Music Thank you. Thank you. You can tell the world you never was my girl You can burn my clothes when I'm gone Oh, you can tell your friends just what a fool I've been And life and joke will find me on the farm You can tell my arms to go back into the barn You can tell my feet to hit the floor Oh, you can tell my lips to tell my fingertips They won't be reaching out for you no more Don't tell my heart My achy, breaky heart I just don't think he'd understand And if you tell my heart My achy, breaky heart He might blow up and kill this man You can tell your mom I moved to Arkansas You can tell your daughter about my leg Or tell your brother Cliff, whose fist can tell me live He never really liked me anyway Or tell your employees, tell anything you please Myself already knows it's not okay Oh, you can tell my eyes to watch out for my mind It might be walking out on me today Don't tell my heart, my achy-breaky heart I just don't think it understands And if you tell my heart, my achy-breaky heart He might blow up and kill his man Ooh Don't tell my heart My achy, breaky heart I just don't think he'd understand And if you tell my heart My achy, breaky heart He might blow up and kill his man Don't tell my heart, my achy-breaky heart I just don't think he'd understand And if you tell my heart, my achy-breaky heart He might blow up and kill his man I'm sorry. Thank you. We have three clocks that say it says it's 1.30, so we'll go on and get started. First on the order, as far as the agenda, is approval of minutes from April 26, 2012. They were emailed to you, and you do have them in front of you. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I move approval of the minutes for April 26. Thank you. Motion's been made. Is there a second? Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the April 26th minutes. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. There we go. Motion passes. Next on the agenda would be any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Bruce Simpson. In the matter of item number one on page one, Lexington Trots Breeders Association's OMAP amendment, the staff had been recommending postponement. We had met with them a couple of days ago, got a revised plan about two and a half hours ago recommending some conditions, which, quite frankly, we're going to have to evaluate and request a one-month postponement on this matter. You would like to go until June 28th? Right. Okay. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this postponement request? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move postponement of MAR 2012-4 to June 28th. Thank you. Motion's been made for postponement. Is there a second? And seconded. So please vote when he comes up on the screen. Motion for postponement passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Sea Brothers LLC for the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 2012-4. We also would request a one-month postponement to, I believe, the June 28th Planning Commission meeting. This would be on page 4 under Public Hearing Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments No. 1 for the banquet facilities, correct? Yes. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request for postponement? If not, I'll entertain a motion. June 28th is the request. Mr. Chair, I move that we postpone COTA 2012-4 until the June 28th public hearing. Thank you. Motion has been made by Ms. Roche-Phillips. Is there a second? Second. And seconded. So please vote when it comes up on your screen. I think the computer is slow today. We're held in suspense. Yeah, of course. There it is. Motion passes. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Murphy, good afternoon. Hello there, Mr. Chairman. One more here on page 3, item 3, Anderson Campus Rental Properties, Hodges and McIntyre, the zoning that's MAR 2012-9 and the associated development plan. We met with the staff last week, and we are making progress, but they're still recommending postponement, and we're requesting postponement again for one month until June 28th. Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this postponement? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I move that we accept MAR 2012-9 for a postponement for, was it one month? Yes. Yes. Motion has been made for postponement and seconded by Ms. Phillips, so please vote. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Any other requests for withdrawals or postponements? Mr. Chairman, if there are none from the audience, the staff has one item. If I could refer you to page 7 of your meeting agenda, item number 4, ZOTA 2012-7. This is a text amendment to amend the notification requirements for conditional use permit applications. The staff at your zoning committee three weeks ago recommended postponement of this text amendment, and we would ask you to postpone it three weeks additionally from today to the Commission's June 14th meeting. We'll be glad to give you an update at your June 7th zoning committee meeting on this. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request for a postponement? If not, I'll entertain a motion for a postponement until June 14th, 2012. Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion that we postpone ZOTA 2012-7 until June the 14th meeting. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Motion has been made. Is there a second? Second. And seconded. So please vote on this when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Any other requests? Thank you. With this, what we'll take next would be on page three of your agenda, item two, the fairways at Andover LLC zoning map amendment and the fairways of Andover zoning development plan. And we do have revisions on the brown sheet that I think has been put in front of you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Planning Commission. The first item on your agenda for consideration today is MAR 2012-8. This is a zone change request made by the Fairways at Andover LLC, and it's a requested change from our agricultural urban zone, AU zone, to a planned neighborhood residential zone. The subject property is located at 3435 McFarland Lane. McFarland Lane is a substandard public street that is only at this point serving the subject property. It does have street frontage on four public streets, Lawson Lane, Cavanaugh Lane, Marco Lane, and Autumn Ridge Drive. These four public streets stub into the subject property, but its address has been from McFarland Lane for decades. It's the last agricultural tract in this vicinity left to be developed. McFarland Lane, I said, is substandard. It's about 12 feet wide, and it does access Todd's Road between Manowar Boulevard and the interstate. The site visibility, et cetera, is actually rather poor at that intersection, and with redevelopment, McFarland Lane would be closed. In the vicinity, we have all residential zoning and residential development. To the northwest is the Andover Gulf Club, Country Club, and Andover Forest subdivision. To the southwest is the Brighton East and Scully properties. To the southwest and northwest is the Autumn Ridge subdivisions. All of these properties are single-family residential currently, but there's a mix of zoning, R1D, R1E, and R3, all residential again. the petitioner has filed a development plan corollary development plan with this application and they are depicting 91 single-family residential lots for the property they are also showing Cavanaugh Lane and Autumn Ridge connecting that would kill complete the Collector Street system in this portion of the urban service area. Some photos of the property. Again, it's currently agricultural, but it didn't appear on the day we were out there to be used for agricultural purposes at this time. This is from Lawson Lane, one of the stub streets. From Marco Lane, the stub street to the southwest. Autumn Ridge, where it terminates. And then this is a view of the storm sewer management basin to the north of the property, and that would be here. The comprehensive plan for this location does recommend residential development and recommends low-density residential development. Our comprehensive plan defines that as 0 to 5 dwelling units per acre or 0 to 4 dwelling units per gross acre. The applicant originally, I'm sorry, the comprehensive plan also on our large map depicts Cavanaugh and Autumn Ridge connecting with the dash lines to connect that collector street system. I apologize for it not being on the overhead there. So the comp plan recommends those two things, the residential density and then the completion of the collector street system. The applicant originally proposed 110 dwelling units on this property three weeks ago when we met for zoning and subdivision committees. Since that time, they've revised their development plan. So the staff report you see in your notebook does indicate that they had 110 dwelling units, but again, they've revised their development plan. and now are in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan land use and density recommendations with the 91 dwelling units. The staff is recommending approval of this request for R3 zoning at this location, and the zoning committee also recommended approval three weeks ago with some proposed conditional zoning restrictions. As I mentioned earlier, the applicant was agreeable to conditional zoning for single-family residential development, and the staff also suggested a density restriction to limit the maximum density on the property to 91 dwelling units because that would be in keep the property developed in agreement with the comprehensive plan and would be appropriate in terms of density adjacent to these other existing neighborhoods. I think that's it. The recommendation is made, of course, subject to approval and certification of the associated development plan. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Ms. Whiten at the moment? Thank you, Ms. Whiten. Thank you. All right. The development plan for this property can be found at the bottom of page 3, item B, ZDP 2012-30, the fairways of Andover. The subject property, as Tracy's laid out, shows the stubs into Autumn Ridge and Cavanaugh Lane, the extension and the cul-de-sac of Lawson. and the as it unnamed cul-de-sac in this location. The development plan does show 91 single-family lots with two HOA areas, one where the street connection is coming in behind four existing lots in the neighborhood, as well as a stormwater management area as proposed at the end of this cul-de-sac. The subdivision committee at this last meeting did recommend approval subject to the 12 conditions as shown on your agenda. As Tracy mentioned, the applicant did bring in a revised plan that reduced the number of lots from 110 to 91. As such, you have a revised set of conditions in front of you. The first six are sign-off conditions. Number seven is to denote the construction entrance location on the development plan. That is a requirement of the ordinance. The applicant has advised us that their intention is to provide construction access off of the two collector streets, Cavanaugh and Autumn Ridge, that will need to be denoted on the development plan before it can be certified. Number eight is to simply provide the percentage of existing tree canopy on the site that is a requirement of a preliminary development plan. They give us the species of trees that are on the site, but they do need to give us the canopy that is existing. And there are two notes that need revising on the plan. The final two conditions are to denote, well, one of the items that the applicant brought in on the revised plan was a 10-foot access pedestrian or golf cart access from the end of Autumn Ridge to serve the golf course in this location. They're showing it between these two lots here. the staff did have concerns over the width of that access as well as possibly the location staff is comfortable with what the applicant is trying to do in terms of conceptually provide that access to the golf course but there are site constraints in making sure that that is an appropriate width between the houses on the site we do have a condition to denote the location and width of that golf course access season will be resolved at the time of the preliminary subdivision plan which this body will see when they come back in for that purpose number 11 is regarding the connection of lawson lane the staff had raised from the time the plan was filed through the subdivision committee process a termination of lawson lane back out onto kavanaugh or onto autumn ridge particularly back out onto kavanaugh for the primary reason that these lots that are proposed here have double frontage and would require a waiver of your subdivision regulations at the time of the preliminary subdivision plan should they terminate lawson lane back into kavanaugh lots on the corner would no longer be double fronted in terms of front and rear it would reduce could reduce the scope or even the necessity for a waiver under our subdivision regulations but the staff has a note a condition to denote the proposed loss in lane termination and any necessary waivers to be resolved again at the time of the preliminary subdivision plan. But if you have any questions on these conditions or the development plan I would be happy to try to answer them. Thank you Chris. Any questions from the Commission? If not, we will ask for the applicant. Greetings. I am passing out a little information for you to review. As staff has indicated to you, this property is zoned AU. We don't find too many AU zoned properties in Fayette County anymore. This particular zoning was put on this property in 1969. when Fayette County did a comprehensive rezoning of the entire county, and this was a more rural part of Fayette County, still appropriate for development. It's been in every comprehensive plan since 1969 for future development. But since 1961, it's been the home of Mr. and Ms. Forker, who still reside there for 52 years. and they've adjudged it's time perhaps to move to different quarters. During the time that they've owned the property, certainly since 1961, we've witnessed in this area a significant amount of residential development. As Tracy pointed out to you, this property is completely surrounded by residential development. There are currently four stub streets that were placed against the property for future connectivity when the forkers decided that it was time for their property to be developed. Today is that time. It obviously has some challenges because in all of these cases where property has been developed around, people become accustomed to the stub streets being dead-end streets. And they put up basketball goals and they get used to the no traffic. And I can understand that because I have lived that experience myself. So Tori Thompson and Matt Foster, who are the developers of the proposed development that's before you today, have a significant amount of experience in developing residential subdivisions in our community, Cumberland Hills, Castle Gate, the Woods, and close to this property, Andover Hills. And they're very mindful of these kinds of particular cases that when you're trying to do an infill project that's got this many stub streets and neighbors around it, people are going to have heightened concern as compared to when Autumn Ridge and Brighton East and Banbury Hunt were developed, there were very few, if any, people out there, and it just got approved without opposition. So for the developer, these kinds of cases present particular challenges because people have concerns, rightfully so. What are you going to do? Are you going to hurt my property? Are you going to hurt my quality of life? What kind of consequences are going to flow from what you're going to do when you change this land, though it's recommended for development to actually be developed. Mindful of the kind of scrutiny that we were going to be under, we've endeavored over the last two months to seek out the neighbors. Matt Foster, one of the developers, has gone door to door to every contiguous property owner and talked to them even before we filed this application, passed out information of what we intended to do. Subsequently, he met with all of the homeowners associations. And then we held a neighborhood meeting on May the 1st, invited over 440 homes who were on the mandatory notification list for this zone change as required by law, invited them to a neighborhood meeting at Crossroads Christian Church out on Todd's Road close by. And there we listened for the better part of two and a half hours. We also presented our proposal initially, listened to the response, listened to their concerns, and then subsequently met with the engineering team and the planners and came up with a modification of the proposal, as Tracy pointed out. Originally, we believed that 110 lots was appropriate because the site plan that we submitted was going to have the same quality of homes, if not more expensive than what was around this particular property. It felt like it would be compatible. And mindful that in the last 10 years, it has been the preeminent policy, land use policy in this community, that we want to utilize land in the existing urban services area to the maximum extent possible so we don't have to expand our urban services boundary. Nevertheless, the neighbors reflected some concerns about the proposed density, and so we scaled it back to 91 units, which I will share with you in a moment, exhibit that reflects our density is very compatible with those around us. So we matched up that way. We were also mindful, even before we filed it, even though it's not a concern of the Planning Commission, property values, that's not an area that you all ever focus on. But I can tell you, and as you all can appreciate, if someone is coming in to do something, build a home, most people want to know what the price point is going to be. So we wanted to know what was the price point of their home. And so we undertook to find out what every single property, home, within 1,000 feet of the development, what it cost, how big it was, what it looked like. So we would know about matching up and, again, being compatible, not only in density, but in terms of the price point, the price that we hope to sell the houses for. We understand there's no guarantees of what the homes would sell for upon completion, but it is reasonably anticipated based upon construction nearby that we've been involved with in terms of home construction. The price point, we hope, would be $200,000 to $300,000 plus, which is incompatible in terms of the price with the homes in the vicinity based upon our research. The other thing we wanted to do is, and again it's not within your purview, and I only share this with you for several reasons. Because this is a heightened concern case, we wanted to answer all the fundamental questions because there's homeowners associations out there that are governed by deed restrictions, which are very important for neighborhoods to have. And it's very important to have neighborhood associations to monitor these restrictions, and particularly the common areas associated with them, them in order that the neighborhoods maintain their quality. So we undertook and we researched and found all the restrictions of Autumn Ridge, Brighton East, and Banbury Hunt and all the amendments thereto over the past 20-some years. And so we reviewed all of these to make it we were sure we understood exactly what were the other neighborhoods encumbered by in terms of restrictions. And we came up with restrictions, though it's not within your purview, that that matched these and in fact exceeded them in terms of what we're going to do in our size of house. We exceeded the minimums for each one of these restrictions in terms of the minimum size house. So again, that addresses specifically the price and the quality of the home that we intend to build here. We've made that obligation, and as you'll hear in a moment from the attorney representing Brighton East Homeowners Association, that we have also negotiated a very extensive agreement in exchange for their support. Now, their board still has to sign off on the document, because you can imagine lots of changes come about even before the hearing. But Mr. Milner, Steve Milner, who represents the association, and maybe the president and some of the other folks, will vouch for the transparency of negotiations that we have had with that neighborhood that have culminated in the agreement that needs just the signatures to bring it into place. But in any event, after the May 1st meeting, we met with additional people in the neighborhood on a kind of a case-by-case, home-by-home basis. Met with the president of Brighton East, shared with him the proposed agreement. He met with his attorney. Then we had another meeting of the Neighborhood Association. All 400-plus homes were notified again. We had another meeting at the church this past Monday night, again presented our response to the concerns that we had been hearing about from them for the last two months in terms of the commitments that we were going to make to come up with a development that we believe would be compatible, that they could appreciate, and hopefully support. Now, I think we have exercised our best efforts to do that, but I understand that people have a little skittish about promises relative to what you intend to do, and I have explained to folks that this is an ongoing process, that today we're here about the zoning and a preliminary development plan. As your staff has pointed out, as the zoning committee concluded, we're in compliance with what the comprehensive plan has recommended in every single comprehensive plan since 1988. Every single one, four, have recommended for the kind of development that we're talking about today. Ninety-one single-family detached homes. That is our commitment in connection with this zone change. So while we have that certainty that could be enforced by the government, We also wanted to make sure that they understood that even after zoning will be approved, that the development plan aspect of this, which gets into most significantly stormwater management controls, has to be reviewed by the Division of Engineering. It takes several months to take place. Then it comes back before you guys, and you all have to approve the preliminary subdivision plan. plan before any grading permits or construction can take place. So it is an ongoing process, and they have engaged engineers to look at our proposed stormwater management plan, and we're here to answer as many questions as you all have about it, but it is conceptual at this point. But we have shared it with the Division of Engineering, Marwan Rayon and Hiller Newman, in terms of how we propose to treat our stormwater. and of particular concern is a neighborhood amenity that serves as a regional detention basin of sorts, but it has water in it. It's a retention basin. There's water and there's homes that back up to it in the Autumn Ridge subdivision. They express concern to us about the amount of siltation that's taken place over a number of years in that pond and that because of that, algae develops and other grasses, and it's not as pretty as it used to be because the siltation has arisen. Now, of course, we've just had farmland on this property. All the other properties around have been developed, and as you will see shortly, there are about six different major stormwater pipes that feed into this pond. Just straight shot, direct access from the pipe into the pond or into the drainage easement that leads up to the pond. Our proposal is entirely different, and we'll speak very briefly about it, but we're prepared to speak in detail about it if you want to get into that level of questioning. We share the details of our proposal with Division of Engineering, But again, we recognize that those kinds of detailed plans undergo intense scrutiny and review over a period of months before they come back to this body for consideration at the preliminary subdivision plan stage once zoning has been approved. So we've had the meetings. We've come up with a proposed agreement that has met with the general approval of Brighton East, subject to their board signing off on it, and they can speak for themselves about that. I think we have answered as many questions as was in our power to answer at this point regarding the proposed development. We are in compliance with the comprehensive plan, and we do believe we're compatible with the existing neighborhood. Just to amplify on that last statement, I've got some things in my exhibit book that I also share via the overhead projector just to give you a highlight of what we're talking about in that regard. Let's go in order. The first photo there is of, you all get a better vision of it back here. The first photo are the types of houses that have been built in connection with a development that Matt Foster, one of the developers in this case, has been developed along St. Andrews Walk. Those houses, as you can see, very nice. And if you drive around the neighborhood, and perhaps you have, you will see that many of the homes in the neighborhood look just like this. They're high quality, they're selling, and unusual about this case is it's been, to my judgment, almost four years since you all have had a residential zone change of this magnitude. It used to be, you know, five, eight, ten years ago, a hundred-home residential subdivision would be rather minor. You were doing many more houses than that. So this is the first one in four years, and the reason it is because the houses that were built on Santa Andrew's Walk sell. There's a market. There is a demand. That's a good thing. These are some of the additional houses. We'll go through those quickly. We've shared these with the neighbors, and of course they're familiar because they live over there. They can see what the houses look like. Next slide. The next slide is also under tab 2 in your blue book, and it doesn't show up terribly well with the lighting that's on there. This is one of the research goals that we wanted to look at before we came in with the proposed development for single family, was what is the existing density like around this particular 18-acre parcel. And what the evidence shows in tab number two is that Banbury-Hunt has a density of 6.8 to 5.8 houses per acre. Autumn Ridge has a density of 3.8 to 4.3 houses per acre. Brighton East ranges from 4.5 to 4.9 houses per acre. Our proposal is 4.99 houses per acre. So in terms of the density, we're exactly fit. 75% of the homes around us match up with us almost identically in terms of the density. Density is frequently an issue. Under the next tab in the book, and I'll hold the slides for just a second, is all the deed restrictions we looked at. again just to see what was required, what were associations doing that we wanted to match up and exceed. The next slide that we have shows the stormwater discharge points, and this would be, if you flip through your materials in your book, you might be able to see it a little bit better. This would be in tab number six. This is the pond at Autumn Ridge, which serves as a regional detention basin that was designed to accommodate the water flowing down to this point in the watershed. All of those circles you see with A through F, each one of those is an existing stormwater pipe that feeds this particular pond. It is a direct source discharge, point discharge. There's no muffling or distilling devices or any kind of devices that break up the energy. The water just shoots right out. And you can see in the subsequent photographs for each of those six sites that exist right now, and this would be under tab number seven in the book. in the book. This is part of the drainage system that's a stormwater drainage easement that runs from our property toward the pond past this bridge that someone has built across the easement with the plants on it. The water comes from actually Vanbury Hunt, which is on the other side of our property, underneath our property, through our property, and ultimately into this channel into the basin. This is the way it was designed many, many years ago. This is where the water naturally flows. So obviously people have built up around it. We're the last one in the area in trying to do anything, and people have raised concerns about how are you going to treat stormwater? Are you going to hurt my property? Are you going to do anything adverse to what I have grown accustomed to expect? Now, as I pointed out in those six other discharge points into this pond, those issues were never challenged, created, or modified because it was all developed at pretty much the same time, and they just point discharged all this water. And if you see in the subsequent photographs under tab number seven, there's plenty of existing opportunities for silt to come out of those storm sewer pipes and to go into the pond at Autumn Ridge. Now that's been present for as long as that pond has been there. We haven't contributed anything to it because our land has been farmland. To the extent it's all been grass, there's no erosion or anything on our farmland. and it gets wet in the middle when it comes through the property to get to this particular area where the Autumn Ridge Pond is. But all these pipes you see, that's pouring out water now. Nobody was required to do anything different than just that. Nobody was there to object, primarily. But we were aware that we're the last one in, and we're going to have heightened scrutiny, and so we employed the engineering firm of ENA Partners. You all are familiar with these guys. They've been involved in a lot of residential development. To look at the stormwater as it leaves our property and what can we do to, as best we can, create a stormwater management system that minimizes the downstream impact over and above a point discharge, which we would be allowed to do. And so they've come up with a three-phased approach to dealing with that particular matter. And I'm going to have Tom Hatfield come up here in just a moment just to give a brief Reader's Digest version so you know. Now, if you want to get into detailed questions, we can get into detailed questions. And I only point this out for one reason. We're doing it different than everybody else done it up to now because we're the last one to develop. We're the one with four stub streets, and we're the one with the people that are demanding, are you going to hurt us? And that's a fair question. It's a fair question. And that's why I've encouraged the folks that we have spoke with, get your engineers. This is a very transparent process. Evaluate our proposal. But we're at the very conceptual stage at this point, and we believe over time we're going to have a proposal that far exceeds what everybody else has done, and our impact will be the most minimal of what is currently going on in the area with respect to the pond at Autumn Ridge. It is an important question, and I believe we have come up with an important recommendation to deal with the impact of what our stormwater is going to do as regards this pond. So I'm going to have Tom Hatfield of ENA Partners just run through generally what is proposed. I will also point out to you that on this property, as was discussed in the subdivision committee, for reasons that sometimes befuddle participants in these cases, part of this property that we're talking about today has got a floodplain that FEMA designated years and years ago. Now, there's no running water on this property. It just flows when the water drains from above us, passes through, and into this pond. We have undertaken a series of initiatives, and Tom can explain, about getting a clomer through the FEMA folks. That's been approved. The next stage after zoning is approved would be to get a letter of map amendment to take that floodplain off. Again, that's more review, more scrutiny. also open to the public's review, rightfully so, to demonstrate that we're not going to create an adverse situation for anybody downstream. In fact, we're doing more than anybody else has in the neighborhood. So Tom, can you give me a – or Al's going to do it. Tom? Mr. Simpson. Yeah. Excuse me, one second. Maybe I got ahead of myself. since we only had one zoning item, we did not sound the agenda. I'd be curious to see your mentions. You have a few people to speak. Are there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition to this request? If I could just have a show of hands. Okay. All right, then. Thank you. I would ask to take note. I didn't mention it, but it is on the agenda. Presentations on these items are normally limited to 30 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I'll leave it at this. I'll leave it at this, because engineering gets kind of technical. Simply, we're prepared to go into whatever detail anyone has relative to our stormwater management problems. I'll leave it at that. Okay, let me ask you this. Besides Mr. Gross, do you have anybody else here to speak in favor of this or support it? I think representatives of Brighton East Neighborhood Association are here to speak in that regard along the lines that I've mentioned. But based on that, we believe we've done our homework. We've reached out to people. We've been transparent. We've responded. We believe in a very good faith manner when we put our commitments in writing. We've made them public. We've asked for conditional zoning. We've done everything we believe we can do to make a development worthy of your all's approval, and that's what we ask. Okay. Thank you. Let me do this. Let me ask. We'll suspend and get into details if needed. And I would ask from the commission at this time, do you have any questions for Mr. Simpson? Sure. Yes, Mr. Simpson. would you please point out on the yellow and brown graphic there where the pond is that you are talking about, the off-site pond? There we go. Saved by the engineer. You want to show it to them, Al, so they may have some questions about it. Here's my pointer. It's right here. I think I can even see that. For the record, Al Gross, CA Partners, this is the Autumn Ridge Pond that Bruce has been speaking of. this is the channel or the flow pattern, the flow path that leads from the Forker property, which is the subject of this hearing, down to the Autumn Ridge Pond. And as you look back through your tabs that Bruce just made mention of, you can see the five or six other discharge points around this body of water that have existed for a number of years and have done what they're supposed to do in one sense and what they're not supposed to do in another sense. And the shaded part is the FEMA floodplain? That is the FEMA floodplain right there. And it's over here, too? Correct. Shown on the preliminary development plan. And a calmer has been reviewed by Division of Engineering, FEMA, Corps of Engineers, and the Kentucky Division of Water, and they've granted us permission to basically reconstruct that drainway and remove the floodplain, remove the flood hazard area. And that's part and parcel of why we're here today. We're basically going to fill it in pipe through the developed property. So the water is going to travel underneath their basements? No, no. The water is going to travel. It's not going to travel in this path. Okay. It will travel down the street system that's being constructed. You have to pick that water up as well. So it's nothing that's especially innovative or creative. It's simply a map era, I'll refer to it that way, that was made in 1974 when the federal government first endeavored to map what they recognized to be potential flood hazard areas throughout the state of Kentucky, the community of Lexington, and the entire United States. It was done without a lot of specificity. It was kind of broad-brushed, very conservative in nature. And when you come back and analyze these small drainage basins, drainage areas, you find that these large floodplain shaded areas simply do not exist. Any other questions for the applicant at this point? Just to follow up, I could, Ms. Copeland, or tab number eight and nine, is the best management practices plan that Mr. Gross and Mr. Hatfield have put together for our stormwater management proposal. It's also reflected under Exhibit No. 9. We have a lot more details. I have the entire FEMA study if you want to review that. We've got that for you. Engineering has a copy of the letter of approval from FEMA as far as the clomer is concerned. How are you going to get the water from the street over to the new square retention basin? Well, there will be a system of pipes, curb box inlets, yard inlets, things that collect drainage area, water, and it will be piped independently into this channel that feeds down and ultimately forms the drainage release for this entire area, down through Andover Country Club and into the Blacksington Reservoir. I understand that, but there's no, I don't see any easements there, and we'll see that in the preliminary plan, right? You will see it in the preliminary plan, but if you had this in front of you, you could see these easements as well. Oh, okay. These easements are actually drawn on here anticipating where that pipe system, pipe network will exist. And it simply shadows the streets. Okay. Ms. Beatty. Ms. Beatty. Mr. Simpson, in your communication and research with the neighborhoods and the residents, did you receive any complaints or are there any existing problems with flooding from the current stormwater drain system that would bring up so much concern about this? I think those people are probably here. They live around the pond area, obviously, where it's most likely to impact them. Again, they've been dealing with six storm sewer pipes coming into that area for a lengthy period of time. So the thought of having more water come in here is of concern to them in terms of their property. The other thing that you find is there are existing stormwater easements that go through people's property that people use. I showed you a photograph where someone had actually built a bridge across one, and that happens from time to time. You want to decorate it and make it look nice, of course. Who wouldn't? But water was designed to go in there, and so there are prohibitions about fencing and putting structures in that area and bridges and the like because they can have the tendency to back stuff up if there's debris that comes up and goes up against them. But I think the concern is about what are we going to do? They just soon not have this, even though it's designed this way. And so we're trying to minimize as much as we can the water that's always been designed to go in this direction. So I'll let them speak for themselves about their concerns. They have legitimate interests. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Cravens. Yeah, Al. When were you going to, when do you get the permits and everything to remove the floodplain? The Clomer allows the work to be done. So during the construction of the site, the Clomer is very specific in what is going to be done, what is proposed to be done. That's how they're able to review it, assess it, and pass judgment on it, and in this case ultimately approve it. not every clomer application is approved so after the site is constructed you'll have the mechanism in place that will remove the flood hazard shading from the property you'll have to file then what's called a loma which is a letter of map revision and the core not the core but fema and their consultants review that document and if things are in order and reflective of the clomer then that that flood hazard shading and the flood hazard designation is removed and the flood insurance mandate that a lot of lenders demand from these types of situations is removed. That's all been part of the plan, the overall theory behind the development that we're proposing in front of you today. Thank you. Any other questions right now? I would ask, since I did see a couple of hands, if anyone is here to speak in favor of this, I would ask them to come forward at this time. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Steve Milner, and I'm here to represent the Brighton East. Homeowners Association and some property owners on Lawson Lane. Mr. Simpson has very adequately described the meetings that have occurred between the developers and the Homeowners Association members. I have had the opportunity to attend one of those meetings, and Mr. Simpson and I have been in contact for a couple of weeks about this project. we have proposed to us and there's been as you might imagine when lawyers get to putting their oar in the water everybody wants to change this language and mr simpson and i have had a number of drafts that we've discussed about a written agreement that basically would be between my clients and the developers that has not come to fruition by way of execution in large part because my clients have not had an opportunity to present that to their board, but the members of their board are here today. I will state to the Commission that we are in very much general agreement with the document. We are in general agreement with this proposal for the zone change request, and we are certainly in general agreement with the proposed development plan. There are a couple items we'd like to emphasize. The adjoining property owners are certainly concerned, as Mr. Simpson told you, about the size of the lots and the size of the homes that will be developed. We support the 50-foot width minimum, except on cul-de-sacs, in the zoning development plan that's been proposed. We support the size of the homes that would be minimum under deed restrictions because they are, in fact, compatible with the neighborhood. We think that that would ensure the valuation of the investments that our clients have made in buying these homes and maintaining them where they are now. We are, in fact, in favor of the cul-de-sac that has been proposed and will be a subject of later discussion, certainly, on this development plan for Lawson Lane. Also, the closing of McFarland Lane has been of concern. As the staff has indicated in its presentation and Mr. Simpson has indicated, this is a country road, what it is. It's substandard. You've already heard that. And we believe that ultimately our agreement with the developers will be that once this property has been acquired, once the present owner is vacated, that there will be an agreement to close that thoroughfare and remove it from the public access, and of course certainly including any kind of construction access because of its very narrow width, and also not only is the pavement very narrow, but it is tree-lined, and as the staff has indicated to you, When the cars approach coming out of that area, Todd's Road, there's a very serious site distance problem right now. I've been out there, I've seen it, and it's really almost like a little tunnel that just pops out on Todd's Road. I have here today members of the Brighton East Homeowners Association. If the Commission wishes to hear from them or if they wish to speak to the Commission, they're here and available. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this, including those that he mentioned, you're more than welcome to, sure, come forward. I'm not certain whether I'm speaking in favor. Your name, sir? It's Warren Snyder. Okay. And your address? 3,500 Indian Summer Trail. Thank you, sir. It's kind of a mixed feeling that I have about speaking about this. I recognize the inevitability of the development, and I appreciate that it's largely consistent with the comprehensive master plan. But specifically in reference to your point, your question, Ms. Beattie, are there any homeowners that under the current storm system are impacted? I certainly fall into that category. I, you remember the picture of the bridge with the plants on the bridge and the following three pictures? There were four in a row there depicting water flowing into a drainage ditch. Well, I am at the confluence of four sources of water. Two of them are right there. One of them is a flume which terminates in this channel, this rip-wrapping channel, and it flows along the border of the Forker property and Autumn Ridge development up until almost where Autumn Ridge runs into Forker. So I've got this concrete plume right there, and then, if you could back up to the previous picture for a second, right to the left of the plume in the bamboo and the trees right there is about a two-foot opening where the entire amount of water that is currently flowing off the Forker property comes out. through the bushes and dumps into this drainage ditch right here, a rip-wrap drainage ditch. And there is one lot between my house and the corner of the Forkham property. Sir, if you would take the microphone with you. Just right here. So the water as it flows into their designed dissipation basin, when it flows out of there, and I'm not saying that the dissipation basin is inadequate. It may be very much adequate. And, in fact, I have been impressed with the improvements in this plan over the first plan, which had no dissipation zone. So I think this is all going in the right direction, but I just can't stress enough the sensitivity of the houses that are immediately downstream. The house between this point right here and the corner of the Forker property actually has a large floodplain easement running diagonally across the lot. And it holds a lot of water. It becomes a basin that holds a lot of water. It actually retains water because of the way it's designed. The house is on a pad like this, and then there's a berm over here, so it retains a whole lot of water that is coming out of this basin. And then it comes through right at this point with a lot of power into this ditch, and in addition to these sources of water, which are a tremendous amount of water, I've got two on the other side of my lot. One of those pictures showed them. But the point that I'm trying to make is that under the current system, in a heavy storm, if the wind is blowing in the wrong direction, the water flows well out of the drainage easement and into my backyard, and it has been a problem for 21 years. and further I have about a 120 foot stretch of rip wrapping which is the only section of rip wrapping between the Forker property and the pond. Unfortunately there is no rip wrapping on the lot between the corner of the Forker property and my property which means it's just flowing through a dirt channel with the bank and there's nothing slowing that water whatsoever. Then it hits my section of rip-rapping, which I've maintained for 21 years, keeping trash, garbage, silt, twigs, everything you can imagine out of that pond. And then it goes about the length of another four houses down to the pond where there is no rip-rapping. So the water then, once it leaves my property, and it picks up two additional sources of water, and it hits the channel and then flows into the pond with a great deal of force. So sometimes I feel like I'm on an island. I'm literally surrounded by water coming at me from four sides. And I'm not saying it's anybody's fault, but it's because of the ad hoc development of this area over 20 years. and everybody is feeding off of the pond, and as long as you can get your water to the pond, everything is okay. And I just can't stress enough how sensitive that I would hope the Planning Commission would be to this. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any others that would like to speak in favor of this at this time? If not, I'll hear from anyone that wished to speak in opposition of this plan. Yes, sir. Please come forward. Please state your name and address. Yes, my name is Norm Johnson. I live on Chetford Drive in Andover Ports. And this, I live on a property adjoining the Country Club, Hall No. 8 if you're familiar with it. This property is on the other side of Hall No. 8 that would be constructed. I believe I heard somebody say earlier that the Comprehensive Plan had this property listed as R1. Did I miss something? I think the first lady that spoke, low density. So it sounds like this would not be in conformance with a comprehensive plan. My concern, of course, is going to such small lots. It's going to ruin my view. Quite frankly, I paid a real premium to get my view. We probably, the golf course lots in Andover Forest, probably paid a $40,000 to $50,000 premium to be on the golf course. And now what I'm going to see is the back of the house, a deck, and air conditioners. On 50-foot lots, I notice when I look at St. Andrew's Walk that the air conditioner condensers are all in the back of the house. So that's going to be what I'm looking at. So I have a real concern on this. And when Mr. Simpson gave his math, I think he left out the average of Andover Forest as far as our size slot. So we have Autumn Ridge that's our one, and we have Andover Forest that's our one. Half the properties or half the developments that this property adjoins are one. Can I expect some kind of consistency in here? Certainly I knew when I bought my property that that would eventually be developed, but I didn't think it would be 50 by 100 foot lot. Okay, thank you, sir. I think someone will address your concern as far as R1 or R3. The request is for R3. I have not heard where R1 came into play. Is that correct? Yes, they are requesting R3 zoning. Okay. Thank you, sir. Anyone else here that wishes to speak in opposition of this at this time? If not, any questions from the Commission at the present for our closing hearing? Yes, the gentleman that just spoke, could he point out on the aerial view where his house is and what his problem is? As far as Chetford? Yes. Could you move the map, the aerial view, a little bit to the right so I can see? I'm right here. I'm in this house right here. I'm pointing right back to third development. That's McFarlane Lane, isn't it? Pardon? Isn't that McFarlane Lane? Yes. McFarlane Lane goes in and makes a turn. This is a part of the task for him and the work for him. So you're across the golf course? Yes. Okay, thank you. Yes, Ms. Phillips. Sir, I wanted to ask how long you've lived on your property. I'm up here. Up forward here. Microphone. How long have you lived at your property? Eight years. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission at this point? If not, what I'll do, I'll move to providing the petitioners rebuttal comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson pointed out he lives across, I think it's number 8 or number 9 fairway in Andover Forest. And in terms of the nearby neighborhoods, even the staff didn't even eliminate Andover Forest as being in the general vicinity. I'll be less than five. Mr. Snyder had a legitimate concern. It's a concern that exists now, which is why we've undertaken to commit to serious review study and actually a plan with best management practices plan that I dare say nobody else has done up to now because we recognize what's going on, although it's fair to say that a lot of that property is in a stormwater management easement. Water is supposed to flow all those big boulders. That's where the water is supposed to go. Now, we're going to do our very best, and we could go into a half-hour discussion on it, but that's a discussion that we will have at the preliminary subdivision plan stage when it's really germane to get into the engineering. Are we measuring up? Are we complying with the objective standards set forth in the engineering manual and the zoning ordinances and the subdivision regulations? Have we passed through FEMA's final review to get our letter of map amendment? And as the Division of Engineering signed off on our proposal, after being vetted by any engineer on behalf of any citizen in this county, as to whether or not we're doing the right thing. This is transparent, and the time for those serious questions is the preliminary subdivision plan stage. I sent out 453 letters on an infill project surrounded by existing development, of which there are four stub streets. And we have two people that have come before this body and expressed any kind of concern. And I respect their right to do that. But I also would suggest to you that our efforts to reach out, and as testified by Mr. Milner, are indicative of the credibility of our relationship with the neighbors and our transparency in the information that we've shared. Not everyone can live in Andover Forest. It's a nice development, but so is Autumn Ridge and Brighton East and Banbury Hunt. And those are the neighbors that we're going to match up to. And we've done our homework, and I'd ask for your approval. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Staff, have any rebuttal at this point? Just to clarify Mr. Johnson's point, the zoning proposed is R3, and the R3 zone does permit single-family, and the applicant is proposing restricting the use of this property to single-family only. Many zones can implement the comp plan recommendation from a range of R1A to the zones that do permit higher-density uses. The R3 zone is commonly used by developers because it does provide a little bit more flexibility in terms of side yards and frontage. Okay. Thank you. Would any of the opposition like to offer a rebuttal on anything at this point? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion from the Commission members and or questions. Ms. Beatty? Mr. Chairperson, I want to stay focused on the zoning issue. Yes, ma'am. But at the same time, I would really like to hear the brief presentation that Mr. Simpson had talked about engineering could provide for us. So my question to you is, is it more appropriate for us to hold off until we get into subdivision to the preliminary plan to really take a close look at that because it aligns more closely with the development plan? if we want to stay focused on zoning. I'm okay with that, but I would sort of like to hear what the plan is for. To answer your question, I believe, yes, you would be hearing it and seeing it more when it comes back to force for a subdivision development plan in the subdivision committee. Well, I can hold off then. That's fine. Any other questions at this point? If not, oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Phillips. I wanted to echo your concerns, Ms. Beatty. I'm very reluctant to approve any kind of medium density development with a floodplain there. I'd be interested to see the clomer and the letter of map revision. But again, that's not germane at this point to the rezoning. And I think that this property can be developed with the R3 zoning. and especially with the restrictions that have been provided by the developer. So I'm ready to make a motion with the idea that we will address the floodplain issues and concerns about stormwater runoff at a later time when we're looking at the subdivision plat for this property. Any other questions at this point, or I'll let Ms. Phillips continue. Ms. Phillips? Okay. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve MAR 2012-8, the Fairways at Andover rezoning petition, for the reasons provided by staff, including the conditional zoning restrictions. Thank you. The motion has been made by Ms. Phillips and seconded by Ms. Beatty for approval. All those vote when it comes up. Motion passes. I would ask for a motion on the Zoning Development Plan. Mr. Chair, I move approval of the ZDP 2012-30 with the 11 conditions cited by staff. Second. Motion has been made by Ms. Phillips, seconded by Mr. Cravens for approval of the Zoning Development Plan ZDP 2012-30. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. The motion passes. I would add the fact that, as mentioned here, I think this does have a way to go, and we will be seeing more information in regards to stormwater and the rest of the plans at a later date. Thank you for your time. I think at this time there's been some discussion with the staff, but I'm going to continue with the agenda as printed and ask for ZODA 2012-5, the request to add retail sales of automobile parts with storage and distribution of inventory in a B3 zone. How about after this one? After the next two. How's that? Surely you hang in there for that. These things shouldn't take too long. That's a good turnout of people here. Not really. Mr. Salley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry for the bait and switch on you, but no problem at all, Mr. Chairman. Madam Commissioner, good afternoon. The next item on your agenda does appear on page 5. It's Item 2, ZOTA 2012-5. This is a zoning ordinance text amendment to clarify the retail sale of automobile parts and to allow it with storage and distribution components in a B3 highway service business zone. This text amendment has been requested by TriStar Ventures, LLC, and they are an applicant that does operate auto parts stores in our city and also in this region of the state. The text amendment that they propose is shown on your agenda and in our staff report. It would add a 27th listed principal permitted use in the B-3 zone, and this specifically would allow retail sale of automobile parts with storage and distribution of inventory permitted to other local establishments under the same ownership. TriStar has requested this in that they have a facility here in town. that they would like to expand and to allow the storage and the distribution to be part of the auto parts store. Storage is listed in the B3 zone as an accessory use, meaning it must be incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the property. If you're familiar with most auto parts stores, they have two areas of storage typically. There is an area behind a counter where employees are restricted access to go and retrieve auto parts and bring them back to the counter, by which then you can pay for them and leave the store. There also is, unlike or similar to almost any other store, a more restricted space to the rear of the property that is for employees and, let's say, more warehouse type of storage of auto parts. This applicant proposes an addition to an existing auto parts store that would have more square footage devoted to storage than they would to retail areas where you or I could go and buy wiper blades or washer fluid or, in my case, fuzzy dice for my automobile. On the overhead, we have a concept of the particular type of store that they would like to operate. They would like to take one of their stores near the interstate highway system that we have and create this mini-distribution facility, if you will. They want to locate it there because they anticipate it to be served by semis or tractor-trailer trucks, and then it would be, if you will, a hub to their other local retail stores. The other local stores would go back and forth between this hub with vans and pickup trucks. So the idea would be that their main truck traffic would be confined in close proximity to the interstate, which will be more efficient for their operation. And from the staff perspective, we see this as a benefit to the community and that the truck traffic will be centered in that location and not have to then distribute over the other local collector streets and arterials here in the community. So we do see this as an idea that's worthy of consideration. The applicant could choose to rezone this particular store that they are thinking of this use to a B4 zone, which is the wholesale and warehouse business zone. Auto parts stores are permitted uses in that zone. And, of course, the amount of square footage devoted to storage could far exceed the amount that they're allowing customers to come and purchase auto parts. However, what we find when we look at the conference plan is there are very few locations on New Circle Road or our other commercial arteries that are recommended for wholesale and warehouse use. They're mostly recommended for highway commercial use or retail trade. The applicant's use for this hub store, if you will, as I mentioned, will reduce truck traffic and will clarify more fully the unique nature of an auto parts store, which is so dominant with storage uses compared to most other retail stores. The only comparable type of store the staff could think of that was like this is perhaps a shoe store, and you even see fewer of those devoted only to shoes. They tend to be more larger department stores these days. With the increased truck and delivery traffic, the one concern the staff has had about this text amendment is having this type of truck traffic in very close proximity to residential zones. So the staff at your zoning committee three weeks ago offered a staff alternative to the petitioner's text amendment, wherein we would allow this use in B3, but only when it is located at least 200 feet from an existing residential zone. This would provide a land use separation and buffer, where if one particular auto parts store had more deliveries and semi-tractor trailers, there would be some insulation, if you will, to the nearest residential neighborhoods. With that, the staff has recommended approval, as we did at your Zoning Committee, of an alternate text, adopting the petitioner's language and adding a phrase to provide that the use be at least 200 feet from a residential zone. Your Zoning Committee has also recommended approval of the text amendment. There are three reasons for the recommendation of approval. Those appear on your agenda, and they are the same as in the staff report. First, the specific use by the applicants is technically not currently permitted by the zoning ordinance in the B-3 zone, so the staff views this as a timely update to the ordinance. Secondly, the combination of retail and storage uses at a single location does have the potential to reduce truck traffic throughout the community. And thirdly, spacing requirements for this new use should ensure that there is protection to neighborhoods in close proximity to these type of stores. I believe that the applicant is present and may wish to address you on this today, but at this point I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about our staff report or our recommendation on this text amendment. Would that include any questions about the fuzzy dice? I'd be glad to answer those questions as well. Any questions for Mr. Selling? If not, I'd ask if the applicant had anything to add. Thank you. Good afternoon, Commission. My name is Trey Geiton with Prism Engineering. 2300 Blankenbaker Parkway, Louisville, Kentucky. I don't really have anything to add other than agree with everything Mr. Salee said. He covered everything very well. And you're okay with the alternative language? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Then any questions for the applicant? Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this request? Staff have anything else to add? No? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing. Mr. Brewer? I'm just going to make a motion. I think we're probably ready. Thanks. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Zota 2012-6. Thank you. And I would presume that's with staff alternative language. Yes. Okay. Motion's been made by Mr. Brewer and seconded by Mr. Wilson for approval of Zota 2012-5 with staff's alternative language. If there's no further questions, please vote when he comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. We've got one other text amendment request. I can find the proper page. Which is ZODA 2012-6. And Ms. Wade will lead us through it. Thanks. This item is on page 5 of the agenda. Item number three, and there is a slightly revised staff report behind tab six in your notebooks. This is a request by initially the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Council initiated it to alter the membership of the Historic Preservation Commission. Currently, the text of Article 13-4B outlines how the 15 members of the Historic Preservation Commission are either nominated or appointed, and one of the positions is nominated by the Board of Land and Nature Trust of the Bluegrass. That organization currently does not exist and hasn't since the year 2000. So in putting members or nominating members for the Historic Preservation Commission, the staff of the Division of Historic Preservation found that they needed to recommend a replacement organization for this particular nominating group. Article 13-4B discusses the membership, and then Section 4 lists that particular organization. The Division of Historic Preservation recommended that that group be replaced with the Bluegrass Conservancy because they have a very similar mission to the Land and Nature Trust of the Bluegrass, and the Historic Preservation Commission accepted that recommendation and voted unanimously to ask the Council for a text amendment to this portion of the ordinance. there are two other sections of article 13 that the staff would recommend the commission to make a change to and they are in later in article 13 4b there is and that's on page two of the staff report there's a paragraph that starts with notwithstanding the provisions of section 2a 1b and it discusses how appointments occur from the mayor to this body this language section 2a1b we could not find what it referenced and so the staff would suggest removing that and replacing it with language that refers to articles 5 and 7 of the Lexington Fayette urban county charter which relates to the mayor and boards and commissions and authorities and how they can appoint members and stagger memberships for organizations and a second change the staff would ask the Commission to consider is to the last section of article 13 13-9 which discusses the compliance with other codes statues and regulations and there is language in this section that refers to the Boca property maintenance code and also the division of housing maintenance the staff recommends altering any language referring to the BOCA Property Maintenance Code to refer to the International Property Maintenance Code 1998 edition, which is similar to two other text amendments that the commission has reviewed recently. And then lastly, that the Division of Code Enforcement replace anywhere Division of Housing Maintenance appears. The zoning committee recommended approval of these changes three weeks ago and also asked for one other slight change. So on the alternative text, page 3 of the staff report, I'm sorry, page 2 of the staff report at the bottom, the zoning committee also asked that the word initial be stricken, and so that's included in the staff's recommendation today because appointments at this point forward are no longer initial appointments. They are occurring on a reoccurring basis. The staff is recommending approval of these changes with the staff alternative text on our report today for two reasons. The text amendment to Article 13.4B.4 to modify membership on the Historic Preservation Commission is appropriate. First, because the Board of Land and Nature Trust of the bluegrass no longer exists, and the replacement suggested the bluegrass conservancy is a natural replacement because it has a similar mission. And secondly, the staff alternative is timely and appropriate to update either incorrect references or out-of-date information related to appointments to the Historic Preservation Commission, the Property Maintenance Code, and the division that enforces it. I'd be happy to answer any questions about this text amendment. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for questions or a motion. Yes, Ms. Phillips. Mr. Chair, if the Commission's ready, I'm ready to move. Please go ahead. I move approval of ZOTA 2012-6 to include the staff alternative language. Thank you. Motion has been made. Is there a second? Second. And seconded for approval of ZOTA 2012-6 staff alternative language, I'm sure for the reasons they've listed. All those in, I'm sorry. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Second time today. Motion passes. Our next item on the agenda would be on page 8 under Commission Items, number A, Ashland Park Neighborhood Zone Change Initiation Request. I'm sorry. Maybe page seven or eight. I believe everybody will catch up with us. Ms. White. Good afternoon. Last item on our agenda today, well, for the staff, I think, relates to this request to the commission to initiate an overlay zone, an H-1 overlay zone for the Ashland Park neighborhood, or it's a request by the Ashland Park neighborhood. I'm going to point you to a few things at your seat and then tell you about a few other things. You should have a little kind of summary packet here, which we'll go through. There should also be attached to that a few letters that we received, three letters related to this request. And then I will pass this around. You have a copy of their letter at your place, but this also has the petitions that the neighborhood captured with their process. And then the last thing I handed out was that blue sheet, which is just two sections of Article 13, which is historic preservation. and the first page relates to what are the criteria involved with nominating a historic district or landmark, and on page two is the process by which an H-1 is created. So I won't get into that yet. So the Ashland Park Neighborhood Association has put in some effort to do petitions and now ask the Planning Commission to initiate a historic H-1 overlay district for a part of their property or part of their neighborhood. Just in terms of orientation for the commission, the dark boundary is an indication of the properties that are requested to be in this area. To the northwest, there are two existing local historic districts. the South Ashland Avenue and part of Central Avenue already have the H-1 and they're part of Ashland Park neighborhood. And then beyond that, further to the north and west, is the Aylesford neighborhood, and they also have the H-1 designation. To the southeast is the Ashland Estate, and it has National Register designation as a historic landmark. so properties in this area are on south hanover deshaies fontaine fincastle slashes a few properties on high street and then a few on richmond road as well so just a few photos from the area that historic preservation provided to the staff this is properties on deshaies again south hanover this proper the request includes Hanover Towers, another building or two on Richmond Road, Fontaine, Thin Castle. And this area, it's not really shown specifically on here, but it is included within the existing Ashland Park Historic District that is on the National Register of Historic Places. that district is shown with these yellow properties shaded and the red line is much larger than what our local district proposed today would include. So from the statistics we have, currently there's 175 pieces of property, but 283 property owners within that area because there are at least three multifamily residential properties with condo associations, which represent 111 property owners. The response rate of the postcards that we sent, as required by the bylaws from the Planning Commission, was 59.7%. Summary of responses, 69.2% of the responses were in favor of the H-1 overlay. 28.4% were in opposition and 2.4% indicated they had no opinion either way. In terms of postcard responses, we always feel it's nice to map those so we can get a feel for where the support is. And this shows a whole lot of Hanover Towers since there are 99 units there and then the rest of the neighborhood. There does seem to be a concentration of opposition near, I guess, Fontaine and, is that Ghent? And part of South Hanover. And this is the number breakdown for the postcards. There were 283, again, postcards that went out. We had 114 property owners not respond, which left us with the number breakdown there of 117 in support, 48 in opposition, and 4 with no opinion. That's the stats report. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Phillips, go ahead. Tracy, with respect to the postcards, I'm trying to remember, And maybe you can help me. Staff can help. We amended our bylaws to require a postcard notification. But didn't council also ask for a text amendment? Are there two notifications? The council initiated a text amendment, and it came to the Planning Commission, and the law department at that time indicated that the council did not have the ability to require that. that in terms of the ordinance that the Planning Commission have this extra requirement. So instead, and the Planning Commission acted, they said, we recommend disapproval of this text amendment and why. And instead, the Commission imposed upon themselves this requirement in the bylaws to mail postcards to any area, any property owners, before the initiation of an overlay. Yes. But this is additive to the statutory requirement for notification. Exactly. And that's why it had to be a bylaw change rather than a requirement of the ordinance. So this is the first of two notifications if we do, in fact, initiate today. Correct. one of the issues that had come up in the past was people claimed they had never received notice until the zone change was already in process. They were invited to a hearing, and they said, we didn't even know we were in a process, which was concerning to the council and the commission, of course, and the staff. So this is an effort to, before the council or the commission takes any action, even to start the process, because once this process starts, There is a detailed study performed by either Historic Preservation or an outside consultant. So there is money that's used to legal, I mean, the city's money to make this move forward. Thank you. Mr. Cravens? Tracy, is it possible to exempt a property from this? Yes. How do you do that? Well, the commission can initiate a portion of the area requested. Maybe you just had a single, say you own just a single house there and you wanted to exempt it. I mean, not really exempt, but you would just exclude it from the initiation. So is that something that the staff does? I mean, would the applicant ask the staff to do that, or how do you do that? In the past, we have had property owners write and ask to be excluded. from an area. We didn't have anyone right at this point to ask to be excluded. There's people who are opposed, but I think many of them understand that even if they're opposed, the commission or the council can impose an H-1 district if they choose. If you meet the criteria, if it's for the betterment of the community, something like that can be imposed even if you are personally opposed to it so the landowner should just write you a letter saying they want to be exempt and then you present it to the commission and voted exempt or not exempt so we can how that would work it could um i think historic preservation would would be opposed to taking individual properties out without considering the district boundaries as a whole, because it can leave donuts areas where there wouldn't be any restrictions. Mr. Berkeley? We've got a request here to segregate this vote, 169 votes. Do we have the ability to do that? To segregate the votes? Well, it looks like basically to segregate the Hanover Tower resident vote from the rest. I can tell you that the Hanover Tower response rate was, there's 99 units plus their condo association, so they had 100 postcards received. We received 51 back, and 41 of the 51, which is 80.4%, were in support. so I think Mr. Minko, his point was that it would sway one way or the other because there are a lot of property owners in that one parcel. But the staff feels that every property owner has the same rights to express their opinion at this point. Ms. Copeland? Yes, that was my question. Can we go back to the graphic that showed the actual votes? Oh, this one? No, there was another one right there. So, and how many were in support at the Hanover Towers? 41. Okay. So at least. Okay, so roughly 80. And then how many were opposed? Eight. Still two to one. Yeah, thank you. Ms. Beatty? Sorry, Tracy, this is a follow-up of Mike's question earlier. If a single residence wants to be excluded, and we do have, I think, one letter that indicates at least exclusion from this proposal, who has the final say? Because you mentioned that, yes, the commission could consider that, but you also said that you felt like the historic preservation board may not be very supportive of singling out, and I understand why that would be, but who has the final say? The council. With any zone change, they have the final say in what the ultimate boundary is. So they could single out a resident or multiple residents from the overlay? Absolutely. and the Planning Commission has that ability as well when you have a public hearing. So today is initiation. It's the step one. The next step on the second side of that blue sheet, the next step is it goes to a study phase with the Division of Historic Preservation. They go to the BOAR for a hearing, and then it comes back to the Planning Commission for a hearing. Okay, good. So you will have another opportunity. Okay, thank you. Mr. Brewer? Yeah, Trishy, do you know how they decided on the boundaries? I mean, it's sort of halfway in what I would consider the neighborhood, halfway up Fontaine, halfway up. Right. Let me go back a little bit to that initial one. The Ashland Park subdivision goes all the way to Ashland Estate as it's platted, But the Ashland Park Neighborhood Association only includes Hanover, Deshaies, and it includes Ashland, actually, as well. So for some reason, through history, they've separated Ashland Neighborhood Association and Ashland Park as two different neighborhood associations, and they've grouped themselves separately. So I think generally this neighborhood association didn't want to include other properties in the other association. I think that has actually occurred in a few situations from Mr. Johnson. No, James. Jones' reference, they believe they are not in this neighborhood association. So that's, I think, why there's kind of a broken boundary. Historic preservation recommended this boundary to the neighborhood association, and I think it includes properties that face on Fincastle, on Slashes, on Fontaine, before you get to the next cross street. Does that make sense? Well, your explanation makes sense. I don't know that the drawing of the lines makes sense to me. But in any case, it's drawn. The other part, I think it was in the packet that you passed around, there was a section that had a large number of red in opposition. Right. properties, it seems like it could be carved out very easily to make sure that those people that are in the part of this neighborhood that don't want it could be excluded. Is that a possibility? It is. I think you would carve out some people who did want to be included as well, but it absolutely is a possibility. I think from at this point, I would suggest maintaining the boundary and letting the study occur for the whole area. and letting the division or if they have a consultant identify if there's been properties that have been changed enough, they don't really contribute to the area. Some of these numbers may change during the process. Ms. Phillips? Yeah, I was asking. I see the distinct geography associated with those red blocks and was wondering if it was premature to meet with those property owners. Maybe there's some disinformation, misinformation. I would try to understand what it is exactly that they're opposed to, but that hopefully will be a part of the study and a part of the process. There is a packet, a letter within the packet that we received that speaks to the advice of appraisers, saying that real estate values appraisals of H-1 overlay properties tends to devalue property. And I'm not a historic preservation specialist, for sure, but in my experience it only tends to enhance property values to have some sort of protection of historic properties. And I just wanted to ensure that that is covered in any kind of study that's done on this property as to what the effect would be on overall property values. I'm not sure that normally historic preservation would include that type of information. Well, there's a lot of literature out there. And just maybe citing people, making reference to certain pieces of research that have been done would be good. Mr. Cravens? Is there anyone here from the historic? Yes. Mr. Schick is here to represent historic preservation. Would you like to hear from him? No, I want to ask a question. Okay. Yes, sir. My name is Randy Shipp. I'm a staff member. Okay. I'd like to answer your question. Have you all, over the past years, we've had a lot of problems with windows passing the H1 overlay. Have you relaxed the window criteria for more efficient windows? The Historic Preservation Commission is the one charged with updating the guidelines, which they have done here recently in the last few years. They spent approximately a year and a half going over the guidelines. Windows were greatly discussed during that time. And to some extent, they have been relaxed in that aluminum-clad or metal-clad wood windows are now permitted. No vinyl is permitted. the more energy-efficient windows are now available. So, because we have a new energy code starting in October, and the windows will have to be, you know, very efficient, and so you don't still have to have divided lights and that sort of thing in your windows? If the original windows are in still and get enough shape to be retained, then they are encouraged by the guidelines. There are a number of options available to retain the original windows by using storm windows that give you almost the same as some of these others that are out there. If they are in bad enough shape to be replaced, then, like I said, alternates are available, and they include energy-efficient using simulated divided light, not true divided light. Okay, so does the historic overlay, is it exempt from the building codes in some respects or not? I'll be honest, I don't know the answer to that question. I'll have to get with the other staff members who are better versed in that than I. Because this new energy code, none of those houses would, I mean, if you go over there to work on one of them, you're going to have to get a permit if it's in the H1 and then that's going to trigger all the new energy codes on them and they're not going to be able to comply if you don't have some sort of updated criteria for energy conservation. Yes, sir, I understand. Again, I apologize. I don't have an answer for that. Any other questions for the staff at this point? If not, yes, Ms. Phillips. Can you tell me, are you guys hiring out a consultant, or will this study be done in-house, assuming that we approve a study? If the commission moves this forward, it will be done in-house. As a matter of fact, I am the staff person that has been charged with that. Thank you, sir. Thank you. At this point, I'll ask for an applicant from the Neighborhood Association. Mr. Simpson. Afternoon again. It's a pleasure to be here on behalf of the Ashland Park Neighborhood Association making this request. I think it is important to remember that it is a request to study it and get this process started. I've been privileged to have been involved in several of the historic overlays in Lexington over the years. In fact, the largest one, the Aylesford Neighborhood Association, some years ago. And as someone, like many of you who've grown up in Lexington, can attest from personal observation, the downtown, which is evolving into an incredible destination, and in large part because the neighborhoods around the downtown have revitalized themselves, primarily through historic zoning. I can remember as a little boy going downtown, and it was a rather different place. And I look at it now, and I had family grow up in the areas of what we're talking about here today, even. And it's remarkable. You go down a western suburb on West Short Street nowadays compared to what it was 30 or 40 years ago, and I know I don't look this old, it's amazing. It's a cool place to walk around. Jefferson Street, I mean, it's just the transformation that is taking place in our community, rightfully so, about revitalizing our downtown, is in large part about getting more and more people to live downtown. And historic zoning, in my judgment, has been the most important land use tool and policy this government has adopted to facilitate this renaissance of downtown. I represent the neighborhood. Tony Chamberlain is the president here. I've been asked to assist in whatever manner that they deem appropriate. And he has a few words to say on behalf of the neighborhood. Our board is here to speak as well. We very much believe this is important. Certainly there are going to be some objectors about this. This is inevitable, and as you all know, in every land use question. But the overarching benefit in terms of economic value and interest in people coming and living downtown, contributing downtown speaks for itself in terms of the history of where we are today because of historic zoning. In any event, Mr. Chamblin would like to say a few words. I don't know if any of the board members would like to say, but we very much urge this body to get the study started, and then we can debate the merits once the study is complete, and you all can list some pros and cons about whether people should be in or out. But this is a planning tool that's precious to this community, particularly downtown, that I urge you to pay careful attention to and to facilitate its progress. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chamberlain, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Members of the Commission, thank you very much for your attention. I am President of the Ashland Park Neighborhood Association. The association was founded in 1970 and is dedicated to improving the quality of the neighborhood in which we reside. On March the 20th of 2012, we filed a letter of application for H-1 zoning. You're familiar with the boundaries of the zone, so I won't go into detail on those. But through the process, we have been totally transparent with the neighborhood who would be affected, neighborhood property owners who would be affected. Wanda Jaquith chairs our H-1 committee. She's also secretary and a past president of APNA. Several other members of our board are present here today in support of our application. Our 13-member board of directors voted unanimously to support our application. In 2011, we held five well-advertised neighborhood meetings on the subject. They were well attended by approximately 150 property owners. Two of the meetings were held at Good Shepherd Church on August 14th and October 9th, one at Temple Adith Israel on September 13th, one at Hanover Towers on July 12th, and one during our annual general membership meeting and picnic in the Hanover median on September 25th. Prior to each meeting, we conducted a door-to-door advance notice in the neighborhood and contacted residents by newsletter and email. Additionally, we have attempted to contact every property owner in the affected area, all 283 of them, either in person, by mail, or by telephone. We use the current PVA listing to get the names and addresses of the listed property owners. To date, our H-1 petition has been favorably signed by 160 property owners. Only 28 persons, representing 10% of property owners, have signed in opposition. We are also very pleased that nearly 70% of the postcards returned to your commission favor H-1 zoning for the designated area. Throughout the process, we have worked closely with Director Betty Kerr, Randy Shipp, and the professional staff of the Division of Historic Preservation, and with Administrative Officer Barb Rackers, Tracy Wade, and the professional staff of the Planning Commission. All have been extremely helpful in providing information to our Board and to interested property owners. We sincerely appreciate their assistance. In fact, they attended every one of our public meetings. At least most of them did. I know that Barb Rackers did and Randy and Betty Kerr. We believe the historic legacy of our Ashland Park neighborhood, part of Henry Clay's former Ashland estate, and consisting of many homes constructed in the early part of the 20th century and the beautiful landscaping originally designed by the famous Olmstead brothers combine to make us a logical candidate for H-1 zoning. It is our desire to preserve that legacy by protecting the integrity of our neighborhood's architecture. Please note that our neighbors on South Ashland and Central Avenue, which are part of our neighborhood association, received H-1 designation in 1989 following an application by APNA. As a personal note, I live on South Ashland Avenue, as do others of our board members, and I can personally testify that in the 13 or 14 years that I've lived on South Ashland, And after H-1 zoning, the neighborhood has improved in many, many ways. And I think that can be verified by anybody who lives on that street and Central Avenue as well. Kentucky statesman Henry Clay wanted the neighborhood surrounding his Ashland estate to be aesthetically pleasing. and when he died, his heirs hired the highly regarded Olmstead Brothers landscape architectural firm from Brookline, Massachusetts, to develop the 600-acre area. They were sons of Frederick Law Olmstead, who designed New York City's Central Park, among many other notable achievements, and who is recognized as the founder of American landscape architecture. By weaving wide, sprawling green spaces around gently curving streets, the brothers completed their Ashland Park design in 1930. Known as the Ashland Park Historic District, the area attracts tourists on a daily basis. Visitors can view a wide range of architecturally significant homes. Designs include Craftsman, Bungalow, Tudor Revival, Georgian Revival, Dutch Colonial Revival, and Spanish Eclectic, among countless others. We believe our neighborhood meets several of the criteria established in the definition of an historic district and landmark in Article 13 of the Lexington-Fayette County Zoning Code. And I believe Tracy handed out copies of those criteria a few minutes ago. But, for example, our designated areas identified with a person or persons or famous entity, Henry Clay and the Olmstead brothers, who significantly contributed to the development of the county, the state, and our nation. Our neighborhood is recognized for the quality and diversity of its architecture and retains sufficient elements evincing or evidencing its architectural significance. Our neighborhood has distinguishing characteristics of various architectural styles valuable for the study of the period, method of construction, and use of indigenous materials. Our neighborhood is characterized as an established and geographical, definable residential area united by culture, architectural style, physical plan, and development. All of those are mentioned in Article 13. Finally, we believe preservation enriches Lexington, as Bruce Simpson has stated, as buildings and neighborhoods are maintained and restored, so they continue to represent our history and provide a window to our past. Preservation provides residents with a sense of heritage. Preservation guarantees that significant buildings and houses have a lasting level of protection, and preservation provides greater predictability and thus stability and economic improvement for a neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration of our application. We look forward to working with you and other city officials and staff in the months to come as we go forward with this H-1 hearing process. Have a good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. Any questions? If not, thank you. Of course, any other member of our board who is here is certainly welcome to say whatever they'd like. Anyone else in support of this have anything to add? No? I would ask if there's anyone that would like to speak in opposition to this today. Please come forward, sir. Good afternoon. My name is David Benko. I think I wrote a brief note that was referenced earlier. I want to thank the committee for giving me a moment to speak to them. I thought it was interesting when they put the map up of the neighborhood, how the most historic building, the Henry Clay Ashland Estate, the immediate neighborhood surrounding it, am I correct in understanding it's not H1 zoned? Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay, so I think, you know, it's wonderful all the flowery language and the beauty of the Ashland Estate. I walked my dog there. I love it. But if we're not going to change the zoning on the streets like Sycamore and Fincastle, Ashwood or Woods Point, et cetera, immediately around the estate itself, yet we're jumping over to my area, which I am in the lower part of South Hanover there where there's a high concentration. of red as you might have suspected. Unfortunately, given my best efforts, I couldn't get a lot of those folks represented by the color red that are opposed to this proposition to show up today and voice their support and add their voice to mine. And I'd also propose that the reality is a lot of these people that voted for this don't really understand what changes will take place, both good and bad. When I say bad, I mean restrictions or what you'd have to go through to make any changes to your property. I think there's a lot of, unfortunately, there's some apathy and some ignorance out there. I do appreciate the committee, and I forget who it was that asked, but for the clarification on the Hanover Towers, My quick numbers show then of the 117 positive responses, 41 of those were from Hanover Towers, roughly 30% of the positive responses. I'm opposed to having the Hanover Tower folks included. I've been a condo owner before. It's my understanding as a condo owner, you own from the paint in. You don't own the outside of the building. That's taken care of typically by the association. but I just don't understand how someone on the fifth floor of Hanover Towers who owns from the Payton Inn as a condo owner has any say what I do down at the end of South Hanover near High Street to my property. I'm frustrated by that. I would rather see those votes pooled together as one vote at most. And the other thing I would like to find out is Has anybody verified that the responses from Hanover Towers, the 101 South Hanover address, has anybody been able to verify they were the property owners and not renters that were responding? And the reason I ask is it's my understanding about 25% of Hanover Towers is renter-occupied. So that's a concern of mine as well. So, but again, I too had questions on how this particular area had been carved out. You know, if it is possible to change this and not include the area of the high concentration of red, that would, you know, be appreciated from myself and several of my neighbors. Otherwise, I guess I would want to find out who I write a letter to requesting to be exempted from it. I guess my biggest problem I've had with this whole issue is I think the APNA does some nice things. They take care of the medians. They put flowers in the medians. They add some rose bushes here and there, try to make the community more beautiful. They plan parties, et cetera. But I just, you know, with respect to committee member Phillips, I think we could have a vigorous debate on does H-1 zoning improve property values or doesn't it. I think a debate could be had about that. There certainly isn't a consensus, I don't think, out there. And with respect to folks on Ashland, including the gentleman that spoke before me, you drive down Ashland, there's no doubt what a beautiful street Ashland is. And, in fact, most of the homes funding Richmond Road, most of those properties are half a million, three-quarters of a million dollars and up. Beautiful estates. They look wonderful. You drive down South Hanover. I did a walk around with one of my neighbors who wasn't able to make it today. 65% of the properties in the affected area that is being designated have had massive additions put onto them. The properties look nothing like they used to. Now, the good thing is, from my standpoint, the properties still look good, and from the street they still look good. And I think having faith or trust in your neighbors to do something tasteful that's nice has so far worked out pretty well. And the problem I have is I think a lot of the people that are for this, if you went and looked at their homes, they already have put massive additions on or done a vast majority, if not all, of the improvements they're going to do to their properties. And at this point, it's like they just want to make sure nobody else does something they don't find tasteful, which other than some rental properties, I feel in some respect, too, that we're using a sledgehammer to kill a fly rather than a fly swatter. If the concern, initially I was told, well, we're doing this because there's a vacant property or a house that was purchased and knocked down on the corner of Ghent and Deshaies. We're concerned what's going to be built there. It made sense to me. Okay, well, it turns out the owner, the new property owner, was true to his word. They've already got the foundation poured for a single-family bungalow home, which I assume, I haven't seen the elevation or the architectural renderings, but I assume it's going to be fitting in with the neighborhood and very nice. But I think the concern about, hey, we're going to have too many or we're at risk for this becoming a student rental area, et cetera, I don't think the H-1 overlay is the appropriate way to try to prevent people from turning their properties into rental properties. I don't imagine with the homes going for in the mid-300s up to over a million, that's necessarily going to happen. I just I apologize I certainly haven't been as eloquent as the gentleman that preceded me I really wasn't that prepared to go into that great of detail but that's basically my opposition is that if you're not going to have the area immediately around the most historical building the Henry Clay Estate zoned H1 why are you jumping over including us and again if you take a walk around these streets affected here they don't look anything like Ashland which is a beautiful street with half a million to three-quarters of a million dollar and up homes. Most of these homes are not like that, and my concern is you zone at H1. People know the hoops you have to jump through, how many times you have to come back with proposals to get something approved, and they may just put maintenance off, and in fact the neighborhood might deteriorate. So that's a concern of mine as well. And finally, what I guess really solidified my opinion was when I did attend one of the several meetings, I attended a couple of them, did ask about what if I want to replace my windows because we sequentially, over a period of time, put money into our property to improve it. And I was told, well, there was a whole discussion about how old wood is better than new wood, and if your old windows were deemed to be sufficient, then you would only be allowed to repaint them. Well, I have the old windows. They've been there a long time. the glass has even moved to where it's kind of wavy when you look through it. I have storm windows on there, and it's not energy efficient at all. I'd love to be able to replace it with some very nice looking, more energy efficient windows to reduce my energy costs. And again, I apologize for rambling somewhat, but I did just want to make some of our opinions known. And again, I apologize that a lot of my fellow folks that voted against this weren't able to show up today. Thank you, sir. Okay, but thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. My name is Gail Wilkes, and my husband and I own a home on South Hanover. And I'm here today to speak in opposition for several reasons. I so love this neighborhood. My husband grew up on South Hanover. In fact, the home we own was his family home. And we have had many, many discussions about how to renovate it, if to renovate it, and what to do with it. But we most value the neighborhood and the historic value of everything that surrounds it. We're not newcomers, that is to say. I think there are nearly 30% that oppose this, as the numbers have told us. And I think it's grossly unfair to say to them, we are imposing this restriction on you, what you do or don't do with your property, that you may have invested lots of money in, whether you've owned it for 10 years or 50 years, whether you just bought it six months ago. Someone's going to walk in and say what you can and can't do. I think that's grossly unfair. And I also agree with the study that property values would ultimately decline. Because it would be my opinion, I wouldn't choose this neighborhood, though I love it, if it were already zoned H1 overlay. And I probably won't choose to improve the property if that happens. And I assume other people would think that way as well. So while idyllically it sounds wonderful, I think in a practical sense it's unfair and it also decreases the value. And then ultimately, I think where the neighborhood might have some improvements from an H-1 overlay, it will also see some troubles because people are not willing and potentially unable to keep and maintain their homes up. So I think it's a multifaceted problem. but for that 30% who own homes and who would like to make them their own and who truly value that neighborhood and would, of their own choice, free choice, make the home in keeping with that neighborhood, I think it's unfair to impose the cumbersome nature and the added cost that would come with an H-1 overlay. And thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience that wish to speak in opposition? If not, I would offer a rebuttal. I think, Mr. Chairman, you made the point quite clearly. there tends to be a great deal of confusion about historic overlay zoning, about its cost and its cumbersomeness. I've been practicing a lot 20 years. I've been involved in most every kind of land use dispute that there can be a land use dispute about before the Board of Adjustment, the Planning Commission, and the Council. And in 20 years, I have had one case before the Board of Architecture Review, which tells me there's not a lot of cumbersomeness or the lawyers would be generating a lot more money from those kinds of disputes. I fought sidewalks on Tate's Creek Road. I fought daycare centers and churches and jails and prisons and every other kind of thing. But I have not had any fights at the Board of Architecture Review. the only time I was there was really as a hand-holding exercise for my great-aunt. I think the notion that this is an unwieldy, costly exercise, there's no factual basis to it in my judgment. Secondly, as far as Hanover Towers, I mean, as you stand here tonight, sit here tonight, excuse me, this afternoon, The facts are undisputed that 69% of the people who were surveyed by the government indicated their preference for historic zoning. The question has been raised about, well, what about Hanover Tower? As if to say their opinion, though they live in a condo, is not as worthy as someone who does not that lives in the area. The truth of the matter is, the only people that were notified were owners of the property. but even renters would be just as valuable as a stakeholder in this community. Even renters would be just as valuable if they voted in favor of this request. At this point, we're talking about a study. We, the applicants, are going to have to make the case before you on the merits, on the merits. If we don't make it, then you turn it down. But at least let's get the study initiated and come back before you and the Board of Architects review on the merits and let those in opposition make their points, which they certainly have a right to do, and then you all balance the pros and cons and you make the decision. But don't shut the door before we get started. At least open the door. This is too important to our community to not open the door for the study. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chamberlain. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, in response to the Hanover Towers issue that was raised, our petition was signed favorably by 63% of the property owners at Hanover Towers, and we only went to property owners. who are listed on the PVA as property owners. And we then check the numbers for the rest of South Hanover, excluding Hanover Towers. And the number who signed our petition, percentage-wise, for the rest of South Hanover was 63%, exactly the same number. So we do not feel that, and I agree with what was said, whether they're owning a 100-foot apartment or owning a 10,000-square-foot house, their vote is equally as important. But it didn't skew any numbers is the point I'm trying to make. They were exactly 63% each way on our petition. Also, as far as the issue of it being an onerous process to get approvals, we don't think it's nearly as onerous as in most of the new housing developments where there are some severe restrictions on what can be done to houses. and according to the numbers that Historic Preservation has provided us, over the last five years, between 94% and 97% of all requests that have gone before them for improvements have been approved. So it doesn't appear to be that onerous. And from a personal experience, we've had work done to restore our house to what it was going back to 1900, and we've never had any problem at all dealing with the so-called bureaucracy. So thank you again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Wade, do you have anything to do? I would just clarify for Mr. Minko that, indeed, we do only send these requests to property owners, not to renters. So it's very specific. We would never put or resident on the mailings. We strictly send all of our notices to property owners at their current listed mailing address with the PBA. Okay. Thank you. At this time, I'm going to close this part of the hearing and open it up for any questions from the Commission, and I'll entertain a motion when you're ready. Mr. Cravens? Tracy, is there some threshold on these postcards that has to be met? Your bylaws require that at least half of the responses be in favor. So the response rate is not necessarily, I mean, it's important, I think, but 50% of respondents have to be in favor. So we only have 41%. No, that's 41% of all postcards. You have 69.2% of responses that were in favor. Okay. I don't think we can include those who didn't respond because we don't know if they were either indifferent or positive or negative. Good, yeah. Any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Ms. Phillips? I move that we initiate the study to begin the H-1 overlay process. And I would also ask that the Division of Historic Preservation evaluate the maybe per square foot values of properties that are existing in H-1 overlays versus non-H-1 overlays. I know that there are some folks over at UK within the College of Design and Historic Preservation who probably have those data available, as well as folks within the Center for Business and Economic Research in the Gatton School who look at land values. So I would just ask that that be incorporated since that is an issue. One second. Mr. Cravens was trying to get my attention. I just want to speak to the motion. You seconded it, didn't you? Okay. So I'll recognize a second, and then we'll have a question. Has he got that Roberts book out or something? Mr. Cravens. I just don't think there's enough support for this to, I mean, you say it's just a study. Well, a lot of people get paid to do studies, and then the ones that are opposed to it, it costs them a lot of money. They might have to hire representation, or they may have to state it themselves, or spend their nights knocking on a neighbor's door, getting them to help support them. I mean, it could be pretty involved. I just don't believe there's enough support for this. I would be opposed to this going any further. Thank you, Mr. Cravens. Any other discussion? If not, the motion has been made for approval and seconded by Mr. Wilson. If there's no further discussion, I'll ask for you to vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. and as it has been said several times, this is just starting a process that will probably take several months to even get back to us. So thank you for coming and thank you for your voice. Mr. King, I think we've got one commission item. I'll let you make the wonderful announcement. We'd like to offer the Planning Commission the opportunity to cancel your scheduled work session for next week and give yourself a week off. Is a motion needed for that? Yes, sir, it is. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, so move. Motion's been made to cancel next week's work session and seconded by Mr. Brewer. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. Motion. What were you doing? Motion to postpone next week's work session. I don't know. And the meeting passes. Motion passes. Any other items from the commission? If not, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.