To the clock this morning If she should come and call it I wouldn't seem of turning her away And if it got hot and heated I know she'd be electric I'd better take her chances with me You see, she gets what she wants Cause she's hot and cold She's hot and cold She's got it all Hot 11 every night Oh Oh Can't you see her standing there See how she looks, see how she cares I let her steal the night away from me Nine o'clock this morning She let me know how to want it I let her take the advantage I mean, you see She's got what she wanted Cause she's hot and cold She's hot and cold She's got it all I love it every night Oh Oh Yeah, she's hard and so She's hot and cold She's got it all She's hot and cold Yeah She's got this love in every night Oh, oh Oh, oh She's got it all She's hard and sold She's hard and sold She's hard and sold She's hard and sold She's hot and so She's hot and so She was a seaside She didn't just Smoking and a drinking On her inside On top of the world Oh yeah She had a drink In her hand She had her toes In the sand Whoa What a beautiful girl Ah yeah One sweet black Now you will A little bit of Might be Throwing your head around Creeks from the sea with her looks to me like she likes to fool around What a snappy little man, we're gonna keep a pappy happy and accompany me To the ends of the earth, ah yeah So I said, here I am, ain't no man of the world All I need is a beautiful girl Ah yeah, beautiful girl Come on honey, come on, come on Well, I'm a bum in the sun and I'm having fun And I know you know I got no special plans Special plans All the bills are paid, I got them made in the shade And all I need is the woman Understand For the sleep talking on you with a little bit Once you're throwing your head around A creature from the sea with her looks to me Like she likes to fool around Here I am in your man of the world All I need is a beautiful girl I am a beautiful girl Come this way, baby Sit down right here Ooh la la I think I got it now Now I'm on seaside sittin' Just a-smokin' and a-drinkin' I'm top of the world Top of the world I got a drink in my hand I got my toes in the sand All I need is a beautiful girl beautiful girl oh yeah here I am ain't no man of the world beautiful all I need is a beautiful girl oh yeah beautiful girls all you like to hear nothing else I need oh yeah beautiful girls set yourself on oh yeah I am Google Girls I am Google Girls I am Google Girls Come here, baby, come here I am Google Girls What's your name, honey? Hey, hey, where are you going? I am Google Girls I am Google Girls I love them! I need them! I am Google Girls I am I am I am I am I am Eddie waited till he finished High School He went to Hollywood Got a tattoo He met a girl out there With a tattoo too The future was wide open They moved into a place They both could afford He found a nightclub he could work at the door She had a guitar and she taught him some chords This guy was the limit Into the great wide open Under the skies of blue Out in the great wide open A rebel without a clue The paper said it always played from the heart He got an agent and a roadie named Bart They made a record and it went in the charts The sky was the limit His leather jacket had chains that would jingle They both met movie stars, party to mingle Their A&R man said, I don't hear a single The future was wide open Into the great wide open Under the skies of blue Out in the great wide open A rebel without a clue Into the great wide open Under the skies of blue Into the great wide open A rebel without a clue I'm gonna raise a fuss I'm gonna raise a holler About working all summer Just to try and earn a dollar Every time I call my baby to try to get a date My boss says no dice, son, you gotta work late Sometimes I wonder what I'm gonna do Cause there ain't no cure for the summertime blues Well, my mom and papa told me, son, you gotta make some money If you wanna use the car to go right next Sunday Well, I didn't go to work, told the boss I was sick Now you can't use a car cause you didn't work a leg Sometimes I wonder what I'm gonna do Cause there ain't no cure for the summertime blue Hey! I'm gonna take two weeks, gonna have a vacation I'm gonna take my problem to the United Nations Well, I called the congressman and he said, quote I'd like to help you son, but you're too young to vote Sometimes I wonder what I'm gonna do Cause there ain't no Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ I'm sorry. We'll call the commission to order, please. We don't have any minutes, so we'll move on to postponements and withdrawals. Are there any postponements? Here comes Tony. Sorry, I couldn't get out. All right. Tell us who you are, please. I'm Tony Barrett, Barrett Partners, here on behalf of RSA Land, Inc. It's on page 5, number 4, RSA Land Inc. Request day, a one-month postponement. Mr. Salah, can you give us the date, please? Yes, Mr. Chairman. That's December 17th. Okay. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to speak to this postponement request for one month, of December the 17th on the MAR 2009-14. If not, the Chair will entertain a motion to postpone. Mr. Chair, I'll move for postponement of MAR 2009-14 until 12-17-09. There's a second motion made and seconded. We'll vote when it comes up on the screen. Postpone until the 17th. Thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? No. Okay. I guess we'll move on to our development plan on the land subdivision items. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the first item on your agenda today is on page It is item A under development plans, item 1 under development plans, DP2009-81, the letterer property, GCL Properties. This is an amended final development plan. It is located at the intersection of North Limestone and East 3rd Street. Here's North Limestone, East 3rd. It's the old funeral home, South Hall Funeral Home. Over here we have assorted businesses, 3rd Street stuff, that sort of thing. We have Trancy in this direction. Here we have the traditional magnet school for the Fayette County Schools. Back along this part of 3rd Street, there are assorted single and multifamily homes. The proposal that you see before you is to add this addition onto the existing Carrick House. The Carrick House is two-story, 8,600 square feet. They're proposing a little over an 8,300-square-foot addition, varying from one to two stories in this area. In addition, they are modifying their parking layout. An entrance that currently exists here is going away, as you can see on this plan. They're going to have entrances off of Lake Alley. This is an old alley that's existed here for quite some time in the rear of this property. They're going to have access here. They are maintaining the original and existing loop access, as you can see, off of North Limestone that exists here. There are a lot of trees we can outline. You can see here we've outlined for you in green. In this area is proposed stormwater facility. It's a rain garden. Here in this area of the plan is an area where they're proposing pavers. for additional parking. The parking on this site is required to be 110. They are proposing 56 on-site. The rest are off-site, and they are leasing those. This plan was originally recommended for postponement for that parking reason. At the time, we did not have an adequate proposal documenting the availability of that off-site parking. They have submitted a proposal that has been reviewed by planning and building inspection, and we find it to meet the requirements. It spells out the parking very well, the term of the parking, and we are satisfied with that parking. When the plan was reviewed, we did have standard conditions on this plan, which you can see on your agenda. At the time, again, of the approval with the document the off-site parking, we also immediately below that, number 11, number 10, is BOAR approval. This area is an H-1 overlay, and this is subject to Board of Adjustment approval, and this addition has received BOR approval. They are going to return to the BOAR for additional site approval on this plan. In the area of the trees, again, that I wanted to demonstrate to you, These are existing and proposed to be saved that are in the heavy green. Here I've highlighted trees that are going to be removed. And these trees have been reviewed and recommended for removal under the BOAR approval. If you move on down your conditions of approval, you will see that we have a resolution condition that specifically relates to this tree. This is a basswood known as a linden. It is a significant tree under our ordinance. And I took this opportunity to demonstrate to you an aspect of our ordinance, and that is Article 26, the Tree Protection Ordinance. And I put on here in purple the critical root zone. And that is directly from the definition in our ordinance and how you measure that zone. And what it demonstrates here for you today is this is an urban area. This is an urban tree. It's planted here. It grew here. You can see the constraints that have existed affecting this tree over time. Staff's concern with this tree resulted from the initial submission of this plan, which they're going to put up for you to see on what I continue to call Elmo. You can see when you look at this plan at the time, they were proposing parking and a drive lane almost immediately adjacent to the trunk of the tree. And that was our original concern when we saw that layout. Subsequently, they submitted a second revision. And you can see in this revision, they removed the parking that was immediately adjacent. There was still a drive lane there and some parking in close proximity. There was concern about this plan expressed by members of the tree board. And so after a meeting took place on site, a meeting that I attended with a consulting arborist and with the applicant's landscape architect, they submitted this plan that you see before you today. And again, you can see they've much enlarged this area. They've moved the paving back. There's approximately 10 feet at the nearest right here where they've moved the pavement back. And they've made what we feel is a very strong effort to address concerns with that critical root zone and with that tree. And again, I wanted just to demonstrate to you if this was out in a field somewhere and we had a development coming in, this is how you might look at that zone based on the ordinance. But in reality, with the urban constraints and the historical development of this property, you can see, obviously, Third Street has been a constraint. The pavement that exists here has obviously been something that that tree undoubtedly has had to deal with. The 13th and final condition is approval by the technical committee prior to plan certification. This was a late plan. And I would just briefly add that they have worked on this concern from being made aware of it. We did receive this revision Tuesday afternoon. So this plan that you see before you has, to planning's knowledge, not been disseminated to the technical committee members at this time. And with that, I'd answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Ms. Fields? Is the staff recommendation then still for postponement or since the tree issue has been resolved? I believe, thank you for that question. I believe that this plan can now be approved, staff believes. Any other questions from Mr. Martin? Mr. Owens? Mr. Martin, the temporary building that's there now obviously would be removed, I would say. Yes, sir. Yeah. The rain garden, is that inside the stone wall, I would presume? Yes, sir. It is. It is between the stone wall that borders Third Street and the parking lot. And I would add that this is the original wall through here. This back section is new. I'm not aware of how new or that age. I am aware that it is new. It's not the original. But it is proposed in this area. Last question. Do you have any idea of the original asphalt that is there now? If you would like to look at that photo again, I think that would demonstrate that. Okay. I was just wondering, asphalt in relation to the tree. There we go. They're darkening it up. and I don't have my pointer, but the tree is well removed. They don't trust me with a pointer. I think I've told you all that before. I'm a little dangerous with them. But there we go. The tree is in this section. And it's fairly well removed from the existing pavement. But, again, within that critical root zone, there is existing pavement. Thank you. Any further questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, Tom. Petitioner? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Rena Wiseman here for the applicant, and unless you have any questions, we agree with the staff's recommendations. Is there any questions for Ms. Wiseman? Thank you. Anybody in the audience want to speak to this proposal? Come and state your name, please. John Morgan, Member of Planning Commission, Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is John Morgan. I live at 343 North Limestone. My wife and I also own 122 East 3rd Street, which is directly south of the subject property, also 126 East 3rd Street, which we're restoring, and we've recently got an option on 146 East 3rd Street, which we're also restoring. So we've got quite an involvement in the long-term development of the Third Street Corridor and North Limestone for actually just over 26 years now. We've been through numerous conversations with the applicant on this property through BOAR, other discussions, and not speaking for neighbours, my wife and I are now fully supportive of the addition to the Carrick House. Primarily it's a way to get rid of a temporary structure, which we believe is incorrectly in place and shouldn't be there today. We also have some concerns, though, about the drainage from the property. Having lived opposite this for 10 years in 122 East 3rd Street, we are concerned about the site drainage. If I may approach the drawing and... Yes, take the mic with you, please. Thank you. As you can see, if you look in detail for the topo lines on the property, the property slopes in this direction. At the moment, most of the flow will come out of this entrance here, which is proposed for closure. The stone wall on one side, and then we know there's a new stone wall which was constructed about two years ago on the right-hand side here. There's also a proposal to close off this entrance, and it shows a sidewalk and maybe some steps. The concern is that with the rain garden, which extends into the root zone of the tree, so we need to make sure that there's no impact on the tree root system with the rain garden, but also any infiltration into the rain garden could infect the integrity of this section of the historic wall. which extends up to the line here, which was the boundary of a lederer property. So from here back to here, this is all existing stone wall except for the entrance ramp. And all the flow which is coming in this direction, we want to make sure that one of the conditions is that any design includes a very comprehensive evaluation of the rain garden and its suitability in this location. It's very easy to say rain gardens are a nice green thing, and in a lot of applications they are, but in the right place they are the right application and the only question is just to create use for them. Because the last thing we want to do is to affect either the groundwater or the stability of one of the key elements of the building lot there. That's our primary concern regarding the property and we turn to you for any guidance as to how to incorporate clear design standards for the rain garden and also ensure that stormwater management is handled in a way there are no off-site effects. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Morgan. Anybody else want to speak to this? Yes, ma'am. Hi, I'm Karen Angelusi, Chair of the Tree Board. Can you show picture one? I just want you to see this tree. It's more than just a green dot on a piece of paper. Our city ordinance states that they need to stay 81 feet away from this tree. This is the critical root zone. It's a 54-inch diameter tree. It is a heritage tree in the eyes of the tree board, which means it's over 100 years old. I would also like to answer the question that the current asphalt is 20 feet off the tree currently on two sides where the temporary structure is. And I would like to also show picture two. This is a tree that's been omitted from the plan. So I'm kind of curious what is the future of this tree. They have a convenient private property nailed to it. So whether it's their tree or city easement, I'm not sure. But I'm just curious. It was omitted from the plan. Just curious what's going to happen to it. It's right in the rain garden area. So that tree probably would soak up a whole lot more water than a rain garden. And I think that's all I have. I just want to note that it's a very healthy tree, and the tree board would love to see it protected in any way possible, as well as the omitted tree. Besides that, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Angeles. Any other citizen comment? Ms. Wiseman, do you have rebuttal? The only comment was that this site plan, other than the changes we've made to some of the circulation, is basically what the Board of Architecture reviewed in terms of terms of the trees that are there and some are coming out and so that wasn't on the site plan that was front of the board. That's . Do you know the tree that Ms. Angelucci referred to? She's pointed out to me, I don't recall it, it's not on the plan but I'm presuming that it was not on, this is the same site plan that the Board of Architecture Review saw with the exception of these changes that we've made to the circulation and the lake alley and so on. So I'm assuming that tree was on the plan that's already been in front of the Board of Architecture Review, because there are some, as I think Tom pointed out, have to come out. Some of them are not, and I don't know about the condition of this tree, but I don't believe it was on the Board's site plan. Mr. Holmes? Yeah, I have a question for Ms. Wiseman. Has there been any discussion with you about the issue of the rain garden and the drainage and the effects on that historic wall? Just preliminarily, I mean, we've already gone through the H-1 overlay review, and now the next part of this is to do the final development plan. Now we're at this stage where we have approval to go forward with construction drawings, and that's when the time when this drainage system as well as the rest of the infrastructure will be designed. At that time, you'll be prepared to address the issues of... Yes, yes, and I believe that would be covered under the standard condition condition of number one, the urban county government's acceptance of the drainage. That will be part of it. Mr. Martin, have you got any rebuttal? All right, sir. Then we'll turn it over to the commission for discussion and or motion. Ms. Copeland? I get you. I'm really happy that we're working on this property. And with any historic property, there are tradeoffs, and we have to watch what we do so we don't do more harm than we do good. I want to talk about the trees first. This is not just a 50-inch diameter tree. It is the right scale for this property. And let's say for some reason the tree dies. Well, two or three little twigs out there, and that's what they would look like, are not going to do what this tree does. Next slide. This one's also significant. I think it's a ginkgo. It was late last night when I took these. It's the wrong kind of ginkgo. It's the smelly kind, I think. But it's still the right, and it's on the left. Another picture. And this tree is in the back. It's a tulip poplar, and it's going to go. So you've got three significant trees which act like a triangle around this building, and one of them is going to go. So, therefore, the weight of carrying this property on its stage, Next slide. This property is in the historic district, but it's also, next slide, it's got this wall that is a retaining wall. It's not just a wall. It actually holds a fill of dirt. Next picture, please. It's not just any wall. It is an ashlar wall. That means that this rock was hewn. It was not sawed. It was chinked out into these square blocks. And then it's got a raised mortar and a crenellated top. You just don't see these walls anymore. So basically the walls are replaceable. Next. Well, we can't see what that is. But it was dark last night when I was down there. But there is a major entrance to this property. Maybe we'll get better. This is the tree that we're talking about, and it's up there in front of the temporary building that's sort of turned permanent. And the sidewalk, if you could imagine, the sidewalk comes down there at one level, and then the ground is up at another level about four or five feet up, or shoulder height. All that land from that tree down slopes not only toward the center line of the front door, but also down the hill. Next paper. Well, we can't see anything from that one. What I'm getting at is the drainage there, the natural flow, and the fact that we have a filled, irregular capillary soil next to that wall. Next one, please. Got any more pictures? Yeah. This is out of an old college textbook of mine. and when that wall in all probability has what's called a toe, and that would, in the upper right-hand corner picture, how that foundation to that wall sticks out to the right like a dead man, some people call it a dead man, but it's really a toe. You put that back into the land or the part that you're trying to retain, and then the pressure of the dirt from the word drainage down holds that toe from kicking over. Do you get what I'm talking about? And each one of these deals with the fact that you have an interrupted soil that you have put a retaining wall on. In the bottom one, the bottom drawing, they actually put drain pipe and also a swale at the top to carry the water off and gravel in there like a French drain. In the top one, they caught the water in a different way. But their whole purpose is to get the water away from the toe so it doesn't kick over and default. We're in the business on this plan of suggesting that they hold the water there and let the water go down. Now, if we had a regular soil, like a subsoil, like 10 inches of topsoil, and then a subsoil with a clay pan, it would tend to drain away. But because that looks like a fill situation next to that retaining wall, I suggest that it's got a good possibility, without an MRI for the site, that it's got a good possibility of going down and putting that toe and that foundation to that wall in a boggy mess. Now what happens if we do do that? If we keep the rain garden and make that toe wet, then when the ground freezes and because on one side it has no insulation, it's going to hump and bump or freeze and thaw and crack the wall. When you crack the wall because it is solid mortar or has mortar joints, it's not like a dry-laid wall that can come and go, then we have a hazard on a property line next to a sidewalk. So this gets to be a safety issue. I think before we go farther with this, we need a structural engineer who knows a lot more about this than I do. I am acquainted with the situation, but I do not want to give a verdict on it. But I think it calls for further study and sensitivity as to how we handle the drainage water, which is, that's the end of this picture. given the site with all of the elevation that's involved, which is 10 or 15 feet, it seems to me we could certainly take the water either underground part of the way, all the way, or over to in front of the front door on the front slope and put it in a sunken garden that mows, something formal. There's probably several solutions rather than putting a rain garden beside a historic, irreplaceable, monumental scale wall. Mr. Owens. My question would be in regards to the off-site parking. Is there an agreement? If so, where and for how long, I guess, are we talking about? Ms. Wiseman. We have an agreement with the school next door and with the office on the other side of Lake Alley. They're each for an initial term of two years to be automatically renewed a year thereafter indefinitely. Okay. Ms. Wiseman, where would the parking be at the school? Where would the parking be at the school? Are the people going to be required to walk down Limestone? On the sidewalk. Down the sidewalk on Limestone. Okay. There's no parking behind the school, to my knowledge, is there? I believe most of it's all out front. Okay. Out front. Okay. Front side. All right. Thank you. Any other discussion from the Commission? The subdivision staff recommends approval. We have some concerns here. How do you want to handle this? Ms. Copeland. Yes. I really want this property to succeed and to have a nice plan. And I ask the applicant, would it be easier for you to have a postponement to regroup on this? No, Ms. Copeland, it would not. We are very anxiously trying to get a plan approved so we can move forward with the addition. We cannot do anything with the drainage or any of the infrastructure until we get plans drawn and approved by the Division of Engineering. So they will have to look at the rain garden or any drainage system that we would propose. If it's the conclusion of our consultant and the city that a rain garden is going to cause peril to that wall, then that option probably won't go forward. It was something the architect thought would be desirable. But our client is also very protective of that wall and has added to it with the approval of the Board of Architecture Review. So he would not want to make that tradeoff. But a postponement at this point, we have to design all of this. And this is a typical condition. We don't bring you a development plan with specific designs at this point. Okay. Could there be, is there some limitation, or could there be some more use of the grass pavers so we don't have so much runoff? I'm not an engineer, but I'm sure that's one of the things that they will look at. Now, remember, this site pretty much is all paved or was covered with buildings prior to this. So in terms of what's being changed in terms of impervious surface, it's not significant. I do take your point as to where the drainage goes is critical with respect to that wall, but that's something that our engineer in designing it will have to take into account. Okay, thank you. Is Mr. Newman here for his substitute? Mr. Henry, could you give us some ideas on how we could put maybe a 14th requirement here so that we don't get in trouble with a wall problem? My name is Stephen Parker, and I work with Hilary Newman, Division of Engineering. My name is Stephen Parker. You did bring us some very valid points as far as integrity of the wall and the effects the rain garden would have. There are numerous possibilities to retention. If underground retention is the option that the applicant desires, there are numerous ways to do that, being permeable pavers, pipes. There's different ways to handle it. So we would just have to see what the applicant submits to us before making an educated comment on what they're submitting. We haven't seen any plans, so commenting is premature. We would like to see the plans before and decide on what they submit. Yeah, because when we can get into piping, we could cut the roots of the basswood tree. Correct. So this goes on and on. Mr. Martin, can you help us? How can we resolve this so we have a built-in checklist for this problem? I was going to suggest that since it's already subject to the Urban County Engineer's acceptance of drainage storm and sanitary sewers, it might address your problem to just add to that first condition with particular attention to drainage towards East 3rd Street and the design of the rain garden as it impacts the existing rock wall. Okay, that sounds real good. Because that way it is premature, I think, to require them to have fully fledged plans at this stage, but it will put the Division of Engineering on notice when they review the conditions for this plan that those were concerns of the Planning Commission. Can you also tie that to number five so that one activity doesn't impact a tree? Yeah. Can you add some verbiage to that? I think we could just add conferring with the urban forester as to impacts on existing trees. Whatever you think will address it. That would trigger, again, engineering to be cognizant of impact on the existing trees and to consult with Tim Querrey about that issue. So, Ms. Copeland, are you wanting to bring a motion with those two changes? I'd like for somebody else, but yes, I am. I make a motion that we approve DP 2009-81. Subject to adding, here we go. The whole point is to protect the wall and the tree and still get the parking we need and the least amount of drainage in the nicest way. Number one would be sanitary sewers with particular attention to drainage towards East 3rd and the design of the rain garden as it impacts the existing rock wall, conferring with Urban Forester about the impact on existing trees. So that will be your motion? Yes. That's an extension of number one. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any discussion on Ms. Copeland's motion? If not, when we see it on the motion. Does the motion also include deletion of condition 12? No. No. We keep that in. Okay. Any other questions? If not, do we all understand the motion? If not, when it appears on your screen, let's vote. Motion passes. Thank you, Ms. Weisberg. Mr. Salley, do we have any that will qualify for abbreviated hearings? Mr. Chairman, there are two items remaining on your agenda that may qualify. The first appears on page 3, MAR 2009-12, a zone change request by the Lexington Trots Breeders Association, LLC. They are proposing a rezoning to a mixed-use community MU3 zone for property at 780, 790, 790 and a portion of 1200 Red Mile Road. At this time, we would ask anyone in the audience if they are present to either object or to speak about this zone change proposed for Red Mile Road. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this item can be handled in abbreviated fashion. This would be your next zone change today. Roger. The other item that may qualify appears in the middle of page 4 of your agenda. This would be MAR 2009-13, a zone change request by OCETA LLC. They propose rezoning to P1 professional office zone for property 1122, Oak Hill Drive. Again, at this time, we would ask if anyone is present who wishes either to object or to speak to this proposed zone change on Oak Hill Drive by OCETA LLC. Thank you, sir. this will need to be a full hearing. So we just have one that qualifies for abbreviated hearing today, sir. So we'll move into that this time. Yes, sir. We'll begin to be prepared again in just a moment. Thank you. So I'll call the attention to the commission to page three, the Red Mile. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Whatever you're ready, Mr. Zell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. Your first zone change this afternoon again appears on page 3 of your agenda, item number MAR 2009-12, a zone change by Lexington Trots Breeders Association, LLC, they are requesting a three-part zone change from an existing agricultural urban AU zone, an existing B4 wholesale and warehouse business zone, and an existing R1C single-family residential zone. The zone change request is all to an MU3, a mixed-use community, mixed-use zone, MU3. This total zone change involves just over 62 acres, and as I mentioned a few moments ago, it includes 780, 790, and a portion of 1,200 Red Mile Road. Mr. Chairman, we have received one communication about this zone change. It is a letter from the Fayette Alliance that we'd like to share with you at this time. It is in support of this proposed zone change. Thank you. The subject property is on the east side of Red Mile Road, generally midway between the signalized intersection of South Broadway and the signalized intersection of Versailles Road. It encompasses, as I said, 62 acres of the over 130 acres of the Red Mile property. That property is bounded not only by Red Mile Road, but to the north by residential uses along Bennett and Embry Avenues, by an urban county government facility in a B4 zone here, by multifamily apartment development along Nancy Hanks Road, and additional apartment development across Red Mile Road to the immediate west. There are several commercial uses in this area, and the zoning for most of those uses is B3 for hotel and office and other commercial uses closer to Red Mile Place here. There are office uses to the south directly across Red Mile Road from this location, and in the Gibson Park neighborhood, single-family residential zoning here. Most of this zone change is from AU to MU3. There are two very small exceptions, both along the frontage of Red Mile Road. A very small area is currently zoned R1C, an old remnant from many years ago, very near the intersection of Unity Drive. There's another small remnant at this location as well, closer to the office uses for fraternity of Phi Gamma Delta here. In addition, there is a sliver of B4 zoning right here on the very southeastern edge of the subject property. Other land holdings by the Red Mile are B4 for the Tattersalls facility and a green space area along the northeast frontage of Red Mile Road. Again, less than a one-acre portion of that is also proposed for this rezoning. The balance of the Red Mile property, including the track here, will remain in an AU zone. Also, Floral Hall is not a part of the zone change. That is here, and it has an address of 1210 Red Mile Road. It is on a separate track, and it is to remain AU. It is not part of the zone change. As we always do, we look to the recommendations of the comprehensive plan whenever we evaluate a zone change. We have an overhead for you that shows part of the plan, but looking in the land use element, again, we're between South Broadway, Anversales Road, along Red Mile Road. Most of the Red Mile property is shown as a semi-public facility on the comprehensive plan. Semi-public facilities are ones that benefit the public but are not technically owned by the public. The comprehensive plan goes on further to state that existing semi-public facilities are shown this way on the land use map to indicate their desire for continued existence and contribution to the community. The plan also states that should redevelopment be proposed for these land uses, the commission should consider the recommendations of previous comprehensive plans and amendments, as well as other current information. The comprehensive plan text also has something to say about this particular property. That's indicated by the small star on the land use element. You can get that on the overhead. The comprehensive plan states that this property should be reviewed through a small area plan with strong consideration for high-density residential and mixed use. This is not the first time that this property has been considered in such a way. We handed out to you at the start of this meeting an exhibit from the 1990 South Broadway Corridor Plan, which for the first time recommended that the Red Mile property be designated as a semi-public land use, but also that should it redevelop, that it be considered for light industrial, office warehouse, and medium-density residential land uses. It should come as no surprise then that the 2001 Comprehensive Plan also had a very similar statement to this, recommending this property be considered in the future for mixed use, including residential use. More recently, the Commission is aware that the Red Mile Development Plan has been formulated over 2009, and it was done consciously as a substitute for a small area plan. This 30-page document did have oversight by the Planning Commission. It involved not only the Red Mile property owners and their agents and their representatives, but also the planning staff and, more importantly, many property owners in this particular area. That development plan set out a vision for the particular subject property, and that vision is documented thoroughly on page 4 of the staff report. Since this is an abbreviated hearing, I will not dive into those details. Needless to say, that plan set a very high standard for mixed use at this location, calling for residential, commercial future use for a portion of the Red Mile. This plan also, like the 2007 comprehensive plan, counts on the fact that this is a semi-public use that needs to be encouraged to remain and to continue to contribute to the community. That and all of the supporting documentation in that plan have been part of the staff's review of this particular zone change. One statement in the Red Mile Development Plan is worthy of mentioning even in abbreviated fashion, and that is that there is a need for rezoning to a mixed use category, and currently the LFUCG's MU-3 category is the most similar to the zone needed to complete the development vision of this particular development plan. The land uses, as you will see in a moment on the development plan, are consistent with the Red Mile development plan. The staff finds in our staff report that this property and this application does meet the locational criteria of the MU-3 zone. We have concluded in our staff report on page 5 that the MU-3 zone is in agreement with the 2007 comprehensive plan, including some of its goals and objectives. The mixed-use proposal that is before you today is consistent with the 1990 Small Area Plan, the 2001 Comprehensive Plan, and most importantly and more recently the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. Again, the Red Mile Development Plan has further augmented those recommendations. The planning staff has recommended approval of this zone change to MU-3 in its entirety. The finding being the requested mixed-use 3 zone is in agreement with the 2007 comprehensive plan and is appropriate for the 62-acre location requested. There are six reasons in our staff report and listed on your agenda for this recommendation. To briefly summarize, first, MU-3 has been cited as the best mechanism to permit about a half of the Red Mile property to develop for a mixed-use purpose. Secondly, this proposal will implement the vision and direction of the Red Mile Development Plan. Thirdly, this rezoning will be consistent with other redevelopments approved in this area and will respect existing residential neighborhoods, apartments, and commercial land uses in this area. Fourthly, the 2007 comprehensive plan goals and objectives encourage appropriate infill and redevelopment and a full range of housing opportunities as are being proposed with the Zone Change and Development Plan. Next, a mixture of land uses has been recommended in this area since 1990 and recommended and anticipated by both the 2001 and 2007 Conference of Plans. And finally, this development will, quote, lay the groundwork for additional development that will support and enhance the existing racetrack and ancillary operations at the Red Mile. Prior to the development plan presentation and a presentation on the traffic impact study at this time, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about either our staff report or the recommendation from the staff. I would note in closing, your zoning committee has also recommended approval of this zone change. Thank you. Are there any questions from Mr. Salley? Thank you, sir. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Item B, ZDP 2009-78 is the preliminary development plan that accompanies the zone change before you today. The plan oriented to the north here has Red Mile Road that forms this boundary, of course, of the property. Here is the existing track for Sales Road, South Broadway. It is a 62-acre site, very large. We don't usually have the pleasure of seeing very large sites being proposed for development. For the mixed-use proposal in this area, you see housing here and in the brown. This is vertical housing that they're proposing in this area. Here they're proposing multifamily units. The housing on this property is approximately 295,000 square feet. 204 units are being proposed. Here we see outlot development being proposed along the Red Mile Road frontage. In addition, we have commercial developments here and here, all highlighted in red. That is over 380,000 plus square footage. In this area, we have the existing grandstand. The parking that's being proposed, as you can see, throughout the development, there are over 2,000 parking spaces required. They are proposing just a very small number over that requirement with just approximately 2,047. The requirement is just over 2,000. Access points are being proposed in this location here, directly across from Unity Drive here, and as you can see here across from this existing drive, and then slightly offset here. The internal circulation, you can see by the plan, is geared up to provide access through the site with a central feature here that is oriented here at the center of the development along Red Mile Road, which is to provide sort of a nice mall entrance to the existing grandstand area. This plan was reviewed by your subdivision committee and recommended for approval. There were a lot of conditions, as you can see on your agenda. Many of the conditions were our standard conditions, approval by the urban county engineer, traffic, building inspection, urban forester. We did have some cleanup conditions about removing utility pole information, clarifying some items. We did also state that they needed to denote their proposed detention areas. There are some karst features in this part of our community, and we wanted to have our detention areas clearly denoted. We also have the bike and green space planner. There is a, again, the nature and the size of this development, as you can see, there were concerns about good pedestrian connectivity along with vehicular connectivity, both to Red Mile Road and also internally to the development. There is also a trail as part of our trail system proposed to connect along Red Mile Road. And those were the standard conditions that we reviewed. And we did, as you can see, have eight resolve conditions. And there was a lot of discussion at the technical committee and the subdivision committee. As you can imagine, this is a large plan. It is a preliminary development plan, but there was a lot of concern about how this would function and should function as a development. And Mr. Emmons is going to address those resolution conditions for you today. And at this time, if you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Have any questions, Mr. Martin? Mr. Owens? Mr. Martin, you mentioned the parking spaces, the minimum number required, 2,000. How is that figured up? Is that with the construction that they're putting in the office space and residential units? We added up per use all the required. Yes, sir. How does the grandstand and Red Mile itself figure into that? It was also part of the ultimate total. It was figured in based on their seating. Seating? Yes, sir. Okay. The exact number I have is there's 2,023 required parking spaces. They're proposing 2,042. So there's not a lot of wiggle room in terms of excess parking. Granted, you see the development, it's large, and there appears to be a lot of parking, but they are close to the requirement. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, I have one for you. Just for the record, the Round Barn, the memorial, I can't think of the word escape from me, but the Round Barn is going to share the parking that is agreement. I know I could ask Mr. Harvey later on about that, but it's a staff understanding that the Round Barn will be part of this development and we have shared parking. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. It's not subject to the zone change. It is on the development plan, as you can see, and there is parking there for them. All right, we'll save that for the development plan. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to summarize the eight resolve issues that are listed on your agenda today. I have passed out a green sheet that has some proposed language on that. Just wanted to point out that this is a preliminary development plan, a conceptual development plan. It is more detailed than the conceptual development that was shown in the Red Mile development plan, which was developed through the several-month process with everyone. You could characterize this development plan as a further refinement of that conceptual plan, but it is still conceptual in nature. I think the level of detail that was provided on this plan is indicative of the effort that the applicant has put forward on this. We just wanted to point out also that on large development proposals such as this, especially with zone change proposals and complicated preliminary development plans, it's quite common for the Planning Commission to put a note on the plan saying that these further items will be resolved and looked at at the final development plan stage. That puts the applicant on notice that these items were important to the staff and to the planning commission. It puts the staff on notice. As time goes on, sometimes it takes a while for the whole development plan to come in, especially on large developments that come in in phases. It's a way of documenting those concerns that we had so that they don't get lost whenever they come in. The staff recommends that all of these, because all of these resolve issues are really technical in nature, they involve the front facades of the buildings along Red Mile Road. And other than that, that mostly involves traffic and pedestrian movement throughout the site. We feel that those are all best addressed with the final development plan. And so in order to facilitate the certification of this plan with those eight resolve conditions, the staff is recommending that they be consolidated into one note that will be placed on the plan that says at the time of the final development plan, the following issues will be resolved, and then put them in the positive instead of just saying the word resolve, that the outlaw building facade orientation to Red Mile Road and everything of that nature. I do not believe that that requires any additional action on the part of the Planning Commission today. You can approve this plan subject to the 22 conditions that are listed on here. This is just kind of letting you know what the staff's plan for certifying it with those eight conditions on there. The staff recommends approval of this zoning development plan as it appears on today's agenda. If you have any questions for me or Tom or any of the staff, we'll be happy to try and answer those. Otherwise, I'd like to turn it over to Rob Hammonds, who has a short presentation on the traffic impact study. Jim, before Rob comes up, let me ask you, do you want to leave the word resolve, or do you want to substitute the screen sheet for the resolve? It's really up to the commission, but for ease of motion making, I believe that you can just approve its subject just like it is on today's agenda. And we've titled this as a supplemental recommendation rather than a revised recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Hammons. Good afternoon. My name is Rob Hammons. I'm with the Division of Planning, Transportation Planning Section. I am a senior planner, and my role is to review the proposed zone change, the proposed developments, transportation and traffic impacts to the adjacent roadways and to the overall network. Okay, good. We got my presentation up there. If you could demolish just a little bit. But some of the stuff in this presentation I'll go through pretty quickly. You all have a copy, and I've got several extra copies. So if anyone needs an extra copy, just let me know. I have, you know, first things first, I see some new faces on the Planning Commission. Welcome. Appreciate your all service to the community. I do these traffic impact reviews. I used to do a lot of them, like every month, but it's been a while, so I may be new to some of you. But the first thing I'd want to say is the traffic impact study review staff report that I handed out, that first page is pretty much background information that's already been discussed. What I'm going to be doing today is looking at – one second. Okay, one moment. Okay. First of all, the traffic impact study that was provided, it met the zoning ordinance requirements for Article 6-1C, which is for developments that are not residential. Hit my stopwatch here so I don't get too long-winded up here. And what I'm going to go over today is some of the main items that we look at to assess traffic impacts. So we'll look at proposed zone change, land use, existing transportation, transit facilities, access and accessibility to the site. And we'll look at the level of service, which is the amount of delay, the existing and future conditions of the level of service with and without the development. and also discuss some of our mitigation measures to be able to deal with some of the level of service impacts that we'll go over, because there are a few level of service impacts which reach level of service E, and in some cases a level of service F on some minor movements. But that's the gist of what we're going to be going over here. One thing I'd like to note that, you know, I'm sure you all probably know this, but the Red Mile track is the second oldest harnessed racing track in the United States. It's been around for over 135 years, and about 35 to 40 years before zoning ever came into creation here in the United States. So when you talk about land use and stuff, they've been there a very long time. So I'll move forward. As we look at some of these slides, I've got a couple of them that are – this is a comp plan map, which they've already built, already showed you right here. So I just wanted to kind of show you that. And this is a zoning map. This is an aerial of Red Mile, and it's a Google photograph, and it basically shows you the two main roads that Bill discussed, US 68 South Broadway and Purcells Road. It also shows you Red Mile Road out to, in front of the proposed site. the existing roads, we have some information on the type of road, which they're both national highway system, United States highways. And they're also, we have the, this is a couple other shots. I'm going to show you just some of the aerials I have showing the Red Mile Road. You can see the starting mile point, which is taken through the Transportation Cabinet's highway inventory system. And this, if you see, it's kind of difficult to see the orange lines, but those are like match lines. You'll see, as you come from South Broadway up to mile point 0.2, you'll see the couple of entrances there. These are existing entrances. And the next shot is down by Unity Drive, where the proposed development's main entrance is going to be very close to Horseman's Lane. And the next slide shows you Horseman's Lane up through as you move toward Versailles Road. And then you have Red Mile Place, Nancy Hanks Road. and the last slide shows you the other signalized intersection at US 60 Vercels Road and Red Mile Road. Speaking of functional class, this map will show you that you've got two arterials in the blue red mile. The blue line on this functional class map shows that Red Mile Road is an urban minor arterial. So we've got a lot of trips on a lot of daily traffic on South Broadway and Versailles Road. Instead of just giving you some numbers, I thought I'd pull the data right out of the computer system and show them to you. There's US 68 from Lane Allen Road to Boulevard Street, 2009 annual average daily traffic, 45,200. From US 60, Mason Healy Road to Red Mile Road, 26,000 computer estimate. Red Mile Road to West High Street, 25,500. And you'll note, we have records back to about 1977 on most of these major roads. And then we have the Red Mile Road annual average daily traffic of 20,300 trips. Moving on to the next item, which would be on page three, looking at the site trip generation. The site trip generation is the on-site trips, and as you can see from the total, these various land uses will generate a sizable amount of traffic. But let me clarify something. As you look down beneath the total, we've got an internal trip capture rate of 15%, and that's kind of standard. That may be even higher. That rate could go as high as 25% to 30%. This is not an exact science, but it's all this data and the methodology is through the Institute for Transportation Engineers. So it's the industry standard. When you look at the internal trips being 15%, you've got pass-by trips for retail at 25%. This could go a little bit higher, too. So when you look at the new site-generated trip totals, you're looking at a lot of daily trips. And when you look at the last two columns on p.m. entering and p.m. exiting, that's the p.m. peak hour traffic. And once you take that traffic, you're looking at around 600 to 600-plus trips in the p.m. entering and exiting, and a pretty good amount of traffic in the a.m. also. But one thing to mention, one thing I want to mention is that when you look at the phasing beneath that, That's 50% of the development, and Phase II is the other 50%. So, you know, you're looking at 600-plus trips, so it's a high-traffic generator. Next thing I want to point out beneath that is that we're looking at about 55 to 45 directional distribution split. Let's see what we've got here. There we go. So hopefully they won't move past that one. I've clicked it twice. But anyway, that slide's in your report, and I just wanted to point that out. And some of this can fluctuate, you know, 5% to 10% for the methodology used. So we've got a lot of trips. The main, the most important part of this review deals with the level of service, And that is basically a letter grade on how the delay is impacted by the trips proposed, the on-site trips, how they impact the roadways. So on page five of your table, you'll see various scenarios. And I'd like to quickly go over those because I've already been up here about eight minutes. But when you look at scenarios A and B, those are your existing condition scenarios. And you'll see that we've got D and E, which that starts to be a pretty good delay overall. It's not a good grade. But please note that your minor movements usually drag those overall intersectional level of service down, of those minor movements, even though we know that the minor movements in this area are not so minor. So you have a level of services D and E and D and D for your existing condition and existing with improvements. Scenario C and D, you're looking at your phase one no improvements, phase one with improvements, You're looking at a slight improvement from level of service E and D. And as we go into the proposed build-out date of 2025, we're looking at level of service E and F for the no growth and growth with improvements. So basically what that means, you've got bad traffic, existing traffic, and this is going to add a few more seconds to it. And I know that doesn't sound like good news, but the good thing about the next part of this information is I'm going to tell you that we're going to work to mitigate these traffic impacts and that we've got a lot of bike pad movements in the area. We have a couple of roadway improvements, one at South Broadway and Virginia Avenue. We're hoping to put some turn lanes in there. And even though that project has no program funding, it is planned. So let me move on and show you. That's the intersection. As you can see, this intersection, that's basically looking in a southeast direction at that intersection. The top left part is the Shale gas station. And the side to your left would be South Broadway as it turns on to Red Mile Road. You see it's got a short turn lane. So we're going to work to make some improvements there, move this to the NPO, try to increase the ranking to get some funds to this area to help mitigate that issue before they get full build-out. But that's just one of the things we're working on. This is a top-down view. And to the far to your right, that's the roof of the shale gas station. So that is a north is up on that one. This is the proposed recommendation for U.S. 68 because when you look at these level of services, you know, you've got South Broadway and Versailles Roads being impacted. So we're looking to mitigate and improve those situations. Let's zoom in a little bit. The next slide is a little bit more close up. So you see we've got some issues there trying to make some room for improvement. And also that approach, that intersection from South Broadway turning left on to Red Mile, we are hoping to get that project elevated. Right now it's ranked 33rd in the MPO's unscheduled project list. This is an unrelated photograph that I meant to take out, but it's actually one of the service roads to the back of, to the north side of the property, which is not on the zoned area. I would like to, as I move on here, as we deal with these level of service issues and trying to take traffic off the roads, we've got good transit out there. I took these photographs yesterday. We've got two transit routes going down through there. We've got bike lanes on the road. This is one of the first transit stops going southbound. This transit stop is the busiest one in town. It only shows one person there, but you can tell how reliable it is because all the students come running out just in time to get on. They've got like four on the south side of the road and we've got one on the north side. So to try to sum up this supposed brief study review, we've got the consultants made several suggestions, as you'll see on page six, to deal with traffic and to make improvements to the roadways. We've got some issues and just some minor issues on making sure we have adequate turn lanes and right-of-way access. We really want to make sure we have good pedestrian access. And back on the transit note, we've got about 30-minute headways on transit. So we've got some issues with the traffic, but we are going to work through those and make some recommendations to try to improve the traffic situation out there as this proposed plan and the road as the traffic conditions. We're going to work to try to improve those. Let me just put it that way. but you all have any questions about any aspect of those slides and tried to move through this quickly I'm already about 13 minutes up here so it's not so brief but I'd be glad to answer any of the questions I there's a lot a lot of other information but I don't want to go on and on about about some of this stuff but y'all have any questions of miss Copeland firm you have a question There was a consultant that did this study? Yes, yes. That was Jihad Alani. He's here today. If you have any questions for him, he's with Vision Engineering. Okay, so he's a local person. Yes. My question is that due to the possibility of erratic inflow and outflow at the main entrance to the new main entrance to Red Nile, where you've got the median and the nice approach there, was there any thought given to making that a roundabout? because a roundabout could be responsive to erratic inflows and outflows where a traffic light wouldn't. Well, I didn't see that in the report, and just looking at the amount of traffic and the vehicle mix on that roadway, you still have a lot of heavy single-unit trucks and some larger trucks with trailers. even though the correctly sized roundabout may work for the vehicle mix. There's just so much traffic there that it would be kind of problematic. Okay, so that's a bad idea. Then what about turning horse trailers in and out of Red Mile? Where is that accommodated? This was a big factor on the Parris Pike. This, as I pointed out in those earlier slides, they've got some really wide entrances into the existing site, and they also have a – You've got to have room to pull out. Yeah, they have locations here, and they also have a very wide service road that's over by Tattersall. Are you familiar with the site there? Okay, so that will come up. They also have a service road running in off of Versailles Road. It's not the very best location, but it's right after a traffic signal, which slows traffic down. They would be able to turn in there and access to. They also have another, they have a couple other entrances that's real close to this area right here. Okay. Excuse me. Thank you. Mr. Holmes. Yes. Now, when this, when the study was done, did they look in terms of the impacts of the other activities going in there, like activities in Angliana, the impact that Newtown Pike extension when they, that's completed, the amount of traffic that will sort of dump off there on Broadway? That wasn't included because as part of the zoning ordinance requirements, they're only required to go down to the nearest arterial collector. They didn't go into that. But I would say that could be beneficial for this route also. Right. But I guess overall, though, there will be a traffic impact that we need to look at more than just at the site. Yeah. Well, when you look at the overall traffic volumes, then you consider the PM peak hour trips, which our peak hour is our most significant time of day because of all the commuters coming inbound and outbound. You're looking at around 300 trips added to the network. So, yeah, there is traffic impacts, and the existing levels of service have delay on now. But hopefully with multimodalism, transit, and just like that and with those other improvements I discussed, that that will help keep the mobility and the flow of off-site traffic through the area. Yeah, one other question. And how do you factor in the transit part of the impact study in terms of improving or enhancing that? The transit, I believe that when we looked at transit, our senior transit planner spoke with them, I spoke with Jared Fort of Lexner Inn, and I believe they factored in the transit as about, I think, about 20 percent. That's just off the top of my head. 20 percent increase ridership? Well, I don't know about the increase in ridership. I'm talking about existing when looking at existing traffic movements and multimodalism in the area. Thank you. Any other questions? Any other questions? If not, Mr. Hammonds, thank you. this is one of the bigger projects that's been done in Lexington in a long time. It will have a big traffic impact, and we're hopeful that, to answer Mr. Holmes's question, that the state will improve the Versailles Road part of it and help make those turn lanes bigger and handle more cars. So thank you for your report. You're welcome. Thank you all. Mr. Harvey, stand. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'm Mr. Rhodes Brown. I'm here with Mr. Harvey, the Urban Collage, and Jehoshani from Vision Engineering on behalf of the Red Mile. Answer your questions. Do you all have any questions for the petitioner, for the applicant, for the Red Mile staff, people, however you want to phrase it? Mr. Owens? Mr. Brown, following up my question earlier as far as parking spaces, recognizing what takes place at the Red Mile right now, including the quarter horse racing that's been going on the last few years there, are you all ready to handle can you all handle sort of influx I know it's not on a regular basis but it does occur and you know quite frankly even 2,000 spaces while you've got 10,000 people coming there seems a little bit much I guess to follow up would be also are you planning on any preferred parking designated parking or anything like that for the owners for the patrons specifically going to the Red Mile during that time? I'd like to pass that off to Stan if I may. Okay. I think we can stand it. Good afternoon. In answer to the question about the parking, it's a good question. One of the advantages of the proposed phasing plan is that it's our general anticipation that development would start closer to Red Mile and work back towards the grandstand, which would give us the flexibility in the short term to allow continued parking pretty much where it is now. The other thing which may not be so evident in the site plan is that there is a structured parking deck planned. Stan, if you will, take your mic. Sorry about that. There is a structured parking deck planned in support of the track as part of the long-term development. And your second question, I'm sorry, was. The parking structure, is that going to be in the first phase? No. No. Okay. That's part of the general intent or general thinking subject to market conditions would be to start with the periphery and work back and in along the town green to the grandstand. And actually what you will see here, just to make sure the commission is clear, this is also actually expansion of the grandstand and then structure parking. So whenever this part would be developed, I would hazard to suggest it would be at the same time. there would be dedicated parking for the track developed, particularly if there was any expansion of the grandstand. Yeah, my only concern is the patrons and the owners and the people that's going to the Red Mile, that's been going to the Red Mile, and making sure they've got adequate parking. And I'm sure you've discussed that in the past, so I wanted to raise it one more time. I would hazard a guess the owners hope that's a problem more often than it has been in the past. Are there any other questions for Mr. Brown or for Mr. Harvey? Ms. Phillips? I'm not sure if this question is best direct to you or to Mr. Hammonds, but any infrastructure improvements that need to be made off-site with respect to accommodating anticipated traffic associated with this, will that cost be imposed on the state? Will that cost be something that's subsumed by the developer, or how will those costs be covered? My guess is that Mr. Hammonds may have to answer that on behalf of the city. I will say, which may be of interest, that in the preliminary conversations we've had with the staff and with the city, the owners have expressed some interest in exploring the possibility of a TIF district for this development, which I mention because it offers the opportunity, if decided to be pursued and if agreed by council, that could be a partnership with the city to accelerate some of the projects Mr. Hammonds mentioned are not high on the priority now and would be a way to advance funding for those. That said, that is not a reality as of today as you're considering this. Mr. Hammonds, do you want to address that? Those, excuse me, I'm having some thorough problems here. The off-site improvements would have to be done by the state, but they would also go through the transportation planning process of the MPO. The South Broadway improvements, like I said, is 33rd on the list, and we're getting ready to go through our unscheduled projects list again, and so we can take a look at that and check that out and reassess it. But, yeah, that's going to be a state cost, but the state is aware that South Broadway and Red Mile Road, Virginia Avenue, and Vercels Road, they're aware of those issues, and we have those in our long-range plans, But some of them are not supposed to be implemented for another 10 to 15 years. But with this development, that's going to factor into some of these, hopefully getting, you know, some type of funds, whether it be SLX. But on the state roads, it would be state program funds. You're welcome. All right. We've heard from the applicants. We've heard from the staff. Is there any other statements the staff would like to make before we go forward with this? I want to remind the commission this is an abbreviated hearing, but this has been going on for about five months in public hearing situations with a lot of input. If we'd had to have this, Mr. Harvey, in a normal situation with this much area, we probably couldn't have had this hearing if we dedicated the whole session to it. That being said, we want to take these in two different motions. Is there anybody on the commission that wants to? I would like to take it in two different motions, MAR 2009 and 12, and then we'll do the development plan after that. So I'll turn it over to the commission. Mr. Owens? If you're ready, I'm ready for making a motion, Mr. Chairman. I'll move for approval of MAR 2009-12 Lexington-Torotsbury Association, LLC, as Steph has recommended with the reasons stated on the agenda. Okay. The motion has been made and seconded by Ms. Richardson. Any discussion on the motion? If not, when it appears on your screen, let's vote. Motion passes. Now we'll take the development plan. Also, Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of ZDP 2009-78 Red Mile, mixed-use development, including the supplemental staff recommendations. Do we have a second? Second, Mr. Paulson. Any discussion on the motion? If not, when it appears on the screen, we'll vote. The motion carries. I'd like to make a statement for the commission and thank the staff for the time they've put into this and thank Mr. Harvey and all the consultants that work with them. I'd like to thank Fed Alliance and all the public input. Those over there in the audience probably are not aware of the fact that we've had, Chris, how many public hearings have we heard, I mean public meetings have we had on this? We had a very intense four public sessions plus Planning Commission work sessions and discussions, working with the community and surrounding area with the Red Mile on this proposal. I want to thank you all, the petitioner, for doing it this particular way. I hope it breaks the mold that what we'd like to do in future developments. It gives the neighborhood a lot more input into it in a lot less formal way, and we thank you all for what you've done for us. Thank you very much. All right, so do we need to take a break or do you want to move on? We'll take five minutes while they set up for the next abbreviated hearing. Thank you. Back together. I've been notified that number three on page four will qualify now for an abbreviated hearing. So we'll take that up at this time. MAR 2009-13. Ms. Wade. MS. Good afternoon, Chairman Penn, members of the Commission. This is MAR 2009-13, a request by OCETA LLC. This is a zone change request from a planned neighborhood residential zone, which is the R3 zone, to a professional office P1 zone. Before we get started, I'll refer you at the end of my presentation to the blue sheet, which should be at your place settings. The subject property is accessible and has an address of 1122 Oak Hill Drive and is accessible from Oak Hill Drive. It has approximately a 50-foot frontage on Oak Hill but is surrounded on all other sides by the rear of single-family residences, and those residences are on Carneal, Locust, Oak Hill Drive, and Highland Park. Generally, the subject property is between Loudoun Avenue to the southwest and New Circle Road to the south, I'm sorry, to the northeast. Oak Hill does come all the way down to Loudoun, but does not connect all the way to New Circle Road. In this vicinity, I believe Meadow Lane is the connector that runs parallel to Oak Hill. The subject property is zoned R3, and all of the properties in the immediate vicinity are zoned R1C, which is a single-family residential zone. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property in order to utilize it as an office and a laboratory. The property was R3 in order to accommodate the former use, which was the Big Brothers Big Sisters Community Center and Office use, and they recently sold the property and moved from that location after being there for about 20 years. The 2007, let me go ahead and switch. This is just an aerial photograph of the subject property that does demonstrate the house. It's a former residence that was converted to a nursing home at one point and then to the Big Brother's office and community center use that still remains on the property and then the single family nature that surrounds the subject property. And then the subject property is recommended by the 2007 comprehensive plan. On the overhead is a close-up because it's usually difficult to see on our maps. It's recommended for a semi-public future land use or existing land use with medium density recommended along Oak Hill and then low-density residential recommended to the east and south of the subject property. That semi-public land use recommendation has been there since the 2001 Comprehensive Plan, and prior to that, the two Comprehensive Plans before both recommended low-density residential at this location. With a semi-public land use designation when the semi-public use ceases to exist and redevelopment is an option, The comprehensive plan recommends that the Planning Commission and the staff in making the recommendation factor in what other existing conditions are present and also the previous comprehensive plan recommendations. Of importance in this case also is that the subject property lies within the central sector small area plan, which was recently completed. The small area plan does not recommend any specific land use changes for this property or in the immediate vicinity, although it does identify some. guiding principles for the area, including enhancing the urban fabric, promoting and preparing redevelopment and investment in the area, and specifically, this Muller Area Plan encourages neighborhood economic development, especially when it can utilize existing assets. So the staff did find that the subject property has been an asset in this neighborhood for a number of years and reuse at this site could potentially enhance some economic development for the central sector area. The P1 zoning that the applicant is requesting is one of several zones that could implement a semi-public land use recommendation of the comprehensive plan. And the staff did look at what the existing zoning could allow on the property with an In R3 zone, multifamily residential would be allowed by right without any rezoning. And that could be several apartment buildings. And the staff was concerned about the potential of that, although residential in nature, that use being incompatible with the existing neighborhood. And so the staff, when looking at the P1 zone, felt that it could implement the small area plan and also be limited by some conditional zoning restriction in order to make it appropriate at this location. So the staff is recommending approval of this zone change because the P1 zone can implement the small area plan for the central sector, which is an adopted element of the 2007 comprehensive plan. The subject property is an asset for the neighborhood and can hopefully promote some more economic development in this area. In addition, the P1 zone is appropriate and the R3 zone is inappropriate for three reasons, which are listed on your agenda and staff report. But generally, the uniqueness of the property isn't situated so that single family would be a good idea at this location. So the R3 and possibly multifamily would be incompatible at this location. And then the P1 has the ability to implement a majority of the semi-public land uses. The staff has recommended conditional zoning restrictions. And at the zoning committee, the applicant objected to two of those restrictions. And the zoning committee did recommend approval of this zone change with the request that the staff work with the applicant to narrow the issues on those two items. So since the zoning committee met two weeks ago, we have conversed with the applicant and developed a revised conditional zoning list for this zone change, and that's on the blue sheet. The two issues that were of concern dealt with item C in the prohibited use and then item M. Item C was the medical and dental offices and clinics, and the applicant is agreeable, as is the staff, to adding the text over 4,000 square feet in size. This would limit any medical or dental office but still allow it to be on this property in a small way. And then item M, the way the staff had that worded was of concern to the applicant, and they proposed the wording any research or testing that involves the use of large research animals on the property, such as dog, cats, non-human primates, and farm animals. And the staff was agreeable to that change as well. These restrictions are necessary in order to protect the single-family residential nature of the neighborhood, and the staff is recommending approval. Happy to answer any questions. Any questions from Ms. Wade? Ms. Jones? Ms. White, can you explain reasons behind the, under other use restrictions, A, no more than 11 dwelling units shall be printed at this location? In keeping with the previous recommendations of the comprehensive plan for low-density residential at this location, the staff did go ahead and calculate how many units at this location would be within the range of 0 to 5 dwelling units per acre and basically keep the property in a compatible nature with the surrounding area. and 11 units at this location would be the upper limit of that density range. Even if it changes to P1? Well, the P1 zone does allow residential land use on the second floor, and this building does have a second floor. I believe they have a caretaker that will remain on the property as well. Mr. Holmes? I agree with you that you shouldn't go much more than 11 units or even less than that Because it looks like there's only one way in, one point of ingress and egress, and I'd hate to see that really densely populated with housing units. So I think a Piedmont is a much better example, and a lower density would be preferred because of that ingress and egress issues. If we will, we'll hold some of those technical questions until we get the development plan. But any other questions, Ms. White, on the zoning? Thank you. Thank you. Big Brothers Big Sisters property. Ms. Wade certainly gave you an excellent orientation to the property and its location and surrounding area. Here is Oak Hill Drive. Here is the primary access as it comes into the property. Here is the parking that is proposed. There is some existing parking at this time. We have an existing building of over 13,000 square feet. The original use was a residence. It became a conditional use for a nursing home. Big brothers and big sisters added a gymnasium area to the back. This is this area now on the existing structure. At the time that that happened, no detention was required. With this plan, although they're not enlarging the building in any way, they are increasing the parking, so therefore they're increasing the impervious surface. They are showing proposed detention in this area. There are 57 required spaces for this use, and they are proposing 57 spaces. This plan was reviewed by the subdivision committee and recommended for approval, subject to standard conditions with a couple of cleanup conditions. We did have two resolutions, and those conditions are resolve the landscape buffer and resolve the lighting. This is very much in relationship, again, as you saw on this layout here and what Tracy put up for you on the overhead. You've got a unique situation. in that we have a P1 use being proposed, and it is surrounded virtually by single-family homes. And the depth of these yards and the large backyards, of course, are a very attractive feature for these residents. And staff was concerned with whether or not landscaping would be adequate to standard landscaping. And again, we were also concerned about lighting, although you have a conditional use restriction that's asking that it be directed away, we don't have any standards per se on private parking lots. And so we were concerned about balancing the need for a safe and secure parking lot for the workers and employees, but not intruding on those residential backyards that surround the property. The P1 zone that is required, the buffer zone along this perimeter, is a good one. It's very good. It requires a tree every 40 feet on center, 15 feet in width, 6-foot hedge, double hedge. I mean, it has worked very well. But we were concerned, again, this is a very unique area with nice deep backyards, completely surrounded residential areas around this development. So we were concerned about the adequacy of that. That could be mitigated by the presence of utilities with the trees that are planted and their height. So, again, that was a concern that we had, along with the lighting and the number of possible lights that might be placed within the parking lot. So we had those two items as a resolution. Again, to see how this body and neighbors, again, might feel if they were adequate. I would add that these things are typically final development plan issues, and it certainly could be resolved at that time, should you wish. In addition, I would add that you will need a condition 14 on this plan, Should you grant this zone change and adopt the conditional zone restrictions, then of course you'll have to add, denote conditional zoning restrictions on this plan as condition 14, should you approve the preliminary development plan. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions from Mr. Martin on the development plan? If not, thank you, sir. Thank you. Petitioner? Mr. Barrett? Chairman Penn, members of the commission, I'm Tony Barrett, Barrett Partners, on behalf of Oceda LLC. Bruce Webb, the owner and applicant, is here today, and Jack Walker is also present. He's the caretaker, lives there on the site and has for the past, I think, 10 years, and will continue to serve as caretaker. We're in the spirit of an abbreviated hearing. I'll be brief. And thank you for allowing us to be an abbreviated hearing today. The 86 zone change pretty much summed up the concerns from a residential perspective and the subsequent conditional use minutes reflect also the concerns of or the potential office use for the site, limitations to the single-family development, and also concerns of the neighbors for multifamily uses. I have some handouts that I'll submit for the record that kind of highlight some excerpts from the small area plan that advocate economic development in the area and basically what the staff has recommended or based their recommendations on. It encourages businesses being integrated into the urban fabric of the area and employment opportunities, pretty much the potential that this site offers to the neighborhood. And we are in agreement with the conditions imposed by the staff with regards to the development plan concerns for landscape buffer and lighting, The existing landscape buffer around the perimeter is substantial, but we're agreeable to resolving that at the final development plan in case things change, and we can take a better look at that. But the intent is to keep that. That was the appeal to Mr. Webb for the property was its trees and open lawn and the proximity to downtown and U.K. With regards to the lighting, his interest is pretty much just security lighting for the parking lot and is agreeable to shielding the lighting so that it shines only on the intended property. And condition 14 with the conditional zoning notes, we're in agreement with that. And we appreciate staffs working with us on the considerations for the medical and dental offices and also the specific language as regards to the small animal, large animal issue on letter M there. So I'll just turn these in as it's for the record. If you had any questions, I'd be happy to answer those. Any questions, Mr. Barrett? Ms. Copeland? Yes, Mr. Barrett. It's my understanding that this is going to be a research facility. It brings to mind what if there is research on dogs and you have dogs outside in a kennel. There's a noise component. There's a smell component. What if you have chickens and they're going to crow early in the morning? Do we have any protection for the neighbors for those kinds of things? Well, the letter M restricts us to small animals. The rats and mice are the predominant lab animals. Bruce, do you want to add anything else to that? Everything would be inside, basically? Yeah, everything would be contained inside the building as far as the lab animals. So all lab animals are going to be contained? No dogs. Okay, no dogs. Yeah. No cats, non-human primates, and farm animals are all excluded from research on the property. So it's worms and salamanders. Heis. Heis, rats, guinea pigs. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Barrett? If not, being this is abbreviated here, we won't ask some questions from the audience or comments from the audience. Thank you. Staff, you have any other rebuttal? Okay. Mr. Barrett, I assume you're through with what you need to present. All right. We'll turn it over to the Commission for their discussion and or motion. Mr. Chairman, if nobody else has any comments, I'll make a motion. All right, sir. I move for approval of MAR 2009-13 OCTA LLC, including the revised conditions put forth by the staff on the blue sheet. All right, sir. Is there a second? Second, Mr. Cravens. As soon as we have the motion. Any discussion on the motion? If not, when it comes on your screen, we'll vote. All right. The zoning passed now the development plan, please, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of ZDP 2009-77, including the addition of .14, denote conditional zoning restrictions. Second. Second. All right. As soon as that comes up, we'll vote. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Berry. I never got to vote on the second. Sorry. I didn't think so. All right, moving right along. Thank you. No, I think we've already voted on it when we voted on the first one. We tied both of them together. I didn't know that, but we did. So we voted on both. No, there was. Pretty good shot. Did you have two votes? Sally. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Wade, whenever you're ready, we're ready for you. Ms. Okay. Chairman Penn, members of the Commission, our next item is MAR 2009-11. This is a zone change that the Planning Commission initiated. So the Commission is the applicant, and it is a proposal for an ND1, which is the Neighborhood Character Design Overlay Zone, and it's for the Westmoreland Neighborhood Association, or neighborhood, excuse me. There were several items that Mr. Taylor passed out for me. The first is a revised staff recommendation on the brown sheet. The second is a letter that was copied in white from the Neighborhood Association dated November 6th. And then the third item is a packet of correspondence that the staff has received up to today. The first is a letter or an email from Ms. Moore, who's a Westmoreland Neighborhood Association board member asking for postponement. The next is a request from Mr. Duncan, who owns the 38-acre tract, to the west asking for withdrawal. There's one letter in support and six letters in opposition to this request. And I will enter the originals into the record, but you all have copies for your review during the course of the hearing. This can be found behind tab one in your notebooks, our staff report can. The Planning Commission initiated this zone change in July of this year, and it was requested specifically by the Westmoreland Neighborhood Association. The area proposed for the ND1 is the Westmoreland subdivision, as well as the one large 38-acre tract to the west. Basically, Westmoreland is located about a mile east of the Woodford County, Fayette County line on Versailles Road and is on the north side of Versailles Road. generally the Versailles Road would bound it to the south and then just the backs or sides of the properties the rest of the way around creates the neighborhood. It is 146 properties and about 230 acres in this area. The subdivision is still zoned AR, so it is a non-conforming subdivision, and that meaning that this subdivision could not be created today based on our AR regulations. So these lots, all of them within the area, are nonconforming because they don't meet the size, 40-acre size requirements. The subdivision was originally developed by Harry Wise and created in 1962 with the first plat, and it continued to be platted up through 1978. So the span of development in this neighborhood ranged 16 years at the very least. The 2007 Comprehensive Plan recommends the subdivision itself as existing rural residential, which is shown here with the yellow with the hatch mark, And then the property that's the outlier of the subdivision, Mr. Duncan's Farm, is recommended for core agricultural and rural land. The history generally for Westmoreland in this area is after development, Mr. Wise maintained control of deed restrictions, and he was inconsistent, or he allowed variances very frequently. And those requests continue to come to the Neighborhood Association for deed restriction variances, and that's become a concern for the neighborhood. They looked to the ND1 overlay to help them to better control some of the properties of their neighborhood that they want to maintain. The Neighborhood Association is sinking the ND1 in order to protect the subdivision from incompatible development and to ensure what they feel is an open, park-like setting be maintained in its original intent. The purpose of our ND1 zone in Article 29 is to establish a design framework to conserve the key features that are identified by those neighborhoods and to preserve them. So the Westmoreland Neighborhood Association looked to the two other neighborhoods that have utilized ND1 as examples, and they developed some six designs, actually a great number more than six, but six came to the Planning Commission earlier this year as proposed design standards. These design standards are administered in the same way as conditional zoning restrictions are, so they are reviewed by building inspection at the time of an application for a building permit, although amendments are a little bit more streamlined than for conditional zoning restrictions. Article 29 of our ordinance establishes seven criteria, one of which must be met by the Neighborhood Association to qualify for the ND1. And Westmoreland expressed their concern or desire to maintain the overall character that was established at its development of the neighborhood, and they documented a need to protect the visual characteristics that give the neighborhood its distinct quality. The neighborhood identified three goals in developing their design standard analysis study, which are to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood, to regulate the exterior materials of the structures in the neighborhood, and to maintain the open space and ambiance of the subdivision. The neighborhood originally requested that the Planning Commission initiate six design standards, the first of which is to regulate exterior building materials, in order to help maintain some consistency within the neighborhood. The review of their study showed that over 80% of the homes in the neighborhood currently adhere to that proposed restriction. The second restriction is one that wants to limit the building height in the neighborhood to two stories. Since this was initiated by the Planning Commission, the neighborhood has met, And in their November 6th letter, they've identified restriction number two as one that they would like to withdraw or delete from the list. The third proposed standard is for a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet or one-third of the lot. And this is one of those restrictions that will help to maintain the park-like setting and the open space in their neighborhood. The fourth proposed restriction deals with garages and them having a desire to have them attached to the principal structure and being made of the same materials and also to face the primary street. This is the second instance based on the neighborhood letter that the association is wishing to delete a portion of this restriction to delete the second sentence, which would require front-facing garages. The fifth and sixth standards that came to the Commission and that you initiated relate to fencing in the neighborhood. And this, again, is an issue that deals with the park-like setting. And collectively, those two standards would prohibit any kind of fencing except a pool fence and restrict the total area of that fence. The 2007 comprehensive plan does seek to promote the protection of neighborhoods, and that would be in goal 15 and objective I, and specifically to preserve, protect, and maintain existing neighborhoods in a manner that ensures stability and high quality of life for its residents. So it follows that an ND1 overlay would help to do that for the Westmoreland Neighborhood Association and specifically where they've developed the standards based on their study. The staff did propose at the Zoning Committee in September a few changes, but since that time with the applicant or the Neighborhood Association's input, I would like to share with you this TAN sheet, which proposes a few more changes than the staff had originally proposed. Under Item 2, because the restrictions become like conditional zoning restrictions, you'll see that they would be listed separately under the provisions of Article 6-7 of the zoning ordinance, the following use restrictions are proposed for the subject property. First, the staff did propose a few changes to item number one, just for the building inspection division to be able to interpret and enforce this a little bit easier, noting specifically that 100% of a new structure must be brick or stone. That includes additions. Unless you have some other material on your house already, then you can use whatever material that would be to make that expansion. And then the exceptions would be eaves, dormers, and porches. Deleting number two at the neighborhood's request. The new number two deals with rear yard setbacks, and there would be no change there, although I would take this as an opportunity to share with you the – well, let me come back to that. Excuse me. The new number three would deal with garages, and we would delete the second sentence that dealt with facing the street, which was a concern of the neighborhood's. New number four would deal with fences, and the staff proposed adding tennis court fences as an allowable fence type because there are a number of tennis court fences in the neighborhood that would be, you know, are important to that neighborhood. And so we developed a size allowance for tennis courts that are within the regulations for single and double tennis court play. The clean copy of that appears on the back side, so it's a little bit easier for you to see what those restrictions would be. The staff is also asking or recommending that 3860, Mr. Duncan's property, Carlton Drive, be withdrawn from this request because it, first he wanted it withdrawn. That was one consideration. But in the staff, when we looked at that property compared to the rest, obviously it's much larger. It's not part of the platted Westmoreland subdivision, and it is still in agricultural use. So the ND1 overlay seemed to be out of, just not appropriate for that property. So the staff is recommending withdrawal of the large 3860 Carlton Drive and is recommending approval of the rest of the zone change for the Westmoreland subdivision with the revised restrictions. The one thing that I wanted to bring up, the planning commission, or the staff likes to, in an instance where the planning commission initiates a zone change, we like to do a non-conforming use analysis. And with three of the restrictions, there's the potential to create non-conformities. And one is for rear yard setbacks, and the staff identified five properties that currently don't meet the 25-foot setback either on their property or even if they're a corner property, most of these could meet it in a side yard, but they're not corner properties, so that provision didn't help them. And even this corner property, because of the way the house is situated at an angle, it doesn't meet the 25 foot on the rear yard. So five are created in terms of rear yard setbacks. Oops. In terms of detached garage, The staff noted that there were six properties that currently have detached garages, so those would become nonconforming structures. And then last, the staff looked at fences. And there were 33 properties that currently have a fence that is not related to a tennis court or a pool. So some of them are small two or three plank privacy fences. Some are large chain-link fences that do encompass a majority of the property, and there's just kind of a gamut range in between. And then in putting all of those three layers together, we identified a total of 37 properties that would have new nonconformities created, either for the fence, the rear yard, or the garage situation. And some of them have multiple, so that's why it's not an addition there. The last few notes that we'd like to make with the ND1 is that with ND1 restrictions, the Division of Building Inspection, their review may lengthen because of the ND1 restrictions. So getting a permit at the counter is, I guess, not a reasonable request with an ND1 restriction. There may be a day or two review. And then also that there's been questions in the past about how a homeowner might appeal a ND1 restriction, and the design standards are applied, like conditional zoning restrictions. Therefore, a variance is not allowed. But to alter these restrictions or modify them, you would approach the Planning Commission with an application that is much like a variance request to the Board of Adjustment. So I just wanted to put that in the record. And I know the commission is aware of that, but mostly for the Neighborhood Association. And I believe I do have photographs of the neighborhood if you all would like to see those on the PowerPoint, but we don't have to get into that. It's up to the commission. Are there any questions for Ms. Wade? All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is the neighborhood ever represented? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Bill Allen. I reside at 3825 Margo Court in Westmoreland and am the current president of the Westmoreland Neighborhood Association. Lexington is fortunate to have a number of beautiful neighborhoods, and in my totally biased opinion, Westmoreland is certainly among the most beautiful. I think the beauty of the neighborhood arises from some unique characteristics that really define it, and Ms. Wade referred to those. One is the open park-like atmosphere that comes from the relatively large lot sizes, but also from the absence of perimeter fences. It seems to me that the ND1 overlay process is ideally suited, uniquely suited to preserve these characteristics in Westmoreland. And so a couple of years ago, the neighborhood initiated this process to obtain the ND1 overlay to preserve those, primarily those characteristics of the neighborhood. This hearing was originally scheduled for September, and I and others in the neighborhood became concerned as the hearing approached that there was a great deal of misunderstanding and confusion about what an ND1 overlay was, how it would operate, and how it related to the deed restrictions. So we requested and the commission granted a postponement of the hearing until today. The neighborhood, I think, has made really good use of that additional time. We've had several neighborhood meetings, and we have seen a fairly lively debate over the Internet and the neighborhood listserv. So we've had what amounts to an ongoing town meeting on this. And from that, I think a consensus as to several things has emerged. Number one is that this ND1 overlay enjoys overwhelming support of the neighborhood. If not unanimous support, that would be surprising in an application of this nature, but overwhelming support. Also, Ms. Wade referred to requested changes. These discussions about these particular design standards did generate reconsideration of some of these, and it was the consensus of the neighborhood that the removal of the two-story height restriction was appropriate because that's adequately covered by other existing zoning and plat restrictions, and that the prohibition against street-facing garage doors was unduly restrictive because of the topography of some of the lots in the neighborhood and because that exceeded some of the requirements of the existing deed restrictions. As to the Duncan property, I think that was actually included by mistake in the original application. The Duncan property, access to it is through the neighborhood, But it really isn't part of the neighborhood. It's a 38-acre tract that is primarily agricultural, and I think that it was a mistake to include it, and I think everyone in the neighborhood that I know of concurs with that. The, these really are, although there, it's been reduced to four things, it really involves three general areas. The proposed overlay one is fences. And that is something that does define the neighborhood. I think that some of the, our neighbors are concerned about that because no fences means no fences. And I'll have to confess that gave me some pause. initially, because there is no, there's just no discretion there. No fences means no fences. But I think, having thought about this, the absence of the fences, or at least for the most part in the neighborhood, is something that really uniquely defines the neighborhood, makes it, gives it its character, and that the neighborhood wants that preserved. And I think that consensus has emerged as well. So the neighborhood does request that the commission act favorably on this. Every one of the past presidents of the Neighborhood Association with whom I've spoken is supporting it, and many of them are here today. They include Lillian Press, who was the first president of the Neighborhood Association, Ben Harper, who is the immediate past president, Sid Webb, Lynn Press, Ann Bolton, and Michael McCann. Westmoreland is a unique treasurer in my view, and I ask the Commission to act favorably on this application with the changes recommended by the staff. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Allen? Mr. Brewer? One quick question. When you say no fences, it harkens back to this point, which is 33 fences exist now. And if my math is correct, we've got existing 25 percent nonconformity in the houses. How do you reconcile that with what you're proposing to do now? And with, I guess, the preface that I should have said, which I agree, it's a jewel, and we need to preserve it. I'm just trying to balance that with homeowners rights and existing nonconformity. Well, as I understand it, the existing fences will be grandfathered in, though they will be permitted in the future. But I think the map may be a little bit misleading because some of these fences are around gardens, for example, or maybe around a patio. What we're really concerned about are perimeter fences. and there are very few of those in the neighborhood. Some of those that are there, there are some chain link fences, for example, that cover a large area of the neighborhood. Frankly, we don't know whether or not Harry Wise approved those. They've been there for a very long time. But there are very few fences that segment the neighborhood, and that's really what's important here. And, you know, are there any good fences? Yes, this troubled me, and I think it troubled many of our neighbors. But actually, this also illustrates the problem. Fences beget more fences, and they beget more fences. And you get to a tipping point, I think, where, you know, somebody's saying, well, look at all these other fences. Why can't I have one? You know, I want to fence in my yard or I want to fence in my dog or whatever. And the concern in the neighborhood is that that, an incremental erosion that will ultimately result in a deterioration of the character of the neighborhood. And the purpose of this application is to stop that process. There are deed restrictions already in place. everyone who bought into the neighborhood agreed to a deed restriction that says no fences without the approval of now the homeowners association. And that will remain in place. However, there are fences that are going up in violation of the deed restrictions. And we feel that an ND1 overlay, which will basically prevent someone from getting a building permit to build another fence, will just give us another layer of protection. And so we do think that while there are some nonconformities, I think the map is misleading in one sense because these are not perimeter fences that segment the neighborhood, which is really what we're concerned about. But it also illustrates that there is this erosion of something that is unique to Lexington, I think. I don't know of another neighborhood like it. I've looked around, and when I first came into the neighborhood, I was just stunned, frankly, at that characteristic of it. And that's just speaking for myself. But that's what we're about here. And we think that it is important to the neighborhood. And I think that the consensus of the neighborhood is that this is a good thing on balance. Mr. Cravens? Yes. You said the deed restrictions are still in effect. Correct. And how different are they from these three or four things that you want? Are these not addressed in the deed restrictions? The fences are addressed in the deed restrictions, yes. What about the materials on the buildings? The materials on the buildings are addressed. However, they do not require brick or stone. They require the approval of the Neighborhood Association. But that particular restriction is consistent with what is the character of the neighborhood now. The vast majority, I think 80% or 90% of the homes in the neighborhood are brick or stone. So that does preserve that character of the neighborhood. I don't see that as a very big issue, though, as a practical matter, because the neighborhood is built out. There are some lots, but only one or two. I guess the 100 percent, you know, nothing to 100 percent that you have written there. I mean, if somebody were to go get a permit to build a room on the back of their house, and they could put brick on 99 percent of it, and there was a little dormer or something that they couldn't do it on, the building inspectors are going to send them to a rezoning hearing here at the Planning Commission. I believe the way it works. Well, I believe the restriction contains an exception for eaves, dormers, or porches. But there could be a part that you can't do 100% brick. I mean, you would have to appeal it to us to get that done. And then on your fencing, I know swim pools mainly have, you can reduce your insurance if you get a double fence around it. Is that, would that be, in your opinion, necessary for fencing for a swim pool? The intent of this is to avoid, to prevent people from evading the no fencing requirement by putting a pool in and then putting in a perimeter fence around the entire, and that has happened. But a double fence is, I had a pool and we double fenced it because it cut the insurance down. Is that okay? I think that's fine as long as it meets the 400% total area requirements. Again, the purpose is to prevent that requirement from being evaded. As far as 100%, the staff has done a fabulous job and has provided a great deal of assistance to the Neighborhood Association, particularly Ms. Wade. She's been very patient with us, and we appreciate that very much. It was the staff's recommendation to insert the 100%. That was not in the original application, as I recall. I don't know that the neighborhood feels strongly about the 100%. I mean, we're not intending to impose a requirement that's impossible to meet and certainly would not want to do that. Well, you know, when you start fooling with rezoning your neighborhood, I mean, sometimes things happen that you don't intend to. Well, that's one of the reasons that we felt that it was important to ask for a postponement of this to give the neighborhood a chance to digest these things, because obviously they're important to each homeowner, including me. Ms. Copeland. Yes, thank you. This sounds like a really good idea. I just have a question. Since most of the fence problems tend to be at the front of the lots, Could people have built fences to keep their dogs in before we had the underground burial line thing? Only with the approval of Harry Wise initially or now the Neighborhood Association. The deed restrictions are written in absolute terms. And this was one of the things that Harry, that was his vision when he developed it, was to have this open park-like atmosphere. The other thing is, at the entrance, you've got fencing along the road that comes with the property, right? There is a road fence, so you're somewhat protected from stray dogs coming in and that sort of thing. Well, it's a four-plank fence, and it's really intended, I think, to be decorative. Yes. So I think dogs could get through it. Do you have a coyote problem or anything around the boundary out back? I have not. My lot is on the western side and backs up to the farm that's to the west, but I don't know of a serious coyote problem, and I don't know what we could do about it with this overlay. I don't think that could. I just wondered if people were trying to fence something out rather than fence something in. Well, as I said, most of these fences are, the one along Versailles Road is decorative in nature. It's a four-plank white fence. The other fences, there are very few perimeter fences, and most of those have been there for a long time. Many of these are smaller fences around gardens. And I guess there is an effort in that regard perhaps to fence varmints out, but I've never heard of a fence that's very successful in actually doing that. But, again, so I'm not sure that the chart really depicts what the neighborhood actually looks like, because predominantly it is very open and park-like, and that's really what we want to preserve. Mr. Holmes? Are there provisions for hardship in this, Tracy? Are there hardship provisions in this? Because I'm concerned because the detached garage is what happens when, say, a person's garage burns down and they have to go back and build an detached garage. No. No, as I understand it, any nonconformity that exists now can continue in the future. Even if it's destroyed? The ordinance, Article 4, allows for nonconformities to be replaced if they're destroyed. Okay. Mr. Owens. Mr. Owens, you mentioned in your opening that you had overwhelming support for this. How have you determined that? Did you have a recent survey? Have you had a recent survey? No. And I'll have to say that that is my sense of the situation there. There are, as you would expect, some people that are very, very much in favor of this. There are some that are very, very much opposed. And there are people that are in the middle. But in the initial application, the rate of support for this ran about 75% to 25% opposed. And I've spent a lot of time talking with my neighbors about this over the past six months, and I'm just saying that my sense of where the neighborhood is is about there, about 75-25. The only reason I ask, we've got a couple of letters here of opposition that simply state that originally they were in favor. However, since being involved and getting more involved in support, they changed their mind. And I was wondering if you had any sort of recent survey on this. We have not done any recent formal survey that would allow me to give you a number. But I do know that I agree with you that it is true that some people have changed their minds going both ways. Some who initially opposed it now favor it. One question for Tracy. With the public meetings that took place or with the Neighborhood Association meetings, were there any staff people there? The first one occurred either shortly before or shortly after the September first hearing date, and our staff was not available because it was a short time frame. However, the one that was held in October, Mr. Sully attended. I believe they had an hour and a half plus meeting, and he answered questions. If you'll hang on just a second, I'm going to ask for audience comment, and we'll be glad to hear you. Okay, thank you. If there's no more questions from Mr. Allen, what I would like to do here is to ask if there's any person that wants to speak for or against this. We'll kind of alternate so if somebody speaks for, then the next person could speak against it. One thing I would ask you to do is to limit your comments to a couple, three minutes, and the other thing is that you don't repeat what somebody's already said. You know, we're perfectly capable of hearing the first time. If you have something new to add, we'll be glad to hear it. But we really don't want to stay here all evening. So let's just start out in support. Somebody who wants to grow from support, come forward, please. State your name and your address, and then we'll have somebody in opposition next. Good afternoon. My name is Michael McCann. I'm a past president of the Neighborhood Association, as Mr. Allen mentioned. As of about two weeks from now, my wife and I will be celebrating our 20th anniversary in Westmoreland. We were an unincorporated entity when I first moved to Westmoreland, and I was chair of the incorporation committee that basically incorporated the Westmoreland Neighborhood Association and subsequently chair of the committee that built the monumentation at our front entrance. I was on the board for, I think, a total of nine years and president one year. I only mention that to let you know that I am very much interested in our neighborhood and have been involved in the management of it for quite some time, particularly the first 15 of those 20 years. I have not been quite as active in the last year, the last five years. There's been a lot of give and take on this, and as you can see, Maybe the final recommendation where it stands at the moment, what's before you, is a significantly pared down request based on comments from all of the neighbors throughout the neighborhood because there has been some opposition. I think this fairly represents our existing deed of restrictions. And I can tell you from being both on the board and on the Committee for Neighborhood Alterations that, as you can see, we've had some difficulty maintaining the character of the neighborhood. And I'm very much in favor of the ND1 proposal to get the assistance of the city to maintain Westmoreland the way it was originally platted and intended to be. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Is there somebody who wants to speak in opposition to it? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Commission members, my name is Adrian Mendionda. I'm an attorney here in town. I represent Lloyd and Carmela Rebsman. They're residents at 2610 Westmoreland Drive. They were not able to be here today. They've asked me to come in their stead. I do want to say, first off, that while I understand that Mr. Allen purports to speak for the neighborhood, my clients are residents of that neighborhood, and I assure you, Mr. Allen doesn't speak for them. When he says that the neighborhood has written a letter, I hope you do take note of your file. you'll see a letter from a board member, an actual board member who has said Mr. Allen does not speak for her. So I don't know who exactly Mr. Allen speaks for, but I think it's important to note that this overwhelming support that you hear of, that's not actually the case in this neighborhood. I do want to start with one technical matter, and I've submitted a letter as well, and I've raised this in there and brought some information to you. I don't think this public hearing is valid at this time. I don't believe the public's been given adequate public notice. The notice of this hearing went out on October 28th. Today is November 19th. That's 21 days. However, the Planning Commission is the one that put this application forward, and I'm sure you're all well aware of KRS 100-211, Section 6, which states very clearly. Just a second. Let's clear this up right now. Yes, sir. There's been a notice before that that went out 30 days before that. This notice for the postponement and the comeback was the three weeks. You're more than welcome to submit that on the record as your objection, but I don't think at this time the Planning Commission views that as a valid concern. That's certainly the Planning Commission's position, and they're welcome to take it. I certainly addressed that as well with your attorney today, and she took the same position. I would like to note, however, for the record, the public notice is not a courtesy. You certainly. It's an absolute requirement under the statute of strict compliance. You certainly have that right, and you can enter that in the record. Thank you, sir. If I may, may I submit these materials for the record as well? Please do. There was a survey done by the Planning Commission to see how many people supported this. Sixty-six residents voted in favor. There's 145 residents of the Westmoreland Neighborhood Association. I don't know where you stand, but I don't see 66 out of 145 being overwhelming support by any stretch of the imagination. The case here is that many neighbors are afraid to speak up. They're afraid to speak out. I think you'll see that in the materials you've got in front of you as well. I know I've read that. I know I've spoken to board members. You'll see one letter in there from a woman named Mary Reed. I hope you take a special consideration of that letter. It's a lengthy letter, and she apologized, in fact, at the end for writing the letter so long. But what I found particularly striking in that letter is at the end she wrote, I have never seen such derision and dispute in our meetings as we had when we had the meeting about this. That's on the second page of her letter. If I could quote it exactly. We have lived here for 31 years, and this is the very first time I have ever attended a meeting where tempers flared, major disagreements occurred, and people left feeling thoroughly disgusted. She goes on, I know there are many neighbors who agree with us, but I am not sure if they will attend to the hearing and feel comfortable speaking up. I know that's a common problem. I've spoken to two other board members on the phone who said specifically, don't use my name, but I hope this doesn't go through. And I know that you can't take that on the record, but I do hope that you consider the fact that this is a high-pressure situation for people with their neighbors where they're afraid to speak up. So the fact that there's even opposition in this room is remarkable. When you look at that map and you see 37 properties with nonconforming uses, this is not about preserving the existing character of the neighborhood. This is about changing the character of the neighborhood to the way Mr. Allen and those who support him would like the neighborhood to look. That is not an appropriate situation for a neighborhood overlay design. What's really going on here is there's deed restrictions that the neighborhood association does not want to enforce. They don't want to take the time or they don't want to take the money. If there's a deed restriction prohibiting a specific fence, there is a solution to that deed restriction, and it's found about a block from here at the circuit courthouse steps. You can resolve that problem, but they don't want to resolve the problem. They want to push that problem onto someone else. In this case, they want to have the city come out and police their private deed restrictions. That is not an appropriate use of the neighborhood design overlay. My client has a fence. She has a fence in her property, and I assure you she treats her property as the same unique treasure that Mr. Allen claims he treats the entire neighborhood. That fence has been a part of her property since Mr. Wise allowed her to build it. Her husband's lived there for over 44 years in that home. That's his unique treasure. And what this application is doing, what the commission is trying to do, is take her unique treasure and say the way you have used your property is no longer okay. Now, you can tell me that that fence is grandfathered in, and that's fine, but it's an older chain link fence that's deteriorating. What if she wants to improve it? What if she wants to take it down and put an aluminum fence? What if she wants to change the borders? What if she wants to move it? What if she wants to build a garden? What if she wants to build a patio? What if she wants to use her property in the way she's allowed to do it? This design will take it away. Mr. Allen said two contradictory things that I thought were significant for this hearing. No fences, no fences means no fences. I had a problem with that, he said, but I've come around to it. No fences means no fences. Then not four sentences later, he says, I'm just trying to keep away the border fences, just the border fences. That's really our problem. Well, that's the problem with using a zone change application, a neighborhood design overlay, to enforce deed restrictions. It doesn't work that way. When this commission votes, if it says no fences, there's no fences. And let me tell you, there's a huge difference between a property owner like my clients coming down here and trying to appear in front of you who are a very intimidating group and saying, please let me do this, instead of simply going to their neighborhood and saying, please, I'd like to avoid this deed restriction. Especially in her case where she's already gotten permission from the original developer when she bought the lot years ago. So I hope that you take the time to listen to everyone who speaks today, particularly those in opposition, because I don't think they've had the opportunity to have their voices heard the same as the way who supports it. But I will say this. The Westmoreland neighborhood is not unanimous. It's certainly not even overwhelmingly in favor of this. There are certainly members who are, and I'm sure the board is, but there are many, many other residents who are not. And I hope you take their considerations as much as you do everyone else's. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Now we'll take another in support. Good afternoon, Mr. Penn, members of the commission. My name is Ben Harper. I live at 2686 Sussex Drive. I've been the president of the Neighborhood Association for about the last two and a half years. And I started to mention something about when the question came up about how many times have the city's staff been at open meetings. It's been at nearly every open meeting we've had since October 2007 when we've talked about ND1. I'd like to address the problem of maintaining the deed restrictions, people honoring the deed restrictions. One of the reasons we're here is because people don't honor their deed restrictions. Now, who is supposed to enforce the deed restrictions? I have tried to, I have considered filing suit against two homeowners because of violations. They did not honor the deed restrictions. They did not come to the board for permission. So far, I've gotten one attorney who is willing to talk to me and file a suit for $25,000. That doesn't include the cost for appeals. I don't have $25,000. I don't want to go back to the 140 people in the neighborhood and say, we need to take up a defense fund because so-and-so built a fence illegally, or so-and-so built a shack illegally. So that's the problem. I looked up online who is supposed to enforce deed restrictions. In one state, they say take it to the legal department of our city. We'll enforce them. That doesn't happen in Kentucky. It happens in Texas. So we're kind of hanging out there. The city says they're your deed restrictions. You enforce them. Well, now we're back to the $25,000 problem. At any rate, that's the dilemma we're in, and that's why we come to you for help. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Harper. No, it's fine. Thank you. Hello. Some of you all know me. I'm Chip Crawford, board member of the Lexington Home Builders Association and past chair of the Remodelers Council. I hate to say that I'm actually in opposition to this because that's not really my position. I don't really have an issue with the Westmoreland's goals here. But what I do have issues with and what my concerns and our association's concerns is more of the 50,000-foot level. Do you all want to start restricting or regulating deed restrictions? That's the end issue here is that, you know, when we went through this with the Chevy Chase, I was pretty involved with the Chevy Chase ND1. They didn't have deed restrictions. What came out of that debate was there was clear evidence that the property, the character of the subdivision was deteriorating and that they needed, whether there were deed restrictions in place or not, we needed to come in and preserve that current character. We're hearing now you're setting a precedent. There are deed restrictions in place, deed restrictions that specifically address this issue. There wasn't that deed restriction in the other ND1. So you needed to add this character issue. Now, what you're basically saying to every other neighborhood association is, fine, if you can't manage your deed restrictions, we, the city, building inspection, which, no offense to them, has trouble managing with the resources that they have, now you're going to have to start managing deed restrictions. And is that really the precedent we want to set? And that's my biggest issue. That and the clarification, I still don't understand. It's not written anywhere how you go about this appeal process. It's been stated that it's a simplified zone change. But the reality is the next group of people 20 years from now sitting up there could say it's a zone change. And frankly, you've got to go through the entire process of a full-blown removal zone change. And you can see that map, I think, is a pretty good illustration. Do we want to have 20 or 30 of these 20 years from now littered across our city with a whole bunch of nonconforming entities inside that, and then we're going to have another arm of our government building inspection and planning? managing all that. That just scares me and this is the first this is setting the precedent. I really do sympathize with what their issues are. I love that subdivision. I love working in it and if I could afford I'd live there. But it's kind of their subdivision to sort of regulate and do we really want building inspection doing that? And you, really you, you're setting the precedent right here. And that's the question I ask of you all. Maybe they've done the due diligence. Maybe the deeds aren't working. Maybe we need new ones. They may show you that, and that may be corrected. You may choose, yep, we're going to get in the business of deed restrictions. But you're telling every new developer, you're telling every existing neighborhood, if you can't get along with your neighbors, come down here, we'll fix it. And do you want to do that? That's my question. So any questions for me? Thank you. Yes, ma'am, come forward. Which one? That one. Just pull it down. Give us your name and address, please. My name is Lillian Press. I live at 3760 Gloucester, pronounced by many, Gloucester, Gloucester Drive in Westmoreland. I was the president before, during, and after the incorporation. When we first decided that we needed incorporation, the front fence that had been put there by Mr. Wise was crumbling. Mr. Wise was now 90 years old. He had made the street signs that were beautiful, but they were falling apart, and the neighborhood was deteriorating. Our property values were deteriorating. And at that time, I had become president, but we had no really formal. We had an informal association. So the idea was proposed that we would incorporate, and the person who referred to the person who wrote that in all the years she had lived there, she had never seen such rancor. I will tell you that the incorporation was just as hard. I personally felt assaulted at times in front of the whole neighborhood at meetings which were 90 to 100 people attended. But we did get incorporation passed. And I will tell you I think there's hardly a person in Westmoreland who doesn't love the fact. as a side effect of that among many good things that happened to us as a result of that incorporation. And the incorporation ranker was because of fear. They said, we'll be dictated to. We'll lose our freedom. We'll be prosecuted if we don't pay our dues because dues is voluntary. It's not written in the deed. And it was fear and it was honest. But we worked through that. I feel this is very similar. But one of the side effects of the incorporation, which we enjoyed, was we were able to apply for and get $10,000 to us building a front entrance that was taken away from us when the road was widened. We fixed the fences. We recently got money to help our islands. There's nobody who would give up. We had a voice when the airport wanted to do something we felt would hurt us. We had an official voice that we wouldn't have had. I feel that way about the overlay. I see nothing in the new restrictions, the alternative restrictions. We objected to some of the new things that were put in that weren't there to begin with, but these are just what we have now. And I feel that after all this has passed, the same thing will happen as happened with the incorporation. People would understand the city wasn't going to put us in jail. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bruce. Yes, sir? My name is Ted Levering. I reside at 3825 Karen Court. And first let me state, like Mr. Allen and others, I moved to the neighborhood for a reason, and I love it just as much as everybody. But my understanding of the HD1 and our deed restrictions and our all, we're all trying to preserve the character of the neighborhood. We're all trying to protect our property values. It's our, most of us, our single biggest investment. We have a program in place, deed restrictions. We have a review committee if someone wants to go there. It's called COPA. Our problem is we've had a few individuals who snubbed their nose at the process and said we're going to do whatever we want. In effect, what ND1 is doing is we're using ND1 to be our enforcement arm. And what we're doing is the majority of people in the neighborhood who have abided by deed restrictions, who have went to COPA, our review committee, to say, can I do something different? Here's my plan. Our rights are being trampled because we, the board, does not have a way to punish the few people who are doing something unfortunate. And I think that's sad that 130 of us out there are paying the price. Just real quickly, you know, for any neighborhood to prosper, it's got to change with the times. It has to. We built neighborhoods with two-car garages. Well, why many of us have four kids anymore and they don't have two cars? And if you've got an acre lot, you've got a big lawnmower. So I'm one of those people that two years ago, four cars in the driveway and a 60-inch riding lawnmower in a two-car garage. So that's an example. I look at this as much the same as we look at on our national stage right now, health care. In the general, it's a great idea. We all want to protect our neighborhood. It's the specifics where the discourse comes in as to where we go with this. A few examples in our neighborhood, if any of you are familiar, the entry home into the neighborhood, I think, is the most recent home built. We've probably only had two or three homes built in the last ten years. It is a beautiful, I think most people would say, craftsman-style home, built out of stone and cement siding. It's a beautiful home. Buy this, no good. We're not going to build a craftsman-style home. We can't do it. I have a concern, you people who are familiar with the property, a lot of properties back up to Versailles Road or are very close to Versailles Road. There is a huge noise issue. Versailles Road will someday be expanded, probably sooner than later. In that point, are those people who have bought those homes and backed up to Versailles Road, are we telling them the value your property goes down when it comes time to sell it, You have to put up with noise because we can't put a fence in because somebody in the back part of the neighborhood said no fences. I think that's an example of do any of us want fences around every house? The answer would be no. But do I want to keep somebody who backs up from for sale's road from having a chance to protect their property? My neighbor right now has a house for sale. It's been for sale two years. And the realtors will tell you that's one of their biggest problems, is people don't want to listen to that road noise. So I guess my, to close, mine would just be is that, you know, there's a way the neighborhood has to evolve. There's a way to do it and protect all of us. And I guess it's not within your realm, but to me, we have a process. We have a review. review, if we simply told people you can't get a permit unless the Neighborhood Review Committee is backing you, it would have the same effect, but it would allow for the flexibility that this plan, as somebody said, a fence is a fence. And, you know, if you've got a three-foot garden fence or a perimeter fence, if you go to ND1, you go down the building, it's a no. And I think that's trampling on the rights of other people. That's all. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I'm Robert Riggs, live at 3784 Gloucester. I'm fairly in favor of the ND1 only because I've learned that our government body doesn't help a neighborhood enforce deed restrictions that come with the property. And it makes me wonder about all of the other easements, covenants, and deed restrictions that are filed with property to their value if we're not even going to enforce deed restrictions. at the Zoning and Planning Commission or to the inspection department. When they pull the plat to see if the building is going to conform within the zone requirements for that plat, they can say yes or no, you can build your building. If there's a list of things that you shouldn't be able to put on that plat, it seems like that's where it would stop. But that's not the case I'm learning. I bought our property in June of 2007, and it had a list of deed restrictions, and I bought it with those deed restrictions knowing this is what I could do. If I didn't want to do that, I wouldn't live there. But now I find out that this paper of these deed restrictions are written on is valueless. That doesn't make sense to me. What's it for? If it's filed with the property, why can't it be enforced? Why do we have to do an ND1 overlay? It's just another layer of government. And I don't think that we as taxpayers in this county want to increase the size of the Zoning Planning Commission and its staff. But if other neighborhoods decide this is what they want to do, you guys are going to have more work than you've got time for. And you're volunteers. and the staff is paid for by the taxpayers and we're going to have to increase the size of the staff to work the paperwork and have all those meetings. This needs to be re-looked at and see what is the value of deed restrictions and maybe we should make those deed restrictions have value and not go through this process. That's all I've got to say. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Reid. Yes, sir. Pleasure. Come forward. My name is Harold Stills. I live at 3828 Carleton Drive, and I've been at Westmoreland for about two years. So I'm not one of the people that's been there a long time. I'm one of the people that originally supported this whole idea of ND1 when it came out, because the basic goal, as I understood it at that time, is what they said, previous speakers have said the open park-like atmosphere, the lack of perimeter fencing. I agree with that, but what we're going to get with ND1 is no fencing, as everybody said. That means things like a rose trellis. Basically, people can't have that. They can't have garden fences. They can't have any type of sound barrier or visual barrier around air conditioners. It just doesn't make any sense. There's no way to appeal this particular process in a reasonable manner. The other thing I object to is the building material clause. I think, as you brought up earlier, it is much too restrictive. If you want, you know, it has to be the same stone or brick material. Does that mean no windows? What if you want a greenhouse? What if you want to add something like a screened-in porch? It's not going to be made out of brick or stone. Last time I checked, screened-in porches or summer porches are generally mostly glass or screen. I just don't see where this is appropriate. I think this needs to be reconsidered and I'm strongly opposed to it. Thank you. Mayor Mrakas- Thank you, sir. Ann Bolton, Chair of the Commission, I'm Ann Bolton and I have lived in Westmoreland for the last 21 years. You've heard many, many comments from people who are new homeowners, people who have lived there longer than I have. I had many comments to make that have really been made by others, so I will only fill in one particular area. I will address the comment about it is the job of the Homeowners Association to enforce deed restrictions. Harry Wise, who was a wonderful man, took this on as you all know, you heard until he was in his 90s and in fact practically up until he died at the age of 103. And Westmoreland residents felt that they saw the wear and tear going on and they felt the need to take on the responsibility for the things he had been doing to his pride and joy. You heard the story we incorporated. It wasn't until several years later that we really realized that just the force of the Neighborhood Association doesn't enforce deed restrictions. And we formed a committee, called Committee on Property Alterations, a purely voluntary committee, you know, residents, members of the board, and others who would meet and look at plans when people decided to submit them. I was on that committee. I've been president of the board. I was on the board for a total of eight years. Most people, as you've heard today, will comply, but it's those people who are not willing to, who are part of the independent group of homeowners that are out in Westmoreland. I think there's a reason why people have moved there. The broad expanse of land and redraws have, I think, a very independent thinker, and they act very independently as well. So it isn't for lack of trying, for interest in trying to preserve through the board, through the deed restrictions, the park-like atmosphere, the open expanses we have, but it is extremely difficult when you pick up from a 93-year-old developer who made a lot of exceptions and try and orchestrate and formalize a process with 146 very independent homeowners. I have looked at this ND1. I've had my own reservations about it, but all in all, I think it's a good thing, and I support it. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Bolden. Anybody else that wants to? Yes, sir. I want to thank all of you for your brevity and your direct speaking to this. It's very much appreciated. I'm Sid Webb, and I live at 2622 Westmoreland Road, and I'm out of sequence because I strongly favor this ND1 overlay. I have been a president of the board, and I've been a member of COPA, the property alterations committee and I'll tell you that's not an easy job in fact I said in one review we met at the property owners property where he wanted to build a fence we explained that it was against the deed restrictions and he read those deed restrictions before he moved in and then and he couldn't build that fence. And he said, sue me, and built it anyway. Now, one of the problems is that we're kind of unique, I think. We've been around for 40 years, and this idea of new subdivisions where they have very strong deed restrictions and they take quite a bit of money for their living in that subdivision and have the money to support those destructions and have an enforcement group to do it, is different than ours. Our started before that idea came about. And Harry Wise made it very difficult for people on the COPA committee now because he made a lot of exceptions. If somebody came and made a case to him, he usually said, yeah, whatever. And that's the reason we have these 36 or 37, most of them, it happened during his time, the exceptions to the rules. Some of them happened since then, but many of them happened because Harry Wise set examples that made it difficult for members of the COPA board when confronted with that and said, well, I want to build a fence or I want to build an addition on my house that's different or a garage that's different. He had made exceptions, and those people would point to those exceptions. And so now we find that we have to argue with the exceptions, don't have the money to support the rules, And there are some who know the rules and are willingly capable of breaking those rules. And so, again, I'm firmly for ND1. I hope you approve it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any questions? Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. My name is Valerie Stills, and I live at 3828 Carleton. My husband pretty much said it all, except I really want to say that we originally were in favor of this, and we have attended all of these past month's meetings since May or whenever. We are really sincerely opposed at this time. Yes, ma'am. I'm Jan Rail. I live at 3748 Salisbury, and we bought our home four years ago. It's a 30-year-old home that we remodeled within the guidelines. And I originally voted yes, but now, and when the card came out, we signed yes, that we agreed to it. But since we've spoken to the planning commission meeting, the planning people that came and had all the meetings, we are opposed. And so we just asked for an opportunity to possibly vote again the neighborhood, send out the cards again for those that are for or opposed, since only 60 responded the first time. We could possibly vote again. Thank you. Mr. Briggs. My name is Len Press. I live at 3870, 3670. Where do I live, Lillian? with the woman who spoke earlier, Lillian Press. I think the overlay provisions are as simple and basic and necessary as it would be possible to get. It occurs to me that the people who want freedom to do the things they like to do, I'm referring to reasonable exceptions, I suppose, But the fact is that I'll bet there is nobody who wants the freedom to do what they want that would like everybody to have the freedom they want. So what's going to happen is if we don't get this overlay, we are going to be requiring a defense or maybe it's a legal offense fund to deal with exceptions people want that nobody really would like to see happen, which means that we better begin to think about collecting money from everybody in the neighborhood, including those who want the freedom, which will prevent others from having theirs, which would be objectionable to everybody. Thank you. Hello, I'm Donna Reardon, and I live at 3836 Carleton Drive. And I've lived at that address since 1973. And Mr. Wise would drive through the neighborhood every evening to see what was going on. And he even told my husband and I that he could not park his business vehicle in our driveway. It was not permitted. Okay, when we found that out, Steve no longer did it. But you didn't argue with Mr. Wise. He had the power. And I don't see why our neighborhood association could not be as strong an enforcement as this one individual was. I've had small dogs for the last 10 years. I only had one at a time, though. And I would love to have had a small area fenced off so that my dog could go out and just have a place to run around. He can't run around on a six-foot leash. The only way I can get a fence is to put in a swimming pool, which is quite expensive, but I would like to have a pool anyway. but I could no more let my dog run around the swimming pool unattended than I would my four-year-old grandson. And originally I was for the N1, whatever the overlay number is, but I am not now. I don't see where we could not enforce these things as well as Mr. Wise did. Also, my mother used to live on Cairn Court, and when we sold her house, we gave the new owners, or before they purchased the house, we gave them a listing of the deed restrictions. And they realized that it was for the good of the entire community. And they wanted to build an extra garage, and they were told it had to be attached to the house. And they said, well, you know, they could understand that. but the garage would have to face the street. I know that that has been removed from the restrictions now, but it would have, Mr. Wise would have, I think, would have said that was okay because the lot is not wide enough for them to be able to come into the driveway and turn to get into a side garage. So I do feel that there are certain instances where we need to make exceptions to these rules, and it is a whole lot easier for the neighborhood to be in control of that than to have to come downtown and bother all of the city employees. I think you all are backed up enough with different things that you have to do, like the planning commission or you all. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is David Clardy. I live at 3893 Gloucester, and I will in no way be as eloquent as Mrs. Press, but I'll give it a whirl. I just have one quick thing to say. I think everybody's getting a little tired. There are at least 13 deed restrictions. There might be more, depending on how you want to look at it. I'm also a member of the board. And the board is not looking to absolve itself of responsibility and give that responsibility to the city. We're simply looking for some assistance. I think everyone can realize that if we have to ask for donations and sue our neighbors, that's not the neighborhood that we want to live in. So we're simply asking for some assistance, and we think that this is a good tool. I think the process is complicated enough and tiresome enough and lengthy enough that you're not going to see an ND1 application every day. It's taken us three years to get to this point. We do appreciate your time. Any questions? Thank you. If that's – yes, ma'am, do you feel the urge to talk to us? I'm out of turn. That's all right. I think we're getting late enough now. We need to start winding this up. I just wanted to say that people have said they don't know why the neighborhood doesn't enforce the deed restrictions. When we came there nine years ago, we came there because of the beauty of the neighborhood. We came from Chevy Chase, actually, where there were all kinds of crazy fences and things that we didn't like the looks of. And when we came to see Westmoreland, we were just thrilled at the beauty of this park-like place. We were presented when we looked at the house that we bought with the deed restrictions. They seemed fine to us because that was the kind of thing that we were looking for. And when someone says, why doesn't the neighborhood enforce the dig restrictions? I think you heard from someone who was on the COPA board that they try, but then, you know, people thumb their nose and say, I'm going to do it anyway. And so it does, you know, you do have to resort to a lawsuit, and nobody wants to do that. This is just our way of asking you to help us enforce the restrictions that we put into place and that are the guidelines for our neighborhood, and we hope that you'll help us do that. If you have something to add that hasn't already been said, we'll certainly be glad to hear you. Chair of the Commission, Bob Carpenter with the Division of Building Inspection. I'm not for or against. Basically, you know, building inspection has struggled with trying to enforce ND1 and just wanted to make sure the neighborhood understood how we would permit. When somebody comes for an application, they would either present a plan that had been reviewed by their COPA board and had a recommendation for approval or a statement by a design professional saying it met the guidelines. That's all we would look for. Thank you for that information. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Craven. Bob. Well, people violate things that you tell them. In other words, I mean, if people go out and build fences without, you have to have a permit to build a fence, right? Yes, and if they violate them and do not remove them, we would have to go through the same process, cite them to court. But it happens all the time, and you don't catch them all, and just because you have an ND overlay doesn't mean it's going to stop that. Right. We do not have enough personnel to, you know, just patrol the neighborhoods. We're complaint-driven. Thank you, Bob. We'll probably have some more questions for you. Just hang on a minute. Let's try to wind up this audience participation part of this. If somebody has something that needs to be said, we'll be glad to hear it. If not, we need to start bringing this to a close. Mr. Salley, I guess we'll move in to turn this over to the commission for their discussion. Is that the way to handle this? Not sure if Ms. Wade had any rebuttal, but yes, sir. Well, I'll be glad to hear from you, but I didn't want to encourage any more. I hadn't forgot about Ms. Wade. I just didn't want to go right ahead. I just wanted to address Mr. Mindyondo's concern about the notice. The staff sent notice to the subject properties, so all 146 property owners were mailed notice on August 21, 2009, in order to notify them about a September 24, 2009 hearing, which is a 35-day notice window. And so that meets the KRS requirements for 30 days notice to property owners when an applicant is the planning commission or the council. We then sent notice to the surrounding properties within the 400-foot notice area on August 28th. And then as a courtesy, we notified the subject property owners again in late October to, as sort of a reminder, if they weren't in attendance at the September hearing when it was postponed, that the Planning Commission had postponed it to November 19, 2009. So in review with our council, the planning staff and Department of Law were of the opinion that the adequate notice was supplied in August for a September hearing and that a postponement is not required to meet that same 30-day notice requirement. In addition, obviously, those property owners were aware of today's hearing as their attorneys in attendance. The second item was just that Mr. Crawford mentioned there weren't any restrictions or process in place for revising or modifying an ND1 restriction. And the Commission actually initiated a text amendment in early or late 2007 in order to rectify that. And so Article 6-7C now addresses a change to an ND1 restriction, and there are in place now certain requirements for a modification to an ND1 restriction, and that process is now part of our ordinance, and I'll submit those items for the record. Thank you. Ms. Wade, before you sit down, did any of the Commission have a question for Ms. Wade? Thank you. I think that's probably good. We will close this part of the hearing and the public comment part of it. We will turn it over to the Commission for their discussion and or motion. and we have the people that you see here today that's available for any questions. So we'll turn over to the Commission for your discussion. Mr. Brewer? Yeah, I'm really struggling with this one. I have great admiration for the neighborhood. I think it's a beautiful place, and I personally would love to live there myself, but as was made in the comment earlier, I don't think I can afford it. I have real concerns about this, however. The nonconforming issue, I have a problem with that, and 25 percent of the properties seem to be nonconforming with what's being requested right now. I've got a problem with 100 percent materials. I think that's overly restrictive. I would like to see more definitive numbers on the survey. I don't recall who mentioned this earlier, but I would like clarification on the 66 out of 145, if we have valid numbers on that or if there's a possibility of getting current numbers. I know how people's – we've had several people who have already said that they've changed their mind during this process. I think it would be helpful to know that. That being said, I also am very cognizant of the fact that if we postpone this or do something that delays it, we're going to have to hear a lot of it over again, and I sure don't want to do that. So an expeditious way to find out what the current sense in the neighborhood is would be much appreciated. And lastly, a comment that resonates with me is that, you know, the Planning Commission's purpose is not to enforce neighborhood deed restrictions. And I have a real concern with setting a precedent that we go down a slippery slope of becoming an enforcement arm of neighborhood deed restrictions. So. Mr. Owens. Yes, thank you. I guess first follow up with what Mr. Brewer was saying. Bill Salley, your name came up as far as attending one of these meetings. Can you provide any insight as to what took place? Well, along the lines of brief staff presentations to you today, I believe I made one of about 20 or 30 minutes that evening in October. And then there was probably about an hour's worth of questions and answers about the ND1 process, about the proposed restrictions, about the Planning Commission being the applicant. The best of my ability is to try to answer those questions with the neighbors present. I estimated that about 25% of the homeowners were present at that meeting. Seemed to be about maybe 50 in attendance or so. Can you give any insight as to who would be in favor of this and who would have been opposed to it at that meeting? It was not everyone at the meeting that I attended spoke, but there seemed to be as many people speaking in opposition as there were in favor. But I would also say a significant percentage of those in attendance did not speak at all. So I could not assess what their feelings were. Okay. And then also, I don't know if Ms. Wade can answer it or you, in regards to any surveys that's been taken, I thought I heard something where the staff had done a survey themselves. Is that accurate? We also had another text amendment last year or the year before. Actually, it wasn't a text amendment. a bylaws change that required with any overlay or downzoning that the commission would issue or mail out postcards ahead of initiating a zone change, which gave those property owners the ability to express their opinion to the commission through a vote via these postcards. So we mailed 146 postcards out with a letter identifying what the proposed restrictions were that the neighborhood was asking the commission to initiate, and we received 90 of the 146 back. So 56 people chose not to submit their postcards. 66 of the 90 voted in favor and said, voted on their postcard, yes, I'm in favor of ND1, and 24 said they weren't. So based on that survey, the commission agreed to initiate this zone change. Okay. One other question, I guess, in regards to the building materials. Did I hear there was one or two lots maybe that does not have any buildings on them? Or is it a total build-out at this point? I think there might be two lots. Okay. One lot is buildable. Okay. Three feet. I don't think we have to worry about that. Okay. Okay. One of them appeared to be a double lot while we were out there. With the houses that may not be nonconforming as far as building materials right now, it's my understanding if something happens and they get rebuilt, they would still fall under the nonconforming? Well, I think the way it's worded, there aren't any nonconformities in terms of building material. If you build a new house, it would need to be stone or brick. If you're making an addition to an existing house, which is, in my estimation, 144 lots of the 146, it has to match your current building materials or be built with brick or stone. If you replace a current house? You would be able to build with the materials that you used before. So if it was stucco, you could build back a stucco or brick or stone. So in essence, if there was a tear down, they would be able to go back with what was built there? Okay. Thank you. And the 100% addition was the staff's suggestion in order to help clarify for building inspection. So if that does not help the Division of Building Inspection in terms of their permit process, then certainly it can be. Mr. Gardner. I just need to clarify the statement I made earlier. What building inspection would encourage and recommend is that the neighborhood use their COPA board to send a recommendation to us, whether they thought it met the requirements or not. It would speed up the review process. And the same thing if they had a design professional, too. He actually made a statement that it met the guidelines. That would speed up. But the more eyes we have on it, it's a red flag, any kind of inconsistencies helps us. Anybody else? We've had the hearing. We've had the testimony. We need to move forward with this in one fashion or the other. And the chair will entertain a motion. if you're ready for it. If you need to discuss it more, we're here to do that. This is a very difficult, very challenging thing. And I very, very, I don't know how to say it, but it's very challenging to hear neighborhoods, especially a neighborhood that's as fine as Westmoreland not be able to resolve their differences within the confines of their neighborhood. After all, that's what neighborhoods are supposed to do. But at the same time, in thinking in terms of the passion that I hear here, both pro and con, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend that we accept our committee's recommendation that we approve the ND1 overlay with the alternate, with the staff alternate design standards as proposed. Is there a second? Second, Ms. Copeland. Any discussion on the motion? Ms. Phillips? I have a procedural question. whether or not this commission approves that motion, will this petition then be forwarded to the council for their action? So either up or down, the next step is to take it to council. Correct. Thank you. Discussion on a motion. Mr. Holmes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And I guess after listening to all the testimony, I do have some concerns about the deed restrictions and how we will take precedence over those. And what do you do if you – the deed restrictions, I understand, are going to be in place or remain in place in addition to the ND1 overlay. So I do have some serious concerns about that, and that gives me some difficulty to prove it at this time. Mr. Cravens. Yeah. I, too, hate to see people do things to themselves. The deed restrictions are in effect. And just like many neighborhoods, I've written deed restrictions in neighborhoods I've developed. And, yeah, some things slip through the cracks. They don't always get enforced as best you can, but they're your neighbors. And my neighbor does all kinds of stupid things. But, you know, I'm not going to be running down to the building inspector complaining about him. And so, you know, I just hate to see us go down this road to where the building inspector and the planning commission and the planning staff is out there enforcing deed restrictions. I mean, there's no end to what can happen. And so far, the two, I think, that we've done, their deed restrictions ran out. They didn't have any. And so I can understand it in that case. But where they're in effect, and most of them automatically renew themselves. I don't know if yours does or not, but we always write that in ours that they automatically renew so that you don't have to go through that battle trying to get them renewed. And I think the appeal process could be difficult for somebody that's not in the business to try to, you know, appeal 100 percent materials on the side of your house, I mean, that you're trying to add on or something. And so I'm going to be in opposition to this. Ms. Phillips? I appreciate the fact that the ND1 is intended to retain the character, maintain the character of a neighborhood. But like the fellow commissioners who have spoken, I have a problem with the government taking on enforcement of an agreement that's intended between private property owners. Those restrictive covenants were set by the developer, and they are a private agreement. And anyone who buys in that development, according to my friend here, who's a certified realtor, individual property owners, when they buy into a neighborhood, have to have copies of the deed restrictions. So people go into that neighborhood knowing full well what the requirement is, what the requirements will be for their living there. As to enforcement of violations of the deed restrictions, I think those are entirely private, and I think that it's inappropriate for the government to take action when, again, those are private legal agreements between individuals. If the Commission remembers when we took on the Greenbrier ND1 rezoning, I expressed some concern at that point, too, because that felt a lot like what we're going through right now. Their deed restrictions were about to expire, and they wanted the government to take on to fulfill that gap that would exist when the deed restrictions expired because they knew they could not get 100 percent concurrence of all the homeowners within that neighborhood to buy in to renewing that set of deed restrictions. And that just didn't feel good to me, but that ND1 zoning has gone forward. So because this, it doesn't feel right, you know, those of you who know me know that I'm a strong proponent of these kinds of overlay zones and what they're able to accomplish, but I feel almost as though in this case we're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. So I don't feel that I can support this motion. Any other comments before we vote? Mr. Chairman, if we could just ask for clarification. Mr. Wilson, did your motion also include withdrawal of the one property? Yes. Thank you. That's correct. Thank you. Sorry. Mr. Chairman, I've got one more point. Mr. Brewer, just one more point of clarification here. We got a survey. 66 came in favor. 24 came in opposed. So once again, back the envelope, that's 36%. And this neighborhood are telling us they don't want it. I have a real hard time supporting something where you've got that much opposition. Mr. Holmes? You're all right. Okay. No. That's fine. If there's no more comment, then when you see it on your screen, we'll vote. Motion fails. Yes, ma'am. This is your zone change application. You have two other alternatives available to you. One is to withdraw the application since you are the applicant. The other is to recommend disapproval of your application. which would allow it to go forward, however, to the council for consideration. If it is withdrawn, if you withdraw it, then the alternative, the only alternative for those who may be proponents of this would be then to ask the council to initiate his own change. Okay, so that's the decision we need to make following this vote. Yes, it would be to either withdraw or disapprove. Ms. Wade? Another option would be to approve a different set of restrictions. Well, that's true. Yeah. If those particular restrictions were not appropriate. So, Ms. Phillips. Ms. Boland, if the application were withdrawn, if we withdrew our own application, does that preclude our resubmitting an application or reconsidering this in the near term? For one year, it could not be reconsidered by the Planning Commission as far as their initiating an application under your bylaws. I don't think that would restrict the council if the neighborhood approached the council and asked them to initiate a zone change. I think that would be a different situation. I would want to look a little more closely at your bylaws. It would also be relevant as to whether, for instance, the restrictions being proposed under the ND1 overlay may be substantially changed also in a reapplication. So there could be several different ramifications. So in your opinion, we need to have a motion to either withdraw our application for the ND1 or to forward it to Council with a recommendation of disapproval. Yes. So that's the two things we're considering at this particular time. Do we understand that, and what's the pleasure of the commission? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cravens. I would move to withdraw our application. Do I need some findings? Is there a second? May are 2009-11. Is there a second? Mr. Craven, Mr. Holmes seconds Mr. Craven's motion. Any discussion on the motion to withdraw our application? Mr. Craven. Yeah, I'm doing so to end this so that the neighbors don't have to keep it up and keep coming fighting each other and being opposed. I think just to end it now would be better. Good. You've heard the motion. It is seconded. Any further discussion on the motion? Ms. Phillips? Your motives for suggesting that we withdraw it are different from mine, if we were to withdraw it. And that would be, if I voted in favor of withdrawing it, it would be to allow an additional opportunity later on to come back with maybe a different set of recommendations and potentially even an application by the council. So if I voted in favor of this, it wouldn't be for the same reason as you. Is that a disclaimer, Ms. Phillips? So this means we can't hear it again for a year? We cannot hear it again for a year. I think in any form is what I heard. The council could initiate it. We couldn't. That's the way I understand it. Mr. King, did you want to weigh in on this? We're going to parse your bylaws for you here for a minute. All right. We'll just hang tight. We believe when you recommend disapproval is when the one-year rule that you have imposed through your bylaws on you would kick into place. So withdrawal would not necessarily put that into operation. But again, a withdrawal would mean the current application stops right here and would not go on to council. Is that the intent of your motion, Mr. Cravens? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Any further discussion? Yes, ma'am. One more question with respect to the nuances of that. Does it not mean a one-year hiatus between applications with an identical application with the same ND requirements? an identical application would require the 12-month wait, but something that's an amendment. You have, usually the commission has the discretion on granting an early hearing request, and you have a hearing on an early hearing request. What is odd is, without looking at your bylaws in greater detail, One thing, we're looking here, when you initiate your own application, usually the assumption is that someone from the outside is filing the application. Your bylaws also indicate that if it's withdrawn, you may, at your discretion, stipulate a six-month cooling off. Mr. Chairman, I am confused. Don't feel like the Lone Ranger. So, Mr. Cravens, what's the intent of your motion? I'll be clear it's your motion. My intent was to end it here and now. And, I mean, they have other avenues that they can do. They can take it to the council, right, on their own? They can do that. And if you do not stipulate any kind of, as Mr. King said, if you don't stipulate any kind of a hiatus time of six months, then they would be free to come back at any time with some proposals that maybe they felt were going to be more acceptable to the neighborhood as a whole. As long as you withdraw it and you don't stipulate a period during which it can't be reapplied, then it's basically anything goes. It's the bottom line. Okay. Well, and I feel that, I mean, they're talking about things that are already covered by their deed restrictions. I mean, I don't see a need to layer this again. I still move withdrawal. Okay. Heard the motion. You've heard the second. You've heard the explanation. Mr. Holmes, are you okay with the motion now? All right. Let's vote on the motion to withdraw the application. Motion passes. All right. Moving right along. We're not finished. We've got two more to do. They won't take this long. Yeah, that's all. It's true. Well, the other part of it is, I started to say something epic about the 66% vote. What bothered me was the people who didn't do anything. You know, 24 voted against it, but the other people are sitting there... Well, that's one that I always struggle with, because when you can observe it, you know, you get 10% responses to a ballot survey. In this situation, you have 66 out of 100, whatever. That's pretty damn good response. You know, positive, but then when you look at positive percent, even if you're in a way in on something that's in their neighborhood. Yeah, 36 percent. Oh. Can everybody please check their microphone? Someone is still on and they can hear you on GTV3. Is everybody off? Mr. Wade, whenever you're ready, we're ready to go. We've still got two more items and a couple of other items to get to. We have, what are we doing next? Cemetery? No, sir. Zota 2009-8. This is on page 6 of your agenda. Item number 1 behind tab 5 in your notebooks, it's a Zota. Science. Yes. for temporary signs. Okay. This text amendment was initiated by the Urban County Council for a change to Article 17-6 of the zoning ordinance to allow temporary signs to be placed within the right-of-way by neighborhood associations or neighborhood owners' organizations for the sole purpose of announcing events held by those organizations. The proposed text amendment is shown here on the overhead, and then it also appears on today's agenda. Such signs are to be limited to a total of 10 signs per event. Each sign can be no larger than 6 square feet or 6 feet in height, and they are to be limited for the length of duration that they would be up from 7 days prior to the event and 2 business days after the event. Also, the text explicitly states that the temporary signs would, although allowed to be in the right-of-way, not block or interfere with any sight triangle vision areas and then also that they only be located within that particular neighborhood. Temporary signs are defined in our ordinance and such signs are strictly regulated by 17-6 so there's a number of other temporary signs that are regulated under this same section. Over time temporary signs have become more popular because they are They are easily installed and removed and basically easily made and purchased. Signs are certainly an economic way for businesses to advertise, but they've also become an excellent way for neighborhood associations to announce when their meetings and other events are to be held. Neighborhood groups already utilize this type of sign, although they've been confronted by the existing ordinance, which when they put them in the right-of-way code enforcement and building inspection often pull the signs prior to the meeting, which kind of defeats the purpose of announcing their events. So in order to alleviate that issue, this text amendment arose from the Urban County Council. This proposed addition to the ordinance would give neighborhoods the ability to announce their events, but only in their neighborhood in a flexible and cost-effective way. And the Council's Planning Committee did express some concern about the proliferation of temporary signs and that the code enforcement staff and building inspection staff do utilize quite a bit of time in polling signs that are in violation of our current ordinances. but the text is written in a very concise way, and there was a sense that this would not proliferate signage or temporary signs because of the limitations that are being placed on it. Some concern was also expressed by the Urban County Planning Committee, Council's Planning Committee, that allowing neighborhoods to use these temporary signs in the right-of-way would be, different than allowing businesses to place their signs within the right-of-way, and there was a concern about regulating content. Although the Department of Law drafted this amendment and they reassured our staff that they felt that it was content neutral and also viewpoint neutral, which are important aspects in terms of free speech related to signage. In seeking out other communities for comparison, the staff did not find any that regulated signage in this way. But the 2007 comprehensive plan, although doesn't directly speak to signage, it does speak to promoting neighborhoods and the activities of neighborhoods. And the staff felt that neighborhood activities do also promote a sense of community. They're the building blocks of our community, as the comp plan says. And having this interaction within those events can build our neighborhoods within Fayette County. So the staff is recommending approval. The zoning committee also recommended approval of this text amendment. I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Ms. Jones? Ms. Wade? Yes. Seven days prior to the event must be removed within two business days after. To me, the language there is a little bit different. Are we saying seven business days or just seven days? Or, you know, I'd like to say it consistent one way or another. Personally, I'd say just two days after. Okay. But the way it is right now. At the committee, there was an amendment to change the, I think it was originally ten days prior to an event, and the committee felt that seven days was enough. But we're not talking about seven business days at this point. We're just talking about seven days. Calendar days, I believe. And then the two business days also was an addition. It was two days, and they wanted to add business days. And then clarify for me, in the staff review in the third paragraph, you're talking about thus such signs are an economical way for businesses to advertise. We're not talking about businesses here, are we? No, they're economical for businesses to use, but they're also, I think, inexpensive for neighborhood associations to use too. But this would not allow a Mike's Bar and Grill to put up a Super Bowl party sign? Not unless it's sponsored by the Neighborhood Association. All right. Okay. Well, you've got to be careful. Be careful. Farmers have gotten tough here. As far as enforcement, down at the bottom of the page, it says before code enforcement officers remove them. So is that the only enforcement for code enforcement to go out and remove them as opposed to? Building inspection had historically done that type of work. And I believe three to four years ago we amended the ordinance to allow code enforcement since they are actually out patrolling. As opposed to letting code enforcement pick up the signs, you know, can neighborhood associations be fined? They could be, but that's not the, well, here's what I've heard about temporary signs. Typically the phone numbers that you call related to whatever they're advertising, for the most part, they are not local. So to fine or fine the organization that's placed those is very difficult. In the case of a neighborhood association, obviously that's a local organization, and it's easy to notify them or fine them. I think in the case of a neighborhood association, taking the signs and throwing them out is a big enough disincentive because it costs them some money to put them back out. I see a neighborhood association. Well, they should pick them up after the two days. If they're up past the two days, then I presume code enforcement would be out and say, well, they're past. At this point, I'd recommend changing the wording as far as them being removed to just two days after. Okay. Any other questions from Ms. Wade? Mr. Tom? Are there any restrictions on the types of signs that can be illuminated or movable? Well, temporary signs are defined in the ordinance, and this is part of our staff report in paragraph two, defined as any sign or advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric, cardboard, wallboard, flyboard, or other light materials with or without frames and or intended to be displayed for a limited period of time. So it doesn't actually speak to illumination, but I think the assumption is because they're only there for a limited period of time that they wouldn't be lit in some fashion. Oh, right. Flashing lights are prohibited for sure. All right. Any other questions? Mr. Carpenter said he could answer Mike's question. Mr. Carpenter, do you have a – Just to answer Mr. Rowland's question, citing or finding someone, the problem with the signs is you have to see them place the sign there. So that's the problem with citing someone. Okay. All right. We have any time you are. Mr. Chairman, if everybody's ready, I'm ready for a motion. I'll make the motion. We're ready. I'll move for approval of, I guess, ZODA 2009-8, the amendment to Article 17-6 to allow for limited temporary signs in the right-of-way of residential neighborhoods. And I would like to change the wording where it reads, not to be displayed more than seven calendar days prior to the event. It must be removed within two calendar days after the completion of the event. Approval subject to the reasons with that one change. Is there a second? Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? If not, when it comes up on the screen we'll vote. Motion passes. Moving right along, progressive orders. Thank you. Thank you. We will be out there. Ms. Wade. Mr. Penn, members of the commission, our next item, last item, I believe, for today is found on page 7 of your agenda. It's item number 2 under the ZOTUS and can be the staff reports behind tab 6 of your notebook. This is a text amendment, ZODA 2009-9, and it's a partner subdivision regulation amendment as well, 2009-3, to amend, well, in order to protect private family cemeteries in Fayette County. And this was initiated by the Planning Commission earlier this year. Private family cemeteries are something that are being threatened in Fayette County by either development or by relocation. The text amendment arose from a desire of the Fayette County Cemetery Trust to help keep family cemeteries intact and to help residents or family members to be able to use the cemetery as a form of genealogy research. And if they're not there, obviously that can occur. So the Cemetery Trust was founded in order to identify, protect, preserve, and restore historic cemeteries in Fayette County. And the trust was first formed when members identified several cemeteries that had either been moved or that were protected in an inappropriate manner. And the photographs I started on either end here is an example in the Masterson Station area of a cemetery that is protected. It's stayed in place. It didn't relocate the graves. However, it's surrounded by either a street on two sides or homes on the other two, and it is being crowded. And that was kind of the flag for this association to get started and then to address the Planning Commission. So in 2005, the Cemetery Trust addressed the Planning Commission in their comprehensive plan update process and asked the Commission to do something to protect cemeteries in Fayette County and to also require, if a cemetery is going to be moved, to require the graves to stay in Fayette County, not to be moved to other counties. So the trust request was accepted by the Planning Commission at that point, and it did become part of the comprehensive plan. So specifically, Goal 5 of the Comp Plan states that the community should protect and preserve Fayette County's significant historic and cultural heritage, and there are a couple objectives that point more towards protecting these sites. We did work, the staff did work with the Cemetery Trust in looking at what the existing state statutes say, but also what other ordinances are out there in Kentucky and other places and how they protect cemeteries. The Kentucky Office of Vital Statistics already has regulations for how to move a cemetery, but there aren't any local regulations or state regulations about how to protect them in place. So the zoning ordinance and land subdivision regulations need to be amended in order to allow that to happen. The primary place that that would happen is Article 3, and that, you know what, I have a revision to hand out for you to Article 3. Tom, could you look in the bucket over there? Sorry. So caught up in getting you all home. It would be all the way in the back. There it is. Can you hand that out to the commission? That? Yes. Let me go over what Article 3. We talked about this at the Zoning Committee, and that's the changes that Tom's handing out. But in Article 3, which are the general zone regulations, the staff is proposing that cemeteries remain in Fayette County unless the heirs specifically want them moved to a different place. And if they're protected in place, that there should be a 50-foot buffer surrounding the cemetery. that an archaeologist should be utilized to identify the boundary of the cemetery and that they should use historic records, fence lines, grave site locations to do that, that a fence should be established around any cemetery, and if one already exists, that it should be repaired at its existing location, and that also maintenance and permanent ownership needs to be established, and then also a 10-foot easement should be established for access to a cemetery when it's protected in place. Thank you, Tom. What Bill and Barb added to the overhead shows the changes that we proposed after the zoning committee. One concern that building inspection expressed was that in the photograph shown there, there's a house right next to the cemetery within the 50 feet buffer, and they expressed a concern that they may not be able to get a fence to put up in that area because they're in a buffer. We wanted to make sure that an existing situation, although that's not a great situation, that they would still be able to utilize their property in any way that they were able to before, that they could get a fence, that they could, you know, obviously remain at that location. So we added some text in the first sentence under 3-7. Upon the filing of a development plan or subdivision plan, that would be what triggered this. So until a subdivision plan or a development plan is filed, there would be no buffer. It doesn't exist until you bring your property in for development, basically. And then there were two other inconsistencies or issues down in item 5. The first was an inconsistency. We don't want any disturbance within the 50-foot area, but prior to any site work or disturbance on the surrounding property, that's when we would want the fence and maintenance done and protected. And then the last thing that law and building inspection both had a concern about was keeping the character of the existing cemetery, that statement, that it's hard to interpret how a fence would be within the character of an existing cemetery. So we struck that. Article 18 is where the actual landscaping and buffer requirement comes in, and it's in addition to the property perimeter requirement. So when a cemetery exists, a private cemetery, actually we have private or public, on any property boundary, including the streets rights of the way, there should be a 50-foot boundary adjacent to the cemetery. And along the edge of the cemetery, there should be one tree every 40 linear feet. If it's a large tree, one tree every 30 feet. If it's from group B, which are the medium trees, plus a six-foot high planting or hedge, and at least a three-foot fence. Those would be the buffering restrictions around the cemetery. And then on the back side, Article 21 and then Article 5 of the land subdivision regulations would add to when plans are developed or when plans are brought into the Planning Commission for review, that private family cemeteries would be identified clearly, their maintenance would be identified and noted, and their lotting scheme would respect the 50-foot buffer. So those changes are just a way to implement the Article III text. And the staff and the zoning committee also were recommending approval because these text changes are in agreement with the comprehensive plan in terms of Goal 5, Objectives E and H, and preserving Fayette County's historic resources. and also that existing private family cemeteries are currently being threatened by local development and they're not being protected by local zoning and subdivision regulations. And this text amendment will allow appropriate measures for protection of these community assets. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Mr. Burr? Just one quick one. Tracy, I thought when we heard this in committee, it was that you'd done looks at other cities, and 30 was the maximum you found anywhere else. Why are we going 50? That I recall 30 was the maximum. It was in Boone County. 50 feet was what the cemetery trust asked for. They felt that on that cemetery that's shown from the edge of the property, that fence that looks to be a retaining wall and the edge of the cemetery, it's about 22 feet. And there's about an eight-foot grade change from the cemetery to where that house sits. And those examples that they've seen here in Fayette County, the 22, 30 feet wasn't enough to protect the cemetery from erosion and inadequate grading of it away from it. So they expressed a desire for 50 feet. Any other questions for Ms. Ms. White, as far as abandoned graves you were talking about, for permission to move abandoned graves, who would be responsible for paying for the moving of the abandoned graves? The developer is responsible for that. Yeah, I didn't get into that because mostly our concern is in protection in place of a cemetery. And the state law addresses when you relocate. and relocation can only be done if it's an abandoned cemetery. So the Cemetery Trust has actually been maintaining some cemeteries in order for them not to be declared abandoned. And then I would presume that moving an abandoned grave would mean the entire package and not just a headstone. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, Ms. Wade? I've got one, Tracy. Do we know how many cemeteries there are outside the urban service boundary? That's a great question, Frank. I don't know if this covers all of them, but this information that we have put into GIS was from the Heritage Council. Okay. I don't need to know the number. My point in even asking that is that somebody knows. We have the GIS points for the ones we are aware of. There may be others that we're not aware of at this point. Okay. And the thing that I'm mentioning on this is that we know earlier rather than later there's a cemetery there, and that's why I like your opening existence. You have to show this on your development plan. And it has been a requirement to show burial grounds if they exist, but there's not, that's it. You just had to show them. You didn't have to do anything to protect them. That's fine. All right. Any other questions? The Cemetery Trust has helped to identify additional locations, too. All right. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of ZOTA 2009-9. Got a motion and a second. When the seat on the screen will vote. We need to accept what's on the white sheet. Includes that, correct? Yes, it includes that. That's our revisions, but yes. Okay. Motion passes. All right, we have – do you have anything else, Ms. Wade? No, my show's over. Your show's over. We have one other item that I'm aware of. Do we need to go into any kind of closed session to do this? Mr. King, do we need to go into closed session? Mr. Chairman, this was an item that Mr. Gardner in the law department was handling. I just went up there to see if we could locate him, and we were unable. I think if the Commission has no other business, we would just defer that to your next meeting. All right, sir. Are you aware of anything else the Commission needs to know about, Mr. King? Thankfully no, sir. Is there anybody in the... We'll adjourn. You've heard the motion. I guess we'll go. Everybody in favor, stand up. Thank you.