Oh, okay, and that's just what they'll do One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you You keep playing where you shouldn't be playing And you keep thinking that you'll never get burned Ha! I just found me a brand new box to match it And what he knows you ain't had time to learn These boots are made for walking And that's just what they'll do One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you Are you ready boots? Start walking I'm tired of playing on the team It seems I don't get time out anymore What a change if we set the pace, face to face No one even tried to score And oh, oh, I can feel the magic of your touch And when you're moving close a little bit means so much Oh, yeah, you got to understand, baby Time out is what I'm here for One-on-one, I wanna play that game tonight One-on-one, I know I wanna play that one-on-one I wanna play that game tonight One-on-one, so slow You can't tell me you don't miss me girl, no I think I might know you too You'd say if you knew that I was coming tonight I want you, can't you tell One on one, I wanna play that game tonight One on one I know I wanna play that one on one I wanna play that game tonight One on one so slow That's all you need to know now But if it's really right There's nothing else One on one I wanna play that game tonight One on one, I wanna play that game tonight One on one, I wanna play that game tonight One on one, I wanna play that game tonight I wanna play that game On one, on one, on one Girl, there's nothing else but you and me I don't want no one else I don't want no one else Oh baby, I'm tired of playing I'm tired of playing Oh, I don't wanna play those games no more No I wanna play with you girl I wanna play with you girl Just you and me We loaded up my old station wagon with a tent, a Coleman and sleeping bags. Some mission poles, a cooler, a Cokes. Three days before we had to be back. When you're seven, you're in seventh heaven. When you go in camping in the wild outdoors. As we turned off on that old dirt road, he looked at me and swore. Dad, this could be the best day of my life I've been dreaming day and night about the fun we'll have Just me and you doing what I've always wanted to I'm the luckiest boy alive This is the best day of my life His 15th birthday rolled around Classic cars were his thing When I pulled in the drive with that old vet I thought that boy would go insane When you're in your teens Your dreams revolve around for spinning wheels We worked nights on end until it was new again And as he sat behind the wheel He said, Dad, this could be the best day of my life I've been dreaming day and night about the fun we've had Just me and you doing what I've always wanted to I'm the luckiest boy alive This is the best day of my life Standing in a little room Back of the church with our tuxes on Looking at him I say I can't believe son that you're wrong He said, Dad, this could be the best day of my life I've been dreaming day and night of being like you That's me and her, watching you and mom I've learned I'm the luckiest man alive, this is the best day of my life I'm the luckiest man alive, this is the best day of my life When the sun wakes up in the west and lays its head down in the east When they ordain Madeline O'Hare and she becomes a priest When a San Diego sailor comes home with no tattoo When the lights go on at Wrigley Field I'll be coming home to you But don't wait on me Little darling Lord, can't you see Little darling I only go So far then No guarantee Don't wait on me To win you That's something I Just can't do Never have and don't If they do Don't wait on me When the wind don't blow in Chicago And L.A. is cold and clear When they unburl old glory And no one stands to cheat When my brother-in-law phones think And the charges aren't reversed When the cabbie don't want a bigger tip, I'll be sliding home from first. So don't wait on me, little darling. Lord, can't you see? Little darling. I only go so far there. No guarantee. Don't wait on me. When you do that, something I'll spend. Never have and don't Don't wait on me When you load up on a long shot Hey, when do I have a nose? When the 4th of July parade Is cold because it snows When the waiting room is empty And the dark souls come right in When Christmas comes before New Year's, I'll be coming home again. But don't wait on me, little darling. Lord, can't you see? Little darling. I only go so far, then. No guarantee. Don't wait on me. When you have something I just can't do. Never have and don't get tipped Don't wait on me Don't wait on me Don't wait on me Don't wait on me Don't wait on me You don't bring me flowers You don't sing me love songs You hardly talk to me anymore When I come through the door at the end of the day I remember when You couldn't wait to love me You used to hate to leave me Now after loving me late at night Well, it's good for you, babe You're feeling all right Well, you just roll over And turn out the light And you don't bring me flowers anymore It used to be so natural Talk about forever What used to be don't count anymore They just lay on the floor till we sweep them away Baby, I remember All the things you taught me I learned how to laugh And I learned how to cry Well, I loved how to love and I learned how to lie So you'd think I could learn how to tell you goodbye I'd tell you goodbye You don't bring me flowers anymore When you think I could learn I'll tell you goodbye You don't say you need me And you don't sing me love songs You don't bring me flowers Anymore It's knowing that your door is always open and your path is free to walk That makes me tend to leave my sleeping bag rolled up and stashed behind your couch And it's knowing I'm not shackled by forgotten words and bonds And the ink stains that have dried up onto the line It keeps you in the back roads by the rivers of my memory It keeps you with a jet on the line It's not clinging to the rocks and ivy planted on their columns now that binds me Or something that somebody said because they thought we fit together walking It just knows that the world will not be cursing or forgiven When I walk along some railroad track and find Moving on a back road by the rivers of my memory And for hours you're just generally on the mind But I'd give my cup of soup back from the gurgling crack and cauldron in some train yarn My beard, a rough and cold pile, and a dirty hat pulled low across my face Copped hands round a tin can, I pretend I'll hold you to my breast and find That you're waving from the back road by the river Of my memory, every smile and every gentle line of mine Thank you. Hey, Mr. Tamborina, listen for me In the jingle jangle morning, how come following me? Take me for a trip upon your magic swirling ship All my senses have been stripped And my hands can't feel to grip And my toes too numb to step Wait only for my foot heels to be wandering I'm ready to go anywhere I'm ready for two things On to my own parade Cast you dancing still my way I promise to go under you Hey, Mr. Tampereen Man Listen for me I'm not sleepy yet There ain't no place I'm going to Hey Mr. Damboree Man This song will be In the jingle jangle morning I'll come back with you Out in the country past the city limit sign Well there's a honky tonk near the counter line The joint starts jumping every night when the sun goes down They got whiskey women, music and smoke It's where all the cowboy folks go to burst boogie I got a good job, I work hard for my money When it's quitting time, I keep the door running I fire up my picker truck and let the horses run I go flying down that highway To that highway Stuck out in the woods To do the best of you Yeah No, no, see no Come on, baby, let's go First of all Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The Planning Commission for November the 17th. And we're not going to be here next week. We've got something else to do next Thursday. Maybe most people do. But with that, let's go on and do the approval of the minutes. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the October 13th and the October 27th minutes as presented. All right. We have a motion for approval. We have a second. Second. Second by Mike Owens. Everybody vote. All right. Motion. Do we have any postponements or withdrawals? All right. So we are just going to go right into our first hearing at Hallmark Student Development Company. Yes. Mr. Chairman, would you like us to see if the other item could be in abbreviated fashion, or would you care to go in the way? Oh, yeah. That's a good idea. The other item, which appears on page 2, bottom of page 2 of your agenda, extending to page 3, MARV 2011-17, SRC of Lexington, that item may qualify for an abbreviated hearing since the staff has revised its recommendation on the variance portion of the request. This time the staff would ask if anyone is present in the audience who wishes to speak to the zone change proposed at 1133 Industry Road by SRC of Lexington, Incorporated. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, we can have this in abbreviated fashion if the Commission wishes. Okay. That's very good. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Cravens, members of the Planning Commission. The first item on our agenda today is found on page 2. It's item 2A and behind tab 2 in your notebooks at your place. This is MARV 2011-17, a request by SRC of Lexington, Incorporated. The petitioner is requesting a zone change from a wholesale and warehouse business zone to a light industrial zone. And the subject property is located on or at 1133 Industry Road. In the vicinity, I have New Circle Road to the east, northeast, and Winchester Road to the south. And Industry Road intersects Winchester Road south of the subject property and then continues to the north and then intersects with New Circle Road. This area is mostly industrial uses and the subject property is surrounded by I-1 zoning to the north and to the west and by B-4 zoning to the east and to the southeast. The subject property, again, is B-4 currently, and they're asking for an I-1 zone. The current user of the property is using it for a warehouse, but their proposal would be to reuse it or to extend their current facility, which is located at 1105 Eastland Drive, onto the subject property so that they would have kind of an L-shaped land mass. And the current building on the property is about 3,200 square feet. They also have about 40 parking spaces and some extra room for outdoor storage. The Division of Building Inspection determined that a zone change was necessary for the applicant to expand onto this property because of the scope and the scale of what they do. The SRC of Lexington is a refurbishment and refurbishing engines and transmissions for mining and industrial equipment. And this is a larger scale than what would normally be appropriate or seen in a B4 zone within the community. Although major automobile repair is a permitted use in the B4 zone, the size and scale here is much larger than what, again, what we would normally see, even larger than what tractor-trailers would have. The 2007 comprehensive plan for this location does recommend warehouse and wholesale land use. And again, for the Planning Commission, we have Industry Road, Eastland Drive, Winchester Road, and New Circle. And the subject parcel is at very near the intersection of industry and Eastland and is recommended, again, warehouse and wholesale land use. This is corresponding to the current B4 zoning. However, there's also a small central sector small area plan that is in place for this area of the community, and the subject property is located in sub-area E. In fact, the small area plan recognizes the clustering of business and light industrial use in this area and calls out that there's a mix of light industrial uses along Eastland and also Floyd Drive, which is north of this area. But there are no specific recommendations for change in the area from the small area plan. Of significance to the staff in determining the appropriateness and whether it was in agreement with the comprehensive plan for this particular zone change was that the basic use is allowed in the refurbishing or reconditioning of engines is allowed in both a B4 zone and an I1 zone but the proposal the proposal also gives some that gave the staff some consideration of objective of the objectives of goal 11 of the comprehensive plan and I'll just point you to a handout that the staff distributed which outlines what goal 11 is to provide diverse business and employment opportunities for Lexington and Fayette County. Since several of the objectives listed here are furthered by the applicant's business, the staff concluded that the requested rezoning could be found to be in a substantial agreement with the comprehensive plan and the small area plan for this area. I'll ask the Planning Commission to refer to your notebook for the findings for this case. There was a slight typo in the wording in 1A and 1B. The land use category should be warehouse and wholesale, and that's correct on the staff report but not on the agenda. So the zoning committee and the staff are recommending approval of this rezoning for the following reasons. In this instance, a restricted light industrial zone for the property is in substantial agreement with the comprehensive plan, as well as the central sector small area plan. First, the use for the property is generally permitted in a B4 zone and is located in a cluster of a mixture of business and light industrial uses. And the applicant's proposed use closely aligns with a warehouse and wholesale land use category, as recommended by the comprehensive plan. In addition, warehouse and wholesale land use anticipates dealerships that have to do with trucks, airplanes, boats, ships, and goods which are extremely large or noisy and would be inappropriate in other business zones, and the proposed use definitely falls within that description. And then lastly, there are several objectives of Goal 11 which are furthered by the applicant's proposal. The staff is recommending conditional zoning restrictions, and those also can be found in the staff report, generally allowing the principal permitted uses in a B4 zone, and then six additional uses from the I1 zone. We can go into that further if you'd like. These restrictions are appropriate and necessary for the property in order to limit the property to be more closely in line with what's recommended by the comprehensive small area plan at this location. I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have them. Any questions from Ms. White? Yes. Tracy, what you just said is inconsistent with what we were told at the zoning committee. At the zoning committee, I specifically asked if there would be any noise associated with this engine repair, and there was not expected to be any noise. and knowing whether or not there's going to be a noise impact may impact the next, the variance request. I think what I was trying to reference was just a general, the land use description talks about things that could be noisy. I don't necessarily think that this particular use would be noisy. I mean, the land use description is broader. I'll ask the applicant. Thank you. Okay. Yes, right. Tracy, help me understand, if both of those are permitted uses in the B and the I, what's the reason for the zone change? The scope and scale of the engines and work that they're doing is not in line with what normally you would find in a B4 zone. So it's a bigger scope than you would allow in the B4? Yes. Thank you. Okay, thank you. The Associated Development Plan for this zone change is at the bottom of page 3, under item C. It is ZDP 2011-93, Eastland Subdivision, Block A. In this case, the plan is also a final development plan. The property, again, as Tracy mentioned, is located at 1133 Industry Road. It's located north of Winchester Road and on the west side of Industry Road. The final development plan depicts a 32,000-square-foot existing structure with 40 associated parking spaces. The subdivision committee recommended approval at its last meeting subject to the ten conditions as noted on your agenda. The first nine being sign-off and clean-off related items, with the tenth relating to the gravel areas which are shown in the plan in the rear and to the side. Those areas under our zoning ordinance would be required to either be paved or fenced and screened as outdoor storage. currently the way that condition is worded it would be part of taken care of in conjunction with building inspection sign off the applicant would have to make clear on the plan if that area is to stay gravel how the fencing and screening would be taken care of or the gravel area would be shown to be paved prior to certification. There is also a landscape variance that is being requested with this zone change which Mr. Salee will go over in just a second but if you have any questions on the development plan I'd be happy to try to answer them. Okay. Any questions? All right. Thank you. Okay. Next week. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, good afternoon. I'm presenting item B on page 3 of your agenda. This is the variance request by the applicant in conjunction with this unchanged. Again, this is MARV 2011-17. The requested variance is the proposed elimination of the landscaping, trees, and shrubs from a 15-foot buffer. The variance involves two of the three sides of the property. As Ms. Wade mentioned, property to the north and to the east will remain in a B4 zone. Because this is a business zone, the industrial zone next to that requires screening. And this is the area where they have asked for the landscape buffer to be eliminated through the variance. This property was basically developed in the 1960s and has largely remained unchanged since that time. the staff at your zoning committee meeting did recommend postponement of the variance request primarily because the landscape review committee had not yet met at the time of your zoning committee meeting they did meet last week and reviewed this application and they voted to recommend approval of the variance to the commission with no conditions Basically, they reviewed the photographs that I'd like to quickly go over with you, just identifying the situation and the existing condition. This is a view of the subject property from Industry Road here. This is the line where the variance is requested, and what is striking in the photograph is the close proximity between the two buildings. This is a covered shed, and there's a very small space between the two buildings along the property line. This is a view from the front of the street. Looking at the driveway, there is a gate here. The property line generally is along this utility line here. There is a bit of topographic difference that you can tell in the height of the two buildings here. This is a view from more to the rear of the property looking back toward the front view of the shed, some of the outdoor equipment that is stored. This building here is on the adjacent property. Yet another view generally of the same location, again with the shed as reference looking toward Industry Road from the north. this is a view looking from the subject property to the east at the adjoining property there is a retaining wall let's see if I can slide that up here there we go bottom of the photo and the elevation difference between the adjacent storage is much more pronounced in this photo finally this is a view of the rear of the property again with the retaining wall visible This is screening along the railroad spur that if the zone change is approved would also be I-1. Finally, this photograph was telling to the staff, this appears to be one of the engines that may be refurbished should the zone change be approved. Quite a large piece of machinery. Since the applicant has provided a revised justification for the variance to the staff, the staff has revised its recommendation to the Commission to reflect basically the action of the Landscape Review Committee on this proposal. The staff is recommending approval of the requested landscaping variance for five reasons that appear in our staff report that is in the middle of tab 2. with your notebooks. The first is that granting the requested variance should not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, create a nuisance to the general public, nor alter the character of the general vicinity. Secondly, approval of variances will not result in an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance. Thirdly, besides the topography, there are special circumstances involving the subject property that justify the requested variances. Strict application of the requirements of the zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship to the applicant in the staff's view. And then finally, the existing conditions have largely been unchanged since 1983 when the landscaping provisions of the ordinance were adopted. There are three conditions recommended by the staff as part of this variance. The first is that it would become null and void if the rezoning is not granted. Secondly, that a note be placed on the development plan that Mr. Taylor presented. And thirdly, prior to any occupancy, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from state and local agencies. At this time, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about our report on the variance request. Any questions? Yes, Mr. Sally, I understand that the property line is not plantable, but how many trees is the public being denied? Generally, the landscaping ordinance requires one tree per 40 feet, and that property line is 467 feet, so that would be about 12 or 13 trees ordinarily required. Okay. I wish to make a point. There are 12 or 13 trees that we are not going to plant because it's not suitable. But trees are planted not just for screening, as the ordinance requested, but for many other reasons. And did the Landscape Review Committee consider that those 12 or 13 trees could be planted in a park at an intersection of a major road, but take that quota and plant them somewhere else? did they consider the loss of trees to the canopy of the city? I don't believe that they did. I don't recall any extensive discussion about canopy at all at that meeting. Well, it would have been the green thing to do. I don't think we can ask them at this point, but it seems like a glitch in the system to deny the public of 13 trees. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is the staff completed there? Yes. Okay. Petitioner? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. My name is Glenn Price. I'm a member of the firm of Frost Brown Tide. Janice Circle of our Lexington office and I represent SRC of Lexington, which is the applicant in this zone change. Our office address is 250 West Main Street in Lexington. I'm here today with Rory Cayley of EA Partners, who I believe you all know, and also Greg Hampton. Greg is the engineering manager of SRC. I'm also here today with Brett Setzer of Setzer Investments. We would like to, first of all, incorporate the staff's comments and recommendations as part of our presentation. I'd also like to answer your questions in semi-reverse order. First of all, the reason for the request is that the R4 zone, the B4 zone, permits such things as automobile refurbishing, automobile engine refurbishing, and that sort of thing. SRC refurbishes heavy mining engines, heavy mining equipment, heavy industrial equipment. They do so in a location that is within a building and there is not any noise that occurs from without. So there will not be any sort of noise pollution or noise nuisance as a result of the location of this business here. But that's the reason for the difference between the B4 and the I1 and the comprehensive plan, particularly the Goal 11 that was referred to, supports both the existing zoning and would also support the I1 zoning that we're proposing. The variance request is there because the building was built in 1963, well prior to the merger of city and county government. the 15 feet to the south of the development, I think I have my directions correct, is occupied by either the overhang of the existing building or by compacted gravel, which extends from that point on back to the end of the property, which is supported by a retaining wall because the adjacent property has an elevation that's about five feet lower than this property has. So it's essentially compacted gravel that has had heavy products stored on it for years and years going back to 1963. Now, Rory, what did I miss? I'll just add one thing. There's a tree campy requirement. There's not going to be a shortage of trees. They'll just be in a different location. If we were to be required to place the trees in that screening area, then those trees would count towards our campy requirements. Now that they don't have to be back there in that gravel area, they'll be planted elsewhere. On the site? Yes. Okay. Yeah. But you don't show that planting plan? No, we'll never show trees on a development plan. Are you talking about real trees or little shrubs? Trees that meet the ordinance. Okay. Thank you. Sure thing. Can we answer any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. That's in the tree scope of abbreviated hearing. Okay. Okay. We now will close the hearing. And turn it over to the Commission for any more comments or a motion. Move approval of MARV 2011-17 SRC of Lexington for the reasons outlined by staff. Okay. We have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mike Owens. Everybody vote when you can. The motion carries. Can we have a motion for the variance now? Move approval of the variance from MARV 2011-17 SRC of Lexington for the reasons recommended by staff and the three conditions. All right. We have a motion for approval of the variance. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mike Owens. Everybody vote. That motion carries. Now we need a motion for the development plan. Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of ZDP 2011-93 with the 10 conditions. Okay, we have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mike Owens. Everybody vote when you can. That motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 2011-16. This is a request to rezone by Hallmark Student Development Company, LLC, and their request is to rezone from a wholesale and warehouse business zone and an agricultural urban zone to a high-rise apartment zone. And I will note a few things to enter in the record as staff exhibits. I'll pass around. The first is the UK campus housing white paper that was prepared by UK this year. The second is a summary of the UK campus housing master plan, which has a time frame and then specific graphics for each of their stages of development. and then a memo from 2007 from UK to housing developers related to student housing The subject property is located, a portion actually has an address of 843 South Broadway, and the rear portion of the property is a fraction of the larger Red Mile parcel, which has an address of 1200 Red Mile Road. The property collectively is one large parcel and then a section of a smaller one, approximately eight and a half acres and two acres in size. There is frontage along South Broadway and then basically frontage along the track to the rear. Not a street, but facing the track to the rear. The location of the property is next to a speedway at the intersection of Angliana and Foreman Avenue along South Broadway and then to the north of where Red Mile intersects with South Broadway and Virginia Avenue. Also zoning in the vicinity, Curry Avenue is B4 zoned, as is a majority of the subject property. The commercial areas to the southeast with restaurants and a hotel are zoned B3, our highway service business zone, as well as the gas station to the north. And then across South Broadway, we have R4 zoning for the Newtown Crossing development, as well as a few pieces of neighborhood business and P1 zoning. The track itself remains zoned agricultural urban, and then as you might remember, within the last two years, the Red Mile did rezone a majority of their property to a mixed-use 3 zone. the petitioner is proposing an R5 zone for this parcel in order to develop 272 dwelling units in four multifamily buildings this is a density of 25.66 dwelling units per acre the South Broadway corridor is considered between Red Mile and Maxwell Street is a mixture of uses residential commercial as well as some industrial uses remain this quarter has been and has been a mixture of commercial uses residential industrial for a long time some of the newer uses that have come about are because of tobacco warehouses being redeveloped and we do have several student housing developments in this vicinity run through some site photographs planning Commission this is the entrance sign along South Broadway with the speedway to the rear is the largest building on the property where It's the sales facility towards the front of the subject property. There are existing barns to the rear that run along the southwest property boundary and come close to abutting the track area, the Red Mile. A little bit closer view of some of the barns. This is a view of the grandstand and the track on the Red Mile property. this is was taken from the area that would currently be agricultural urban on the Red Mile track parcel looking back towards South Broadway this is the access entrance drive that currently exists for the tattersalls facility that as you may remember there's a road or a an easement that goes from South Broadway all the way to Versailles Road so that's this is a portion of that that access this is this would be a photograph of the B currently B4 zoned area this is a view of Curry Avenue to the northeast and you can see there are also a number of mixed uses on Curry Avenue residential as well as automobile repair and then there's the rear of a kennel in that area. Along the front of the parcel proposed for redevelopment is an access that connects the Tattersall's lot to the adjacent restaurant property. That in the photo. This is a view of the shared property line between the subject property and the restaurant to the west. and the new town crossing development across South Broadway there. This is a large tree that the applicant is proposing to retain on the property. It's a burr oak. And from the adjoining or adjacent restaurant property, their access point onto South Broadway, this is looking towards downtown, and the proposed access on the development plan would generally come between this last tree and the fire hydrant into the subject parcel. And then a view looking away from downtown towards the south Red Mile Road area. The comprehensive plan in this area recommends mostly a mixture of residential and commercial uses, what we have termed as a land use category, commercial residential mixed use. For a majority of the property, there's also the rear portion of the property is recommended for semi-public land use. And in terms of the definition of those, generally the commercial residential mixed use can be either a vertical or horizontal mixture. So it can be accessory or adjacent residential uses, but in this mixed-use residential has to be a component or would be encouraged to be a component of any redevelopment. And then the semi-public facility land use is for the rear property that's related to the AU zone, and it's for service-oriented or distinctive facilities in our community. In this case, it would be private recreation in general. and what we consider again is if redevelopment is proposed, the Planning Commission should consider not just the comprehensive plan but also some other relevant current information. The Red Mile property also had one of seven asterisks on the land use element of the plan. So note seven in our appendix of the comprehensive plan calls for a small area plan to be developed for the Red Mile property and with strong consideration for high-density residential as well as mixed use. That recommendation, along with the Red Mile property owners' desire to redevelop, led to the Red Mile development plan process in 2009. That was a joint effort between the city and the property owners. It was not a small area plan process, but rather something that was a little bit more expedited and something that the applicant or the property owner in that case took on in terms of hiring a consultant and being a partner in that process. It was prepared in 2009. That plan was approved by the Planning Commission, but it was not an adopted element of our comprehensive plan. so in that case it becomes relevant information that we have to consider the Planning Commission and the council have to consider in terms of a redevelopment proposal the at your place I distributed some staff exhibits the top page is and actually the first three pages are pages from that red mile development plan the first shows the site context and for reference the subject property is located along the bottom of that site context map and the second page that you have is the concept plan that was developed for that property and the staff would note that at the time that plan was developed the tattersall's property was proposed to remain a part of the active use of the track so they wanted to use the stables and they wanted to use the sales facility at that time for that reason the concept plan doesn't show any redevelopment of that part of the property it shows just the existing structures to remain staff would also note that the concept plan identified 150 to 250 market rate units and those are located on the north side of the property. And then lastly, the goals and principles is the third page that the Planning Commission has from this report. Identifies three overall goals and then several principles associated with this property. of note in terms of the plan is that there was a allowed excuse me that one principal spoke to allowing the continued operation of the racetrack and tattersalls another principal spoke to not targeting residential development to undergraduate students another encouraged spoke to encouraging a mixture of housing retail and office and a fourth spoke to trying to make a link between between the subject property, Red Mile, and Angliana Avenue development. And as I mentioned further on page 13 of this plan, which I did not distribute but is in the staff report, there was the desire at that time to maintain the Tattersalls development. In staff's review of the zone change two weeks ago when we met with the zoning committee, the staff did recommend postponement of this request. We listed two reasons. One had to do with what appeared to be some contrary statements from this plan and comparing that to what the applicant was proposing. And the second item had to do with the University of Kentucky's recent announcement about new dormitories that were planned on their property. Since the zoning committee met, the staff has met with the applicant three times. And we have also met with the University of Kentucky to discuss their housing plans and goals. the applicant has also submitted a written response to the staff recommendation of postponement and that's in your notebooks that spurred a supplemental staff report and that is also in your notebook the proposed complex well let me refer to my slide other relevant information that the planning staff is considering in terms of this rezoning request. First has to do with the University of Kentucky and their plans for new on-campus housing as well as their future goals. The university also has acquired the university lofts property. And I'll point to that on the map here. On Boulevard Street, that is a loss in the community of 86 units because the university will be using that for the art department. We don't know the time frame that that would be switching now. Also, what's come to light since the zoning committee met in the last two weeks is that the elimination of the Tattersalls support area was really an unanticipated circumstance that was not planned for in 2009, but because of additional information in the last two years, It makes the Tattersalls facility not appropriate for continued use. The renovation, according to the applicant, necessary was quite extensive and expensive, as well as the number of racing days has declined for the property, so the use of the stables is not necessary as often. The staff has also considered the proximity of this property to the University of Kentucky campus. It's within a half a mile of the core of campus from a direct line. And we also have to look at what is the impact of students and where they live and when they choose to live in established residential neighborhoods versus in apartment complexes like those that are proposed today. And then lastly, whether it's suitable. The proposed land use is suitable at this location. When we looked at the on-campus student housing, the UK campus housing white paper that came out recently shows that Kentucky campus currently houses 21.5% of their student body, with about 28,000 students and only 6,000 beds on campus. Their future goal is to house 30% of their students, with also increasing the number of the student body to approximately 30,000, and they hope to have on-campus housing of about 9,000 beds. So the question at hand then is where do the remaining 80% to 70% currently reside or should reside? And the staff has done some research about what's going on in this corridor because we've had the Planning Commission express some concern about the intensity of student housing in one area. And I will note that the subject property currently in the middle, this is just our zoning map with some added information. We looked at the dwelling units and the bedrooms of apartment complexes that have been approved in this area. And we came to a total of 2,155 dwelling units and 5,175 bedrooms in this area. I think that shows that there is obviously a concentration, but there's also some obviously inclination for students to want to live near the campus. Of note to the Planning Commission also, when we distributed our exhibits, there's a letter, a memo from the university that we found in our 2007 rezoning on Angliana Avenue. here that showed that the camp the university was wanting to house 40% of their students on campus and that was their goal four years ago that has changed obviously since then which I think obviously puts more pressure on the rest of the community to absorb where those students are going to live From our meeting with the university, they're soliciting responses to an RFP currently, and their first priority is to build a 600-bed dormitory on campus strictly for honor students. And then the next phases will be to demolish and replace most of the dormitories on campus within the campus confines. In terms of the staff reviewing this case, we looked again at what the comprehensive plan recommends as our primary or, I guess, significant consideration given to that and the designation as mixed use and semi-public came to the forefront. that mixed-use recommendation, again, calls for a component to be residential in nature. And when we look at the area bounded by Red Mile, Angliana, South Broadway, and the Red Mile property, there is no residential development within that block. So if we consider that whole area, there is a recommendation for redevelopment there. There is a recommendation that there be a residential component. and this proposal can implement that recommendation by adding this residential component to this area. Although the principles and the redevelopment recommendations of the Red Mile Development Plan advocate for no student housing, the elimination of the Tattersall support area from the Red Mile track should be considered an extenuating and perhaps unanticipated circumstance. the applicant is proposing also to meet some of the other recommendations of this plan they are proposing a connection from the red mile property to curry Avenue which was something that the plan desired and they are also trying to implement the principle of encouraging mixture of use including residential retail and office which would happen within that immediate area but more More importantly, the staff wanted to note that the Red Mile plan does call for those market rate units and the Planning Commission did just approve a final development plan for those market rate units on the Red Mile plan to remain being built. So this does not take away from the market rate development that's being proposed on their property. The staff would conclude then that this proposal for redevelopment will encourage a mixture of housing, retail, and office uses in the South Broadway area, as recommended by our comprehensive plan, as well as the small area plan or the development plan, and then also that the R5 zone won't compromise the recommendations of the adopted Red Mile development plan. The staff has a recommendation of approval today for the rezoning because it can be found to be in substantial agreement with the comprehensive plan and, again, noting that residential component is required by the mixed-use future land use, and this would implement that. And then also that the semi-public land use to the rear, the applicant is proposing mostly parking in that area, And similarly, for the Red Mile, there could be parking in that location as well. So there's not really much impact to the track for the parking. This recommendation is made subject to the approval of the development plan and its certification within the next two weeks. You can answer any questions you might have. Okay, any questions, yes. Yes, Ms. Way, how big is that piece of land? What piece of land? The subject property? Yes, uh-huh. 10.6 acres. And how many bedrooms were there? 272. Oh, excuse me, units. 832 bedrooms. So we can anticipate 832 people sleeping there. Yes. How many stories high are they counting on? I believe they're counting on four stories. Okay. Because the honors student housing that is in front of the, on a much smaller piece of land, is going to sleep 600. So do we have, is that as high a density as we can go on that piece of land? With an R5 zone, there could be higher floor area ratio. Mr. Martin will be able to explain this better, but there are certain things that prohibit any further units, and that's, in this case, parking. So if they can find other parking locations, they can add more bedrooms. But in this case, the maximum number of bedrooms or units, it gets maxed out when you don't have any more land for parking. And again, Mr. Martin will probably be able to explain that much better than I can. That's okay. You say this is a half mile from school? Yes, as the crow flies. Okay. Well, my question is, if we have this valuable piece of land that is so close to the school that it's practically on the doorstep of the administration building, why are we guaranteeing the amenity of a place to park? Well, there's a requirement in our R5 zone for parking. But if we're going to have a public university zone that the university controls, and then they spill out into the town part of the university zone, maybe our zoning doesn't fit if we're going to take that area right around the university and carry over our R5 zoning requirements. Maybe we should look at a lower standard for parking, if we're that close to the university, to enhance other amenities rather than a parking space. I don't disagree with that. Unfortunately, the reality is that most students have vehicles, and whether they park them on campus or at their place of residence, I mean, they're going to have cars. It's different from 20 or 40 years ago. Well, the question is, are we about sleeping people next to the university or parking their cars next to the university? And it gets to be, you know, guns and butter here. because we could build more space and go higher if we had a lower parking requirement. But again, the reality is they have cars. So whether the planning commission and the staff require fewer parking spaces, what we've seen is most developments want more. They ask for even one and a half times what is required. Yes, but we have a finite. we have a fixed amount of land that's close to the university. Correct. Thank you. I understand your point. All right. Any other questions? Do you have one? Please. Thank you. Tracy? Yes, sir. This piece of property, was it part of the 2009 Red Mile development plan? It was part of the site because the Red Mile owns this piece of property. However, they did not do a concept plan for that portion of their property. Okay. And then I appreciate the map there showing the apartment complexes and the beds and so forth. Do we have any numbers? Is it possible to come up with any numbers as to the occupancy rate? I don't have any that I've gathered. I understand the applicant has. Okay. As far as, and then help me, show me where like Maxwell and Rose Street would be on this, on the map. Maxwell and Rose. Broadway to Maxwell. Yeah. And Rose would be, no. It's farther down. It's not on the map. Yeah, I think it's off here. Okay. I think it was just one sector. Yeah. Okay, so that's just one part. So we're not talking about all of the student housing, obviously. No. There is certainly a lot more between, not the South Hill part, but there's a good number between campus and downtown as well. Okay. All right. So this represents 5,000 bedrooms, and we talked about the university having 5,000. So collectively they have between this area and the university 10,000 and 11,000 bedrooms. So that's about a third or more. Okay, one other question right now. You were talking about the area as far as what we're talking about, South Broadway, Red Mile, Anglian, and so forth, and you said there was no apartments in that area or on that block, you're not including 524 Angliana? I'm including the Red Mile to Angliana and back. That area of land recommended for mixed use. Okay. All right, then. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Tracy, when we did the Red Mile development plan, the purpose was to create a destination, a place that wouldn't serve the people that normally live around there, but would create excitement, a place for people to come to help the track, to make places for offices, for businesses, for all that type of mixed-use, truly a mixed-use development. Obviously, the Tattersalls at that point was still going to be a sales pavilion and still have those barns. In the staff's opinion, do we change the overall intent of the Red Mile Development Plan as changing this to high-density housing? No, we don't. Okay, thank you. Okay, any other questions? All right. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the preliminary development plan that you see before you associated with this zone change is on page two of your agenda. The ZDP 2011-92 Tattersall apartment development. Again, the preliminary development plan that you see proposes four apartment buildings in this location with associated parking. The buildings are 103,000-plus square feet. They are four stories, 50 feet in height. The courtyard areas that you see highlighted here on these are 4,000 square feet approximately. They have proposed detention in these areas we've outlined for you in blue. Here is the clubhouse, the pool, and the volleyball court. These are all necessary amenities in student housing in these times. The associated parking, as you can see, is distributed throughout the property. They are showing a public street in this location at the rear. With the connection to the Red Mile Road that you saw when you reapproved the Red Mile plan, you may recall that one of those conditions was to widen it to 24 feet. They are showing a connection now out to Curry Avenue. And again, the plan that you see before you is revised. As Ms. Wade stated, we've met with the applicant on several occasions the last few weeks to talk about some of these issues. The parking is based on the 832 bedrooms. They have chosen to avail themselves of the 10% discount that the ordinance allows. That has created a situation where they are required 674 spaces. They are providing 701. That's just a surplus of 27 spaces. They have compact spaces that they have distributed per the staff's request throughout the development. There's 184 of those. They are proposing access at this point on what will be a new public street. Access here. And then this is the current proposed access off South Broadway into the property. Again, right here is the old Coach House, Super America. The subdivision committee initially reviewed this and recommended postponement. Subsequently, and after those numerous meetings, this revision was submitted on November 11th. And you can see there's been revised conditions handed out to you for your review. The staff is recommending approval of this development plan subject to standard conditions of sign-off with the urban county engineer, the traffic engineer, building inspection, and the urban forester's approval of the tree inventory map. we are asking on number six where they did add the dimensions of the buildings and clubhouse courtyards some very basic things that they correct the proposed lot sizes as shown in the site statistics one aspect of this plan in the r5 zoning is that ultimately they will subdivide these this property and each of these buildings will be on its own lot there was a slight numerical rounding problem. The discrepancy was very slight, but we would like to have that corrected. The staff is also asking that they denote that the location of the six proposed parking spaces located on the access drive near the clubhouse shall be reviewed at the time of the final development plan. They need to denote any existing and proposed easements as well. They are showing us one proposed sanitary sewer easement. It is not uncommon in these areas that there aren't any existing utility easements and that sort of thing. A lot of times that's in the right of way. A note to that effect will suffice. Otherwise, staff wants to be sure that any easements that may exist are shown on the plan. The cleaned up plan, the revised plan that you see before you day has addressed the conditions that you see. Again, on your handout, they have provided bicycle rack locations. They show them in the courtyards. We ask for that since they want to utilize that discount in order to determine their required parking. We ask that they show their internal sidewalk connections. They have, in fact, done that. If you look at the plan, you can see they added crosswalks and things like that to help highlight the internal pedestrian connections proposed within their development. The construction entrance has been designated at this point. They have also addressed the construction entrance here. The lotting situation, which I mentioned, we had some concern primarily along the proposed lot line here that they couldn't meet the height to the yard ratio. They can, and that will now work, so staff is satisfied with that. They addressed the compact spaces, as I mentioned. There are 184 of them. They've distributed them around the property. They've addressed the zone-to-zone screening. Initially, on the original submissal, they showed a five-foot landscape buffer. That is only acceptable if there is a fence, a six-foot fence associated with it. This plan now shows that six-foot fence and the five-foot landscape buffer. Item 9 is to note that the tree protection area and tree canopy requirements shall be reviewed on the final development plan. This is a statement of the requirement. It is normal that we review the canopy requirements and tree protection at the final development plan. Staff felt it was prudent to bring this up in the initial review. All they're required is to demonstrate what exists on the property. I've highlighted here for you in the dark green, these are the trees that exist on the property. And there are some nice trees on the property. Only three of them are considered significant trees under our ordinance. However, again, there are nice trees existing on the property. That counts towards their current canopy. So staff wanted to be sure they were prepared to address that issue on the final development plan. The significant trees are a hackberry at this point, a bur oak at this point, and a catalpa, or Indian cigar tree, as I grew up calling them, at this location. The six parking spaces that I mentioned to you earlier are located right here. Part of our concern is the bur oak. There's also a sycamore here, although which is not a significant tree under our ordinance. It is 32 inches. It is a large tree. We're concerned about the possibility of this access point, pavement and that sort of thing, constricting these trees more than necessary, because they are, particularly baroques, are susceptible to those types of activities. So that's the reason for our concern over those six parking spaces. The final condition that you see, number 10, is to note that the access location to South Broadway and any necessary roadway improvements shall be determined on the final development plan. Staff is very pleased with the public street proposed at the rear, the connection to Curry Avenue, something staff has championed for some time. The Broadway access point initially was shown in the area of the volleyball court, the Orange Square, on the north of the plan. There was concern about that proximity to the Super America location, the traffic light, and the staff did not believe that that was an adequate location whatsoever. This revised plan, as you can see, has moved it to the opposite end of the property. It's close to the coach house entrance. There is still some concern with whether or not that entrance is the best location. There have been conversations and meetings with traffic engineering planning. I believe KDOT has even been contacted, and there is still some concern that that location may possibly have to be moved. If it is, it would be located preferably between the existing access points. You can see that that will cause some redesign of the amenities that they're offering. It would, however, possibly relieve pressure on these trees. So, again, we think that these issues can be appropriately addressed at your final development plan. And, again, staff is recommending approval of the revised plan that you see before you today. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Okay. Any questions? Mr. Penn? Tom, irregardless of whether it's there or whether it's located back up the other way, Are you all anticipating that's going to be a right in and right out entrance? Pardon me. It is to be a full access point. With a stoplight? No, sir, just full movement. You're going to make a left turn out of there? You will be allowed to make a left turn. A fast car. At certain times of the day, yes, sir, I think you're correct. Okay, Carla. You mentioned the six spots and the concern about the tree. It looks awfully close also to the entrance. Is there any concern about people backing out of those parking spots and people coming into the development? Well, I think there's some concern with that. Yes, ma'am. The throat is better than the original throat, so there's more depth on that proposed access point. But depth is always reviewed as part of the access. I have a question about the traffic study also. We have Rob Hammons is here today to address the study for you. Okay, Mr. Collins. Thank you. Tom, let's go to the opposite end for a moment. The public street, width of it, will it handle the traffic that's going to go out that way, I would presume? Yes, sir, and it will be evaluated along those lines. What about going on over to Curry Avenue? I was trying to look in the folder here, and it seemed like maybe those were 40, 50-foot lots. Yes, sir. Is that enough to put a full street? Yes, sir. A local street should fit there nicely. And then, you know, I was on Curry Avenue yesterday, and it really seems tight as far as when I was going down it. It was almost a one-way street. It is a tight street. It's an older street. Parking has been restricted to one side of Curry to help with access up and down Curry. Currently? Yes, sir. That is staff's understanding. It seems like it has been. Going over to Curry, shown on the map there, how much farther is it down to the end of Curry, where you've got the, what I want to say, one-way alley going out to Angliana? It's offset. It's not a great distance from where you see that ending. I can't give you an exact dimension, but it's not far. It certainly is offset, as you may recall, that access on Curry over to Angliana. And we do believe that the system that you see will be adequate to serve pedestrians, bikes, and traffic. It will slow them down, hopefully. In your discussion with the applicant, has there been any other discussion on taking that access over to Currion, over to Angliana? Pardon me, I'm not sure if I followed. They're talking about now taking back entrance, what I'm going to call back entrance, over to Curry Avenue. If I'm not mistaken, it was like one lot between Curry Avenue and Angliana. Has there been any discussion about going on over and providing access all the way over to Angliana? No, sir. We currently have a plan that shows access between Curry and Angliana Avenue. And we're anticipating bringing a revision of that plan before this body as well. At a later date? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Good afternoon, Chairman, Planning Commission. I'm Rob Hammons with the Division of Planning, Transportation Planning Section. My role is to briefly explain the applicant's traffic impact study and their efforts to address the proposed development's traffic impacts to the adjacent roadways and streets. I'd like to add the applicant has worked closely with staff. We initially met with him on October 25th to discuss the site plan, And we were concerned about the 64 feet from Speedway to their proposed access because of corner clearance from the South Broadway and Angliana intersection. But they've been their development team. They've initiated the meetings. We met with the state, our traffic engineers, and we have Jeff Neal from the Division of Traffic Engineers here to answer any questions if you all have any questions of him. but their development team, they really worked with us close, and as Tom had mentioned, the main access will be determined at the final development plan, and there will be more review on that. So the traffic impact study did meet the requirements for completeness and accuracy, and what I'm going to do today is just run down the important items briefly that are part of assessing the traffic impacts to include the following. If you look at your traffic impact study, we're basically going to start at item 9 and run through item 15. That's going to hit on the annual average daily traffic volumes. the number of crashes, trip generation of the proposed development, site traffic trip distribution, the level of service results, any future planned projects in the area, the consultants' recommendations, and our findings. One thing to note, when I was reviewing this traffic impact study on the annual average daily traffic flows, You can go back 21 years, and on South Broadway in this area, the traffic has fluctuated slightly, but we've been averaging that 34,000 bidirectional trips since about 1990. And I think it was in 2006, we had 44,000 vehicles going through there. So this corridor has been experiencing this type of traffic volumes for 21 years. But the good thing is now with Angliana not having the heavy trucks for the warehousing and the Budweiser distributorship, you don't have that element. You don't have as many heavy trucks in the vehicle mix. As the report notes, South Broadway, we had 34,000 bidirectional trips. And why this is important, this is background traffic. Versailles Road, 23,000 trips. We had Red Mile is approximately 16,500 bidirectional trips. And there were no counts on Curry Avenue, But I would like to note on the Red Mile Road, we do have a future project planned for Red Mile, but right now there's no funding for that. The development sites trip generation, you've got three different bullet points there. It's got the average daily. We're mainly concerned with the PMP car trips because when you look at all the volumes hourly, the busiest time of day runs from about 4.30 through about 5.30 to 6 o'clock. So that's one of our requirements as part of Article 6-1C for this traffic study. the as the total trips and the trip distribution they are proposing that about 55 percent of the trips will be going to South Broadway and 45 percent going to going to Vercels Road now thing Remember, on this, the standard deviation could be 5% to 10%, give or take. This is good numbers, IT trip generation manuals and techniques. So that's what we have for that distribution of that traffic. If you turn to your very last page, we'll go over the level of service quickly. As you look at this table, you'll see in the design year phase one, no improvements, and the design year phase one improvements. In those two columns to the right, you'll see those level of service E for South Broadway, Red Mile Road, and the level of service F for South Broadway in the entrance. What's dragging that level of service down is the minor movements are suffering the most, and that's typical. So they're going to drag the overall intersection level of service down, and that's what you're seeing with level of service E and F on those three different roadways. But you can see the analysis did cover South Broadway, Red Mile Road, South Broadway, Angleana, South Broadway in the entrance, Vercels Road, Forbes Road, Red Mile Road, Vercels Road in Angleana, Red Mile, and the three other entrances that's part of the Red Mile development, which is Red Mile and Unity Drive, Red Mile and Horseman's Lane, Red Mile and the T intersection, the Bar and Access Road. One thing to note, when you have these levels of service E and below, that points to congestion. And I did a three-year analysis of the traffic accident data, and that data was only showing about, only averaged about five accidents in the AM peak and about five to six in the PM peak. And for that segment on South Broadway, there were about 48 accidents a year. But I was pleasantly surprised to see that a PM peak hour didn't have a whole bunch of accidents. But of those accidents, you had rear-end accidents and some side swipe, all basically about the same direction. So you got people moving. That's another good point to why we asked them to move that access point down. So we got one thing to note on the trip generation. They only exceeded the threshold by about 10 trips. It's 100 trips inbound or outbound during the p.m. peak hour, and I think it was like 110 trips. And if you reduce, if you do any reduction for bicycles, pedestrians, walking, and transit, they may not even have had to do a study. But they did one because it's a busy area, it's a congested location, and it's a known location where congestion is. So I appreciate them taking the extra effort and doing the study and doing it with great detail. Some of the recommendations that the consultant had identified, which are on page two, they recommended changing signal timing for South Broadway and Angliana and also for South Broadway and Virginia Avenue. they're requesting or recommending a change to give pedestrians more time to get across the major arterial so that's why they have suggested that they've also suggested adding additional lane down to on Red Mile Road's approach to Vercels Road they've made some other suggestions on South Broadway and Virginia Red Mile Road and that would be a turn lane narrowing the roadway and putting a turn lane northbound right onto Virginia Avenue. Our Metropolitan Transportation Plan does have an unscheduled, unfunded project to redo, to look at that intersection and make improvements. But right now, there's no funding for it. But as we move forward, that project may be elevated. And I don't think anyone mentioned that the pedestrians here at this proposed development, they will be able to access the pedestrian bridge over the railroad track and Newtown Crossing. And they also were hoping that they'll have a large bike component and they'll be able to get access transit. But staff conclusions and the findings that the traffic impact study that was done, they did an October one, then they revised their most recent one just to look at Curry Avenue and to also look at the new entrance design. But I think they did a good job, and we'll work with them to look at that South Broadway access. And if you all have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. I know I kind of went through this quickly, but it's a whole lot of details. All right. Ms. Blanton. I have two questions. I noticed that one of the recommendations is a traffic signal timing issue on South Broadway in Angliana, but there where Angliana and Curry and the Super America, it's kind of a free-for-all. Is there going to be any kind of help for? Well, here's the thing to remember. If you've got, say, 110 trips coming out of the site during the p.m. peak hour, you're going to have dispersion points to the new public street and to Curry and to South Broadway. So the amount of total trips going out at Curry probably won't be that significant. But, yeah, it is a troublesome area. And like Tom was mentioning, it's a tight road. But hopefully that will be a deterrent. Because usually when you have a tight spot like that, people avoid it. And the people that do use it, they're careful to drive careful through that area. But, yeah, it is a known. It's not the perfect design right there. So there's not going to be anything that, I mean, if you're coming from Angliana to the South Broadway stoplight and someone's coming from South Broadway and wants to get on Curry, there's nothing telling people who goes, I mean, there's no direction that anybody has to slow down for the other person. Yeah, that is a tough spot right there, and it's been like that for probably 50 years. And even though we're adding, I mean, even adding 10 more cars on that is going to be really problematic. I would say that that will be looked at when they do the final. I mean, that access point to Curry will be looked at, but the actual design of that is an off-site improvement. and we can make a recommendation to have the transportation planning staff, the MPO staff, look at that as an unscheduled project need. Actually, I think that is already on there. I don't know the exact number, but I will check on that, and we'll forward that to the MPO. And this is the first time that I've been on the commission that we've looked at a traffic study, but there are eight intersections identified here. there are two Ds, an E and an F. When does it have, I mean, what makes it too bad to move forward with when you've got four of the eight are, you know, essentially failing? In the zoning ordinance, it's safe and acceptable level service D. So when you see an E and F, usually what's happening there is one of the minor movements is a level service F. Say, for example, the site of the residential housing, that movement is going to be, those minor movements off of that site is going to suffer, and it's dragging the rest of the level of service down. But this is already an urbanized area. It's congested, and this is kind of an existing condition. So that's what we're dealing with here. But we've moved, okay, we've created an F where there was nothing at the South Broadway and Hallmark apartment entrance. The Red Mile and Horstman's Lane is going from a B to a D. It seems kind of troubling to me. Well, one thing to remember is that this is the heart of science we have on this. It's IT, but there are standard deviations, and we're hoping that the total trips that's mentioned in this study, If people do walk, which you see a lot of people walking all over that area, if they choose to walk, that may reduce it even further, and the entrance design could improve that level of service. Right now, where it's proposed to be is still in the works. But this is even after improvements are planned? Well, that level of service could change, and just note that. That's because they're going to work on that at the final level plan. And that sounds confusing, but that's still up in the air. So is there anything in here that would give us some comfort that once everything is done, I mean, is there anything written in here that will tell us that there won't be any Fs or Ds? Well, in an urbanized area, you're going to have a level of service F. Minor movements drag it down, and that's a preexisting condition. In some cases and other cases, you're going to have to deal with congestion until other improvements are made. So that's the best information I can give you on that. But with the F, we've already talked about the problematic location of it and moving it a little bit. Is there hope for improvement on that one? Let's hope so. I mean, it's on the books as an unscheduled, unfunded need, and I'm hoping that the actual entrance design will help the situation out. But that remains to be seen. So it's already a congested location, and they're adding their trips to this area, and that's pretty much that happens on development when you're in an area that's already congested. So that would be all I can give you right now. Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Rob, two questions, I guess, as far as the traffic study. Help me understand on page 2, number 11, where we're talking about 55% versus 45%, 55% going to South Broadway and 45% going to Purcell's Road. Can you help me with that? Yeah. When you look at the numbers that were recorded for that area, That's what the counts showed to be, and the consultant may be able to address that further, but they have the individual turning movement counts for those locations, and when you tally up those numbers, that's what they're saying. Okay. That doesn't help me much, but okay, we'll wait and see what's said. And then as far as one of their recommendations, making apparently a turn lane on South Broadway for, what is that, Red Mile Road going across? I would totally agree it needs to happen, but I don't know that there's room there. Have you considered that? Which point are you? Red Mile Road? Well, they're saying narrow existing South Broadway lanes to provide five lane sections and have a continuous median turn lane to a turn lane between Red Mile Road and access to South Broadway. Oh, yeah. To me, that was in the area of where Grogan's is. It is very tight, and we have the actual design if you'd like to see it. It is part of the traffic impact study. and they did a detailed drawing of that, how that would fit in there. But as I said before, that is just an off-site recommendation. Okay. All right. May I add just a point of clarification? The report that the applicant did was filed as an addendum to the full Red Mile mixed-use traffic study, So the additional level of service increases at some of those locations may have more to do with the MU3 development, the whole entertainment district, than the student housing development. And in one case, the change in level of service from D to E was one second of a wait. So a little bit of perspective, and Mr. Helaney might be able to explain that more. He did the traffic step. Thank you, Tracy. Okay. Any other questions? Yes, we've got a couple more. Ms. Phillips. Hey, Rob, you talked about the accident data. Can you tell me where you measured along South Broadway, from what intersection to what intersection? That was from South Broadway, Angliana, down to South Broadway, Red Mile Road. So we're talking about a couple hundred feet of roadway? No, no, no. The road frontage is 300 feet of the site. You're talking probably a quarter mile, probably more than that. I don't know the exact distance off the top of my head, but you're talking from one interchange to the other interchange. And so a lot of those were in the middle, and there was probably four to six that were right at the intersection. But when they give you the accident data, they just give you everything that happened in there. Okay, so it's the Speedway light to the light up at Grogan's? That's correct. Okay. And there were five? On average, five to six accidents in the PMP and about four or five in the morning peak. So, which, you know, why we focus on PMP because that's the busiest time of day when people are going out of town. Yeah, and most of your traffic movement at that point is going inbound or outbound without lateral movement, right, without left turns. I mean, there really aren't any left turns in through there. Yeah, I have to agree. You know, the distribution is, I'd say it's probably 10% to 25% off inbound and outbound. It was surprising to see the amount of traffic going inbound and outbound was kind of close. But my point is that there aren't a whole lot of opportunities for left turns in that segment of roadway. Well, there is a two-way left turn lane there, and so that's probably one of the things that they'll have to hash out at the final development plan on the exact design of the entrance. Do the accident data speak to exclusively vehicle-to-vehicle accidents, or do you involve pedestrians and bicyclists? The accident data that I received from the Division of Police, which I got it earlier today, it's mainly automobile traffic. We don't have any data on pedestrian. I know that there was a pedestrian. I wasn't able to get that data. Usually we would have that, but our Division of Police Traffic Analyst was out. I'm just concerned about putting 1,000 more students on that side where they're going to have to walk a quarter of a mile to come down to a lighted crosswalk at Virginia. Yeah. Well, one thing to remember, you've got 120 seconds to get across that street. I mean, that's a long time. I mean, if you're in a wheelchair or you're on crutches or something, that may not be the case. It's a 120-second delay at the speedway? That traffic signal is 120. That cycle is the green time is 120 seconds. Well, that's, let me see. Let me check the green. yeah that's a that is the total that's a cycle length actuated cycle length i'm not sure yeah how much i'm not sure if that how much of that is green but i know it's uh when i went out there and did the field checks it was pretty long you had gap to get out of those locations and it's so so you think students will probably walk down to the speedway as opposed to I mean, we know what the movements are going to be based on vehicular turning, but what about pedestrians? I'm concerned about pedestrians getting hit. Well, what I would say, you know, the pedestrians, if you have a class on Central Campus, you'll probably go down to Angliana and maybe cross the railroad track. Otherwise, you may, if you're going to the dentistry or some of the medical buildings, you'll go down to Red Mile. And that's not a great distance to add to get to campus. Plus, most of them have a lot of energy. Mr. Berkley? Can you share with us real quick this trip generation data? I'm assuming this was based on a multifamily use. If it were some other type of use, like a retail, which is another, I guess, recommended use in that area, would that not generate more trips? Oh, certainly. If it was the comprehensive plan use, or if it was retail or warehouse wholesale, you would have heavy trucks and a lot more traffic. And the trip generation is all done through ITE's trip generation manuals. It's the industry standard, and that was run under apartments code 220, which is, you know, there was like 20 different studies that they used to pull those numbers. So there are standard deviations, but you're right. Retail and that kind of use would be a lot greater. How does multifamily rank in terms of, you know, is it low or high or in the middle for the various different uses? Well, I was pretty surprised that the multifamily residential wasn't that high, plus being a student housing, that even takes more off of the trips. And so, you know, for that many beds, you'd think there would be more. But if you look at the data, it just wasn't there. I mean, it would be more than if you had retail use where you have traffic coming in and out or drive-thrus or banks with drive-thrus and stuff like that. So, I mean, there's a lot of different land uses and a lot of different numbers. I don't have them all on top of my head. Okay. So you used for the trip generation, you used just a standard multifamily or did you use a student type? We used apartments because this is, although this is student housing, if this was apartments, that would be the realistic choice to use. if these were not directed to student housing. So, yeah, this is a conservative estimate. It could be less trips. I mean, the student's not going to drive anyway. I mean, to drive his car, I mean, he's always close where he's parked there so he can drive to, I guess. Okay. Is that all? Any other questions? That's it. Okay. We're going to take a short recess, about five minutes, before we begin the petitioner's hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Okay, the recess is now officially over. We thought we might need one before Mr. Simpson started. But he's taking a longer one than us, I guess. We're ready for the petitioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I'm Bruce Simpson, along with Jim Frazier and Chris Westover. We're pleased to represent Hallmark Student Development in connection with this application. We have Mr. Jihad Halanda, who's our engineer, who's also been assisting us. I do have an exhibit book that I may pass out, depending upon the pleasure of the Commission. I will say in that regard that in these kinds of cases where the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that they're entitled to a zone change based upon necessary evidence for the Commission to make a decision that when you have a planning staff recommendation that has been derived at through a significant amount of study and evaluation of our proposal, when they're recommending approval of the requested rezoning and approval of the development plan, then the applicant has a choice or the applicant's attorney has a choice and a judgment call to make, if you will, as to whether or not to go through my exhibit book with 40 exhibits or make a decision that the staff has done a very concise job of hitting on the critical components that are necessary to justify a decision in favor of rezoning. and I'm going to exercise my judgment that that would be the appropriate decision to make at this time simply because they did do an excellent job and as this body well knows, our staff, you have as an applicant a threshold to overcome before you get to this body. And as every attorney that represents an applicant before you clearly understands, your first mission is to be able to satisfy the staff in a zone change request that your proposal is either in compliance with the comprehensive plan or it satisfies one of the other two elements that would allow rezoning. Because if you can get a staff recommendation for approval, they're a neutral party. They're not taking sides. They have no stake in the outcome in terms of for or against. They're using their best professional judgment. And so when I'm fortunate enough to get a staff recommendation of approval, and I'm not always that fortunate, I consider myself blessed in that sense. And so I'm going to rely upon their recommendation. And the details that I would provide in my 40 exhibits here would be somewhat redundant. maybe a lot redundant, they would highlight and extend some of the comments that the staff has made. But I think the staff, I know the staff has, in fact, set forth a sufficient evidentiary basis for you to make a decision. I am going to introduce my exhibit book and several other documents into the record in connection with this case. And certainly, if you want me to go through my evidentiary booklet, I'm prepared to do so. I think as a practical matter, it's probably better to field questions at this point. I'm not aware that any opposition is going to be coming forward objecting to the zone change, and if that happens, then I may have to get into the basis of our request in terms of the evidentiary booklet. Now, I want to say one more thing about this application and Lexington. I'm privileged to practice in all the other counties. No other county has our level of review before it gets to you. In most instances, they're fortunate to have one person. Here, when you meet with a staff, you don't meet with just one. You don't meet with just Tracy. You meet with seven or eight. And there's a committee of 20 of them that go through and give hard scrutiny to any proposal that you're requesting. And so I say again, when I get a staff recommendation of approval, I'm pretty happy if I'm representing an applicant. Why? Because I know they're professional. We disagree from time to time, and you all have heard those disagreements, and you make choices in terms of the evidence. But in a case where there is no opposition and staff recommendation for approval, that's sufficient, and we're here to address questions. I do want to highlight just about three different factors that I think are important. Number one, and I could bring Mr. Helania to talk about traffic since that was the last issue that generated some questions and some concerns, which I can appreciate. These traffic reports puzzled me when I first got involved in these cases when they gave grades of A, B, C, and D, and F. one would think that every road intersection ought to have a level of A. If that were the case, it would mean virtually nobody is on the road, as I come to understand. And really we're talking about, in terms of A, B, C, D, and F, a delay in seconds. For example, in Mr. Hammond's report, when he talks about it, that first line item on page 4, South Broadway and Red Mile, Virginia Avenue. It's got a level of service D. And if you add in our proposed student housing, it would go to the level of service E. But the difference between a D and an E is one second delay. This is an urban area. We have decided as a matter of public policy that we're going up and not out. We are going to have more traffic downtown. It's going to be more intensely developed, and this project fits right in with the decision this community made 10 years ago, and that is we were going to limit expansion of the urban services boundary. We were going to protect the farmland. That was deemed to be the most important high-priority land use category in terms of unused land. And we were going to focus in on downtown development to get it revitalized and get people to start living downtown. because then that brings more retail, it brings shopping, grocery stores and the like, and improvements, and the incentive is to grow up and not out. So we fit squarely within the momentum and the policy that this body has decided on a couple of comprehensive plans in the Urban County Council and the community at large. The second thing I want to say is, and Joe Costas here and Shannon Cobb from the Red Mile, Now, people say, well, how do you know students are going to fill it up? Somebody asked a question, I think it was Mike, about what's the occupancy rate. Well, the occupancy rate in all of these areas out here is 100%, except for the legs, which is 93%. The Red Mile did not list the property for the Tattersalls Warehouse, which is in terrible condition. I can go into the details about that. It was not listed. The folks involved in student housing and high-quality student housing, of which this is, this is a different level of service for students, they were looking because they knew the demand. They'd researched it with the University of Kentucky. They understood that the U.K. at best would serve 30% of their students on campus. 70% were going to live off campus. I need not go into 11 years' worth of a documented history of complaints with students living in residential neighborhoods and the impact that that has had on previously single-family residential neighborhoods. You all have witnessed that conflict many times over. We're talking about a high-end $28 million project that is designed to serve the long-term needs of a choice of students at a higher end than typically you find. Where I, when I went to UK, living in an attic off Aylesford, didn't and probably would never experience. But this is high-end stuff, and these fellows are prepared to invest a lot of money in our community to provide student housing, which the students and their parents have clearly documented, with the vacancy rates being what they are, as I indicated, a high demand and a high interest for. And the U.K. needs it. We attract a better quality student if we have better quality housing. This is a private subsidy in terms of housing for students. It is a 10-minute walk at best. We're half a mile from the center of the campus. We're just as close to the center of campus as Kerwin Towers on the University of Kentucky. So we meet all of those needs. It meets the market demand. These folks are ready to go. And in terms of the traffic impact, I think it's really important to understand that when we did our study, as Rob acknowledged in response to a question from Mr. Cravens, did you analyze this in terms of impact with respect to student housing, which arguably ought to have less traffic because people are going to be walking a lot because you're not going to find a parking place between this location and campus. You're not going to do it. I've been there. You're not going to do it. And access to that pedestrian bridge, which is a major asset, did you analyze it, he asked Rob, under that scenario? No, this was straight apartments. That's a higher trip generation. This was a very conservative study, number one, that did not subtract anything for bike or pedestrian usage. Not one thing. Rob is right. If we'd have done that, and we can make an argument under the ITE trip generation manual provisions, that we didn't even need to do a traffic study because of the proximity to the U.K. and the target population who was going to be served. But we did. We did it conservative. We wanted to be transparent. We wanted to be credible. The other important factor is this study was done as if the Red Mile development, 62 acres of mixed-use development, that that was already built out in connection with this project. That's not the case yet. The Red Mile is still a Red Mile. It is an urban area. It is a half mile from the U.K. There is a need for it. Your staff has examined it carefully. You know what they do. we go through. Technical committee, subdivision committee, zoning committee, and then we've met a half a dozen times on our own to tweak it out before we ever get it to you for a decision. And I'm here to tell you today, I don't get too many staff recommendations of approval, but when I get one, I'm going to ride it all the way to the finish line because that's important. And I commend it for your decision and recommendation for approval. We have folks here to respond to any questions that you may have in connection with our proposal, and I'll rest with that statement. All right. Very good. Are there any questions for Mr. Simpson? Mr. Penn. Mr. Simpson, I have looked at his plan all the way from 2009. I was privileged to serve on that. I'm a little bit perplexed, although I think from what the staff has said, I understand why we've gone from Tattersalls as the barn area needed to not needed. But I have Mr. Costa in the audience today, and I really want to talk a little bit about their commitment to keeping the Red Mile, to keeping the harness racing tradition that we've had, because you've got parking with lights headed toward the track. They run at night. I just want to know some of those types of issues. If you're prepared to answer them, I'll address it to you. If you'd rather have Mr. Costa answer it, I'll address it to him. Well, I will tell you that Mr. Costa is extremely well-informed and up to speed on all of this. In terms of the traffic lights and so forth, we're going to have screening as indicated over here. All of this in here is going to be screened and fenced to deal with the traffic situation. And part of the track, as you know, is recessed down. It's kind of burned in that sense. As regards the commitment of the Red Mile, obviously that's a question that Joe can address. And I would ask Joe to come up. We met with him a couple days ago. And I tell you, he's completely candid, as you know, about it. And I think his group, his ownership group, since they purchased it in 2000 in the face of particularly in the last three years for all of a recession, particularly in equine and development as well, for them to still be pushing and trying to save it speaks for itself. But I'm going to let Joe address your all's commitment to keeping the Red Mile. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the commission, my name is Joe Costa. I'm the president and chief executive officer of the Red Mile. Mr. Penn, what can I answer? Well, Joe, we did this development plan with a very open process, and I will compliment not only your staff but also your owners for footing the bill to do this development plan because it was a very unique plan. We talked about having a destination, about making the Red Mile a destination, and it gave me a little bit of pause because of the student housing. I think I'm about to get over that. But what I really want to talk about is the overall view of why you still think that this can work as a destination and what we can look forward to in being able to keep standard bread racing at the Red Mile. Because I think doing away with this, I understand the tatter saw is part of it. You all have face at Tipton, and you can move there. I want to know about stabling for your meets, and I want to know about how you think we continue to make this a destination. Okay. Well, I came to Lexington from New Jersey in the spring of 2001. I'll be honest that I did not know a lot about running a racetrack, but they said, well, you go down there and figure it out, which was probably the worst idea I ever had, but I've been trying. And ultimately, it's taken a while, but I have come to the conclusion that this historic institution established in 1875 cannot be saved by racing alone. In fact, racing is the most expensive thing we do of all the things we do on that property. And so the challenge became is how are we going to save this historic institution, which our ownership group is absolutely committed to doing. And as we looked at the options or the revenue silos that we could create, one of them was a utilization of our single biggest asset, which is real estate. If you think about racetracks, they have a few things in common. One, they have a big track of ground, and usually they're close to a population density metropolitan area. And that's exactly what we are. So we thought, well, why don't we become a landlord collecting rents from utilization of real estate and use that to offset the losses of racing standard bred horses, which we're committed in doing. And, well, how does that connect to what we're talking about today? We originally, in our development plan, did not include the Tattersalls piece because, quite frankly, we were presently using it for and intended to use it for what it was allowed to be used for, so there was no reason to even include it into the rezoning of the MU3 proposal that we put before you. As that evolved, we ended up doing business over at Fasic-Tipton, which I think you're all familiar as a far superior facility. But we went through the process of evaluating how much it would cost to renovate that Tattersalls building and see if we could maybe bring our own sale back and create, why would we give our rental income to someone else? And it turned out it would cost about a million dollars to renovate it, and we would still have a substandard facility compared to the competition in the community. And we would also have to add stalls. Mr. Penn, there's only 400 stalls over in Tattersalls, and there's 610 stalls, I believe, over at what, if you allow me to call, Red Mile proper over at the racetrack side. Our population of horses that attend our races have steadily declined since I've been the president, which doesn't speak very highly of me, I suppose. But I would like to think it was the tide and had nothing to do with me. But nonetheless, the 400 stalls that will be eliminated in the Tattersalls project, we do not have a great use for. And if we needed additional stalls as we transition to this new model, we could also build a few more barns over in the area that we presently have to do it. Or we have put up temporary stalls in the past. So it became obvious to us that we had no more need for an antiquated building, which is called Tattersalls, and were approached by not one, not two, but three national student housing companies that offered us a very good price to sell them the piece of property. I can tell you my board of directors did not choose the highest offer. They chose an offer that would allow the students that would be housed there to be able to walk at that traffic light at Speedway across and then use that sky bridge to get across the railroad tracks. And they felt that that was a better offer to accept that would ensure the success of the project because they were equally concerned that you would have is that what do you do if the project isn't successful? We want a successful project there. And here's why. One of the things that we've seen, we have constantly, since I've been here, marketed to the university without any success. We've advertised in the Kentucky Colonels. We have had the craziest promotions. I don't even want to burden you with the description of some of them, and none of them have worked. This year, for the first time, we've seen a dramatic uptick in students coming to our races. And we think it's just specifically because of the new student housing development, which is on our backstretch. I don't know what road it's on. I guess it's on Angliana Avenue. We feel that student housing absolutely doesn't detract from what we're trying to do going forward, Mr. Penn. it actually enhances it. If we can create a critical mass of students in that area, then if I'm a small bank, maybe I should rent a piece of property over at the Red Mile in the development plan because the kid's got to swipe their ATM card somewhere. If I'm a drugstore, maybe I should be located over there as well because the kid's got to go for their cold medicine, fill a prescription, or whatever. I mean, as developers come and talk to us, they always ask us, well, what's the anchor? And we say, well, the racetrack's the anchor. And they say, well, that's not good enough. This is a racetrack in decline, and we're not going to count it as an anchor. You know, as we look forward and as we develop the MU3, I think student housing and the density of students in that location offer a positive anchor. I would like to say there's thousands of students creating an anchor that can help us create that destination entertainment vehicle that we're so hoping to create. So not only are we blessed that somebody wanted to take a piece of property that no longer had it of use for us, but we feel the use is such that fits with our destination and our entertainment type of vehicle that we've hoped to create in the MU-3 designation that you recently approved. I hope, Frank, that answers your questions. Any other questions that I may answer with regard to the operations of the Red Mile? Well, thank you, and I appreciate your time. Thanks, Chair. That concludes our case. We're here for questions. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. All right. Very good. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak to this? Yes, sir. Hello, my name is Bill Bausch, and I represent Post Road Properties, which also represents kind of an institution not quite as old as the Red Mile. That would be the Coach House, the old Coach House, the Waffle House, Apple Market. I've listened with great interest to each of your questions, and they parallel all of the same ones that I have. Addressing your question, Ms. Copeland, about parking, Mr. Costa indicated just the exact answer I would have had. You said, well, we could put a higher density in there. A higher density would not leave it for use as an alternative-use property. So as an adjacent property owner, and I'm talking 25 feet from the back door of our property, to the property line, the quality of the project is of imminent importance. And the fact that they are not going with the highest possible density and are retaining that property or parking is essential to us because guess where they're going to go if they don't have parking? We're the next adjacent property. We would love for them to park and come shop and eat, but they're not. They're going to park and go across the street and we become a traffic cop. So that was one question that was addressed earlier. Our primary concern is ingress and egress, and this problem is not going to be solved by this project. It can be helped. I'm really not for or not against. I'm neutral, somewhat like the staff in the sense that this could be a great thing for the property owners along Broadway. We represent a substantial investment in the community, a whole lot of jobs, and a substantial history in that area. But if the ingress and egress is not addressed to the point that you have R5 going to B3, and it's a fenced section that we cannot ingress and access each other's property, that's critical. I want to compliment the staff of the developer here. They have worked diligently in trying to develop that with us. We have given cross-ideas and cross-references back to one another from the point of talking about a shared drive so that we both have ingress and egress so that we can access this property. Although not truly appropriate, a zoning hearing, I wanted to go on record and express the interests of my client in the sense that this can be a very, very, very positive development, or it can create a prison where my clients no longer have access to all of the good things that have been built, and we also don't have access to the ingress and egress that anyone who's driven up and down South Broadway knows that we have problems with. We have a legion of tenants that have come in and out solely because of traffic issues and solely because of access. Those can be corrected. That's going to occur in the final development plan, and if the developers continue in the same manner they have, and that is working with us, doing what they can, I've agreed to take the forefront in going back to the state, asking them for signals and some other issues because, needless to say, that's a benefit to us as much as it is to them. But we are, I guess, overall in favor of the project if at that final development plan we can have that mutual access that we're not starved at their expense and we don't starve them at their expense. So with those concerns in mind, I just, again, want to compliment them. We are working towards that, but it is critical that any ingress and egress into this property that comes off of South Broadway, that that very substantial investment and that very substantial development also have cross-easements through there and not a fence that prevents all of the tenants that would be our savior and we in turn could be their savior in the sense we offer a lot of development, and we truly turn this into what's been envisioned, and that's mixed use because we offer the business and retail component. They offer the residential component. If you look at it as a whole, we're a very good mix, but we can't be isolated. And I'll answer any questions, but I just wanted to express those concerns and also my thanks to everybody on the staff that's worked very hard. So thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, anyone else in the audience that wish to speak to this? All right, so now we'll have a rebuttal and closing statements, starting with the petitioner, if he has any. I appreciated Mr. Bausch's comments, and he is exactly correct. We've had a very good working relationship with him. and by the time we get to the final development plan stage, there will be a proposal that both parties can find satisfaction in and that this body will find satisfaction in to keep a project going that has the potential to be very successful. I think Joe Costa said it very well. That track was never part of the development initially. It's not a part of the development now. It's been in this community for 138 years, and I think you have to admire the current ownership who's stuck with it as long as they have because they could have made a sound argument that they want to bail and do something else, but they've not. Everything they've done is try to protect it and preserve it, and having more students there to go to their track and to create the synergy for that entertainment district, that destination that Frank talked about, to be established is critical. You have to have the people to have the retailers come in and create things. So we believe we meet all the goals of the plan. Your staff is in favor of it. We ask for your approval, and I appreciate your attention. Okay, very well. I guess we have no citizen rebuttal. Okay, staff? I just wanted to remind the commission we're available for questions. We don't really have any rebuttal statements. All right, very good. Okay I'm going to close the hearing and turn it over to the commission and you may still ask questions of all those involved if you need to or whatever your pleasure is Okay Okay, so we have no questions from the commissioners. And then the Chair will entertain a motion. That's what we're here for today. Yes, sir. Are you ready to move? I'm ready. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of MAR 2011-16. the hallmark student development company for reasons provided by staff. Okay, we have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? No. We have a second by Mr. Barkley. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Let's vote. Okay, that motion carries. Do you want to? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of ZDP 2011-92 with the state's recommended conditions. Okay, we have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? I have a second by Mr. Berkeley. Everybody vote. Can we discuss the motion? Hold on. Yes. Discussion? Okay. Discuss the motion. Okay, sure. I'm very curious that Mr. Rausch spoke about a traffic signal, and I think that that could potentially impact the development plan if there were a traffic signal on the property. And so we already have a motion on the table, but I'm not so sure that this is the best we can do at this point if there's going to be a traffic signal. Okay. Our motion is to approve the preliminary development plan. Could that, what do you, do you want to amend it or? My concern is that a final development plan is a little too late to be dealing with issues associated with ingress, egress, traffic signals. I'd like to see those things resolved before we approve a preliminary. Just saying. Okay. But you're not taking any action? Right. You want to withdraw the motion? Or you want to vote on the motion? Vote on the motion, but I just wanted to express my concern. Okay. All right, so, I mean, you could amend it if you'd like. Okay. All right, then let's end another discussion on this motion. Okay, let's vote. That motion carries. Okay. That concludes this hearing. Do we have any other commission items? All right. Seeing none, I have a motion to adjourn. I have a motion to adjourn. We stand adjourned. There's a pilot that you know will be I will stay with you, will you stay with me Just one single tear in your sparse near With the dawn Oh, I see, I see, very, really, really now All my fears are drifting by me so soon.