Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order the zoning hearing for the Planning Commission for November 29th. I would like to ask for those that come forward to the podium to speak, if you could speak loudly and clearly into the microphone. We're having some difficulties recording today through the wiring, so it's basically recording through what you say that can be heard within the auditorium here. With that, we will call for approval of the minutes. And we have two sets of minutes, the July 12th, 2007 minutes and the October 25th, 2007 minutes. And if there are no corrections, clarifications, additions, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the minutes from July 12th, 2007 and October 25th, 2007. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second for approval of the minutes. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Minutes accepted. Okay. Before we go into postponements and withdrawals, I'd like to have the Commission refer to page 8 for the meeting and filing schedule for 2008. We have some dates within that schedule that we need to approve. There should be a separate attachment of our meeting filing schedule. I would like to ask that the Commission review this and take action for acceptance of the meeting and filing schedule for 2008. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the meeting and filing schedule for 2008 as presented on the white sheet. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second for approval and acceptance of the meeting and filing schedule for 2008. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Schedule accepted. Thank you. Our next item on the agenda will be any postponements or withdrawals at this time. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, is that loud enough, Bill? I'm Jim Hodge. On page 6 of your agenda, Public Hearing on Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, ZOTA 2007-7, we would request a postponement until your meeting two weeks from today. December 13. Thank you, sir. I believe that date is December 13th, Mr. Salinas. Okay. So the Petitioner has requested a two-week postponement of ZOTA 2007-7. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a two-week postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain the motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of ZOTA 2007-7 to the December 13th meeting. Okay. We have a motion and a second to postpone for two weeks until the December 13th meeting. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, on the very next page, page 7, ZOTA 2007-8, we would request a postponement of that, this to the, what I believe is the January 31, 2008, your meeting, zoning meeting in January. Mr. Salley, which date is that again? Ms. Wiseman is correct. That is January 31st. January 31st. Okay. Okay. We have a request for a one-month postponement, or actually to our January 31st meeting for ZOTA 2007-8. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain the motion. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of ZOTA 2007-8 to the January 31, 2008 meeting. We have a motion and a second to postpone to the January 31, 2008 meeting. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy on page 1. Item 1, Tate's Creek Heights LLC Zoning Map Amendment and Pinnacle Lot 1 Amendment Zoning Development Plan. We're requesting a postponement to your December meeting, which I think is the 13th, December 13th? I think that's correct, yes. Okay. We have a request for a postponement for two weeks until our December 13, 2007 meeting for MAR 2007-9. And the associated development plan, Pinnacle Lot 1. Thank you, sir. It's at the bottom of page 2, ZDP 2007-50. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of MAR 2007-9 to the December 13th meeting. Are you going to do the development plan? Yes, we're going to do it. I move for postponement of ZDP 2007-50 until the December 13th meeting. We have a motion and a second to postpone MAR 2007-9 and the associated zoning development plan, ZDP 2007-50, until the December 13th meeting. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Page 4 of your agenda, Item 3, Fortune Office's LLC Zoning Map Amendment and the Associated Development Plan, ZDP 2007-13, Eastwood Unit 6, Section 1, Lot 6. We're requesting a postponement to your January meeting, January 31st on that one. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. We have a request for postponement until our January 31st, 2008, meeting for MAR 2007-20 and the associated zoning development plan, ZDP 2007-113, until the January 31st, 2008, meeting. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request? Yes, please. Come forward and, again, speak as loud as you can for recording purposes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jennifer Dahm, and I live at 2107 Stonewood Lane, which is the neighborhood right behind Fortune Drive property. This is the third month that my neighbors and I have made arrangements to take the afternoon off of work to come down and speak our opposition, only to find out it's postponed. We're not getting any advance notice of the postponement, and it's becoming very inconvenient. The only way we find out it's going to be postponed is if we call the planning commission repeatedly. Fortunately, my employer is very understanding, but my neighbors don't have this luxury. Therefore, to give us some certainty about when this matter is going to be heard and can plan our schedules accordingly, I'd ask that no further postponements be granted after today. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Duly noted. Mr. Murphy? If I could get your phone number, too, I'd appreciate that. I personally called everybody I knew about who had an interest on this. There's a lady from Virginia who I had called when I knew we were going to postpone it, and I would call anybody I had their phone number on, but I don't think we're going to need any further postponement beyond January 31st. I apologize for the people whose names I did not have. Okay. Thank you. Staff, do you have anything you'd like to add? We have no objection to the postponement. Okay. Okay. We have a request for a postponement of MAR 2007-20 and the Associated Zoning Development Plan, ZDP 2007-113. Do we have any comments from the Commission? Any questions? The Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of MAR 2007-20 to the January 31st meeting and the Zoning Development Plan, ZDP 2007-113 also to the January 31st meeting. We have a motion and a second for postponement. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Do we have any additional postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chair, on page 7 of the agenda, BOAR 2007-3, Appeal for Alan Foster, they're asking to postpone until January 17th. 17th, January. Okay. Thank you. On page 2 and a half, we have a request from the applicant to request for a postponement of BOAR 2007-3 until the January 17th, 2008 meeting. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of BOAR 2007-3 until January 17th. We have a motion and a second to postpone to the January 17th meeting. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Are there any additional postponements or withdrawals? Okay. Next, we'll move into the first presentation by staff. Mr. Sally, which page 3? We'll take a moment while staff sets up presentation. Okay. Okay. Good afternoon, Chairman Vaughan, members of the Commission. I am here today to present MAR 2007-19 for the staff, a request by Richardson-Todds Road, LLC. This is found on page 4 of your agenda, item 2, and can be found behind tab 2 in your notebooks. I have two letters that the staff received prior to the hearing today, one dated in August and one from this week. I'll pass those to Mr. Cravens and you all can review them. The subject property, or the requested zone change, I apologize, is from an AU agricultural urban zone to an expansion area to residential zone. And on our zoning map, the subject property is located to the north and east of the intersection, or I guess this is a bridge crossing, of Russell Cave Road and I-75-64 in this vicinity. The subject property has access from Russell Cave Road. And, again, it's currently AU zoning, and they're requesting expansion area residential to zoning for approximately eight and a half acres of property. In this general vicinity, there are existing residential subdivisions to two sides of the property, also a three-acre parcel to the north, and then a larger, the Shandon Farm, larger agricultural property further to the north. Also in this general vicinity, the Kingston Hall area lies across Russell Cave Road and is zoned ED in this location. The applicant is proposing to rezone the parcel to the EAR-2 zone and wants to develop 47 dwelling units at this location for a density of 5.25 dwelling units per gross acre. Primary access is proposed through the existing neighborhood to the south, rather than off of Russell Cave Road, and that's the Eden Court area. The subject property has been proposed for rezoning three times in the past, all of which obviously were not approved finally by the council. Just generally, the first time would be in 1996, after the expansion area master plan was approved. The entire expansion area was proposed by the Planning Commission for rezoning, and the council actually denied that zone change in 96 because of community-wide concerns. In 2005 and 2006, again, this parcel was part of a larger zone change, not for the expansion area, but in that case, it was included with the Shandon Farm parcel to the north. Both times, it was proposed for EAR-2 zoning as it is today, and in 1995, the subject property was recommended by the Planning Commission for approval, but the applicant withdrew their application prior to the council hearing. In 2006, the third time that that was proposed for rezoning, also again to EAR-2, the Planning Commission recommended disapproval because of evidence presented at the hearing regarding some sinkholes and environmental concerns related to the entire proposal and also some density issues. Again, the applicant withdrew their application prior to going to the Urban County Council for approval. This time, the subject property is brought in just as a single parcel, is not part of a larger zone change, and again, it is about eight acres of property. The comprehensive plan for this... Actually, Barb, can we show a few photos? This photo is looking towards the north, and Russell Cave Road is on the west side, and you can see the interstate towards the bottom of the picture, and Eden Court where it stubs into the subject property, and the property is covered by some trees, and you can see the existing residential structure towards the front along Russell Cave Road and then the Shandon Farm to the north. The second photograph is also an aerial looking from the east, and you can see just generally more residential across the interstate. The Shandon Farm is agricultural in use, and then I think the Kingston Hall property is still being used for agricultural at this time as well. And then the last is our comprehensive plan recommendation for a future land use. The 2007 comprehensive plan did carry forward all the expansion area master plan recommendations for land use, and at this location, again, it is recommended for expansion area residential two, which is in line with what the applicant is proposing in terms of zoning. The EAR2 zone requires a density of between three and six dwelling units per net acre, and does allow for density transfer rights up to nine dwelling units per acre for the property. The applicant is not proposing any transfer at this time. Again, they're proposing 47 dwelling units, and if we look at the calculations for that, if the property would be recommended to be developed for between 26 and 53 units, and again, the applicant is proposing 47 for the property. So it does fall within the comprehensive plan's recommended density for the property. For the first time in the history of this parcel, where it's been brought in for rezoning, there is a detailed development plan which does show a parcel or single family residential development and individual parcels as well as a street layout. And the staff is recommending conditional zoning restrictions for the parcel, which is consistent with what we've recommended the previous three times that the parcel's been brought in for rezoning. That's okay. The conditional zoning restrictions are printed on your agenda that the staff is recommending, but generally they are proposed in order to minimize impacts of new development for the existing neighborhoods in that area. The Shandon Park and Foxborough Manor subdivisions make up part of the Joyland Neighborhood Association, and then also the parcel located at 2060 Russell Cave Road to the north, which is also still in residential land use. The three areas of conditional zoning that are recommended are for no principal or accessory structures to be located within 50 feet of those three areas, the two subdivisions, and then the parcel at 2060. For there to be only single family residential within 300 feet of those areas, and then lastly that there be a buffer yard immediately adjacent to the existing subdivisions and along the 2060 property to be planted with trees every 40 feet, and at least a fence hedge or wall or earth mound at least 6 feet in height. The staff with those conditional zoning restrictions is recommending approval of the rezoning to Expansionary Residential 2 because it is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan and Expansionary Master Plan, and the density that they are proposing falls within the density recommended by the plan as well. And lastly, our recommendation is made subject to approval and certification of the Associated Zoning Development Plan prior to it being forwarded to the Urban County Council, and that usually occurs within or has to occur within two weeks. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the staff's report. Thank you, Ms. Waite. Any questions for Ms. Waite from the Commission? Thank you. Thank you. We'll have a presentation on the Zoning Development Plan. Mr. Martin. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, if you would refer to your gold handout, this is the revised recommendation that we will be referring to during the staff presentation. The Preliminary Development Plan that has been submitted with this zone change, ZDP-2007-98 Russell Cave Glen, is shown here with its connection to Eden Road coming into the property with the stub to feed the Shannon Farm in this area, should it develop. It shows a cul-de-sac, as you can see, leaning back towards Russell Cave Road, and again a cul-de-sac leaning back towards Pearson Drive in this neighborhood. Again, street system cul-de-sac, 47 lots are proposed. In that regard, it's a straightforward subdivision plan that you see before you with a fairly standard lotting pattern and a street system. When this plan was submitted and reviewed, there were eight discussion items that arose out of that review. Those discussion items are listed on your agenda. In the interim, there has been no new plan submitted addressing those discussion items. And so you can see on your gold handout that we have revised our recommendation on this plan. And we have revised our recommendation from postponement, which the subdivision committee did recommend, to one of disapproval. And I want to again point out the items, the areas of our concern, and why we are recommending disapproval. And if you might, Barb, have the photograph of the site. I think that might help illustrate. Put it back up. Thank you. The areas where staff has concern, and you have your aerial up there that shows the heavily wooded areas of the site. And specifically, we are quite concerned about this area in here. And you can see we don't have that information on the plan as required. That is problematic for us. We don't know how to evaluate the impact of the plan without the proper information. There is also, along those same lines, we are aware that there are easements on the property in this area. And again, we don't have that information on the plan. And we believe that that easement and these heavily wooded areas, which are identified as environmentally sensitive, which are also further identified in your EAMP as a woodland area to be protected, are not clearly delineated. Obviously, the impact of this plan is significant on those. In fact, significant to the point where we feel that they're not addressing the situation or our concerns. Therefore, again, that's one of the reasons we are recommending disapproval. We have another concern, and it's related to the first concern. And that is, again, under EAMP, your woodlands are identified. This map I put up, and it doesn't show it as well, and that's why I asked for the photograph, in that you can see that on this map and on this information, you can see, again, highlighted. Here's the property. There's the woodlands. The photograph speaks much better to that than the map. But I wanted you to see this again and see, because this is one of the basis of information, of course, that we use when we evaluate a plan. And again, you can see the road system, the lotting pattern here and here has a tremendous impact on those areas. The last item that was one of considerable discussion is that of sanitary sewers. And as the Planning Commission has been aware, that issue on that end of town has been a large one, and a large one has been discussed at length, not only in this area and this plan, but with other plans that have come before you. There is planned a regional pump station. It's part of the expansion area plan that is planned for this area. And this pump station, when it is online, will certainly go a long way towards addressing many of the problems that exist in this area. But currently, the sanitary sewers are inadequate in that area. And that's aggravated by several pump stations that exist that do not function adequately. And so for those reasons, staff is recommending disapproval of the plan. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Holmes? When is that regional pump station planned? Mr. Holmes, I will address that question to our engineering department. I think they can address that with greater accuracy than I can. They're intimately involved in the planning for that. So I will turn that over, I believe. Mr. Hillard Newman with our engineering department is here. I'm sorry, the question was the timing of the pump station? I don't really know at this point. The information I do have on it is that it's envisioned to be a capital project to be done by the city, and it's conceivably several years down the road. Any additional questions? I've got one. Yes, for you. Talking about it, I guess this question would be for you. You might want to pass it back to engineering. On the first report, we have approval and we don't show anything about the sewer. And then in the second one, we come in, the sewer becomes an issue. Now, this might be with the development plan, might be with the zoning. My question is this, the sewer is the same regardless of where this plan was. Which one of these plans did the sewer become? It's the same sewer regardless of which plan it is. Yes, sir. Now, the first recommendation was postponement. I've got it says here staff recommends approval. Top of page four. For the zone change, the staff is recommending approval. Approval, yes. And in our staff report, we did highlight the fact that the sanitary sewer lines are not adequate in the neighboring subdivision to serve this property, but that it would have to be served through the Kingston Hall development and would be at the time of that development. So a zone change could occur timing-wise without the sanitary sewer available and have that, I mean, we actually have seen that a number of times with the developer saying I'm willing to connect to, to do the improvements necessary a mile, two miles to get to the sewer. Is that applicable on this plan? That would be up to the applicant. Okay. So I'll reserve that question to them then. You know, owner of Kingston Hall. I'm getting ahead of myself. I just didn't understand why it appeared on this sheet but didn't appear on the other. Well, and again, I think Tracy addressed that adequately, but on the plan itself, the development plan, Mr. Penn, we had recommended postponement because of that issue. Yes, sir. Separate from the zoning. Okay. Well, I would just like to follow up on Mr. Penn's question because if infrastructure is inadequate at this time, are you recommending approval of the zone change with inadequate infrastructure or clarify that. With the knowledge that technically I think we are with the knowledge and the knowledge that that infrastructure, the specific type of infrastructure being the sanitary sewer, could be upgraded within the near future. Andrea, did you want to add? Perhaps I should weigh in here. Just a reminder that you have the two different standards and issues. When you're looking at the zoning, it goes to your statutory requirements. Is it in agreement with the plan? Is it appropriate or inappropriate? Or have there been substantial material changes that justify the zone change outside of the comprehensive plan? When you're looking at a development plan, you're looking at a whole different standard. It's in 21-4 sub D, and that's when you start talking about do we have ongoing problems, either in the subdivision regulations or compliance with the zoning ordinance? Is it traffic? Is it sanitary sewers? Those kinds of public health, safety, and welfare issues. So while the staff may recommend approval of the zoning because of the statutory standard, they have other issues to consider on the zoning development plan. Andrea? I think the crux of the question is can we, is it feasible to approve a zone change when you don't have an approvable development plan? And since they have to come somewhat hand-in-hand, that's the crux of what we're trying to get to. I believe it is the position of the staff that this is a case where you could approve the zone change in this instance given the situation as they have expressed. It is not always the case that that is true. Mr. King? Yes. As you said, one factor that weighs in on that, unlike many of our zones, the expansionary zones mandate a development plan, period. There are other cases even on the docket today where the zone inherently or the situation inherently would not require a development plan. So if a zoning action was occurred in the absence of a development plan, the developer would be free to do whatever is permitted in the zone however they choose. But that's not the case in the expansionary. If you recall, as we had talked earlier, the initial plan for the expansionary was to rezone it all and then have development plans come in years later incrementally. And so we are comfortable in this particular case with the division of those issues. Thank you. Any additional questions for Ms. Whittle or Mr. King? Thank you, Mr. Martin. Thank you, Ms. White. Petitioner? No, you came just in time. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, John Whittle on behalf of the applicant. Thank you very much for taking the opportunity to hear us today. I do want to make some points about this particular zone change. While we do appreciate the staff's recommendation of approval, I'm afraid it's not quite as simple as it appears to be with respect to the disapproval recommendation for the zoning development plan. As Ms. White alluded, this property is, in fact, in the expansion area. It is, in fact, in accordance with the comp plan. What we're trying to do is in accordance with the comp plan. Specifically, I would cite to Goal 7, which is to support and uphold the urban service area concept and related growth management strategies, and Objective E thereunder, to encourage new development to be compact and contiguous. I would also refer to Goal 13, which is to provide housing opportunities to meet the needs of all citizens, among others. In the EAR2 area, of course, we would be permitted to do anywhere from three to six dwelling units. What we proposed here is roughly five and a quarter units based on this 8.96 gross acre site. We could be anywhere between 26 and 53 units, but the plan that we've put together calls for 47. This proposed density is, of course, in complete agreement with the 2007 comp plan and the future land use recommendation thereunder. With respect to the expansion area master plan, I would note for the commission that one of the key objectives thereunder was the provision of housing in the expansion area that was affordable to all segments of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County community. A key strategy in achieving that objective, and this is very important, was giving property owners and developers a significant amount of flexibility in terms of housing types and net densities. Ladies and gentlemen, this case is really just about two things. It's about the conditions that have been placed on the zone change recommendation and the trees, and that's it. The conditions that have been placed upon this zone change are onerous, oppressive, arbitrary. Pick your adjective. What they result in is an absolute emasculation, or they just essentially gut the recommendation of approval, and I'll explain that, why I feel that way, in just a second. With respect to conditions, you know, under our zoning ordinance, the power to impose those conditions should be thoughtfully and sparingly used, and that's, quote, and under Article 6.7A, a binding restriction or condition may be imposed whenever one or more of the specifications of the zoning ordinance for the proposed category would impair the integrity and character of the area in which the subject property is located or adjoining areas. And the last test is no restriction or condition may be imposed which shall deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of the land or create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. Why is all that important in this particular matter? Well, there's three conditions referring specifically to the zone change, which I don't have any idea why in the world they're part of this zone change. They should be part of the development plan to be talked about before the developer is even able to turn a spade of dirt. But for whatever reason, we want to tack them on to the zone change, and I think I understand why. If you look at the first condition, and this is to us extremely important, what we're going to do here is we're going to require a 50-foot buffer all the way along this property line, excuse me, this property line right here and up next to 2060 Russell Cave Road. If we consider that it essentially, you know, we're dealing in our development with a lot dimension, which is 40 feet front by 60 deep, okay? In order to build a house on that, the minimum to build a house on that, we've got to have, you know, a 36-foot wide area, a 36 by 36 because of the 3-foot side yard. So, what you do when you impose this 50-foot buffer, just based upon the densities we're talking about here, we've shown you in this exhibit right here, you're taking away, staff wants to take away 21 of our lots. That's what the, if you simply put a scale on it, I don't care whose scale you use, staff's or our, the applicant's engineer, that's what you wind up with. So, you're down to a density, down to 26 lots, which frankly is not economically feasible and not consistent with the expansionary master plan or the comprehensive plan. That's before we even talk about the trees. Now, my question is, and what I'd like the commission to consider, why are we talking about a 50-foot buffer? Where does that come from? There's nothing in any ordinance that cites or calls out 50 feet. Nothing that calls out 10 feet, 20 feet, 30 feet, whatever. They've come up with that, in our view, completely arbitrarily, and what are we trying to buffer from? Well, this is R2 on Eden Court, and if you drive down that road or walk down it, you'll note that although you could put duplexes there, it's not duplexes. It's all single-family residential. Most of these homes, if not all, have either sheds or large garages built behind the homes, some right up on the property line, all the way down Eden Court, and then all the way down Pearson Drive. So, exactly what is this buffer needed for? To minimize the impact of development on who? It makes no sense. It's just a way to torpedo this zone change, period. The next condition has to do with multifamily use. No multifamily use within 300 feet of the same property lines. Well, we don't intend to do any multifamily, but if we did, we couldn't. That would effectively take that away. And the last issue concerns the buffer yard, and this is one I really have a… The 50 foot is really what troubles us, but this really doesn't make any sense. We talk about the trees and so forth and how heavily wooded this property is and what a great woodland it is. It's got a lot of trees because it used to be a nursery, as some of you may know. But we're going to take out the trees that are all the way along here in order to put in new trees and a fence, I suppose, and they want a six foot tall or whatever berm. Well, the problem with that is if you match up our density here with what we want, even if you use the 47 units we want versus what's over here, we don't think you can do that under the ordinance because in order to buffer uses like uses, you have to have a greater density, a greater difference between the two than three units. So we don't think that's permissible. So what we'd ask the commission to do on the zone change is simply approve it, not subject to those conditions. And if those conditions are, I would say, maybe we could find some common ground on some of them, I don't know. But nonetheless, they should be part of the development plan. They should be part of the development plan down the line. And just like moving to the development plan, the sewer issues. Clearly, ladies and gentlemen, we can't turn the first spade of dirt, we can't hammer the first nail until we have sewer and water to the property. That has nothing to do with the zone change, and it shouldn't have anything to do with whether the zoning development plan is approved today or recommended for approval today or not. It should merely be tagged as a discussion item that we can't get anything done until all that is solved. That's the way it's typically done, and I don't know why this particular zone change is being singled out. It makes no literal sense. I feel like I have to bring this up because this is, we've talked about this a lot around the office, and it's just this zone change, the way they've got this thing, staff's got this thing positioned, presents us all with some problems. If you approve this zone change with these conditions and then turn around and disapprove the zoning development plan, I think the idea is, well, then our engineer won't sign off on our zoning development plan, or even if he does, under protest, the planning commission secretary then won't sign the plan, and that will happen in the 14-day period, and therefore our zoning will be null and void. I don't think it's quite that simple. This has happened one other time that I know of in my practice of law in 13 years, and I think in that particular time the issue went away because the applicant withdrew their application. Well, I'm here to represent to you that that's not going to happen on this particular case. As my grandfather used to say to me, Mr. Penn, the gates are all closed and we ain't going home until they're all loaded. So I think we need to figure out a way. If you're going to deny the zone change, then deny the zone change and let us go on up to the Urban County Council and we'll deal with it all there. But I think the easiest thing to do is what should be done, which is to approve this zone change without the conditions, and we'll talk about those conditions in conjunction with the zoning development plan, which should all be done later, and let this thing go to the Urban County Council like it should as opposed to creating a legal quagmire for all of us. But this zone change is in perfect compliance with the comprehensive plan. The conditions that are being attached to it are completely arbitrary and, in fact, just wrong, and there's no other way around that. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Any questions for the petitioner from Commission members? Okay. If I may, it appears we have quite a few folks. Can I get a show of hands of those that want to speak to this particular application? Okay. The way in which we'll proceed is I'll ask for those wishing to speak in favor of this to come forward first and then have those wishing to speak in opposition to come following that. If you would like to speak to this application, we ask that if someone is making comments prior to your comments, hopefully what you offer is new information and not a repeat of the previous comment. So with that said, again, please speak as loud as you can into the microphone because of recording, and I'd like to ask those that are wishing to speak in favor of this to come forward. Okay. Seeing none, I'd like for those wishing to speak in opposition, please come forward. Good afternoon. I live at the property at 2060 Russell Cave Road. And most of you have seen me at all of these previous hearings on this subject. And, in fact, I think if you actually go back and look pretty much what the staff recommendations are today or the staff recommendations you've received in the past and that you've approved, and all I can assume is that the petitioner hopes that eventually the composition of the commission will change or the neighbors will get tired. I have a letter that I'm going to reference, and I'd like to pass it out to you. I won't take a lot of your time because you've heard this before, but I do want to emphasize a couple of points about this plan and the impact that it would have on me. First, if you look carefully, what the petitioner is proposing to do is put a street all the way along the southern property line of my property and all the way along the eastern side of my property. So I'll be bounded on three sides by streets, Russell Cave Road and the two roads that the petitioner is proposing. It's obvious when you go into the ordinance, especially Appendix 23B, that the petitioner is expected to minimize the impact on adjacent properties. I have a three-acre single-family residence property. There's not a person in this community in that kind of situation who wants streets on three sides of them. That's unconscionable, and if you look back at earlier plans, at least the petitioner had his houses backing up to me. Now I get streets. So I am very supportive of the staff recommendation that the zoning development plan not be approved for that reason. Secondly, if you look at one of the attachments, you will see a scenic easement that I have on this property, and I stress that it's a scenic easement. It says that basically I don't have to look at structures, parking areas, or vehicles and requires that the owner of this property ensure that. It was a condition attached to a conditional use permit. That obviously means you can't build a street next to me, and it also means you can't cram houses up next to me. That easement needs to be respected. Now I realize why you all cannot speak to an easement, and in fact the matter is now in circuit court. But I would ask that you not take any action that says you as a commission have taken a position on that easement, whether you agree that my easement is valid and should be enforced, or whether you disagree that you not approve anything that basically affects that easement until the courts have had time to make a decision about it. And then thirdly is the section that I refer to on page two as mitigating the adverse impacts of this development. I support fully those three conditions that the staff have attached. Those are the same conditions that the staff have attached in the past. Those are the same conditions that you have approved. If you look towards the end of the attachments, you'll see some photographs. The first page of photographs is standing at my back door looking out to the property. And that's what you see when you step out my back door. So I think asking for some buffering is reasonable and simply maintains what I have. The second page of photographs is looking across my property south to that property. And again, that's the view where you basically see the tree line is where this property begins. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Birch. Any questions for Mr. Birch? Thank you. As he stated, he stated his name and address. So if those coming forward would like to speak in opposition, please do so. State your name and address, please. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. As you all know, my name is Noxvin Ogle, and I am here on behalf of the Fayette Alliance. The Fayette Alliance supports the staff's recommendation of approval regarding the zone change with the stated conditions because it is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. However, we do have serious concerns about the proposed development plan in which substantial trees will be removed to construct 47 housing units on roughly 8 acres of land off of Russell Cave Road. Therefore, in the express interests of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, the Rural Land Management Plan, and the Expansion Area Master Plan, the Fayette Alliance supports staff's recommendation of disapproval regarding the development plan at this time. More time is needed to better address the area's extensive sanitary, sewer, and stormwater problems, the proposed density of the project, the environmental sensitivity of the site, and the proximity of prime agricultural lands to the development. We do look forward to working with the developer to resolve these concerns, and we appreciate you all's time on this matter. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name is David Atcher. I live at 280 Swigert Avenue. I represent, well, I live in the Joyland neighborhood and also associate with neighbors in Shandon Court, Thoroughbred Acres area. What I want to do is hand out, I have some prepared remarks and a couple of overhead diagrams to show. I think the problem that we still have, I think I'm going to address what Ed brought up is not ongoing infrastructure problems. There are continuing flood problems with sewage backup into the homes in the areas near 2020 Russell Cave Road, primarily due to inadequate sewering and surface drainage, homes built in a flood plain, and the topography and underlying karst features of this area. Converting the eight acres of woods and pasture at 2020 Russell Cave, which is 30 to 40 feet higher than the surrounding land, and turning it into 47 homes with roads, sidewalks, lawns, and guttered roofs will increase the runoff from that area. Technically, converting pasture and woodlands into subdivision will triple the amount of rainfall that will come off of that. We are already having fairly extensive problems in our neighborhood. We can show some more pictures. These pictures are from the Pearson Avenue area, Bischoff Court, Allen Drive. This is one of the worst floods that occurred, maybe in 1997, but we've had similar ones since then. This inadequate sewering has already been mentioned. It's a well-known problem. It's been known since at least 1983 when the LFUCG commissioned the Kenneway Report. At that time, it was estimated it would cost $361,000 to fix. In today's dollars, that's probably at least $2 million, probably more. Further recognition of this problem, I think, has been verified by the purchase of the county LFUCG of four homes in the area due to unresolvable flooding issues. The most recent sale was in July of 2005. The home was bought for $290,000. If we can show diagram one, I just want to go into detail as to why development of this area will probably compound our issues unless sewering is somehow addressed. Excuse me, Bill. Can we get the graphic? I think it's oriented 180 degrees. Thank you. There we go. Thank you very much. Does that work for you? On this diagram, the highlighted yellow area, this is subject property. This is Russell Cave. This is the interstate. What I want to point out here is this is a topographical map. You can clearly see this 940 here. These marks, I think, are for 10-foot elevations, which makes this part right here, if I'm adding correctly, 970 feet. This is a 30-foot drop in elevation here. To state the obvious, water flows downhill. On an old topographical map, a wet weather stream was shown here that goes directly down into a flood plain. This area in here is Pearson Drive. This is Shannon Court, Thoroughbred Acres. You can clearly see a lot of these homes were built in an already existing flood plain. The point here is if the runoff here is increased, this will increase the flooding that occurs in this area that we already have. I think Jimmy actually has walked the property too, Jimmy Emmons and myself. There's no longer an obvious stream right there, but there is a drainage area. This land slopes down into these subdivisions. Let me have an aerial photograph. Let's see if you can turn that. Maybe 90 degrees. That's it. Prior to building this subdivision, actually the fellow, Ted Alcorn, who grew up on this property, walked this property with me. He pointed out that before the subdivision was built, there was a pond, a sinking spring, and a sinkhole that was in approximately this area. He witnessed the construction of the subdivision and that area was filled in, just bulldozed. No provisions were made whatsoever for this underground stream and sinkhole. This correlates very clearly with the area that is most commonly flooded in our neighborhood here. Let me have the other aerial photograph. This is an aerial photograph from 1952, prior to the construction of the subdivision. I don't know if you can see it. This is the subject property again. This is Russell Cave Road. This area right here shows the pond and the stream. Ted couldn't remember clearly if right here was the sinkhole or up here was the sinkhole. All this area right here is still there, but it's underground. Again, just putting out our concerns that the water that would flow off this property, if developed, would seek this area, which is the lowest area around. Let's see. Let's have diagram four to help orient you again. Subject property, Russell Cave. This floodplain that's in here is also part of a larger floodplain that I think you might remember us talking about when Middleburg Stables came up. Again, if this is developed, runoff will be greater. The water will just be deeper here and will likely get into more houses in this area. I think that's all the diagrams. I don't think we need to show the other one. Well, let's do show that one, actually. In a previous hearing, I passed out a study that had been done by Dr. Ralph Ewers about this property. That's the wrong one. However, let's go to the next one, if you would. Let's see if this ... This is Pearson Drive. You can't see Russell Cave, but it would be here. The subject property, it would be in approximately this area. One of these sinkholes that's on the Shandon Farm, when the underground conduit system, when the water overwhelms the underground conduit system, this sinkhole actually backs up and water comes out of it. It basically is filling a tub right here. This is a low area in the neighborhood, further compounding the problem here. I think that's enough diagrams. Just wanted to say in conclusion that the development of the property at 2020 Russell Cave Road, from woodlands and pasture land, a densely housed 47-home subdivision would lead to increased stormwater runoff and thereby increase the periodic flooding of thoroughbred acres of Shandon Park and Joyland. It's not feasible currently to connect this proposed development sewer or drainage systems to the current inadequate one. A larger drainage and sewer system, if it's built at all, is years in the future. Thank you for your time and patience. Thank you, Mr. Atcher. Do we have anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to this application? Yes, if you could come forward, please. State your name and address. It takes me a little while. My name is Catherine Perkins. I live at 258 Swigert Avenue, and I am secretary for the Joyland Neighborhood Association. I would like to address my remarks, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, to the effects of the development of 2020 Russell Cave Road on agriculture and the equine industry in Fayette County and the Bluegrass region. Suburban development around Lexington and the Bluegrass region has caused much legitimate fear about the loss of unique and special things that give us the identity of horse capital of the world. The thoroughbred industry brings in millions of dollars each year, enriching our regional economy. The recognition of our area as important to the world equine industry has led to the decision to have the World Equestrian Games here in 2010. The conversion of many of our agricultural lands with their distinctive horse growth-enriching soils into large areas of tract housing with attendant roads, sidewalks, malls, and commercial areas has led the World Fund Foundation to place this area on its top 100 endangered sites in the world. The process by which suburbanization of Lexington has proceeded in the past appears to not well observe the needs of the equine farmer or the agricultural farmer. Many of our current dense housing developments are characterized by having the yards of these closely spaced houses adjoin the pastures of the farms with no consideration to the needs of the temperamental thoroughbreds or if you're livestock, the cattle, and anything else that you grow, who do need, and the thoroughbreds need, a lot more peaceful environment that is not supplied by a noisy neighborhood with loud children, blowing car horns, or barking dogs. This closeness subtracts from the business attractiveness of the farm and also impacts the aesthetic value of the farm, two things that we measure in dollars and cents. It's been seen repeatedly in Lexington where a development happens next to a horse farm, lowering its aesthetic and business value, and suddenly the farmer is confronted with holding on to his much-loved farm of lesser agricultural and equine value or selling it for a developer's higher prices, often double the value of agricultural land. It's a very sad choice for these farm owners. The domino effect of horse farm losing agricultural value and gaining development value begins when suburban development is built right next to it. When one looks at the development plan of the subject property, one can see that the plan is to put as many houses on it as zoning regulations allow, with no consideration of any visual or sound buffer zone between the houses and the adjoining Shandon Farm, currently a cattle farm. But with a rich thoroughbred industry, that may be repeated in the near future by a new owner, and we do hope that Shandon Farm is purchased by somebody who is into agriculture, equine, or otherwise. First off, I hope this development doesn't happen as it is currently planned, as it will lower the agricultural value surrounding farmland and will increase the fear of farm owners in northern Fayette County that suburban encroachment will lower the attractiveness of their farms for themselves and their businesses. If this land is to be developed, I would hope that the developer be responsible for all of the sizable buffer zone between the horse farm boundary and the backyard boundary of the houses on the edge of the property and all the other conditions that staff has put forth in the zoning change. I believe it is very wise of the staff to put these conditions in with the zone change. By doing this, they are saving everyone time and money fighting another poor development, and by doing this, the developer is aware of the challenges that await his development proposal. In essence, those whose opinions I represent and myself feel that the zone change and development plan should both be disapproved. Poor development is not in the comp plan or in the best interest of anyone except the developer. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Perkins. Next. Thank you. My name is Becky Reed, and I live at 1717 Palmyra Avenue, and I am president of the Elkhorn Park Neighborhood Association. I'm here representing them and myself. We had several issues. Our neighborhood is Dover Road, if anybody is familiar with that. It is the one and only straightaway that runs between Russell Cave and Paris Pike North Broadway until you get out to Ironworks. Elkhorn Springs is in the process of being developed on Russell Cave right now. The new library is going in. A great big church just went in at the very end of Dover. At the other end on Paris Pike, if you ever come in off the interstate there and you want to turn left from Broadway onto New Circle, if you've tried to do that, you know what a mess that is. There's only one lane. It backs all the way up for a mile. There's no way to broaden that right now to make two lanes. So either way, this entrance comes out. The traffic issues that we have, because what everybody finds is that, you know, you can wind your way through some of these other neighborhoods, or you can turn on Dover and floor it and go for that three-quarters of a mile between there. We have 25-mile-an-hour zone and the Neighborhood Association, we made and bought all these little signs, and we have them every other house all the way up and down Dover to try to provide some safety. We have no sidewalks in that area. We'd like speed bumps. That would help us, but we can't because there's a fire station right up there, which also uses that road as a cut-through and would probably have to use that again for this whole new neighborhood. So it is nothing to see 65- and 70-mile-an-hour people zooming through a 25-mile-an-hour zone. So that is one of our big issues with that. And I will say that as far as the sewer issue, we have that same thing. When I grew up in the neighborhood, I'm 55. When I was a child, we used to love to go down. There was a little spring that came up, and when other developments went in, they filled it up with rocks, but it didn't go away. So that house has just been bought out by the city, and us dog people like it because every time they buy out one of our houses in our neighborhood and level it, we get a nice new little dog park. But I think it's kind of expensive for the city to be doing, but there is one that was just the lady was giving her check just a couple of months ago and will be moving, and that one will be leveled. So there are many sewer and spring issues. And the last one I will just stress personally is that although I grew up in this neighborhood, I moved away to Acreage for a while and then moved back, but one of the things I love about it is if you go out Russell Cave and you head out, and now you pass all the library and the church and all the other new subdivisions that have gone in, you hit that interstate bridge, and as you go over it and come down, you get this panoramic view of horses, countryside, those beautiful mature trees to the right. It is beautiful. We have herons and hawks that come and land in our yards. And just the aesthetics, and, you know, I won't speak to all the regulations or whatever, but the aesthetics of the beauty of it. And I, as far as what doesn't make sense to me, is saying that the only issue that the developer talked about with addressing the trees is, oh, don't worry, we'll put in new ones. Somehow six-foot sticks to replace mature, full trees does not make me feel any better. So that's all I had, and I appreciate your chance to address you today. Thank you, Ms. Reed. Do we have anyone else that would like to speak in opposition? Ms. Reed. Hi, my name is William Woodward. I live at 282 Swaggart Avenue, and I've lived in the neighborhood since 1990. Actually, I think most of the things I wanted to speak to have already been covered, particularly the aesthetics and the whole complexion of Lexington as it's changing. I do want to mention, I think I heard 40 by 60 lots. Is that correct? Okay, for a buildable area. I just, and I heard mentioned about people having sheds in their backyards. These people aren't going to be able to have sheds. These are very small lots, and if you've seen some of the development that's happened in the north side of Lexington, if you own more than one car, you're parking on the street, and we need to slow this thing down. If it does develop it, I beg you as a planning commission, please control density. I don't want it to develop at all, but this quantity in this area on the interstate that people are going to see when they drive through Lexington is really, really bad, and I really appreciate your time, and that's all I really have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Woodward. Anyone else would like to come forward and speak? Good afternoon, Chairman and Commission. I'm from 689 Kingston Road. I was born and raised in Lexington at 689 Kingston Road. I know the area well. It's a beautiful place. I wanted to speak on the traffic issue. First of all, I'd like to know how a development is going to enter onto Russell Cave from the site that we're looking at. I think we may have a few deaths if people try to exit there. The second issue on traffic is that if they don't exit on Russell Cave, that means they're coming through the current subdivisions. We have an elementary school and a park, which are our major thoroughfares through there. That would mean more traffic there, endangering children and people enjoying the park. I just would like for you to consider, again, we are developing prior to infrastructure, meaning Russell Cave Road being widened. I was at a meeting earlier this week on transportation. There is a proposal to widen Russell Cave, but it is not on the books anywhere, nor is money available, and it was a $7 million project. I would just like for you to consider infrastructure before more planning, more development is happening in our city outside of the interstate and New Circle Road. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Jones. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Turner Lyman. I have lived at 2209 Pearson Drive since May 2002. My house is approximately 500 feet from Interstate 64 and 75. When I moved in, one of the first things I noticed was traffic noise. I've done some preliminary sound measurements, which indicate that our neighborhood is in an area of noise pollution. Like many pollutants nowadays, we are just discovering the detrimental effects of excessive noise, not to mention the concentration of vehicle exhaust emissions along interstate highways. To my knowledge, Fayette County has only one interstate sound wall, and I understand it took about five years of citizen effort to get it built. And I've had little luck finding anyone in the Kentucky Department of Transportation willing to do interstate sound measurements or supply me with any results of previous studies. My point is, should we build even more family housing so near a known source of pollution without addressing the pollution problem first? Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Lyman. Anyone else would like to speak? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Lee Turrell, and I reside at 756 Kingston Road here in Lexington. Lived there for 31 years. And I can say I've seen a nice share of floods, traffic problems, and they were there then. They're still there now. I'm just going to make this short. My neighbor lives across the street from me. In 1957, his sanitary sewer backed up in his basement where his son's bedrooms were located. To me, that's one time, one time too often it should happen. But last year it happened again. They had to tear out their whole basement, everything in it. And the thing that really put the straw that broke the camel's back was that when he was tearing it down, as you're all well aware, but Rome was not built in a day. He did not get all this stuff out in time for the city to pick it up. They said, we can't pick up any more. You're going to have to pay to take it to the landfill. He came over to my yard and was telling me about the evening before, and I said, Jerry, I'm going to call the mayor tomorrow. So I did. She was out in her office, but some gentleman there helped me. They put a dumpster out there, and they hauled two dumpster loads out. I'm telling you, before you allow anything, you should get this sewer problem corrected, this flooding problem corrected. It's been enough said about the problems that this development will cause. Let's ax it. Don't approve it. Thank you very much, and I appreciate the time of speaking to you. Thank you, Mr. Terrell. Is there anyone else who would like to make a comment? Okay, seeing none, we'll have rebuttal at this time. Petitioner? I'm sorry. Petitioner, yes. Did you say petitioner? I said petitioner, yes. Okay. Thank you. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out for the record, there was mention made about an entrance onto Russell Cave Road. We don't have or plan for an entrance there, and I believe engineering, correct me if I'm wrong, Rory, talked about using that entrance for construction traffic only during construction of the home so it wouldn't have to go through your neighborhood, and then it would be closed. That's a cul-de-sac. So there is no access planned from Russell Cave. That, once again, is also a development plan issue. Also, with respect to the flooding and sinkholes, I know that was all an issue over here on this zone change on the Middleburg property. Nobody's brought that up with respect to the subject property at all. It's not an issue. There's not a sinkhole on the property. It's not a flooding issue. I think, as Mr. Cayley indicated, we've got less than a 5% grade from the middle of the property down. I mean, that's almost level enough to build a parking lot on. Once again, these are all development plan issues. And lastly, with respect to the tree issue once again, we're well aware of the tree protection standards. The problem, once again, is what staff has recommended so far, talked about so far with respect to the trees, especially in this area, results in the loss of all these lots. And I don't think that that's what the tree protection standards were designed to accommodate whatsoever. And this is something that most people don't want to hear, but I don't think as a commission you want to encourage that kind of planning. And here's why. From a development perspective, if the development community, love them or hate them, knows that when they file an application and before anything's approved, that they're going to have to deal with or have very onerous tree protection standards placed upon them, so onerous so as to make a property completely undevelopable, you know, as an attorney and with the obligation to advise our clients in the most prudent way possible, it would be hard not to advise that client to remove all the trees from their property before an application was filed. That's exactly the kind of thing you're setting up. Nobody wants to talk about it and nobody wants to hear it, but it's the truth. And I've attended all the comprehensive plan meetings, both here and many of them out in the community, and nobody is more aware of the importance of horses and so forth to Lexington. I mean, it's a large part of what makes Lexington a community we love. And obviously, that has to be the case. Lexington has to be a great community or people wouldn't want to keep coming here, but they do. We've had the conversation about horses and people and the interaction thereof in the expansionary process, in the comprehensive plan process. And as I was looking over some minutes from one of these past zone changes, I saw a quote that one of the folks from the horse industry made, and I really thought it was a good one. He said, you know, in the comprehensive plan process, not everybody got exactly what they wanted, but everybody got something. And part of what came out of that process was this particular property was recommended for EIR2 development. And the plan we've got up there is perfectly consistent with the comp plan and the expansionary master plan, and it should be approved that way without those conditions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have any citizen rebuttal to comments you've heard? Mr. Atcher? There, okay. Just a clarification, even if I need to do this. We weren't saying that this property would be flooded, but that the development of this property will increase the runoff. When you have pasture land and woodlands, it absorbs more water. Lawns, roads, sidewalks, roofs do not. And the fear is that probably this half of the property, all the water that would fall there, would go into this area, which is a flood zone, a flood plain. It is all connected to Shandon Farm. We call it Lake Shandon when it forms over in our neighborhood. Some people refer to this as Pearson Creek, but that's the only clarification I wanted to make. We were not pointing out that this would flood, but the runoff from a development would increase the flooding in our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Atcher. Okay, staff? Thank you. Just a few rebuttal comments. The staff recommended conditional zoning restrictions, and we've recommended them consistently through four public hearings for this parcel, including today's hearing. The restrictions were developed during a very public process, public planning process for the expansion area master plan in 1995 and 1996. As part of that process, these conditional zoning restrictions were brought forward in a conversation with the existing neighborhoods in this area, principally because this is a unique area. The existing neighborhood at that point was adjacent to land outside the expansion area, but they also had residential sub streets into that area, so there was kind of a knowledge that residential would be coming in there, but that created a unique situation that isn't present in all of the expansion area where it's adjacent to existing or inside the old areas. Also, there was an intent at that time that the whole expansion area would be rezoned at one time, and that was attempted, but that was why the conversation with the neighborhoods were so important during the expansion area master planning process and why those conditional zoning restrictions were brought forward at that time, and then they've continued through the planning process, and the staff does believe they're still appropriate today. The restrictions, the staff doesn't believe, would prevent development of this property and would disagree with the statement that 21 lots would not be buildable. Also, the last thing I would say is that the staff recommended postponement of the development plan in order to further a discussion with the developer and the applicant, and in the past four months we haven't seen another development plan and haven't been engaged by the developer to discuss other alternatives for the property. And that's it. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Thank you. Do we have any questions at this time for Ms. Wade? Yes. Ms. Wade, could you explain to me the rationale for the buffering? Is it a zone-to-zone screen? Is it a land-use-to-land-use screen? Specifically, what are the criteria that we established for buffering? Having not been involved with the expansionary master plan in 1996, my understanding at this point, coming in late, either Mr. King might address that or I can attempt to. I'd like to just discuss that a little bit. As Ms. Wade said, this was a very unique area among the areas that were added to the expansionary in that it was the only one I can recall where we actually had a budding neighborhood with streets that would interact. And, therefore, not so much during the plan process, but in the rezoning process that was engaged immediately after adoption of the plan, we had numerous neighborhood meetings and conversations with neighborhoods and others on ways and methods that the impact of the new development might be blended better with those existing neighborhoods. And those conditions that were recommended at that time, which these basically are reflective of, were developed out of that conversation and that process. Thank you, Mr. King. Do we have any additional questions for Ms. Wade at this time? Okay. No additional questions at this time. We'll call this portion of the hearing closed and would like to call for a brief recess for about five minutes, restroom break if we could. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test.  This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. This is a test. At this time, we've closed the hearing. And we will now open the floor to discussion by Commission members. Mr. Pan. Yes, thank you. This is a unique situation for me. And the fact that I don't have a problem with the zone change, but I have a problem with the implementation of the development plan. And I know they're separate issues, and I'd like to ask the applicant, because of the sewer situation, Mr. Woodall, what, if you go forward with that development plan, what's your plans to mitigate the sewer situation? In other words, are we just spinning our wheels here? Are we approving a development plan when the – are we approving a zone change when the development plan won't work because of serious infrastructure problems? Well, I disagree that there – I mean, I think it depends on who you talk to about how serious the infrastructure problems are. So I understand that the sewer is there. But none of that – none of that situation is going to be dealt with until the development plan stage before DIRT's term. So if it won't work, it won't work. I just think they're two separate things. And I think you deal with the zone change now. And these infrastructure issues, as they always are, are part of the development plan issue that is worked out with staff and then has to come back to you. I guess where I'm having the problem, Mr. Woodall, and it may be my problem, is the fact that the comp plan calls for this. I have no problem with the zone change. Most of the time in zone change, there's a development plan that we think will work, may need to be tweaked. When we haven't seen any updates, we haven't seen any revisions, we haven't seen anything in the last three or four months, it's obvious to me that the zone change is more important to you than the development plan. And so I'm just trying to get a handle on that is where I'm trying to come from. Well, in response, there was, in fact, a meeting shortly after I got involved in this, Commissioner Penn, regarding this particular zone change. And it's been our understanding and our belief all along that this has always been about the owner's conditions that have been placed on this thing to kill it, period. And we've never heard anybody say, at least in my recollection, and Rory will correct me if he's heard any different, that sewer capacity or the ability to sewer this property kept it from being developed at this time. Is that not correct? Putting you on the spot. I will work through the recollection of the many past hearings. Both on this property and in the area in general, there was always the discussion. And with other applications, there was proposals of improvements to the overall systems. And as I remember, there was, I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I remember being told that at one time the sewers were not bad enough in the area that it required, and this was a tradeoff, that it required the new pump station immediately. If you'll remember back, there was, across the street, they wanted all sorts of concessions to go residential. And I believe at that time, pump station was one of them. We'll improve the area. I remember them taking at least two or three old pump stations offline if we could get the residential and going down the street. And I think it was within the minutes would probably bear true here that it wasn't, the issue wasn't bad enough at that time that that would have to take place. And what we are talking about here is 47, if we can fully develop to what we show now, we're in that range of additional lots. I don't know that there's anything that is a moratorium. There's nothing set up that denies you from going into an existing system. If the system's in having troubles, I think there's, you know, responsibilities to improve it. But I don't know of anything that denies us access to an existing system. Mr. Finn, I guess that's the long answer. The short answer would be why isn't this like any other zone change in development plan approval where the development plan would be made contingent upon being able to adequately sewer the property, which would be determined during that process. And once again, no final development plan until this body says so. All that should be part of that. Thank you. Any other questions from commission, discussion? Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns about this. I understand that within the zoning recommendations, within the density, that this meets the particular zone category, which is fine. But there are other things to be considered whenever you start dealing with land. And there are multiple. There are many, as all of you know. One of them is the relationships to adjacent property owners or adjacent conditions that might prevail whether it be community or whether it be individual property owners. Those are some of the things to consider. Then there are environmental. I think this has a strong environmental characteristic within this property. How do you use property within the EIR zone properly? I think the EIR zone was formulated with this in mind to deal with it respectfully and properly. And this seems to me, and, you know, I'm a landscape architect, and you might say I'm a tree lover. But it appalls me to see so many trees go down because of this kind of density. That's not the only thing, though. I think that this is putting an awful lot into a very small strip where other methods of housing could be appreciated. And I think the cluster housing that we have available would be something to investigate because you deal with the same density, but you deal with a different type of single-family accommodation. And that could be just as quality as this is. And we can do that within the EIR zone. And I think it's much more responsible to land development and dealing with our heritage and so forth and our planning and zoning to look for more innovative ways of solving problems. So that's my statement, and I'll stand on it. Thank you, Mr. Aden. Mr. Cravens? Yes. Along that line, what criteria did you use to come up with the plan that you have? I guess, did you do other designs and finally work it down to where you got this plan? And I know that you would, when doing a plan, you would do, you would look at the existing neighborhoods and you would have to make feasibility studies and marketing studies and comparable of housing types in the neighborhood and the price range to, you know, to make it a successful development. But is that how this came down? Well, the last three items you talked about are coming from the developer side. They know what they need when they come to us. This property was first laid out with the Scott Farm to the north. We had 100 acres or more. We had a big piece of ground where you start talking about your densities and your feasibility and whether or not you can make it work. You get to shift stuff around. As that plan didn't proceed, this eight-acre piece is left over. Very skinny. One public street connection point. So we have that. Long and skinny, you end up, you know, to reach those ends, you get cul-de-sacs at the end. What we've done is we've attached at the one location we could to the existing neighborhood. We've provided an access point to the north that the Scott Farm does develop. We're not connecting at this, shown there, the access easement. We're not showing the road connecting back to Russell Cave. You know, you get a 40-foot lot and you go with the depth you can. I think our lots are about 120, 130 feet. As the shape changes, it's a little bit different. But when you're looking at a piece of ground that size to get a street in there and a lot or two lots, there's really not much option you have here to be in the single-family realm. Lyle had said that we could do something other than the single-family. Well, not if these conditions are imposed. One of them was nothing but single-family within 300 feet of the established neighborhoods. We weren't fighting that one. We came in with single-family. At the zone change, you try to get in as much density, show as much as you can up front so you don't have to, you know, show more later. Then have everyone question why you changed it. I mean, it's a 5.2 density per acre. I mean, it's almost a low density is zero to five. And you're 5.2. Typically, we judge that if you have 40-foot lots, you get six to the acre. And if you work six to the gross acre, that falls in your typical low-density, medium-density area. I think the neighborhoods around there, the lots might be 60 feet wide. Typically, you get four to an acre. Okay. And looking at it, I think the adjacent owner, Mr. Birch, said something about the streets. I mean, to me, that makes more sense to design the street as a buffer to the next property than to turn those houses around and back them all up, you know, where you have to look out and see the backyards of all those houses. Is that something that you were thinking there? Well, if Mr. Birch's property were to develop, I mean, all of this shows up on the expansionary master plan as EAR2. So we plan for, you know, growth. Essentially, we assume Scott Farm will go someday as well. He has street frontage if he is to develop. If we were to change this, we'd be ‑‑ I'm not sure how to change it near him without putting the street next to at least one other resident. You know, the street's then at their side door, and you'd end up having your street running into a more difficult area to construct, which would be closer to the interstate. The street's on top of the existing driveway. You look at the site, it's kind of graded that way. It works that way. The ‑‑ I lost it. The trees. I know the pictures show them look like they cover the whole lot, but is there ‑‑ I didn't see what Tom had there with the tree, substantial tree through there. I mean, can we see where that is some way? I mean, I don't think they cover the whole lot. I wonder why I couldn't find it on there. Okay. This entire area is heavily treed. There is a driveway. This is all heavily treed in this area. We didn't color this in, but this is all areas of the lot. Okay. So what you have colored there is the tree protection area? These are the areas that we're concerned with. Okay. All right. And then maybe you can answer this. The 50 feet. I know Chris said something about it. Is that on the land now? So that's a dedicated easement on the land? No. No, no, no, not the woodlands. This 50 foot buffer. Oh, no, sir. No, that's a recommendation. Oh, it's a recommendation, but it's not on the land now. No, sir. I believe Mr. Birch is suggesting a court private easement along his property line. Yeah, but I'm talking about the one on the other side, this 50 foot one. So that's just ‑‑ where did that come from? Again, as was explained, that has been a consistent recommendation of the staff since 1996 on the rezoning of this property. Based upon and developed during the conversations during the master zoning process for the expansionary master plan that the planning commission approved, but that the council at the last minute decided not to approve. Okay. So, but it's not a condition on it now. It's just a recommendation. We are recommending that it be a condition now. Does the applicant know that when he comes in? As the history and record of this case, no, the staff would recommend it. I think it would be ‑‑ certainly, like I said, it's been on the record every other time the rezoning has been up, so they certainly could have and I would say should have been aware of it if they weren't. It's never been agreed to, Commissioner Cravens. It's just never gotten to the point of having to actually go to the mat on it because just before I got involved, as I understand, every time this thing has gone to the council, it's been withdrawn. It's never been agreed to. And just because it's been their recommendation for 11 years doesn't make it right. Okay. I do want to say at this time, I believe we had some commissioners that may have arrived later than the start, the actual start of the zoning hearing for this application. And I think we have identified those. If you've read the report and you feel comfortable, those commissioners that arrived after the start of the presentation for the zoning portion of this application, not the zoning development plan, but the zoning portion of this application, you may want to consider abstention from your vote, unless you feel comfortable that you've read the plan, read the report at this point. So I just wanted to make note of that. Do we want to? Do we need to identify those, Ms. Weddle, those that arrived late, just for the record? It would be helpful. Obviously, those individuals, if they are abstaining, should not participate in the discussion as well. Yes. I think there were some people who came in at different times during the presentation. Right. Okay. All right. Okay. At this point, do we have any other questions? Yes. Yes. I just wanted to say something. And I've listened to what Chris and Andrea have told us about the rules governing the EAMP. But in my mind, the way that I understand the districts for the EAMP, they're not use districts. They're density districts. And what we're really regulating is land use density. And in my mind, I'm having a hard time approving a rezoning without a plan that shows us what that density is proposed to be. We have a wide range of what that density could be. But that was my understanding as to why the expansion areas were not zoned in toto at the beginning, was so that we could incrementally, on a development-by-development, on a parcel-by-parcel basis, as land became available for development, we could scrutinize each parcel individually to ensure its consistency with its surrounding area to provide the neighborhood an opportunity to have input. So our wholesale approval of the rezoning to an EAR2 without an assurance of what that development plan will look like gives me a lot of discomfort. So that's kind of where I'm at in terms of thinking about this. Thank you, Ms. Phillips. Ms. Godfrey. I'd like to say there are a lot of other conditions in the implementation of the EAMP and the expansion area master plan. There are a number of conditions that need to be discussed and reviewed in addition to just the density and the primary uses. So I would like, at this time, to make a motion. The floor is yours. All right. I would move to disapprove this requested zone map amendment to change this property from AU to EAR2 zone for this 8.63 acres at this time on Russell Cave Road for the following reasons. Number one, the applicant has failed to show a compelling need to grant this rezoning. That's number one. Number two, the proposed rezoning is inappropriate at this time because there's inadequate treatment of concerns related to environmentally sensitive areas, storm water runoff, water quality, and even traffic. Number three, the existing AU zone is currently still appropriate. And the reason is there's not sufficient evidence to show that this property is unsuited for the current AU zoning. B, retaining the existing zoning will maintain the status quo and prevent inappropriate or premature development from occurring while not precluding future development in agreement with the expansion area master plan. And then number four, although the rezoning application falls within the maximum and minimum density requirements for EAR2 uses, it does not adhere to a number of other EAMP recommendations for development in the expansion area and therefore is in disagreement with the EAMP. For example, the application fails to provide adequate buffering. It fails to depict an innovative design for new development. And then number five, the proposed zoning fails to meet goals 3, 15, and 16 of the 2007 comprehensive plan as the development would not be sensitive to the environmentally sensitive areas, particularly the floodplain located on or near the property, and it does not enhance the character or quality of the existing neighborhoods in the vicinity. And this would include Shannon Park and Farksboro Manor subdivisions. For these reasons, I would have my motion to disapprove this zone change request. I second that motion. Okay, you have a motion and a second for disapproval. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstention? We have Mr. Day abstention. I will abstain. Abstain. Mr. Holmes and? Yes. Ms. Whitman. Yes. Thank you. What's that? Majority? We have a majority on that? We do? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, regarding ZDP 2007-98, I would submit a motion to indefinitely postpone this development plan at this time. Okay, we have a motion and a second to indefinitely postpone the zoning development plan. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Any abstentions? One, two, three. Same abstention. Same abstentions. Okay. Thank you. Three abstentions. Motion carries. Thank you. We have a motion to indefinitely postpone the zoning development plan at this time. Two weeks. Ms. Wade, are you ready? Yes, I am. Thank you. Okay. Excuse us. We're ready to begin our next application. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Vaughn, members of the Commission. The next item on our agenda today is found on page five. It's item number four. And the staff's revised staff report can be found behind tab four in your notebook. Just for reference, it is different than what's on the printed agenda today. This is a zone change request, MAR 2007-25 by Bill Matthews. The zone change request is from the professional office P1 zone to a highway service business zone, which is the B3 zone, for 1.2 acres of property at 1537 North Limestone Street. The subject property is located approximately 60 to 80 feet to the southwest of the intersection of New Circle Road and North Limestone and is the, or has housed a retirement, a nursing home facility for the past approximately 30 years. The nursing home facility is now closed and the property would be considered vacant. However, the building still remains there. The immediate area is characterized by mostly commercial development and commercial zoning. The property is surrounded on all four sides by B3 zoning. And in the existing, or in the immediate area, is the previous Kmart building, which now houses the Goodwill Industries office and retail space, as well as the Windstream facility, which is the local telephone company. Also in the general vicinity across North Limestone, there's a dry cleaner, car lot establishments, also in the vicinity are several restaurants and other car-related businesses. And opposite, to the opposite corner across New Circle and Limestone, there's a Kroger shopping center as well. There is a few places where there's residential also in this vicinity, and you can see the R1C residential zone along North Limestone, and then some also R1B zoning along Old Paris Pike to the north. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to B3 in order to develop a car wash establishment. The subject property is, it's a little bit difficult to tell from the photograph that's being shown right now, it does have a retaining wall that separates it from the Goodwill Windstream property, and that would be along the south and west property lines here, this property line and this property line. The 2007 comprehensive, well let me, the photograph shown here just identifies the subject property. There is a vacant parcel that appears between New Circle and the subject property along North Limestone there, and this is just a different angle showing a little bit more of the front of the property, which had a little bit of green space in front of it, or does today as well, with a vacant Kmart site behind it. The 2007 comprehensive plan for the subject property recommends very high density residential for the subject property, which is in line with the former use, the nursing home facility, and the P1 zone does allow a nursing home facility, and that would be, the staff interprets that the comprehensive plan was likely reflecting the former use of that property in this location. The very high density recommendation is defined by the comprehensive plan as 25 to 40 dwelling units per net acre, so the applicants requested B3 zoning is not in agreement with the comprehensive plan recommendation, as B3 zone does not allow any type of residential development within it. Also of importance in terms of the comprehensive plan for this area, the subject property is located within one of three areas designated on the 2007 comprehensive plan for a small area plan, and this particular parcel is located within the central sector, and the central sector is bounded roughly by Georgetown Road, New Circle Road, so this would be the northeastern limits of the small area plan, Winchester Road to the south, and then 3rd Street towards downtown. The central sector coalition is a group of neighborhood associations that brought forward that idea to the planning commission to have a small area plan for this area, and they have identified numerous issues related to the area, including density, land use, zoning, traffic, among others, and the central sector also identified that they would like North Limestone to act as a gateway corridor into the central sector to the staff and through the comp plan process. Although the staff previously recommended that the applicant postpone this request because of the small area plan that is due to begin very shortly, the applicant has stated their position that they wish to move forward with the zone change, and of course the planning commission, once an application is filed, only has 90 days to consider it. In light of this, the commission should remain cognizant of the fact that a small area plan is imminent for the property and for this area, and also be aware that any zone change and redevelopment of this property needs to be incorporated into or realized with the small area plan study ideas, I guess. The applicant has contended that their proposed zoning is appropriate, the B3 zone is appropriate at this location, and the P1 zoning and the comprehensive plan recommendation for residential are inappropriate. They've stated that the B3 zoning is appropriate because it is surrounded by other B3 zoning and is more compatible and consistent with the existing land uses in the area. In addition, the subject property was previously zoned B3 until about 1971, and at that time it was rezoned to P1 in order to accommodate the nursing home facility. Lastly in this area, the commercial zoning along North Limestone and New Circle Road just in this general vicinity does go generally at least 300 feet back from New Circle Road. On this corner it actually extends approximately 600 feet back, and then with the exception of this residential area here, that is true along most of New Circle Road as well, and this property falls within that kind of corridor along New Circle Road of existing commercial development and commercial zoning, making it more consistent with the commercial zoning in that area, and P1 zoning is very infrequent along either North Limestone or New Circle Road in this area. The staff would concur that the applicant's justification is reasonable for this rezoning or zone change request. The last thing would be that we brought up previously in our postponement recommendation was the possibility of conditional zoning restrictions for the parcel, and since the zoning committee met, the applicant has brought forward a list of conditional zoning restrictions that were agreeable to the staff, and those conditional zoning restrictions are necessary and appropriate in order to protect the nearby residential development, and the list is included on the staff's report and is recommended in whole. There were 10 uses that would be prohibited on the subject property, including indoor amusement, outdoor athletic facilities, indoor athletic facilities, amusement parks, outdoor theaters, other outdoor recreational facilities, pawn shops, taxidermy establishments, circuses and carnivals, all of the adult businesses, related businesses, and lastly, the advertising signs or billboards on the property. The staff, again, is now recommending approval of the zone change, and the Planning Commission's Zoning Committee recommended referral to the full commission three weeks ago, four weeks ago. The reasons the staff is recommending approval are that the restricted B3 zoning is more appropriate or is appropriate for the subject property because it is surrounded by B3 zoning, and B3 is more consistent and compatible with the existing land uses and uses in the area. The B3 zone was on this property until 1971, and since that, the reason it was rezoned was for the, for the nursing home facility. That nursing home facility has since closed and does not operate at this location. And then in the North Limestone area, the commercial business zoning has historically been approved and generally accepted for an area of 300 feet from New Circle, and the subject property does fall within that distance. And then the P1 zoning is inappropriate for the property because it is infrequent along New Circle and North Limestone in this portion of the urban service area, and the staff often uses P1 zoning as a buffer, and in this case, the, it is already surrounded by B3, so it cannot act as a, as a buffer or transition for other land uses that might be more intense. And lastly, we're recommending the approval subject to the approval of the development plan and that it be certified within two weeks. Thank you, Ms. Wade. I would, I would note to the commissioners that staff has now recommended approval. The agenda has a postponement recommendation, so please pay note to tab four of staff's revised recommendation. So, and I think you went through the list of prohibited uses and so forth. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions for Ms. Wade? Comment? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, if I may direct your attention to item B under number four on the fifth page of your agenda. This is ZDP 2007-140, Gugu property. It is the development plan that associate, preliminary development plan that is associated with this zone change. As you can see by the proposed layout here, we have North Limestone Street. Here is the adjoining property with New Circle Road in this location. The applicant is proposing a one-way access point here that circulates around into their payment stations. Here, we have areas of traffic movement through here that are to the vacuums that they provide. This outline here indicates canopies that exist that cover those vacuums. We have a two-way entrance here. They are signifying turn left and right from a two-way entrance. This does correspond with the existing access point to this property. Here, we have the car wash itself. Again, this brings the circulation through here into the car wash and then either out or people can move in and avail themselves of these vacuums. Here is the dumpster location here is a new parking lane that has been designed to help facilitate a quick exit and also service to the dumpster. This plan that you see today is a revised plan, slightly revised from the previous plan. This is the only change. They have provided an escape gate right through here. You can see when you look at this plan, although it is not as obvious, these areas are gated. It is very important, as I am sure they will be happy to explain to you, that this gated aspect is an integral part to how this car wash functions. During the course of reviewing this plan, the technical committee, there was a lot of interest expressed and a lot of concern. The gates, the canopy, the access, the dumpster location, these were items of great interest during our technical committee review. We came up with a list of concerns out of technical committee. The applicant did meet with us and we discussed a lot of those things. We had a very productive meeting, as I reported to the subdivision committee, in discussing the canopy heights, the access, the gates. These were things that our, particularly our emergency access folks, our fire and our solid waste people were very concerned about. Traffic also had concerns about internal circulation. That is significant because as you review your revised, your recommendations and your revised recommendations, by the way, you will see a couple of different items on there that often you don't see on a preliminary plan, but they were issues that were significant to the staff review and we carried them over into that recommendation. The subdivision committee did recommend referral. They had questions again at that time over the emergency access and the spacing access from New Circle Road. The conditions that you can see both on your agenda and on the revised staff recommendation were provided the urban county engineer, pardon me, the urban county council rezones. Of course, we have engineering approval, traffic, very standard conditions. When you get to six, you see division of fire and again, that's what I was referring to. They had a very strong interest in this plan so we have them as a sign off on a preliminary. Normally, you see them on a final. We then, if you read on, you'll see these again are standard conditions. Denote easements, remove signs, that sort of thing. But staff did have a strong concern and we've identified that. I'm going to put these up where you can see. First and then second. Barb's going to put pictures up and as you can see, that's the site. I wanted you to see the site. There it is. See the relationship there with New Circle Road and North Limestone, the adjoining properties. Now, if you would put the second one up, please. The blue arrows highlight existing access points all across Limestone here, here. The orange one, as you can see, is the proposed access, the one-way access to create this circulation. That's important and we wanted to highlight that issue. We want to stress that issue that that spacing will require, at the final development plan stage, a waiver. It does not meet the access standards under our ordinance and so a waiver will be necessary. The minimum that would be required there would be 400 feet and you can see from the frontage that none of those access points would meet that. You'd have to come back approximately to the adjoining property to get close to meeting that. But that is an issue that we're very concerned with. You can see by the arrows that it is a difficult intersection. There's a lot of potential for conflict. The turn lane, as you can see, the little white arrow in the middle of Limestone, that's the left turn storage lane. You can see and again, you can see where their proposed access point, their existing access point and again, the potential for conflict in that area that we felt was very important to highlight. Now with that being said, I would direct your attention to the revised staff recommendation. We met with the applicant. We met with them and they brought some plans. We've had a good discussion with them. So we felt very comfortable with recommending now an approval based on the same previous conditions, the standard conditions and with the following conditions, 13, 14, 15 and 16 being resolved. And you can see that we are comfortable that at the final development plan stage we can resolve those particular issues as they relate to the access to this site, the circulation, the way that these things should work. Thank you, Mr. Martin. I think Mr. Holmes has a question. Mr. Holmes, it will be denoted that we will have to resolve access at the time of a final development plan and the need for a waiver. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. And the waiver, I might add, gives an additional level of review because, yes. All right. Thank you. Mr. Martin, I just have one question. It said resolve the detention basin. Where is it? Good. And thank you. I meant to go over that with you. That was discussed at length with the committee and we need to resolve it on the final development plan. It is my understanding and I'm going to defer any engineering questions again to their engineer and to our engineer. The water, I understand, goes this way. And they understand that efforts have to be made in this area to address their storm water runoff. And that it goes this way over towards New Circle Road. And again, our staff, I don't want to speak for them, they're here, but they were comfortable that we could resolve that at the final development plan. So it would be in that general, what I would call, western... Yes, sir. It's my understanding that currently facilities go that way so that they will utilize that area for their detention. All right. Thank you. And I might add, too, because it's a logical follow-up, that this runoff and everything generated by the car wash process is contained. And they can elaborate on that if need be. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Petitioner? Thank you, members of the Commission, Mr. Chairman. I'm Rena Wiseman. I'm here today for Bill Matthews, who is the franchisee of this new car wash. Also with me, I believe, in the back of the room, are two representatives from the corporation that owns these, Goo Goo Car Wash, throughout the southeast, Roger Beck and Jack Ginter, and also Scott Southall and Seth Farmer here with CDP. Let me just tell you a little bit about the company, first of all. They're new to Lexington, but not new to the southeast. It's a company that started in 1945, primarily in Alabama and Georgia. They've now expanded, and they're growing. And at this point, they either are in or will soon be in 12 states, and they have just constructed one in Louisville that is about to open. So this is their first entrance into the Lexington community. The reason that we are seeking a B3 zone for this is that that is the first zone, zoning category under the ordinance in which a car wash is a principal permitted use. So that's why we are seeking the B3 zone change. Let me talk, before I talk about the zoning, just a couple of things on the development plan. Tom gave you a thorough explanation of it, and we have met several times with the staff about this. And we understand that when we come back at the next stage, we will have to discuss further the access and the circulation. I just want to clarify one thing. Those arrows that were shown, that orange arrow, the new, that is a right end only. That shows it coming out, but just that first entrance access point closest to the intersection is intended to be a single lane going in. We have also met with traffic and fire. Mr. Captain Woodward was concerned about the ability to escape. We not only have installed an additional escape gate in the event somebody is in that lane and needs to get out, we have also provided for mountable curbs so that a car can actually get over the curb to come back out. We have provided the specs on these gates to the fire department at their request, so we have addressed his concerns. But, of course, his sign-off is still on here, and we'll continue to work with them on that final development plan. So we are in agreement. We understand that we have some issues that we'll have to address down the road on this development plan. With regard to the justification, I have, those of you that were at the zoning committee got to see my little handwritten map, and now I had a landscape architect do it for me, but I think mine was good, pretty good, too. But the point of this exhibit is just to echo what actually the staff report says about the nature of this area. This is North New Circle Road, and it is a commercial, highway commercial strip area. Our property, as you can see along the corridor, is the single P-1 zone property in that area. Everything else going in this direction down past the railroad or Bryan Station Road is highway commercial. That is colored a different color because that's a B-4 use. You can just put that over there. And the uses in the area are typical B-3 uses. There are a couple of car rentals. There are several auto parts stores. There are a couple of drive-in restaurants. There are at least one motel and then various retails. So everything in this area, in this vicinity, are highway commercial or, you know, the typical strip commercial that you see. And again, we're asking for the B-3 to accommodate the car wash because that's the only zone that would permit that. A little history, as Tracy said, this property is zone P-1. It goes back to 1970 when it was rezoned for the express purpose of the Harrison's Nursing Home or Harrison Sanitarium, as it was called for many years, because that zone allowed nursing homes as a principal permitted use. It has never been used for offices. So the zoning is actually a misnomer in that it's been used historically for nursing home. But it has been closed for a couple of years and the building at this point is really not in shape to do anything with. It would have to be demolished in any event, no matter how this property redevelops. It's also interesting that if you go back through the historic comprehensive plans, this property was acknowledged as commercial as far back as 1967. It was recognized as part of this new Circle Road Highway Commercial Corridor. It was changed in 2001 to the very high-density residential. I was unable to find any specific discussion of the property, but as Tracy said, presumably that was to recognize the nursing home. That type of use is a conditional use. It's sort of a quasi-residential use, and so that designation was changed at that time. But it still remained zoned P-1. In conjunction with this proposal, we also, since we met with you, proposed conditional zoning restrictions. They're the same ones that are in your new staff report, and we would make those a part of this zone change. So given the nature of the development in the area, given the fact that this property has never been used for office and it's surrounded on all sides by commercial, we think that the highway commercial is the most appropriate zone for this property, and we think that with the restrictions that we propose make it more compatible and would preclude such things as the billboards and so on going on this property. It's a small site, and I don't think we could really visualize it being used for some sort of residential given the fact that it is surrounded by commercial on three sides, and that retaining wall, it's misleading looking at it. The roof of the Harrison Sanitarium is actually, even with the parking lot, into the old Pay Mart shopping center. So it would be a difficult site, not desirable for residential, it would seem to us. So we believe that it's appropriate to rezone this to the highway commercial. The last thing about the central sector study, and we're aware of that, and we have talked with the staff, and I think we indicated, Mr. Beck, at the committee, that there is the concern about this being the gateway, and the developer is certainly agreeable to working with the city as we come back on final development plan in terms of landscaping along the frontage, how that is to be treated. Without the plan, we don't know what sort of right-of-way improvements they're looking for at this point, but we have made it clear that we agree to work with the city as to how that is going to develop when we come back with the final development plan. No one can tell us today what they would like because the study hasn't been completed, the study hasn't been started. I believe they're still interviewing the consultants, so we're some way off. And as you might imagine, the applicant has the property under contract, and he has a limited time within which he's got to pursue the zoning or he would lose the contract. So that's why we weren't in a position to agree to postpone this until this study got done. So, but we will work with the staff in terms of frontage. But at the end of the day, when the study does happen, you can't escape the fact that this property is one acre that's surrounded by B3 zoning, property that's already developed for B3, and that's going to be the situation it's in no matter what. You're not going to be able to take away the B3 uses that are around us. So if you were to decide you would want us to wait, we'll lose a contract, this will remain P1, and it will not be redeveloped for the near future. So we think this is a good resolution and use of this property. And we would ask that you approve it based on the staff's revised recommendation, including those ten listed conditional zoning restrictions. And we also would ask you approve the development plan with the additional conditions that Tom has laid out for you. I went through that pretty fast, but if you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer them. Thank you, Ms. Wiseman. Ms. Phillips, do you have a question? Who is Gugu? What does Gugu mean? I know everyone wants to know, but no one has asked it. We've had the Commission here, we've heard from Chickenhead and Nene. Do you remember that one? I'll let Mr. Rogers back, who's, I believe, his father, grandfather was a founder of the company. I'll let him give you that. I appreciate everyone's time. Gugu started, actually we've been in the car wash business since 1945, and owned car washes in the southeast. And we bought one in Columbus, Georgia, that was previously the Gugu restaurant. And the restaurant burnt down, a man built a car wash, and after about a year decided that wasn't for him, and we bought the car wash. Well, the car wash was a drive-in. There's one similar on New Circle Road with a big fancy sign. I was looking at it today thinking, you know, I wonder if he could ever get that sign duplicated. But, yeah, everyone in town grew up in high school or whatever, they hung out at that drive-in. So when we bought the car wash, everybody begged us not to change the name, and we didn't, and we started rebranding everything that way. But the name came from the restaurant started out in the, I believe, the early 30s in a boxcar. And he since grew the restaurant, but back then there was a radio program on, and there was a comedian named Joe Penner. And at the end of his show, he would ask, do you want to buy a duck? And the duck would say, Gugu. And everyone recognized that. It was like, is that your final answer? Or just it was very popular with pop culture in that day. He bought the rights to the name and trademark. And I remember someone last time said, well, what about the Gugu Cluster? We actually have the trademark to the name. And that's how we got Gugu. Thank you very much. Hope to be here a long time, and we have several places we'd like to be here. Thank you very much. Any additional questions for Ms. Weissman or Petitioner? Okay. Do we have anyone in the audience that would like to first speak in favor of this application? Okay. Do we have anyone that would want to speak in opposition to this application? If you could, state your name and address for us, please. My name is Martin Clifford. I'm at 760 North Limestone. I have a business there on North Limestone as well, a secondhand furniture store. I'm also a member of the Limestone Neighborhood Association and the Central Sector Neighborhood Coalition. I have some handouts as well. Do I? I came to North Limestone about nine years ago and started, I love old buildings. I started buying a couple of buildings there and trying to fix them up and then saw that the community had problems as well. And the, so got very involved in the community and trying to help resolve some of the problems. Back then, when I first came to Limestone, I heard it referred to a lot as slimestone. It's recovered a lot, but we still have a very large negative image on limestone. It's changed a lot. It's changing positive. We've got more people interested, but it's been due to a lot of hard work and effort from the people in the community, the police department, city planning. Just about everybody in the city that we've ever worked with has been very encouraging and very helpful in making the changes that we needed to make on North Limestone to make it a more desirable place to live, work, and go to school. It's been an uphill battle all the way. We feel like we've made some progress. We've got people in the community that seem to really care and are making a difference, and we want to continue with that. I don't know if this is a bad idea to have GUGU go in. When they've done the zone change request, I'm glad to see that they put the 10 conditions in there, that they're conditional uses, especially on the adult entertainment. That was a scary thing. We're glad to see that I love the story about the sign. That seems a good thing that they value community history. We want to encourage good businesses to come into our community. This may be one. We're not sure. Our community is an older community. It's been neglected for a long time. It's had a lot of problems. The city recognized that as well and are doing a small area plan. We feel that a small area plan should be done first before zone changes are made in the area. I listed a few things on there that kind of come to the concern and that one of the central sectors is there is a plan going on, and at the same time the small area plan is trying to be put in place. The North Limestone Neighborhood Association is working on a vision. We all know that the appearances of a street can also have an effect on the crime in the community. Depending on one way, if it looks one way, there might be more crime. If it looks another way, there might be less crime. The small area plan, we're hoping to help tell us some of these things as well. There is a safety issue there. There are no sidewalks from Withers on North Limestone all the way down to New Circle Road. There are no sidewalks at all. If you're going to Goodwill, usually you're in your wheelchair out in the road trying to get down to Goodwill. So maybe some infrastructure need to be put in before we increase traffic down there. I'm going to use their diagram if I may for a second where the turn is on New Circle. Excuse me, can you take the microphone for us? Thank you. When you turn off of New Circle Road onto Limestone and start heading toward downtown, on the right-hand side is where the nursing home is. I'm actually sorry that we're losing that. I figured that as an asset where our senior citizens can grow old and stay in the community rather than having to be shipped off someplace else. If they turn in here, we have the early bird on the other side. Now, as you turn in off of New Circle Road and you're fortunate enough to get the green light, you're kind of coming through there fairly fast or appropriate for that traffic. Usually, there's some people stopped here to turn left into the early bird. That traffic has to come to a stop there. There isn't another lane where you can get over into the right-hand side and go around that turning traffic. If you put a turn right into here and a turn left into there, it will stop traffic within a few feet of New Circle Road. Then you're going to have traffic backing up onto the turn lane of New Circle Road and in the intersections of New Circle Road. Right now, you also have the foot traffic coming down Limestone to get over to Kroger's, the wheel traffic coming to get into Goodwill. If we're increasing traffic and there's no sidewalks or lanes for the bikes or the foot traffic, and that is the only grocery store for that community there, Kroger's. If you don't have a car, and a lot of people in that neighborhood don't, you're kind of open game for traffic there. Infrastructure needs to be considered there. We currently have storm drain problems, again, on North Limestone coming right around the Withers area and Bermuda where there's a lot of flooding in that area as it is. Again, where there's no sidewalks, then you have a couple of drains and there's no sidewalks or curbs to direct flooding or the water to a drain. More attention needs to be given to the infrastructure before, again, allowing more traffic, I would think. The other things I kind of listed there, it's a B3 community. They argue that there's other B3 areas in the area, so you should call this a B3, you should let this be a B3 area as well. More of the same is not always good. More of the same can be bad as well. Maybe we need some more diversity down there. When talking to planning before, we were kind of going along with and agreeing with mixed use was good, residential is good. So, to B3, you're getting close when you do the 10 conditional uses. Again, without that study, we really don't know. Right now, there's about five car washes in the area, no other nursing homes. So, is this going to be, is it going to call some of the other car washes that are already there in the community? Are they going to go out of business? Is it going to bring more business to the area? I don't think so. Another concern, I thought that one parcel extended all the way out to New Circle Road, and what I'm hearing, it doesn't. Again, I'm going to use their diagram. There's just a small piece, if this is not theirs, there's just a small piece of strip of land right here that goes right up to New Circle Road. I noticed recently, somebody has back filled that with dirt, but it just leaves a big ditch, open ditch right here, and I don't know if they're planning on that being efficient for water retention, because this is all pavement up here. Right now, they've got water running down this way, and that water coming off of Goodwill's lot is going to run down here to New Circle Road, and then there's a ditch for it to catch here. If they cover up this ditch, where's this water thing going to go? Is it going to go over onto New Circle Road? We would like to see that ditch dressed up to make it look better, not be a ditch anymore, maybe some sort of appropriate water retention. I don't know who owns that lot or what the plans are for it. Again, we saw the back fill going in. I don't know if it was part of this, or it's something else going on over here, but I think they kind of tie into each other. We shouldn't just ignore this open ditch over here. Again, the community is trying to come together. We're working and trying to improve the community, again, to make it a better place to live, work, and go to school. We thought the small area plan was a great idea, and thought that it would give us some better direction. Thinking that's a good idea, I'm thinking that maybe we should wait until we do hear from them and what would be appropriate there. Then I'm going to leave it. You guys are more of the expert than I am in this, and they could be a good business, and it could be good for our community. I guess that's where the rubber meets the road, and you're going to have to make that decision. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Clifford. Mr. Mahan, you have the floor. How long has it been since that building served as a nursing home? About five to six months, I believe. I only say that, the only reason I know that is because I own a furniture store down the road, and they approached me about coming down and buying some furniture. I didn't realize they had closed until they asked me to come down and give a price on the furniture that they were moving out. That was about five to six months ago. I thought it was longer than that. Okay. Has it been closed longer than that? I don't know. That's what I wanted to know. Within a year. It's been used within a year. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Clifford? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak in opposition to this request? Okay. Seeing none, we'll enter into rebuttal, comment, petitioner. Are these yours? Thank you very much. If you're like me, you need them. That is a separate lot, so that it's not owned by the owner that we're purchasing from. So it is a separate property, and I think many of us assumed it was excess right-of-way, but it is a separate lot, so we don't have control over that. I think I can speak for Mr. Beck. We do believe this is a good business. It will be a good asset to the community. Many of the infrastructure things you hear that Mr. Clifford talked about are the kinds of things that happen when you have new investment and redevelopment in a new part of town that people haven't invested in. This is a new redevelopment. We think that it's the sort of business that will stimulate others to spend their money and redevelop. So we think that while you don't know this company, I think you will be satisfied, and I think the North Limestone area will find that this is a good neighbor and it will be a good business. And as I said, we will work with the city on what we can do with regard to the gateway concept on the front, and unfortunately, we just don't have the ability to wait for the plan because of our contractual obligation to the owner. So again, we would ask that you approve this with the conditions, and thanks for your attention. Thank you, Ms. Wiseman. Any rebuttal from Mr. Clifford on what you just heard? No, thank you. Thank you, sir. Staff rebuttal? We don't have any rebuttal, thank you. Okay, at this time, we'll close this portion of the hearing and open the floor for any commissioner comment. Mr. Day? My question is for Jeff. I wondered if you could come down here, please, and could you also put the picture of a tomhead back up on the road? Is this the correct picture? Yes. Members of the commission, Mr. Day? I may not even have to ask this, but I just had to because, you know, we've had all these drugstores go in and we've fought these terms in this kind of situation where you had two I mean, when you looked at that, did you think that's good or not? It worries me that it needs a waiver of the subdivision regulations to allow that access point there, so we generally look for opportunities to reduce the number of access points near any drugstore. Okay, thank you. And since this is on the preliminary stage right now, we haven't really considered it as much as we will on the next stage. Depending on how you look at it, it is an entrance only, so it's not going to be as big of an issue as if it was an all-movement access. Okay. So, Mr. Neal, I'll just follow up. So, I think what I heard Ms. Weissman say, it's a right-hand only, right? So, if someone's northbound on Limestone, they can't turn left into that one way. Is that what I heard? It is entrance only. So, if someone's northbound on Limestone, they can't turn left into that one way. Is that what I heard? Yes. It is entrance only. There will be no outcoming traffic. But if you would, if you were in that left-hand turn lane, you could make a left-hand turn there. It is entrance only. Entrance only. There will be no... I'm sorry. Could you come forward? The recording, we need to capture this in the... Wait a minute, Jeff, because I made a mistake. Okay, it is entrance only traffic. You can make a left-hand turn in. You can make a right-hand turn in. But there will be no cross traffic. And that way, when you're coming off the street, you get out of the street quicker, and that's what we're trying to accomplish is to get people off the street. We have, you know, like I think probably double or better the stacking space that's required, and we do that purposely to try to get people off the road. Okay. Thank you. My question. My question. So I don't know. Is the red arrow just about where the entrance is going to be? Right. And the red arrow actually is backwards. If you just flip the arrow over, it would make a little more sense. And then the out arrow will be where the blue one is? Correct. Mr. Day, I might clarify since I prepared that display. Those arrows are for locational purposes only. They're not intended to give any kind of directional guidance in that display. My question and my concern still is that I can only count three cars before you have to, if you're going north on line, before you turn in there. You know, I don't know. I think you're, I'm not questioning your company and everything. I've been in business 35 years. I'm right next to a car wash. And I understand where you are. I can tell you last Friday. I understand your concerns and you're comparing apples to oranges. When last Friday, when we had a nice day after Thanksgiving, I went out there. They had 60 cars in line. That is correct. That is correct. But I can process a car every 23 seconds. I've been to your location twice to look at the problems you have. And they actually have traffic converging from two different directions into one bottleneck. And actually, the morning that I came by your place, it was a problem at that point. And like I said, we have 20 locations in eight states. And we've done a lot of research in order to get the traffic off the street to prevent what you're talking about. But we're willing to work with the city any way we need to on the driveways. I just, you know. That's my only concern because, you know, we go home from these meetings and people say, you know, how do you make a decision like that to miss, you know, that kind of traffic? So, I mean, I live with it, just like I said, because people are always crossing the road. And I think you're great. I've been to one of your car washes, actually, I guess. You have one in Destin or whatever. I don't know where it was. It looked like it. But that's just my concern. And I want to state that because it's hard for us. I wouldn't want to sit here and give you all kinds of answers and then you come in and ask for a waiver and us not give it to you. I mean, hey. I understand. Mr. Cravings, you have a question or comment? Yeah, I guess this would be for Tom. You know, initially I think we were having problems with this entrance, and I still have a problem with it. But something seemed to add comfort to you where you moved it on to the final development plan. Is this some redesign they had or, I mean, what kind of assurance did you get? It is standard practice for us to resolve certain types of issues at a final development plan. Again, as we've had previous discussions about, to allow a zone change to move forward with a preliminary. And we did want to stress, as we always do, we try to bring these issues to the forefront and bring them to your attention so that you know that they're there and we bring them to the applicant's attention so that they know they're there and they're not going away. We are going to continue to discuss them, and that's why we highlighted that. But we are comfortable that we can work it out with them at the final development plan stage. Again, it's not a guarantee that they're going to get it by any means, and I believe they're aware of that, but that we are going to have this discussion at that time. Okay, because, I mean, I agree with Mr. Day. If it comes down to a waiver, and everybody's gone through all these negotiations and things, and the waiver gets voted down here because it's too close to New Circle Road, I mean, I'd like some more comfort on that, what's going to happen there, than at this time. It seemed like it would be more appropriate. Or I'd have to vote, you know, to not approve it. Yes, sir, and I understand your concern, and I would just reiterate that a preliminary is a conceptual plan from our perspective, and a final is what it sounds like, a final. And, yes, I think there could be, if it didn't go their way, yes, that would present them with a design problem. Thank you very much. One that's not necessarily unresolvable. Do you have a question, Mr. Holmes? I had a question, I think it was for Ms. Wade. Is she behind one of those maps? Yes, sir. In your initial recommendation for referral or postponement, it was based on a small area plan that wasn't complete. So what, then you recommended approval, so what changed that? Well, with the knowledge that once an application has been filed, that the commission has 90 days to make a recommendation to the council, which has another 90 days. So with the knowledge that they were not willing to postpone it until the central sector plan was complete, staff had to consider then their justification of appropriateness and whether we believed that this was appropriate in terms of a B3 versus the existing zoning or proposed land use for that location. Okay. Thank you. Any further comment from the commission? I'm sorry. We have a motion. Ms. Wiseman. Just in response, I think, just so you know, we're going in with our eyes open. I mean, we've had this conversation with Tom, with the staff, that we know that we still have a hurdle on this driveway. And, you know, and we want the opportunity to convince you, and we'll try. If we don't, you know, we won't. But that's we understand what the situation is. And that's, I think Tom explained it well, but it's that point in the process where we deal with waivers, and we understand that. Is there a motion? I would just add one more comment. I mean, regardless of what goes in on this site, I think the problem we see with infill properties is the difficulty of trying to apply our regulations and standards to make it work. We're going to have that issue of the entrance, regardless of that, we're going to have to work with them and make, I think, as best as possible, make something that will be safe. So I'm not saying this is the best one, but I see the issues with infill properties. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to move for approval of MAR 2007-25, based on the reasons provided by staff in the revised staff report. Second. Are you including the conditional zoning? Yes, that includes the conditional zoning. Okay. Thank you. We have a motion for approval of MAR 2007-25, as well as a second, a call for question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of ZDP 2007-140, based on the revised staff recommendations, and I believe there are 16 conditions. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve ZDP 2007-140 with the 16 conditions. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. We're ready to go. I'm sorry, Ms. Wade. That's okay. I'll wait for you all. The design was kicking in. I'm just talking to myself. So go ahead. I believe the last formal item on your agenda in terms of a zone change or text amendment today is on page six, and it is MAR 2007-26, a request to rezone or downzone a neighborhood that was initiated by the Planning Commission in September of 2007. This is on, again, page six, item five on your agenda and behind tab five in your notebooks. Yeah. Yeah. It's a zone change request from an agricultural urban zone to a single-family residential R1B zone for 3.3 acres and also a single-family residential R1C zone to an R1B zone for 55.8 acres. This isn't what I'm thinking about. This zone change, again, was initiated at the request of the Lakeview Neighborhood Association. The subject property is located off to the north of Alumni Drive here, Alumni Drive, and just inside of New Circle Road. A majority or a good number of the lots within this neighborhood do lie adjacent to the Lakeview Neighborhood Association lake, also referenced as reservoir number three for Lexington, and it includes 93 lots within this area. We have all single-family residential zoning around this area, and this is, again, a downzoning for a majority of it and, I guess, an upzoning for two of the parcels. The core of the neighborhood from Shady Brook, which used to be the old Mount Tabor alignment, north to the lake, is currently zoned R1C, and then two parcels on the south side of Shady Brook are either partially or wholly zoned AU currently. The entire subdivision or entire area is proposed for R1B zoning. And, again, that encompassed 93 single-family residential lots. As proposed, flip to my nonconformity chart, none of the lots would become nonconforming with the R1B zone in terms of lot size. They all meet the minimum 15,000 square foot lot size. However, a few would become nonconforming in terms of lot frontage. There are four that were identified, which is approximately 4% of the lots, and then another four that would become nonconforming in terms of the building line or setback. The staff estimated that those setbacks were between 30 and 40 feet, which were in agreement or met the R1C zoning requirements, but wouldn't meet the R1B zoning requirements of 40 feet. So eight lots would have some sort of nonconformity, but that's pretty minimal in terms of nonconformities for downzoning. The two lots that are currently zoned AU on the south side of Shady Brook here are much larger than the rest of the subdivision on the north side of Shady Brook, and they are also proposed for R1B zoning, and I would just note that there is existing R1B zoning. The one parcel is already half zoned R1B, and then the R1B to the west is existing. The staff, I did note that there was a small number of nonconformities, and that's always of utmost importance to both the commission and the staff when we look at downzoning. One of the events that preceded the request by the Neighborhood Association for the downzoning was one lot that was subdivided within the past year, and obviously when lots greatly exceed the requirements of a zone, in this case an R1C zone requires an 8,000 square foot lot at a minimum, and many of the lots are 20 to 30,000 square feet. When those lots exceed the zoning requirements, often you'll see subdivisions which can become undesirable for neighborhoods or neighbors in particular, and there's a sense that that would diminish the neighborhood's character in some way. The comprehensive plan for this area does recommend low-density residential, and here's alumni, the lake, and then this is the area brought in for downzoning. With a zero to five units per net acre recommended by the plan, both the R1B and the R1C zones would meet that land use recommendation. The existing density in this area is 1.3 units per gross acre, which does fall within the recommended zero to five, and even if the subdivision stayed R1C, zoned R1C, and every lot was subdivided theoretically, the density at 1.3, if it were doubled, 2.6, would still fall within that recommendation of the comprehensive plan. However, there is a sense that the character of the established neighborhood would certainly change, and that would be a detriment to the area. In response to the Neighborhood Association's request that the Planning Commission also consider conditional zoning for this area in terms of lot size requirements, the staff found that that was without merit or not necessary. The commission could impose a minimum lot size greater than the R1B standard of 15,000. However, there are only two lots that were identified through our analysis that could even potentially contemplate subdivision, and with such a small number, it seems that the conditional zoning restriction would be excessive. And then in relation to the two lots that are on the south side of Shady Brook, those two lots were not established as part of this neighborhood when it was originally platted. They are much larger, and the staff feels it's appropriate not to put any conditional zoning restrictions on those lots either, so that they could possibly redevelop in the future to become lots that are either near the size of the existing area or at least meet the R1B zoning. The staff felt it would be excessive to prevent them from also subdividing in the future. The staff is recommending approval of the downzoning or the rezoning from R1C and AU to R1B because it is in agreement with the comprehensive plan and also based on the fact that there would be no new lot nonconformities. There would only be four frontage nonconformities and four front yard nonconformities created, such a minimal number, and the staff found that the R1B zoning was more appropriate than the R1C and AU zoning in this location. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Do we have any questions for Ms. Wade? Being that this is a zone map amendment initiated by us, the Planning Commission, we'll then entertain comment from the audience. We'll begin with folks that would like to speak in favor of this zone map amendment. Mr. Vaughn, members of the Commission and the staff, we sure appreciate your all's help over the past, I guess, close to six months now going through these reviews, especially the zoning committee and Ms. Wade in particular for her professionalism and her desire to have the most accurate information to make a decision on. Mr. McDonald, could you just identify yourself? Oh, Edgar McDonald, 2181 Lakeside Drive here in Lexington and president of Lake Area Neighborhood Association. Sorry. We urge you to support the staff's recommendation, and we thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. McDonald. I went blank on that since we've seen you so much. That's right. Do we have anyone else from the audience that would like to speak in favor of this amendment request? Seeing none, do we have any folks in the audience that would like to speak in opposition to this amendment request? Okay. Seeing none, we will, I guess, turn to staff. I guess there's no rebuttal at this point. We'll close this portion of the hearing and open the floor to comments from the Commission or a motion or whatever. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we approval of MAR 2007-26 for the reasons provided by staff. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve MAR 2007-26. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Oh. Oh, this is that part. This is where they're going to move those people. Newtown Pike Extension. It's going to make. Look at the maps. There's a big board. From Scott Street all the way. Yeah. Really. Really. All right. Mr. Sally. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. If I could refer you to the bottom of page seven of your agenda, the first commission item. The staff is requesting today commission initiation of a rezoning for an area that's been known for years as the South End Park. This is an area that has been studied with a small area plan associated with the Newtown Pike Corridor Extension that is now well over five years old, and more recently with a more detailed study for the South End Park area. We have a drawing on the overhead in addition to a rendering of the zoning map to identify the area that we're requesting your consideration today. Generally, we're south of the Versailles Road viaduct, east of the Norfolk Southern Rail Line, and the main rail yard between South Broadway and that viaduct. This property is generally to the west of Pine Street, which is here, and north and west of South Broadway and Patterson Street, a parallel street that extends from the Rupp Arena area southward toward the railroad yard. The requested zones are three for this entire area. The entire area is just under 30 acres. We're requesting initiation of a B3 zone for a single property very near the intersection of Pine Street and Versailles Road. Most of the area we're asking be initiated for R3 zoning here, generally to the east of Combs Street, and then a smaller area of about four and a half acres approximately just to the north of Patterson Street, really along to Rudy Street, this location. These areas correspond to more detailed recommendations that you see on the overhead for the redevelopment plan of the South End area. The timing of the request for initiation is significant. The record of decision has been made, my understanding by the federal government, for the roadway project. In addition, in consulting with the Division of Engineering, it's anticipated that some of the first property acquisitions are planned for spring or the middle of next year. And so from a zoning standpoint, now really is the time to ask the commission to consider this because once property transfers begin, notification problems can enter into the scene in terms of a rezoning. We anticipate, if this is initiated in the near future, that your hearing will not be able to be held until probably late spring or, pardon me, late winter or early spring of the latest, probably around March, I would guess. There is one area within the area I've described that does not need a rezoning. To use a very poor analogy, maybe the hole in the donut. There are two properties currently zoned R3 that are not necessary to be included, and those addresses are 757 and 767 to Rudy Street. Those would remain R3. Generally, this zoning would allow consideration of the redevelopment plan that the commission has considered previously, the current version of which is up on the overhead. That concludes my prepared remarks. We would ask your consideration of the formal initiation of the rezoning where the planning commission would be the applicant. With that, I would be glad to answer any questions. Mr. King may wish to elaborate further. Also, Ms. Rachel Phillips from the Division of Planning is here to answer questions as well. Thank you, Mr. Salley. I do have one question. If I recall, and I know this will be fleshed out, you're just asking for an initiation of this, but when I look at the proposed B3, and we just saw a B3 that we talked about access, how do you get to the access of that B3? Well, okay, is it for Sills Road? Is that what I'm seeing? It is. Okay, okay. The viaduct goes over the railroad yard here, and then you head down the viaduct toward the intersection at Pine Street, which is a signalized intersection. Okay. This property does currently have access approximately at this location. I don't believe it currently meets our sub-reg standards, but it is on the far end of the property away from the intersection. And I guess not knowing the new profile of the Newtown Pike Extended, I thought it was being elevated to some degree. Is that right? There will be some fill placed in parts of this area. Mr. Vaughan, I don't know if this property is one of which that is planned to have fill placed. Because I guess what I'm asking now is when I think about B3 in that corner with one access point off for sales, it kind of, I guess, throws up a flag at this point when we just saw a recent B3. Understood. I have always referred to it as the PDQ market. I'm not sure that that's the current name. And certainly the commission could initiate this with conditional zoning restrictions as part of the B3 as well. That is something that you can do. Okay. Probably Ms. Phillips can address this more in detail, but one of the things that we are working on for the council regarding the Newtown Pike Extension is a corridor access landscaping plan similar to what was done for Richmond Road and other areas. And the access to this lot, I believe, is specifically addressed in that access plan. Oh, okay. All right. Yes, that's correct. Excuse me. The study actually notes that it's a right in, right out only. If this property was to redevelop and it does front the proposed Newtown Pike, that's part of the study and will be proposed in an actual ordinance. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Salih? Okay. We have requests for, I guess, initiation of this zone change request. We've heard his presentation, Mr. Salih's presentation. Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move that we send forward with the staff the request to initiate this zone change. As noted here on our minutes. Is there a second? Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to initiate. Okay. A motion and a second to initiate this zone change request. All those in favor of this motion say aye. Aye. Opposed? Note Mr. Holm's abstention on this request. Thank you. Thank you. Actually, the record should probably denote a disqualification. I'm sorry, disqualification. Well, he should have left the room. He's been DQ'd. I think we have one additional item from staff. Is that correct? That's correct. The item on the addendum, and there's a handout at your place recommending appointments to the Floodplain Appeals Committee. Under ordinance, it is your charge to name those members. All these folks have been contacted and have agreed to serve. That's loud BMW-8. Okay. You should have at your place the recommended committee members for the Floodplain Appeals Committee. There are a total of five members. It appears that there's one alternate. And the chair at this time, we have one commissioner, Mr. Aden, who has agreed to serve on that committee. So at that time, the chair will entertain a motion to accept this. I move we accept the recommendations of the Floodplain Committee as on our white paper. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. King, you have an additional item? Only one other informational item. I think Ms. Rackers is going to handle that. Packet of information that you have with the yellow hang tag. Starting next week, yes. Starting next week, you're going to be able to park downstairs in the garage again. And they ask you to come in the back way and go in the back door, come in through Water Street and go in the back door of the garage, park along the wall that faces, the outside wall that faces Water Street, and then exit through the main street opening, and then. Barb, could you put this on the overhead? Would that help? I don't have it. That might help. This is the door that you would come in. This is the back garage door off of Water Street. And then this is Water Street along here. And they ask you to park in these spaces here. They'll be marked as commission spaces, board of adjustment spaces, and council spaces. So those are the ones that you're supposed to park in. And then you would come out through the front door onto main street. Okay. And then please put the hang tags in your car and fill in this sheet of paper right here with any automobile information. If you've got more than one car, be sure you fill in all that information for both cars. Because if you would happen to bring that car and not have your hang tag and not have that information filled out in general services, then they would tell your car. So it's important that you have that information written down. That's for Mr. P. Whoever. Whoever has 10 cars. But they ask you to do that and then fill in this information and send it back to DELA in the enclosed envelope as soon as you possibly can so that we can get it registered with general services. Okay. I think that's it. Is there anything else? Okay. Thank you, Barb. That was great. I understand a lot of work went into this parking arrangement. So many, many meetings. I did want to point out that next month we have two meetings, correct? We have the committee meetings, subdivision and zoning, and then we have one hearing on the 13th. So there is no meeting on the 20th. Just wanted to make folks aware of that. And it may be a long day on the 13th, but that's okay, I guess. One extra week off. We almost get as much time off as council is what I understand. Almost. Almost. Almost. The committee meeting is in January. One minor clarification on the parking. There will be no access to Main Street at all. You will have to come in and out under the viaduct is our understanding right now. Oh, I thought DELA said they were supposed to go out. It shows the arrow coming out on the Main Street. Really? My understanding is it's not going to be open. Okay. Okay. Cool. I won't. I won't. As we know, this situation was changing as late as 11 o'clock this morning. So it may change again. We'll keep you informed. Yeah, we'll keep you posted. Thank you very much. At this time, Chair will say this meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.