We reminisce on precious moments like this. I'm glad we're back together 'cause I missed your kiss. Hey, hey. Reunited, and it feels so good. . ... you. Know. Oh. Okay. So I'll put it up. So like a movie. Uh, it's like a movie. We'll come back and we'll be back to you on that. On that. Yeah. I did that. I did that. I'll text him too. I better set that over here if it's gonna be any good. Meeting to come to order, please. If, if I could draw your attention, please, to a announcement we have to make. Uh, I've just been informed that, uh, a man that has worked with the planning commission on the lot and worked with all the people i- in this development, part of our community, has passed away. And I'd like to throw it to Mr. King to, to inform us of that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The staff was saddened to learn this morning of the passing this morning of Gerry Vanderweer, uh, who appeared before this body as a developer and an engineer for many decades. Um, Gerry was a big man with a big heart and always brought a, a great deal of humor to any situation along with his professionalism. And he will be greatly missed, and staff would like to ask the commission to join us in a brief moment of silence in his memory this morning or this afternoon. Thank you, Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll, uh, we'll move on to approval of minutes. You have those at your desk for the January 28th meeting. I think that's the ones we have. Are there any corrections or additions to the January 28th meeting? Mr. Richardson? Motion been made and second made by Mr. Byrd and second by Mr. Richardson. All those in favor, please vote when you see it on the screen. Thank you. One member Crail. All right. Are there any postponements or withdrawals? That's interesting. Now we'll move on to the land subdivision items. Mr. Chairman, there are no land subdivision items on the agenda today except for the two development plans filed in conjunction with the two zone changes. All right. Thank you. Okay. Move on to the zoning items then. Mr. Chairman, looking over the audience, I don't think either item will qualify as an abbreviated hearing today, so we can just take them in the order as they appear. Sure. We'll, we'll take them on the, uh, on the order of the agenda. Staff, when you're ready, we'll be ready to hear you. It's gonna be fun. It's gonna be fun. Move that pile over. Okay. My, my crib. Here you go. Just wait and we're ready when you are. Yeah. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Penn. Um, this item is, it starts on page one of your agenda and it is an MAR, MAR 2009-17. This is an amended zone change request by MM... I'm sorry, WWM LLC, Osbrook Polo LLC, and PoloOne LLC. This is a zone change request from an agricultural rural zone to three separate zones, and I'm gonna step to the board here. Um, the property, I'll go ahead and explain where the property is and then I'll describe the three zones requested by the applicant. The property is located on the east side of I-75 and north of Man O War Boulevard and south of, just off our sheet here, uh, Winchester Road. The, um, property lies at the, uh, in the, I guess, north quadrant of the intersection of Man O War and, or the interchange of Man O War Boulevard and I-75 and is comprised of 142 acres. Um, recently Polo Club Boulevard was constructed through the center of the subject property, um, and now divides, uh, part of this, uh, ha- part of Hamburg Farm, um, into two large areas. Uh, one to the west of Polo Club and then one, uh, to the east of Polo Club. So the subject property again today is 142 acres and they are proposing three separate zoning areas. Um, on the east side of Polo Club, or the northeast I guess, um, they're proposing EAR3, which is the expansion area residential 3 zone. That's, um, a recommended density of six to 18 dwelling units, and with an EAR3 zone, they have the ability to transfer units into that zone as well for a density of up to 24 units in that area. The other two areas proposed for rezoning, um, are in EAR3 with a TA overlay zone, and then a CC which is our community center zone. Uh, the acreages proposed for rezoning on the east side of Polo Club are, um, that's 90 acres. On the west side of Polo Club, the two areas, um, the CC area is proposed for 37 and a half acres, and the EAR3 with the transition area overlay is proposed for 14.8 acres. So again, that comprises 142 net acres and 161 gross acres, including right of way. In the vicinity of the, um, subject property, we have the Glen Eagles subdivision, which was the Secura Justice property to the south. And again, Polo Club does continue south to Todds Road almost. There's almost a connection there. And the Blackford property also to the, um, east. And, um, the Central Baptist ED property to the northwest. Um, the rest of the Hamburg Farm, uh, Hamburg East that remains AR and not proposed for development at this time. And then across the interstate we have the Hamburg Pavilion and also a B5P area, which, um, Hamburg Pavilion is, is in the B6P zone, which is our shopping center zone. And the B5P is our interstate business zone, and that, um, is in the quadrant to the south at that interchange. The applicant in their proposal, um, is suggesting density in line with what the comprehensive plan recommends. However, they aren't showing any specifics on their development plan in order to verify that. In addition, they aren't showing any buildings within, um, any of the, uh, areas on their development plan, but they are agreeing to, uh, stay within what's recommended or, um, what's allowed in a CC zone. In terms of that question, we did have a question at our zoning committee about what the uses and restrictions are, are for a CC, the community center zone compared to what's across the interstate in the B6P zone. And so the staff did prepare a, an exhibit for your review, um, comparing the uses of the community center zone to the shopping center zone, and, um, those were distributed to the commission. It's the blue sheet. And it is a blue sheet, but has a large table on it. Okay. Okay. Generally, the B6P and the CC zones are very similar in use. The differences really come about, uh, in terms of the restrictions. In the B6P zone, it is intended to be a shopping center zone, so it allows, uh, a very diverse range of shopping centers, um, up to a regional shopping center. Whereas the community center zone is intended to be a mixture of uses and it's intended to serve a, um, more on the micro level, the, the immediate community rather than a, a larger, uh, regional area. So those restrictions are designed to make the CC zone or the CC land uses, uh, in line with that concept. I would like to just... Mr. Emmons, can you tell me exactly what I'm supposed to do with the mouse? Sorry. When I click, it doesn't do anything. There we go. Thank you. Oh, this one. Click that. That's Um, on the overhead, we have an aerial of the property, um, with the boundary outlined of the proposed zone change. And again, you can see the, um, Glen Eagles development to the south and Hamburg Pavilion to the west. This is a, an aerial oblique, um, which does show how the development has come about to the south, um, with the apart- our apartments and single family residential along the interstate. And then we do the greenway or the stream here does indicate generally the boundaries of, um, what's proposed for rezoning. And then the, the last photo, i- is coming from, um, from the north looking south toward the Gleneagles development. And these photos are from 2007. You can see where there is some commercial development already in the CC zone across, um, Man O' War on the Sakura Justice property, and the location, um, of, well, of their property. Uh, the boundary, again, whi- is generally following the creek here, and then to the north there. Oops. I'm going backwards, I'm sorry. The comprehensive plan for this area, um, recommends the three zoning categories or land use categories that the applicant is proposing. However, they're, um, proposed by the comp plan in, in a different configuration. And, um, the applicant originally had not proposed a transitionary overlay, but when they amended their application, they have included that. And just for comparison's sake, you can see on the overhead that the comprehensive plan recommends the EAR3 zone between the interstate and Polo Club Boulevard, um, w- and then the, a CC zone, a transition area, area with EAR3. And then more EAR3 on the, um, west or east side of Polo Club Boulevard. So in fact, the applicant has proposed changing the locations, um, by modifying, um, the CC zone closer to the interstate, um, at that quadrant rather than centrally located to the rest of the, um, expansion area. I'm gonna ask that Mr. Emmons go over some of the history of our expansionary master plan, in terms of, um, the working group and also the planning commission's decisions, and then, um, talk a little bit more about how those concepts relate to this zone change. We have passed out, uh, at your, at your, uh, s- uh, spot so far a series of staff exhibits, uh, to orient you just a little bit to the, to these exhibits. Uh, I've put it in an outline format. The outlines for each individual section are on the blue pages separating the sections. The presentation that I'm gonna give is, is a very much a highlight of this packet of information, because there's no way that, uh, within the allotted time we could go through all of the details. Uh, however, I do hope that the commission gets a sense of, of the amount of work that went into the expansionary master plan. The... If we can get the lights back down again. The expansionary master plan, um, set forward, it is a very detailed comprehensive plan for the expansion area. The work that the, uh, expansion area did and the work that the planning commission did, uh, was well documented. The expansion ar- the planning commission set forward an expansionary master plan, uh, study committee. That study committee worked for 11 months solid, meeting every month with public meetings. All of that documentation and all of that work is, uh, on file in the division of planning. It can be looked at so that we can recreate, uh, the processes and the thoughts that went into that study. As you go through the, uh, the history exhibits, which is section one, we actually have a combination of, uh, the minutes from the EAMP study committee, uh, selections from those, and also, uh, from the planning commission's full public hearing in July of 1996, uh, with the adoption of the plan. Uh, you can see on the, on the, uh, highlights page, uh, that we have summarized a small portion of these, uh, minutes and some of the of, of how it deals with this property. Uh, one quotation in particular, uh, stood out from the EAMP work groups. Um, Mr. Charlie Seaman, who was our, the consultant that was the lead planner behind the expansionary and master plan said that the CC area was placed adjacent to the boulevard where it would be accessible to the residents internally, adjacent to the greenway where there will be bikeways, where in theory, it would be available both on foot and bike to residents. The... I'm going to go ahead and switch to the, to the next section, section two. As I mentioned, these are very much a highlights of this, uh, of this, but the expansionary and master plan is actually set forward several, what the first thing that they, they did in the process was agree on the principles of the development before they ever got to the land use. And there were 41 guiding principles and there were, uh, that are in your packet in section two. Uh, we have highlighted in yellow several of the principles, uh, the guiding principles that are relevant to today's zone change application. The entire expansionary master plan is brought up into basically four categories where they looked at land use, community des- design elements... They look at the infrastructure and then ultimately, the implementation, the zoning ordinance, uh, requirements that we have put in place today. Uh, some of the principles that were of major importance, uh, to this case, uh, was tha- the reliance on alternative modes of transportation. Actually, if you look in the, uh, in the minutes, as you look at that one little bullet that says, "The Expansion Area Master Plan should, uh, help with alternative modes of transportation." That actually led to the discussion about community centers and how people would be able to use the greenways to walk to the community centers. Uh, one of the important things is that the neighborhood commercial, uh, the community cen- would be located in community centers- ... and those community centers would be located on discrete nodes. And another major important factor of the Expansion Area Master Plan is the flexibility in the zoning regulations in order to be able to provide the type of development that was anticipated with the, uh, Expansion Area Master Plan. Other ones that are very important to the, germane to this, uh, conversation, no backs of houses to any of the major arterial roadways. There was lots of discussion along the interstate and this property, Winchester Road, Man O' War Boulevard, about keeping a scenic vista along those major arterial roads. Also, that the community centers would be confined to the discrete nodes and that the development would be centered on those community centers. As you can see from the, um, kind of the visuals in the comprehensive plan, if you take the green one, you start adding in all of these places where the ED land, the EAR2 land, the, uh, EAR3 lands, all of these can come together, uh, for the two centrally located commercial centers, community centers. One of the ex- one of the principles of the Expansionary Master Plan is that the greenways were central, uh, to the concept of the Expansionary Master Plan. They, in fact, it is stated in the EAMP that they are the central organizing feature of expansion area 2A. It's the, it's what all of the land uses, it's what all of the, um, what all of the, the community design elements were designed around. It serves as the backbone for our stormwater management system, and it also provides active and passive recreation, uh, along those greenways. I'm sorry, I forgot to mention, a- and if you're following along in the handouts, uh, I'm, I've now transitioned over to section three where I'm talking about greenways and, and the pedestrian. Um, in your packet, it might be a little bit easier to see under section three, near the back of section three, there are a couple of pictures that represent, uh, the next points about pedestrians and the location of the c- community center area. Uh, you can see, uh, what we've prepared in this, in this little diagram that the, the green area would be a, an easy walk for somebody. It's essentially a half mile, uh, walk radius from the location it would be if it were per the Expansionary and Master Plan and, uh, the, and the same type of radius if the CC zone were approved in the location that the applicant is proposing. In short, and we have the, um, right behind that are the statistics of showing how this would work. But in short, in short order you can see that essentially by moving the community center away from the greenway and towards the interstate, you are isolating a, uh, you're isolating some of the residential aspects of the, of, of the expansion area to get to that community center. They expa- as the Expansionary Master Plan recommends that about two thirds of the residents would be able to reach the community center, uh, via the greenways. Uh, with the applicant's proposal, uh, virtually everyone would have to cross the boulevard and, to get to it. It's quite evident, uh, through the, uh, work that was done in the expansion area study group that the, there's lots of talk in the Expansionary Master Plan that the community centers are supposed to be based off of traditional neighborhood design, and what are some of those traditional neighborhood designs? It's quite obvious that, uh, if you look at the rev- the graphics that were, uh, prepared as the supporting documents, that it was really a new urbanist type of design that was, uh, being thought about at the time that the Expansionary Master Plan was being formulated. Some of the common things that our traditional neighborhood centers have, and once again, I apologize, I've, uh, I have moved on to section four in your handouts. Uh, we've provided for you some of the, uh, some documents that were not looked at by the expansionar- uh, by the study group, but come from the Congress of New Urbanism that have, uh, several graphics that very clearly show the difference between typical suburban development and traditional neighborhood development. Uh, some of the common features that all, uh, of our traditional neighborhood centers have is the location is key. Uh, most, uh, most of these types of, um, developments that are around the nation are near, but not right at, the, uh, large interstate intersections, uh, for your larger scale developments such as this could be. Parking is thought about. Uh, the architecture is aesthetically pleasing, but most importantly, the community centers provide a social function, uh, for, to become the heart of the neighborhood. The Sasaki Report had a, uh, proposed development. The Sasaki Report, for those who don't know, uh, and that's located near the end of your packet, was a, uh, was prepared in conjunction with the Expansion Area Master Plan. It was considered a technical journal, uh, to go along with the Expansion Area Master Plan, and you can see some of the key features that were proposed for this community center, the connections to the greenway, the Main Street retail with the churches and the residential all in one combined, uh, development. We've got several pages from the Sasaki Report in your Expansion Area Master Plan. I mean, in your packet. And one of the last points, uh, that we wanna make that was talked about a lot at the zoning committee, the applicant has proposed that, that the EAR3 near the interstate intersection is an inappropriate land use for there. I keep saying, "Do you really wanna live near the interstate?" The staff would like to point out that the EAR3 zone in and of itself has probably more design flexibility than any other of our zoning categories. There is no floor area ratio, uh, for the EAR3, meaning you can build as much building on the property as you, as you want. There's only a five-foot setback along Man O' War Boulevard and, um, and along Polo Club Boulevard and any of the internal streets that the applicant would build. There's only a 20-foot setback along the interstate, and it allows up to 60 feet in height with a 25% open space requirement. There, uh, there aren't any other zones that really have that amount of flexibility. We believe that the applicant's saying that, that this land is inappropriate to be near the interstate is not, uh, is not a valid point whenever dealing with the interstate could be mitigated through their design that they bring forward. That ends the going through the packet of staff exhibits. Would like to finish up the zoning staff report with the staff recommendation of disapproval of the requested zone change, um, for four reasons. First, the requested CC zone and EAR3 zone, along with the TA overlay zone, is not in agreement with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan and the detailed recommendations of the Expansionary Master Plan. It is not in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan, because it does not keep with the vision of those plans. It does not keep with the intent or the concepts of the Expansionary Master Plan. Uh, the second reason th- is that there have no major unanticipated changes of an economic, social, or physical nature in the subject property since the adoption of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. The third reason is that the existing AR zoning is not inappropriate for the subject property. Most of, the most common zoning in the expansion area is still AR zones. The most common, uh, zoning for the Hamburg East area is still, uh, agricultural/rural. And finally, not only is it not in agreement with the plan, but the applicant's proposed, uh, configuration of the z- of the CC, EAR3, and EAR, and the transition area zones are inappropriate, uh, because sufficient retail land is developed or planned within close proximity to the Interstate 75 in the immediate area. All of that provides a variety of choices to the traveling public, and B, that the higher density residential uses are often recommended on our major thoroughfares. If you have any, uh, questions for the staff, either for Tracy or I, we would be happy to try and answer those questions. Otherwise, we'll turn it over for the development plan presentation, and, and I do believe that there is a traffic study that goes along with this report. All right. So at this time, are there any questions for Ms. Wade or for Mr. Inmons? And of course, we do realize that this is a lot of information, and we will be available throughout the hearing if you have any questions about any of the materials that we've submitted. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, well, we'll move on. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, on page two of your agenda is the Preliminary Development Plan associated with this zone change. It is ZDP2009-87, Hamburg East. The development plan that you see before you today is oriented with Man O' War here, Polo Club, which splits the property, as was explained to you by Mr. Emmons and Ms. Wade, with areas of proposed development. This plan is very similar to the plan that you saw here on the Baptist Hospital property, where they showed a street system oriented to Polo Club Boulevard with areas of development. Uh, Polo Club Boulevard is 140 feet of right of way. It is a divided highway. The points you see here, the access points, were previously approved when Polo Club was approved, and they are the set points and anchor, a proposed street system that would serve these areas of development. This is approximately 92 acres here. There are 52 acres, approximately, here and a little over 16 acres in the TE zone on the development plan in this location. These are greenways and stormwater management areas that border the property in these areas. The plan was reviewed and recommended for approval by the subdivision committee. As you all are aware, they act on a plan as if the zoning was already in place. The conditions that were placed on the plan are very standard for a preliminary development plan, with a couple of cleanup conditions. Uh, and that's eight and nine. The final condition, number 10, denote at the time of the final development plan, arrangements for the completion of the sanitary sewer and the regional detention facilities. Uh, those items are part of the expansion area plan. It is necessary that they be complete, obviously, before any development can take place. The latest information that we have is that the, the stormwater facilities, which will be located on either side of Polo Club Boulevard are entering into the design phase. The regional pump station, which is across Winchester Road in this direction, following Polo Club is, uh, going to be included in a group of projects to be bid this spring. So they are proceeding in front of the development as necessary. And with that, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Tom, you d- you didn't address number eight, revise note number 11. That's just a cleanup. There's a redundant note on the plan. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, Tom. Mr. Salih. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, good afternoon. Staff has two minutes of time remaining in our presentation. And with that, I'd like to orient you to the memorandum from our traffic in, uh, pardon me, our transportation planning section regarding the traffic impact study that has been submitted with this zone change. You should have a four-page document, uh, submitted, uh, at your place. If I could begin, uh, by asking you to look at the table on the top of page three of the staff's memorandum, the, uh, site trip generation table. Uh, we would note, uh, for your review that the weekday average daily traffic is expected at full development of this property to be just under 12,000, uh, average daily trips. About 10% of which will be expected in the PM peak hour under this analysis. And moving to the table at the top of page four of the memorandum, this is the level of service calculations that have been done regarding the traffic impact study. You'll see that under column B, uh, expected in the year 2015, there will really be no degradation to the levels of service, although there will be some slight delays, added delays as a result of the development. And, of course, uh, in the full build-out year of 2020, there will be some, uh, degradation of level of service and some additional delay as part of the development that should really come as no surprise for a development of this size. The conclusion of the transportation planning staff, uh, begins on the bottom of page four and on, pardon me, on the bottom of page three and on page four. Uh, and as I am out of time, I'll let you r- review those. Mr. Conyers, Max Conyers, who is planning manager for transportation planning, uh, is present should you have any questions about the memorandum or the traffic study. Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Salih or Mr. Conyer? Uh, thank you. Thank you. Petitioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. O- one moment, I need to put up a couple of boards. Now you can start the clock. Uh, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I'm Rena Wiseman. I'm here this afternoon with Bill Leer on behalf of the various entities that own this property. They're all made up of members of the Madden family, uh, today. With me is also Anita Madden and Pat Madden and, uh, s-- two of the family members that own this property, as well as Ben Edelen from HDR Quest. Uh, one quick thing I will say with regard to the development plan. We agree with those, uh, conditions, and for those of you maybe have been, uh, been through some of these EAMP plans before, they, uh, that has been how they have always been very conceptual with the street system. And the restrictions of the zones are very specific and set forth on the plan. And the detail comes in the next stage of final development plans. That's been consistent, uh, primarily because, as many of you recall, when the EAMP was first, uh, adopted, the council was going to zone the entire property. That didn't happen, so we're now doing it, uh, piecemeal, a- as properties come in. Uh, at the outset, our, uh, request has been outlined by the staff, and our legal justification for this request is that it's in substantial compliance with the comprehensive plan, including the expansion area master plan, which is an element of that plan. The plan for Area 2A calls for, on the north side of Man O' War Boulevard, which used to be known as Bryant Road, uh, EAR3, high-density residential, along Polo Club Boulevard. Uh, it calls for Polo Club Boulevard, which has been constructed to connect to Winchester Road by these landowners. It calls for a greenway system, which this plan w-- accommodates and will come forward in additional future plans. It calls for a CC area on Polo Club Boulevard to serve the north part of expansion area 2A of 37 and a half acres. Uh, we are proposing the same land uses in the same acreages and densities, uh, with a little bit more EAR3, in fact, that the plan calls for. And we are in substantial compliance, and we'd, uh ... In fact, you could, if you wanted to make percentages, I'd say we're 85%. The only difference between the map that is on your comprehensive plan is in this area. And the entire focus of the staff's report has been on the, the idea that the CC area, which is shown on this location to the east of Polo Club Boulevard, has been shifted to this side, and this EAR3 area has been moved away from I-75, the north ramp of I-75, to the other side of Polo Club Boulevard. Why? Because we'll talk about, we think that's a much better location for this residential property. Uh, you have, uh ... And let me go back to substantial compliance. There is no legal requirement that says that in order for you to find that a zone change is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, it has to meet every part of it, cross every T, dot every I exactly as the land use map or the comp plan. It is not a zoning map. If that's what it, was it, what it was intended to be, there would not be the necessity to have a quasi-judicial hearing for this body to, to make a determination. And there have been many occasions, even in the expansion area, where the commission has found, with the recommendation of the staff, that a zone change is in substantial compliance with the comprehensive plan, even if there has been an adjustment in the location of land use. So notwithstanding the lengthy history that the staff has given you about the expansionary master plan, that hasn't changed the rules that we operate in making our d- zoning decisions, is that the comprehensive plan, which the court has made very clear in Kentucky, is a guide. It's not a straitjacket, and you look at it to see if under the current circumstances and facts before you, whether you follow the plan or whether there need to be adjustments. And we're gonna talk more about that the one adjustment we've made does not violate the intent of the expansion area. It does not violate the spirit, and we believe that it, it does comply with the intention of the small, the expansionary plan that for expansion area 2A there would be residential on the north side of Bryant Road with EAR3 on the boulevard, with an area of community center, with a transition area. And on the south side, there was the other community center. Uh, we're, we are complying with that, but because we believe and we think you would believe, uh, and should believe that it is better to put the residential across the road. If you have a clean slate, which we do, this property is largely undeveloped. You have one owner that controls both sides of the boulevard, and you look at one side or the other, and we're asking at the end of this hearing that you would conclude that, all things being equal, it makes more sense to put the residential further away from the interstate. Now, before we go into some of the specifics of our presentation, this I'll turn it over to Mr. Lear at this time. I'm gonna speak on the, a few other things later, but before we got too far, uh, into the proceeding, and because we just got this tome handed to us at the outset, I thought it would be appropriate to comment on it. Um, unlike, um, a lot of people and maybe most of the members of the planning commission, we, Mrs. Wiseman and I as well as the Maddens, uh, were very much involved in this whole process. In fact- ... uh, representing the home builders, we brought it about. We represented them and convinced the planning commission and the council that an expansion was necessary. They voted to do it, and they asked a consultant named Charlie Seaman to come in and to work with them. Uh, we worked with them, again, hand in glove throughout this process. I can tell you from 15 years, uh, in, in the rear view mirror, it was a good process, but it was not a perfect process. Mistakes were made. Uh, there were mistakes made in that plan that we're living with today. One of them has to do with ED land, uh, and the extent to which we loaded exactions onto the ED land, and what it's done to the marketability of the ED land, except in rare cases like what was done for Central Baptist, when we cha- we did a significant, uh, change in the text to allow uses not otherwise there. There are other mistakes, if you want to call them that, in the sense that not everything that has happened in the expansion area has followed this plan exactly. Has it followed the general outline? Yes. Uh, ha- ha- are the general components in place, uh, roughly in the same locations? Yes, but there are some important deviations, and Rena will talk about, uh, one particular one that offers some insight to this case a little later. Uh, as I, as I told some of you at the zoning committee, th- this community had a chance at the end of this process to zone the entire expansion area. And again, we were a part of that process. Um, I happen to have been the one that called it the mother of all zone changes. Everything that was shown on the EAMP was proposed in a single zone change to be adopted. And what happened? Uh, it was recommended, I think unanimously, by the planning commission, and the council voted it down in this chamber. In a packed house, in a hearing that lasted a long time, they voted it down. And, and in so doing, didn't throw this plan out the window, but left the planning commission and the council to do what they always do, which is to look at each zone change proposal as it comes up, judge it on its merits, and not simply, um, s- stand up and salute every jot and tittle of, of this document. Now, the, the other thing I wanted to say at this time is that if you look through this, uh, two thirds of this, uh, doesn't relate to a spot on the map. It relates to things like design, things that will be affected in no way by whether this is on the right side of the road or the left side of the road when, when it is eventually developed. Uh, they've got all kinds of things in the back from places, um, like Celebration, and Kentlands, and a lot of other, other developments around the country that are great developments. I've visited a lot of 'em. I studied a lot of 'em. Um, and, and from what I have seen, it wouldn't, it would not make a difference in how they are designed if you moved them from this location to that location in the same general vicinity. And I think you're gonna see the same to ev- when, by the time we get through. So this is a plan, uh, or these documents are part of a plan. And, and one other thing, I, I, uh, I wanna say before I turn it back to Rena, the, the notion seems to be that, that, um, this facility will work if it touches the greenway here, but it won't work if it touches the greenway here. The greenway doesn't stop at the roadway. The greenway goes on this side, where it's not as big, but it's very much a part of the plan on this side, and is intended to function the same way on the west side of this road as it is on the east side. Well, with that, I'll turn it back to, to Rena, and then I have s- I have some more comments to make later. I wanna get back to, uh, the notion ... Have the overhead, please? Of, again, the, the entire focus of the staff report and the staff presentation is the location of the community center, and you have to ... You can't just look at that one side of the equation. The other side of the equation is, we've also got a significant, uh, area of EAR3 that is projected for this part of, of the community. And the question we're asking you, is since you're looking at it today, an undeveloped area, and you have the west side of Polo Club and the east side of Polo Club, ask, where do you believe? No matter w- you, what the design mitigation may be, where's the best place for there to be, uh, residential units on the property? The first slide, this is just to orient you. This is the brand new Polo Club Boulevard, or as the landowners like to call it, the Autobahn- That's what it's called. ... which, because even though it's not open, it has been, uh, apparently used for some, um- Yeah. ... road testing out there. Uh, I want to say at this point, it is difficult to accept the statement with this facility on this road, on this property, with the fact that we have installed the sanitary sewer facilities that are called for by the expansionary plan, that this is a piece of property that anybody would say is appropriate for agricultural/rural. I think this is clearly now an urban piece of property. All the facilities are there. It's in one of the areas of intense urban development, and I think that picture says that all. If you're on the, the west side of the property, again, if you wanna make a choice, it's, I, I don't know if the lights going down could help this a little, be more visible? Sure. Sorry, Rena, it's down. Okay. Sorry. Well, squint your eyes, and maybe you'll-- you could see this better. But this is standing on where the staff would... and where the expansionary plan, which was done in 1996, would suggest, recommend, again it's a guide, that the, uh, EAR3 land be located. Here's a better picture of what we are next to. Uh, that is looking at the interstate. Let me find one with the truck, because we are next to a road that carries 68,000... Well, I don't have that picture. This one. 68,000 cars a day. There you can see the interstate there, travel I-75. When this plan was adopted, that road carried about 55,000, and it has increased that much in this segment of the interstate since 1995. Not only is this property next to I-75, it's next to the north on-ramp. This is the place where cars, and particularly trucks, have to generate the speed to merge onto a very busy section of the interstate. Uh, I don't... couldn't find the numbers for it, but if you've driven on I-75, since it's a major north/south arterial throughout the country, it is... has heavy truck traffic. And this is 24 hours a day, especially at night. That is a lot of noise that is on this property, that people who live there will be dealing with that noise. And I don't know what sort of design feature would mitigate that unless you moved the EAR3, you know, several hundred feet into the property, thereby wasting land that we could otherwise move across the road to have, uh, a, a density that we anticipated to have at the time of the expansionary master plan. Now, the other side of the road, I'll go back, is, is the side that backs up to this future greenway. There's a stream that runs through here. The greenway loops around the EAR3, as we're showing it. It also adjoins conservation. That means that'll be a park. That'll be a public park at some point under the, uh, our expansion area system. Another advantage that has not been mentioned, if you put the homes over here, they may not... They may have to cross the boulevard to get to the s- shopping center, the community center. They don't have to cross it to get to the park. If you put these folks over here, they have to cross the boulevard to get to the park. I think it's a good feature of the plan that we can have residents be on the same side of the road where the major park is if you're walking with your children with their bikes and their wagons to get, uh, to the park. Uh, so if you were to stand out there and just say, "I'm gonna build apartments that I'm gonna have my children... and it's gonna be their first home, a townhome that's gonna be their first home, it's gonna be by I-75, or it's gonna be over here next to the greenway system with, uh, easy access to the park," what would you choose? Well, we think you would choose the part away from the interstate. Uh, and that is... it's we're not saying that, "No, it's not inappropriate to put homes against the interstate." Yes, we have done that before, but here we have a choice. You can make the choice. We're not forced to putting it next to the interstate. We have a viable choice to put it somewhere where we all know is a better location, and we believe you can do that without doing damage to the integrity of the comprehensive plan. Now, it has happened in the past that we have deviated from the land use map of the comprehensive plan in the expansion area. Expansion area master plan was given a lot of attention. That is true, but it has no more greater status in the law than the comprehensive plan. So it has be- been rare that it has been deviated from, but it has been, and you can... Uh, you're not legally bound to follow every requirement of the comprehensive plan. I'm sorry, this is the right one. This is expansion area 2C, which is the area of the expansion area that starts at, uh, roughly, it's Athens Boonesboro Road, that goes up to the interstate in the Todds Road area. Uh, this is where, if you're familiar with the community now, it's... there's a development called Childsburg. Hayes Boulevard is the main boulevard in that expansion area. A smaller community center is planned for this area. Uh, it is already zoned. On the plan, it is shown in this location to the west of Hayes Boulevard, with the transition area next to it. But in 1999, when the, the applicant came to rezone the entire property, which was the guest property, which had several hundred acres- Uh, a couple things were done. There was th- because of the topography and relocations of ridge lines, the request was to realign the boulevard and to put the EAR, oh, excuse me, the CC in the transition area on the east side of the boulevard. See, before it was on the west, then it was on the east. Your staff looked at that and recommended approval of the entire zone change, and again, the CC part was just a small component of that request, and stated that the CC and TA areas would be in a different location from what the EAMP recommended. He stated however that the proposed zoning would be compatible with the concepts in the expansion area master plan. And the staff recommended that the zone change be approved because it was in substantial agreement with the expansionary master plan. And that's what we're asking today, to make an adjustment, uh, to the master plan to accommodate a better location for the land uses, particularly the EAR3. ... Bill. And now th- I'm gonna turn it back over to Bill. We did not rehearse this. Don't they... I wanna, uh, take a moment to, to talk about what kind of, of center is envisioned and what kind of center can and will be built and to respond to some of the things that the staff has said, um, in regard to the zone change since we first proposed it. I, I'd like to begin by saying that when we initially proposed the zone change, the CC was shown for a greater amount of acreage than it is now. There were some other issues. Uh, we resolved all those. We basically said, "Okay, fair enough." We cut it down. We included a transition area adjacent to it, all of which met the staff's original reaction to our plan. The only thing that's left is this issue of the right side of the road or the left side of the road, east versus west. But in, in, um, in opposing our zone change, um, what the staff has focused on a couple of times is, is a statement that, well, if you move it to the other side of the road, it'll end up being, uh, like what's across the interstate or it will be more of, of an attraction for interstate travel. Um, neither of those contentions hold water. Now, Tracy gave you, um, a, a, a breakdown, uh, of the, the kinds of uses, uh, that are allowed in the B6P zone. She didn't mention B5P, which is a, which is a portion of what's on the other side of the road and is markedly different, uh, from B6P in many respects. Uh, and then she compared that to the CC, and if you look at where the X's go, you would say, "Gosh, that's, um, a- an awful lot of the uses n- w- will overlay." Well, the types of products that are sold will overlay. There's noth- in, in many respects, 'cause most of them are built ultimately on the B1 zone that's incorporated in various other places. Uh, but to say that it's the same, uh, is, is, is like saying that, that, uh, Shaquille O'Neal is the same as my, uh, young grandson. Uh, you know, they have the same number of arms, the same number of legs, but if you were trying to decide, um, which one is, is the greater mass, uh, it'd be an easy decision to make. And here's the kind of thing I'm talking about. The, the, the real key to the difference is in the design components and the restrictions. The CC zone requires 25% open space, and that, that doesn't mean... That can't be parking lots. That can't be access roads. That's real open space. There's no such requirement in the B6P. 40% of the floor area, the, uh, of the aggregate floor area in the CC has to be devoted to residential development, schools, churches, or public buildings. The maximum building size in, in the CC zone is 15,000 square feet unless it is a part of a mixed-use building that also includ- that includes residential with nonresidential or it's a church, uh, which can be larger, or it's a grocery store, but the grocery store, uh, it's not gonna be one of those six flags over Kroger grocery stores. It's a 50,000-square-foot maximum grocery store is all that's allowed in the CC because it's geared to the community. Parking, um, the park- there's a standard about parking, that you're supposed to minimize the parking between the building and the adjoining streets. Not so in B6P. Signage. Signage is much more restricted for the community center than for B6P. Uh, building height, no height limitation in B6P, 48 feet in community center. Uh, now the uses. Um, yes, the uses are, uh, in terms of the products sold, are, eh, they're, it, it are substantially the similar, uh, similar, but here are some of the things that are across the road that could not go in the community center, Bed Bath & Beyond, Off Broadway Shoes, Staples, Gordmans, Value City Furniture, Haverty's, Meijers, Target. I ca- I can go on down the list. Those, that is not what community centers are about. That's not what can go in this center, uh, whether it's on the east side or the west side of, of that boulevard. So the notion that, um, you're gonna change the nature of the community center by pushing it on the other side is not gonna happen. Now, what would you like to see in the communi- in these types of community centers? Um, the comprehensive plan mentions churches- ... uh, and you have to devote a certain percentage to public buildings, residential or, or churches. Uh, it mentions grocery stores, and I've already said that. But if you look at what the staff gave you, what they want to create, what they want to create, um, is a, a boutique-type village. And that's why they gave you examples of Kentlands, and we're not opposed to that. We, in fact, those are the kinds of retailers that Pat has talked to, because some of them, there's a small portion of Hamburg that is different than the rest, that's a little neo-traditional, um, center, uh, that's in the middle of Hamburg. Some of those types of tenants are there, and they're small shops, but they're upscale, and they are in the kinds of places, like Island that's in there, which I've been to. And, and these other, these other, um, boutique village-type centers. They're the, like Casique, uh, and Coldwater Creek and Glamour Nails and Hallmark and Crabtree in Evelyn and, and Sunglasses Hut and Kay Jewelers and salons and the like. That personal service, high-end stores, that's what they say they'd like to see. That's the kind of retailers that Pat Madden has talked to about locating in a community center that could be located. So if the staff ... And, and those tenants will say, as between those two locations where they would like to be is the one that, that we propose. And we're not talking about the PetSmarts, the Marshalls, the BestBuys, the Lowes, the Walmarts, the Dicks, and all that sort of thing. Now, the idea that th- that this is gonna be more attractive to Interstate tra- to the Interstate, uh, traveler doesn't wash. First of all, um, I- I'm sure most of you all are like me. Frank, you said you just dr- ah, drove to Florida. You either flew to Florida and, and drove or drove to Florida, but you've been on the Interstate, and you know what people get off the Interstate for. They get off the Interstate for fast food and usually look for clusters, especially if they're driving with their kids and they can't decide where they want to go, they look for gas stations and they look for hotels and motels. Well, you can't do a hotel or motel, uh, o- in a CC zone. You can, you can do restaurants, but there's not, it's not big enough and designed to do a cluster of restaurants. And you can do gas stations, but again, it's not multiple. Now, if you're coming down the Interstate, if you, if you are coming north on the Interstate, uh, and you get to the top of the ramp, you're gonna be looking at the right at ab- about every brand of gas station you could think of and about every brand of fast food you can think of. Most people would be highly unlikely to make the turn and go across the Interstate when they can turn right, not wait for, for traffic or a light, um, and get to where they want to go. Same is true for hotel food no matter w- no matter what it is. If you're coming, if you're coming north on the Interstate and you get to the top of the access ramp here, it doesn't really matter. Uh, there's no more attractiveness being here than here, because you're gonna cross exactly the same point to get there. So if you're an Interstate traveler and you get to the top, top of that ramp, um, it won't make any difference. So the notion that you're gonna be more attracted ... And by the way, you won't be able to see it when you're coming north until you get to the top of the ramp because of the topography. So the notion that this is gonna be more attractive to Interstate just doesn't wash, no matter where, where it is. That won't be the case. Now, I want to mention a little bit about noise. I've spent some time out there and, and- We ... Uh, ex- excuse me, Mr. Lehr. We, we need to wind this up, so let's, let's move on if we can. All right. Your 30 minutes is about up. I hadn't watched. Is it ... All right. Um, the, the, uh, the noise out there, I will tell you, is, is, um, horrific. Uh, and it is not conducive to a residential development in, in any respect. Uh, granted, we have some that are beside the Interstates, but if we had the choice on the front end whether to put a nonresident-dential use or a residential, I think all of us in good conscience would opt not to put the residential beside the Interstate. Thanks. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I'll, uh, we'll just, uh, summarize our findings and, and by way of, uh, wrapping up as our conclusion. Again, our, our, uh, presentation is that this zone change is in substantial compliance with the comprehensive plan. Uh, as I mentioned, that's a concept that is strong in Kentucky law, and it's a concept that's recognized by your comp plan at page 229, that acknowledges that there may be times when a zone change doesn't precisely meet the land use map, but that you can still find that it's in agreement with the comp plan. We think this plan accomplishes what the expansionary master plan set out to do, which is to provide a wide variety of residential densities and types, a greenway system, and a commercial, I mean, a community center to s- to serve the residents of this area. We think it's consistent with that plan. It's in agreement with the plan. We also think that it is not an appropriate location for, uh, agricultural rural zoning. So that is summarized in our findings, and I'll tender those now. And we apologize for, that's my fault for not watching the clock. Thanks. Sorry, Mr. Lehr. Uh- I'm, I'm just trying to keep both sides on the same schedule. That's why. He thought we each had 30 minutes, I think is what- He would. But, uh, unless you have questions. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Wiseman, I'll ask if there's any questions the commissions have of the petitioner? No, Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Oh, excuse me, Ms. Wiseman. M- Ms. Phillips. Um, the principle concern, it seems to me... The principal, P-R-I-N-C-I-P-A-L... Certainly. ... as opposed to the typos here, sorry. Um, the principal concern, uh, seems to be noise impacts associated with I-75, yet we have probably one of the most noise-sensitive land uses that's going to be on the ED land, um, immediately to the north, the hospital. Um, so I, um, you know, um, I'm not sure that there will be sound attenuation construction standards built for the hospital, um, when the time comes, but that's the kind of land use that, um, probably should be even more sensitive to, to road noise or ambient noise than, uh, than, um, single family residential. But I wondered if you have any, uh, empirical data to show that distancing that tract of land by however many, what is it? A thousand lineal feet? Will create a substantial reduction in the, in the ambient noise level. Do you have any research that- No, I don't have any empirical data on that. Uh, we can calculate the distance. I kn- I do know that there's a substantial grade change, that the interstate and the western part of the property is above- Eastern. ... eastern part, so it slopes down as you get to the eastern part of the boulevard. Mm-hmm. Yes. Can you show us on the map, please? Yes. This area is above this area, and that's, that is in a developed state. It will be above this area. So the distance... And I don't know, we can, somebody can calculate that, uh, distance. That along with the, uh, grade separation is going to provide some significant buffer. It's certainly going to provide more of a noise attenuation, uh, barrier than anything you could do right along the interstate. Um... So, so- Sorry? How do you measure it? 15 years? About, um, 1500 feet. Okay. Can I, um, just so that I'm clear, so the, the property that's closest to the Man-O-War I-75 interstate, is at a higher elevation? Okay. And then- There's a, there's a, a ridge that runs here. The pro- This part is higher than this part, and when this is developed, there'll be, have to be grading to level that out. It'll be raised, and this part will be above, and this slopes down to the greenway and to the creek. I didn't show you the photo. There's a significant stream that runs through here. Yeah. I'd, I'd be curious to see, you know, some kind of reports or research that shows that, you know, that grade change will create, uh, a measurable, a significant change in the, in the ambient noise level. Well, again, we don't have that, but I don't think you need a, a report to understand that you can do a lot more by moving it 1500 feet on the other side of this road with buildings in the middle that will provide some buffer than if you put these residents here to get the maximum density that we wanna get in the expansion area. I don't know. You know, you're looking at concrete sound barriers, which are not beautiful and they're expensive. Um, it's not... Just trees won't do it. I can, I, I can't give you empirical data, but I can give you eyewitness or ear, ear witness. I was out yesterday, and this, this ridge that Rena talks about it, it runs about this direction here. So everything fr- from about here down is on the downhill side, straight shot, and sound waves travel in a straight line unless they're deflected, so... And when you're back over here, it goes down, and this continues to go down from the road on, on this side, so you've got a, a natural buffer in that hillside, um, down here, whereas if you're building on top of the hill, uh, and down toward the interstate, you're just getting it straight away. It's, it, the, the sound levels are appreciably different up next to the road. All right. Mr. Owens? Yes, thank you. As a follow-up, uh, I guess Ms. Wiseman, Mr. Clear, um, what you're looking at as far as the corner of the interstate and Man-O-War, uh, the property in question right now, most of it is on the interstate ramp itself, isn't it? Okay. And as far as the actual interstate, isn't that lower than the property in itself? Yes. Yes. Okay. It's... At the very end of it. If you guys... Here's the... This is, this is the main drive- If, if you will, grab that bike so it'll be on, be on record. Here's the... This i- this is the, the ramp right here, so the ramp runs there, and this is the main planes of the interstate, and you're looking down from this, this hillside. You're basically looking straight over into the backs of the buildings over here. Any other questions? Mr. Cravens? Yeah, wh- why you've stated that the, uh, the residential does better farther away from the interstate, uh, doesn't retail do better not being on the interior, more on out on the outside road? It easier to rent, to rent the space and for the... I mean, retailers like that better, not being tucked inside residential. That has, um, that has almost uniformly been the case, um, with retailers and, and, um, that's be- that's the preference. The, the kind of retailers that apparently. We would like to see, that Pat has talked to, uh, have uniformly told him that they would prefer that location. Any further questions? And, and, uh, he, he says it's stronger than that, that they, uh, it's not just that they prefer the location west, that they would not, um, choose the location east. If there's, if there's no further questions for the petitioner, then we'll take comments from the audience. Uh, wanna keep them to the point. Is there anybody in the audience that'd like to make a comment on this, on this development, on this zone change? Both for or against, either way. I don't see any. Did... Am I missing anybody? I'm not, am I? I'm thinking. Okay. Then we'll move on to the rebuttal stage of it. Um, petitioner, do you have any rebuttals? Okay. Uh, staff, we'll move on to yours. Target. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You get a chance. Uh, first, staff rebuttals. Um, got several points of the applicant's to rebut. Uh, start with the only one that has a graphic. Um, they used the guest property and showed that the CC location had, had moved. And it did move. It didn't move much. It moved because the boulevard needed to move because of topographic reasons, and actually the CC area moved more centrally located to the greenway system, uh, for expansion area, uh, for expansion area 2C. That's all I need to say for, uh, the guest property CC area. It... Oh, also that that is a six, that's about a six-acre CC, uh, developable site, uh, versus the 37 acres of, uh, developable CC that we're talking about here in comparison. Uh, we can turn the lights back up and remove that. The applicant has said that they're, they have contended that they're about 85% in agreement with the comprehensive plan. We would say that they're about 20% in agreement with the plan. Uh, where the EAR3 portion does overlap near the park, we agree with the applicant that it's good to have residential near your park, connected by the greenways, just as the expansionary and master plan calls for, uh, for the subject property. In relation to, uh, some of Mr. Lear's comments about the, uh, what you can and can't do in a CC zone and how a CC zone is different than, uh, than a typical commercial center, and it is different. It's different by design. Uh, the way the ordinances are set up, it highly, um, incentivizes a new urbanist type of Main Street retail area. That large list of national retailers that, uh, Mr. Lear named off, and actually we can look at all national retailers that are out there. There is no limitation of the 15,000 square feet once you put them in mixed-use buildings. There are several, uh, successful community centers, uh, type developments around the nation that have those types of large retailers, and they have office and condos, uh, residential up above them, not unlike the, uh, mixed-use zones and the mixed-use proposal that you recently saw with the Red Mile, uh, Road. Uh, the... And also that also takes you back to the, uh, the applicant's saying that the, uh, the CC area would be better suited towards the interstate because residential isn't good near the interstate. Uh, they seem to have forgotten that there is a residential and/or church or civic component to the community center, and how those, uh, residents that are in the CC area, uh, deal with the interstate are not much different than how the EAR3, uh, development would need to deal with that. Uh, finally, one of the big tenets of the applicant's proposal is that the expansion area master plan and the comprehensive plan is a guide and not a straitjacket. They said that it's more than the land use map, and that is true. That's why the staff has presented to you, uh, we feel that this is not in agreement with the entirety of the intent and the context of the expansionary and master plan in the 2007 comprehensive plan. Uh, the comprehensive plan is more than a land use map. Location does matter. Design does matter, uh, whenever you do these things. That's the reason why the regulations are written in such a way that whenever applicants bring in final development plans, uh, for this body to review in detail, it's because the expansionary and master plan, and this process went through so much detail in guiding, guidance. ... on how this lands should develop, how the expansion area should have the flexibility to be different than the rest of the urban service area. Uh, that's the reason why the applicant has to submit those compliance statements saying that they are in agreement with the le- recommended land use, the community design, and the public infrastructure elements of the comprehensive plan. I believe, uh, I'm going to end our rebuttal points on that note. Are there- If you have any questions for us, I'd be happy to try and answer. ... are there any questions for Mr. Inman? Ms. Phillips? Jimmy, do you guys have any, uh, information on noise levels and the distance in noise reduction? Um, the decline in noise levels as distance increases, does anyone have any- We are not experts on it. ... information? We did go through the noise levels with the, uh, Ramsey S- we went through noise levels in detail, uh, with the Ramsey Sullivan property and that residential, and, and, and that is one of the areas where you have residential near an interstate interchange. Uh, but that was mostly, uh, the noise levels in association with the, um, with the railroad track that we were talking about there. Uh, we, we have looked at it, we don't have the expertise to get into the, uh, extreme details of it. Uh, but in general, sound does travel in a straight line unless it's buffered. Sound acts as a wave. Uh, it's, it can be muffled, but by the research that we've done in the past, if you're going to use just vegetation, then it can't be a single type of tree. It's gotta be a mixture of trees, of evergreens, and all kinds of things that you get in there. And you really need about 200 feet of treed buffer, uh, if it's, if you're gonna go with a soft buffer to try and diffuse sound. Uh, hard buffers are much more effective as bouncing, uh, those waves off of there. I do know that, uh, once you get into sound wave mechanics and the physics of that, it gets extremely complicated. There are times whenever people, uh, along highway projects where they've put up two walls on each side, the sounds actually start bouncing off and amplifying as they come out over there. So, I, I, uh, the, uh, I've had many physics classes in college, but that's about as far as our knowledge of this goes. So ... Mr. Holmes? Yes, Jimmy, I had a question. Where does the greenway ... I'm trying to get an idea of where the greenway actually goes. I mean could you sort of show me or locate that? Mm-hmm. I mean ... I'm trying to ... Well, the EAMP, uh, the Comprehensive Plan actually has the, the most complete ... Do we have the EAMP greenway page? We're putting it up on the ... The subject property th- of the zone change is located right here. We have Man O' War Boulevard, Winchester Road, and Polo Club Boulevard, which is not exactly in the location that is shown, uh, on this, on the EAMP. Uh, you can see, uh, it's very dark. This is the area, uh, that's recommended for conservation or a park. There's also a park here. Uh, this is Greenbrier. And the greenway, uh, the North Elkhorn Creek essentially runs from the large lake out of Greenbrier heading north towards Winchester Road and then on nor- north, uh, there are sever- several tributaries. If you look at the, uh, entire park system, the greenway connects, uh, this park that is near the interdiction and the park that's, uh, near the Rails to Trails area that will come up and connect through here to this park. The applicant's CC area, uh, they did say that they had a, a greenway adjacent to a portion of their CC area also. As you can tell from, this is the main branch. Um, this is a, this is a dead end, uh, greenway leading to the interstate. It's essentially the greenway equivalent of a cul-de-sac. Any other questions for Jimmy? If you have a point you wanna make now, I, I can't open it back up for more rebuttal. If you have a point you wanna make to, to that question, it's fine. I would, I would, I think it'd be very helpful for y'all to, to see ... I th- in assessing the, what, what Jimmy just said about the greenway, I think it'd be very helpful for y'all to see three pictures we've got that show the nature of the portion of the greenway, um, that is right here. Uh, because they show the, it ... What, what they'll, what they'll show you is, um, i- if the idea is that people over here are gonna be walking across the greenway to get to, to what is here, I, I think these, especially if they're gonna be carrying groceries or whatever the, the notion might be, I think these pictures are gonna put that to rest, and that's why I'd like to enter 'em in the record. They'll show you the r- the character- That's, uh, that's fine. ... of the ... It's a beautiful natural feature. Uh, it's got a, a blue line stream in it, um, which you cannot build a bridge across because it's a floodway. Uh, and it's a, it's a significant ravine, um, that, that it's goo- it's gonna be a beautiful design feature, but it's not gonna be the thing that lends itself to creating an easy walk for residents that are on the, the, um, eastern side of it. You want to put the microphone back, yeah. While those pictures are being passed around, is there any other questions for, for Mr. Inman on his rebuttal? All right, thank you Jimmy. At this time, we'll... Who? Marie? I have a question for Mr. Martin. All right, Mr. Martin. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Martin, the big arguments seems to be where's the best place for residential and then we got a ridge at, uh, E-, about where EAR-3 is in the lot that is in contention. And if we're looking at trade-offs, how many, about how many residential lots, in your estimate, and you can give a range, are gonna be affected by Interstate 75? If all to the right of the EAR-3 are on the downside of noise, how many are in the noise zone, potentially? About how many residential lots? Ms. Copeland, I, I would really- Well, give us a range. Again- 10, 3000? The... I mean, we have a general idea of units. Okay, good, units. But again, to the, to bring that into a lot's gonna be hard. Okay. It just depends on the design. If the comp plan is followed, EAR and then EAR 3, and then 2, 3, and then that's on the other side. The, uh, thank you. It appears that the unit range that would be affected is anywhere from 323 to perhaps a high of 968, but that's the entire density range. That's for that whole area. That's for the whole, yes. But, but the, we've already had testimony that we're going to... Okay, let's get back down to the ridge part. The noisy side of the ridge that Mr. Leer brought, you know, showed us, talked to us about. How many units are there? Would, we'd say 200 units? We, we could only derive some average, uh, based on the total that they, if they were distributed evenly. And that's, of course, a very unlikely scenario under the designs that are, that are possible and, and- Okay, let's say we get more open space, we're talking 100 units, right? It could be, yes, ma'am. Okay, thanks. So, we're making this decision in part on the trade-off of what happens to 100 residential units versus where a community center is located. Sort of. Because everything that goes up and down Man o' War, it doesn't make any difference where those units are, whether they're on, close to the interstate or down, uh, farther, um, northeast, because the noise is gonna be the same. It's just those that are on the noisy side of the ridge next to the interstate. Yes, ma'am. I think in terms of residential- Yeah. ... that would be the area you're talking about. So we're talking maybe 100 units max. No, no, no, no. I bet six or 800. Six or 800 on the noisy side of the ridge? Two-thirds of that tract. Oh, okay. We're, we're obviously in the, in the turn it over to the com- commission stage, so let's just- Thank you. ... go on with that and if, if the commission has any questions, they, they'll be glad to ask whoever that person is at, at, at that point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So at this point, we'll turn it over to the commission for any discussion, comments, uh, questions, whatever you wanna call it. Yeah, we're rebuffing the, uh, the new evidence. Rebuff the new evidence? Yeah. If you, if you'll keep it to, to those photos, yes, sir. Mm-hmm. I don't see any picture of the floodplain areas at all in there, so... I guess I guess I have a question. I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll be happy to ask the first question. We can put those on the- Okay. All right, I'll ask the first question then. Uh, I have a question for Mr. Martin. Uh, this is a real quick point about the photos. Um, the photos that they show of the stream and the, and the floodplain areas, the expansionary master plan greenways, uh, include more lands than just the floodplains. Okay. And more land than just, uh, the areas that are shown in those photos. Thank you. Okay. Okay, we're now open for any discussion, questions. We're work, trying to work toward a motion, so let's, let's turn it over to the commission for their pleasure, whatever they wanna do with this. Mr. Holmes? I have you on my screen. You were... Is that, is that new to you? That is new to me, I think. All right. It's left over. But, but I'll quickly add some comments that, you know, after hearing this, uh, you know, I would like to see, as we go through this zone change, that we incorporate some of the principles of, uh, some, some design. So I mean, that's aside from the point. I mean, that comes at a later point, I think. Uh, the greenway and the conservation zone as, as it traverses through the development, uh, seems to meet some of the issues that I have concerns about. The noise, I mean, noise is what it is. It's noise, and that's... I don't think we can mitigate it to the point that it's not a developable area. Only way you mitigate it is leave it as a farm. So that's, that's not an issue as, as I see it. I mean, you know what you're getting when you buy that. The interstate's there and it's gonna always be there. So, uh, I don't bite as much. And the fact that the density doesn't appreciably change with either one of these. Uh, so I just wanna add that to the commission of my thoughts. Okay. Any other comments? Mr. Owen? Um, I guess also just to follow up kind of, I don't know, maybe echo what Ed was saying and, and what Marie's questions were. Uh, as far as noise, particularly on the corner, whether it's EAR3 or CC land. Uh, one thing that I haven't heard discussed yet is the fact that with CC, uh, there is a definite possibility of a residential component in with the CC as well. So we still have residential there on the corner, uh, whether it's EAR3 or, or CC land. And, um, uh, you know, my other thought in looking and, and digging, uh, the EAMP through it, um, on page 42, it states, "Community center, the focal point of a true community center is the place of social, cultural and economic interaction, the community commons where neighbors and friends mix and meet and mix in what is often referred to as community of place." Uh, you know, to me, community center, the central park helps. And I'm, I'm just concerned that we're isolating this community center if we put it on the corner of the interstate and, uh, Metawar Boulevard. Mr. Brewer? Thank you. Um, I, I, I don't... I'm of the mind at this point... Uh, I'll go back to the, I guess, the big picture. To me, the comprehensive plan is a guide, and that's, uh, the way I view it in, in this sense. I, I, I look at the noise level and I do think it's important. I, I know we had conversation about this in committee that to me, that would affect the appeal of, of the housing, and that takes precedence in my mind over, um, the stores and the community center, as even a church or whatever else might be there. Um, I think the greenway on the backside of the potential development, uh, the residential part is, is quite appealing and should be maximized. Um, and I just, I mean, I, I, I appreciate the staff's concerns, but in this sense, flipping a community center from one side of Polo to the other, to me is not that big a deal. And the, um, the, the, the traffic and the size of Polo, um, seems to be an impediment in either direction. So if people are gonna be walking across one way or the other, it's gonna be an impediment regardless of which direction they're walking. Um, so while I, I certainly wouldn't want to isolate it, um, as, as Mr. Owen said, it kind of gets isolated in either direction, in my opinion. If you have people trying to walk this way, they're gonna be as isolated from it as the people who would walk in the opposite direction. So I don't want to... Uh, I mean that's... I think there's more discussion to be had, but I, I don't have a concern with that. Ms. Copeland? I'll let Mr. Cravens go first. All right, excuse me. Yeah, I agree with much of what Pat said. It, it... The farther you can get away from the interstate with residential, the better. Um, I, I happen to live on Polo Club about two miles the other way, and, uh, maybe I'm probably a thousand feet off of the interstate, and I can control the noise by just shutting the door to the bathroom. But there are houses that are close, you know, across there that look at the interstate, and there's no, no stopping that noise of any kind. Even my radio playing like we use when we're trying to sell one on the interstate to kind of muffle the noise. That... You'd need a brass band to, to camouflage that noise. But, um- Right. ... I think the community center would do better on the west side and the residential would do better on the other side. It just makes sense. Ms. Copeland? Yes. Um, I want, um, my team here to look at page... Uh, figure 13 at the back of the package. Sasaki, I think, did this, and Sasaki's kind of like the Norman Vincent Peale, uh, land use planner. And if you'll look at it, they envisioned the, um, community center at the, at the heart of, uh, Polo Club on down the road, um, or whoever did this, which in looking at that, you think Chevy Chase, which is a very, uh, successful community center, and I re-... It reminds me of D- Dr. Paulson's comment. You... For... If you're gonna have connectivity, you need to have destinations. And I see a 200 acre farm over here, and you... Nobody's gonna walk from one end to the other. I don't care if there's a Gold Coast, uh, greenway. Uh- So I would like to see the CC go more internal than out on Man O War Boulevard. That's just from a master planning point of view. But getting back to the trade-offs, if , um, in the center map up there that has the very green greenway, , um, that looks to me very much like what we have over on, um, with Lexington Mall, over on, uh, Richmond Road and U Circle. And if that kind of, of location were so good for a community center, why is that just a wasteland? Why hasn't somebody gone in there and, uh, said, "Please let me have a church. Please let me have a, uh, community grocery store, a hardware store, or something else"? Why hasn't the, the marketplace changed that location into a community center? And, and by putting it down there in the corner of the interstate and Man O War, are we not- Ridden- ... by definition, removing, I don't care how many greenways or walkways or anything else, are we not making that except- just an appendage to the Hamburg, uh, Shopping Center across the interstate? And that's not the point of a community center. Any other comments? Or anybody want to come with a motion? Are we, are we ready for a motion, I guess is the question? You want to do it? All right. Mr. Owens? Um, I think my thoughts anyway, my motion is, uh, as the staff, staff has recommended disapproval of MAR 2009-17 WWM LLC, Osborn Polo LLC, and Polo One LLC amended, uh, for the reasons as stated, the four s- four reason stated by the staff. Second. Second by- Mm-hmm. ... Ms. Phillips. Is there any discussion on the motion? Motion has been made and seconded. The motion is disapproved? Yes. That's the motion. Staff recommendation. Seven to four. Motion fails. Mr. Craven. Yeah. I'm wanting to react faster than the computer here, I guess. Uh, I'd like to make a motion to, um, approve the zone change. See, you got to have reasons. I had to confer with legal a little bit here. Um, I'd like to move approval of the z- uh, the requested zone change, uh, following their findings- You need, you need- ... applicant's findings, but I have some, uh, deletions. Why don't you read what you have into the record? That's why I didn't want to make the motion.  Want me to read it all? That's why you get paid the big bucks. You can't, uh, accept them as written and let me change, take, delete the, um- It's your, it's your motion. We just have to have reasons to, to overrule the staff. Okay. And second? Second by... -- Have to have that. Is it except math? As a point of law, is it acceptable... We hand it out Okay. You heard Mr. Motion -- Mr. Craven's motion to -- to do that. Uh, is there a second? Second by Ms. Richardson. Any discussion on the motion? Do we understand what we're voting on? Okay. When you see it on the screen, vote. Motion passes. Thank you. We'll take a five-minute recess before we come back for our other one. I think we, I think we require a, uh, a vote on the development plan, too. Uh, I guess we, excuse me. Th- they're exactly right. Let's, let's do the development plan. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cravens. I move approval of, um, ZDP 2009-87 development plan. With, with the 10 con- With the 10 conditions. Okay. This motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion on the development plan? Vote when you see it on the screen. Development plan passes. Thank you, Ms. Wiseman, for reminding me. Thank you all very much. Now we'll take our five minutes. We'll come back in session, please. All right. If you'll turn over to page two, Miss Radel, start us in our second item. And this item can be found in tab two behind your n- ... uh, behind tab two in your notebooks as well today. It's MAR2010-1, a request by Dennis Anderson. This is a requested zone change from an agricultural rural zone to an expansion area residential 1 zone, which is the EAR1 zone, for approximately 12 and a half acres at 425 Childsburg Road. The subject property is located on the north side of Childsburg Road, and Childsburg, um, connects to 8th & Boonsboro to the south, and to the north, it continues up and connects to Todds Ro- ... or, previously connected to Todds Road. There's a, um, cul-de-sac there now. Uh, the ... Childsburg is one of the rural, uh, rural roads designated by the Expansion Area Master Plan, and when construction began in this area of the, um, expansion area, Hayes Boulevard became the new, uh, boulevard through this area and the collector street, so that replaced, in a way, Childsburg Road as the, um, main thoroughfare. However, there are properties that do abut Childsburg Road that have been brought in, um, for residential development, including, uh, an estate, Lochmuir Estates to the east, um, the Stillmeadows subdivision also to the northeast, and, um, previous to the expansion area, the, the Andover Hills subdivision to the north, including the golf course. Also in this vicinity is the guest property which Hayes Boulevard, um, provides the, the p- ... or the vehicular access for, and then, um, Jacobson Park to the west of the subject property. There are several vacant properties still along, um, Childsburg Road, and those include ... not vacant, but agricultural. Um, four properties up along Childsburg Road in the first bend of the road, as well as one other parcel, um, to the west of this property, and immediately to the west and then al- also further to the west. So, the subject property is located right in the bend of, of Childsburg, one of the 90-degree bends in Childsburg Road. And, um, the applicant is proposing for this location the EAR1 zoning, which allows zero to three dwelling units per net acre. They are proposing ... Oops. 38 units on the subject property. This is an aerial photo of the, of the property, and you can see where the connections from the Stillmeadows and, um, Barlow development are aimed towards the park in terms of Andover Creek, and then, um, a stub street just off Ridgeway View. I'm sorry. R- ... Yeah. Ridgeview Way, excuse me. This is just a, a at-grade photo of the property, um, showing where we posted our zone change sign. And this is the entrance, um, to the property at that curve in Charlesburg Road. So the, the fencing comes down. There's a- an existing driveway along the park property side of the- of the property. In relation to the rest of, um, the surrounding area, you can see in the foreground of this photograph, this aerial photograph, um, Andover Hills and the, uh, golf course developments. And then in the red outline is the subject property. You can see to the n- in this photograph to the- again, and to the west, is the Jacobson Park with a park road through it. Um, further to the south is the guest property and, um, you can see where parts of Still Meadows have developed as well as the Barlow, um, tract along Charlesburg Road. This is a closer, um, shot of the rear of the, um, Charlesburg property and again you can see, um, to the west the, uh, trees along the park property. It looks sort of like they have an orchard or a nursery of some sort there and that is in fact the Parks, um, Department's kind of surplus trees or nursery that they're growing there. In the, um ... use my pointer here to show generally where the creek crosses the subject property, and that is generally the area of the f- the floodplain on the property. This view, uh, looks to the north and you can see the notch taken out of the property for the ad- barn on the adjacent lot and then Charlesburg in the foreground of this photo. Again, just another, um, photograph showing, uh, the front portion of the property and towards the top of the photograph you can see where, again, where the creek crosses the subject parcel. The comprehensive plan, again, does ra- recommend EAR1, which is in agreement with the a- what the applicant is asking for, so the zoning category is in agreement, um, but what the staff looked at also was there's two other items on the comp plan that should be noted that aren't shown in, in this graphic and that's kind of vibrating so I'm gonna switch back. Um, on our com- large comprehensive plan here you can see, again, here's Hayes Boulevard, Charlesburg Road and the subject parcel next to the park. There is also a collector street that is proposed to be connected from Blazer Parkway to the north down to Charlesburg Road and that didn't appear on my graphic there but is on our, on our comprehensive plan. Um, that collector street is proposed to connect to Charlesburg Road right at the, um, 90 degree bend in Charlesburg which is also where the applicant is showing a local street connecting to Charlesburg Road. In addition, the frontage along Charlesburg Road is proposed for a scenic design area which has a few restrictions, um, in our zoning ordinance. It's- it's an overlay of sorts and it, um, allows the same density but it also requires a 200-foot setback from Charlesburg Road because it's a rural scenic road, and then also a, um, utilization of the property in a, more of a clustered development way. 60% of that area needs to be on an open space and then the rest can utilize, be utilized for, um, residential units. As I mentioned earlier the applicant is proposing 38 dwelling units on the property and originally, um, the staff r- when we reviewed this application we recommended postponement to the zoning committee because the density was slightly over that r- that which is recommended by the comp plan and that which is allowed by our zoning ordinance. That is a maximum of three units per gross acre. Um, in, during the zoning committee, the committee recommended to, or made a recommendation of approval to this full body and asked that the staff work with the applicant to, um, find a way to allow their 38th unit to remain on the property, and this was in, basically they were over the density allowed by one percent. Um, the property was reported to be 12.54 gross acres during, um, their application. When the staff had a dialog with the applicant we, um, found something that I think we could agree on. When, um, property across Charlesburg Road, the guest property was rezoned in 1999, they rezoned, um, Chils- more of Charlesburg's right of way than what would normally be, not allowed, but normally proposed. So on this graphic, um, they rezoned an e- with an EAR1 line and squared off Charlesburg Road and then came this way and in doing that they claimed part of the right of way that would normally be claimed for this zone change, their half of, um, the adjacent right of way. So when, obviously when we rezone you often see this, an applicant rezones to the center line of the adjacent road. In this case, part of that roadway, or part of the right of way has already been rezoned by another applicant. However, the staff felt it would be acceptable to allow this applicant to claim the portion of the right of way that would normally have been theirs to rezone. Um, so they, they aren't rezoning quite as much but they're able to adjust their gross acreage number from, and incr- increase it by 0.13 acres which then allows them to keep that 38th unit on their property. So with the addition of the- ... the right of way. The applicant's, uh, proposed density is now 3.00 dwelling units per gross acre and that's a rounding up of 2.9938 ... Um, and we believe that that's in agreement, uh, with th- Article 23 now, and also in agreement with the comprehensive plans recommendation. So the staff is prepared at this point, um, to recommend approval and we've provided a supplemental staff report in the notebook that outlines our findings for that. We believe that this, um, request is in agreement with the comprehensive plans recommendation for EAR1 zoning, um, or land use, and that the applicant is asking for the EAR1 zone at a density in line with the comprehensive plan. The petitioner's also, um, proposing the special design area along Childsburg Road and that's an important in, in, uh, meeting the comprehensive plan as well. And we make our recommendation subject to the approval of the development plan. I would note that they aren't providing for the, um, collector street to connect at any point, but in terms of the zoning, um, proposal, the staff would just note that that could be resolved with the development plan, um, either now or in the future. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Ms. Wade, just so I, just so I understand, the collector street is still, is still in play here, though? Uh, yes, it's, I mean, it's still recommended by the comprehensive plan and I guess our biggest concern is that the comp plan recommends it approaching basically at, at this angle into that curve, and the applicant's proposing a local street along the property line. So having a collector street and a local street connect at that port- point on Childsburg, you c- you really can't do both, so. Right. So that'll be worked out at the final development plan then? Well, that's up to you as the planning commission. Okay. I, I made that assumption. All right. Any other questions for Ms. Wade? If not, get ready for the development plan. Thank you. Sheriff. Good afternoon. Um, our zoning development plan, um, originally was on page, at the bottom of page two and page three of our agenda, but we have handed out a new copy in the brown with the revised conditions. This is for the zoning development plan 2010-3 Anderson Two Subdivision. Uh, this is a preliminary development plan, uh, to zone the, to rezone the property from the AR to the EAR1. The property is located at 425 Childsburg Road. As Tracy has pointed out to you, we have Childsburg Road to the southeast. Um, this is just north of it from the guest property, Childsburg Road. We have Jacobson Park over to the southwest and Andover Subdivision to the north, and we have one piece of property zoned AR in betw- adjacent to it. The purpose of this is to rezone the property so that they can create 38, uh, single family lots. We, um, the subdivision committee had recommended postponement on the plan, and after the subdivision committee meeting, um, we met with Tony Barrett, Barrett Partners, and he filed a new plan on February 19th. With the new plan, um, that was submitted, the new revised preliminary development plan that was submitted, um, they included the additional right of ways so that they could meet the EAR1 re- requirements. And then the, um, so then the staff came and reviewed their plan. We recommended approval with the 13 conditions that you can find on the brown sheet. Um, conditions two through seven are just general sign-offs, and eight through 13th are just meeting, um, requirements on the final development plan, mainly. As of today, we received another copy this morning of the development plan. On this plan, they, um, it was brought to our attention about a significant tree that was located along the property line between the property being rezoned and Jacobson Park. Um, the new development plan that they brought in this morning took the rear portion of the property and revised the lotting so that they kept the number of lots that they wanted to, but they just shifted around so that they had more area around, a tree protection area around the significant tree that Bet was presented to us. So once we reviewed over that, these conditions can stay as the same, um, 13 conditions the staff approves. We wanna make one small modification to condition number 12. Do you have... Um, instead of provide adequate, we wanted to resolve the width of the right of way on the proposed cul-de-sac to accommodate construction of the collector street at the time of the final development plan. This is something that you all had just talked about as far as the comp plan with the road connection. Do we have that? I can't read that. Are you writing that, Bill? Yes, we're gonna put this on the overhead for you in just a moment. Okay. With that, we, um, the staff recommends approval, and if y'all have any other questions, um, I can help you. So you're changing on number 13? Yes, sir. Uh, no. Number 12. Because the width on number 12. Number 12, the width, so that we can revise for the collector street that is supposed to come through. We're gonna take care of that at the time of final development plan. Okay. All right. Any questions? I thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, uh, very briefly, I wanna present to you a component of the expansion area master plan that affects this property. As you all heard in your previous presentation, greenways and stormwater management go hand-in-hand in the AMP. And this property is certainly impacted, uh, by a greenway and stormwater management area within the AMP. And it's, uh, the feature that cuts this property, uh, not quite in half, but does clearly separate it with the lower portion, where the, with the proposed cul-de-sac. Uh, what I wanted to try to demonstrate to you with this today, and obviously the colors are a little dark, but it's important what we want you to see. Here's the turn in Childsburg Road. The property runs right up through here. There's the reservoir. That's the lower end of the watershed with the reservoir. And this is upstream. Detention features are located upstream. And this area on this side, the same side as the subject property of Childsburg Road, the west side, you have some recommended wetland features. Next one, please. And I have a closeup that'll help perhaps show that a little bit better. There we go. And again, there's the subject property, and those are approximately the property lines. And you can see a closeup of the, uh, stormwater management area right in there. Again, a detention feature. Here is a pond. This is the guest property. Here is a wetlands area that was identified and was subject to mitigation due to the guest family development, and I know you all can recall there was a lot of conversation, discussion about those features. The uniqueness of these features right in here, and there's four of them identified on the property here, as well as on the subject property, are designated in the stormwater management plan as created wetlands. So that's the nature of the features for stormwater management that will be required as this property develops. And of course, those questions of design and timing and that sort of thing are part of the development process, and it's contingent upon the final development plan. And that's when you'll be asked to consider those issues. But we wanted to bring that to your attention because, again, it's a very unique feature, certainly has an impact on, on this property, and wanted you to know that there was a distinction there that was important to note with the created wetlands are identified and called for by your stormwater management plan. Any questions for Mr. Martin? If not, thank you, Mr. Martin, for that information. Thank you. Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm here representing Dennis Anderson today, and, um, Dennis is of course here with me on the second row. And along with us is Mike Craft, Dennis' development manager in the third row, and Tony Barrett of, uh, Barrett Partners, landscape architect and designer for this project. And we're very pleased today to be pr- presenting this to you. Um, just as a little background, the, um, Dennis has owned this property since about 1990, about 20 years, as a matter of fact. He purchased it, this was part of the Tucker family property, and that property stretched with his tract here and the tract to the east or northeast, which is still owned by Mr. John Tucker, which, and Mr. Tucker's here today. And then there were, I think, two lots up here, one of which, right to the east of John Tucker's property, was developed a few years ago by Barlow Homes. And then next track is, Dennis developed, is part of Still Meadow, and then Still Meadow is up to the east here as well. And, um, this will be developed, uh, much like Still Meadow in the same, uh, style. Uh, as you know, Dennis is the developer of Still Meadow. Jimmy Nash Homes has built most of the homes out there, and Mr. Nash is ... They're, they're running out of lots up here, and, and luckily even during the recession, uh, uh, in Still Meadow, those lots have continued to be popular and continued to be sold. And, uh, so this will be developed, uh, similar to, uh, Still Meadow. On our west, as the staff mentioned, we have Jacobson Park. Now, down toward Childsburg Road and the curve, there is a, um, there are four lots arou- uh, fronting on Childsburg Road. The next one to the west of us is also owned by Mr. Tucker. The next one, which is an L-shape around that, is owned by the Virgie Hager. Um, and there's two more down here. Those are, um, just so you know, designated on your comprehensive plan to be acquired by the city. ... as, as part of Jacobson Park, and to give a ... As I understood it, when this was done in 1996, to do the back entrance into Jacobson Park, so that people in this area would have the, a direct entrance off of Charlesberg Road into the park. That's why they were designated to be purchased, and as a matter of fact, I'm actually working with the Hager family right now to dedicate this property to the Urban County government for park purposes. Um, the, uh, comprehensive plan that staff mentioned, we do, uh, I think, fully agree with the comprehensive plan. We propose 38 units on 12.67 gross acres, which comes out to about just under three units per acre. We had a discussion at the committees about this rounding issue and all that, and we got back and looking at maps with the staff, and we discovered that the people across the street, I guess the guest property, normally you rezone to the center line of the road you're on. When they rezoned, they went beyond the center line and rezoned what is on our side of the center line, and that's, that's fine. I mean, you're just rezoning a roadway, so normally it doesn't have much impact at all. So when we did our gross acreage for the purpose of rezoning, it came out that the number which did not include the center line of the road, and that's actually what we're rezoning. But when you come to calculate density, the comprehensive plan calls for you to calculate density to the center line of the road. So in this case, it's a unique situation. We have, uh, one number of gross acres for what we're rezoning, and then a second number of gross acres which we're entitled to use for density purposes and which will be shown on our comprehensive plan. And so using that calculation, we do meet the, uh, three units per acre criteria. We don't have to round. I've, I still have issues with that, but we don't need to worry about it. We don't have to round to, to, uh, come up with this on this property, because we were truly entitled to use the gross acreage to the center of the street. And so I was happy that that was, was resolved. The, um, um, wanted to talk to you, uh, a little bit about a couple of these issues which were raised. One is we, there are, as, as the staff mentioned, the comprehensive plan does show a couple other features on the property. This is our development plan again. Here's Charlesburg Road curving around. Here's our frontage. And we, of course, go way back into, uh, uh, adjacent to Jacobson Park. This is Andover, a little piece of Andover up here, which is in the old urban service boundary. They don't have to pay exaction fees up there. We do. And, uh, here's Mr. Tucker's property. Here's that Barlow tract again. But we have a couple things on here, just wanna point out to you. One is the, uh, special design area, which, uh, since we're adjacent to Charlesburg Road, both the comprehensive plan, the EAMP, and the ordinance say that we have to observe a 200-foot setback from Charlesburg Road, and you can see that we observed this here. Uh, that, uh, requires that we cannot have any buildings. We cannot have parking. We can't have driveways, but not parking within that 200-foot setback. We are observing that. And the staff, we, we do have a lot that part of this is in, and, uh, we'll resolve that at a later stage, but there's no prohibition against having part of a lot in the 200-foot setback area. There are, they are in other areas. It just means you cannot build or have a building within that setback. It's just like any other setback on a lot. So we do observe that here in the front. We also have a, uh ... I might mention that the special design area is not dedicated to the city. The, it's still privately owned. The public doesn't have a right to use it. They have a right to look at it. It's a, it's a visual setback, unlike the greenway which goes through us right here. That will be dedicated to the city, as shown on the comprehensive plan. We observe the greenway, and also, we have a floodplain in there, which may or may not be coterminous with the greenway through there. So we have the special design area, greenway, the floodplain, all of which we're observing on our, our plan here. I do wanna mention, we, we agree with the staff's wording about resolving the collector road issue, which is their Note, um, 12 on the proposed. We, w- we agree with the wording to resolve that at the time of the final development plan stage. I just wanted to give you a little background on that and why, why that's an issue, and I think this will be resolved before then by some discussions between the Parks Department, Planning Department, and whoever else is involved here. But let me put this on the screen. Could anyone hand me the collectors? Let's see if I can get to the microphone here. The collector street, which is, goes from Blazer Parkway down to Charlesburg Road, was not a part of the 1996 Expansionary Master Plan. It was not shown on the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. It was not shown on the 2001 Comprehensive Plan, but it, it appeared somehow on the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. And what this would do is the collector street, here is, here is Richmond Road coming through here, and here is, um, Yorkshire Drive. I still think of it as Jericho Drive, but it's Yorkshire Drive going into Richmond Road. And I think Blazer Parkway, well, that may be ... Yeah, that, that's, that's Yorkshire right there. Here is Blazer Parkway, which comes in and intersects with Yorkshire right here. Now, that collector street is designed to get from point A, which is right here, down to point B, which is down here. Now, to do that, it's gonna have to cross, number one, the white property, which is undeveloped on the other side of Yorkshire Drive. But here's, here's the problem when it comes in. It's gotta cross Lakeside Golf Course. And because there's... Andover is developed up to the edge of Lakeside, it he- gonna have to go through all those fairways and things going through there. And I'm not a golfer, but golfers tell me that that is gonna be disruptive to the golf game. You'd think that... Let alone to the people driving their cars through the middle of a golf fairway. You know, you'd better wear a hard hat when you're doing it. But anyway, it's gonna have to go through the middle of the golf course. And then what do we hit? We hit the reservoir. And we just had some discussion in the last zone change we were wading through that you can't put a bridge over a blue-line stream. Well, this is more than a blue-line stream. This is a reservoir coming here. We're gonna have to bridge the reservoir. Then we're gonna have to come through Jacobson Park, coming down here, which is... Last time I was at Jacobson Park, the gates shut at dusk. They have security on there and they shut up that park at dusk, and we're gonna have a collector street open 24 hours a day through the back of Jacobson Park. Then we're gonna come through Dennis's property possibly, but we're really probably through these properties which are designated as the entrance to this portion of Jacobson Park anyway, down to Childsper Grove. But my point is that- Can I go- ... there are an awful lot of problems with that collector street. Going through the golf course, going over the reservoir, going through the park, and those do need to be resolved. And that's what we're gonna be talking to the staff about as we come in with the final development plan on that. So I just wanted to give you a little background on the issues relating to that collector street coming through here. 'Cause there's, 'cause there's a lot of them, as you can see. And we know there's a lot of issues and we'll, we'll, we'll deal with them. We'll talk to the parks department, talk to the planning staff about those. Uh, the, um, 200-foot, uh, special design area, which we mention here, uh, um, Tony has requested that... Tony Barrett, that on lot... on note nine, we, we don't agree that there's a lot one conflict with the 200-foot building line. We'd rather say that we'll resolve the lot one relationship with the 200-foot building line. We'll work on that with the staff. We know ne- we need to discuss that, but we'd prefer instead of conflict it say relationship on there. But we're aware of that issue and we're aware of the other issues we have. We have already taken steps on the, the bur oak, which was mentioned at the subdivision committee meetings. After that was mentioned, uh, Tony went on site with Tim Querey, the, uh, city's arborist, to find out exactly where it was and see what, uh, type of tree it was. And as a result, up here on this plan which Tony has submitted, you can... eh, you probably can't see it from this angle. The bur oak is located here where the green dot is. And where we had three lots, we have put two lots to widen out the space between the houses so that we can have a tree protection area for that bur oak in that area. What we did is we moved that extra lot across the street. We had some additional room across the street. We could move that. So en- so now we have room for the protection area for the bur oak, which is on the line between this property and the park property. So we're working to resolve that and we can show that also on the final development plan. On the fencing, um, I know Mr. Tucker is here and has mentioned at the sub-committee that, uh, the, the fencing issue, and I jo- was joking him bef- before, but, uh, he mentioned at sub-committee that his eastern fence has been taken down at points, and I pointed out that Dennis Anderson is not the developer on the eastern side. Somebody else is the developer. But Dennis has agreed that wherever the fencing needs repairing on the property line between him and Mr... him and Mr. Tucker, he will repair that, and I wanted to state that publicly. Uh, I mentioned to the b- to you, the bur oak, and, uh, the, uh... Again, I think I'll, I'll conclude we do agree with the comprehensive plan and, uh, we appreciate working with the staff on these issues and we ackno- we know the issues that are there and, uh, we'll continue to work with those ones we've listed as resolve items that will come up. You'll be seeing this, uh, property at least two times more as we come in with a final development plan, as... and as we come in with a final plat on this property as well. So we'll, uh... We think we've come a long way, but we'll continue to work on those and we hope you'll vote in favor of our zone change. We'd, uh, be happy to answer any questions you all might have on it. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Thank you, Pete. Now we'll go to the citizens' comment part, and we want you to be... to make your point, but make it as brief as you can. So it will go either way. Anybody in favor of this development or this zone change want to speak to that? Then we'll go the other way. Mr. Tucker. I would like to thank all of you again. My name is John Tucker and, uh, thanks for listening to us. Uh, I really don't have no objection to Mr.s... Dennis Anderson's zone change. I just have concerns about what kinda issue is gonna be forced on easements. As I've noted, there's two streets budding out into my place. ... that's-- that's to have actually been put over onto my property- Mr. Tucker, take your mic. ... have actually been put into my property at one time. They put black top all the way about over here, about 20 feet. I made them pull that up a few years ago. Mr. Barlow done it. And up here. Uh, this front section right here has about four houses or so that drains water drainage. We have not discussed about where the water is going to be drained to. It comes to the front of the property, which I know it's a designated waterway, but how much flooding does a man have to take? I mean, that's where I'm at today. And everybody knows roads comes in pervious surface. I never heard about Blazer Boulevard till today. This is a catch you off guard or I'd be studying this one a little bit 'cause it's kind of a amazing situation. Because, uh, coming across Jefferson Park, that's the Kentucky-American reservoir. They own the land, we just lease it. We don't own it. We've got to, uh, 20% of our water daily comes from the reservoir on a daily basis. This is kind of curious. There's also some issues about environmental problems. There was a house located right in this area right here in the front section. It was bulldozed under and buried there in the ground. There's a cistern still there in existence and a septic tank and field lines are still there. You have to understand, my grandparents grew up on this farm so I know a little bit about it. Today down here in this creek area, there was a pond existing. I brought a map with me today showing the sanitary sewer trunk line. There's bricks, concrete and some asphalt in it. And if you think not, ask Mr. Newman 'cause he met me out at the property this week and saw it hisself. This stuff needs to be removed before anything goes placed on this property. Like I said, I'm not here against the zone, I just want it cleaned up. I want it done right. I- I'm concerned that if the water runs forward this way and they haven't cleaned this mess up from this house, was there asbestos in the house? I don't know. I wasn't around at that time. I mean, I'm here today and, and like I said, Mr. Murphy has brought up several times about exaction fees and I'm, that's a really good point. I'd like to talk about exaction fees today. I have found out since 2001, we have paid into exaction fees. Mr. Tucker, we need- I know, I know. ... we need to make a comment, uh- I know. ... pursuant to- to this zone change. I know. We're gonna talk about the zone change 'cause he mentioned there was a great number of money in the co- sub-committee meeting about exaction fees. And that's, that's why I brought it up 'cause he talked about that there was gonna be like, I can't remember off the top of my head, but $200,000 in exaction fees. Well, there's a portion of it that was dedicated to buy these properties that he talked about, the four section properties up s- up the way here on Charlesburg Road. This money was set aside for the park expansion area to purchase these properties. I have asked several times, Mr. King will vouch for me, about the money. Where is the money? We're cutting be held a hostage here. He wants to develop, and like I said, I don't care that he develops, but don't hold us hostage and let's find the money and let's put it where it needs to be. Get these people out of the way. There's three families represented here today. That Johns family, the Hager family and myself that are affected by this. I mean, I'd like... See, I don't care about the zone change. That's not the problem. The problem is we cannot let this go forward and let them use this as a leverage to condemn my property, to run a road across to meet their requirements to build. That's my concern today and- Thank you. ... I thank you all. I thank you all for listening to me. I mean, I've been out here several times. I'm being flooded, that's been proven. Let's, let's address some of this stuff. Let's get some of this environmental people up here and let's see what's going on. We need to take this on. And like I said, the money has been raised and then we got down to the consent decree. There was a letter come out the first of, uh, this month, uh, on the seventh day of 2010 and it specifically says on page nine, the letter was, it had to do with the appeals and the appellant judge ruled is this way, "The United States agree- argues that upon appeal of the civil penalties provided in the pr- present proposed consent decree, the consent with the goal restoring and maintaining the chemical and physical, biological integrity of the nation's waterways." That's what I'm here asking for today. We want to fix the greenway, we want to fix the wetlands and if we've raised money for storm water management also in this exaction fees, let's put it to good use. Let's pay for the properties, let's get developed, let's let them build. That's all I got to say to you. And thank you. Point of service- Until this is resolved, we need to postpone it. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Anybody else want to speak to this? Hello. Um, my name is Jackie Mitchell and we, my husband and I now own the property at 295 12- Take that with you. Thank you. ... Charlsburgh. That is this one here. All right. Um, I do have a problem with this development. I think it should be postponed because there are a lot of issues with, like Johnny said, our property being held hostage. My family has had that property since the early 1930s and there, as you can tell, we're still, I mean, we're- we're zoned agriculture. I mean, I can have pigs on there if I wanted to. All around, there is development and now here we are, some more development. We're on a scenic little road. I don't know if y'all have been on that road, but it's narrow, sharp turns, sharp... And h- how can it handle 38 more homes or more? So, I mean, again, that road was totally, it, it, we just don't know anything what's going on. Can you tell us landowners right here, I mean, you have, my property is hostage because I didn't know anything about a Blazer Parkway coming through our farm. We have seven acres. So I think everything, no more development. Like Mr. Lear said, there's mistakes in that EMP and I think this one right here, these four, that's a mistake. If you can't, couldn't afford to buy that property when my grandparents were alive to pay for that, then in five, ten years, how are you gonna afford to buy that property? Because it's gonna do nothing but increase. And I'm, yes, I'm nervous and I'm frustrated because this has been going on in my family since 1996 when this all came out. Um, my, my parents, you know, they lost their inheritance because someone decided to take a green pen and make that conservation. ... those four little things. N- you know, news to us about a road coming through now and taking it, and what are they gonna pay us for that? They're not gonna pay me anything 'cause we're gonna build a house, and, and in 10 years, someone are gonna come take it. So before we move forward with more development, whether it be Dennis' or here or here, we need to reexamine what... Look at, I mean, like he said, that was just a plan, a, a sketch, but it has mistakes. And before you approve any more development, I think it needs to be addressed, including the road. It's too small. And I'm, you know, you're gonna widen the road on a scenic byway? I don't know. But I think it needs to be examined and looked at a lot further before you approve any more zoning, any more building of houses. The road can't handle it, and it just, I, I just think it needs to be looked at further before anything. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment on this zone change? Mr. Murphy, you have anything else you wanna... Just, just a couple comments. I, I certainly understand the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors out there. They are valid concerns about the situation, in general. Uh, just a couple things. The, uh, uh, Mr. Tucker had mentioned streets being stubbed into him from the east, and again, Dennis did not develop that lot next to him, and that's ... S- I'm sure that that's an issue for him. I don't wanna deny that, but it's not a, not an issue that, uh, this property or Mr. Anderson is involved in. Drainage comes, uh, Mr. Martin discussed that a little bit when he discu- or she, Ms. Gault mentioned that when she discussed the development plan. The drainage on here, and I'm looking at the, um, our development plan, there is a real look on the regional map here. There, the, under the expansion area, there's a regional stormwater detention plan for this area, so that all could be planned as a, as a unit, and not on a lot-by-lot basis, which was one of the big criticisms we faced, criticisms, as you know, of our development process that we looked at drainage lot by lot instead of region-wide. And then the expansion area master plan, they looked at it region-wide, and there's a, there's a region, a regional detention facility somewhere on the guest property here. I don't know if I've got exactly the right location of this or not, but it is upstream from our property. The water obviously drains into the reservoir in its entire area. The, the collection facility, uh, one of them is upstream from us, although the exaction fees from all these properties pay for all those detention facilities. Now, our property generally drains toward the reservoir here, and we do not have detention on this area. And the reason for that is because, I'm no engineer, but as I says, been explained to me is that they want this water from these properties here to go directly to the reservoir quickly during a rain event. And that way, when this facility upstream fills up and sometime, say, a half hour or whatever it is, late after the rain event starts, its water starts coming down the floodplain into the reservoir as well. And they, they want this, the water from these properties to be gone by the time this stormwater detention facility drains. Now, like I said, I'm not an expert, and I'm sure I'm oversimplifying that. Now, some of this water in the front may flow onto Mr. Tucker's property and back on down, but there's the same flood, floodplain and greenway that we have on our property stretches across his as well. And, and, um, it is a fact that we all have to deal with out there. Uh, we are aware of the requirement of the constructed, uh, wetlands on here, and, and we'll be working with the staff on that, so we're aware of that and that, and we don't want you to think we're disregarding it or anything, but that will be taken into account as well. But that's the way the drainage situation goes there. And, you know, I think in this area, it has been, drainage has been well, well planned out, and we're doing it the way we're supposed to be and the way the system is supposed to work. Um, the, uh, as far as, I guess, the other, the other issue was the four lots which, which front along Charlesberg Road down to the west of us, which are, of course, here's Mr. Anderson's property, and here, these four down here. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I do represent one of these owners, the Virgie Hager property, in, in this discussions with, with the city on that to re- try to resolve that issue. Those, those four properties were designated for acquisition by the city on the comprehensive plan, and, um, I know that's an issue that they're trying to work out. And, um, um, but the point on this one is that I, I know one of the people testifying said that they were being held hostage. Well, they may feel that way, and, and I think there's some issues there that the city needs to resolve with these property owners. But it's not, uh, it's not gonna solve that by holding this property hostage to working out the other properties being held hostage on this. These are separate issues. This property is designated for development. We are following all the elements of the expansionary master plan. And, um, and, uh, I certainly understand that concern and that is an issue the city needs to work on, uh, but it is not related to this property. And, uh, so again, we agree with the comprehensive plan, and we hope you'll vote, uh, to approve this zone change and understanding you're gonna be seeing this property twice more. This is the preliminary development plan. We're coming back to you probably, usually it's a combined final development plan and preliminary subdivision plan, and then we come back finally the third time with the final record plat on this. So you will see this property at least two more times through this process. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Staff? Mr. Chairman, we don't have anything in the way of rebuttal. We'd be glad to answer any questions, I believe. All right, I'll let Mr. Salih speak, and then I'll come back. Thank you. I'm sorry. I just have one item, uh, point of rebuttal, and also maybe hopefully a, a reassurance to Ms. Mitchell. Um, the Blazer Parkway that has been talked about a lot is not recommended by the comprehensive plan for her property at 295 Childsburg. Uh, if that road were to be proposed for construction this year, it would possibly affect 375 and 391 Childsburg. This is a copy of the map that's in your notebook, and I've just generally traced where that road is proposed in relation to the comprehensive plan and the subject property. It is removed from 295. I hope that's helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Mr.- And I'll start, uh, with maybe a little bigger picture view of that. If you recall the time era under which this comprehensive plan was developed, there was a lot of discussion about the water company, acquisition of the water company, future use of the water company property for something other than a park. And the depiction of roadways was linked to potential possible future use other than golf course, things like that, basically, in terms of the water company property. So I don't... There's certainly no movement going on to have a road run through the middle of Lakeside Golf Course and through Jacobson Park. I want to assure everybody of that. The second thing I wanted to just mention for the record, I know the commission members know, but, uh, uh, for anyone else, uh, the commission has no role in the acquisition of the property, no role in condemnation or negotiation of acquisition of land, uh, by the urban county government. Those conversations need to occur with the, the appropriate officials of the urban county government. And as Mr. Murphy's pointed out on at least one of those properties, that is an active discussion going on at the present time. I just wanted that clear and be glad to answer any questions about that or the exaction program. Any questions for Mr. King? Mr. Owens? Mr. King, I, I do not recall hearing of this corridor par- parkway during the subdivision committee meeting. Uh, why is it just now coming to light? You know, it may or may not take place, but it seems like it could affect the corner of this property if it ever did take place. It seems like we would have seen something about it before now. I'll have to defer- Okay. ... to the staff that was in the room. Thanks. I'm sorry. Mr. Owens, you were on the subdivision committee, and you're correct. That item wasn't discussed at the subdivision committee meeting because the development plan you had presented before you was a cul-de-sac and a local street. It was discussed, uh, by the zoning committee in the afternoon in context of the comprehensive plan recommendation. My only question would be, it appears from that map, that drawing if nothing else, that there would be a conflict with the, with the, uh, cul-de-sac coming out to Childsburg Road and this corridor. It, you know, that's, that's where my concern comes in. ... went and mentioned earlier. All right. Any further questions? Mr. Brewer? Yeah, I, I, um, appreciate the comments from the, the two people who are, um, voicing their concerns and understand that this is not the body where those concerns can be addressed, but I would like, uh, perhaps legal or Mr. King to, to tell us and, and the citizens who the appropriate body is, who's responsible for that. There are a number of ways that that could be approached, um, either through the mayor's office or any commissioners. The request could be put forward as far as, um, um, dedication for exaction credit or for potential acquisition directly for those lands. Commissioner of General Services would be another place to, to actually initiate those conversations perhaps. Okay. Well, again, I, I appreciate your all's concerns. Um, we don't have jurisdiction over that, so I would encourage you to, to take the advice of, of the staff here and take it up with, with the appropriate officials. Um, sorry we can't help. Yeah, I think we reiterated that. Any further questions? Mr. Owens? Um, I guess a question for, uh, Mr. Martin or Cheryl, either one. With the, with the, uh, development plan here, um, there seems to be a lot that's hanging on at the time of final development plan. Uh, can you explain- ... clarify to me, uh, as in the fencing requirements, when that fence would be required, uh, say prior to, um, you know, obviously at, it says at the time of Final Development Plan. That, is that before lotting, eh, or selling of lots? Is that before grading? When, when would that take place? Th- the, uh, the appropriate timing of that fence is relative to the development of the property. And it would be important for them to be able to grade the property, install infrastructure and that sort of thing, and not have the fence interfere with those types of activities. And so generally, then we could tie something like that, uh, and we have in the past these types of things, to building permits, for instance. And then we can assure that the fence does go up when the property is built on for a single family home. And that's generally after the lotting has been, has been accomplished. So would, would that mean we've got multiple lot owners that's required for taking care of the fence? Normally, it is the developer's responsibility. Okay. Okay. And then also, um, you know, continuing on down, as far as, you know, the trees concerned and so forth, it's again at the time of Final Development Plan. And, and you just mentioned grading. Sure. They'll be allowed to grade prior to Final Development Plan? No, sir. No. Okay. All right. Thank you. A-any other questions? Mr. Martin, I have one before you leave. I just wanted to give everybody else a chance. Yes, sir. Sorry. Uh, it's been pointed out, and I'm, I'm sure while Mr. Andersen and them are here, that it's a good time to bring this up, that there is a, a root cellar, cistern, those types of things that have been filled in. A pond or whatever. May or may not be the case. If it is the case, uh, uh, d-does engineering the ones that's responsible for making sure that's removed? Or who, who, who's responsible for that? It, it is part of the construction and the grading process, Mr. Chairman, and I would, uh, assume that yes, that engineering is part of their approval, the grading plans and when they inspect the work as it, as it's ongoing, that they would see to it that, uh, the appropriate measures were done and, and those types of things- Okay. ... were removed or mitigated. So, so that'll, at the, at the Final Development Plan, we'll ask that question then? Yes, sir. All right. Sure. Any, any other questions? If not, then we'll turn it over to the commission for your discussion and/or, uh, disposition of this zone change. Mr. Owens? Um, first of all, I'll, I'll ... First of all, I'll echo what Mr. Brewer said, that, uh, there obviously are concerns in regards to adjoining property, but I cannot see it, uh, this as affecting those other situations there. Um, with that said, uh, if everybody's ready for a motion, I will attempt to make one, which would be for approval of MAR 2001, uh, 2010-1, Mr. Dennis Andersen. Uh, this would be for the, um, zone change, obviously, uh, as the staff has recommended. Motion has been made. Is there a second? Second. Made and second. Any discussion on the motion? If not, when you see it on the screen, vote. Motion passes. Now the development plan? Uh, yes. Development Plan, I would move for approval of ZDP 2010-3 Andersen Two Subdivision. Is that correct? Yes. That's, that is correct numbers. Uh, as staff has recommended, subject to the 13 conditions, changing the wording on number 12 to resolve the width of the right of way on the proposed cul-de-sac to accommodate construction of a collector street as shown on the comprehensive plan. Heard the motion. Is there a second? Seconded. Any discussion on the motion? If not, vote when you see it on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you, sir. Cut a lot of trees down today. All right. A bit more. Moving on to our agenda, on other things of our agenda. Is there any audience items? I don't think ... Is there anybody here that needs to bring something before the commission? All right, I've got, uh, we have two items, uh, two commission items. Uh, Mr. King, you wanna address the first one? Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to. I address item D on your addendum, uh, page eight. Uh, cancellation of your, uh, zoning committee. Uh, by completing both of your public hearings today, uh, we would have no items remaining, uh, for consideration by the zoning committee, uh, at your scheduled meeting next week. Uh, so we're pleased, uh, to be able to tell those of you on the zoning committee that, uh, at this time, the commission could consider canceling that meeting, uh, originally scheduled for next week. Uh, unfortunately for the subdivision committee, we cannot, uh, offer the same suggestion. I vote against it. Oh. Well, y- you've, you've heard that. I guess we need a motion to do this. This could be a little dicey. I got to count the votes here. Yes, sir, it does take formal action of the commission to cancel the meeting. All right. Don't you think that would be a good time for a work session for the zoning commission? That would be an alternative, I think. Mr. Richardson, you're leading the witness. Uh, you've heard the recommendation that we cancel the, uh, the uh, zoning committee meeting on Thursday, March 4th in the morning. Uh, is there- It'd be in the afternoon. It'd be the afternoon. Yeah, we want to keep you all working in the morning. So it'd be the afternoon. Uh, is there a second? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Mo- mo- the motion passes. Mr. King? Mr. Chairman, as to item E, one of the areas that this commission participates in is the Blue Grass Area Development District Regional Planning Council and have done so for many, many, many years. You have always been represented by staff. The, um, the, uh, Regional Council has asked every planning commission within its jurisdiction to reaffirm their appointments and to demonstrate that by action they have designated someone to represent them on that board. They are just kinda cleaning up past practice. If it's the commission's wish, the staff would be very glad for the commission to vote to designate me as your representative or my duly appointed, uh, surrogate. Are you ve- Do that duty for you. You've heard Mr. King's recommendation. Do we have a motion to that order? Motion. Second. Motion has been made and seconded that Mr. King or his designee be your rep- be the, uh, Blue Grass Area Representative. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. All righty. As long as it isn't Mr. Sally because he makes bad recommendations. Ouch. Is there anything else we need to bring forward to commission? No further business, Mr. Chairman. Then we'll, then we'll stand adjourned.