["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] Call the meeting to order, please. We have no minutes at this time to approve, so next on the agenda will be postponements and withdrawals. Do we have any? Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. Bruce Simpson, Matter No. 1, Page 1, MAP, Property Management, Zone Map Amendment. We need to request a postponement. It probably will ultimately end in a withdrawal. There are some issues involving the estate of this property, and those have yet to be resolved. They will probably be resolved in the next week or so with the withdrawal of the application, but we want to postpone in the event they get worked out so that we can proceed forward. So one month. Are you asking for one month? One month, yes. One month. Mr. Salley, what would that date be? Madam Chair, the Commission's meeting devoted to zoning items in September is on the 23rd. So four weeks from today. MAP, Property Management, Zoning is asking for a one-month postponement. Is there anyone in the audience objecting to this postponement? If not, I'll turn it over to the Commission. Madam Chairman, move one-month postponement for MAR 2010-3, MAP, Property Management. Is there a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Senator. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Sarah Christian Village. This is item number two on your zoning docket. I would also have to ask for a postponement at this time. The applicant's still working on some renderings and landscaping plans that we had hoped to be finished by this point, but unfortunately it just wasn't working out and we still want to go over it with staff. So at this time I'd like to ask for a postponement until the September 23rd meeting as well. Thank you. Are there any objections from anyone in the audience? If not, I'll turn it over to the Commission. Madam Chair, I'll move for postponement of MAR 2010-5, Sarah Christian Village until September 23rd, 2010. Is there a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Senator. Next item on the agenda, is the staff ready? Yes, Madam Chair. We'll be prepared to begin in just a moment. Okay. Thank you. Madam Chair, as we start case number three here, I had one amendment I wanted to make the commission aware of. The application was for a rezoning of all of the property for R5. Through a decrease in density, we have determined that we need to rezone the lot with the current structure on it to R3, and we would so request that amendment. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Madam Chair, we have a diagram on the overhead that explains the amendment. And there should be a packet at your seat that includes their amended application page and this particular plaque attached at the rear. I think it's white paper. We will need to take action on this before we can proceed with anything else regarding this. Are there any questions regarding this amendment change request? Has it been advertised as this amended proposal? Ms. Phillips, the advertisement was from a zone change from B1 to R5. However, because they are requesting a lesser zone, if you will, we believe that the advertisement is correct and not a problem. If it was an R3 and they're asking for R5, obviously we need to postpone and re-notice. Are there other questions from the commission? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Motion's been made. Is there a second? Motion's been made and seconded. Please vote electronically. Does everyone vote? Motion carries. Thank you. We'll get started now on the amended application. This is MARV 2010-6, a request by Lexington Home Ownership Commission. Actually, let me get the clicker from our AV person. This is a request from an ARP. Oops, we're not at the right slide. There you go. Nope. Doesn't like it. You're seeing Liberty Road there. The postponed one. Okay, thank you. This is a request from a B1 zone to a high-rise apartment, which is our R5, and now a neighborhood residential R3 zone. The subject parcel is located at 165 or 163 and then 165-167 Jefferson Street. And Jefferson is at the northwest edge of downtown, and it connects over to Main Street and then continues to the northeast. The subject properties are between Short Street and Second Street in this area, and this portion of Jefferson is a mixed-use area, although most of the zoning along this block is B1, including the subject parcels. There is a mixture of uses, including residential, commercial, and Harrison Elementary School actually occupies a portion across from the subject property as well. To the rear of the properties are the Griffin, if I can get the name correct, the Ballard-Griffith Towers, and that's two high-rise towers. Those are zoned R5. There's also R4 zoning in the general vicinity to the northeast and then also to the south and west. The proposed, I would also mention that it's maybe a little bit difficult to read. The subject parcel is not located within a local historic district, but there are two, one on each side. This is the western suburb historic district, and this is the north side residential historic district. The property is located within a national register district, and that does not really change anything in terms of our regulations, but it should be considered as a contributing property for the historic district. This was that map. This is an aerial photograph just showing this portion of Jefferson Street. Again, you can see the subject parcel with the Griffith-Ballard Towers to the rear and the school across Jefferson in this area. This is a photo of the subject properties. The building on the left in the photo is the existing structure situated at 163 Jefferson. It's currently not in use. And then the property at 165, 167 Jefferson is vacant. It had a structure on it that was demolished within the last few years. The applicant is proposing to refurbish or renovate significantly the existing structure at 163 and use that for a single family residence. And on the vacant parcel, they propose to build a four-unit building that is proposed to be single-bedroom units. The density for those five units would be proposed to be 30.12 dwelling units per net acre, which falls within our very high density recommendation or land use category in the comprehensive plan. In terms, let me just bring you through a few more photos of the property in the area. This is Tower Plaza, which borders one of the parcels to the northeast and is the entrance road to the towers behind. You can see there's kind of a worn path there where the building was demolished. A closer photo of the existing structure at 163 Jefferson. And this photo does show the, it's really for the variance request accompanying with this, how close the existing structure is to 159, 161, which is a duplex to the other side, that they're asking for a variance to the side yard. And you can see how close those buildings are. Another aerial, this is a good one that shows the schoolyard across the street. And I would note again that this is a mixture of uses. There's restaurant, residential, residential again, Ace Weekly, a gallery, a wine shop, restaurant, bar, insurance agency. So there is a variety of uses on Jefferson in this area. The comprehensive plan for these properties depicts the downtown master plan land use. In the downtown master plan land use category, the comprehensive plan indicates that the master plan should be considered in zone change applications and other redevelopment decisions. It also indicates that if that plan is not wholly adopted, that the 2001 comprehensive plan should also be considered in terms of land use. And I'll just note that the 2001 comprehensive plan does recommend medium density residential for these two properties. That's reflective, I believe, of the existing use at the time of residential use at that location. The downtown master plan has these two properties located in the western suburb area. And there's really no information in the western suburb area that would lead the staff to make any kind of declaratory statement about the intention for these particular properties. But there are three principles in the 15 principles of the master plan that were, that we believe do apply to this particular decision that the planning commission is being asked to make. And that is three recommendations of those principles do apply. The first is recommendation 4.2, which indicates a desire for increased residential density and particularly to accommodate a diverse population through varied housing types and price points. And this particular applicant is an arm of the LFUC, well, the local housing authority. Recommendation number 6 is to maximize density in vacant sites. And part of this property is currently vacant and the other half is underutilized. And then recommendation 8 discusses pedestrian. The pedestrian network in Jefferson Street has been identified as one of the primary pedestrian access, primary pedestrian corridors. In this case, the staff has found that the two plans do differ in their recommendation. The 2001 comprehensive plan recommends residential use and our master plan, the downtown master plan speaks more to a commercial use in terms of calling Jefferson Street a business corridor. And since those two are at odds, the staff would suggest to the planning commission that we consider the appropriateness of the existing zoning and or the inappropriateness of the, excuse me, the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the existing and proposed zoning categories. In reviewing the appropriateness of the existing B-1 zone, the staff found that in 1969 when the zoning atlas was adopted, this particular area was rezoned or changed from a B-4 to a B-1 zone. So these particular properties have been in a nonconforming use status for more than 40 years, although they have historically been residential. And then also of concern in terms of the existing zone is that a B-1 redevelopment, this location could be problematic given the lack of off-street parking available to those particular properties and parking or access to parking through the Ballard Griffith Towers could also be a concern in terms of a business use. So for those reasons, the staff was able to conclude that the existing zoning is inappropriate at this location. In terms of the proposed zoning, the staff found that R-5 is compatible with the towers behind and other R-4 zoning in the vicinity. In addition, there is a higher density use also adjacent to 163 at 159-161 Jefferson Street, so it is compatible in terms of use and also in terms of zoning in this area. And the other thing that the R-5 zone does permit a limited number of commercial uses, which could support the master plan's recommendation for business use in the area. In terms of the R-3 zone proposed by the applicant, this is a preferable category, and the staff actually suggested that at the zoning committee because the R-3 zone does allow single-family residents and the R-5 zone does not. Originally, the applicant had asked for R-5 for both parcels. And the combination of the R-3 and R-5 zone for this location, the staff believes will permit a higher density residential use, which would be in line with the downtown master plan. In addition, it would be allowing for the utilization of vacant property and also maintaining a mixture of uses and at a scale that is compatible with the neighborhood. And for those reasons, the staff is recommending approval of the residential R-3 and R-5 zoning at this location, and we do feel it is appropriate here. I'd be happy to answer any questions. I won't go through the specific findings, but those are on the agenda and also in your notebook behind tab 3. And I will say there are variances requested as well, and Mr. Emmons will address those in a separate presentation for this application. Are there any questions from commission? Mr. Pragins. Is the existing house, is that on the National Historic Registry? It is part of a district that is in the National Register, yes. That particular building is not registered? I don't know. It's not a historic site, but it is part of the district, so technically it would be on the Historic Register. Our local ordinances would prevent the demolition and restrict the design review. At this point, I think the applicant is proposing to maintain that building and refurbish it so that it is more in line with the historic structure than the photo we saw, which has a large addition on the back. Does that answer your question? Are there other questions? Ms. Copeland. Tracy, the empty lot there, that's the one we'll get R5, right? Yes, ma'am. That they're proposing. Considering the scale of the neighborhood, how many stories can you go with R5? You can go, I believe it's 10. Tom would be able to. It's a height to yard ratio. Thank you. A 4 to 1 height to yard ratio, so it's really not limited except by the size of your property. In this case, they're asking for variances in order to go to a maximum of 30 feet. Okay. Ms. Phillips. With respect to this property being part of a national historic district, has the staff contacted the folks at the park service to consult how they would feel about the rezoning of this property and potential development of the high-rise apartment? No, ma'am, we have not. Mr. Allen. Tracy, what you just said a moment ago, it sounded like in the renovation of the one house that is there now, that they may be taking the back addition, is that what you're saying? They may be taking that off? Do we know that for a fact? I believe the applicant can address that with more clarity, but that was the understanding that the staff had. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Phillips. With respect to the R5 district, what is the maximum density? This development will be 30.12 units per acre, but what is the maximum density that's allowed in that zoning district? Actually, our zoning districts don't indicate any kind of maximum number of units, so it really does depend on how you develop the property. Typically parking in your yards will create the general number of density. Mr. Allen. I'm sorry. Tracy, in regards to the height, I think you mentioned that they're proposing a maximum height of 30 feet. Is that what, according to the height to yard ratio, is that the maximum allowed? No, because they are asking for a variance to reduce the side yard, and the way the ordinance reads, you use the side and rear yard distances to create your height, and since they're asking for a variance to a half of a foot and a four to one, that would give you a height of two feet for a building, and clearly that's not a feasible structure to construct. Okay. Are there any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Tracy. Petitioner. Where are we going to do the development plan next? Okay. Madam Chairman, members of the commission, the next item on your agenda associated with this zone change is the preliminary development plan. It is located on the top of page five, item C, ZDP 2010-43, the Merriam E. Aiken property. This preliminary development plan, as you can see, depicts the existing structure on this lot, frontage along Jefferson Street. The proposed building is here. Parking to serve these two structures is located in the rear close to or towards the Ballard Place development. Access to that parking will be through the Ballard Place development. The lot that you see in this area, which is 163 Jefferson, is approximately 2,000 square feet in size. This lot, where they proposed the four new units, is a little over 5,000 square feet in size. We have pedestrian access to the structures from Jefferson Street, as well as pedestrian access into the side of the building for two of these proposed units located here from what is Tower Plaza. This is actually Tower Plaza, which is also known as Todd Street, but it is the Tower Plaza. Now, what you see before you, of course, is a preliminary development plan. As this body is aware, these are reviewed as if the zoning is in place to evaluate how well the development will function on the site. You have asked some questions, and Ms. Wade has answered them about density and height and that sort of thing. And, again, you can see these are very small lots, and that's the challenge that they faced. This building, the two-story existing single unit, is under 2,000 square feet in size, and they intend to remodel it, and it will be reduced as well. This is a two-story building. A little over 3,000 square feet is being proposed in this building. When this plan was originally reviewed by your subdivision committee, you can see on your agenda, it was recommended for postponement. The concern at that time was the arrangement of the lots in order to meet the requirements of the R5 zone in particular. Since that plan was presented to the subdivision committee, staff did receive a consolidation plat, and based on that consolidation plat, we have prepared revised recommendations for you. Now, you have two reports this color. The revised recommendations have the big, large heading and fewer things to read on it than the variance report that will follow. Staff has now reviewed this plan in light of the reconfiguration, and the problem was the height to yard ratio as well as the coverage and the FAR on this lot with the new developments. They have reconfigured this now. This is basically the rectangle right here. This lot has gotten larger, and that allows them to accommodate this development. Now, that is also predicated on the fact that they are requesting variances for you all to review and approve. Those variances will affect the front yard, the side yard setbacks in these zones, as well as the side yard setback, the landscaping that is associated and required for a zone change and for development of this property, as well as a parking variance. Mr. Emmons will be going over those variances with you in detail after I have presented the development plan. And again, if you look at your revised recommendations, you can see the standard sign-offs. This is a preliminary plan. There will be a final development plan filed for this body to review. We have very few cleanup conditions you can see from your agenda. And then we have revised it, and we have deleted item 14. And that was the condition that went directly to the issue of the lot coverage in the FAR, that that consolidation plan has resolved for the applicant. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Other questions? Ms. Copeland? The orange building, Mr. Martin, you said it was 2,000, 3,000 square feet? It's over 1,800 square feet per floor, just a little over. So for a total of 36. I'm sorry, did I say 32? It's about 3,600 square feet. So it's going to be 800 square feet in an apartment? I would assume based on the layout the architect has developed, that's approximately correct for a one-bedroom unit. There may be some variation in that floor plan that staff would not be aware of. So we only need one parking place per apartment, and you're borrowing the space to park cars from the other Ballard place, right? Yes, ma'am. They're going to need a variance, and they are working with Ballard to provide the appropriate parking. Mr. Holmes? Tom, did you say the two lots have been consolidated, or are they still in two separate lots? Actually, we utilized a consolidation plat just to transfer some square footage and adjust the lot lines. They are two independent lots. Did you have a comment? Are there other questions? Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Emmons? Thank you, Commission. Just to be right off the bat, we do have the revised recommendation for the variance report. As you can see, with the anticipated change from the R5 for the total application to the R3, there was a need to slightly modify the requests and the findings for this. In general, all six variances that were requested still need to be requested with the revised zoning application. However, in general, those variances are less of a variance with this amended application. To start that off, the full variance report is in your book, and I'm not going to go over it in total. If we can get the presentation up on the thing, I can go through each of the requested variances and kind of show you a little bit about what's being requested. If we're working on it. Nope, not that one. Okay, that's the revised recommendations. I was actually hoping to get the presentation on the laptop running. There we go. What I've done is I've kind of walked through each of one of these. In general, as presented to the zoning committee, the six variances can essentially be categorized as yards and height variances. There's also a landscaping variance and a parking variance before you today. First, I'm going to take the little bit simpler ones with the yard and height variances. The first one being to address is the front yard. There is a front yard requested to nine feet for both the R3 and that. The R5 zone, if you were to rezone it, would have a 20-foot front yard. The R3 zone would have a starting spot of a 20-foot front yard. It is much easier and cleaner along with this application just to recommend approval of that nine-foot front yard for both properties. If you can look, and it's a little bit dark on this side. Let's see if we can brighten it up. But what we've done is we've got, with the help of the U.K. architecture students who were reviewing this area for class, they have built a 3-D model of much of this area, a very accurate 3-D model for this area. And we also know from the work that I've done on helping obtain the building permit for the new mixed-use development that's also in this block, that the average front yard setback along Jefferson Street is at about nine feet. And so the requested variance to a nine-foot front yard is very compatible with the other setbacks along Jefferson Street. Along with that, there is also the side yard setbacks. They're requested from a, now that it's zoned R3, it would be requested from a three-foot side yard setback to the half-a-foot side yard setback for the existing structure. That half-a-foot setback is also requested for the new structure that would be built in the R5 zone. One of the things that this particular zone change application and variance request combination has that you normally don't have with it, that is that by granting the six-inch side yards for this particular property, essentially the development plan becomes the physical control for how this property is to be developed. And that is quite appropriate for what they're proposing. Also, there is a side street side yard request. It's called Todd Street, and it's now been renamed to Tower Plaza. And that's shown in the yellow. For this graphic, I went ahead and showed what the side yard would be at the blue line and the side street side yard, and that little tiny sliver of a property in between the yellow and the blue lines would essentially be the buildable area on this property if there was no variances granted for the subject property. We'd also like to point out, we realize it's very hard to see on what we have here, and even at the scale that you all are seeing it on the screen, it's very hard to see. But with the five-foot side street side yard off of Tower Plaza, the proposal for the building would encroach upon that just slightly, but it would be able to average out over the distance of the building through there. And that is not uncommon any time you have our zoning ordinance allows that. Any time you have a building line that is not parallel to your actual building face, you are allowed to average that over the length of your building face, and this does average out. Looking at the heights, and I do wish that this wasn't as dark as it is, they are asking for a height variance to a maximum of 30 feet. As it was mentioned in the R5 zone, the R5 zone does not have a particular maximum height in the zone. It was designed with a height-to-yard ratio. So the more you come into the property, the higher you can go. With the, and as Tracy pointed out, if they were to build out at the 0.5, half a foot, that would, half a foot times four would give you a two-foot tall building. And other than munchkins, I don't know that that would be an appropriate building size for, I guess, ferries maybe. But that's obviously not done. But the 30-foot height, once again, if you look at the average heights in this area, up and down Jefferson Street, they are very much at around that 28 to 32-foot height on average for most of the buildings in that general vicinity. In fact, most of the B1 zoning and the residential zoning that we have around there would allow a maximum of 35 feet in height. In the B1, in the instance of having a mixed use, you could go up to 35 feet. So we do believe that the 30 feet is very appropriate. We also believe that it's necessary to put that on there in order to keep the, keep it compatible with the neighborhood in this instance. There is also a landscaping variance that is requested. And that would be along the south, oh, I practiced this, the southwestern, the southwestern border of the property along the existing residential property that's there. The Landscape Review Committee did meet and make a recommendation for this. There is an existing wall on the property that is already there. They recommended that that existing wall to remain, and that between the end of the existing wall and the house after they've taken the addition off, that they provide an additional solid screen in there to complete that out. I do have a little click here. I've got kind of a, I don't know if the colors are coming out right or not, but right in here is the existing wall along the parking. Then there is a little gap that they've recommended that that gap be filled in. That's part of the Landscape Review Committee recommendation. And on to the final variance that's being requested, and that's to the parking. One clarification on the proposed development plan, they are not just utilizing the existing parking with the Ballard Place parking, but they are proposing to do a slight expansion of those parking spaces into the subject property in order to accommodate the parking. How the parking numbers work out, it's proposed as a fourplex and a single family residential in the R3 zone. The fourplex, if you look at the R5 zone, at one and a half per unit would require six parking spaces in and of itself, with one parking space being required for the single family home. The applicant's proposal is to extend the parking lot with the Ballard Street parking lot, or Ballard Place parking lot, which comes off of Tower Plaza, in order to provide six total parking spaces. So they are asking for a variance from seven to six, or as we put in the report, another way to think about it is just for the multifamily structure, taking it down from six required spaces down to five. The math is the same either way you look at it. The original, with the R5 zoning for the entire property, the original variance request was from a total of nine parking spaces that would have been required down to six, and now the variance is down to seven spaces for six. We feel that six spaces for the five proposed units is appropriate in our recommending approval. This is just also kind of looking at the site. Jefferson Street is along here. We're looking at the back of the property in Tower Plaza, and you would come into the Ballard Place parking and then get to the new parking extension off of there. This also minimizes your curb cuts on Tower Plaza and a good way to do that. The staff does recommend approval of all six variances as they're requested. We are recommending the findings on the revised recommendation that we handed out. If you'll notice, and as I characterized to begin with, essentially the section of what they're requesting has more changes to it than the actual findings. The only finding that we needed to add is under A, provided that the urban county rezones this property, R3 and R5, adding in the R3 zoning to this zone variance request application. In a word, the staff and all of the findings go that the would be compatibility. With the proposed zoning for the subject property and the requested variances, along with the conditions that are provided in the staff report, we feel that this does make this a compatible development with the other developments along Jefferson Street. And ultimately that is our goal of our infill and redevelopment program, is to have new development that would be compatible with the area. If you would like, I do have an animated fly-through on this, but I don't know how well it will do with the darkness on that. I'll leave it up to the commission on whether you want me to hit the button or not. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to try and answer them. Are there questions for Jimmy? Ms. Copeland. Is there data the U.K. students, do they do any data on height ratio? As far as having. The 30 foot. I don't have a list of it, but in general the area is about 30 feet in height. That, of course, is not counting the towers that are directly behind this subject property. They are the anomaly for the area. Are there other questions? Mr. Owens. Jimmy, I don't have a question. I'll just say, pass along a thank you to the university students as far as the visual support for your, to go along with your wonderful presentation. Thank you. I'll make sure and pass that along. Are there other questions? Ms. Phillips. I'm trying to figure out this plot, and I'm back to Mr. Holmes' question about consolidation. Are there three separate lots on this property? No, there are two lots on the subject that are subject to the zone change. There's the R3 lot, and then the remainder of the property would be requested to go to R5. This white plot that was included in our agenda packet, it looks like there's an L-shaped lot that fronts on Todd Street or Tower Plaza down to Jefferson. Put that on the open tab. I believe what you're seeing on that is the area of the right-of-way. The zone change goes to the center line of the roads, and the area that Bill has highlighted in yellow is right-of-way. So there are the two subject properties plus right-of-way. That's exactly what I was saying. Right-of-way. Are there other questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. Petitioner. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the commission. I'm Darby Turner, representing the applicant. And like Mr. Owen, I wanted to compliment the staff on their PowerPoint presentation. It was very good. Tom and I are just still relegated to paper. Just a little background here, and the staff has done a great job in presenting this and also a great job in working with the Housing Authority to promote this infill and redevelopment site. As I think most of you know, Ballard Place and County Griffith Manor are properties that were developed and operated by the Housing Authority, and they're high-rise units for the elderly, low-income elderly units, as that population in those towers. The tower by Todd Street stops at the end of the public right-of-way, stops at the end of these lots, and you go right into the parking lots for Griffith and Ballard. And it's actually the Ballard parking lot. So this will clean up an entranceway, if you will, to end of those units and clean up the streetscape on Jefferson as well. I understand that the lot, the property is within a national historical area, but the house itself is not individually registered. However, it is the intent to demolish the new addition on the existing house and essentially restore the house to its residential character with some modern conveniences. So that was a decision rather than demolish it and build more units. That was a decision to try to maintain that fabric. The variances, I think, at first glance, you kind of think, oh, my goodness, we're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole kind of thing. And that's the truth. That's kind of what you're doing. It's a good example of the difficulties of doing infill and redevelopment and why you need to implement new infill and redevelopment regulations so that you don't have to deal with the variances. But this is the purpose. You can't have a four-foot wide, two-foot high house on a piece of property or it's essentially undevelopable. And so this is a great example of the process that you all are going through right now to try to keep from having to come back with a slew of variances when you get to these kind of properties. But in short, I'm not going to rehash what the staff has reported. We're in complete agreement with their report and with their recommendation and would certainly be happy to answer any questions that we could. Do we have any questions? Commission? Mr. Owens. Mr. Chair, when I asked Tracy a moment ago as far as the intentions of the original structure that is there now, the renovation, can you add any light to that as far as what the intended renovations are going to be? Well, I mean, I can tell you in general that the process is being worked on as we speak. But it's to basically restore it to a single family dwelling to ensure that the brick is pointed up and, you know, all of the repairs to the soffits and eaves and brick and so forth are made. Probably we'll have new energy efficient windows. All this whole project is designed to be as green as it can be. In fact, I think there's some discussion about LEED certification on the building, particularly on the new building. The new building will be all brick and, again, in keeping with the character of the Jefferson Street and particularly the other brick structures on the street. She alluded to that maybe the back addition or something to that building would come off. Yes, that's what I said. We're going to demolish, take off the modern back addition. Okay. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that part. Okay. Are there other questions? Thank you, Mr. Turner. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment? Yes, sir. I'm Bill Johnson. I live at 645 West Short Street. I'm here in several different capacities. One is I'm president of the Historic Western Suburb Neighborhood Association. Obviously then I'm a resident close by the property. I also have restored several pieces of property in the surrounding area, and I'm a current property owner of property less than 100 feet away. So this letter, I have a letter which I would like to present to the planning commission to put in the file. I'm not sure how that's done. I didn't get it prepared early enough to make the copy, but I'll go ahead and read it to you. This letter is in support of the zone change request by the Lexington Home Ownership Commission, Inc., for the properties at 163 and 165 Jefferson Street. It is our understanding that the new zone requested for 163 Jefferson is R3, and the new zone requested for 165 Jefferson is R5. Our support is contingent on the following two conditions. The building to be constructed on 165 Jefferson be no taller than two stories, and two, the building on 163 Jefferson be restored to a single family residence. We also request to be placed on the notification list for any changes to the submitted development plans. The endorsement of these zone changes by our neighborhood association is not intended to be an endorsement of other zone changes in the future away from B1. While our definite preference would be to see development in this block of Jefferson Street if we follow the current B1 zone guidelines, we support the current zone change request only to facilitate this specific situation, given the mandated mission of the property owner, and to preserve a 100-year-old or older house in this historic neighborhood. Thank you very much. Commission members have any questions? Thank you, Mr. Johnston. Does the staff have? Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. I wanted to ask the staff, because we are dealing with a national district, is it protocol that our local Historic Preservation Office contact them? Is it concerned about communication between, you know, the federal level historic preservationists and locally? I am not certain whether that is the current protocol or not. I do know for local historic districts it is, but I'm not sure about national districts. My understanding is the subject property is in a national historic district, but not a local historic district. Mr. Some additional information, Fred Eastridge indicated that his office, Sherman Carter Barnhart, has had extensive discussion with the local Historic Preservation Office. So there has been a good deal of communication going on at the local level. Are there other questions? Ms. Copeland. What I'm hearing is that the old house that we're going to keep is going to be upgraded and renovated, but it may not look like a federal building when we get through. Is that right, or are they going to try to keep the character? No, I think the intent is to try to keep the character. Okay. Are there other questions of either the staff or the petitioner? Would someone from the audience like to speak? I'm sorry, would you come forward and give your name and address, please? Thank you. address, please. Thank you. My name is Ellery Findley. I live at 623 West Short Street in the neighborhood. I am concerned about the parking for this new project. Even with a one-bedroom apartment, it's most conceivable that there would be two automobiles assigned to that unit, and there is not enough parking. The parking on Jefferson Street and related streets, Short Street being one of them, Ballard Street is another, the parking is not sufficient at this point. And if further residences are brought into being, where are those cars going to park? That's just my question. Thank you very much. Are there other comments, questions? Close this portion. Hearing none, and we will take these up in order of the zoning, the variances, and then the subdivision. That's the order in which we need to take these. So I will turn it over to the commission for dealing with ZDP 2010-43, the Myra Macon property, with the 13 staff recommendations to leading number 14. Well, we need to do the other first. Does it matter, or should we do the zoning first? Zoning change would be the correct item to take first. All right. Then let's deal with MARV 2010-6. Mr. Owens. Madam Chair, if there's no other comments or questions, I'll move for approval of MARV 2010-6, Lexington Home Ownership Commission, Incorporated, as the staff has recommended approval, with the five reasons listed. Is there a second? Second. Second has been made by Mr. Brewer. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Madam Chair, I'll also move for approval of the variances of MARV 2010-6, the six variances subject to the conditions listed by the staff. Is there a second? Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. One more. I'll move for approval of ZDP 2010-43, Miriam Aiken Properties, as the staff has recommended, subject to the 13 conditions. Deleting number 14. Deleting number 14, yes ma'am. Motion has been made and seconded for ZDP 2010-43. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay, the next item of business would be commission items. And we have the Montclair Neighborhood Zone Change Initiation Request, which the staff will, I'll give them a second to put together. Just two. Ms. Copeland. Madam Chairman, I live in the Montclair neighborhood and have for 35 to 40 years. I have to leave. I have to recuse myself. We'll call you back. Thank you. Good afternoon. This item is, you know, I don't know what page it's on, but I know you all do. Page five, thank you, of the agenda. This is a request by the neighbors of Montclair to initiate an ND1, which is our neighborhood design character overlay zone for their neighborhood. The Montclair Neighbors of Montclair Neighborhood Association represents the Montclair neighborhood, and they are located between Cooper, including the properties on the north side of Cooper, down to Montclair, including the properties on the south side of Montclair, and between the University property, UK and KET, and coming to Tate's Creek Road, including the properties up front on the west side of Tate's Creek Road. This neighborhood includes 179 properties, and they brought an application to the planning commission in June, and the staff promptly prepared notice cards to be sent out in terms of mailing, and I would have you go to your notebooks in section four of your notebook. They've prepared a graphic representation of their request or the particular standards of the request, and the specific language of that document is slightly different than the white page I handed out. The staff tweaked what we sent out to the neighborhood just enough that I wanted to make sure that if the planning commission initiated, that we initiated the language that went out in the notice letter, rather than that document with the photos and graphics. So the neighborhood has proposed 11 different standards, and some of those have two parts. The staff at this point has not spent a lot of time going over the benefits or possibly issues with any of those restrictions. That would be covered if the planning commission chooses to initiate it in our staff report. The notice that went out included a response via postcard to be sent in, and the staff received 102 postcards back from the 179 properties, which is about a response rate of 57% of those responses that we received. The map that I handed out shows where they support, oppose, and no opinion responses are located, but there was a 70.6% response that was supportive to the particular ND1 restrictions. 26.5% were in opposition, either in whole or in part, and then 2.9 or 3 responses indicated they didn't have an opinion at this time. I'd be happy to answer any questions, and I know the neighborhood is here. If you have any specific questions on the process that they went through to develop their standards or how they got to this point. Does anyone on the commission have a question for Ms. White? Ms. White, as far as your map, I presume the green, is that going to be the one? Yes, those are in support, thank you. The red kind of orangey shaded color is in opposition, and the yellow are no opinion. Thank you. Are there other questions? Mr. Kravitz. How does this fit in with all the stuff we went through over there at UK with all those buildings? The text amendment that the planning commission reviewed? The text amendment will regulate the use of the property and the definition of family, but this would restrict the particular buildings and other attributes on the property that aren't related to the use. So they're proposing exterior building material restrictions, roof line and shape restrictions. So how is the building going to look, not who's living there or how many people are living there? Hedges four feet tall, what's that all about? The neighborhood can answer I think that better than I can. Other questions? Mr. Owens. I'm sorry. Ms. White, you mentioned earlier on, I think you mentioned anyway, that some of this, the staff tweaked? The language sent out was just in some cases the way it was worded in building height. I think we put parentheses around the particular addresses rather than, you know, it was very minimal. Substance still there? Yes, same substance. The reddish orange color would be those people that are opposed to the restrictions and the yellow would be no opinion. And the white didn't respond. Right. The people who didn't, aren't shaded in didn't respond, yeah. Mr. Cravens. Do we know if this puts any of the houses out of compliance? I would guess it would, yes. But I don't, at this point the staff hasn't done any research to know how many wouldn't comply with some or all of. We did get one postcard. There's more of a modern building at 702 Cooper, and it's got a flat roof, so I don't think that they would adhere to the roof lines and shapes. that would have some of these ND1 restrictions that they wouldn't meet them. But they're grandfathered in. Right. So any time a building permit needs to be issued is when the division of building inspection would assess whether their request is meeting these restrictions. Mr. Holmes. Yeah, I was going to follow up on that. Is there a grandfather restriction or permit that lets them? But if the homeowner wanted to repair an existing building that's grandfathered in, can they still? Yes. Do they have to repair it up to the ND1 standards? Well, in the case of this structure that has a flat roof, I think this does have, you can match an existing roof pitch. So it does allow for those structures to not, a contemporary structure wouldn't want to put a gable roof addition on. I was thinking more maybe like some of the windows. If you have, say, a vinyl clad window currently in your house and you want to replace those, could you replace them back with vinyl or do you have to replace them back with wood? Actually, that was a question that I received since this notice letter went out in terms of vinyl windows. And the exterior building material restriction they're proposing actually doesn't allow for any vinyl. But I believe it is intended to be the exterior of the building and not the window sashes. I don't know. I think there would need to be some clarification on that. Right. Yeah. That's what I'm, what you currently have, is that grandfathered in, if you wanted to replace or repair what you currently have. Rochelle, can you answer that? I think the position would be if it's strictly replacement of what was there, that that would be maintenance and a grandfathering in issue. If they were going to take out wooden windows and replace them with vinyl, they would not be permitted to do so. But I think if they can document or show that they had vinyl before, I don't think we could take away from them the right to have vinyl as long as it's just a repair and not, if they're creating a new window opening, then I think maybe we could require them to comply with this. Are there other questions? Thank you, Tracy. Although this is not, and I think they understand this, a hearing, that's okay, Tracy. We will be glad to hear from the neighborhood. We'll allow ten minutes if you have a major speaker and then three minutes after that. Is that fair? Thank you very much. My name is Deborah Tatum. I live on Montclair Drive. I'm the current Neighborhood Association President. We've reactivated our neighborhood based on what is happening around U.K. See our little neighborhood? It's really cute. We'd like to keep it that way. We don't want the dormers that came behind those buildings over off of Elizabeth Street. We don't want a, we have a lot of families in our neighborhood. We'd like to keep it a family neighborhood and with respect to each other's property and keep our property values up as well. I know the people across Tate's Creek call us Chevy Chase Light. We love Chevy Chase Light and we'd like to keep it like it is. I'm not going to be speaking much more, as you can tell. I'd like to ask Stan Harvey, who's pretty much run this with Jim Cornish over the last two years, and he can go over everything with you just briefly. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name is Stan Harvey. I live at 1229 Scoville Road. This is just a little bit of background and history, and I'd be glad to answer any questions as well. This started, the effort started in 2007, so it's a little bit over two years. We consulted early with the Historic Preservation Division and with the Division of Planning to talk about options for preservation, historic districts, et cetera. I think we had, we've had, there is a documentation that we provided to the Division of Planning on all the public meetings, the work sessions, et cetera, that have gone on, the several rounds of surveys, the several rounds of discussions on the standards. What we've gotten down to in terms of the 11 were those that we thought had relatively strong consensus within the neighborhood. We also did a detailed survey that's available property by property that we helped develop with the Division of Historic Preservation on any number of attributes for each property. So there is kind of also a record now of the existing. The question was asked, are there any nonconforming? There definitely are. Primarily, there's some vinyl-clad cottages, particularly on Montclair. There's some side-facing Gunnison houses scattered throughout the neighborhood, and you'll see one of the standards is if you rebuild front-facing doors, and then the cinder block home that was mentioned, the contemporary home on Cooper. So there are a few that were perceived. We've had a lot of discussion as a neighborhood. We've even consulted insurance agents about fire replacement, et cetera, and I think as the city mentioned, we want to be reasonable about the restrictions, but this is really geared towards new construction or significant additions. Mr. Cravens asked about the four-foot front fence to my colleague, Dr. Paulson. That was really from a safety and security issue. It's only for front yards. It's particularly an issue on Cooper. With kids and others and bikes coming on sidewalks, it was just thought that it would be good to limit the heights because cars and other things are backing out and somewhat of a safety problem. Thank you very much. Does anyone else speak? Yes, sir. Just a minute. I'm speaking on behalf of Victoria Graff, who's one of the residents, 1-2-3-4. Speaking on behalf of one of the residents of the neighborhood at 1-2. Could you give your name and address, please? My name is Michael Hooper. I live at the same address, 1-2-3-4 Scoville. It's a bit of a conundrum with this whole neighborhood situation. It's almost like after the fact. There's quite a bit, if you just drive through the neighborhood, of probably invariance of these restrictions already. So it's almost trying to, after the fact, put these restrictions in. I understand the intent of what they're trying to do, and it's a good one. They're trying to preserve what historic preservation and what the integrity of the neighborhood might be left, and they're worried about new construction. I think they're mostly worried about one particular new construction on Cooper that's a brand-new house. The resident I'm speaking on behalf of opposes this restriction because they think that there's going to be too much restriction on new building. Whereas I think if the restrictions were carefully monitored, I think they could come up with a happy medium, but I think there should be quite a bit of consultation with the residents instead of kind of imposing these restrictions. They're concerned about what additions they may want to consider in the future and what restrictions are going to be imposed on that. That's this resident's concern, and so I think I don't know if it's really going to be viable, truthfully. There's just so much variance. There's a lot of gunner homes and what we call bungalows and so forth over there. The neighborhood has some very nice homes and some not-so-nice homes, and I don't know that there's a whole lot that they can do about it, truthfully. So anyway, I would at least emphasize and suggest that you take a good close look at the restrictions and the nature of them and so forth before you try to impose this on the residents who may want to build in the future. Does that make any sense? Thank you very much. Mr. Holmes, did you have a question? Anyone have any questions? Ms. Phillips. I'm not sure if this should be directed towards Ms. Tatum, Mr. Harvey, or the last speaker or staff. Will kind of a historic study of the neighborhood, a more comprehensive study of the rationale, the nexus, the purposes of this, a narrative? Is that forthcoming after our initiation of the request, or is that, should we have that before we initiate the process? The ND1 process is very neighborhood led. So the particular applications that they make I think can be fairly varied. I know the Chevy Chase application did have quite a bit of narrative. This particular application was more graphic, and they have done a property-by-property survey, but I don't think that there's that summary, and we could ask the neighborhood association to do that if they wanted, if you desired kind of a summary statement about each proposed standard of background for that, like what led to the exterior material restriction. I don't think they could provide that. Are there other questions from the commission? If not, I'll, Ms. Tatum. I just wanted to let you know, this process, since 2007, we have made every attempt to speak with every neighbor all the way along the process. I can't tell you how many times I've gone door-to-door. I've met a lot of neighbors that way, and answered a lot of questions, and been asked a lot of questions. And this is the summary of what we have come up with, with their input. Thank you very much. There are no additional questions, and I'll turn it over to the commission for a motion regarding the initiation of the request for a zone change in the Montclair neighborhood. ND1. Just to clarify, did you say initiation? Initiation, yes. We've already closed this. Is there a motion to initiate this request? I can vote in favor of this initiation, but I'm not in favor of eliminating vinyl windows or vinyl siding or anything like that. So I just thought I'd throw that out. Mr. Wilson. I have a question related to the enforcement of these activities. Are we left to enforce, is it left to the local neighborhood to enforce these standards? I have no clue as to what that means in terms of whether that's good, bad or indifferent. So I assume that would be left to the neighborhood to make that determination as to what is significant in regards to remodeling or? If and when ND1 restrictions are put in place, then enforcement will be at the time of building permit. Again, there will be some cases where if it's considered maintenance, as counsel mentioned, that the non-conforming rules, the grandfathering, so to speak, would rule and they'd be able to do it. But as far as many new things, it would be enforced by building inspection. And I think Mr. Harvey's comment of significant, it was any addition would require a building permit. So that would trigger these restrictions. Mr. Paulson. This is a question just more about the process of how this whole thing works. You mentioned it is a neighborhood led. What can we, as they propose all these things, can we go through and line item remove? The process generally is the neighborhood comes to the Division of Planning and also Historic Preservation and asks for a meeting to discuss the prospect of ND1 and H1 overlay zoning and what the benefits or issues with both are. And then the neighborhood then goes back to their constituents and reviews that. And oftentimes they have representatives from the city come and do presentations about the differences between the two. Generally the ND1 restrictions are enforced as conditional zoning restrictions and they're enforced by building inspection. Whereas an H1 overlay, you go to the review board and it is a more of a discretionary review of their particular guidelines. And these are standards. The neighborhood does the study of their individual area for determining what area they want to look at. And they go from structure to structure and decide how detailed they want to be. Do they want to look at, I mean, not color of house, but the style of the house. They look at garage. And just that depends on where they're going with their restrictions. This particular neighborhood wanted to control the appearance of houses and structures more so than some of the other neighborhoods that we've worked with. So that I think leads to a few more restrictions. And they bring their list of restrictions to the staff. The initiation is the next step of asking the planning commission to initiate. Once it's initiated, the staff will review all of these restrictions line by line. And we've always have in the past, or for the most part, made some proposed changes. And certainly the planning commission can say this particular restriction doesn't have enough support in your neighborhood. We don't think it's going to be viable. And perhaps line item things out. That is a possibility. Another possibility is to change the area to be covered by the ND1. That's also a possibility. With a 70 plus percent approval of this, I think the neighborhood has done their job on this. And I move to approve the initiation of the ND1 overlay for Montclair neighborhood. Before we do that, I have a motion. I support the ND1 concept and what it's intended to do. And I do have with ND1 or any restricted design standards what type of economic hardship that will put on someone that can't afford to make those type of changes or improvements. So as we proceed with this, I would also want to proceed with caution to think about that. And I'm not sure, you know, if that's a bigger issue that we have to deal with all the time. But that does come up sometimes when I see it on H1 historic overlays as well. Are there any deed restrictions that exist now? Any kind of? Not that I'm aware of. No. And I agree with Mr. Holmes, be careful what you wish for. Some kind of historical write-up, how old are these lots, when were those buildings built, so that you can explain that there are no deed restrictions. There had been none, but it came about organically and you would like to retain, you know, what's there. And I think that that would give us then a greater connection to being able to support these guidelines that you all propose. I think we took all of those questions out of order, but I would now entertain a second. Since my parliamentarian did not say anything, I never had a second to that. I'm sorry, do you have? Residents who wanted to, who had the affirmative for them. Of those that responded, there were 102 responses to the postcard mailing of 179 properties, which came in at about 57%. Of those that responded, 70.6% were in support, 26.5% were opposed, and 2.9% had no opinion. And then the areas that you just did not receive any response from, do you have a percent of just no return? Like 43% didn't respond at all. And I really can't say why that is. The chair will now entertain a second to Mr. Brewer's motion. Motion has been made and seconded. Would everyone please vote electronically to initiate the Montclair neighborhood zone change in D1. Motion carries. If someone would like to bring Ms. Copeland back. Wake her up. Thank you all very much for coming. While we're waiting for Ms. Copeland, because I do think she has a commission item, are there any other items that the commission, that any commissioner has? Bring up before the commission. I certainly don't want to steal her thunder, but what you're being passed out is an article that recently appeared, and here she comes, in the Wall Street Journal, and I had read this. She read it as well, and it's another accolade that's being passed out for the city. And so I will actually let her take over now. I'm filibustering for you at the moment. This article was in the paper in the Saturday Sunday version of the Wall Street Journal. And it doesn't show up on the map, but what they did was the Cary, there's a group in Cary, North Carolina, that did some studies, and they analyzed the real estate trends for lenders, builders, and investors, and compiled its first investor suitability report using economic data through July 31st for 315 U.S. markets that are over, where the population is over 200,000. Well, anyway, Lexington is in the top ten best places for real estate investment. And the reasons why they chose Lexington, and actually it was fifth in the nation, is because home prices already are stabilizing here, and they said that we had a dependable housing market. We had a stable economy. It was reasonable. You have a reasonable expense to living here. And they felt that it would be a prosperous place for people to invest in home ownership. And I just thought that was just fantastic news, and unlike the Herald Leader cartoon this morning in the paper, this is a comprehensive plan, people, and our city fathers that are responsible for this performance report card. I mean, we're at the top of the heap nationwide as far as being a good place to buy a home and have your real estate values stable and to invest in real estate. I just wanted to share it with you. Thank you very much for bringing that to our attention. We can add that to our Forbes list of best places to raise a family and best place for young professionals. So, you know, we're just racking up the accolades, and it's wonderful. It is a wonderful place to live. Well, I could make a speech on that. I'll refrain for the moment. Does the staff have anything else that they would like to bring before the commission? No, ma'am, thank you. If not, we have some folks in the audience who have been waiting patiently to talk with us today. Thank you very much for waiting. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the commission. We appreciate the opportunity to be in front of you. I'm Darby Turner again. I'm here representing Southland Christian Church with regard to the acquisition of the Lexington Mall and the redevelopment. And we were going to come before you at your work session, but we learned we were the only matter left on the agenda, and thought maybe we could come see you after this meeting instead of having you go through that meeting. I want to explain, and this is an unusual process or procedure here in a development plan approval process, because normally we won't simply go through the process which we have initiated. But what we've got here, contractually a very short trigger to opt in or opt out, and put down some significant sums of money. We have done our due diligence with everything, title, environmental, geotech, and so forth, and we have done all that. The last element is the approval of a plan so that the property can be utilized in the intended manner. And so that's why we're actually scheduled at this point to be on your subdivision agenda on the 9th. And so we're going to be before you in fairly quick order. We're going to do everything we could to come before you and give you a little preview of what it is, so that it won't be as sudden, so to speak. We have also, it's been accelerated here recently, because Saul Realty, who owns the mall, or owns this portion of the mall, and as you know, Home Depot owns its own lot there, has identified a property that it wants to do a 1031 exchange with and wants to close early. And has given a financial incentive to us to do that. So here we are. Craig Avery with Southland Christian Church is here. In an earlier life, Craig was the CEO of Fuller Mossburger, Scott and May here. And we have Sarah Tuttle and Mike Wollum from Strand have been working on the project. Kurt Brown from Southland Christian Church, the finance director there. EOP, Rick Eckhoff and Richard Polk have been working on kind of the architecture and on a renovation, which is still much of work in progress, feasibility and so forth. And Morgan McElwain has been working on the plan as well, landscape architect. So that's the team that has been working on this. As I said, we've got all of the due diligence done, except for this. We have the plan that we have filed here before you. And I'm going to let Sarah take you through that plan to give you a flavor for what the redevelopment will look like. And Craig Avery is here also to give you a little flavor of the use of the property that's intended. Just for background and general information. Thank you, Darby, and thank you for letting us talk to you about this. This is just going to be a brief overview, because we are going through the normal procedures, except that we triple filed this plan. We did a late filing when this early closing came up very suddenly. And I will explain what Bill Salih, how Bill Salih presented it to the technical review committee, again, unofficially yesterday, in saying that but for the height of the worship center, this development plan could have been a minor amendment. And let me explain to you why. I wish I had brought some markers. This, got a highlighter? Bless your heart. The existing mall structure is here. This area right here is the Dillard's building. This area is being demolished. The whole area is being demolished. It is a one-story mall structure. You all have been there, you know what it looks like. It is going to be replaced with this worship center, which is less than half of what is being demolished. It is a one-story structure, and that's why we're here. Other than that, all of the development is going to be within the existing footprint of the mall. Now, there are some other changes. You all know what this looks like. It is a sea of asphalt. We're going to add greenery in the front. We're creating a feature that connects down to the water feature that's along Richmond Road. It is going to be reconfigured. It is going to be a bit smaller, but it is going to be improved and there's going to be a visual and physical connection. The basic circulation totally remains intact. Top of Woodhill, around to the back, and along the front out to these two signals. They're still right in right out here. So we are not touching the Home Depot property. We are not touching these properties. The only kind of existing property that we're touching is in order to get a better radius here, to work on the Applebee's, which is in fact owned by Saul right now. It's a leased property. So that's the quick overview. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer. We'll go through a full review. Other questions? Will you need a conditional use permit? No, it is a permissible permitted use in the B6P zone. Other questions? Are you adding some more buildings? Across the driveway from Applebee's. And the car wash actually on the 11th development plan showed no square footage, and I think it's because you could drive through it, but we are actually showing retaining, if you had put walls in it, that square footage. And so there is a redevelopment of that site as well. Are there other questions? Is the out parcel that you described being across, will that be an out parcel that will be a subdivided out parcel, or is it just a development site? At this point, it is a development site. It is not a separate parcel. It is within an area, within the pond area, and that's part of the filling that's required. We already have permits from FEMA to do that, to do the filling work. Are there other questions? I'm sorry? Can you get a general permit for it? I am not the person that knows these numbers back and forth, but we have the permits in place to do that work, and I believe a 404 is included, correct? All of that is in place. The actual permits in place contemplate almost a stream bed, the renovation of this into almost a stream bed, so we will probably have to modify those permits slightly to retain the pond configuration, but that's a minor process. What we all did in the permitting process was basically reduce the pond down to a ditch like in front of Central Bank, and as we went around and talked to the community, the pond, one of the things we learned is the pond there is as important a part of Richmond Road corridor as anything, and so we have elected, well, let's reconfigure it and make it a really neat looking place, and so we've tried to make it from the kind of ugliness that it has right now, try to make it into something that will be really neat when we're done with it. It's a favorite, duck crossing. And geese. And geese. The Perkins parcel here, the old BP station and the Central Bank building are separately owned, in addition to the Home Depot parcel. Ms. Coughlin, did you have a question? Yes, I don't understand the double helix or the DNA part there. Is that sidewalk or what's the black line? This is sidewalk, and this is water. And this is some sort of decorative feature, if I understand it correctly. Yeah. This whole corridor, an 8 foot wide corridor, grass. Okay. So this will be some kind of plaza area that will connect all of this back down to the pond in the front. So the black line is the dry stream? The kind of dry stream, and the gray line is the sidewalk. Mr. Craven. So you can't cross that with a car? No. You can't cross that. Someone stated that you weren't going to change the traffic configuration, and now you can go back and forth. Right. And if we could, the trees are here and here, so that this area is basically a view shed out to the road and from the road in, so that visually you'll see a much changed architectural product there, too, that we're still working on. I'll let Craig talk to you a little bit about the utilization and the architecture. I guess one of the things that we have said from the very beginning as something we want to develop is that, one, it doesn't look like a church, and, two, it's something when you're diving down Richmond Road, it will be compelling where you will want to say, I'd really like to check this place out. So it will be really a neat place when we're done with it. I think it's going to be dramatically different. There is a 2,800-seat worship center there. We tried to figure out how to put that within Dillard's. We tried to figure out how to do it in the one story. It just didn't work as we were working with our architects. We're going to have support activities that go with the auditorium, such as middle school space, nursery space, K-2 space, and also all of the lower floor of Dillard's will be fit up to support activities going on within the worship center. The second floor of Dillard's will have offices in it, and the rest of the space, we're going to have a corridor that will connect here from the second floor of this parking area, where you can get into the balcony and then stairwells down into here. But for the most part, all of this portion of the second floor will remain undeveloped at this time for future use. When you're talking about middle school and fifth grade spaces, you're talking Sunday school? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Mr. Owen, did you have a question? Yeah, I was going to ask that, but I'm curious from an earlier comment. Sorry, but I've got to ask, the exchange property, is that local? We don't know. We don't know what it is. I have one more question. Is the water feature, the configuration of the dry stream, is that for stormwater compliance? It would be for both, but it's really aesthetics more than anything. It would be collecting some? Yeah. Which would be filtered through the grass. Maybe Mr. Newman would be able to. I was going to, and Sarah, correct me, but I was going to talk to you a little bit about one of the things that this redevelopment and one of the biggest encroachments, stormwater encroachments into a sewer line in the community occurs to this sewer line going right down through here. It currently goes under the current one-story building. And so the opportunity to come in here and rework the sewer lines, which the city will do, we're working very closely with the city on this plan to go ahead and get that done. So this plan will enable a significant improvement being made to the sewer system and the encroachment situation of stormwater in this area. And they're also planning a significant holding tank and talk of it here, talk of it here to deal with, not for this development, but for upstream matter. Yeah, there's problems in the sanitary sewer now, and that's what we're working with the Division of Sanitary Sewers on. The other thing related to the stormwater is because this is a redevelopment site, the requirements are that we do a 20 percent, we have to do a water quality treatment for 20 percent of the site. One way to do that is just to reduce the impervious area. And Bill Sallee has a wonderful drawing that he presented that we don't have today that shows the increase that you don't see on this black and white drawing of putting in all those interior islands, and there's additional area here, there's additional area all along here. We're not quite to 20 percent right now, but we're addressing most of those water quality issues with adding green space. The rest of it we'll have to make up the difference with other ways of treatment. But that gets directly to what you're talking about. That's what we're required to do related to a redevelopment site. Anything that can be done to improve the stormwater condition on that tract is going to be an improvement. Yeah. This is a significant issue, and apparently from what I understand, not being the sanitary engineer, but what I understand is that a big part of the problem occurs on this site. And so once that gets relayed, then that will have a significant impact on the I&I in the area. So our city fathers were very pleased to have the opportunity to come in and fix that problem. Yeah, and I think all those out parcels will benefit from that sanitary improvement as well. Are there additional questions? Mr. King. There are no more questions from the commission. I would just like to comment on one thing, amplify a comment that was made earlier. It gave some suggestion that this commission or this government has some control over whether this is a church versus this is retail shops. And I wanted to comment on that once again, that churches and houses of worship are a principle permitted by right use in this zone. So insofar as that goes, this body does not have discretionary authority over saying this should be a store and not a church. It can be just like the retail, the offices, churches, anything that's allowed in that zone. Again, it is their right to occupy those buildings in that fashion. As you know, you do have control over the development plan, and that part of it you will review. But again, just given the comments that have been floating out there, it is good, again, to remind you of what the legal situation is as far as the use rights for this property. Thank you, Mr. King. Are there any other comments or questions? If there are none, I just wanted to thank you again for spending a few extra minutes after the meeting to review this with us and give us the opportunity to give you a little preview. I appreciate the good work the staff has done to try to work with us to meet the schedule that we're on to make this happen. So we're very appreciative of all that. Thank you all for coming today and for bringing this forward to us so that we can have sort of a sneak preview of it. Thanks again. If not, I would say, since I now have the microphone again, that this evening, Thursday Night Live has been supersized to celebrate 30 days out from the games, and we'll be having the Johnson brothers, Stella and Superfecta, will be playing all simultaneously on three corners of the plaza down there at Cheapside, so that ought to be pretty exciting and pretty noisy, but we invite you all to come down and kick off. We are 30 days out, which about four years ago when we started this seemed like an eternity away, and it is no longer. It is now about to happen. So we invite all of you to come down and join us tonight for the 30 day out celebration. If there's no other business, meeting adjourned.