# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - September 23, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · September 23, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1552 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1552?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-09-23 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 24,712 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on September 23, 2010, at 1:32 p.m. in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Mike Cravens presiding. The meeting addressed 9 agenda items spanning zoning map amendments, a subdivision plan, and several amendments to planning regulations. Of the items considered, 5 received approval — including the Cadentown-Flat Rock Realty, LLC Final Subdivision Plan, the Milling Properties, LLC Zoning Map Amendment, and three regulatory amendments concerning parking requirements for bowling alleys, park and ride parking reductions, and big box guidelines — while 2 items were postponed (the James Waller and LARE Properties, LLC Zoning Map Amendments) and 1 item was withdrawn (the MAP Property Management Zoning Map Amendment). Over the course of the meeting, the Commission took 12 votes, heard 4 public comments, and considered no presentations. ## Attendance The following commissioners were recorded for the September 23, 2010 meeting: **Present (7):** - Eunice Beatty - Carla Blanton - Patrick Brewer - Mike Cravens - Derek Paulsen - Lynn Roche-Phillips - William Wilson **Absent (4):** - Marie Copeland - Ed Holmes - Mike Owens - Carolyn Richardson No commissioners were recorded as late. A majority of the commission's membership was present, allowing the meeting to proceed. ## Votes and Decisions All votes at the September 23, 2010 Commission meeting were conducted by voice vote and passed unanimously at 7–0. - **Minutes** – William Wilson moved, seconded by Eunice Beatty, to approve the minutes from August 26, 2010. Passed 7–0. [timestamp: 00:14:55] - **MAR 2010-3** – Patrick Brewer moved, seconded by Derek Paulsen, to accept the withdrawal of the MAP Property Management Zoning Map Amendment. Passed 7–0. [timestamp: 00:16:02] - **MAR 2010-9** – Patrick Brewer moved, seconded by Lynn Roche-Phillips, to postpone the James Waller Zoning Map Amendment to October 28, 2010. Passed 7–0. [timestamp: 00:17:43] - **MAR 2010-7** – William Wilson moved, seconded by Derek Paulsen, to postpone the LARE Properties, LLC Zoning Map Amendment to October 28, 2010. Passed 7–0. [timestamp: 00:19:21] - **PLAN 2010-73F** – Derek Paulsen moved, seconded by Patrick Brewer, to approve the Cadentown-Flat Rock Realty, LLC Final Subdivision Plan, subject to 11 conditions as listed in the revised staff report. Passed 7–0. [timestamp: 00:26:57] - **Article 6-8(a) Waiver** – Derek Paulsen moved, seconded by Patrick Brewer, to approve a waiver of Article 6-8(a) of the Land Subdivision Regulations for the reasons provided by staff. Passed 7–0. [timestamp: 00:27:29] - **MARV 2010-8** – Patrick Brewer moved, seconded by Derek Paulsen, to approve the Milling Properties, LLC Zoning Map Amendment. Passed 7–0. [timestamp: 00:52:17] - **ZDP 2010-48** – Patrick Brewer moved, seconded by Eunice Beatty, to approve the Tolly-Ho Property Development Plan. Passed 7–0. [timestamp: 00:52:51] - **Tolly-Ho Variances** – Patrick Brewer moved, seconded by Lynn Roche-Phillips, to approve the requested variances for front yard, parking, and landscape, based on staff's recommendation. Passed 7–0. [timestamp: 00:53:25] - **ZOTA 2010-2** – Derek Paulsen moved, seconded by William Wilson, to approve an amendment to parking requirements for bowling alleys, as staff recommended. Passed 7–0. [timestamp: 01:03:38] - **ZOTA 2010-3** – Patrick Brewer moved, seconded by William Wilson, to approve an amendment to Article 16 regarding Park and Ride parking reduction. Passed 7–0. [timestamp: 03:05:00] - **Big Box Guidelines Amendment** – Patrick Brewer moved, seconded by William Wilson, to approve an amendment to big box guidelines per staff recommendation. Passed 7–0. [timestamp: 03:07:31] ## Public Comment Four members of the public addressed the Commission during the public comment period, all speaking in opposition to the proposed expansion of Sayre Christian Village. - **Edward Shaw** [timestamp: 2:23:44] opened the public comment period by raising concerns about the potential impact of the expansion on property values, noise levels, and water runoff in the surrounding area. - **Billy Gospel** [timestamp: 2:28:49] spoke strongly against the proposed zoning change, echoing concerns about traffic and water runoff and emphasizing the impact the expansion would have on the character of the neighborhood. - **Steven Bird** [timestamp: 2:32:41] argued that the expansion would destroy property values and worsen traffic conditions. He also criticized Sayre Christian Village for failing to communicate directly with neighboring residents about the proposed project. - **Vicki Brown** [timestamp: 2:50:47] raised additional concerns about the loss of tax base resulting from the expansion, as well as traffic and the broader impact on the neighborhood's character. Across all four speakers, recurring themes included traffic increases, water runoff, declining property values, and the preservation of the neighborhood's existing character. Steven Bird's criticism regarding the lack of direct outreach from Sayre Christian Village was a notable point raised beyond the shared concerns. ## Contested Items - **Sayre Christian Village Expansion**: Residents raised objections to a proposed expansion of Sayre Christian Village during the meeting. Community members expressed concerns centered on several issues, including the potential impact on local property values, increased traffic in the area, and changes to the overall character of the neighborhood. The opposition reflected broader anxieties about how the expansion might alter the existing residential environment surrounding the facility. No additional details regarding the specific outcome of this item or the positions of other parties involved are available from the meeting record. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 14:55] The Commission took up the approval of minutes from its previous meeting, held on August 26, 2010. William Wilson and Eunice Beatty were the key speakers during this portion of the meeting. The minutes were presented for the Commission's review and consideration, and the item was approved without issue. ## MAP Property Management Zoning Map Amendment **Agenda Item: MAR 2010-3** [timestamp: 16:02] The Commission took up agenda item MAR 2010-3, the MAP Property Management Zoning Map Amendment, an ordinance requesting an amendment to the zoning map. Bruce Simpson was identified as a key speaker in connection with this item. The application was ultimately **withdrawn** before substantive deliberation by the Commission could take place. No further details regarding the nature of the proposed zoning map amendment, the specific property or location involved, or the reasons for the withdrawal are reflected in the available record for this meeting. ## James Waller Zoning Map Amendment **Agenda Item:** MAR 2010-9 [timestamp: 17:43] The Commission took up agenda item MAR 2010-9, the James Waller Zoning Map Amendment, an ordinance requesting a change to the zoning map. Bruce Simpson was the key speaker associated with this item during the meeting. The item was not advanced for a decision at the September 23, 2010 meeting. Instead, the Commission voted to postpone consideration of the James Waller Zoning Map Amendment to its **October 28, 2010 meeting**. No additional details regarding the substance of the proposed zoning map change, the specific zoning classifications involved, the location of the affected property, or any concerns raised during discussion are reflected in the available record for this agenda item. ## LARE Properties, LLC Zoning Map Amendment **Agenda Item:** MAR 2010-7 [timestamp: 19:21] The Commission took up agenda item MAR 2010-7, a zoning map amendment requested by LARE Properties, LLC. Tommy Todd was identified as a key speaker in connection with this item. The matter was not heard on its merits at the September 23, 2010 meeting. Instead, the Commission voted to postpone consideration of the LARE Properties, LLC zoning map amendment to its **October 28, 2010 meeting**. No additional details regarding the substance of the proposed zoning map amendment, the specific parcels or districts involved, any concerns raised, or the reasoning behind the postponement are reflected in the available record for this meeting. ## Cadentown-Flat Rock Realty, LLC Final Subdivision Plan **Agenda Item:** PLAN 2010-73F [timestamp: 26:57] The Commission took up the final subdivision plan submitted by Cadentown-Flat Rock Realty, LLC. Key speakers on this item were Derek Paulsen and Patrick Brewer. The item was brought forward as a resolution for Commission consideration. Following presentation and discussion, the Commission approved the final subdivision plan subject to 11 conditions. *Note: The available record does not include a detailed breakdown of the specific conditions attached to the approval, the nature of any concerns raised during discussion, or the specifics of what was presented by the key speakers. Readers seeking that level of detail are encouraged to consult the full meeting transcript or minutes beginning at approximately the 26:57 mark of the meeting recording.* ## Amendment to Parking Requirements for Bowling Alleys [timestamp: 1:03:38] The Commission took up agenda item ZOTA 2010-2, a proposed ordinance amendment to reduce the parking requirements for bowling alleys. The amendment sought to lower the required number of parking spaces per alley from five to four. Key speakers on this item included Derek Paulsen and William Wilson. The Commission considered the proposed reduction and moved toward a decision without significant recorded opposition in the structured record. The amendment was ultimately **approved** by the Commission. ## Amendment to Big Box Guidelines [timestamp: 3:07:31] The Commission took up a resolution to amend the Big Box Guidelines, with Patrick Brewer and William Wilson identified as the key speakers on this item. The amendment proposed adding park and ride lots to the list of acceptable pedestrian and transit-oriented facilities recognized under the Big Box Guidelines. This change would expand the types of facilities that qualify under the guidelines' provisions related to pedestrian and transit connectivity. The Commission approved the amendment. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of the minutes from August 26, 2010 - **MAR 2010-3** — withdrawn (7-0): Withdrawal of MAP Property Management Zoning Map Amendment - **MAR 2010-9** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of James Waller Zoning Map Amendment - **MAR 2010-7** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of LARE Properties, LLC Zoning Map Amendment - **PLAN 2010-73F** — passed (7-0): Approval of Cadentown-Flat Rock Realty, LLC Final Subdivision Plan - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of waiver of Article 6-8(a) of the Land Subdivision Regulations - **MARV 2010-8** — passed (7-0): Approval of Milling Properties, LLC Zoning Map Amendment - **ZDP 2010-48** — passed (7-0): Approval of Tolly-Ho Property Development Plan - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of requested variances for front yard, parking, and landscape - **ZOTA 2010-2** — passed (7-0): Approval of amendment to parking requirements for bowling alleys - **ZOTA 2010-3** — passed (7-0): Approval of amendment to Article 16, Park and Ride parking reduction - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of amendment to big box guidelines --- ## Full transcript 你 就像一场梦 你的声音可以带我去那里 就像一个神秘 你是一个神秘 就像一场梦 你想要看到的 就像一场梦 没有选择 你的声音可以带我去那里 就像一场梦 I will take you there 就像一场梦 你的声音可以带我去那里 就像一场梦 你就像一场梦 我的声音可以带我去那里 就像一场梦 I will take you there 你就像一场梦 我的声音可以带我去那里 就像一场梦 I will take you there 就像一场梦 Sweet pony You're like a dream I can't stop I want to hold you You're like a dream I can't stop I'm a dreamer I'm stupid I think I've been hit by you, baby No one needs to know right now I met a tall, dark, and handsome man I've been busy making big plans But no one needs to know right now I got my heart set, my feet wet But he don't even know, yeah But no one needs to know right now I'll tell him someday, someway, somehow But I'm gonna keep it a secret for now I want bells to ring, the choir to sing The white dress to get the kick The car to hold on plain But no one needs to know right now I'll tell him someday, someway, somehow But I'm gonna keep it a secret for now We'll have a little girl, a little boy A little band, and here we go And no one needs to know right now And I'm not lonely anymore At night And he don't know, lonely He can't make it right And I'm not lonely anymore At night And he don't know, lonely He can't make it right I'm not your dream man or stupid But boy, have I been hit by a key But no one needs to know right now No one, no one needs to know right now No one, no one needs to know right now No one, no one needs to know right now guitar solo guitar solo And I would do anything for love I'd run right into hell and back I would do anything for love I'd never lie to you and that's a fact But I'll never forget the way you feel right now Oh no, no way And I would do anything for love But I won't do that No, I won't do anything for love Oh, I would do anything for love I would do anything for love But I won't do that No, I won't do that guitar solo And some days it don't come easy And some days it don't come hard And some days it don't come at all And these are the days that never end And some nights you're breathing fire And some nights you're caught in ice And some nights you're like nothing I've ever seen And some nights you're like nothing I've ever seen Before or will again And maybe I'm crazy Oh, it's crazy and it's true I know you can save me No one else can save me now but you As long as the planets are turning As long as the stars are burning As long as your dreams are coming true You better believe it That I would do anything for love And I'll be there till the final act And I would do anything for love And I'll take a vow and seal the pact orchestral music plays orchestral music plays orchestral music plays orchestral music plays orchestral music plays orchestral music plays orchestral music plays orchestral music plays indistinct chatter orchestral music plays indistinct chatter indistinct chatter Okay, let's, uh... We'd like to go on and start the meeting. Welcome to the zoning meeting for the Planning Commission. Our Chairwoman, Carolyn Richardson, is not here today. She is very heavily involved in Spotlight Lexington, and I guess she probably has something to do this afternoon to get that ready. So I'm the Vice Chairman, Mike Cravens, and I'm going to try and get us through today. So we'll call the meeting to order. The first on our agenda is approval of the minutes from August 26, 2010. Can we have a motion? You need to speak into the microphone for the record. So moved. So we have a motion for approval from Mr. Wilson and a second from Eunice Beatty. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right, next, postponements and withdrawals. Do we have any of those today? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Bruce Simpson. I have one item I'd like to withdraw. It's on page 2, the map property management zone map amendment on Liberty Road. We'd like to withdraw that application. I don't know if that needs a vote. One item we do need to postpone is on page number 6, item 5, James Waller's zone map amendment. Let's take them on. You want to withdraw this? We are withdrawing, yes. Okay. MAR 2010-3. Correct. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak to this? Seeing none, can we have a motion for withdrawal? Make a motion. I make a motion that we accept Mr. Simpson's withdrawal of MAR 2010-3. All right. Do we have a second? We have a second. Vote when in. Are you going to put it up? We have to wait until our. If you don't let me withdraw, does this mean I have to put on a case? No. We're going to vote by the rules here. Okay. Okay. Next, Mr. Simpson. The next one is a request for postponement, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. On page number 6, item number 5, James Waller. An issue came to our attention late yesterday or early yesterday morning, I should say, about the tension issues associated with the development that we need to work with engineering on. We've met with Hillard Newman about it. He's aware of it. I talked with the staff yesterday and told them that we need some additional time to address those concerns, and so we're requesting a one-month postponement on that. Okay. We have a one-month request for a one-month postponement of MAR 2010-9. Does anyone in the audience want to address that? Seeing none, can we have a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move that we postpone MAR 2010-9, James Waller, for one month, did you say? Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second for a one-month postponement. Do we have a date on that, Mr. Salih? Mr. Chairman, your meeting in October for zoning items is on the 28th. October 28th. Okay. All in favor, vote aye. Nays? Okay. Thank you. Yes. Mr. Chairman, my name is Tommy Todd. I represent item number three, the zoning matters layer of properties. It's MAR 2010-7. It's on page four of the agenda. And I'd ask that we postpone both items A and B, the request for zone change and also the request to approve the development plan. Okay. We have a postponement for MAR 2010-7 and the accompanying development plans, EDP 2010-47. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address this? Seeing none, can we have a motion for postponement? Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of MAR 2010-7, the accompanying article 2010-47. We have a motion for postponement. We have a second. Second. We have a second. All in favor, vote when you see the screen. One motion is fine, but we assume to October 28th as well. Right. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Next we have a no more postponements. Next we have a subdivision plan, plan 2010-73F. I just want to say while they're setting up that we have some college classes in attendance today. I guess they probably have to come. Professor Moore, she's a BOA member, her land use law class is here, and our own Ms. Lynn Phillips introduction to planning class is here, or some of them. And this probably weighs real heavy on their score. Can't watch it on TV. They've got to come down. The first item on your agenda is on page 1, item 1. It is plan 2010-73F for Cadentown Flat Rock Realty LLC. That is a final record flat for property located at 752 Cadentown Lane. The property is located off of the former Liberty Road, now Cadentown Road, intersection with Cadentown Lane, Todd's Road being just below to the south. The subject property is this lot right here. It is primarily covered with trees, and there is no residents currently on the property. The applicant is requesting to subdivide this one lot into two lots. The subdivision committee recommended approval, I'm sorry, the subdivision committee recommended postponement of this last meeting. An issue with the tree preservation area that had not been clarified on the plan, there was none, and given the significant trees on the site or the significant number of trees on the site, we had wanted the applicant to give us that tree inventory as well as to have the urban forester on site to take a look at it and make sure we got an appropriate tree canopy preservation. The staff received a revised plan earlier this week, and the plan does identify a significant tree preservation area in excess of the 30 percent required by the ordinance. Based on that submission, the staff did provide you a revised recommendation. It's on the TAN sheet. There are now 11 conditions, the first 10 being sign-offs as well as a few clean-up items. The 11th being provided that the Planning Commission grants a waiver to Article 6-8 of the subdivision regulations related to completion of full public street improvements. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the sidewalks on this side of the street, and Mr. Martin will go over that waiver with you. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Commission, do you have any questions? Ms. Phillips? Mr. Taylor, how big are these two lots? They're both just over half an acre, .66 acres each. .66 acres each. Any other questions? Okay. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the waiver request that you have before you today is contained in this report that was handed out and should be at your seats. The request is for a waiver of 6-8A of the subdivision regulations. This is the regulation that governs public improvements along street frontages when you have a subdivision of a lot. Of course, they are required to put improvements in normally. In this particular situation, as you may recall, there's historic overlay on this property. It's designed to protect the rural character of the property. Large lots are one characteristic. Also, Caden Lane is predominantly still rural in its appearance and function. There was a public project done a few years ago that did put a sidewalk on the opposite side on the exterior of the road that leads to the church. The staff has reviewed this. We talked with traffic engineering. They did not see any need for public improvements. The sidewalk, it was felt, would be one of those that you heard mentioned here quite often, one of those sidewalks to nowhere. And so we did not want to encourage people crossing the street, putting themselves at risk with vehicular traffic, to cross back and forth on a short section of sidewalk. It would only be approximately 152 feet in length. You may also recall we recently had a lot split up near Old Liberty Road on this property where this body also granted a waiver to the sidewalk requirement for that subdivision as well. So we are recommending approval. We don't believe that this waiver will have any impact on public health and safety. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Any questions from the commission? Okay. Thank you. Is the petitioner here? Chairman Cravens, members of the Planning Commission, members of the staff, my name is Mike Robbins and I'm here representing Foster Rowland Incorporated for the petitioner. We have obviously been in communication with the planning staff and we are aware of the conditions and we're actually, I've got almost all of them finished. So bearing that in mind, I would like to request an approval. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this? Okay. I don't see any. All right. Commission, can we have a motion? I'd like to make a motion for approval of Plan 2010-73F Cadentown Flat Rock Realty LLC with the 11 conditions as described. All right. Do we have a second? We have a second. All in favor, vote aye when it comes up. Okay. Mr. Paulson, do you want to move the waiver? Make a motion for approval of the waiver of Article 6A of the Land Subdivision Regulations. We have a motion and a second for approval of the waiver. All in favor, vote aye when it comes up. Okay. Thank you. Next, we have our abbreviated public hearings. Mr. Salih. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There may be one remaining zoning item on your agenda that may qualify this afternoon for an abbreviated hearing. That item is number four on your agenda, which appears at the bottom of page four, but mostly on page five. This is MARV 2010-8, the zone change request by Milling Properties, LLC. This zone change request is from a B4 zone, a wholesale and warehouse business zone, to a requested neighborhood business zone for property located at 604 through 606 South Broadway. At this time, Mr. Chairman, we would ask if anyone is present in the audience who wishes either to discuss this zone change or object to this zone change proposed by Milling Properties on South Broadway. Mr. Chairman, seeing none, we can dispense with this item in abbreviated fashion, and we'll be prepared to begin in just a moment. Okay. Thank you. Also, Mr. Salih, can we, the ZOTA 2010-2 parking requirements, can that be abbreviated? Mr. Chairman, ordinarily we do not abbreviate text amendments. Text amendments, however, I understand you've been requested by the attorney for the applicant due to a scheduling conflict to see if this item could be abbreviated. This appears on the middle of page seven, ZOTA 2010-2. It is recommended for approval by your staff and by your zoning committee. Again, we would ask at this time if anyone is present that wishes to discuss the first text amendment on the agenda, ZOTA 2010-2, a request to alter parking requirements for bowling alleys. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, there are no public members that wish to comment. Okay. So we'll take that right after this. Good afternoon, Chairman Cravens, members of the commission. As Mr. Salih mentioned, this item is MARV 2010-8, and you can find it on the bottom of page three and continuing on to page four of your agenda. Also, the staff report and associated materials are found in your notebook at your place there behind tab four. The petitioner has requested a wholesale warehouse before zone from – I'm sorry, has requested to change from the wholesale warehouse business zone to the neighborhood business zone for this location. The subject property is located on the southeast side of South Broadway, and it also has a slight bit of frontage on Bolivar. In this vicinity, you have South Broadway, which continues into the downtown area, and Bolivar Street, which is existing, a connection between South Broadway and South Limestone. Also in this vicinity, we have the extension of what is now Oliver Lewis Way, which will come in at the intersection of Bolivar and South Broadway, and that's expected at some time in the future. In the vicinity, the uses that you'll see include a car wash, another business – mixture of business uses along South Broadway, as well as some newer multifamily residential uses, especially there's the Lexington Lofts along Bolivar Street, sort of to the rear of the subject property, as well as the Lex development, which is to the northeast of the subject property. And that's on our zoning map, also on the overhead. This is just an aerial photograph. It gives you some more context for the subject property. The applicant is proposing to reuse the existing building. And we'll zoom in a little bit. You can see many of the newer structures along the corridor of South Broadway appear in our new 2010 aerial photos. This photo does show the corner of Bolivar and South Broadway, and the subject property currently houses the Harts dry cleaner, and it wraps around what you see in the foreground of this photo, which is 600 South Broadway. It's a business use there. A little bit better photograph from the other side of the building, you can see the existing signage on the property, which is a little iconic for the dry cleaner that used to be located there. This is coming from the Bolivar side of the property and does show there's a billboard on the property and then also a very narrow access out to South Broadway. And then this last photograph shows the rear of the property, and this photo is actually of what was formerly a railroad bed and was abandoned, and the University of Kentucky actually purchased this property, and it's currently being used by the Lexington Moffs for parking as well as the subject property for some parking. The comprehensive plan at this location, I'm sorry, the proposed use for this location is a restaurant with associated parking. I believe that the applicant is asking for variances. One of the variances is for parking. They're not able to meet the parking requirement on site, so they will be planning to lease parking from both the University of Kentucky on the railroad property as well as the adjacent parcel, which is the early tobacco co-op. This area is within the Newtown Pike Extension small area plan, and that was incorporated within the comprehensive plan in 2007. That plan and now the 2007 comprehensive plan both recommend retail trade and personal services land use at this location, and the small area plan also provides a little bit more vision for this vicinity in terms of creating a vital part of the core of Lexington. They're hoping to, with the vision, exhibit a mixture of uses and also create a place where residents can live, work, and entertain themselves. The small area plan also recommends that the area shown on our comprehensive plan is PR, which is parks and recreation or use to be utilized as a bike and pedestrian trail. The comprehensive plan's use recommendation for the lot is in line with the applicant's request for a B1 zone, and for that reason the staff is recommending approval of the requested zone change, but the staff would note that the recommendation for a trail that would go through this portion of now the adjacent property may be problematic for the applicant only in terms of their proposal to lease parking from the University of Kentucky, and they have now been aware of that situation and are aware that they could lease or they could lose some leased parking if the university and the city join together to do the trail at that location. Again, the staff is recommending approval of this requested zone change, and as always it is a recommendation of approval subject to the approval of the development plan and certification of that within two weeks of the planning commission's action. Happy to answer any questions about this zone change. Any questions for Ms. White? Thank you. Afternoon. The development plan for this zone change is at the bottom of page five on your agenda and at the top of page six. It is ZDP 2010-48 Tally Ho Property. This is a preliminary development plan. You will see a final development plan for this property in the future. As Tracy has laid out, the property is located at 604 and 606 South Broadway at the intersection of South Broadway and Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to utilize an existing 7,600 square foot building. Based on the size of the building and the number of seats that they have provided to us on the plan, the applicant has required 30 parking spaces where they have five on their site. They do have proposed a lease area of 19 spaces from the Burley tobacco facility here, as well as an additional nine as Tracy has laid out on the University of Kentucky right-of-way property, former railroad right-of-way property in this area. They also show their dumpster location in this area and that area as well. There was or currently is existing a section of the building back here that they are proposing to remove that would allow for traffic circulation in this area through the rear of the proposed restaurant to allow people to get out on Boulevard Street as well. So this would be a one-way traffic circulation here behind the building. The subdivision committee recommended approval at its last meeting, though the applicant did submit a revised plan that clarified the area to be leased for parking as well as their required and provided parking that's necessary. They gave us their seat information, which allowed us to determine which generator was going to pertain to the requirement for them. They do have a requirement of 30. They are showing 33 spaces. However, 28 of those are off-site and leased or to be leased through two different entities. They are requesting parking as well as landscape and front yard variances that Mr. Emmons will get into in just a moment. The revised set of conditions that staff has handed out on a 10-sheet of paper leaves 12 conditions, the 12th one being to denote the future plan for a multi-use trail on the adjacent property to the approval of the green space planners. Tracy laid out there is a shown plan for a greenway through the former railroad right-of-way, and there will need to be some notation on this plan as to how that will be handled in the future. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about the development plan before Mr. Emmons comes to talk about variances. Any questions about the development plan? The multi-use trail, is there any kind of time frame on that? None that we're aware of at this time. Is it going to have to pull up the parking lot to do this? It may well. I have some late information. We had our quarterly coordination meeting with the University of Kentucky just this morning, right before this hearing, and we did talk about this. There is some possibility that we could actually get this construction as part of future phases of Oliver Lewis Way, Newtown Pike Extension, and it was mentioned and included in the environmental impact report for that project. So we're going to schedule a meeting in the very near future, now that U.K. owns that, which wasn't the case when we had the environmental impact statement, to see if we can make a timeline and work it into the construction plans for that project. So there will be more to come on that, but it's actually moving up higher on the radar screen, which we all think is good news. The practical impact on the development plan is that these nine spaces that are currently existing would have to come out. It would probably mean, if they are aware of that at the time of the final development plan, it could mean a relocation of the dumpster. But like Mr. King said, it's something we will see that on the final development plan. Ms. Phillips? Can you orient us as to how that trail would move through the property? I understand you just said the nine spaces would. To my knowledge, from what we've seen, it's preliminary for coming off the Newtown Pike Extension plan, but it just shows it coming down through here. It may even impact some of the spaces for the McGoodwin lofts. Where will it connect off-site? Will it connect with the University of Kentucky? That's my understanding, is that it will be down towards their redevelopment area that was proposed some time ago. Does it come out near Taylor Education Building? I'm not certain exactly where it's to terminate. Is it possible that the establishment, the development of this trail would reduce individuals driving to the site and maybe university students walking to the site? Well, it would certainly make it more pedestrian accessible. Thank you. Any other questions? Chris, did you say, how many conditions did you say? There are 12 remaining conditions on the revised recommendation. Ms. Phillips, I would just offer that there is a map in the Newtown Pike plan that shows it connecting from this intersection and over to Scott Street and then continuing on along the existing railroad. So it doesn't show the pedestrian and multiuse trail following, continuing to follow the extension, but it would basically connect the two portions, the Scott Street portion and then this where it connects to Bolivar. If that helps, thank you. Let me point to the intersection. And then it would continue south to this intersection with Scott Street. And this is the administration building. Okay, thank you. Mr. Ammons. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. I'm happy to wrap up the staff presentation with a presentation on the three variances to the zoning ordinance which are being requested. I do have some pictures of the property, and believe it or not, that will help me stay abbreviated to go through them. There are three variances that are requested, a variance to the front yard from 20 feet to 4 feet, a variance of the required parking to 50 percent of the required parking, and a variance to the landscaping for the parking area. This is a picture that you've already seen, but it's got the front yard variance along there. To make a long story short, there are three different sections of our zoning ordinance which are all competing to say what the building line should be for this property if it's rezoned. It's very good. You can say that the default building line setback of 20 feet would be the winner of all of those regulations. The applicant has requested a variance to 4 feet. The building itself is about 16 feet back from the right of way. Going down Bolivar Street and into the back of the parking lot, I want to talk just a little bit about the landscaping variances that are being requested. I tried to kind of highlight what is the applicant's property and where the U.K. property is, because as mentioned before, the staff does see those parking spaces that are shown on the U.K. property as temporary in nature. So as we look at it, the applicants are proposing some cars in there, and you can see from the very odd shape and relatively small size of the lot compared to the building, it would be very difficult to put in a landscape island and, well, could actually be kind of disastrous to put that in. I apologize for the joke. That is a bit of a joke, but the truth of the matter is it is a very small piece of property, and the landscape variance is justified for this. Looking at that, that leads you to with the very small parking lot, what are they going to do about their parking? They have requested a parking variance, which you can do inside the infill and redevelopment area in the B1 zone that they are requesting. Their required parking for their proposed restaurant use would be 30 spaces. The most important fact with this is that what they are proposing to do is to adaptively reuse the Harts building and turn it into a restaurant. Had the applicants gone for an adaptive reuse project, the base parking would be one-half of the otherwise required parking. Using that logic that this is an adaptive reuse project in reality, even if not by name in the ordinance, that does get us to where granting the 50 percent parking variance is a justifiable parking variance. Since they are providing 33 spaces, five of which are only on their subject property, I've got numbers coming up. Essentially what this would do, granting the parking variance would mean that the applicants would still have to find 10 off-site parking spaces to lease throughout for their use. This is important because if the, whenever the trail system does go in towards University of Kentucky and those nine spaces are lost, we will not be creating a non-conforming situation for this proposed restaurant. And looking back, just a little bit of visuals, at the rear of the property, there is a little portion of the building. I tried to put in where the U.K., rough in where the U.K. property line is there. On the back of the property, there is a small addition that they are proposing to take off, and that's so that traffic can come on their property from the Burley Tobacco property through this property. And there's the, looking down the greenway, as you can see, it does have a lot of grade change between where the person is walking down here and where the cars are parked up there. As we go on and look at that greenway system and look at the fact that those cars are, or those nine parking spaces are temporary, and the fact that this, the staff's recommendation for approval of the 50 percent parking variance is contingent upon the adaptive reuse of the Hart's dry cleaning building, we are recommending approval of all of those variances. Just a real quick visual summary of the variances that we are recommending approval of. We are recommending approval of the front yard variance to four feet. That leaves space for a four-foot landscaping area, which we are recommending be provided along the right-of-way of South Broadway. That would allow the applicants to put in additions on the building. They have proposed a patio, said that they want to turn that into some patio seating. We are recommending approval of the landscaping variance subject to providing the landscaping along South Broadway and repairing the sidewalk and closing the access point and the parking, all for the reasons in the staff. This is a, through this conceptual picture in there that shows how a planter could be put in. The Landscape Review Committee did meet on this before this meeting, and they did recommend approval of the landscaping variances. It was brought up at that time that it would be important to have some sort of substantial barrier, so to give the people in the patio some good separation from the cars on South Broadway. Hence the reason we sketched in just a brick planter or something along that lines. In reality, the conditions of the staff report says that at the time of the final development plan, we will go through all of the details of how that planting and planters would go. This is my concept, not the applicant's. They didn't propose this, but it's how our staff recommendation could come to fruition. I hope that the applicants, when they bring in their final development plan, are actually a little better designers than me. That is the end of the staff reports. If you have any questions on the variances, I would be happy to try and answer them, or field any questions that you have in general on this project for the staff. Any questions for Mr. Emmons? That was a very enlightening audiovisual presentation. Thank you. Did you do that? Sir. Did somebody do it for you? No, sir, I didn't. All right. Thank you. Thank you. The petitioner, are they? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bruce Simpson on behalf of the applicant. We appreciate the staff's thorough presentation and research and discussion of these issues. We're in complete agreement with all of the conditions and urge your approval. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak? Yes. My name is Charles Hyde. I live at 929 Aurora. I just wanted to say that Tally Ho has been an institution at the University of Kentucky for more than, since I've been at school, and Bill and I were classmates some 30 years ago, and I just, as a city planner, I hope that you all will do everything you can to make sure that they go into this new location. I hate to lose Tally Ho, and I just wanted to let you know that they are currently surviving at their current location with only eight parking spaces. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for that testimony. We now close the hearing part of this and turn it over to the commission for a motion. Or you may ask questions. I have a question for the applicant. The building itself, and I know that building inspections will address this, but would the building signage, the shirts on the front of the building remain in place? Roy? Football jerseys, you know, basketball jerseys. I'll let him answer that question. The past owner is the one who we're purchasing from, wants to take those T-shirt signs with her. That's part of her establishment she wants to keep, so we'll be taking those down. Probably the whole awning part, we'll just put the Tally Ho blue awning across the front. Can we get your name and address? My name and address, Roy Milling, 101 Sagar Lane, Nicholsville. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. So let's have a motion for the zone change first. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of MARV 2010-8. Okay. We have a motion for approval. Second. We have a second. Mr. Paulson, vote with your finger. Do we need to? Okay. Now I need a motion for the development plan. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the associated development plan, ZDP 2010-48. Okay. We have a motion for approval of the development plan, and we have a second. We have a second. Ms. Beatty, all in favor, vote aye. Okay. Motion carries. Now we need a motion for the requested variance. I now lost that one. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the requested variance for front yard parking and landscape based on the staff's recommendation. All right. Thank you. We have a motion for approval of the variance. Do we have a second? We have a second by Ms. Phillips. All in favor, vote aye. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. Our next. Chairman Cravens, the next item on our agenda would be on page 7. It's under tab 6 of our notebooks, and it's ZOTA 2010-2, an amendment to article 8-20N of the zoning ordinance. This is to modify the parking requirements for bowling alleys. 8-20N is part of the zoning ordinance listed under highway service business zone, the B3 zone, and currently it states that five parking spaces shall be required for each bowling alley, and the applicant is proposing to reduce that to four spaces per alley and also to add a small phrase that says, however, snack bars and food service provided primarily to patrons shall not require additional parking. The applicant in this case is the Collins Bowling Center, and they are requesting this amendment primarily because they feel their lot has never been fully utilized for their parking, but also to accommodate their desire for greater entertainment, specifically at the South Limbo location for a miniature golf course. And this text amendment will allow for a reduction in parking and allow that eventually to occur under some different assessments. The only exception to the lot not being used fully on a regular basis, the staff believe, was at special events, for instance, the Bowl for Kids' Sake fundraisers. We felt at those times the lots are used more fully. Therefore, the applicant is asking that this reduction of 20 percent be allowed because they feel that our existing requirement for parking is too stringent. In terms of the 20 percent reduction, the staff used the American Planning Association's report called Parking Standards and looked at what other parking standards are in place for other communities around the country. Typically, most communities use a minimum number of spaces per alley, and the minimum we found was two spaces per alley, and that was in two instances that we found, Ithaca, New York, and St. Louis, Missouri. And the highest requirement was five parking spaces per alley, and the examples for that were in Knoxville, Tennessee, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Raleigh, North Carolina. This report also identified a larger number of communities that do use the four per alley, and our staff report identifies those as Burbank, California, Gresham, Oregon, Covington and Louisville, Kentucky, Columbus, Ohio, and Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. So that is the most common way to regulate parking for bowling alleys. And so the staff, in double-checking that, also looked at the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which is a transportation engineering manual, to look at what kind of traffic generation a bowling alley has, and we found that the weekday peak was in the p.m., and that at that time generally the traffic generation is about 3.75 cars or vehicles per lane. And so the four parking spaces per alley was very consistent with that. For that reason, the staff felt comfortable with the applicant's request to reduce it from five to four. In terms of their request to eliminate parking for the snack bar or associated, that particularly associated use, the staff also felt comfortable with that because typically a snack bar is not going to draw individuals from the community in. It's oriented towards the patrons of the bowling alley. And in addition, the snack bar in the past, we've used the restaurant generator for parking, which is one parking space per four seats or one parking space per 200 gross square foot of floor area. In either case, the staff felt that that would not generate very many parking spaces, maybe five or ten at the most for a particular snack bar. So the staff did feel comfortable, again, with allowing any parking that a snack bar generated to be included with the four per alley calculation. And the staff did note in our report that we would not be comfortable in changing the text to allow that same discount for nightclubs, which the applicant also has a nightclub at at least one of their or bar situation at one of their bowling alleys. The staff, again, is recommending approval of this ZOTA, and we feel that the parking for bowling alleys should be reduced in order to provide more efficient use of land within the community. We also feel like it would not create any non-conformities or no and most likely no foreseeable negative consequences and that it was consistent with other communities as well as the ITE trip generation manual requirements. Happy to answer any questions about this text amendment. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Applicant? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I represent Collins Bowling Centers. And with me today is Patrick Collins and Daniel Collins. We're on the third row there from Collins Bowling Center. And as you can see, it's a family-owned business, has been for 51 years, started in 1959 here in Lexington. And as Ms. Wade mentioned, we requested this text amendment to give you a little background as to why we did. Collins Bowling Centers wants to increase the family entertainment options at the site on Southland by adding a miniature golf facility on the right side of the building. It will be a very nice facility like you might see in resort areas, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, places like that. And in order to do that, we have to supply 27 more parking spaces to meet the parking requirement for a miniature golf facility. We have that land available. On the left side of the building, you don't really notice it if you drive by on Southland Drive, but there's an open green field on the left side of the building, which is now used for the Southland Jamboree, which is the bluegrass music event every Tuesday night during warm weather. And it's been very popular in Southland among residents and the businesses both. So we faced a situation there where in order to provide that additional parking, we'd have to pave that space. Southland Jamboree said that they did not want it paved. They'd have to move elsewhere or leave that area if it were paved. So that forced us to look at the parking situation, and we checked other cities, as Ms. Wade mentioned, and we found that the range in parking, a lot of cities require two spaces per alley. We require five here in Lexington right now. A lot of cities require four. And in operating this business for 50 years, Collin's family has never seen the lot fully utilized. So they knew from experience they did not need all the parking that they have right now. So we, as I said, we did study parking in other areas and felt we were justified based on other cities and based upon the experience of this site in asking you for a reduction from five to four spaces per alley. They have 40 alleys here at this site. Also on the snack bar, we looked at that as well. We do have to provide additional parking for the snack bar and for the nightclub, by the way. We're not asking for any change for the nightclub. The nightclub would still have to provide its own parking or additional parking. But for the snack bar, the people who go to the snack bar are bowlers. They're there to bowl right now. They go to the snack bar to get a piece of pizza or something like that and go back to the alley. So we're not generating additional traffic for the snack bar. So that was the genesis of that request as well. of that request as well. So with that, I think the staff has very well explained the text amendment and we would ask your approval of this and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Okay. Thank you. Is anyone in the audience here to speak for this? Okay, seeing none, we'll turn it back over to the Commission. Any further discussion or a motion? Mr. Paulson. I'd like to make a motion for approval of ZOTA 2010-2, parking requirements for bowling alleys, as staff has recommended. Okay, we have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? We have a second from Mr. Wilson. Vote aye. Okay, motion carries. Mr. Chairman, that concludes the abbreviated items. We'll prepare to set up for the first full hearing in just a moment. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Salley, we have a request for some more time by the applicant. Would you like to go over that? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to. I've distributed to you a letter from Ms. Wiseman requesting more than 30 minutes of presentation time on this next item. If I could refer you to the top of page 2 of your agenda, the Planning Commission's bylaws set time limits on all presentations at your hearings. Ms. Wiseman has asked for an additional 30 minutes of time. The staff usually reviews those requests. This request was made Monday of this week and your bylaws require the request to be in writing more than 48 hours in advance of hearing. The staff believes that this request is justified. The main reason is that there are actually three applications for the commission to consider with this hearing. You have a normal zone change and development plan. You also have a request for a conditional use permit. So there is more on the table, if you will, at this hearing than a typical Planning Commission hearing. In addition, your bylaws also set the time limit for any witnesses of the applicant. We expect that Ms. Wiseman will have three witnesses, their engineer, their architect, and their administrator for the facility. If each of them were granted an additional five minutes of time, that would equal one hour of presentation time. The staff did recommend to you that this request does seem justifiable and we don't think necessarily it will set a precedent for every zone change that you review. Thank you. Okay, thank you. The Chair does allow the extra time. Okay, let's get started. Before we get started, this item is on page three of your agenda and can be found behind tab two in your notebook. There has been a staff exhibit circulated or put at your place. In addition, the notebook provides two staff reports, one for the zone change and one for the conditional use. However, those two reports recommend postponement and the new staff report should be at your place setting. In the notebook, though, it would show the map of the property and the applicant's justification letter and the application itself. So all of that material is in the notebook, but the two newest staff reports should be separate also on TAN paper. I will circulate, the staff did receive one letter of opposition within the past month or so for the Planning Commission to consider. This is a zone change, MARC, and this is a with a conditional use request as well. 2010-5, the request is by Sayre Christian Village and the proposal is to rezone 1.16 acres from an R1C, which is one of our single family residential zones, to a high-density apartment R4 zone. The property is located on Bellawood Drive and is bound to the north by the existing Sayre Christian Village, which is a single family residential zone. The property is located on the north side of the Sayre Christian Village campus and specifically the nursing home location. To the west, it is bound by Camelot Drive. To the east, it's bound by Greenfield Drive. And again, to the south is Bellawood. And the existing use and zoning around these five properties are the nursing home. In addition, there are single family residences that follow Greenfield Drive, although they are in an R2 zone. Further along Camelot and into Whispering Hills, there is more dense development, quite a few townhouses and fourplexes, I believe. The applicant is proposing to rezone these five parcels in order to expand their nursing home facility. And in more specifics, they hope to create a new Alzheimer's wing, provide a recreation room, rehabilitation room and gyms, I'm sorry, rooms and a gym, a new lobby and administrative offices, as well as create a palliative care unit for terminally ill patients. Incorporating these five parcels will allow the applicant to expand their building as well as parking and provide an entrance on Bellawood Drive, which currently their entrance for the nursing home is, their primary entrance is on Camelot Drive. I'd like to look at a few photographs. And this is an aerial view of the subject property, as well as it also shows the Sayre campus to the north. And you can see that they have the nursing home facility, which is existing, an assisted living facility. And then off this photo, there's some elderly housing, but the subject parcels are along the frontage of Bellawood Drive. And this next photo shows it a little bit better from an oblique aerial. There are two primary elderly housing buildings and the assisted living facility and the existing nursing home. And zoom in a little bit on the five structures that are proposed to be removed with this zone change and the development plan, additional use associated with it. The staff did take a few ground level photographs of the area. This is, these are the first two homes on Bellawood, and that would be 3789 and 3785 Bellawood Drive. This is a view of just traffic along Bellawood. These are the, what I would consider the middle two, 3781 and 3777 Bellawood. And then this last photo is from the corner of Greenfield and Bellawood looking to the northwest and shows the fifth house in the foreground kind of coming off this photo. And lastly, this is a photograph along the rear property lines of a few of the homes, and it shows the existing landscape buffer along the parking lot for the nursing home and the small amount of space, probably five feet, and then the fence for the rear property of the homes. The comprehensive plan in this location does recommend low density residential for these five parcels, and the staff originally in looking at our report assessed that as what the comprehensive plan recommends. In the past six weeks to eight weeks, the staff has taken the opportunity to look at the applicant's revised justification, and also we have spent quite a bit of time grappling with the notion of removing five existing residences and trying to make a decision and recommendation to the planning commission that was sound in terms of the comprehensive plan and in terms of what's appropriate at this location. Since recommending postponement to the zoning committee several weeks ago, the staff spent a considerable amount of time deliberating about this recommendation, and in reexamining the 2007 comprehensive plan, we found some justification for supporting the applicant's rezoning. This supplemental report that you see at your place outlines the staff's recommendation and specifically outlines the 2007 comprehensive plan and how it relates to this particular site, and I want to, before this map was produced before, we wrote the supplemental report so it doesn't show completely Sayer's parcel, what they own. It actually goes off that photo to the north, but I would show on the comprehensive plan map, the large one we have here, the area to be considered. Let me orient myself. Here's our Bellewood Drive connecting from Man o' War Boulevard to the north at Wilson Downing, and the subject properties are these five parcels fronting on Bellewood, but the remainder of the Sayer campus is recommended for a combination of land use. It's recommended on the rear of their campus as open space or green space because of steep slopes and floodplain. It's also recommended for very high density, and this area in the dark brown overlaps where the existing nursing home is, where the existing assisted living and elderly housing units are, and then there's a vacant tract, and it is visible on this one, that's recommended for medium density residential. So the staff looked at the collective comprehensive plan recommendation for the property that Sayer currently has control of, as well as the use or the parcels that are recommended or asked for rezoning. Collectively, the existing development on the property has 254 dwelling units and a nursing home with 109 bedrooms or beds, excuse me, in 61 rooms, and the applicant is proposing through something called the continuum of care and residential facility or campus, they're allowed to add, in this case, 20 beds, and I know Ms. Wiseman will clarify if I don't say that correctly. But the density, if averaged by the comprehensive plan for this area, would allow 336 dwelling units or up to 543 dwelling units, if you look at especially that very high density land use recommendation. So the proposed expansion will actually help the campus better meet the comprehensive plan's overall recommendation for their property, and that is, given the mixture of very high density, medium density, low density, and open space land uses in the vicinity. Still, the comprehensive plan is not based solely on this land use map or the land use statistics, and the staff dug a little deeper to find some goals and objectives that supported this case. First of all, goal 13, and that is in your staff exhibits, it's on page 25, talks about providing housing opportunities to meet the needs of all citizens, and specifically objective C discusses providing opportunities for all residents, including the elderly, and doing so in an affordable and efficient manner. Goal 15, the next page, talks about preserving, protecting, and enhancing quality, the existing quality of neighborhoods, and the staff felt that the nursing home does enhance the quality of the neighborhood. And then lastly, goal 20, to provide and maintain a range of community facilities and services, and in particular, objective P, which, I'm sorry, wasn't one of the ones copied, but it discusses in particular those nursing facilities that are private in our community that do support the community good and provide for the need of our elderly. In support of those goals and objectives, the staff found that the state data center has projected our two oldest cohorts, which are the 80 to 84 year ages, and then the 85 plus years old group are expected to double from 2010 until 2040. The staff also expects that the needs for health care would grow proportionately with that expansion. And the applicant is in line with that, proposing to expand their use and provide an Alzheimer's unit, provide more private rooms, provide post-acute care after surgery for the residents on their campus, and also to create a rehabilitation gym that is a size and quality that can meet the needs of their residents. In addition, the comprehensive plan within the land use element also has some text that identifies kind of some basic land use principles, and one of those is to transition effectively between different intensities of adjacent land uses. And the staff in this case found that Bellewood Drive would be as good a boundary for a land use buffer between the nursing home and the adjacent low density residential as the existing rear line of those properties. The five residences located there now currently serve as the buffer for the rest of the neighborhood, and should a substantial expansion occur and those five houses remain there, the staff felt that they could be disproportionately affected by a taller building, larger building closer to their property line, some of those situations. In addition, the staff with the proposed zoning saw benefit of creating more of a front yard and having that front yard or the building and any other use set back the same distance as the existing residences. And then the last element of the comprehensive plan that we look to, there's a section in the implementation element that really discusses how plan interpretation can be considered beyond the land use plan. And within the staff report, we've identified or quoted what that text says, and it's also in the staff's exhibit on the last page. It's really other items to consider besides the land use element, and the staff found that those bullets, those guideposts really help to support the applicant's case rather than sticking with the status quo at this location. And lastly, the staff does agree that the petitioners, with the petitioners' proposed use and agreed that it was appropriate at this location, and then along with that, that the R4 zoning to accomplish that particular use is also appropriate. We found that because the existing nursing home and remainder of the campus are already R4 zone, and the expansion of that zoning is most logical at this location rather than another zone that might allow that use. And additionally, the subject property, this property can be logically incorporated into the existing nursing home facility since it is adjacent. So the topographic challenges of the site weighed into this property being appropriately rezoned for R4. And I would just note that Ms. Wiseman and I spoke or emailed, communicated earlier today, and we put a statement in the staff report that said, in fact, the nursing home facility owned the land, and she had done a little research, and that's not the case. They never owned it. They did, this particular entity didn't, but the previous entity did rezone that property from an R2 to an R1C, but they did not own it. So I wanted to clarify that. In summary, the staff is recommending approval of this zone change request, and as I mentioned, the staff is making that recommendation based on the assertion that the request is in agreement with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan because of the overall density recommendations for the entire campus as well as the subject properties, and that the petitioner has proposed a thoughtful redevelopment of this property in terms of including a modest population and programming increase, and it's really supporting the totality of the land use recommendations. Also, in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, the staff would like to note the goals and objectives that are supported by this, or that support this application in terms of Goal 13, Goal 15, and Goal 20, and in assessing those that the Sayre Christian Village is an amenity to this neighborhood, and also it provides a need for our community, or meets a need of the community in terms of providing a nursing home as well as other residential care facility uses. The proposed expansion of the residential care and nursing home facility is also consistent with the guidance of the implementation section of the Comprehensive Plan, and the staff would say that this facility was initially developed 25 to 30 years ago and was in place prior to most of the residential area around it. Also the nursing home does provide a front door, or will provide a front door at this location for the facility along Belleau Wood and Camelot Drive, and that would help it to be better integrated into the neighborhood. And then the second finding for the zone change was that proposed expansion of the Sayre Christian Village and the high-density apartment zone are appropriate at this location, and the staff had three reasons for that. First, it can be wholly incorporated rather seamlessly with the exception of some topographic changes, and then the nursing home is providing additional, not just facilities, but meeting new needs or expanding their, how they're assisting our community. And then lastly, that the population of our community is aging, and this type of use is an important asset to meet the need of our community. And then finding three is our standard one for it needs to be approved in corporation with our zoning development plan within the two weeks. And then lastly, the staff is recommending some conditional zoning restrictions, and I know this is probably hard to read on the screen, but first, in order to be in line with the Comprehensive Plan for these properties, the staff would recommend a density restriction of no more than five dwelling units on the subject property in case it doesn't develop as a nursing home. Then five dwelling units could be replaced there or kept there. That a 30-foot landscape buffer be established along Bellowood Drive. This is consistent with the R1C setback line, so that would allow for buffering landscaping materials between the street and where the existing houses sit now. And we would want that to contain trees, shrubs, and perennial flowers with no off-street parking. Also, that there be no pole lighting within the subject property, so the area of these five lots, and that it only be ground or pedestrian level along pathways. And then lastly, that any other use besides the single family residential use would be limited to conditional uses of hospital, nursing home, rest home, orphanage, or assisted living facility, which is consistent with the uses already established on the Sayre Christian Village campus. And the staff is making those conditional zoning restriction recommendations based on appropriateness and necessity to keep this area compatible with the redevelopment with the neighborhood as well as the Sayre Christian Village property. I'll be happy to answer any questions. We have someone who will review the development plan, Mr. Martin, and then also Mr. Marks is here to present the conditional use. Okay. Any questions for Ms. White? Ms. Phillips. Tracy, you alluded to Sayre Christian Village was there first. I want to get an idea as to the chronology for the development of the larger Sayre Christian property as well as adjoining properties. The property was rezoned in 19—actually, most of it was already R4. Probably in this vicinity north was R4, but was owned by Bella Wood Investments. And this area, kind of coming down along Greenfield, Camelot did not exist at that time, was R2, and they rezoned in 1980. The Christian Benevolent Outreach Organization did. At the time, the Bella Wood Incorporated still owned the property, but they rezoned to R2 to R4 in order to build the nursing home and then rezoned the frontage here to R1C. And I believe later in 1980, they received their conditional use permit. So at that time, most of the Bella Wood neighborhood to the south was not constructed. Some to the east was, and I don't believe Whispering Hills was completed yet either. The—between 1980 and 1993, they went back to the Board of Adjustment in 1993, and that was the last time they received approval for conditional use at that location. So this would be the first expansion since that time. Any other questions? The development plan. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the development plan associated with this zoning change is located at the bottom of page 3. It does continue over to the top of page 4. As well as the information on your agenda, there is a handout that we provided you with some revised conditions. The associated development plan, as Ms. Wade explained, is located fronting on Bella Wood Drive with Camelot Drive here. Here is the green field, which terminates in a cul-de-sac on this edge of the property. This is the entire property that you see before you today. What we've outlined here are existing development on the property here. This is the area of the proposed zone change, and it is the configuration that you see before you today that has dictated this zone change that they are seeking approval for, and that is by extending into this area a canopy in this location. The proposed parking and the connections in this area are all the reasons that they need the zone change and the approval. This development plan does govern the entire proposal that you have before you today that you see outlined in dark red. This is the area of Alzheimer's, and below that at grade will be the outpatient facilities and physical therapy. These are the additional beds area that Tracy mentioned to you for people that have undergone surgery and need outpatient therapy and that sort of thing. They'll reside here. They intend to group their administrative function in this area, and again, this has to do with their wish to present a front to the neighborhood and to the street, and with this parking, they can come here. This is a Florida room area where families can get together, residents can get together. The plan was originally submitted to you as a final development plan, and at that time, as you're all aware, a final development plan can be built from, so staff had some considerations, and the plan was recommended for postponement. Subsequently, we met with the applicant. We discussed our concerns. They informed us that they wanted this plan to become a part of a preliminary development plan, so the plan that you see before you today is a preliminary development plan. They will bring a final development plan before this body for approval. That assists in several ways. As I said, a final development plan you can pull a permit off of and build. The staff at the time had serious concerns about this boundary. This is a property line. There are easements here. We could not approve conflicts with easements. There are building code issues and that sort of thing. We also had concerns about this proposed access points, these two, and again, we met with them. We discussed those. It was determined that for this to function administratively, to allow emergency service, to allow pickup, drop off, to allow guests, that sort of thing, this will facilitate that internal circulation and control of internal traffic on the site. This parking area will not only facilitate and help those that wish to come into and talk to the administrators, it will also help facilitate this area where it is our understanding they're going to have a hospice unit and it will allow family members to park and go into a separate entrance and spend time with their loved ones. The plan in this particular configuration came about through a topography concern on the site. Now, there is, you know, it sits up high in this area and there is a slope in this direction. They want to use that again in order to facilitate construction and have a second story in this area. The other steep slope areas you have heard referred to in the FUD plan, these are all back along in this area. The most recent development plan that you approved and saw on this site that resulted in construction was this area right in here. This is some independent housing that was added a couple of years ago. This parking will be new in here as well. Now, staff, as Ms. Wade explained, had a lot of concerns about this orientation and how this would function and the relationship. When we met with the applicant, they subsequently brought back to us, this is going to fit up there, but they brought to us a landscape proposal. This isn't going to work for you all, is it? There we go. I hate to cover up the development plan, but again, they brought this proposal back. Here is Belleau Wood, Camelot. Here is the landscape areas in the front that they are proposing along with a berm. Here are some tree plantings and that sort of thing, but again, you can see the area. Here is the approximate property line for the five lots, the zone change. Ms. Wade has recommended in your report the 30-foot setback for the landscape area. This will come approximately through here. They are going to landscape this entire area, but they are going to setback equal to the front yards that currently exist. This will have a slight impact on some parking that will need to be adjusted to accommodate that. If you review your revised conditions, again, on the golden colored sheet that we handed out to you, you will see the standard approvals recommended. You will see several cleanup conditions such as just labeling easements, label building line, revise notes, clarify wooded areas, those types of things that aren't unusual as cleanup conditions. You will see that we are now asking that they denote this as a preliminary development plan. Number 14 is to note an easement release and an easement minor plan must be recorded prior to construction. That will enable them to remove any conflicts with those existing easements when they go to build their building. Number 15, depict all proposed parking along Belleau Wood Drive behind that platted 30-foot building line. Again, that is to make sure that they put their best face on the front door to Belleau Wood. We have also stated in 16 that they should denote the scope and vegetative matter of the proposed landscaping buffer along Belleau Wood Drive and Camelot Drive will be examined at the time of the final development plan. We are pleased with the initial direction that we are going, but we think at the final development plan it will be appropriate to talk about in detail the nature of the plantings and trees and the exact scope of the berm that would be appropriate in this area. And then last would be addition of any conditional zoning restrictions that you see fit to include should you approve the zone change. And if there are any questions, I will be happy to try to answer them. Are there any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Good afternoon. The last phase of this is the conditional use request that's been asked for along with the zone change. There is a revised staff report that should be close by in your stack of stuff there. A couple of things to kind of get you in the right frame of mind. First, it's important to recognize that in order to really objectively evaluate the conditional use, you pretty much have to set the zone change question aside for the entire property. And imagine that the R4 zoning is in place for the entire property, including, of course, the five residential lots that are proposed for rezoning. It's really the only way to go about it. So you've got to switch hats a little bit there. The other thing is that the criteria used to evaluate a zone change request is much different than that that we use for a conditional use request. Tracy has gone over in detail the zone change into things. For a conditional use, essentially the question is can they do what they're proposing to do in terms of expanding the nursing home facilities without adversely affecting the surrounding properties, the surrounding neighborhood. So that's in essence the question that the planning commission and the staff have wrestled with. Tom and Tracy have kind of comprehensively gone over the overall proposal and the development plan. Typically for conditional uses, the kinds of things you look at are things like traffic and disturbances from noise and other things like maybe odors that might be associated with a certain type of processing facility or manufacturing. For a nursing home, traffic is not considered a significant issue. It's not a high traffic generator. So the traffic issue really has not come to us at least as a significant concern. As far as general disturbances, a nursing home is just not a noisy place in general. It doesn't produce the kind of disturbing things like odors from processing or manufacturing or composting or that kind of thing. It's just flat out not a noisy or disturbing kind of facility in general. The only part of this that we found potentially as in that category of maybe adversely affecting the surrounding properties is that projection on that peninsula of the property where the five residential lots are. And the question there, it's been discussed already quite a bit, is how that expansion presents itself in that area to the neighborhood. And the applicant has proposed additional ways to do landscaping in that area to soften that appearance. The staff really cannot find anything about the entrance feature or the small projection of the building into that area on the corner of Greenfield and Belleau Wood or the small parking lot on the other corner at Camelot and Belleau Wood. Can't really identify anything about that proposal that would be any type of adverse effect on the surrounding properties. So we're comfortable with that. We do have two recommendations on that end. One's already been discussed as the 30-foot landscape buffer. I think in our revised staff report, we referred to that as a 30-foot building line. So those are essentially the same concepts there that we're talking about. Our estimation is that to comply with that 30 feet, they'd only lose about three parking spaces along that edge of the parking lot closest to Belleau Wood. So it's a very manageable revision in our mind. We are recommending approval of the conditional use request. I think it's subject to seven conditions that are outlined at the back or the end of your revised staff report. Five of those seven are pretty much routine conditions that you see any time new facilities are proposed. They're very common for conditional uses. There are two aspects of that that aren't as normal. In condition number one, we talk about the revision to address the 30-foot building line. And then in condition number seven, we talk about a fairly comprehensive extension of the landscaping that's proposed to include Camelot Drive and Greenfield Drive. We think it's real important for the overall presentation of this property to the neighborhood to not only have a really good landscaping plan for that peninsula there on Belleau Wood, but to continue that concept along Greenfield Drive and Camelot Drive to give the whole property a really nice presentation to the neighborhood. You might get the impression with that condition that we want a jungle out there. That's not the intent. In fact, contrary to that, what we'd really like to see is more of an open campus-like appearance with selectively placed trees and shrubbery all the way along that perimeter of the property that fronts on those three public streets. So that's our recommendation for the conditional use. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Does the commission have any questions? Okay. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Does that conclude the staff report? It does, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Rena Wiseman. I'm here for Sarah Christian Village. With me today is Bill English, who's going to speak with you. He is the CEO of Christian Benevolent Outreach, Inc., which is the parent organization of Sarah Christian Village, which is a nonprofit. Sarah Christian Village, Inc., which owns the nursing home, is a nonprofit. This is one of the few, if not only, nonprofit nursing homes in Fayette County. Also with us, but we don't have plans for them to speak unless you have questions, is Jeff Stidham, who's the administrator of the nursing home, Jerry Herndon, the architect for the expansion, and Jason Banks, who has prepared the development plan. At the outset, we appreciate the additional time. We will try to move this along and not to exceed the hour, and we hope that we don't even get close to that. So we will do our best to respect your schedule. The first thing I want to say about this case, and it's sort of summed up in the first line of the staff report on the zone change, that they have grappled with the issue of removing five residents. And that is something that I know that the staff and this commission is always concerned about, taking out houses in a neighborhood. I will tell you, and I hope you will appreciate it after we're done, that the reason that we're here, this is driven by the need and the reality of the over 350 people who live in this community, of the folks who live in the nursing home, the reality that we are an aging population, that the only age group that will grow in the next 40 years is those 65 and older. That group is going to increase by 30 percent. All the other age groups are going to decline, with the exception of children under 18, and that's going to increase by 0.5 percent. So whether you are in that shape today, you probably will be in the future, and many of you already have loved ones or friends that are going to need these facilities. This is a community need. And as I said, we are a nonprofit, and if we could handle all of these very needed facilities on our property without buying additional land, we certainly would have done it, and we tried to fit it all. But we cannot accommodate the expanded needs and accommodate parking on the property we own. So it was necessary to purchase these lots. But planning is a balancing, and sometimes you have to balance what's in the best interest of the community. We think in the best interest is to expand this nursing home. One other point I want you to keep in mind, because there's people from the neighborhood, and we're going to hear about the impact on the neighborhood. We are the neighborhood. This 25 acres, Ms. Phillips asked about the history. We've been here since we purchased the land in 1980 from the developer, 25 acres with the express purpose of creating a continuum care retirement community. We now have 300 people or more that live in independent living, assisted living, and in the nursing home. These are residents. They're not here today, but we're speaking for them, too. They are part of this neighborhood, and these are their needs today to have these facilities. So we don't feel as if we are intruding in the neighborhood. We are part of the neighborhood and trying to do something that we think is sorely needed for the folks that live there now, the folks that are going to come in in the next year and the next year. Because this need is not going to diminish. This is not the flavor of the month, big box or restaurant that you might see vacant. You're not going to see Sarah Christian Village vacant when you drive by in five years. You're probably going to see, you go in an office that has a waiting list of people who need to get in to the nursing home. So this is very much about a need that's very real and very important for our community, and we're going to continue to do what we can to make it happen. The challenge is to accommodate that, this need, and to incorporate it into the neighborhood in a way that's compatible, appropriate, and does not harm the neighborhood, and can continue to be a good neighbor as this campus has been for the past 25 years. That is why we are in agreement with all of the recommendations that the staff has presented to you on the development plan, on the zoning, on the setback, the conditions on the conditional use permit. Because we understand that this case requires sensitivity to the other folks that live there. And so we do agree with all of those conditions, and we'll be coming back to you, we hope, in not too long, if we're successful with the zoning with the final development plan, to deal with that. Bill in a minute is going to explain a little bit more about the zoning and the conditional use permit, and explain in more detail what it is that we're adding to this. But one thing to keep in mind, we are not, we have 109 beds now that are certified nursing home beds. And as most of you know, there's a moratorium on nursing home beds in the state of Kentucky. The only new beds we're adding are 19 post-acute care beds. This is for people who need short-term rehab if you're recovering from hip replacement, knee replacement. These are much more prevalent, again, as we live longer, and they need additional rehabilitation. But not in a nursing home setting. Someone who is otherwise healthy and rehabbing from knee replacement, it's not suitable for them to be in a nursing home room. This is a separate part of this building. We can do those additional beds because we are a CCRC, and those are certified by the state, separate from the 109. So with the space that we're putting on, most of it is for people who are already here. The only new beds are the post-acute care. And in fact, many of those folks will be coming from the campus, because there will be, again, elderly people have the most need to have hip replacement, knee replacement, those sorts of things that require this sort of extended rehabilitation. One thing I want to point out is that there are a lot of people who are already here. And I want to, just to go over to some statistics, and I think I've hit on them. Tracy mentioned some, too. But again, it's real, you know, even if you don't read census projections, you know it. I mean, you know somebody that's fairly old. You know, it used to be Willard Scott might have somebody once a month that was 100 years old when he did the Smuckers. Well, now they're, you know, crawling around the place. My grandmother lived to be 100 years old and was ready to go even farther. But, you know, she wanted to get to 100 and she did that. But that's not unique anymore. I think Tracy mentions that people over 85, that's an age group that is really increasing. As I mentioned, the only group that's growing in Kentucky is the group 65 and older. The other fact that we have to keep in mind, and this is a difficult situation, too, is the incidence of Alzheimer's. That is now the second most common or sixth leading cause of death in the United States of America. And it hits primarily older people. One in eight people over 65 in the United States now have Alzheimer's. There are 5.3 million people with Alzheimer's in the United States today. 5.1 million of those are aged 65 and older. In the next 30 years, that number is going to go up to 7.7 million. And it's going to be a very, very big number. And it's a difficult condition. It's a, those folks live a long time. And that is another factor that as we grow older, we have more and more of our citizens that are going to have to deal with Alzheimer's. That's why one of the most important parts of this proposal, not that any is less or more important than the other, is now having an Alzheimer's wing. Alzheimer's patients are now having Alzheimer's patients. Alzheimer's patients are in the nursing home now. But they're interspersed with the rest of the residents. For their treatment, for their well-being, and for the well-being of the residents who do not have Alzheimer's, it's best to put them in their own area. And one of the sections that Bill will point out to you is devoted to the Alzheimer's folks, and they will have private rooms. Again, those folks are there. They're not new coming in there. These are folks that are there now. And so you can have them in an area that's more secure, that you can design for them to help them get familiar with their surroundings, and treat them with the special treatment that's directed to the Alzheimer's patients. So those are some statistics that I think are really more critical than most statistics. People get up and rattle off to you, because it's the reality of what we're facing. And it's one of the major social forces affecting this country. It's one of the major social forces affecting this country today, is the rise of the elderly. And our planning decisions are to respond to social forces in the community. The one thing I wanted to talk about before I asked Bill to come up is why do we need this land to do it? Why can't we do it all on our own property? And as I said, if we were able to do it without buying these houses, we would be able to do it. As a nonprofit, we certainly would. I'm going to put up something I hope shows up on the overhead. Can you scoot it up so we can hear? Before I forget, let me go back to this chronology that you asked about. Most of this property, I think with the reception of the little change to R2 and R1C back in the 80s, a large, this property was part of a bigger zone change that was approved in 1977, when Frank Sadler owned the property, and that included even Tate's Creek Center. This goes back, if you go back in the records, this was land owned by Mrs. Ethel Coons. Some of you may actually remember Mrs. Coons. I certainly do. So this was purchased from the developer by Christian Benevolent Outreach in 1980, with the express purpose of developing the 25 acres into the CCRC, Continuum of Care Retirement Community. Over the years, what we have done is the first building that went in was the Bonta Apartments. That opened around 1983. Number two was the Moberly Manor, which is actually what the nursing home is called. That opened in 1983. Number three was the Bonta Community Center. This is a new building. And this is the Bonta Community Center. So what we have done is the first building that went in was the Bonta Apartments. That opened around 1983. Number two was the Moberly Manor, which is actually what the nursing home is called. That opened in 1984. Bonta is independent living. Freedom Tower, the Bonta Community Center, the Bonta Community Center. Excuse me. Sorry about that. Friendship Tower opened in 1987. That is assisted living. And last that was opened I think last year is Forest View, which is also independent living. So literally this campus developed while the neighborhood was developing. If you go back and look at the PVA, the building permits for the houses along Belleau Wood that we are purchasing and probably the rest of them were also built 1984, 1985, at least in the Belleau Wood sections. So literally we have grown up together. We have grown up together. We have grown up together. We have grown up with the neighborhood and been part of the neighborhood since it started. So I hope that kind of gives you the context. Now I wanted to go back to the point of why we're expanding on other property. We have site constraints that we have to deal with. This property is part of the nursing home. These are already built up and used for independent and assisted living. But again, if you look at the property and the aerial that the staff has, you can tell it, but not as well as if you're on the ground. There's a couple of constraints. First of all, there is a gas line, is that right, in this location that precludes any building. So we can't go back that way. Two, if we're going to add on to do Alzheimer's, post-acute care, it has to be connected to the building. You can't go up. We can't do a high-rise nursing home. You have to keep all the residents on one level. So that's a restriction. The only two areas that we have to do any building is this area over here near Camelot and this area by Greenfield, the one Tracy I think pointed out is the vacant area that's medium density. One factor, regardless of what you do, we have to remove parking to put in the services that we need. So we're going to lose parking, I think it's 50 spaces or something by this program. So we also have to have parking in order to do this. This is the best area to do expansion. This area is where the multipurpose building is going to be. So we're going to have to remove parking to get it up to where it was going to be. This area has very bad grade. It's very difficult to put a structure in there to get the parking to be at the door. We originally were going to do that. Physical therapy was going to go there. That was problematic. And even with putting that there and putting the rest of it on that, we still didn't pick up parking of any significance. Just a very few parking spaces. So our engineer has looked at it. Our architect has looked at it. And to do the programs that we believe are needed, the Alzheimer's, the post-existing acute care, converting private, semi-private rooms to private rooms, which is what people want today, the physical therapy, we can't fit it. We literally cannot fit it on this property and get additional parking. We cannot just pick it up and move. I mean, we are part of the campus. The whole concept from day one was for people to start out in independent living, move to assisted and to the nursing home. That's the whole point of the community. So the nursing home is really as much an anchor to this community. And the option of picking up and moving a significant investment is just not one that's realistic. With that, I'm going to ask Bill English to come up. He's the CEO. And he's going to give you a little more detail about what the different uses are. I've got some copies for you all to look at that he'll be discussing. And you might be able to put that on the overhead so the audience can see. I'll get out of your way now, Bill. Thank you, Rena. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I just would like to thank you for letting me have just a few minutes here to kind of go through our plan. I'm glad you have one of those that comes out a little better than the one on the screen, because I'm going to refer to it quite a bit as I go through here. But one of the challenges, of course, is going last is I don't want to keep repeating things that people have said. So I'll try to minimize the things that I do talk about that, about the proposed development here. As you've heard, Sarah Christian Village is a continuing care retirement community. And we've been in the neighborhood for, we opened the first building in 1983. And as you've heard, we've added to that since then. The most recent building that we've built opened in October of last year. It was an additional independent living building called Forest View. And so we've continued to expand the campus, but we're pretty much filled up. And as you've heard, as far as expanding the nursing home, we are very limited to what we were able to do. We're proud of the fact that we're one of the only CCRC communities in this area. It allows people and especially elderly folks, as you know, it's really difficult for them to relocate. It's nice for them to have a place, at least it's on the same campus, even if they get sick enough to have to go to the nursing home from one of the housing buildings. It's an easier transition than having to pick up and move someplace else. So we're very proud of that. We're very proud of the fact that we're one of the only CCRC communities in this area. It's an easier transition than having to pick up and move someplace else. Because the fact of the matter is, a lot of their friends have already transitioned to the nursing home. So the service we provide is vital. Being a not-for-profit is a real challenge. But the good thing about being a not-for-profit is that we can be about the people and the residents we serve. And that's what we do. We don't have to worry about making a big profit to return to shareholders, investors. We can put any profits that we do make into the community. And that's what we're trying to do here. This is a real challenge for us. And I'll be honest with you, I tell you, as we talk about all the time, we're not-for-profit, but we can't be for loss either. We've got to make money to stay in business. And it's a real challenge sometimes. But this is something that we've assessed. As you've heard, we've been in this location since 1984 at the nursing home. This is the first major expansion of the nursing home that we've made. And there's a lot of advantages to having a campus like this. We're not new to the neighborhood, as you've heard. We've grown up with the neighborhood. And I think we've been good neighbors in the past. We want to continue to. And we've certainly spent a lot of time talking about this plan, making plans. What can we do? What we're charged with, one of the biggest challenges we've had in the last several years, and one of the important things we're charged with is looking at the strategic nature of our business and what's going to happen in the future. And you've heard, it's no secret to anybody already, but this growing population, it's kind of scary to think what we're going to be facing and trying to serve the seniors in a few years from now. And we're already seeing it. As you heard also, we have 350, over 350 residents on our campus now that are very excited, the ones that live in the housing and see the potential need for this, are very excited about the opportunity for us to be able to expand on our campus and provide these services. And these are services also that are available to the community, too. We're non-denominational. We take people of all backgrounds. One of the interesting things about what we do is that we're able to provide services to people of all backgrounds. One of the things we do is we provide, we take both, all our beds in the nursing home currently are certified for Medicare and Medicaid. So we've got 109 beds there. And, you know, there's a lot of people, a lot of nursing homes in town that either don't take Medicaid recipients or limit the numbers significantly. And we probably have, on average, 65 residents of the 109 that we have in the nursing home, on average at least 65 of them are Medicaid recipients. Well, being a not-for-profit and a religious-based organization, we feel a very large commitment to this area to provide for the needs of those low-income folks. Because if you take this out, as far as you can take it, one of these days, as expensive as this care is getting, the only people who are going to be able to afford nursing home care are going to be very wealthy people. And so we feel like it's part of our ministry and our mission to provide for those folks, and we want to continue to do that. We also want to continue to do it in a setting that's going to be conducive to making their final years in the nursing home making their final years as valuable as they can be, and letting them be as active and productive as they can be. And we have a great reputation for that at our nursing home, taking people on outings. We take them places that you wouldn't think nursing home people would be able to go, like Legends games. They went to the state fair. I mean, things like that. So we're providing a really good service that we feel great about as far as the community. Now, if you refer to your map, I just kind of want to go through this. What we have to do, as I said earlier, is we want to provide for the strategic needs of the growing population. And one of the things we identified two or three years ago in our strategic planning with our organization, with our board, is what are the needs on our community right now? What are the needs going forward that we're going to have to meet? And so that's what I want to just kind of ‑‑ I think the easiest way to do it is kind of refer to this map, if you'll look at it with me. The first thing, and this shows the entire development. The yellow portion of what you're looking at here now is the existing nursing home. What we have, we currently have 109 beds, and right now we only have nine private rooms, and we have 100 semi‑private rooms. Not rooms, but we have 100 semi‑private residents there. So we have 59 actual rooms in the nursing home right now. Now, I think you all know as well as I do, and you can see what's happened at hospitals and so forth, this population that's coming up now has higher expectations of private rooms. Nobody, you know, really wants to go in a semi‑private that doesn't have to. And so this whole ‑‑ during this whole project, we're only adding 20 beds to our nursing home. But the reason is that we're picking up a lot more opportunities for private rooms in this scenario that I'm getting ready to talk about. Let's refer first, if you would, to the orange area. It's called the dementia care unit that you're looking at there. The top floor of that, which is on the same level as our existing nursing home, will contain 22 rooms, individual rooms for dementia care. Now, let me just digress for just a minute. Our current nursing home, the 109 people that we have there now, the population is just mixed all together. We don't have any lock units. So you could have somebody there that's being there for rehab from illness or injury, and you might have a dementia person right next door. And that's not the best way to serve the population. And what we're trying to do with this plan is segment people out so we can serve them better. So one of the biggest needs identified on the campus is dementia care. And this unit, as I said, will contain 22 units. We'll be able to ‑‑ it will be a locked unit. We'll be able to train staff in the specific needs of Alzheimer's and dementia folks. And we've worked closely with Sanders Brown. We've been all over this part of the region of the country looking at state-of-the-art facilities to try to develop what we think is going to be a great facility and provide great programming for this thing because, as you've already heard, that population is growing too fast and it's a substantial problem. We also ‑‑ I will explain that you can only be in one of our housing buildings in the very early stages of Alzheimer's and dementia. And so we have to have a place for them to go when they become a risk, safety risk to themselves or others. And so that's kind of the criteria that we have to use. And so a large number of our dementia residents from the housing side of the buildings go to end up in our nursing home when they get to that stage. And underneath that, you've already heard, we're going to be talking about rehab and there's maintenance areas underneath the dementia unit. But we will do ‑‑ this is the rehab area that we have now. It's very small, not really adequate for what we're doing currently at the nursing home. So this will give us an expanded rehab area. We can have that in the basement. It doesn't have to be on the same level. And we also have a license to do outpatient rehab. And so we'll be doing outpatient rehab for folks in the community there close by that need rehab for whatever. So the dementia is a huge thing. The next thing is the kind of, I guess you would call it, pink area. It's post-acute care on the top level. Again, that is on the same level as the nursing home. The post-acute care right now, it looks like we're going to be able to have 19 beds in the post-acute care unit. They will all be individual rooms. And as you heard earlier, the increase of people getting hip and knee replacements and things like that, they have special needs. They need to come there in the quiet and privacy of their own room, have a rehab program tailored to their needs. And so we've made it a separate part that can be accessed, so you don't have to go through the whole nursing home. You can come there and be rehabbed. People can come visit you and so forth in that setting. Those are short-term stays. They will be there, and they will go back home. Hopefully we'll get them rehabbed quickly, and they will be going back home after that. Underneath that section is our human resources office, basically is what's under that section. We talked about physical therapy, and that's in the rehab area. The other part I want to talk about just for a second is the palliative care unit. It's marked on there. It's kind of an odd color there. Okay. Palliative care unit. This is interesting, and it's a unique thing for nursing homes in this area, but it's a very needed thing. And, again, I think this is a very vital part of our ministry and what we do. If any of you have had a loved one or known someone that's in the hospice unit, for instance, at St. Joseph Hospital, this is what I'm talking, this is what these units will be. We will have three of them. And what they will do, it will add dignity to the dying process. When we know someone that's actively dying in the nursing home, instead of being in a room and the family trying to visit them, they may be in a semi-private room, we will move them down to one of these palliative care suites. And so in those last hours, the families can come and be with them in a setting that we say does add dignity to the dying process. This is something that we had to approach the state about to be able to do, and they were very not only accepting of it, very excited about it, because it's kind of breaching a new area for nursing homes. But we are very excited about that. You heard about the multipurpose room. We talked about how important that is to keep people active. When they can't get out, we like to have activities there on campus for them, and we don't really have a place now. They share an activity room. We have to clear everybody out after we feed them in the evening to have an activity, and believe me, there are plenty of activities going on there. So this is a much-needed area for us, too. And the blue area there you'll see is the additional area there is the office space. The bottom floor of that area will house the nursing home administrative offices, and the top floor will be the parent organization, Christian Menil and Outreach offices on the second floor of that. So we're really cramped. We've got people spread all over the campus. So that's the two-level section of the nursing home, but there won't be any nursing home care on that second level because those will just be administrative offices. I guess last but not least, obviously you already heard about the parking, so I'm not going to go into that, but you've heard a little bit about traffic and you may have some concerns about traffic. Let me say this. We added 42 apartments last October, and most of those people drive, and we haven't had any repercussions of traffic, additional traffic in the area because of that. And what we're adding to this nursing home is not, as you've already heard, it's not a thing that causes a lot of extra traffic in the area because of the nature of the services that these people are receiving. So this should not be a major concern, but we do need parking. The parking in the front that you see that will be front on Belleau Wood will also, it will primarily be visitor parking and parking for the post-acute care folks. The parking on the side on Greenfield, down the side of Greenfield, will be for the rehab folks and also other visitors that might be coming to visit people in the dementia unit. There will be an entrance on that lower level where they can have access to the building. Now, what we've done in the parking across the back, the green section across the back, is employee parking only. All our employee parking will be accessed through this entrance off the green, I mean off of Camelot Drive, and all our employees, we can park on that. You heard we can't build on it because there's a major gas line going through there, but we can park on it. We can build a parking lot. And so that's why we've designed that as it is. So I think we've tried to do a good job of designing this to meet the needs of what we're trying to do. Let me just tell you, and I'm going to speed this up because I know we've given you a lot of information, but after we decided what we needed, we designed this, as you've already heard. We knew we were going to have to have some additional space for parking. And as you heard from the staff, the existing property line was not a real good buffer for what we have. But we think this is great. We think this is going to be a really good alternative. We initially started out by buying the two, we were going to buy the two corner houses on the corner of Camelot and Belleau Wood and Greenfield and Belleau Wood. And when that came about, the other three houses, people in the middle of them, wanted to open up dialogue to see if we would be interested in buying those three houses. We didn't know they would even be available to us, didn't even approach them about it. But when we got the opportunity, we certainly took advantage of it because what we want to do also in this, and I think this, we want this to be a great thing for the neighborhood. We want it to have a great appearance. But it also helps our visibility because we don't have much visibility and people coming looking for Sarah Christian Village Nursing Home, it's difficult to find them in that subdivision right now. And so this will give us a presence with a nice, what we feel is a very nice entrance and exit off of Belleau Wood. I think it will be a really good addition to the neighborhood, and I don't see it being a negative at all. We've been working over the past couple of months, actually, trying to get things to the situation where people will be accepting of what we're trying to do. And so we've met, we've met recently, we met the other night with the Neighborhood Association. And so to make a long story short, we ended up buying the additional properties. It allowed us to build this thing more efficiently, and we are really excited about the possibilities of doing that. So in summary, I feel like we've been good neighbors. We want to continue to be good neighbors. There's a need in this community for what we're doing, and it's a vital need. And we're trying to meet that need as well as the need of the neighborhood and being good neighbors about this expansion. So we appreciate your time to explain what we're doing, and certainly hope you'll approve what we've asked you to do today. Thank you very much. Anybody have any questions for Mr. English? Mr. English, a couple of things. I got lost in the figures. Are you operating at capacity right now? Our nursing home stays 99% full. We always have pretty much a waiting list for people to get in the nursing home. And your other areas? Just to give you an idea, the independent housing units, we have 30 people on each of those to get in. The Friendship Towers is a market rent. The assisted living place is a market rent, and we generally stay pretty full there. We'll occasionally run five or six vacancies in that building of 100, primarily because there's a high turnover. What's happening is people don't come to the retirement communities or assisted living until they really need services. And once they do, on average, they're only there for two or three years. We've got people that don't even move there now until they're in their 90s, so there's a high turnover in that particular area. You gave the number 356. Is that the total number of residents on the total campus? Yes, sir. And what would be the total capacity of the campus? That is the total capacity. Okay. So you've got 356. You're operating right at the margin. Yes, sir. Well, second quick question. Your palliative care unit, are you operating strictly an internal or is it going to be an external outpatient service? No, it will only be internal because part of our agreement with the state in developing this thing is we can only move somebody, we can only move them from a Medicare, Medicaid room to this, but we cannot fill that empty bed with anybody else until that person passes away. So it doesn't increase the capacity. We're just moving them from one section to the other. Thank you. Yes. Are there any other questions from the commission? Mr. English, I have one. Will you be adding a lot of staff and employment jobs? Good question. We'll add about 20 people total during this. But, as you know, we're a 24-7 operation, so that's spread over three shifts. So there won't be a huge number of employees added for these particular things. We'll be shifting employees around because, as you know, as you can imagine, dementia care requires more staffing, higher level of care, and so forth. Approximately how many employees do you have? We have about 140 at the nursing home now. We have 200 on the entire campus. About 140 at the nursing home. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You notice I kind of creeped over here. We didn't want to intrude upon your time. So, again, if you have other questions. I think Bill said he has been very open to talk to the neighborhood, met with them this week, have had conversations with them. I understand that there's many here that still don't support this, and we respect their position. But, again, what I would ask you to consider as we wind this up is that this is, we're asking because there is a need. This is not a property on Nicholsville Road coming to you and asking for a retail zone change because a new business wants to come in town and can't find a spot. This is not somebody who wants to expand a shopping center into an area that's recommended for residential. You hear people talk about that kind of need. That's not the kind of need we're talking about. We're talking about a genuine community need that has to be met somewhere, and this is an established facility. It has been a good part and is part of this neighborhood and has very limited area within which to provide these services. So we believe that this is a zone change that should be approved. We are in agreement with the findings set forth by the staff, the things that they cited from the comp plan. We agree with the recommendations on the plan and the conditional use, as I said. One thing that they didn't quote from the comp plan, but I think it's important, it's on page 12, kind of at the very beginning about how land use planning is comprehensive. And it says first it involves both short and long-term time intervals. And then it says second, though centered on physical development and guidance of physical change and impact, a comprehensive plan must give appropriate weight to social and economic factors. That's what we're asking for you to do this afternoon. Give appropriate weight to a significant social factor in our community is the needs of the elderly and the ability of this campus to provide them 21st century care in those years. It's not a need that's going to go away, but we think we can do a great deal to meet it with your assistance in recommending approval of this zone change. I appreciate your time, and if there's something I need to respond to, I'll come back. Rather than that, we conclude our presentation, Mr. Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Now we will hear from the audience. I have four people signed up to speak, maybe others. But go ahead. State your name and address, please. My name is Edward Shaw. I'm a student for the Bellwood and Apricot Association. Good afternoon to all of you. I've been very succinct in telling you what they need to do at Sayre Christian Village. We think that they were precipitous in wanting to buy those properties right here. I wonder how they thought it was going to be a done deal, and they bought those properties. We have a worry that this is a toe in the door rezoning, that anybody will come along later. And we have property values that we are very concerned about. I've done some investigating of my own, and simply two or three of them, one in Akron, was very similar. Akron, Ohio, had a rezoning change, and to the city council's dismay, the 430 houses that they had declined into rental housing very quickly, over two years. We are 466 houses in Bellwood. Twenty-five percent of them, roughly, are rental. And certainly the ones that are fronting closest there to Sayre Christian Village today will be the first to go. We do believe that they could have built elsewhere on their campus. Certainly they don't need to be rezoned from our four. We would have rather they'd carried those five houses and made domiciliary residence out of them, perhaps. But aside from the noise that is generated, we had some testimony earlier that it's not a noisy. Well, it's not the older people that are making the noise, but we do have emergency vehicles from the city that come in day and night, and it happens daily, several times a week at least. What are they going to do with the water runoff from this new parking lot? We're told that they could not build in the back because it's a water shed place in the back, but that's 50 feet down the hill toward Wilson Downing. They could have taken out a few more trees and built buildings in there. But I'm afraid that when it drains, we're going to have gushers along Bellwood because it's right at the top of the hill and goes down to the south to Man O' War, down to the north to Wilson Downing. And I live right at the top on Green Ridge Court. And by the way, I was the first person in Bellwood. I bought the first property from Frank Sadler before Bellwood was in existence. And we watched everything grow up around us. Now I'd like to have the same kind of price for my house that these five houses sold for to say a Christian village. I can't put my finger on the exact thing, but I know that it's handsome. We can't count on that today. I have a whole host of people behind me here that came up to say almost the same things that I did. And particularly one couple that's on the corner is going to be directly across the street from the parking lot. I asked each one of you on the commission, how would you like to have such an industry directly across the street from your home? Well, neither do we. We don't want the zoning change to go through. We want to have Z1 set in perfect home. We have some Z2s that are along Camelot, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Sayre ultimately sometime in the future will take out all the houses left on Greenfield. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much. Thank you. I have a Billy. I can't make out the last name. It's 3749 Bellewood. Yeah. I'm Billy Gospel. I'm immediate past president of Bellewood Neighborhood Association. I live five houses away. I'm directly on Bellewood from the affected houses. I'm like Ed. I'm one of the original squatters in Bellewood, built there, moved in in 1983. I apologize to be repetitive, but I could not live with myself if I did not say that I strongly, strongly disagree with zoning change. I feel like if we go from single family residential to high density, if that zone change is made, as Mr. Shaw mentioned, we're opening up the door for other things to happen within Bellewood if they know what happened with Sayre. What's to preclude who else can come? What else? When else within Bellewood? I'm looking at the big picture down the road, not just now, because I intend to be there long haul, God willing. So that concerns me greatly that the one thing I thought possibly helped us was the comprehensive plan that I had read about, and then today I've seen obviously there's flexibility with that, so my protection and looking at that and feeling a little bit comfortable, that went out the door. Mr. Shaw also mentioned the worrying about the water runoff. I live right on Bellewood. I see what comes down our way with heavy, heavy, heavy rains with the five houses up there with all the foliage and trees and shrubs. It just concerns me, the lack thereof, how that's going to pan out. I know the traffic has been more or less dismissed somewhat as that's not a really big issue. I know you can't measure volume because there's going to be new employees, there's going to be expanded rehab, more people coming for rehab than ordinarily would not. You can't say, well, that's an extra car, that's an extra car. You just see some complications from the parking, because you now have the two entrances or two ways in off of Bellewood, and then you also have a new entrance off of Greenfield, and Greenfield comes right out to Bellewood. And believe you me, I know how they zip up and down Bellewood. Nobody observes the speed limit. I've had my mailbox, which is brick, taken out two times. It's just a mess. And I'm afraid there's going to be, as people are turning in and people coming off Greenfield to get out on Bellewood with this new entrance and new building, with these new buildings, you're just going to have complications, and we're probably going to have to look at additional stop signs or something for safety of people. I know Sayre feels like they're a part of the neighborhood. I think actually they belong to Whispering Hills, but I understand their mission, I respect their mission, but I strongly believe that rezoning would change the character of an established neighborhood. Again, it just makes me wonder down the road who else, what else, when else will come our way. So I would ask you please to keep the zoning as originally intended. Thank you. Thank you. I have a Shannon Bird. Steve? Okay. State your name and address when you get up there. I'm Steven Bird. That's the place where my wife's Shannon. We live basically right across the street from where the destruction of our neighborhood is proposed. He mentioned that he reached out to the neighborhood. Not to us. We're right across the street. Never heard a word from them. So I don't really buy that. But aside from that, this is supposed to be about zoning. And we heard for an hour the virtues of a retirement home, which of course everybody could agree with, but this is about zoning. This is about a residential neighborhood. And I just don't see how this is possibly not going to destroy our property values. This road's busy enough as it is. Like they were saying, it's hard enough to back out on the road without being rear-ended, and you're putting two commercial entrances right on that street in a residential neighborhood. And when people buy a house, they feel like they're supposed to be protected by zoning. The zoning for a single-family residence neighborhood is a reason why we buy a home there. And if as soon as you buy a home right across the street it turns into high-density apartments, nobody's going to want to buy our house, not anywhere close to what we paid for it, especially if the neighborhood is being actively changed and the zoning changed. Why would anybody want to take a gamble of buying a house there? So for the 400-something houses that we have there, or 400 however many it was, I don't remember, but we are a very much larger part of that neighborhood than, say, a Christian village. And for their interests to win out over the livelihoods of everyone there I think would be a big disservice. And I strongly encourage you to deny this request. Thanks for your time. Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak, even though they didn't sign up? Okay. Staff, do you have any rebuttal? No rebuttal? No, sir. Okay. Does Ms. Wiseman? As far as the neighborhood meeting, we worked through the officers of the Bellewood Neighborhood Association. So that's how the meeting was set up, was with the officers of that association. So we don't know how they gave the notice. Traffic, the only thing I'll say to that is that this campus, if you even take everything into account, is much, much less traffic than if this were developed as real R4 apartments. Traffic generation by a nursing home is one of the lowest traffic generators. And, again, the only thing we're adding in terms of residents are the 19 beds. Nursing homes, again, are much lower than if this were apartments. Much lower than any commercial or office use. Independent living and assisted living is like two-thirds less than if it was an apartment. So we do not think this is going to be a significant increase in traffic. And lastly, again, I don't think we want to argue about what neighborhood we're in and who's part of the neighborhood and who's not, but we're there and we have over 350 people who live here. And they are, this is something that's in their interest, too. But it's something that's in the interest of the community. And, again, we would not be asking you this if there was not a real need for it. We think it is. We think it does conform to the goals that the staff has set forth. And we would ask that you approve this and appreciate, again, your attention. Okay. Thank you. Any citizen rebuttal to that? Okay. We will close this portion of the hearing and turn it over to the commissioners. And they may comment. You may ask questions. Mr. Wilson. I'm thinking the petition that was passed around had 92 names on it. What percentage of that? Okay. It's 92 names. Is that 92 households or just names? It would have been 92 households out of 463. And then did the other, what happened to the other members? Did they, are they? No response. No response. Okay. Thank you. There's 466 houses and you have 92 on the petition. Thank you. Ms. Phillips. I wanted to ask a question to the staff and I'm not sure. I think this might be a development plan issue. I'm wondering is there a traffic impact study that's required for this development, number one? And number two, what about stormwater on site? Is there not a requirement for stormwater detention? Your first question was about a traffic study. This application did not require a traffic study. The Article 6 of the zoning ordinance sets a standard of 100 new trips being generated by the zone change, and in this case that didn't meet that threshold criteria. As to the water detention, there are detention facilities that currently exist on site. This is a preliminary development plan. At the final development plan stage, they will have to address the detention issue to the approval of engineering. Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin. Yeah. And the engineering, when they do the final calculations, there's not supposed to be more water runs off than existing, is that right? That is my understanding, yes, sir. It is pre-development standards, so the expansion would address all the runoff that generates. Yes, Carla. There was some concern expressed about what kind of precedent we might be setting. Are there other developments within kind of the general neighborhood area that could potentially come back to us and ask for the same types of things that we're addressing right now? I think it's difficult for the staff to say yes or no to that particular question. We didn't see any immediate areas, but, again, it's our findings and our assessment are applied to the whole county, not just the neighborhood. So it's difficult to say. When you look at this change, the comment the gentleman made struck a note with me. Going from R1 to R4 is a big change. Is there anything else that would accommodate this development? When you're looking at that, that's an awful lot of green space and parking lot to be considered high-density housing, when it looks like only one tail of the building actually hits into that area. Is there nothing else that we could do that would not paint R4? The R3 zone also permits nursing homes, assisted living, those same group of uses. The difference is lot, I guess, coverage and lot size. In this case, I don't think it would matter, R3 or R4. R4 is consistent with the rest of their campus, so that's what they asked for. The P1 and the B1 zones also allow nursing homes as principal uses. Clearly that would be a bad fit at this location. So really the only residential zones are the R3 and the R4 zones. Any other questions from the commission? Yes. For Mr. English, is the intent for the main entrance now to come from Belleau Wood Drive? I heard some of the residents' concern about that. Yes, that is the intent. We would like this entrance on Belleau Wood. There are currently four or five houses along there. Each of those has driveways to them, or four of the five have driveways to them. So there's a lot of in and out traffic now. But what we've proposed on this plan for our entrance on Belleau Wood is one, I need to take this, this entrance, so you'll have an idea, this would be an entrance to the drop-off area and so forth in front of the nursing home, and then this would be the exit. So basically there's only one entrance, one exit, where there are four driveways along there now with people pulling in, backing out, traffic parked on the street. We wouldn't be doing any parking on the street. But it is because of what I said earlier. We would like to increase visibility. But keep in mind, one of the things I don't think anybody's mentioned, the very front of this nursing home, the very front part of this new developed part of the nursing home is back behind even the backyards of the existing houses that are there now. So it's not like this thing's really sitting out on the street. It's really sitting back, even the main entrance. So this driveway, one entrance in, one out. But it is important to us to have the visibility because, as I say, people have a hard time finding us, locating us when they come visit somebody at the nursing home. And where is the current entrance? The current entrance is off of Camelot Drive right here. That's your main entrance? Yes, that's the main entrance, yes. And you come in there, but you have to go all the way mostly back in here to even get to the parking. There is an entrance back here, a back entrance to the nursing home, too. But that's the primary in and out of the nursing home right now. Okay. I have a question for, I guess, Mr. Martin. Is this site maxed out with this? We mentioned R4 zoning. Is it possible that they could come back in? I mean, if we go for this, is it possible they could come back in here and add something into the parking lot, more building? On this front section, that's the question of this? Maybe on the, I mean, is it maxed out? The entire site, there is some development room left. There are certainly challenges facing them with steep slope and those issues in the rear of the site. So this possibly, they possibly couldn't add any more beds or rooms or whatever you call them out in the parking lot there. Oh, no, sir. Not where we see, as you see in front of you. And I would point out that there's also conditional zoning restrictions being placed on the property as well to prevent any additional development in this particular area of the proposed development. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Commission? Sorry, Tom. Let me follow. Well, you just said, so on the property that currently has the five houses on it, there's conditions that will prevent them from putting anything else that would look like high density across the street? I believe in your report you have conditional zoning restrictions that have been recommended that will prevent anything other than what is being proposed to you today. Thank you. Yes, sir. Okay. Ms. Phillips. This is for probably Tom. Has there been a consolidation plan filed to incorporate those five housing unit lots into the larger parcel? Not yet. Not yet. They will need to do that to take care of those building code issues that they will face. Okay. We've heard from the staff and we've heard from the petitioners and we've heard from the citizens, commissioners. And so now we need to get down to what we all came here for. We need a motion of some kind and for the zone change first. There are some findings by the staff that you should include in your motion if you make it that way. Sometime today would be preferable. I'm not ready to make a motion yet, Mr. Chairman. I'm struggling with this for a couple of reasons. I look at this plan and I think it's very attractive. While you can't say it's going to enhance the property value because of the concern about the R1, I think they've addressed the concerns about the R4 with a plan that will make that street look nicer than it currently does with five houses on it. I fully recognize the concern that the citizens have made here, and I appreciate you coming up and voicing those concerns in person and waiting through all the others to get here. I struggle because only 20% of the neighborhood seems to oppose it. I think the water retention issue is a non-issue that's going to be addressed, and with all the green space on here I think it's probably going to be less than it would have been with the houses and the driveways. And I think the traffic issue seems to be a non-issue, too, to me. I don't think the ambulances are going to be running their firings at night. That's only for traffic. And, again, maybe I need to go look at a nursing home, but I can't imagine that there's a whole lot of traffic going in and out of the nursing homes. But, again, I'm struggling because you do have local members of the neighborhood who are opposed to this, and I'm always very sensitive to that opposition. So I'm not ready to make a motion, but I think we ought to have that discussion. Okay. Does anyone else have something they'd like to discuss that? Could we look at the list again and see how many of them are really households rather than individuals? Yes. We had a concern that only 20 percent of the household opposed. That's not correct. That's only the percentage of households we went to during the day. Some people were in a home. During the day, some people were in a home. If you need more signatures, I'm sure 75 percent of the neighborhood would be glad to sign. Can you state your name? My name is Carol, and I live right on Belleau Wood. Thank you. I'm sorry, ma'am. We didn't get your name for the record. Carol Becknell. Thank you. I'm not sure we have the latitude to do that at this point. Do we have the latitude to act on this now, or do we have the latitude to have that? I don't know. I'm struggling with it. The 90-day deadline for this application will pass before your scheduled meeting. It expires next week. Mr. Chairman, the hearing was closed, but since you brought up petitions, we could have brought a petition from all the people that live there. I mean, they are residents of this community. I know I've repeated that ad nauseum, but I don't want to lose sight that these folks live here too. They live in apartments. They live in independent living. That's the kind of mixture of uses we're supposed to have. The fact we didn't bring a petition, I hope, don't take that as that they don't care about this. Thank you. To be able to speak, someone up here has to ask you a question. Does anyone want to ask? My name? Does anyone want to let this lady speak? Yes. I'm Vicki Brown. We live at 701 Troy Trail in Bella Woods. We built our house in late 83, moved in in 84, so we've been there for 26 years. And I think for the most part the people from our neighborhood have spoken, have covered most all the bases. One I don't remember hearing was what about the loss of the tax base from the people, the families that live in those five houses or at least lived in those five houses. I think two or three of them were already purchased, perhaps, and the others are on contingencies if this goes through. But this sheet here that has, you know, the Goal 13 and the Goal 15, you know, I just received that as I walked in, and as I was looking through it on Goal 13, you know, I mean, I checked all kinds of things that under 13D it says promote a variety of housing types for households with children. Okay. Well, that would be in favor of the neighborhood, not the nursing home. Reduce impediments to home ownership. Our neighborhood, most of the neighborhoods around us are a big jump in prices. If people want to begin to own a home, maybe it's their first one, you know, our neighborhood is a good place for them to come. You take out five houses, and we consider those five houses to be our buffer zone between us and the nursing home. I wouldn't think, I would think it would be a good thing if people didn't, you know, if the nursing home wasn't quite so visible, you know, you don't want anybody going there that doesn't need to be going there, for one. Respect the character of the existing neighborhood. That caught my eye. You know, down on M it says create a development of affordable housing consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods. The traffic is going to be a problem. It already is a problem on Belle Woods, and it can only be added to with two entrances there. I don't understand why they can't, you know, do an entrance at least back off of Greenfield somewhere, because they have some additional property back there. On Goal 15, implement neighborhood protection overlays, zoning provisions, as a tool for establishing stability and protection in existing and especially older neighborhoods. You know, all this stuff is going to go by the wayside. It's going to change the character of our neighborhood. I think they said no parking would be allowed on Belle Wood Drive. Well, I hope that that's enforced if this goes through, because there's parking all the way down both sides of Camelot now, and that's nursing home parking, not residential. You've got over here on, well, I think you addressed on Goal 20J the impact of new development. Well, anyway, there's a whole lot in here that speaks for keeping our neighborhood like it is. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. And matter of fact, the last sentence says, in such cases, deference should be given to the existing small area plan. Thank you. Carla. In looking at the petition, there are five that don't have a street address on there, so I'm not sure if they're combined or not. One's on Limestone, so it's not an area. And then 23 are same households. Most of them look to be husband and wife, but two of them have four people from the same household who signed the petition. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Phillips. As Patrick weighed in, I feel like I need to weigh in. The reason that I asked about the historical development of the area is that I used to work as an airport planner and dealt with individuals who moved in after the airport was established and then complained about the noise brought on by the airport, which who was there first, and which serves the greater need. Syrachristian Village apparently purchased the property in 1980 and has been a longstanding neighbor in the region for 30 years. And there's no denying there's a community need for the kinds of facilities that are going to be provided. Unfortunately, because the infrastructure of Syrachristian exists there in that location, that's probably going to be the best place to provide it so that all of those facilities can be co-located. So I'm sensitive and sympathetic to the concerns of the neighbors, but also many of the people who live in the neighborhood probably purchased with the awareness that Syrachristian Village was there. And with respect to design criteria, it appears that the developer, the designers rather, are trying as best they can to be sensitive to the needs of the area. It may be that we have some negotiating room to talk about entrances off of Belleau Wood, entrances off of Greenleaf, but those are design criteria, design considerations that we can probably address at a later date. We can fine-tune those points. So I'm conflicted as well, but I'm feeling that really Syrachristian was there. It has demonstrated to be a good neighbor, and the residents of that region have known about its existence for 30 years. Okay. Thank you. I built quite a few houses in Belleau Woods when it first opened. I believe it was back in the 80s when it first started. And I remember the facility was there then. And I think you have to look at it as if that were a whole vacant land, they should bring in a whole new facility in there. That might be more problematic than the fact that it's already there and all they're doing is improving their facility. I guess you only said you were only adding 20 jobs. And then, Ms. Phillips, what she stated is that is a preliminary development plan, and certainly that can be massaged some and maybe improved, but they have heavily landscaped it. It said it had a light berm. I don't know what a light berm is. Is it not very tall? And then it had maybe some flowers planted. They might do that. I said that in the report. But that might be a better neighbor than one bad neighbor in one of those five houses there. I mean, sometimes I usually buy houses that back up the main roads because, I mean, nobody living there. One bad guy behind you can cause more trouble than the whole street. So that's kind of where I am on it. We probably need to act on this some way. I'd like to make a motion for approval of MARC 2010-5, Sarah Christian Village, findings as staff has laid them out. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second for approval. Is there any further discussion? Okay. All in favor, vote aye. Aye. Nay. Likewise when it comes up. Okay. That motion passes for the zone change. We need a motion for the conditional use. Is that right? Either order is acceptable. What, sir? The order of either is acceptable. Okay. I'd like to make a motion for approval of ZBP 2010-42, Sarah Christian Village, with the, I want to say 16 conditions. I'm not sure if that's correct. 17. 17. 17. Second. Okay. We have a motion for approval and a second for the development plan. All in favor, say aye. Vote aye. Okay. That motion carries. We need a motion for the conditional use. Go ahead. I make a motion for approval of the conditional use for MARC 2010-5, Sarah Christian Village, as outlined by the staff. Okay. We have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? I have a second. Mr. Wilson? Vote when it comes up. That motion passes. So this concludes our Sarah Village hearing. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Salyer. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. The next item on your agenda appears on page 7. The ZOTA 2010-3 requested amendment to Article 1610 of the zoning ordinance dealing with park and ride parking lot restrictions. This is a text amendment that has been initiated by the Planning Commission, and we have a staff report in your notebook, and the staff recommendation does appear on the agenda. We do not have a revised report today. Staff has received one letter regarding this text amendment. It is from the Fayette Alliance. We received it a few days ago from Noxman Ogle, their executive director, and it is in support of this proposed text amendment. This is a text amendment also related to the next item on your agenda as well, a proposed change to the adopted design guidelines for big box retail developments here in the community. The text amendment is a result of the Planning Commission's review of those changes that were draft a few months ago to the big box guidelines, and the text change would do several things. It would allow a parking reduction being possible for big box stores if they provide park and ride lots on their development plans that have pedestrian connections from those lots to the entrance to the stores and an acceptable transit shelter that meets the specifications of Lextran. Since all of our B6P shopping centers require development plans, the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to review every one of these facilities that might be proposed in the future should this text amendment pass. The maximum reduction would be 10%, and because we know today some of our big box stores are very close to the actual parking that they have, meaning the minimum parking required, we do think this will be an incentive for some of the stores who want to offer these facilities. Lexton Transit Authority contacted the staff months ago about the big box guidelines in wanting to promote park and ride lots in the community, and we think this text amendment in combination with that change will be a very positive one for the community. The staff is recommending approval of the text amendment for two reasons. We think it will be a true, meaningful incentive for addition of these facilities in the community, and secondly, the Lexton Transit Authority has recommended these facilities and asked the Planning Commission to consider the ability to encourage them in the future. I'll be glad to answer any questions about our staff report or recommendation on this proposal. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And we get a motion. I make a motion for approval of ZOTA 20-3, amendment to Article 16, Park and Ride, parking reduction. I have a motion and a second. Vote aye when you can. Okay. I think this concludes our agenda. Is that right? Oh. Just one more item, Mr. Chairman. If I could refer you to page seven of your agenda, right below the last item we dealt with. We have one commission item. It is to consider the change draft to the big box design guidelines. This prompted the text amendment that we just concluded, but the design guidelines are more detail-oriented reviews of stores in the community that are over 80,000 square feet in size. The Lexington Transit Authority asked the staff to consider ways to incentivize park and ride lots. We thought an amendment to your tenth design guideline was the best means to do that. The design guidelines already require pedestrian-oriented amenities associated with big box stores, including transit stops and other pedestrian plazas. We think it's very logical on this to also include park and ride lots as an acceptable pedestrian and transit-oriented facility. The photo you see at the bottom is a replacement photo that would appear in the design guidelines. These would be forwarded to any designers in the future that would approach the Division of Planning office interested in either amending their development plans for big box stores or promoting new stores in the community. And as many of you know, the staff does a report every time we have that type of development plan. This will be an issue that will be itemized and dealt with in the staff's report as well. We also anticipate that should we get these types of facilities proposed on future development plans, that we will also have the input of the Transit Authority as to location, number of spaces, the types of details that might be of interest to the Commission. The staff would ask the Commission to consider this change along with the additional sentence that we have underlined on the very first page that is kind of a common sense thing that the Planning Commission can and does consider amendments to these guidelines periodically. But we would ask that they be updated today for the first time in ten years through a formal motion by the Commission. Thank you. Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the recommendations of the staff and amend the big box guidelines per staff recommendation. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. King. No other announcements, Mr. Chairman, except to remind you that you get a rare Thursday off next week, so go enjoy the games and all the other things going on. All right. Okay, so meeting is adjourned. Nice job.