. So the addressing office certainly when possible, we want the building address to be identical to the property that it, that it, uh, that it sits on. Sometimes it's not always like that, 'cause there can be multiple buildings on one piece of property. But in this case, with a one-to-one relationship, we want a c- we'd like for the one-to-one relationship to be there. Thank you. Are there any other, any other questions? So the condition that we have, I think petitioner wanted, uh, a, uh, address that was a Nicholasville Road address. By this note, the addressing office's approval of the names and street addresses, basically you're saying you want the Moore Drive address based on what you've seen. That's the request. That's your approval, is a Moore Drive address. Correct? Yes, sir. Okay. So then if we, um, for the commission, if we, um, take action on this plan, keeping that a cond- keeping that condition basically identifies providing a Moore Drive address for this plan? Okay. And, and this is new ground for me, but I would also say that our, our ordinance states that the addressing office is the only entity that can as- uh, assign and change addresses in Fayette County. So I don't, I don't, I'm not sure what kind of action you as a body can take. I, and I don't know if that works. Can, can you repeat that again? I, I missed half of that. Yes, sir. The addressing ordinance states that the addressing office is the only entity that can assign or change an address in Fayette County. Why don't we look at the, the current address is Nicholasville Road, right? That's a legacy address for that piece of property. Yes, that's true. Absolutely. It was Nicholasville Road. Our position is, is that when you come in for a new development or new construction of some kind, we would like to apply current standards to those developments. And in this case, what we're saying is, the address ought to be based on access. ... because of what they showed us on the original development plan, with the parking out on the service road, that would be very problematic for 911 folks to be able to say that they're gonna go somewhere on Nicholasville Road to respond to a 911 call. That's why we would like to see it as a Moore Drive address, which is more descriptive. Yes. Mm-hmm. I have problems with the corner building that's gonna be facing Continental Apartments. How that is a Moore Drive address when you could only see the front door from the Nicholasville Road service address, service road. It looks like to me that corner building- Yeah, I think so. ... you would have to be out on the service road on Nicholasville Road to see that front door- Sure. ... and to see the number. As I recall, actually, I didn't... I think- You'll, you'll have to take the mic, microphone with you, Mr. Hockensmith. Right here. Yeah. I don't think you can see that front door from anywhere. Mr. Chairman, can I- What we would ask is, in this case, that... I'm sorry. Sorry. What we would ask is that the address be posted here on the Moore Drive side so that when I'm driving down here, it's e- it's obvious to me that that address is, applies to that building. Isn't this the Chicken property or something? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Day has a- I, I would just like to request that we take this off, 'cause then the gentlemen will look at the development plan. I mean, I remember when we talked about it the first time, about the egresses and ingresses and whether... So I mean, it might make more sense to all of us if we looked. I don't know if anybody here can remember exactly what we approved. And then, since, e- especially with the addressing people that they've stated that they saw the original one, but not the one that was approved. Why don't we just look at it and see whether we can ta- take care of it right now instead of putting it off? Ah, I guess I can ask staff, do we, do we have the development plan? We do not have the development plan here. We are right now scouring to see if we can access it via the, uh, the internet and, and put an image up on the board. Uh, if not, we will go back to the office and get it. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir, Mr. Owens. I'm curious, um, since this was, was in committee a week ago and this question didn't come up, I'm just wondering, has this developed, or maybe the developer just aware of this within the last week? If that's the case, maybe a postponement might be in order, just to give them time to work with this office to try and remedy the pr- problem. Uh, that's, that's certainly an option. Um, but, uh, Mr., Mr. Cravens, uh, you're chair of the s- sub-committee, so you have- Um, well, I'm, I'm in favor of the Nicholasville Road address. It, it, it's, um, I built some, some, ah, buildings down on Nicholasville Road, and they were, they were down there by the, um, where Mr., Ah, Stake used to be, back up in there. And they had a Nicholasville Road address, and you couldn't see the front door. You can't even see the buildings from, from, uh, Nicholasville Road. An- and it's, in real estate, the- that address is very important to, uh, values and, uh, your, just your mailing address, and your... The address you give out for people to come find your business. I'd be in favor of the Nicholasville Road address, and I could... But... And I could make a motion, but he stated we couldn't change it, that they're the only ones that could change it. I think that's correct, and that's, that's why I guess- The, the address, the current address is Nicholasville. Correct. So, we could strike this and move forward with the plan as is. Let's- And, and, and- They're- ... as I understand it- They're a sign-off, though. Well, I'd, I'd like for Law to weigh in, but bef- before we weigh in, I think we now have the development plan, so let's tackle that first. I guess I'll ask staff. Staff, is that, in, in committee, I guess sub-committee, is that the development plan that... Sub... That's, that's what you saw? Okay. It's not the certified version from our office. It's one the applicant had on hand. I don't believe they were able to get to it on the internet. If you guys wanna see the one that is certified, I can run back to the office and pick that one up. But this is the one the applicant has on hand. I can't tell you that it's the exact certified copy. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Penn, you have a question? Yeah, let's, l- let's attack this from the point of view, do we have the ability to sign the address on the final development plan? And I guess I'm asking that to legal, or is that, as the man stated, that's the priority of the Office that assigns that? L- let's clear that up before we decide whether we're gonna see a development plan or not. I'm not familiar with that ordinance, but I do believe that they probably are going to have the final say on the address, because it's a public safety issue. It's for purposes of providing emergency and other services to the property. I think you can remove that note, but I don't think that that in any way is going to supersede their authority if the authorities... If the ordinance says that that office has the right to assign the address, because, uh, logically, I mean, the Planning Commission is for the purpose of providing for organized planning and development of properties. It doesn't usually, I think, address something as mundane as what number is put on that property. It's only how it's physically developed. And I think that that probably is going to be a, a more of an emergency services issue than a Planning Commission issue. It's chapter 17 of local ordinances. I don't have it here with me. I mean, if I'd had a chance to look at it ahead, I'd have a more of an opinion, but I really think that if it is in the code of ordinances relating to just the identification of properties, I think it is going to probably- Okay. ... take precedence. Mr. Payne, you have a comment or a motion? Well, I mean, I, I would be in favor of approving the development plan and leaving the note on and then let them work out which address is going to supersede what. W- I don't think we've got the ability to make that decision, and I don't see any sense in us reviewing the development plan again wh- when it's, it's mute whether we have that decision or not. So let's leave the note on there, prove the development plan, then let the appropriate people assign the address. I, I agree with that comment. I'm a little uncomfortable getting into issues of public safety and, and the postal service. If you got a committee, an organization, that actually assigns addresses, then I think it should be left up to them. I can't tell the post office or the committee they've got- Thank you, Mr. Payne. ... how to best assign addresses, so. Okay, thank you. I agree. Second it. Is there a motion? I move that we, uh, that we approve the development plan, leaving the note on, and then let the appropriate bodies work out where the address comes down. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve plan 2008-150. Thank you. Thank y'all. Well, the motion's on the floor at the moment. We'll, we'll take any questions afterwards. Plan 2008-156F, Miller Bird Commercial Park with the seven conditions. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Poor guy. Talk about getting a shaft. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I, I'm not, I'm not gonna argue with you. Number one... It just doesn't seem... Yeah, I got the same. There's a very... Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, on page three, top of the page, item C, plan 2008-157S, F, pardon me, guest property unit 11A is the next item on your agenda. This is a final record plat. It has 62 lots, 61 of which are buildable. This is a depiction of that record plat. I brought today a big picture for you to help orient you to the location of this particular unit. This is the guest property as a whole. It, uh, the information here has been superimposed upon the environmental study that the consultant had done by Red Wing Consultants. Here we have the unit in question, unit 11. This is the area, the section you're being asked to approve today to be recorded. Again, just an orientation, the guests, Walnut Hill, Charlesburg, here's Lochmere Development, Stillmeadows. You just recently approved a plat at this corner of Stillmeadows, Hayes Boulevard. Here's the middle school. I wanted you to just get a feel for where you were here 'cause I know that has been of interest. Here's unit six. You've seen some plats recently on unit six as well. Those are the most recent. So again, here is unit 11. This is the section, again, that they're asking for your approval that I just described to you, 62 lots, 61 buildable. This area along Marcus Trail on this plat is an area we wish to bring to your attention. Here is the development plan that was approved by this body for the entire area. Here is the area of impact and wetlands that we demonstrated to you, again, with this approved plan. We are here. This is the area. This is their plat overlaying at the same scale to show you that they are here. The issue and what they've done, the only real significant change is our 10 lots through here. This is the HOA non-buildable lot. This is a slight reconfiguration. It's the same number, but it's a very slight reconfiguration in this area to pick up a little bit more buildable area in the lot, in essence. What that has done has moved them a little bit closer to the area that they're to stay out of. However, again, based on this information, and I highlighted that lot for you, and with this plat- Staff is comfortable that, on the information provided, they are out of the impact area. This was reviewed by your subdivision committee and recommended approval, subject to 15 conditions. And these are standard conditions, uh, with the exception, obviously, of number 15, which is a condition that has been applied to several of the guest plats, uh, in those areas where we just wish to be absolutely certain, again, that there is no, uh, impact on the identified wetlands area. Uh, I would add, at this time, that staff would recommend a 16th condition, and that is the addition of the graphic and written scale. Needs to be on there. Uh, in our review, we noticed it, but then failed to, uh, to write it down as a condition. Uh, it became obvious when we overlaid it and, and started checking the, the, uh, the distances and the measurements, so I wanted to add that. Um, and again, with that , uh, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Tom? Mr. Penn. Tom, on number 15, uh, we're certifying that either or one of those has been approved? That note has been on several plats, Mr. Penn, and they have to verify either they have met that condition or it's not applicable to this area. So which is it on this one? It is not applicable to this area. That, that's what I hoped to demonstrate with that overlay with you. They are outside of the impact area. Thank you, Tom. Uh, any other questions? Mr. Owens. Thank you. Uh, Tom, as far as Lot 149, with your overlays and so forth, it, it seemed like on the w- underneath the overlay, there's still a lot or two before you get into the floodplain area. Is that correct? Oh, yes, sir. There, there is. Um, it's best demonstrated with the original development plan. They, they've adjusted it this way a little bit. Okay. And there is some area that remains, there is some distance still between the impact area- Okay. ... and, and where we are. Impact area. Okay. Where - Okay. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Phillips. Um, construction of the roadway back there, if you could go back to that pink and blue- Mm-hmm. Construction of the roadway, um, to access these lots will not impact any wetland areas? Uh, these, these, the construction of these roadways have not been approved. This is strictly your preliminary plan that you approved. This is, of course, the proposed system, and they will need to get their proper permits before these areas are constructed. You, and, and you may recall, that was an issue on Unit 6, just previously, a little section of roadway as well. So... . Thank you, Tom. Are there any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, if I could just correct one item. Sure. Uh, there is no need for a 16th condition. Uh, the information Mr. Martin described is contained at the end of condition number nine. Thank you. Oh- Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. There- All right. Thank you very much. So we still have 15 conditions. Yes, sir. As per the original agenda. Okay. Thank you. Uh, petitioner? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Rena Wiseman here for Ball Homes. Uh, we agree with the conditions set forth on the agenda, the 15 that have been described. Uh, I understand Mr. Tucker will speak, so we'll reserve time to respond to anything he may add. I do want to point out that the issue of staying out of the impact zone was something that was addressed prior to the issuance of the grading permit. There was a requirement on the development plan that before a grading permit be issued, that we would have to, uh, certify that the impact zone was not being affected. And we submitted drawings, uh, with ... These are highlights of our construction plans that show the orange area is the area with ... I can put this over on the overhead. This is ... The orange area is identical to the boundaries of the plat. The green area is the wetland and then the yellow line is the setback area. So that was the information that was presented to engineering prior to the issuance of the grading permit. And Mr. Thomas of Red Wing is also here, should you have any questions, uh, for him. He's our consultant who plots out the wetland areas on the property. But with that, we agree and ask that you approve the plat. Thank you, Ms. Wiseman. Mr. Tucker? Good day. Uh, my name is John Tucker. I live at 5751 Athens Walnut Hill Road. I'm here representing my family, which owns property there on Childsboro Road. Our biggest question has always been where does the storm water go. Well, today they're here, and, and we're here and we're ... And once again, now I have to speak out at all these meetings 'cause I've been asked by the Corps of Engineers to confront a situation which they didn't have a straight answer for me as of yesterday. So I thought I would present it today and glad Mr. Thomas is here. Maybe he can clarify some of these questions I have. Because they're staying out of the impact area, the wetlands, that part I agree on, that part that got caught. If the retention pond is built illegally in the re- in the wetlands, all the storm water runs to the wetlands. They're discharging water into an illegally built retention pond. Where does water quality come in? Well, yesterday, Mrs. Grace Jarrett presented me with a question. She said, "You need to ask your local city government about how or who is in charge of storm water management." Because there's a water quality issue here and there's a storm water discharge issue here. They're adding more impervious surface, discharging more water into the wetlands- ... and we'd like to know, where do we go from this point? You're increasing a bigger flow of water. The more storm water's discharged in that area, the more I receive. That's question one. The next question is, in 2004, we had an agreement, Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government did, with the EPA, that there would be a check-off list about, pertaining to these permits, that are in order, before they start development. I would like to see this. Who signed off? Who was responsible for issuing these permits for them to be working? Who let them start grading? I would like to see that permit, if I could, at any time soon. Because we'd like to find out who's responsible. I look down here and I see there's a great improvement that's been added to our thing, in addition to these requirements, that there's a place for a, an environmental, environmental quality approval crew. I'd like to know who the engineer is now, for that group, and who's overseeing the environmental quality of this issue. And I mean, I can direct it to Marwan Rayon, I can direct it to Hillard Moonman, or even Mr. Cruz from Ball Homes, or maybe Mr. Thomas may have an answer for me. I'd like to know. I think you all have the right to know. According to our storm waters, uh, manuals, we're not supposed to be releasing any storm waters into the reservoir park and using it as a retention pond. If the retention pond they've built is not working, then we have a problem. And that's what I'm here today to ask you all. Where, who is responsible, and what point do we have to step up and say, "Hey, this is enough"? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Is th- is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this application? Okay. Ms. Weissman? Yes, I'd like to, uh, correct Mr.uh, Tucker. The retention pond was not built illegally. We are under no citations from any entity, whether it be the Urban County Government, the Corps of Engineers. That pond is, uh, was constructed properly and is functioning properly. Uh, Mr. Tucker has a habit of coming down here and making statements that aren't true. He told you in May of this year that the 401 water quality permit issued by the state to Ball Homes had expired. That is not true. And that statement is not true, and we want to correct the record on that. Uh, with regard to whatever conversation he had with Ms. Grace Jarrett of the Cor- Army Corps of Engineers, we weren't there. We don't know what she may have said about who's in charge of stormwater management. I believe it's the Urban County government. And with respect to Waters of the United States, the Corps of Engineers, Mr. Thomas spoke with, uh, Ms. Grace Jarrett yesterday, and she did not tell us that we had an issue about the detention basin or water quality. We have worked with that division. Those of you who have been here know that we have, we submitted an application in March of 2005 for a 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers, which we are still awaiting. And since that time, we have stayed out of the impact area based on the directive of this commission. And we are doing, we are following all the rules and are waiting to do the mitigation. We cannot do that till we get the 404 permit, but the Corps of Engineers has, to date, not issued it. Mr. Thomas spoke with Ms. Jarrett yesterday. We have given her all the information that's required and, uh, I just want to again say that as far as the detention basin, that is not an accurate statement. Uh, we are following all the rules, we followed this note, uh, since you imposed this a couple of years ago, and we'd like to have the plat approved. With regard to other questions that Mr. Tucker raised, I think those are probably directed at other members of the staff rather than the applicant. Than the applicant. Thank you, Ms. Weissman. Mr. Tucker, you had something else you'd like to add, sir? Well, I'd just like the opportunity to respond to, uh, to Ms. Weissman's statement about that, uh, particular stream is a blue line stream. It's a 404 acceptable permit. So I, I don't think you have the permit for that retention pond. I have spoke to them several times on this occasion. So I'd like to address it when you want to. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Okay, staff, I guess, do you have any, any additional, any rebuttal, I guess, at this point, staff? Are- No, sir. No rebuttal? Okay. Sure. Is- is- Yes, Mr. Brewer. ... this issue not covered by Note 15? I, I didn't hear your question. Would you- Is this issue that we're discussing not covered by Note 15 yet? It's not? No, no. Mm-mm. Let's get Marwan Rayon. Is Mar- I don't know. Some, uh, some of the commissioners asked if Marwan is, I don't see him. Oh, there he is. He's right here. Um- Right here. Mr., Mr. Penn and Mr., Ms. Phillips, uh, would like for you guys, if we could hear from you guys. Yeah. Uh, I guess the question is whether, uh, condition 15 is covered under the 404 permit as well. No, my, my question was, does 15 not cover the issue that's been raised regarding this retention pond? And apparently, it does not, according to members who've been here a lot longer than I have, so. I, I guess I'm gonna ask, Ms. Phillips, Mr. Penn, do y'all have a direct question for Marwan and Hilliard? Okay. Would you mind asking a question? Yeah. I was just gonna, um, ask, with respect to the detention basin that, um, Mr. Tucker is referring to, it may or may not be on site of the plat that we're looking at right now- Yeah, it's not there. ... but it will be, you know, this site could very well impact that detention basin. Do you all have, um, do you feel comfortable that we have all the 401 water quality certifications in place? ... and, uh, that thing is -- is good to go? Yes. And it is actually... Uh, it was addressed and included in the application for the 404 permit. But this does not -- I don't think it impacts what you are considering today. This is a different u- I mean, a unit that -- that's not in that area of the detention basin. Mr. Penn, you had... So, Mr. Maram, I understand you to say that the -- that the additional runoff created by this -- this, uh, Section 11, Unit 11, will not impact that detention basin, will not create more water to go. In other words, that was all considered before you issued the grading permit? That detention basin was supposed to take care of any runoff that is generated, okay, uh, in that area, and the detention basin was sized to take care of that. So when you issued the -- the -- the grading permit, you had full confidence that the water that's going to come off of this development, this additional development, the detention pond will handle it, uh- Yes. ... and it's sized and is the right thing to do? Yes. Okay. Are there any other questions for Marwan or Hilliard at this time? Okay. Yes, just one more piece of information. Yes, Ms. Phillips. Um, since this plat, Unit 11A, does not have any kind of stormwater infrastructure on -- on the plat, um, the stormwater basin that will collect any kind of runoff of this site is downstream? Yes, that's correct. And this is the -- this is the stormwater detention basin that Mr. Tucker is referring to? I just want to make sure we're talking about the right... 'Cause it's a pretty sizable tract of land. Um, the, um, the downstream basin for quantity control is -- is down in this area. Um, and of course, runoff from, um, from the development has to... you know, it has to make its way all the way to the basin through the stream system. But on the -- on the side of the development itself, uh, there's sediment control to contain sediment at the development side. We have a pretty substantial rock check right in here in front of the -- the wetland area that's... appears to be working very well to control sediment. Mr. Brewer, you have a question? Just a, I guess, clarification from me. Um, all that's changed from what's been approved already is this slight movement on one of these 62 units, is that correct? But there's nothing- ... substantial that's changed between what's already been approved and what we're doing today? Um, I... Or is this... Tom, can you answer that question for Mr. Brewer? That would be correct. You approved an overall plan. This is a plat and it basically matches that overall plan with a slight adjustment to that lotting. So the slight adjustment, and I mean I... with all respect to the issues we're going to be facing on stormwater is huge, it seems to me if -- if all that's changed is a slight change, little-little I think Tom said, it doesn't seem like that's going to have an appreciable change to the stormwater ru- runoff. Uh, Mr. Tucker? No, I... From where I'm sitting, uh, I don't think you're missing anything. Mr. Penn, do you have a question? No. In response to Mr. Brewer's question, the reason I even asked this question is that I want us all to be on the same page. And -- and I know that -- that the applicant... We've all been through this number of times. So for everybody's information, the question that I was asking is, will the retention... will that basin that's designed for the detention basin control the water that's coming off Unit 11 and that we'll all be in compliance with what we said we're going to do here? And I ask you the question based on you issuing the -- the grading permit. And I'm going to ask that question every time the grading permit comes up because we have a stormwater problem in this community, not just necessarily in that area, but all the rest of them. We do have a new... We're playing by a new set of rules here and for us to be comfortable, we have to know that we're all evaluating this by the same rules. I'm not picking on anybody. It's just that's a regular stormwater question that's going to be asked. And, Mr. Brewer, the reason I brought that up is because of -- of where we are right now. I want everybody to be protected. I want it all to be on the record so we all know what we're doing because the EPA mandates that we do that. Understand. Thank you. I'm not picking on anybody. It's just a general question. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Okay. Um, any other questions from the commission while we have, um, engineering staff up front? Okay, thank you. Ms. Weisman, did you have something to... We just want to make a couple points. And just to remind the commission, the basin we're talking about is off-site because under the expansionary master plan, the concept was to do regional detention and that's what has been constructed as a regional basin to control not just this lot, but some 300 plus acres in this area. And Howard's going to speak to, uh, how it was designed. Again, this is what you collect exaction fees for, is -- is this. This is a master plan facility that has been, uh, designed and constructed. And unless I've missed it, the only testimony I've heard about any flooding problem is Mr. Tucker's property, which I believe is in the floodplain. There may be... It may be stormwater problems generically throughout the community, but I have not heard any evidence that there's been any flooding in this development as a result of this detention basin. Thank you, Ms. Wiseman. Mr. Cruz, you had something to- Yeah. ... add. Howard Cruz, I'm with Ball Homes. Um, this detention basin that we've spoken of many, many, many, many times, um, was concepted by the consultant who prepared the storm water master plan for the expansion area. I believe it was CTI at the time, and they're... What do they call themselves now? Uh, I can't remember. Many... Richard Walker was involved in that. But anyway, this, this basin was originally planned by the government to be built in this location, in this configuration. Uh, we followed the plan. We utilized the new storm water design standards. Uh, it was built and inspected and constructed, and we had, uh, approvals from the exaction committee folks, and we've been down here, and we've talked about it umpteen times. Uh, nothing's changed. It's designed to handle all of the guest property and any other properties in this watershed and offset the impacts of development. It's also a water quality basin. We followed those rules. Uh, Mr. Tucker comes down and says it's not working, but we've yet to have any evidence from him that it's not working. Uh, we followed all the, um, currently accepted engineering design standards. It's been tested. It's been accepted. Uh, you know, I- I fail to see why we, we keep talking about it, but we do. That's really all I've got to add, is that it... it is built accor- according to your current design standards. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cruz. Okay. At this point, uh, we'll close this portion of the, um, of the hearing. Um, I'm sorry. Ms. Tucker, you had... Can you be brief? You had one of the- Just, just a couple questions. Sure. Uh, uh, now I understand Ms. Wiseman say that the 404 was approved for the retention basin? No, sir, that's actually- So it... Well, how can it be built if it's not built illegally? That's the question I have for you. I mean, it's in a blue line stream. This falls under the 404 Act that we're talking about here today. So that's why I wanted to make sure when you accuse me of giving false information, I wanna make sure I'm on which side of the page I'm standing on. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um, at this point, we'll close this portion of the hearing, um, and we'll turn it over to the commission for further comment or discussion. Uh, we have, uh... The subdivision committee has recommended approval of this plan, subject to the 15 conditions, um, and at this time, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, um, I'd like to move approval of plan, uh, 2000-8-157F and the 15 conditions. Second. We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Good job. That'll work. Put it right here. No, right here. I'll just put it right here. That's... I think they can see it better there. Things were difficult. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the next plan on your agenda is a final record plat on page four, item I, plan 2006-5F, John and Dina R. Melvin property is located at 112 Lynetta Avenue. This is a request for reapproval. This is property located out off of North Limestone at the... near the intersection with New Circle Road. Lynetta is a little street that sits back in off of North Limestone in, in that older neighborhood in that part of town. If it's... It's not on the- It is a request to subdivide one lot into three. When it was previously presented to you, there had been a considerable amount of work that went into it before you, you actually saw it. It is back in a little area. Lynetta is a dead end. And a lot of work had gone to on staff to talk about several issues, not the least of which was access. You will find that as part of your reapproval, we have handed out a waiver request, because at that original approval, you did approve a waiver of street improvements, uh, on Lynetta. Lynetta, as it comes off of Rosemary Avenue, which is... it leads it to North Limestone, right down in this approximate area, makes a hard 90-degree turn. Up to that point, which is this section through here, Lynetta's approximately 20 feet wide. After the 90-degree turn through here, it's about 12 feet wide. There's a steep slope here and a wire fence on this side of Lynetta, and this is... the properties that front on New Circle Road are located here, and you get back into here, there are the backs... there's a house that sits in here and a house here. This is an access easement they're proposing, and an area for a turnaround. This was, again, a subject of much discussion in the waiver request as well, in order to provide, uh, sanitary, uh, pickup garbage service, and as well as emergency access back to this development, this proposed development. The subdivision committee did review this plan, and they recommended approval, subject to the original eleven conditions, which, as I just, uh, described to you, included this petition for a waiver, which staff also recommends approval of. Uh, I don't believe the applicant's representative is here. Uh, if there's any questions I can answer, be happy to do so. Thank you, Mr. Martin. So, uh, I'll ask is, I guess the applicant is not present, uh, for this. Okay. And essentially, this is a request for reapproval? Yes, sir, and I might add that the Melvins are no longer, uh, developing this property. It is going to be a Habitat for Humanity development. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for, uh, Tom? Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to speak to this application? Okay. All right. Um, at this time, um, Chair will turn it over to Commission for discussion, motion. Again, the request is for reapproval, subject to the original eleven conditions- And granting the waiver. ... and granting the waiver, um, that you have before you. So moved. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion for approval of Plan 2006-5F, the, with the eleven conditions and granting of the waiver. I second. We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Emmons? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, our next item on the agenda will be at the bottom, I'm sorry, middle of page 6. It's DP2008-139, the Distillery District West, Unit 1. Uh, I'm very pleased to be able to present this plan to you today. Uh, if you remember at our subdivision committee, we had a lot of discussion about this plan. There are several firsts for this plan. This is our first adaptive reuse project that's come forward, uh, to the planning commission since we have, uh, since the recent adoption of the new regulations for adaptive reuse projects. Uh, so if, if anytime I, uh, if there's something in here that it seems like we're trying to feel our way through it, well, we are, because this is our first plan, I can tell you that we've done our best to, uh, present this information to you. Uh, I wanna start off with just a few housekeeping items. I've passed out, you should have three handouts. Uh, the first one is the, the thicker pack that has all the check marks on it. Should have a, on a brown piece of paper, a staff recommended, uh, new conditions since our subdivision committee meeting. I'll go over those in a minute. And then finally, on the bright yellow sheet of paper, is, uh, I'll be referring to that, uh, for one of our discussion items today. Uh, I would like to point out that the, uh, subdivision committee did recommend approval of this plan, uh, subject to several conditions, including three discussion items. Since the time of our subdivision committee, uh, the staff has had several meetings on the subject property, and the applicant has also, um, submitted a revised development plan, uh, which is before you today. Uh, to start off, I'd like to just explain the project a little bit. And without, we don't need to turn the lights down, but the, uh, PowerPoint that says, "Presentation One." There we go. Well, maybe we do need to turn the lights down. This is just an overall aerial photograph of the area. We have Manchester Street heading out towards Forbes Road. Uh, the largest structure on the site that's easily identifiable is the five-story warehouse for the distillery. The actual distillery building is on the far western portion of the property. Uh, that right here. There are also several other buildings on the property. Uh, there's, uh, some office spaces that are being used now, a building that's known as the Barrel House, uh, some newer buildings that are right up along Manchester Street, which are self-storage units. Yes, sir? Jimmy, would it be asking too much if Mark could rotate that photo 180 degrees, so it's consistent with the exhibit we're looking at? I, I, that's actually, uh, a PowerPoint photo. Oh, you can't? Oh. I'm not sure how to do that at the moment. Sorry. I thought it was a hard copy for me. I apologize. Th- uh, the reason why I chose this particular view it's because this is the only view I could find in Pictometry that did have all of these buildings on it. I'll tell you what, can you spin that around? Absolutely. Why don't you spin that? Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. Uh, you know, I, I can do that quickly. I don't know about others, but that helps. Thank you. Okay. So now that everything, so that it matches up with the picture, we've got Manchester Road coming along here. The, uh, Thompson Road is, uh, one of the crossroads. This area would be toward- Forbes Road, and this area would be towards the Newtown Pike extension. Uh, right at the edge of this development plan is the railroad overpass. Manchester Street goes under the railroads. Uh, we also have Town Branch Creek colored in blue. Um, the entire property is in a floodplain, and that was a major discussion item at our subdivision committee, and it's, it's, it's one of, been probably the biggest topic for this adaptive reuse. I've color-coded these buildings so that the purple building is the, is the old distillery building. The red building is the five-story brick warehouse. Some of the more recent buildings are colored up in yellow. There, this plan does extend across the street for a small, uh, roughly triangular-shaped pr- lot, uh, that has a what's known as the western building on this development plan. They are proposing, um... Much of the site is already developed, hence, adaptive reuse. Uh, this area over here was most recently used as a vehicle storage yard for tow, uh, for cars and vehicles that were towed there. The applicant is... What they are proposing to do with this development plan is not build any new buildings. What they are proposing to do is to redevelop the parking lots, the parking lot that goes between the five-story building and the distillery, and a parking lot that would come off of Manchester Street where the old vehicular storage yard is. It's anticipated that this development plan will be the first, uh, as you can see, we've titled it Distillery District West. Um, they have added, at our request, the overall distillery district here and showing the, how it will be divided up between east and west. We anticipate this to be the first in a series of development plans that will come before you as farded, as part of the entire adaptive reuse project. Um, in fact, there's a, there's even more properties that could becom- on this west side that we see will be added onto this development plan in the future. As we, as we go through the conditions, uh, I'd like to point out on, if you look at your brown sheet, uh, conditions one through 11 are, are simply sign-offs from many different divisions, both inside and outside the government. Um, we have the very typical engineering, traffic, and building inspection, urban forester, green space, bike and pedestrian planner, uh, Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Fire, Solid Waste, and the addressing office. Uh, we're also requesting that if there are any improvements to Manchester Street, uh, that we, we recommend that we have a sign-off from the Kentucky Department of Transportation, uh, for any improvements to Manchester Street, because it is a state road. Uh, I'd like, uh, I'm happy to report, items 12 through 17, which, wha- which were conditions to kinda clean up the development plan, um, tho- all of those have been done by the applicant on this revised plan, and I, and I would recommend that we can drop items 12 through 17 and delete those items. There were three discussion items, and I'd like to just kinda take 'em in order from there. Uh, discussing improvements to Manchester Street, I think that's the easiest one, uh, to deal with, because the applicant on the revised plan, ih, uh, is now proposing a sidewalk along Manchester Street that was devoid on the first plan. And, and as we looked at if there are any improvements, we've got, uh, the Kentucky Department of Transportation that ha-, that, uh, that will be required as a sign-off, and ultimately, they will be the final choice on whether there needs to be any turn lane improvements or anything of that nature for this adaptive reuse project. Uh, because we have traffic engineering sign-off, because we have the Kentucky Department of Transportation, our bicycle and pedestrian planner who will be looking at the, uh, pedestrian activity along this area, we feel very confident that those, that those address our major concerns, uh, as far as the discussion item. From the staff's perspective, we felt that the sidewalk and the pedestrian, uh, was one of the major aspects that we were looking for, and we were very pleased to see that as an addition to this development plan. So, I think that you can drop discussion item, um, number 18, because it is now fully covered on those, uh, what other conditions that we have. Number 19, uh, is discuss the existing floodplain and the proposed, uh, and proposed uses. Uh, Town Branch Creek is, uh, of course, a major, one of our major creeks. What you see, the blue dash line on the subject property coming from the creek, that is, uh, the floodway. I can tell you, according to the 2008, uh, flood insurance maps, everything that you see here is in a floodplain. But the floodway portion of that, where the, um, where the restrictions and the regulations are even, uh, much more stringent than in the floodplain, that comes along here. As it's mapped on our current maps, it does clip the distillery building and the, um, the floodway is graphically de- clips the five-story building. What the applicant has done on the revised plan since our subdivision committee, originally, their parking lot was centered around here, uh, more of a short, squat, uh, dev- uh, parking lot that put the parking closer to this building. For this, uh, for this plan, they have moved that parking lot back and essentially tried to keep all of the parking spaces outside of that regulatory floodway. Uh, when it comes to the floodplain uses and the fact that everything out here is in a floodplain, I just kinda wanted to talk about, uh, we had a major meeting that involved the Commissioner of Public Works and Development, Engineering, Planning- ... historic preservation, building inspection, am I missing anyone from the table? . Eh, that, eh, we had a lot of people, sit around and figure out how to deal with this property. Because everybody in the government is very much in favor of the adaptive reuse of this project. Uh, of course, we couldn't do anything that would, uh, jeopardize our standing at, in the National Flood Insurance Program. So, as we broke everything down and looked at that issue one piece at a time, uh, the park, the proposed redevelopment of these parking lots in through here, that is within our urban county engineer's approval, I mean, within his ability to reco, to do approval of those parking lots as a special permit use. Uh, which means that our engineering will be able to look at this, make any kind of changes to it that need to be made and for flood protection, put conditions on it, make sure that all of the proper grading permits are handled at the proper time. All of those types of things are what, the reason why we have the special permit use. The historic structures, which the applicant has given us much documentation that, that the State is, sees those structures as historic. That's in, very important because in the, both the FEMA's regulations and our local flood plain ordinance, there are exemptions granted for historic buildings that are in the flood plain. You don't have to live up to as strict of standards, uh, whenever you have those historic buildings in through there. Uh, one of the things that's a, a very important caveat, uh, to that exemption is that ultimately, you couldn't get exempted out of the flood plain regulations and then do something to the historic building to destroy its historic nature. That's a no-no, uh, according to FEMA and by our regulations. So, as, as those, uh, historic buildings go through the process, uh, that would actually require locally what's called a flood plain variance. Uh, that would have to go into our Flood Plain Appeals Committee to be approved in through there. I just kinda wanted to make that clear. It was a little bit unclear at our time of our subdivision committee meeting what process that would go through and it does have to go to the Flood Plain Appeals Committee for any historic buildings, uh, that are gonna be renovated on that. Um, after our, after our meeting, items 12 through 16 all relate to what needs to happen for you to approve this development plan today, and, and deal with the flood plain regulations, so that they are compliant with our local regulations and our state and our federal regulations. I'll just go over those real quick. Uh, number 12, uh, first of all, that there would be no occupancy permits, um, for renovation of the existing historic structures unless the flood plain variance is obtained from the Flood Plain Appeals Committee. Number 13, all of the non-historic structures on, on the site sh, uh, will need to requi, need to meet the requirements of Article 19. If they're a commercial building that's in the flood plain, there is the possibility of flood-proofing that building. Uh, number 14, this is very important, a letter of map revision shall be submitted to FEMA prior to any occupancy permits. According to our current FEMA maps and our current flood studies, the, at this port, this portion, no, I'm sorry. I flipped it upside down. So this portion of the property would essentially be seven feet underwater according to the current study. This area in through here would be, uh, about two feet u, two feet underwater. I think it's, it's pretty clear amongst everybody that, that our current flood study, uh, for this area is probably outdated and probably not correct. Uh, however, it is what we are bound to regulate to, uh, until those, until those official flood maps and flood studies are accepted by FEMA. Hence, the importance of condition number 14, that a letter of map revision shall be submitted to FEMA prior to any occupancy permits. Uh, we want the applicant to make sure that it's in the system, uh, before we, before we go much further. And this does, this condition does put the applicant at a bit of a, at a bit of a moving forward at his own discretion. Although we, we highly suspect that, uh, a new flood study will probably yield a much more favorable flood plain, uh, situation for the applicant. Uh, number 15, I've already mentioned this about the parking areas, provided that the urban county engineer grants the special permit use for the parking areas. And one of the things that I tacked onto that for the Planning Commission would be that if there is any parking lot redesign, that it will be reviewed by the divisions of Traffic Engineering and Planning. Um, because m- this, this particular site, I forgot to give you some of the statistics and some of the, on that. There's about, um, 110,000 square feet of existing square footage that is being proposed for adaptive reuse in this project. Uh, it's about a 12-acre site. For the parking that would be required for what they're asking for, it would be about 274 required parking spaces. The applicant is providing 345. So there's about 70 parking spaces over the minimum required for this proposal. If there does need to be any re- redesign of that parking space, obviously there's 71 parking spaces that we can, um, fiddle with. I, I wanted to try and put it in the conditions here, unless the Planning Commission wants to see it come back, that if we need to slightly modify these parking lots in order to deal with any floodplain issues, as, from my perspective, as long as it still meets that minimum requirement and keeps as much parking on there as possible, that it would not need to come back to the Planning Commission for any further discussion. So, I believe items 12 through 16, uh, we worked har- long and hard and discussed and thought a lot about how to, um, how to deal with this floodplain issue on this project, and those, that's the results of, uh, everybody's work. I would like to point out that our Division of Engineering has emailed FEMA asking, um, about a week ago, asking for their thoughts on this project, and we have not yet heard back from them. Obviously, we could not do anything that would jeopardize, a- as much as we are for this project, we want to make sure that we don't do anything that would jeopardize our overall standing with the National Flood Insurance Program with FEMA. Uh, with that being said, uh, I'd like to, th- our last discussion item was discuss the relationship of the TIFF improvements with planned features. And this is the first, not only the first adaptive reuse project, but this is the first development plan that you've seen where we also have a TIFF, TIFF project underwa- uh, not underway, but going through the motions. And I've provided for you here on this yellow, uh, on the yellow copy, the, the applicant has provided their line item improvements that are the possible things that could be done as a part of the TIFF project. We color-coded those in, uh, orange and green. Orange are those items that we feel like, if for some reason the TIFF doesn't get approved or something like that, we felt that those are the necessary improvements that need to be done by the developer in order to do this phase. The, the first page just summarizes, eh, each of those bullet points. I want to kind of give, uh, to explain where the sta- where the staff was coming from when we brought this discussion item up. Since the TIFF projects and all of these line item things, they're all very good things, but since those ultimately have to go to the state and the council has to prioritize them and on how the money is spent on each of those items, the staff was concerned that there might be some improvement that was being counted on as part of the TIFF project that would be necessary to move in and start using these buildings for the uses that they're requesting. Um, and if for some reason that fell through and we didn't have the improvements, um, like the sanitary sewers, uh, we still need to talk with the applicant a bit more and understand exactly the nature of the sanitary sewer improvements that are being proposed as th- as a part of this TIFF, but it's a, it's gen- it's a requirement of our development that whenever you redevelop something, whenever you flush the toilet, it has to go to the appropriate place. I mean, so that's one of those types of things. And also the bus shelter, uh, on this. The reason why we would say that would be a necessary improvement is because the applicant is proposing to take a reduction in their parking, which is allowable because they're pro- putting up a new bus shelter on the property. And so we just wanted to make sure that we didn't say, "Okay, let's wait until the TIFF comes in," and then worst case scenario, any of these things occur, development is already, uh, development has already occurred on the site and th- and then it falls through on the TIFF. I've, I am proposing a condition number 17 to, to deal with this, and that would be resolve the timing of any required improvements that are also included in the TIFF improvements and with some guidance on that, how it shall be resolved so that the project improvements shall be coordinated in the timely manner. I realize that that is a bit of a, a squishy condition, but it's the best way I could think of to, to put in there that the staff will continue working with the applicant and any of those items that are, that need to be done in a timely manner will get done, uh, before we're occupying the, uh, before we're occupying the structure in through here. So essentially, wha- I'm asking, I'm asking your authority to just kind of deal with those issues as they come up and as we work through the certification of this development plan, should you approve it today. Um, I believe that that does it for the conditions. I would like to point out the applicant has provided, uh, I, I provided the, the memo with kind of a checkoff list just so that you can quickly see that it does meet the s- the minimum criteria, and although we think when this project is fully realized, it will meet many of the nine criteria, it does meet, uh, three of our nine criteria today in order to qualify it to come in front of you. Um, I've attached some of the applicant's handouts. Uh, I did not attach everything, because we have a stack of paper that's about two inches thick. Uh, I attached the, uh, applicant's, uh, a wr- overall letter saying how they meet. I've attached the applicant's certification that the proposed project is in compliance with our comprehensive plan, and then I finally, uh, added the overall concept plans for the East and West Distillery districts. Staff is recommending approval of the -- of this proposed use of this development plan. If you have any questions for me, I would be happy to try and answer them. I can see that Barry is here, and, um, I strongly encourage -- I also -- Marwan and actually, if I could, I'd like to turn over the microphone to, um, Marwan or Hillard to talk about the floodplain issues and engineering's perspective on this proposed project. Thank you, Jimmy. Are there any questions for Jimmy? I actually had my hopes up on the, uh, check for the public art box, but I guess it didn't happen, but... It, it is actually proposed to happen and if you read on the line items in the TIFF- Oh, okay. ...there are several things for that, but it's not being proposed with this phase of development. I see. Hence the reason why it's not marked off. Okay. I did have a question on 14. Yes. Ho-how long will -- how long w-w-will this -- will FEMA take? D- I mean, historically, what are they normally -- is it -- is it a three-month process, six-month process? In order to do a letter of map revision, it's, it, it's, in my experience, um, 10 months to- Two months? ...18 months- Wow. ...to do that. Hence, the reason why we wanted some assurance that it would be submitted prior to occupancy. However, we did not think that it was absolutely necessary for the adaptive reuse of these buildings, that it be completed and accepted by FEMA prior to utilizing some of the buildings. The, the -- and what Mr. McNeese understands is that going forward with that, we are going forward in faith, uh, that we will have better information, and in our experience of dealing with FEMA, we, we feel very high and confident in this. But it was -- he is still doing a bit of work at his own risk, that if FEMA comes back and says, "No," we have to come back and, and stop it. Thank you, Jimmy. Are there -- are there any other questions for Jimmy? Thank you. Thank you. Marwan? Uh, thank you, Jimmy. I think Jimmy covered most of, uh, what I was gonna say, but, uh, the, uh, one comment, and that is the, uh, the reason we're requiring, uh, a letter of map revision to FEMA, um, w-we, the, the information that we, we have now shows the flood waters of the 100-year flood, uh, are seven feet above the existing level of the ground there. Uh, we suspect that this may not be accurate or correct, so with a letter of map revision to FEMA and the study that they will conduct, it may show that the actual flood is not really that high, and that would be very helpful. We have no problem issuing a special use permit for the parking. Uh, what we're concerned about is the building, okay? And because of the historic nature of this building, the, eh, the requirements of Article 19 and also FEMA, uh, are, are different, and that's, if, if it wasn't -- if this building was not historic, they would have to flood-proof above the cr- uh, present elevation of the floodplain in that area, which means seven feet plus two feet, so they would have to flood-proof nine feet. Uh, we're hoping that, uh, w-we're ... But because it is historic, that requirement does not apply anymore. Um, one other comment is, we would like for the, um, developer to, um, apply for the variance to the, uh, uh, to the Floodplain Appeals Committee prior to obtaining a building permit. Uh, uh, Jimmy, I think we've talked about that, and I'm not sure at this point, is it possible to change that so that, uh, that the, uh, applying to, for the variance to the Floodplain Appeals Committee be done before the building permit and the grading permit are applied for? Is it ... Mm-hmm. Is that, is that possible at this point? Number 12? Okay. Well, y- If- I think y-y- you said, uh, occupancy permit. We want that- To include grating. ...to be the building permit and the grading permit. I, I have no problems with that. Because th- actually, the certificate of occupancy is the last thing they will do. Everything has been built and, and, and the building inspections, uh, building inspect- inspectors will go there and certify it that it is, uh, suitable for occupancy, though they issue the CO. Uh, would like for the ... We would like for the, uh, uh, the variance to be done before the building perm- before they start on the actual construction activity in that, uh, on that building. So, in condition 12, you're changing from occupancy to building. Is that what I heard? Building permit, yes. On condition 12? Okay. Or grading permit. Or grading. Building and, and/or grading permits. And/or grading. Yes. Other than that, I think Jimmy has covered, uh, covered it very well. Uh, Hillary, do you have anything, anything to add? No. Do you have, do you have any questions for us? Uh, I guess I, I do have a ques- building or grading, or... I mean- Or grading permit. I'm just trying to wonder- Well, they're, both of them are required. Right. Okay. And one, one typically precedes the other, but- And I think they can run some- Yeah, grading would be first, typically, but, I mean, not always, but- Well, they can go apply for a building permit and a grading permit at the same time, so it's- Same time? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Actually, the, um, the parking lots can be covered under a special permit use, um, which is covered in, in item 15 there. So, um, so item 12 could be just limited to building permits, I think. Th- th- the variance wouldn't apply to the, uh, to the parking area. That is correct. That is correct. So, so the condition 12- The- ... should only say building. The ... Yes, the variance applies to the, applies to the structure and the special use permit- Yes. ... applies to the parking. Okay. Yeah. All right. Right. Mm-hmm. Special use. Okay. Are there any questions for Marwan or Hilliard from commission? Thank you. Thank you. Okay, um, petitioner, Mr. McNeese. My name is Barry McNeese with Peppery Distillery LLC in the Lexington Distillery District. Um, first I wanted to mention, uh, reason for optimism. I know as we delve into issues regarding the, the floodplain, um, that it's obviously of concern. Um, part of our optimism, one, is the experience of the, uh, the fellow who owned the distillery for the last 30 years, but also, um, the fact that the, um, that the flood study for the area, um, as we understand it, has not been updated since the 1970s. Um, and the ... On ... As, as we look at this, on the right-hand side where the creek goes underneath the road, there w- there was a, a bridge there that was replaced in the, um, late '90s or 2000, uh, which, uh, removed a pilon that was damning the creek at that point, and it also raised the bridge so that it wasn't slowing down the water. Um, so as we, as we talk about scary things like floodplains and seven feet of water, um, uh, the, the other element that we would point to beyond that is that there, there was a, uh, a hundred year storm event, I think it was September 23rd, 2006, um, and we did not have water on the property. Um, so I just wanted to point that out. Um, I also wanted to say thank you to the, uh, to Mike Webb and the folks who were mentioned as far as part of that meeting. Um, it was, I, I know both with your all's schedule and with their schedule heading into the end of the year that things are, uh, tumbling over one another, uh, but I, I wanted to say thank you for bringing everyone together on short notice. Um, in that we've referred to a lot of firsts for this project, um, as, as Jimmy referred, and the historic element being important, I'm happy to report, um, that this project, uh, did receive, uh, approval from the State Review Board on Tuesday for its, um, uh, National Register of Historic Places nomination. And so it's on its way to DC, which we're very proud of. Um, and I think it's something for Lexington to be proud of. This will be the first distillery that Lexington's ever had on the National Register, uh, so I think that's a s- a source of pride. Um, but with that, the ... We would ask that the, the development plan with the revised, uh, 17 conditions, uh, be approved. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McNeese. I see some folks in the audience. Is there anyone want- here to speak on this application? Okay. All right. Um, staff, do you have any ... Let me back up. Uh, commission, do you have any questions for Mr. McNeese? Okay. Staff, do you have anything additional? Okay. We'll close this portion of the hearing. Uh, I think you've, uh ... We have made, uh, on the tan sheet, we have made one correction to condition 12 to change the word from occupancy to building. Um, subdivision committee has recommended approval. Uh, we do have, uh, 17, uh, conditions, subject to 17 conditions on the, on the tan sheet here, and at this point, uh, I'll turn it over to commission for discussion or motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd move for approval of the DP2008-139 Distillery District changing in number 12, the ... All right. To- Occupancy to build. To build. ... building occupancy is- To build. ... from occupancy to building. We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Good job. Uh, we'll take a, a 10-minute break, come back at about, uh, 3:25, I guess. Mr. Chairman, uh, for the record, I just wanted to point out, we missed one part. The, uh, sign was posted on the, on the property and the affidavit, and I just wanted to make sure on the record that that was turned in. Okay. Thank- thank you, Jimmy. Thank you. Roses on the wall. Laughter in the hall. All as I recall. But oh, where are you? How many stories could it tell of ghosts who dwell here? We have joined the cast, lovers in the past of this hotel. I'll return again just to dream of it in this hotel. I could cry salty tears. Where have I been all these years? Listen, you, tell me true, how long has this been going on? There were chills up my spine and some thrills I can't define. Listen sweet, I repeat, how long has this been going on? Oh, I feel that I could melt. Into Heaven, I'm hurled. I know how Columbus felt finding another world. Kiss me once and then again. What a dunce I was before. What a break, for Heaven's sake, how long has this been going on? Oh, I feel that I could melt. Into Heaven, I'm hurled. I know how Columbus felt finding another world. Kiss me once and then again. What a dunce I was before. What a break, for Heaven's sake, how long has this been going on? Let Me Love You, let me say that I do. If you lend me your ear, I'll make it clear that... Let me sing it my dear or I will cry it. Let me love you. Let me show that I do. Let me do a million impossible things so you'll know that I do. I'll buy you the dawn if you let me love you today. And tomorrow I'll send you merrily on your way. Let me love you. Let me show that I do. Let me do a million impossible things so you'll know that I do. I'll buy you the dawn if you let me love you today. And tomorrow I'll send you merrily on your way. Ooh, tomorrow I'll send you happily on your way. Ooh, ooh, ooh. Hey, hey, hey. Ooh. Supposing I should fall in love with you. Do you think that you could love me too? Supposing I should hold you and caress you. Would it impress you or distress you? Supposing I should say, "For you, I yearn." Would you think I'm speaking out of turn? And supposing I declare it, would you take my love and share it? I'm not supposing, I'm in love with you. Chris, can, can you grab Jimmy? Just supposing I say, "For you, I yearn." Would you think I'm speaking out of turn? And supposing I declare it, would you take my love and share it? I'm not supposing, I'm in love with you, baby. I'm not supposing, I'm in love with you. Mr. Taylor, are you ready? All right, the next item on the agenda appears on page seven. It is DP2008142, Overbrook Land Company. This is an amended final development plan for property located at 1264 East New Circle Road. Uh, the property is situated between... On the northwest corner of the intersection of New Circle Road and Liberty Road. Uh, the proposal is to add 20 parking spaces in this area, which this comes after their zone change, and this portion allowed them to do some extra parking, and get a little more in this vehicle storage area. Uh, as you can see, where that didn't exist prior. There is no change to the, uh, structures on the, on the lot. The previous, the purpose of this plan is also to, um, add three locations, uh, entrance locations that were closed. You have 'em on this, uh, handout right here. They're highlighted in yellow for you. Uh, you can see up close, these were closed on the previous plan. They'll denote to remove the entrance at this location here and here. Purpose of this plan, they are also requesting to add those entrances back onto the plan, as you can see them back in here. The subdivision committee recommended approval of the plan subject to eight conditions, with condition number eight stipulating that the three access sho- points shown be removed. Um, and you can see that in, in, on your condition number eight. Um, at this point, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Uh, are there any questions for, uh, Chris at the moment from Commission? Okay, thank you. Petitioner? Good afternoon. I'm Chris Westover, representing the applicant. Uh, we agree with the, uh, the conditions and request approval, but we would request addition of a note. Um, uh, we understand, uh, about removing the, uh, the access points that were closed on the previous plan. However, the property owner of the corner lot is concerned that, uh, in the future, should, um, uh, he desire to do a standalone use right there, that he would be landlocked. And that's not a correct statement of the law, and the proposed note that we would request that you would approve just summarizes the current statement of the law, that, uh, should that lot want to develop as a standalone lot, the applicant would have to come back. There would have to be an amended development plan because this would be the approved plan, and access would be determined, but that the lot would not be landlocked from public access. So we just request that, uh, a note to that effect be put on the plan. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Westover. Are there any, are there any questions for Ms. Westover? Nice. I got a question for staff. I, I guess we had this in front of us, and this was handed out. Um- They're the same. They're the same. I just... I don't believe she was aware we'd handed it out prior to meeting. Right, I didn't know that. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Are there any questions, uh, from Commission? Okay. All right. Um, I still see folks in the audience. Anyone here to speak to this application? Okay, seeing none. All right. Um, are there any... Mr. Day, you had something? I'm sorry. Yeah, I've got a question. Could you just give me an example, what would bring this back to a individual lot or... Well, if at any time this, this developer of the corner lot were to come back in and do a standalone redevelopment, uh, the Planning Commission would evaluate the access points anyway. So there's, uh, the note, uh, in staff's opinion is unnecessary, kind of statement to what the Planning Commission will do at the time of redevelopment. Um, we would also add that if... Even if you choose to add a note, condition number eight still requires that the actual access points come off of the plan per the previously approved one. Um, staff's opinion is that the note is unnecessary. Ms. Westover, I'm sorry. Um, we merely request that, uh, that the note reflect a summary of the existing law, and, um, I- I think that's an abundance of caution. Let's say in 10 years this issue should come up and all the parties change, and, uh, there are no memories around. The owner of the lot would like to have some assurance, um, that if he wanted to sell it to another party or lease it to another party, that there would not be any prohibition on having access to that lot, independent of any other properties around it. We understand too about removing the aprons. Th- uh, we're, we're not saying that we want to keep those, those aprons there. We just want a memorialization that some public access for a standalone lot would be required in the future, should that lot develop on its own. Thank you. Mr. Pain, you have a question? Yeah, I've got a question for Ms. Westover. Are you wanting this to be a condition or a note? A note on the development plan? Just a note. On- A note on the development plan. Yes, that's all. Just a note. I gotta, I guess I have a question for staff. Is staff... And I think I heard Mr. Taylor say that it... The, the note is not necessary, is that what you're saying? What Ms. Westover is asking for was something that'll be done when this lot comes in to redevelop anyway under our subdivision regulations and our guidelines. They have to have access to the lot there, if it's not served internally. Uh, there's no- nothing on this plane shown that, uh, relates to an access easement for the bigger lot around it to serve it. So the property is entitled to access, uh, and that will be determined through the Planning Commission's action at that time. Okay. Thank you. I, I guess my question goes back to the same thing is, when we look at this as one big development and we approve it as that, how, how come... How are we cutting lots out of this or what would be the difference, I guess, I... I think I can answer that. Mr. Day, I think I understand, uh, y- your question. This development plan, if it's, uh, approved and certified just the way it is, would be the plan upon which any building permits and occupancy permits would ensue. Should in the future this business cease to operate, then it would have to come back because there would be a standing development plan in place. And so that would need to be amended in order to allow a, a different kind of development or if the properties decided to develop separately. So it would only be an issue if this business ceased to operate. Let me ask... So Ms. Westover, help me understand why this is different than any other development plan that we might see. In other words, what makes this different than any other development plan we've approved today or two weeks ago or two months ago? There's nothing different about it, but quite often on development plans, there are memorializations of things that don't necessarily have to be on there by law. For example, many development plans say comply with Article 18 and so on, and that's the law, but yet it's memorialized there. And the purpose of this note would be to give this owner or a subsequent owner some, I guess, assurance that in the future, if let's say that person or that entity wanted to sell this lot, that if they looked at the development plan, they'd say, "Oh, there's no more access to that lot." And it would just be... It's just a statement of the law. That's, that's all it is. But, but is that not implied? I mean- I'm sorry, does- But I guess the fact that access is required based on what the staff is saying, is that not implied that access will be required for regardless of whoever develops that lot or new developments going on? Yes, that's right. That is the correct statement of the law. We are just asking for a memorialization of that statement of the law, similar to many other development plan notes that aren't required, but are on there to give some additional notice or assurance. And, and there are many notes similar to that, that category. Mr. Taylor, you had something? Yeah. Thank you, Ms. Westover. Development plan notes that relate, like Ms. Westover said, to Article 18, those are notes that, uh, relate to specifically the plan at hand. Uh, this type of note is basically speaking to a plan that hasn't been filed in the future. Um, we're not drawing a big line in the sand here with a note. We're just saying we're not sure it's necessary. Uh, and the difference between those two types of memorializations of notes, one is relating to the plan being filed and being signed and certified. The other is relating to something that in the future. Just wanted to draw the clarification. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Any other, uh, questions? Okay, I guess we'll, uh, close this portion of the public hearing. Any comments from the commission? Um, we have before us, um, I think we've heard requests, but we also have before us a, a recommendation of approval by a subdivision committee, uh, with the eight conditions. Um, is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, understanding that, that the concern there, but, uh, I think there's steps in place to take care of any pro- possible problems that, that they would be looking at for access down the road. Um, with, with that said, uh, I would move for approval of DP2008-142 with the, uh- Eight conditions. ... eight conditions as recommended by the staff. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. ... dealership. Mm-hmm. Now, I think we can make a lot of concessions on that corner anyway, that's why it's- She tells me they're not gonna be able to place a dealership there because there's not that kind of development. Okay, um, uh, next item, I guess, uh, performance bonds and letters of credit. Um, you have the memo dated, uh, December 11th, release and call of bonds. Chair will entertain a motion for acceptance. Mr. Chairman, I move for a release and call of the bonds as presented on the memorandum, uh, dated December the 11th that we have at our stations. Second. We have a motion and- and a second, uh, for a release and call of bonds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, our next, uh, item, uh, commission items and, um, I believe we have a report from Mr. Billy Van Pelt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm gonna start with the Purchase of Development Rights Program annual update. Uh, you have your handout. Um, that is a map as of earlier today, but we've had some accepted offers in the interim so our map is a fluid document and it's continuing to get greener. Uh, that's your top sheet. Your second sheet are the conservation easements, um, that we have acquired through donation or purchase since your last update, as well as applications that have been withdrawn. You'll notice under Round 7, that is, uh, listed as Round 7 to date. That's because we're currently in Round 7. There are conservation easement acquisition, um, items that are moving forward and will continue to do so within this fiscal year. So with that, I'll proceed. I'm not s- uh, do we need to turn down the lights? There you go. The... You have 22,444 on the top of your map, but as of today, we're at 22,589 acres. That's 45% of the goal of 50,000 acres, um, by 2020. And as you all know, um, that is... The- the farmland that surrounds us and the- the unique historic and cultural, environmental assets define our sense of place here. The PDR program is protecting the factory floor of agriculture and a number of other industries. You've heard that, uh, type of symbolism used before. In 2005, Fayette County was the number two ag county in the state at $354 million in cash farm receipts. 2006, the Blue Grass Stockyards had 144 million in cattle sales and sold over 245,000 cattle. It's the largest stockyards east of the Mississippi River. We have a- a significant number of jobs and tax base related to agriculture, and there is a significant amount of related infrastructure and services. The PDR program also protects the factory floor of the horse industry. In 2007, 1.1 billion in horses sold at Keeneland and Fasig-Tipton. Uh, the next two numbers that you see here are, um, with asterisks, were lifted from a study that was done by Dr. Timothy Woods in the Ag Econ Department at UK and th- this information was also presented by the Equine Task Force to the Budget and Finance Committee recently. Uh, 470... $437 million in revenue and 6,300 employees supported by the horse industry. Um, PDR also protects the factory floor of the tourism industry and these numbers, um, really jump out at you. $1.6 billion economic impact in Fayette County. Uh, that was in '07, tw- supporting 23,000 jobs with a payroll of $529 million. Tax receipts from tourism in 2007, 15... almost $15 million. Uh, a lot of that is based on the fact that Fayette County is at the intersection of two interstates and it's within a day's driving distance of 75% of the US population. Fayette County draws visitors to the state and to the Bluegrass region as a whole, and we perpetuate the PDR program and farmland perpetuates the unique international recognition as the Bluegrass State. The goals of the program, um, most of you are familiar with these, but I'll... It... They're worth going through again certainly, to protect 50,000 acres out of 128,000 acres in the rural service area over the next, uh, 12 years at this point. We're eight years into the process. Uh, 50,000 acres is 27% of the land in the county. We wa-... As I mentioned, we want to protect the ag and horse economies, our, uh, natural scenic open space and agricultural resources, the tourism economy, and the unique character and sense of place that attracts the world to Lexington. It is a voluntary program. Um, you have to have 20 acres in the rural service area and you have to be located in the core ag area or natural areas to be, uh, eligible to participate. We use a LESA ranking system as our priority order of acquisition. That LESA ranking system is in the ordinance. The ordinance is on our website, and you can read through that and see what that contains, and I'll go through... touch on that later in the presentation. Major components are the ordinances I mentioned which was adopted in January of 2000. The board was set up at that time, the ranking system, and of course, funding. This is the makeup of the board. Uh, it's a broad cross-section of the community representing all interests, each of which realize that they have a stake in preserving that which makes us unique. Uh, th- the Farm Bureau, the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association, um, the land conservation group that sits on our board e- or that is represented is the Bluegrass Conservancy, the Realtors Association, home builders, neighborhood, historic preservation, uh, Convention of Visitors, Commerce Lexington, and we have two non-voting members from the USDA and from the county extension office. The- the duties of the board are to solicit, acquire, and hold the conversation easements, to prioritize acquisitions, expend funds, hold public information forums, and solicit contributions through donation of easement or cash, and establish administrative procedures for the program. This is the ranking, um, portion of the presentation. As you can see, the ag component is heavily weighted. Uh, the acreage, the number of acres o- on your farm, the amount of road frontage that you have. Batch applications, if y- you have two adjoining farms that have at least 120 acres that are owned by, uh, separate farm owners, they can apply as a batch and receive extra points. Soil quality, that's 30 of those 80 points for the quality of your soils. If you have an active farm and agricultural improvements. And by the way, all these images are from protected properties. Um, environmental issu- uh, concerns that, or assets that are protected by the, or listed in the ranking system are environmentally sensitive areas, greenway potential, natural protection areas, linkages to parks, historic cultural resources, scenic resources, and reconsolidation of divided farms. We have had a few farms that platted, um, prior to the moratorium in August of 1998. They applied and were successful and we require in those situations that the owner record a consolidation plat extinguishing those lots before we record the deed of conversation easement. We also give negative points. Um, we give negative points based on proximity to the urban services area, if you're likely to be sewered, uh, proximity to federal and interstate interchanges, or if you're a community icon. So if you see, if you look at your map, there are only three conservation easements that touch the urban services boundary. It's because they have, um, one of those issues where they have an exclusion of the negative points. So, the reason for those negative points is, um, we don't want to create the situation where we have the emerald choker around the urban services boundary and that it wouldn't be able to expand at the right time. We don't want to create that situation. So that's why, um, we have that part of the ranking. How do we determine the value of an easement? We have an appraiser that looks at the value of the land only before the conversation easement and the value of the land after the conversation easement, giving up those development rights. We have an independent reviewer, and I review the appraisal and I'll make a recommendation to the board and the board makes the offer to the farm owner. This is probably, um, one of the most important parts of the presentation, funding. As you can see, we received over five million more in matching grants than we've invested as a community. Uh, we, um, apply to the Federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program every year for additional funds. We also apply to the Local Ag Development Board, and the, on the local side, we are using 20-year municipal bonds for the most part for funding the easement acquisition. And speaking of the Federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, this, I lifted this from some of the, the legalese in our agreements that we have with them. I think it's worth reading. "As a result of these land change- land use changes, there is a growing national interest in the protection of farm and ranch land. Once developed, productive farmland's rich topsoil is effectively lost forever, placing future food security for the nation at risk. Furthermore, land used to voted to agriculture provides an important contribution to environmental quality, history, and scenic beauty." Oh, sorry. Let me go back. Um, how do the farm owners spend their money? We do an annual survey with our farm owners, uh, and it's anonymous. We send those out to the owners that we've closed with that year and then we just compile it with the results that we've received from prior years. And there's a number of, um, blanks that they can check. So, um, it's g- it's possible that they've used their money for all of these things or some of these things, but as you can see, the majority of the money is going to pay down debt, to construct or improve farm buildings, to add farm improvements, pasture improvements, or to purchase more farm equipment. As a summary of the farms in the program as of today, uh, 196 farms including 33 donated conservation easements for a total of 22,589 acres. 101 farms are equine farms, 82 farms are general ag, and 13 farms are- are other. Round seven, we had 64 applications on approximately, uh, 4,849 acres. And the round eight applications ha- are, we're already receiving those, they're in process and the deadline is January 30th. So once again, we're at 45% of the goal by, uh, 50,000 acres by 2020. At 22,589, but I wanna give you some takeaways from the presentation today. The ten benefits of the PDR program to protect Lexington's world-renowned brand identity, protect the equine industry, the tourism industry, the general ag industry, encourage infill and redevelopment of the urban services area, which lowers the cost of services to LFUCG, support of reduction of our carbon footprint, support of the EPA consent decree by protecting watersheds, retain good bond credit rating communities that have a strong vision for where they're going and who they are, and strong planning, have much higher credit ratings with bonding agencies than communities that don't have a vision for where they're going. Um, uh, the- the- the unique landscape that we have attracts jobs and businesses, and that's a quality of life issue, and we wanna protect the base of agriculture for the future, for food, feed, and fuel. So this is one of our signs, we give these out to our landowners at the closings. We asked them to put those up, however, it's not mandatory. I'll take any questions at this time. Thank you, Billy. Uh, are there any questions for Billy at the moment? It's a good report and good update. Thank you. Uh, I just had a question. Sure. Your presentation, is it on, is it on the web? Is it on the, uh, website? No, it's not. Um, there's an issue with the size. Um, we have PowerPoints on there, but they're text only. I see. It's an issue of how much we can put out there. I see, okay. Yes, yes. Ms. Copeland? Is your, um, acquisition program go- growing exponentially or however you say that, where it's twel- yeah, exp- yes . Exponentially. Yes. Um, well, we are on sp- In other words, do you get mo- is every year you get twice as much as- Okay. ... the previous year? Good question. As I mentioned, we had 64 applications, but wha- and we, this year we received more money from the administration and the council than we've received in prior years. We've received two and a half million dollars, which we matched with two and a half million dollars from the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program. So what we do is we just make offers and go down our ranking list until we're e- we've exhausted those funds. So in this round, um, we'll- we'll probably close out at just over 22,800 acres. By the end of next year, we'll be at somewhere around 24,400. And then early to mid-2010, we'll hit the halfway mark of 25,000 acres. Um, so to answer your question, let's just say we acquired 20 easements in this round ov- out of tha- 64 applications, the remaining 44 applications will be reranked with all the new applications, and we typically get somewhere between 20 and 30 new applications every year. It is possible to move up in your ranking, th- by the way, the ranking system is set up. Uh, we have farms that have applied in the- in the second or third round that are being acquired in this round, as the seventh round. But do you get more acres every year? Yes, we do. In other words, do you grow in the amount of acres you- Yes, we do. We're- we're averaging somewhere between, um, 22 to 2,400 acres a year. Just depends. And- and those are acquired acres. I mean, we were getting donated easements too, and we got, as you can see, we've gotten several of those. I would also offer the opinion that we're probably getting better quality now than we did in the early years as well. When we first started the program, virtually we had enough money that anyone who came to the table was accepted into the program if they agreed to the final offer. And as you can see now, we've gotten to the point where there are more people that wanna be in the program than we have dollars in- in any given year, which is what we anticipated and thought when we started out, and Bill, you may have an opinion on that, but I would guess that that would almost be inevitable, that- that the quality is also dramatically improved. Well, I think that we had, um... Th- things really took off in terms of the number of applications in the second round, and we had a limited number of applications in the first round, I think there were 30, but that's... We got a lot of applications in the second round, like over a hundred. Um, so that's when it- it really took off. We've- we've also modified our easement. We're using the current before now, whereas we di- we're not using that in prior rounds. We're not using the 1998 10-acre value anymore. We're getting larger farms. We're getting 375, 365, 275, 212, 283 acre farms. And that also is... You have to factor that into the number of easements that we're acquiring. We're getting the acreage, even if our number of easements, there aren't as many, we're still getting the acreage because the larger farms are at the top end of the ranking. That's the way the program is designed, that's the way the ordinance is written to get the most acreage under easement. Thank you, Billy. Are there any other, uh, questions? Nice presentation. Thank you. Thank you. The -- the chair of the Courthouse Area Review Board was supposed to give this presentation, and he told me that he might not be here, but I'll go ahead and proceed. Um, and it -- this will be ve- very brief. Uh, and there's no PowerPoint. Um, we can take this off, Barb, if you wanna... W- the things that I've given you, this is a map of the overlay zone. That's your first sheet. The second page is simply a list of the board, uh, and, uh, I serve as the Design Review Officer, and we have, um, Pat Boots in the Mayor's office, who is -- uh, helps us out as well. To date, since the adoption of this ordinance, there have been 24 board approvals and 10 staff approvals. There -- the -- the items that can be approved by staff are very limited. On th- the next page, you'll see a draft of potential changes to the Courthouse Design Review Board Ordinance. Uh, this is, uh, a fluid document. These are based on discussions that we've had, and we're continuing disc- to discuss these, and will continue to d- to discuss them at our January board meeting, um, and I think it's very important to note that we want to, um, zoom out and take a look at the big picture and make sure that, uh, what we have is in the best interest of the long-term view of downtown, and, um, make sure that we are making suggestions that are appropriate. Mm-hmm. On the next page, you'll just see some images of projects that have been approved throughout the courthouse overlay area, and we do have a few more projects that are coming to the board at the January meeting, and that's where we are. We meet quarterly or -- or on an as-needed basis. Uh, everything that has to do with this board is on the website, and you can go on there, on the city's website, and you can look at the design guidelines for the ordinance. Uh, you can re- see the map. Thank you, Billy. Are there any- any questions, uh, of Billy at the moment? Mr. Penn? Billy, d- do you believe that the, uh, picture on the last page, is that the final design? Is that what that thing's gonna actually look like? Well, this was the l- this was, uh, what was most recently approved by the board, um, at the last public hearing. The change that was made, there were, um, three changes that you can see on this rendering. Um, I'll start at the top. The louvered steeple that was added to the top of the building was added to screen mechanical equipment. And going down the building to the podium, which is the- the large mass area that, uh, aligns with the sidewalk around that block, and once again, your perspective here is- is as if you're looking from Vine Street. The entrance to the- to the motor court area and into the- the underground parking structure would be from Vine Street, so that's the elevation that you're seeing. Uh, the second modification was approved- that was approved was the podium, and that was lowered from four stories to three stories to reduce the mass of, uh, that part of the project. The third thing that was changed, if you look inside the motor court area where you see where cars can pull in, you'll see, uh, a bayed window area that overlooks the motor court area, and that wi- those windows, two windows were added, one on each side, overlooking the motor court area. Those were added to enhance the experience from inside the building in that, um, s- uh, special events space. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any... I- I did have one question, Billy, I guess, uh, in regards to the- I guess it's the courthouse TIFF- Mm-hmm. ... and structures. I think there's a structure or two in the courthouse, TIFF. Will the board be involved in any of- Yes. ... what- to what extent, I guess, just for your information? Well, you know, I can speak to the- the role of the board, but not to the TIFF. Uh, if there's any project in the overlay zone that, uh, be it a site or a structure, those items would have to come before the board. So in terms of site, would that be, um, like public art and that- those types of things? Would that be- Well, public art, if it's permanent, would go to the Urban County Arts Review Board. Oh, I see. Okay, okay. Thank you. Excellent. Any other questions for Billy? Thank you very much. You're welcome. Appreciate it. Okay, if I, um, can turn your attention to the- the addendum on the back page of your agenda, uh, we still have two additional items. Uh, I'll, uh, I'll I guess defer to Mr. King if he wants to cover item C and I guess item D for us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, Mike. As you know, in addition to serving on the Planning Commission and serving on the standing committees, um, and also special committees and steering committees for planned projects, there are a couple of other, uh, areas where the Planning Commission have members seating on an appeals committee. And one of those is the Flood Plain Appeals Committee, which hears, uh, requests for variances from the flood plain ordinance. There is a requirement that a planning commission member sit on that appeal body. And also, uh, in the Exaction Appeals Committee, whereby if someone has had an exaction imposed that they disagree with or disagree with the amount of credit for an improvement for the exaction program, they have the right to appeal and a planning commission member sits on that body as well. These are very light duty in terms of time. I will tell you, they, uh, it, I think we've had one or two flood plain appeals in the last, one in the last seven or eight years. One in seven years and the second one will be - Second, second one coming up, yeah. And, uh, likewise with the Exaction Appeals Committee, um, I don't think we've had one in two or three years. So, uh, again, if you have some interest, I know the chairman would certainly be looking for, um, a member to appoint to both of these committees. Thank you, Mr. King. I, I, I believe, uh, Mr. King prefaced it by saying- Yeah. ... uh, very, very limited activity. Which- It's not as if you don't give enough of your time already, but, uh, certainly, uh, we have an obligation to, uh, fulfill, uh, a seat on both of these committees, so if there's any takers. Mr. Cravens? I, I would, uh, volunteer to do the exaction. Okay. The, uh, what was it? Exaction? Exaction. It's the, uh, Exaction Appeals Committee. Yeah. Okay. Since it does, I'll probably be off before it meets again. A conflict there? Uh, I don't know. Close. We will be having an upcoming case. Okay. Uh, is there anyone, um, any takers for the, um, Flood Plain Appeals? Mr. Owens? Okay. Mr. Owens, and, um, do you, would you like to, to put, uh, th- that to a motion, Chris, or is that- I believe it probably just takes the chairman appointing the members to- Okay. ... those committees. Well, I'd like to appoint Mr., uh, Owens to the, uh, Flood Pain, Flood Plain Appeals Committee and, um, Mr. Cravens to the Exaction Appeals Committee. Thank you, gentlemen, for agreeing to serve. Okay. Um, I guess if there, are there any other commission items, I guess, from this side? Do we have any items from the commission? Okay. Um, I guess, staff, do you have any- None from the staff, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, we, uh, we meet next... Is there any audience members? I'm sorry. Okay. Just dedicated to sit and watch, huh? All right, um, I guess at this time, um, there being, there being no further business, we'll, uh, unless you had something else, Mr. King. None others other than to announce that immediately after the meeting, we are providing a training opportunity. Um, Jimmy Evans, I believe, and maybe others are going to, um, do some training regarding rain gardens. Some of you are actually in need of your, uh, state requirement training hours. And if you want to know who you are, we can, we can let you know after we shut down. But this is an opportunity that you'll have here. Thank you, Mr. King. Um, that's correct. I guess, uh, as part of our duty to sit behind this table, we have to have X amount of hours for continuing education, so, uh, we have that opportunity coming up after this meeting. So, if there's no further business, uh, chair will entertain a motion for adjournment. So moved. Second.