... now call this June 25th, 2009 meeting of the Planning Commission to order. Um, I think the first item of business is gonna be, I think we have some minutes to approve. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the minutes from May 28th, as written. Second. There's a motion to second. All in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, by like sign. We approve the minutes. Are there any postponements or withdrawals at this time? Okay. Mr. Chairman, if there are none from the audience, um, see if I could refer you to page four, top of page four of your agenda. ZOTA 2009-1 and a proposed amendment to article nine of the zoning ordinance. The staff would ask that this item be postponed for one month to your, uh, zoning meeting in July. We have started to receive some communication from some of the local professionals that we have been in contact with on this text amendment, and we believe we can give you an update either at your committees or at your work session in July. Thank you. All right. And do you have a date when that, you wanna do that, Bill? Is that gonna be next meeting? Yes, sir, I'm sorry. July 23rd. All right. All right, is there a motion on Bill's recommendation? Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement of the July 23rd meeting on ZOTA 2009-1. All right, there's a motion. Second? All in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, by like sign. Okay. I guess the first item then would be, uh, Taylor Place. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, first item on your agenda today is a final subdivision plan. It is Plan 2009-54F, Taylor Place, also known as the Stinnet property, is located out on Tates Creek Road, uh, just a little bit past the intersection of Crawley Lane and Tates Creek. It is on the east side of Tates Creek Road. This plan was postponed at your Subdivision Committee, uh, Commission Meeting earlier this month. Again, the plan, the subdivision is located off Tates Creek Road. There are four lots. A little over 16 acres here, about 14 and a half here. We have one that's just a little over 10 and a half acres, and then one that is around 14 acres here. And, pardon me, 12 and a half acres here. It's served by an access easement. These are buildable areas. There's a 300-foot setback off of Tates Creek Road, as well, and existing residences here that will be removed at the time a building permit is issued for this lot, uh, number one. You can see on your agenda that initially the Subdivision Committee had recommended postponement of this plan because of the need to submit a preliminary subdivision plan and a 30% infrastructure report. Uh, that was done at your last meeting. The report was, uh, distributed to you. The preliminary subdivision plan was approved by this body. Uh, unfortunately the subdivision of agricultural property does require a posting of a sign and an affidavit, which the applicant had not done, so it was necessary at that time to postpone this plan. They have done that. They have it. They're going to submit it, uh, to you today. Uh, you can see that there are 11 conditions on this plan. These are basic sign-off conditions, with number 11 being certification of the preliminary subdivision plan prior to this plan being certified. So it will be necessary that that plan move through the approval process and sign off and be certified before we allow this one to be certified and recorded. And with that, if you have any questions, happy to answer them. Thank you. The applicant here. My name is, uh, Rick Moore of Moore Surveying, and, um, I have the affidavit and the picture of the sign that I'll hand over. ... anybody have any questions? Any... Anybody got any for me? Is there any questions? All right. Staff, you have anything else? All right, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that, uh, Plan 2009-54F, uh, be approved with the 11 conditions. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second to approve Plan 2009-54F, Taylor Place. All in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed, by the like sign. Thank y'all. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the next item on your agenda is a development plan. It is a final development plan for the Richardson Properties, DP2009-30 Amended. This is the Richardson Development, which is located out. We have, uh, Chowsburg Road, well, not here of Chowsburg Road here, Hayes Boulevard. This is Athens-Boonesboro-Richmond Road over in this area. Here's the school site that has been developed. There's a school on this site. This is the overall development with your access roads and the street system serving it. This is the area of amendment that we highlighted here for you. There are 19 townhouses in this area. There are three total townhouse areas, here, here and here. This particular area and the purpose of the amendment is to add back-loaded garages into the townhouses. Again, there are 19 units. We have a, uh, my, uh, IT expert, Mr. Jimmy Emmons is here and he's got a picture up here for you to see a close-up so you can see the arrangement of those buildings. This, we wanted you to see its, its location and how it fit with the overall development. You may recall, we recently had an indefinite postponement on a plan that had proposed a connection through here. Again, this area of amendment is simply to allow the construction of these townhouses, a-along this particular model. You have... It has been distributed to you, a memo stating that this amendment does comply with the expansionary compliance statements as required. The Subdivision Committee did review this plan and they did recommend approval subject to eight c- conditions, which you can see on your agenda. Again, these are standard sign-off conditions. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. It is a white piece of paper and it'll, should state, uh... Uh, you know what? Chris has got 'em. We did not hand them out to you, but here they are. And, again, it is a memo that we prepare. Had this been a substantial change, you would have seen a full report addressing the components, uh, as required under the EAMP Compliance. Uh, again, the nature of this change was such that we agreed with the applicant that they do, in fact, comply with those requirements. Thank you for listening. Are there any questions for Tom? Is the applicant here, or... Yes, I'm John Barlow and I'm filling in for Carol Goes. Answer any questions you might have. Any questions? Okay. If no questions, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for, uh, approval of DP2009-30, Richardson Propers- Properties Amended. All right, we have a motion and a second to approve DP2009-30, Richardson Properties. All in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, by the like sign. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we'll set up for the zone change hearing in just a moment. Thank you. We're ready. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the commission, good afternoon. The next item on your agenda is the only zone change on your meeting agenda today. It appears on page two and three of your agenda. This would be MARV2009-7, a request by KYRob2 LLC for rezoning a property at Plaudit Place. If I could refer you to page three of your agenda, item B. As I mentioned, this is MARV2009-7, which indicates that a dimensional variance was initially requested as part of this application. Uh, the staff has put at your place a communication we received a little over a week ago from the applicant, uh, asking to withdraw this portion of the request, the dimensional variance request. Uh, it would be appropriate for the commission to, uh, consider action to accept that withdrawal at this time. Thank you. Okay, do we need to vote on that? In, in the past, the commission has taken a motion to accept the withdrawal, yes, sir. All right, we'll take a motion to accept the withdrawal of the, um, variance request, please. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the variance withdrawal on, um, I don't have the note. MAR... MARV2009-7, we withdraw the variance. Second. All right, there's a motion, and second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by like sign. Okay, thank you. As Mr. Salih said, um, this item appears on page two and three of your agenda, and I'll refer you back to, um, section A, which is the zone change request. The subject property is comprised of two parcels, 8- 1837 and 1844 Plaudit Place. 1837 is the current location of a liquor barn and warehouse, and 1844 is the location of a small surface parking lot. These two parcels, um, are approximately seven acres in size, and in the immediate vicinity, we have other B-4 zoning, B-6P zoning. I wo- I'm sorry, P-1 zoning across Man O' War Boulevard, um, some agricultural zoning to the rear along Bryant Road, and one other parcel that is zoned B-3. Also, in the vicinity is a rails to trails, uh, that is currently constructed along what used to be the old, an old abandoned railroad. And then the Andover Forest subdivision is further to the south. Along Plaudit Place and Bryant Road and Man O' War, in this location, we have kind of the edge of Hamburg Pavilion with much commercial development, including some I-1, uh, along Bryant Road, mostly B-4 and B-6P, uh, commercial development along Plaudit, and then, of course, the rest of Hamburg extends further to the north and west in this area. The parcel, as I said, was about seven acres in size and is proposed to be used for, um, expansion of the existing use on the property, um, by utilizing a B-3 zone rather than the existing B-4. The B-3 zone would allow for other uses to be incorporated into the liquor barn, store, and warehouse, um, as proposed a possible, possible accessory uses inside that building, and then will allow for a retail space or retail building to be constructed at 1844 Plaudit Place where the current, uh, surface parking lot exists. The... As- asked you to show a few photos, I have an aerial photo showing the two parcels for the planning commission. This is oriented to the north. The liquor barn property and the, um, surface parking lot. Existing aerial view looking at the development, um, approximately two years ago. The B-3 that is currently in place to the, uh, southeast on Bryant Road, uh, was formerly a fence company and now is an Ashley Furniture store, so that's a little bit dated. Little bit closer view of the liquor barn property and the existing, uh, surface parking lot. The 2007 comprehensive plan for this location does recommend retail trade and personal services, and on our comprehensive plan map, um, Man O' War Boulevard exists here with the larger Hamburg development, and our subject property is just to the east of Man O' War Boulevard along the terminus of Plaudit Place. The restricted highway service business zoning is, as we mentioned, um, present along Bryant Road in an adjacent parcel and a similarly, similarly s- restricted B-3 zone would be appropriate for these two parcels. The, uh, staff reviewed the possibility of conditional zoning restrictions for this parcel because there are, um, nearby residential developments to the south and then existing residential along Bryant Road and found that a similar, um, list to the existing, uh, restrictions for the Ashley Furniture would likely be appropriate. The, um, applicant had some concern about the original list of conditional zoning restrictions at our con- at our committee meeting a few weeks ago, and the staff, um, did meet with the applicant and is proposing some revisions to the list of conditional zoning restrictions. Um, it's a pro- list of prohibited uses and signs, and that can be found at your place on a blue sheet. In talking with the applicant, we agreed that the -- our main concern was, um, some of these uses very near the residential use, or, um, residential properties to the south, and that, um, we could probably narrow the issue some by recommending a distance for some of the uses so the restriction would apply, um, in some cases for 200 -- within 200 feet of a residential zone. And Barb, if you could put up that next graphic. That 200 feet of, um -- within 200 feet of the residential zone applies where Weymouth Court exists and would affect a small portion of the property, um, probably not impacting what happens inside the liquor barn currently or, um, a future use is what the staff imagines. So the, um, addition of a -- that res- that limiting factor of 200 feet was added to automobile service stations, car washing establishments, um, outdoor display rental, sales service or repair for automobiles, motorcycles, trucks and boats, and we -- the staff is also suggesting a change to -- um, sorry, one other item. The major and minor automobile and truck repair would be limited within 200 feet of a residential zone. A few of the other changes that we discussed with the applicant were in terms of signage. Um, they were a little concerned about the restriction for no freestanding signs, and the staff agreed to allow signage as per a B6P zone with height and size limitations as per a B1, which is a 20-foot freestanding sign and, um, 50 square feet. Also, they were willing to add a prohibition on outdoor loudspeakers and lighting directed towards any residential zone, which the staff felt would be appropriate as well. That being said, we are recommending appro- approval of the zone change because with a restricted highway service business B3 zone, um, it can be said that this zoning would be in agreement with the comprehensive plan's recommendation for retail, trade, and personal services. And this recommendation is made subject to the approval of the zoning development plan, and then with the conditional zoning restrictions, uh, recommended on the blue sheet. I'd be happy to answer any questions. I just have one, one question. Now on the signs, uh, and I get this confused. Wh- you know, the Ashley Furniture Store, that sign goes up 40 feet maybe, or... So w- would we get another sign similar to that or? Do you mean the one attached to their building? To the building. I, I, I don't know. I would have to ask the applicant if they were interested in constructing that type of sign. Uh, I believe that's much larger than what would be allowed in a B6P zone. It's a... Because it's a wall sign and attached to the building, it can extend higher than, you know. It just, it just depends on the building size and, and height. I'll turn it back over to Tom. Any other questions for Tracy? No? Okay. Applicant? Um- Mr. Martin has a presentation on the- Oh, I'm sorry. ... development plans. All right. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the final development plan associated with this zone change is located on page three of your agenda. It is ZDP2009-39, Hamburg Place Farm, Plauditt Place Commercial Development, and Lots 5, 5A, 5G, and 5I. Again, this is the area of the entire development. Here, we have the area of the zone change. This is an associated area that is governed by the development plan. Man O' War Boulevard, Bryant Road, and of course, Pleasant Ridge with Plauditt Place, your access into this development. Uh, this is the detention basin that serves the entire, uh, development. Uh, here's your liquor barn, about 57,000 square feet. Um, here's the proposed new building of 6,400 square feet and associated parking. This is the primary area of physical change they're proposing. Initially, there was concern about circulation behind this building. They had a drive aisle. They moved the building back. They're still is a, proposing a drive aisle. They have moved their solid waste from this area over to here for easy access for public pick-up. Uh, and by adjusting this building, they took away that conflict, which is the reason they were able to drop or request withdrawal of their, their variance. The, the plan you see before you is a revised submittal. Initially, there were 18 conditions on the plan. The number 18 has now been resolved in that they have chosen that this be a final development plan. I would direct your attention to a pink handout, which I'm sure you have . And you'll see that this revised plan has addressed a large number of the clean-up, uh, conditions that were associated with this plan, and in fact, we now have only 10 conditions. Uh, the first seven are standard sign-off conditions. ... as in effect in reality, number nine, addition of Man-O-War landscape plan, that'll be a document that they will submit to building inspection for their approval. And then number 10 is the addition of any conditional zoning restrictions that you may place on this property. Very briefly, I will point out number eight, it's not a, a large issue from staff's perspective, and we have given the applicant information that addresses it. It's this area here, and this is the staging area for the rails to trail, and it's actually based on, uh, the record plat. There's two lots in here, and we're just asking that that be accurately reflected. And, yes, ma'am? Mr. Martin, can you access this new building from Bryant Road? No, ma'am. Do you ever think it would be a good idea to come in from Bryant Road? Actually, when this development came through, access to Bryant Road was restricted. So do we wanna put that on this plan, that- It is currently on this plan. Where? It is located and notes through here that- Oh. ... there will be no restriction- Oh, okay. ... allowed to Bryant. Okay, it's not on what- Oh, no, it's not on the conditions. It's not necessary because they're not requesting it. It... And the area of development, this is all- Ah. ... still governed by those restrictions. Why, why not have access from Bryant Road? Uh, I would have to direct that to, uh, planners that were here at the time this development came through, but I believe it was the nature of the r- aspect of Bryant Road being substandard by today's standards. It's an old rural segment. Ms. Copeland, if I could elaborate. At the time of the original zoning of this property, there was a great deal of, uh, debate about whether or not there should be improvements to Bryant Road and access to any of these lots from Bryant Road. Uh, the developer did not desire access to Bryant Road at that time, and no owner has since. There also is a, uh, I understand, a water line, a significant water line that parallels Bryant Road on this side of the roadway, and, uh, it, it seems like most of the developments have tried to avoid, uh, conflicting with that water line, including the, the development plan that is subject to this rezoning. Thank you, Mr.- You're welcome. ... Historian. Frank? Tom, I assume the parking issue will be taken care of because they can use the parking on lick- where Liquor Barn is? Yes, sir. They have a- That's- ... reciprocal parking and access agreement. Well, that, that was an issue until you were able to, to work out the, the cul-de-sac turn. Yes, sir. And in fact, that lot does actually meet the requirement for parking, but they still have, much to staff's, uh, urging, a reciprocal parking arrangement. Any other questions for Tom? Thank you. Applicant? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Dick Murphy representing the applicant, Kai Rob Two LLC, and with me today are the two print- two of the principals in Kai Rob, which is Irving Rosenstein and Rob Rosenstein in the audience here. And Jeff England works for, uh, them as well who's with me, and Eddie Mesta is our designer from BTM Engineering, and, uh, Chaz Height here is a, is a planner as well. We won't ask any of 'em to talk here. We're gonna keep it short. But the, um, we are requesting this zone change from B4 to B3, and, um, just wanted to point out the changes since you all saw it at committees three weeks ago, which the staff has mentioned, the major one being that we have withdrawn, excuse me, withdrawn our request for the variance. As you all recall, we h- due to the curve in the cul-de-sac, we had asked to come up in with our parking area and almost have a zero, um, landscape area at three points. We were gonna meet all landscaping requirements, but due to the curve, we were asking to come to zero at three points. Well, as the staff had mentioned, we have literally worked this building foot by foot with different designs about five different times, and we've worked it so that now we do not need a variance, that we are within, uh, we have the five-foot landscaped area at all places on this property. So w- there's, there was a question raised about cars overhanging onto the sidewalk and that sort of thing, so that issue has been totally eliminated. Um, and we also, as the staff mentioned, worked with them on conditional zoning restrictions. Um, the, the way the conditional zoning restrictions are worded now, it's to design to, uh, protect the... There is a little bit of residential, uh, right behind us. It doesn't actually touch us, but looking at this map right here, with this being the back of the Liquor Barn property, there's residential over here in the brown, which, as I said, doesn't touch us, but is back there. So that's the genesis of that 200-foot restriction on a number of those uses. Um, we, uh, the staff said we do agree with the comprehensive plan. Excuse me. And we are, uh, are requesting final plan status, and as I might point out to you, the, this lot is paved as it is now. We're not adding to the impervious surface area. We're just doing it a different way, so there should be very little impact that way. So with those, we'd be, um, we do agree with the conditions the staff put forward with, on the development plan. We do agree with the conditional zoning restrictions that the staff has put forward, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Anyone have any questions for Mr. Murphy? Thank you. Okay. I guess we'll deal with the zoning request first, on page two. Yeah. I'm sorry, does anybody in the audience would like to spe- say anything? Speak? It's nice to see you, Mr. Resey. I'm ready for motion. Uh, a, a question, Mr. Chairman. Are w- we to take off the V now and refer to this as, uh, MAR2009-7? We could do that, um, Mr. Pen. I think, just for our record keeping, since it was filed with a variance, we'll probably keep that in the file, but i- it is true, there is no longer a variance associated with it. Okay. Question? Any other questions? If not, we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of MARV2009-7, as presented by staff. Second. Second. Motion the, motion to second to approve, um, MAR2009-7. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by like sign. Okay. Motion passes. Now we take up, uh... Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of ZDP2009-39, uh, with the conditions recommended on the pink sheet. Um, should we include the, the blue sheet also? Sure. Okay. With the addition of condition 10. Wi- with the addition number 10 of the... Well, we don't have any additional condit- condition, do we? No, sir. Okay. Then I move for approval of ZDP2009-39, uh, as approved on the pink sheet and then the z- additional zoning restrictions, uh, as, as lo- laid out on the blue sheet. Second. All right, there's been a motion, a sec- and a second to approve ZDP2009-39 Hamburg Place Farm, private place, commercial development. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by like sign. Thank you. Okay, this... Tracy. Chairman Day, members of the commission, the next item on our agenda can be found on page four and continues to the top of page five. It is item number two and is in tab three in your notebooks. This is a text amendment, ZOTA2009-5, uh, initiated by the Planning Commission to amend Article 27 of the zoning ordinance to prohibit demolition, building, or grading permits from being issued by LFUCG in the case where there's an appeal to the Planning Commission of a decision made by the Courthouse Area Design Review Board. Um, the text amendment is born out of an unfortunate set of circumstances that occurred within the past year, where two appeals were filed to the Planning Commission, um, but the commission did not hear that, those appeals, because of a demolition situation. Um, certainly not all appeals have this outcome, but this text amendment is proposed to prevent that sort of situation from occurring in the future. Uh, current, and I think would help, um, secure, uh, the Planning Commission's authority to act on an appeal, um, as well. The current language of Article 27 does allow an appeal to the Planning Commission to be filed by anyone who, um, says that they are, uh, injured or grieved by a decision of the board of the Courthouse Area, uh, Design Review Board. And it does actually mention a stay of action, but not until a, an appeal is filed after a Planning Commission decision to the Fayette Circuit Court. So it's silent on that period between the Board's decision and a Planning Commission appeal timeframe. The, um... Any final decision from the Planning Commission can be appealed to Fayette Circuit Court, and in contentious cases, often an applicant knows that there's a 30-day window for appeals, and they do not take action, uh, in that window. Because th- if a Planning Commission decision is overturned, they would either have to tear down, uh, something that they started to build, or replace something that was, um- ... meant to -- meant to stay. Um, but as I said, there's nothing that, uh, requires that to occur. Uh, the proposed revision to Article 27-7 would require notification to the Divisions of Building Inspection and Engineering to notify them when an appeal is, uh, filed with the Planning Commission, and that would need to occur within a five-day window. Certainly, our staff would notify those divisions immediately, um, most likely via email, so that there would be no window of opportunity, um, between when an appeal is -- is filed with our office and when, um, someone could secure a permit. There was discussion at the zoning committee that, um, because there's a 30-day window of opportunity to file an appeal, um, until an appeal is filed, an applicant s- could secure demolition, um, building and grading permits from the appropriate divisions, which does leave an opportunity for, um, activity to occur in the courthouse review area or zone prior to an appeal being filed with the Planning Commission. To try to, um, alleviate concerns about demolition occurring immediately, the staff, um, is suggesting alternative text, and that can be found in your, uh, notebook behind the original staff report. There's a supplemental staff report also on a tan sheet of paper. Tab three? Tab three, yes. Since the zoning committee, the staff met with the law department as well as courthouse area design review board staff and, um, we agreed that an alternative text should be offered to the Planning Commission to propose a reasonable, uh, waiting period, which we are suggesting a seven-day waiting period be, um, implemented for demolition permits so that although the -- an authorization permit was issued from the design review officer from the courthouse area review board, a seven-day waiting period would be required before Building Inspection could issue a demolition or wrecking permit for a building. And upon completion of the waiting period, then Building Inspection could issue those permits. In the instance of a, um, building permit, those would be allowed to be issued immediately. Um, of course, the main concern is demolition of a building which cannot be reversed. Um, one other sentence that the staff is now recommending inclusion does affect not 26 s- I'm sorry, 27-6D, which I just, um, mentioned the effect of authorization permit, but is found within the appeals section, and that is bolded and underlined on here. It says, "Regardless of whether any permit has been issued pursuant to the above Section 27-6D, no building, um, or demolition activity may be undertaken or continued by the applicant." So there is some additional text added there just to clarify that once an appeal is filed, that any activity should either not be allowed to happen or be discontinued until the appeal is heard by the Planning Commission and a decision is made. And the staff believes that these changes, um, will provide a reasonable waiting period for a demolition permit and then within that seven-day window allow for an appeal to be filed. Um, in the situation we had last year, the appeal was filed within four or five days, and that was -- is certainly enough time. Seven days we felt was enough time for a letter to be drafted to the commission, um, just outlining some very brief objections to the board, uh, make -- make whatever decision that they had made. And the staff is recommending approval of this zoning ordinance text amendment. Um, the zoning ordinance currently allows activity on property within the courthouse design area overlay zone, including demolition, grading, and permits to occur while a decision is being appealed to the Planning Commission and the staff believes that notifying Building Inspection and Engineering immediately, um, will help to alleviate the possibility of demolition occurring or grading or building permits occurring during that window, but also the seven-day window -- or seven-day waiting period will help to protect buildings in the case of an appeal as well. I'd be happy to answer any questions. I'm sorry, I- Any questions for Tracy? In my excitement, forgot to give you a few letters that were ... Okay. We did have f- four letters submitted for the record, um, two from neighborhood associations that were interested, one from the, um, gosh, the Bluegrass Trust, is that the one on top there? And the, uh, Fade Alliance, all in support of this text amendment. All right, Frank has a question, and then Marie. Okay. Yes, sir. Tracy, help me understand. I know this is just for the courthouse design review area. Let's assume that you have a piece of property just outside of that. Yes. Next building over, whatever, and the a- and the owner decides to tear that down. Help me go through the steps that he or she would have to do to tear that building down. They would approach the, uh, Building Inspection Office and request a demolition permit. Within three days, uh, Building Inspection has to notify Historic Preservation that there's a request and they would be allowed to document a building or go look at a building and decide whether or not they want to d- oppor- th- basically within three days they have an opportunity to say, "Yes, we want to document, photograph..." ... um, do research on that building and they are given a 30-day window to do that. If they say they are not interested in the building, then the three days, within those three days, a permit is issued at the end of the three-day window. I believe now that, uh, we had a text amendment last year, a grading permit is also issued when a demolition permit's issued to require, um, silt fences and that sort of thing. But there's no public notice that that building gonna be torn down? No, sir. Marie? I have questions and, um, just want to think out loud about this, that there's nothing wrong with what you've done or proposing, I'm all for that, but when the decision comes to us, there is nothing in this document that I see that gives us criteria for deciding keep it or it can go. And that maybe we need to build in either it's part of context, the building's part of context, critical mass, has historical properties, it's sound, it's saveable. I don't know what, but we ought to have criteria. There, if you open your notebooks, the big giant notebooks there with the planning, it says, "Planning Commission," it says, "Comprehensive Plan," there's a zoning ordinance in there, Article 27 does outline the requirements that the applicant has to meet in order for demolition to occur. And it is, they do have to review the physical nature of the building, they have to look at the economic impact of demolition of keeping the building, so that is in Article 27 in a different section. But is that something that could be rigged? Could the applicant rig that, those qualifications? I think in any case you can have experts have very different opinions about the economic viability of a building, but- Well, then do we have, do we have the right to bring in our own experts and disagree- Sure. ... with what they propose? And- Yes. ... does, what we're s- getting ready to, um, ask for in bumping this up- Mm-hmm. ... is it strong enough? That's what I'm saying. I think that- I, I think there's a- Let me- ... kind of a balancing act between preventing someone from doing anything until, you know, for four months, and saying, "Here's your opportunity to appeal," and ... I- i- it's a, it's a delicate thing, you can't prevent somebody altogether from doing anything until, you know, two years down the road, but you can ask them to wait a short period of time in case there's an appeal filed. Then I- It's, you know, you don't wanna over-regulate to prevent activity from occurring in the Courthouse District that is legitimate and is not an issue, um, you know. Building a new building may not, may not be an issue, building a, adding a sign to a building may not be an issue, we don't wanna prevent those regular activities from occurring, um, because of, you know, the worst case scenario. Okay. I just don't wanna be acting on sentiment. I would like hard data. And we had one case in the last year since I've been on where it was very much a, sort of a rigged thing that the building wasn't saveable and so forth and so on. And I, I just think you can color the picture the way you want it colored. Certainly, I think app- the Planning Commission has to keep that in mind with every applicant. They're presenting their case for what they desire. Lynn? Um, I, I support this text amendment as is, um, but separate and apart from this text amendment, I remember when we went through the, the hearings last year, or when the, um, courthouse overlay design board went through the hearings last year, there was a lot of discussion about, uh, this ordinance and, um, its shortfalls, and the appeal process, or the, the lack of a stay during an appeal process was just one of the problems that were addressed. Um, but in the filing materials, the, the way that I read the ordinance, if an applicant would like to demolish a building within this courthouse area overlay, um, the applicant basically just needs to show that it's economically infeasible to rehab that building. And, um, of course I've just finished a kitchen remodeling job at my own home and, um, depending upon which contractor I hired, um - ... could have found that it was economically infeasible to, to rehab the kitchen. So I think there's a whole lotta wiggle room there, um, and what we found, my, my personal, uh, takeaway lesson from the, from the issue, uh, at the, at the intersection here of Limestone and Vine, is that we really didn't speak to the cultural heritage, um, and what that, uh, the value of a building in terms of the historic fabric and all of the community as opposed to just the, the, you know, the construction costs and, um, associated with bringing a building up to code. And, um, I know that the, the Council two days ago listened to, um, the historic preservation, um, group's inventory of buildings within the downtown area and they were very impressed by the numbers of buildings that are salvageable, um, but it was kind of left at, "Yes, so where do we go now?" And, um, just as a separate sort of, something to think about for this group, I would love to see us add some more teeth to those, uh, to the filing criteria- ... um, in a demolition application. Um, it's now incumbent upon historic preservation to say whether or not they want to salvage a building, they wanna document a building, but, uh, documenting what we're about to lose is kind of futile. Um, I would like to see us have a little bit more protection in this ordinance so that we don't knock down, you know, the oldest commercial building in all of Lexington. Um, you know, we're forsaking our cultural heritage, um, on account of, uh, a new, flashier, uh, proposal. Um, so just something to think about as a possible, uh, future text amendment to the courthouse ... uh, to this courthouse ordinance. I think we need to take it maybe a step farther. Um, I don't see either in this ordinance where, as part of an application for demolition, the applicant is asked to a- uh, asked to respond to how his application for demolition, um, addresses the long-range comprehensive plan goals that we have. I think that that's a real easy fix here, um, to add that. So just some things for us to think about as a commission to try to beef up this ordinance so that we're not caught off guard, uh, as we were last year, this time last year. Uh, can I take an opportunity to respond to Ms. Phillips' comments? The Courthouse Design Review Board is reviewing the ord- the ordinance as a whole, and this was one thing that they wanted to fast-track to change. And so our staff took that and brought it to the Planning Commission. And so I- I want you to know that they are reviewing the ordinance as a whole, and I think we can certainly, um, when Ms. Cunningham finishes the minutes, provide those to Mr. Van Pelt so that he is aware of your con- I mean, your concern specifically, but the commission's concerns as well, um, about specific changes. And that will, any change to Article 27, will come back before the Planning Commission. So at this point, we are working with the, the board and their staff, um, and are awaiting the changes that they propose. I don't know the timeframe for those moving forward. Mr. King may have a better idea, but that is something ... I know they're looking at it in a broader, with a broader perspective. Patrick, you have a question? Yeah. I, I support this also, and I ho- agree wholeheartedly with Lynn's comments, so would love to see that as quickly as we can get it done. The other thing that I discussed in committee, um, and I think I, I know the negative answer to this, but I'd like to find some way that this would apply, um, to the broader area and not just the courthouse design. I mean, I think this is a, this is a rule that should be in place for the entire comprehensive pla- every place that we have jurisdiction, you should not be able to tear something down if somebody is appealing it until such appeals have run their course. Um, I believe that, that legal told me that was not feasible. Um, I'm, I'm firm believer in not taking no for an answer, so I'd like to explore that further and find out what needs to be changed in order to make that happen. Okay. Thank you. Frank? Yeah. I'd like for us to understand that ... what a de novo hearing is because I, I think, I think when you look at this in the context of what we're ... of this particular item, this particular text amendment, then what is a de novo hearing versus what we're doing here right now. Uh, let me let our, our legal, she would just tell us what ... how, how ... I- if we had an appeal based on the courthouse design review, all we're doing, in my understanding, is just going through the evidence that they saw and to see whether they make that decision or not. But I'm not sure that's right for de nov- novo hearing. No. De novo hearing is basically, you're going to hear everything that the applicant wants to present to you, everything that the appellant wants to present to you. It is not restricted to what was in the record before the Courthouse Area Design Review Board in the original hearing. Um, you will have, of course, the decision and the findings of the Courthouse Area Design Review Board to look at and, you know, give whatever deference you feel it should have. But a de novo hearing basically means it is open to any evidence that either side wants to bring before the Planning Commission. Okay. Are there any other questions for Tracy? Any comments? Any comments from the audience? Yes, ma'am. Hello. My name is Jessica Case, and I live at 421 West Second Street, and I'm here on behalf of the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation. Looks like you guys already have our letter, so that's good. Um, I just wanted to speak for a moment and to say that the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation supports this text amendment wholeheartedly. We're happy to see that there's some protections in place while due process is occurring. Um, Ms. Roche Phillips, um, and Ms. Copeland and Mr. Brewer, uh, very happy to hear you guys also speak to the broader issue of some other changes that are needed with Article 27. And we're em- ... we are planning to be involved with that process as they are reviewing that. And one of the ways that the Bluegrass Trust feels the text amendment could be amended to work better is to expand the area covered by the courthouse area design, um, overlay and ... Because if you think back to the situation we dealt with last year, the Rosenburg Building, our oldest commercial building in Lexington, was not within that zone. It wasn't within the overlay, and it wasn't subject to any of the protections that the other buildings were. And that's just an example of a building that could be lost that's very valuable to our community 'cause it's not included in the overlay. So that's just a suggestion from the Bluegrass Trust for when it comes back in front of you guys, which hopefully it will in a couple of months. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Case. Other ... Chairman, members of the commission, Bob Carpenter with the Division of Building Inspection. We would just request that you make the waiting period and the appeal time limit the same. That way we wouldn't have to issue a permit and then back up and stop our quarter. So you want th- the two days to, to correspond? Exactly. What- If it's 30 days or if it's seven, have them both the same. What would be your recommendation? Doesn't matter to us. That's up to you to decide. It's just easier for us to enforce if they're the same. I understand. Okay. We're, I'm assuming we're just gonna vote whether we wanna do this or not. We're not gonna make changes in it at this time, is that ... ? Our staff didn't rec- didn't recommend those, um, to coincide, uh, mostly as a, just a, to have a reasonable s- nonactivity period, I guess. We understand they don't coincide, but we didn't wanna restrict an applicant from moving forward their, with their project in an unreasonable nature. So, I don't know, I don't know if Law has any other comments about that. I'd be willing to respond to questions, uh, but I would be hesitant to shorten an appeal period to as short as seven days, and I'd be extremely hesitant to always prevent any applicant within the courthouse area design review, um, area th- from doing any work for 30 days. I mean, sometimes, especially in a demolition, sometimes it's a safety issue. Sometimes code enforcement has issued an order for demolition. Um, we felt that seven days, considering the relative informality of an appeal to the planning commission, it's basic- j- basically just a letter saying, you know, we are appealing this decision of the courthouse area design review board, and that's pretty much it. It's not like a brief has to be prepared. So we felt that seven days was probably going to be an adequate period of time, but at the same time, allow people to move on and start getting some work done if, if it needs to be done. Um, by the same token, I'd be hesitant to shorten the appeal time to as short as, well, if the seven days are up, you can't appeal it. I mean, if something happens and someone's out of town, I, you know, I, we, we just felt like this really is a situation that has not come up very often. Yes, we have one glaring incident that was extremely controversial, but in the 13 years, I think, that I've been working with these various boards, there may have been maybe one other s- situation where something like this came up. So we didn't feel like the risk of having to issue a stop work order was going to be prevalent enough to dispense with the other issues we were concerned with about proceeding with jobs and how long we could hold people up and things of that sort. I just don't think in the practical run of things that it's gonna be an issue for building inspection. Ma'am. I think our concern is not as much with the demolition as it is with the building permits. If you issue a building permit, somebody invest a lot of money, have three weeks of construction or four weeks underway, and then somebody issues appeal, let's say the roof's not on it, it sits there for two or three months. Then have we incurred damages, you know, if we damage that applicant? That, that's kind of what we were looking at. Anyone like to make a comment we can all hear? Yeah. Yeah. Uh, Bob, I, I guess I'm just dense. Well, I know I'm dense, just how dense I am today. I gotta go, too. Uh, o- on the seven days, if an appeal is put in, it's within the seven-day period, you all are not gonna issue the, the permit pr- after that, are you? If there's an appeal involved? Correct. Correct, we would not. We look at worst case scenario, and I can see maybe two individuals battling for the same piece of property, and one guy gets it, the other guy doesn't. He waits till the guy is part of the way through construction, issues an appeal just to stop work. It could be issued for any reason, then it has to go through the process. That's why we'd like those run concurrent. That way, when we issue a permit, they can move forward. 14 days, I mean, you know, we don't care what the time limit is, so. I, I guess I'll follow along. Frank's wise comment of being dense, but a- according to what I'm reading here, the building permit is taken out of this text amendment. This is just for demolition. No, I believe I preface it again with, I guess I'm being dense, but if- if you're talking about w- I mean, th- the intent here is to prevent something that's irrevocable. So a building permit, to me, doesn't have the same gravity that a demolition permit has in this situation. So I'm- I'm- I'm having trouble understanding why- why we would need to have this sort of formal process or appeal for, um, protection for something that could be, uh, remedied if there were, there w- was an appeal later on. You're talking about the building permit? Building versus demolition. Well, they're both included in the appeal process. On the demolition side of it, then if you take that case, if you issue, uh, we issue a demo permit and somebody gets part of the way through and then they file an appeal, we have to stop work. Okay. Now, who do we listen to that says it's too dangerous, it needs to come on down, or no, it needs to stay up? If we ran those concurrent, we don't have that problem. When that permit's issued, it's good to go. What's the commission's pleasure? Tracy, would you like to put anything else in here? I- I would just note that the building inspection does have the opportunity to issue a stop work order. I know it's not, you know, they don't, maybe don't feel comfortable doing that, but it- it's possible and I think this language gives them the ability to- to do that. Clearly says you can't go any further, so that gives them the authority to say, "Hey, you have to stop. You can't go any further." It's sitting there waiting. There you go. Mr. Chairman, uh, may I ask Bob Carpenter, you would, um, you could possibly issue a demolition permit and a building permit at the same time, couldn't you? Yes. That's what you're saying. We could issue both at the same time. We could actually- 'Cause you might be tearing down the building and building on the other part of the lot at the same time. Yeah, or you could be d- tearing down a portion of the building and rebuilding onto it. But I- I mean, I don't know why you would wanna hold that up more than the seven days. Well, that- that's for you all to decide. We would just like 'em to run the same period of time. It just makes it a much simpler, easier thing to enforce for us. I mean, I guess- I guess if somebody's g- a builder is gonna go on, start building with the risk that he, uh, is gonna be stopped or maybe lose what he's done, that- that would be up to him, I guess, wouldn't it? Yes, it would. Okay. We just try to avoid that situation if we can. Yeah. I understand. Would... Stay, let me- let me ask staff. If we just, if we tried to go to help the bill inspection side of it, and we did 14 days both ways, you'd have 14 days to appeal or you'd have 14 days to do the other. What- what is the negative of that situation? You're giving up 16 days of an appeal period, um, to anyone that would appeal. But if you were to put building permits and grading permits back into that waiting period, you would be preventing any permit from being issued for two weeks after the courthouse design board makes a decision, no matter what. So they can't put up a sign, they can't- they can't do anything. Now, that doesn't prevent building inspection from reviewing those permits, I assume, but they couldn't be issued for two weeks. It- it- it stops some legitimate work that could be- could be going on for, I don't wanna say no good reason, but you know, the- the chance of an appeal is- is already fairly small. I think we had one appeal, one case appealed last year of 14, so that's... You're looking at 7% or 8%. Could- Bob. Could we narrow it down to, instead of the 30, down to 14, leave the other at seven, but then pull that other down to 14, which would- That... We- you all could do that. Right. I don't think that solves building inspections issues. Okay. But- but that's a s- it's- it's a, has a lot of the same problems, except that it's- it shortens the time and- and- and the, um, demolition would know that they've got that seven days. I mean, there's a lot of planning and things that can go on once they know they have the permit, that perhaps another seven days would not be as- as, um- Usually. ... as problematic as another, what, 23 days? Yeah. Well, that would be a better situation. It wouldn't be exactly ideal for us. But usually when they pull a building permit, they have to wait 24 hours, but usually that 24th hour, they're on the job, ready to demo. Uh, and the one thing, I don't believe signs are included in the review anymore for the downtown. No, but you have to issue a permit, a building permit. Right, but that was only to the review, correct? If I'm not mistaken. Either way, any- any kind of building permit would be held up under, it's under building inspections option, so. And you, Tracy, you said that this happens very, very, very, very, very few times. Yeah, infrequently. So, I mean, I'd say pick seven or pick 14 and let's get on with it. So I- I- I wouldn't want to reduce- Just seven? ... the appeal though. I'm- I'm very uncomfortable reducing the appeal time period. I think we need to leave that at 30. I understand the- the arguments for the other, but- I -- I don't wanna reduce it. It takes a while to get... I wanna make sure I understand. You're talking about putting now a mandatory waiting period on issuing a building permit also? Is that what we're talking about doing? 'Cause he said he wanted the same amount of time for both a building permit and a demolition permit, I think is what you said, isn't it? That's right. So, I think, based on my experience with the Courthouse Area Design Review Board, these people have already put in an application to get a hearing before that board. They have their contractors literally waiting with their equipment to get that approval and get in there and keep their business moving. They're doing this to try to keep their businesses vitalized and customers coming in. We get a lot of the new night spots moving in. "I've gotta get open. I've gotta start getting customers." And now we're gonna tell them, even if there isn't even anybody there to object, everybody says, "This is a great project," but now you gotta wait another 14 days before you can lift up a hammer and drive a nail. I mean, as staff, we were extremely concerned about that. The last few years, what I've been hearing from the entire community is, "This historic preservation and courthouse area review stuff is just holding up business in all of Fayette County, we gotta get rid of all of it." I'm really concerned about trying to get a text amendment through that's gonna say, "Guess what, guys? Now you got another 14 days before you can do anything to improve your business in the downtown area." I -- I think I might recommend if, if we do want to change this, to send it back to the zoning committee and ask Billy Van Pelt to attend and keep the discussion moving rather than making a decision that they aren't aware of, um, and, and moving it on to council, so. We don't... The planning commission has six months to act on a, on a, um, text amendment, so there's really no hurry. Um, whatever, whatever is the... Chris, would you like to... Just going to make a technical observation. Rather than postpone it, if you do decide, I would recommend that you just continue this hearing till the next meeting so you can keep this chain going. All right. Is there a motion? I'm, I'm comfortable with the staff's, um, recommendation, so I'm gonna move approval of, uh, ZOTA 2009-5, um, for the reasons recommended by staff. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. Are there any discussion on the motion? Everybody understand the motion? All in favor, please signif- What? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Man, he's in a hurry, huh? . Okay. Is there anything else, Bill, we need to do other than... Yes, Mr. Chairman. If we could refer you to, uh, page five of your agenda, we have, uh, two commission items and one staff item. Are we gonna... The, uh, commission items, we're gonna... We need to appoint a nominating committee. I don't know. I think we couldn't officially do it at the last meeting 'cause we had to- Do it at a reg- at a regular meeting. We talked about it. And I'm, um, I'll be willing to take volunteers or I'll be willing to appoint a committee, whichever y'all want. Um, after some consultation with my, with the chairman, I would like to ask, uh, Ed, would you be interested? Carolyn? Yes. Mike? Yes. All right, we n- we have a nominating committee, and if you'll report back, I think there'll be the election of officer be at the first meeting, first subdivision meeting in, uh, July. Is that staff items next? Mr. Chairman, uh, there is one other commission item, but it's on there- ... on, uh, at the, the request of the staff. Um, a, uh, pest for ash trees, uh, has recently been discovered in, uh, Jessamine County, uh, and there's some concern that it will, uh, soon make its way into Fayette County. The emerald ash borer apparently is an insect that, uh, attacks and does severe damage to ash trees. Uh, ash trees are a common street tree in our planting manual and under our landscaping ordinance for tree buffers. Uh, the staff is asking today that the commission, uh, take action to suspend the use of ash trees, uh, for the foreseeable future, um, under the planting manual. The planting manual is adopted by the commission, and it governs the type of landscaping that is to be installed to comply with Article 18 of the zoning ordinance and also includes the street tree provisions of your subdivision regulations. Um, I wish I could tell you how long the suspension might be for. I don't know that anyone knows currently, uh, but we think it is prudent for the commission to consider suspension of, uh, the ash species of trees, uh, under Article 18 in the planting manual. Yes, Marie. Um, has the urban forester or the tree board been consulted on this? Ah, Mr.- Their request. Both- both of 'em. They want it taken off? Yes, and the urban forester is here to speak to that. Oh, could he come talk to us? Good afternoon. My name's Tim Query, I'm the urban forester for the Irvin County Government. I don't really have any more to add, other than what Bill Salih has already explained about this exotic pest. I'm here today representing the tree board. The tree board, about two weeks ago, made a general recommendation to suspend the use of all ash species that's currently available in the planting manual. Um, the tree board generally looks at street tree use for trees, but we also know, as Bill just mentioned, that ash is very commonly used, not only as street trees, trees that are located in the public right-of-way easement. But trees that are also, ah, widely planted in commercial developments in Lexington. Um, you see 'em used in parking lot areas, uh, landscaping, um, they're very common and, as of yesterday, we'd just learned that Fayette County has now been put under quarantine for this particular pest, and that area extends from Lexington to Louisville, from Lexington north to Cincinnati. And that's the restriction, that's a restriction on the transport of firewood. They seem to think that the insect came down from the North due to people bringing firewood into the State of Kentucky. Um, now that the insect has been discovered here, it's only a matter of time, we all know, uh, if you've been up North recently to see the devastation that this insect is causing, uh, states like, uh, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana. It's only really a matter of time before, ah, it's gonna become an epidemic here. It is a treatable pest, but I think we also realize that not everybody will probably treat, ah, to prevent the infestation becoming even worse. So basically, right now, we're asking that, that no more ash trees be used in, in new development. Can I ask you a question? Yeah. Okay. While I have you here, a guy that's too tight to hire an arborist, how do you treat him? Homeowners, actually, there are products that are available, um, at most hardware stores. There's one product in particular that you can apply to the soil around the trunk of the tree. It's a systemic pesticide that the tree will, will take up through the roots and that will last about three years. We suspect that the outbreak will continue... What we've learned from looking at what the other states, uh, have experienced is that the outbreak will occur probably from now during the next 10 years and will peak and, and then the population will crash. Um, but homeowners can treat their ash trees in their yards i- um, without having to hire an arborist. Ah, we've already begun treating the downtown street trees on Vine Street using a pesticide that's applied directly to the trunk of the tree. It's another systemic. However, that particular pesticide is not available to the general public. It's a restricted use. Marie? Mr. Query, is it amena chloride, ameno dino chloride, or is that the- Imidacloprid- Yes. ... is the chemical, yes. That's the sy- There, there are actually several different bu- chemicals that are- That's the systemic that you put in the soil? Yes. 'Kay. All right, does any other questions for Tim, Bill? Lynn? The, um, so existing trees that, um, are already planted that may become infested, um, we're just gonna have to deal with those, or are those trees gonna have to be taken out, or what? I don't have a good answer for that right now because we can only do so much on city-owned properties. Um, the trees that are on private property, we're guessing that a lot of those property owners won't choose or won't know, um, um, but they probab- they probably will choose not to do anything and, and hopefully, where this is really gonna have a, a huge impact on not only our community but our economy, is when it comes to the significant blue ash that are sort of a signature tree for Fayette County, we're hoping that we can educate the public to where they will, they will do everything that they possibly can to try to help save the blue ash. Um, i- i- if the tree is, is over-mature and it's already maybe starting to decline, it probably wouldn't be worth spending the money to try to treat those. Um, but we even know from looking at the cost that's gonna be associated with trying to battle this pest, that there's gonna be a lot of trees even on city-owned properties, in our parks for example, that we're not gonna be able to have the money to, to be able to treat every tree. So we're having to basically prioritize what trees that the city actually owns that we want to have as the top priority and then go down the list. All right, is there any further questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion that we make a change to the, uh- Well, don't we have a- ... option of making it, uh, remove entirely or just temporarily suspend. Which do you think would have the most clout in turning public opinion and, and signaling that this is a problem? Hopefully, uh, the, the tree, the species itself is, is, is a very good tree. We, we hate to remove it from the list indefinitely. We would hope that, say, in 15 years from now, that it could be put back on the approved species list. So I, I think we don't want to complete entirely remove it at this point in time. Uh, we just wanna restrict its use in, in all new developments right now. So could we, would it be appropriate to suspend it for 15 years until 2000 what? 25? And that may be conservative. I, I don't, uh- Okay. ... but I think having maybe the language in, in, Mr. King and I discussed this, uh, through an email, uh, maybe having just the language added that it... I can't remember now. Our recommendation would be that you suspend it, uh, indefinitely until recommended otherwise by the urban forester. And it would take, again, action by the commission to reinstate it in order to put it back into use. Is that strong enough to keep it from appearing in Lowe's Garden Center? Most of the area nurseries, uh, are aware of the situation and most of the, the local reputable nurseries, uh, the local companies have, have discontinued selling ash for the last three years probably. Oh, okay. If someone wanted to purchase a tree and plant it in their yard, they just need to be aware that that option's still available, but they probably need to start treating the tree as soon as they plant it, uh, in order to prevent the insect from eventually killing it. Yeah, I would like to leave it to the discretion of the urban foresters. Sound like they have the expertise and the knowledge to know when that will occur versus putting a time limit within that, and I'm just not comfortable knowing if that'll- Okay. ... happen 10, 15, or 20 years. So I would make a motion we accept the recommendation of the staff on that. Second. Everybody understand the motion? All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by likewise sign? Jimmy, if you're here, I know we got something. I ******* think five years come up with a totally different *******. I am, uh, would like to, um, on page five of your agen- agenda- Mr. ******? ... the first item under staff items, I would like to, uh, request that the Planning Commission initiate a zoning ordinance text amendment, uh, for the urban plan unit development, the PUD2, um, zone that we were working on as a part of the infill and redevelopment zoning ordinance text amendments that came to you last month. However, it was complicated enough in and of itself that it was basically overshadowing all of the rest of the work that we were doing. Uh, we've, we as a staff pulled it out of those text amendments and we are now requesting that you initiate it as its own text amendment. Uh, I did originally put on here that we thought that we might be able to bring a text amendment to you as, uh, early as your August hearing. Uh, that was before we went through and, um, the, just so that you're aware, the Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee has also kind of restructured itself and reinstituted a new set of task force to look at things. And I believe that we will be asking, uh, one of those task forces to actually review the PUD2 in August. I think during the months of July and August, we can bring updates to the zoning committee to, uh, look at and informally, uh, and make recommendations on that. But I would not, I would like to bring it to your full hearing after the, uh, task force and the IR Steering Committee as a whole has been able to weigh in on the proposed text amendment. And so that would make it a, uh, a September hearing, but we will keep you updated all throughout, uh, the time as we go through and work on this ordinance. Um, that's about it. I believe that it will require, uh, amendments to Article 6 and Article 22 of the zoning ordinance. If there are any other articles that come out throughout the time, of course, we'll, we'll just include what we need to as part of the text amendment. And thank you very much. I appreciate the, uh, support for infill and redevelopment and these text amendments that we've been doing. There, there any questions from Jimmy from the board? Commission? Move to close. We need a motion then, please. Mr. Chairman, I move that we initiate a text amendment to amend Article 6 and 22 to develop the PU, the PUD2 zone. Second? All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by likewise sign? Motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jimmy. Thank you. Been one of the pleasures, you and Tracy, both with myself being here watching you grow up. You've done- ... you're doing a good job, buddy. Yeah, he's gonna grow up fast. I sure have. Did you say up or down? I say grow. I just say, say grow in all ways. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, um, I would like to direct a question to Mr. Sully, please. Mr. Sully, could you please explain the second bullet under planning services activity report? ... to the commission? I'd -- I would be glad to. Uh, Ms. Cunningham, to my left, uh, was named, uh, the Division of Planning's Employee of the Year for the last year, and she was one of five nominees for the Department of Public Works and Development, uh, Employee of the Year, and as such, was recognized by both the Commissioner Mike Webb, uh, and by Mayor Newbury, uh, for her honor. And staff's very pleased to, uh, to work with Stephanie on a daily basis. We're very blessed. Is there any other business that needs to come before the commission, Chris? Well, that took care of one of my two. I'm glad you ... Very gladly. And the other thing I wanted to mention is remind the commission members that next Tuesday, at nine o'clock in the morning, we'll be having the fourth, uh, in a series of the Council Planning Committee, Planning Commission joint workshops, and again, that will be next Tuesday the 30th, at nine o'clock in the morning, on the fourth floor, this time, of the library, conference room on the fourth floor, not in the basement, where we have been meeting. And again, we look forward to a very productive discussion. The two main items on the agenda, as requested the last time, is the University of Kentucky will be present to talk about their campus plans and, and engage in that dialogue that we've been having, and also, we'll be making a presentation on, uh, form-based codes and the possibility of form-based code for Lexington. So we look forward to a very, uh, very engaged discussion. And, uh, the only other thing I would mention is that, also next Tuesday night, we are having the public meeting for the Red Mile Work ... of the Red Mile Working Group. That will be at 7:00 PM in the Red Mile Clubhouse. That's been a very good, very positive process, and, and at this point, we are rolling it out to even a larger group for conversation and public input. All right. Thank you. Is there any other business that needs to come before the commission? If not, I'll entertain a motion we adjourn. So moved. All right. We're ... Thank you. We're adjourned. They'll be so lonely, they could die. Throwin' pictures out the window. Scattered by the way the wind blows. Bye bye, baby, that's the last I'll see of you. Shoebox full of old love letters. I'll tear each one till I feel better. And I won't look back 'cause I don't like the view. What my heart needs now is rest. So I pack it up and I'm headed west. My mind's made up. I'll put it to the test. Pushin' myself in this old machine. Burnin' fuels and what's left of my dreams. Let 'em burn 'cause I don't need no strings. Just give me a road and a little gasoline. Mm. Every Saturday now through August the 29th, come downtown for the 2009 Artist Market, brought to you by the Downtown Lexington Corporation. Located in the plaza of the Lexington Financial Center, across Main Street from the new Farmer's Market location at Cheapside Park, the Artist Market is a small, informal arts and crafts showplace featuring local, well-known, and emerging artists and their works. The Artist Market is open from 8:00 AM to 2:00 PM. Artist registration varies weekly, so plan to stop in each week to see exciting, new, and different artists and their unique works of art. For more information, go to the Downtown Lexington Corporation's website, www.downtownlex.com. Do you enjoy great music, food, and fun? Then bring the whole family down to Cheapside Park and Central Bank Thursday Night Live. Thursday Night Live features the best in live local entertainment, great food from local restaurants, and a lively, family-friendly atmosphere. The fun runs from 4:30 to 8:00 PM every Thursday through October 15th, and admission is free. Food and drink are available for cash purchase. So if you are looking for a great place to relax and enjoy live music, come down to Central Bank Thursday Night Live, at Cheapside beside the Lexington History Museum. And what's left of my dreams. Let 'em burn 'cause I don't need no strings. Just give me a road and a little gasoline. Just give me a road and a little gasoline. It's the one that you know is always open. And the path is free to roam. Oh. There is only one place in Lexington where you can enjoy a newly released kid-friendly movie, children's game, special entertainment, and a petting zoo, all for free. It's Free Friday Flicks at Jacobson Park. Coming back for its 14th year, this family event offers a great evening of entertainment for everyone of all ages. Pre-show activities begin at 7:00 PM, and the movie will start at dark. Bring your lawn chairs, blankets, and pack a picnic dinner or purchase concessions from one of the many vendors on site. Please note that neither pets nor open flames are allowed in the event area for the safety of the patrons. Free Friday Flicks is presented by Lexington Parks and Recreation, WKYT-TV, 98.1 The Bull, and Mix 94.5. For more information and movie titles, call 288-2900. I believe that you are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside. Give them a sense of pride to make it easier. Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be. Everybody's searching for a hero. People need someone to look up to. I never found anyone who fulfilled my needs. A lonely place to be. And so I learned to depend on me. I decided long ago, never to walk in anyone's shadows. If I fail, if I succeed, at least I'm living what I believe. No matter what they take from me, they can't take away my dignity. Because the greatest love of all is happening to me. I found the greatest love of all inside of me. The greatest love of all is easy to achieve. Learning to- Every Saturday now through August the 29th, come downtown for the 2009 Artist Market, brought to you by the Downtown Lexington Corporation. Located in the plaza of the Lexington Financial Center, across Main Street from the new farmer's market location at Cheapside Park, the Artist Market is a small, informal arts and crafts showcase featuring local, well-known, and emerging artists and their works. The Artist Market is open from 8:00 AM to 2:00 PM. Artist registration varies weekly, so plan to stop in each week to see exciting, new, and different artists and their unique works of art. For more information, go to the Downtown Lexington Corporation's website, www.downtownlex.com. Do you enjoy great music, food, and fun? Then bring the whole family down to Cheapside Park and Central Bank Thursday Night Live. Thursday Night Live features the best in live local entertainment, great food from local restaurants, and a lively family-friendly atmosphere. The fun runs from 4:30 to 8:00 PM every Thursday through October 15th, and admission is free. Food and drink are available for cash purchase. So if you're looking for a great place to relax and enjoy live music, come down to Central Bank Thursday Night Live at Cheapside beside the Lexington History Museum. The greatest love of all is easy to achieve. Learning to love yourself is the greatest love of all. And if, by chance, that special place that you've been dreaming of leads you to a lonely place, find your strength in the heart. Stay for just a while. Stay and let me look at you. It's been so long, I hardly knew you. Standin' in the dark. There is only one place in Lexington where you can enjoy a newly released kid-friendly movie, children's game, special entertainment, and a petting zoo, all for free. It's Free Friday Flicks at Jacobson Park. Coming back for its 14th year, this family event offers a great evening of entertainment for everyone of all ages. Pre-show activities begin at 7:00 PM, and the movie will start at dark. Bring your lawn chairs, blankets, and pack a picnic dinner or purchase concessions from one of the many vendors on site. Please note that neither pets nor open flames are allowed in the event area for the safety of the patrons. Free Friday Flicks is presented by Lexington Parks and Recreation, WKYT-TV, 98.1 The Bull, and Mix 94.5. For more information and movie titles, call 288-2900. I still can hear you crying. In the corner of your room. And look how far we've come. So far from where we used to be. But not so far that we've forgotten. How it was before. That September morn. Do you remember how we danced that night away? Two lovers playing scenes from some romantic play. September mornings still can make me feel that way. September morn. We danced until the night became a brand-new day. Two lovers playing scenes from some romantic play. September mornings still can make me feel that way. September morn. We danced until the night became a brand-new day. Two lovers playing scenes from some romantic play. September mornings still can make me feel that way. September morning. We danced until the night became a brand-new day. Two lovers playing scenes from some romantic play. September mornings still can make me feel that way. . I met a gin-soaked bar old queen in Memphis. She tried to take me upstairs for a ride. She had to heave me right across her shoulder. The liquor made it easier, she said, "You'll never forget this night."