Music Outro Music Now the night has gone, now the night has gone away Doesn't seem that long, we hardly had two words to say Hold me in your arms for just another day I promise this one will go so hard We have the right, you know We have the right, you know Don't say the morning's come Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Please take your seats. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'll call this meeting to order. It's July 26, 2012. First on their agenda would be approval of minutes from June 28, 2012. These minutes were emailed to the Commission members earlier in the week, and I'd ask if there were any changes that need to be made. If not, I'd entertain a motion for approval. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of the minutes June 28, 2012. Thank you. Do we have a second? The motion has been made and seconded for approval of the minutes from June 28, 2012. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. First on the agenda today is Santa Barbara Land Company, Kinometrics. It's DP 2012-46. This is a continuation from about two weeks ago. and, whoops, I'm sorry, let me back up for a second. Postponements and withdrawals. Do we have any requests for postponements or withdrawals from the agenda today? If not, now we'll move on to Santa Barbara Land Company. It's DP 2012-46. As I said, this is a continuation from about two weeks ago. We do have a revision that Mr. Taylor or Mr. Martin-1 will be giving us. The revisions, as I said, are on the pink sheet. Mr. Martin, can we continue on this? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Again, the item under continuation is the first on your agenda, DP2012-46, Santa Barbara Land Company. And I will give you... Can you hear me? There we go. Quick reorientation to the location. Again, we're out on old Frankfort Pike outside of New Circle Road, near the intersection with Miles Point Way. You're headed towards the traffic circle in this direction. Town, New Circle Road, is back in this direction. The plan that you see before you is a proposed manufacturing facility of a little over 24,000 square feet with associated parking. The circulation pattern is one way around the building with an access point in this location and this location. The discussion two weeks ago centered on a conflict of the previous plan with the right-of-way and the required landscape ordinance for the Old Frankfurt Pike, which is an ordinance created by the Urban County Council. This particular revision that you see before you today does address that concern. They have revised this. They show an area that will meet the space requirements of the ordinance in this location completely within their property. There's no need for an encroachment permit, no issues now with the fact that they've got room to do it. Now, they are showing some details here. You will see in your pink revised conditions that we have, of course, recommended approval based on your standard development plan sign-offs, but there are a couple of conditions. One of those is to complete the details as required under the old Frankfurt Pike landscape ordinance. The graphic details that you see there are not exactly accurate to the requirements of that ordinance. Our general practice has been that we request that they show an area where that can be accommodated and then give us a detail in the verbiage of what that ordinance requires on the plan, which is what they need to do in terms of clarifying and completing that requirement. Secondly, we've added a requirement that they remove the plans from the plan face. It's rare that plans are included on the development plan anymore unless there's very special circumstances or there's a conditional zoning restriction. In this particular case, they show one that happens to infringe on the 25-foot setback. They show some others. Signage is controlled by Article 17 of the zoning ordinance, and they have to meet those requirements. And if we show them on a development plan and then they want to move them under Article 17 and they're allowed to, however they've been cited on an approved development plan, And we hate to have to bring them back to you just to move a plan or, I mean, a sign or just a sign. So we think it's better and works much better if they just remove those from the plan. And, of course, again, staff is recommending approval of the plan, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Tom, let me ask this. I guess my mind's a little foggy. We had several late plans that came out of this subdivision committee hearing. Was this a late plan? I guess my question is, has this been before technical? Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir. It has been? Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? To answer your question, this was not one of the late plans. Okay. There were six. There were a considerable number. Yes. More than we used to say. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Yes? Tom, but we have gone from 27 conditions down to 12, right? Yes, sir. So we've made progress in the last two weeks. Many of the conditions were removed prior to two weeks ago. They had addressed a lot of the cleanup conditions. The primary issue two weeks ago was this conflict with the landscape. With the landscape. Yes, sir. But this plan still has developer land that's on that plan. It does. Thank you. Anything else? Any other questions? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. I would say that as you were here, this is a continuation, so for the most part we're dealing with what we've seen today. First of all, your name? I'm Mark Abbott. Mark Abbott. Thank you, Mr. Abbott, for being here once again. And thank you for the work and the revisions. Do you have anything to add to this? No, I don't. I appreciate your attention to this. We'd recommend that we would comply with all the conditions they're going to come up with. That was my next question. Okay, very good. Any questions for Mr. Abbott? No? Okay, thank you, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this development plan? If not, if there's no further questions from the Commission, I'll close this part of the hearing. open it up for any possible discussion and or motions. Yes, Ms. Phillips. Mr. Chair, I'm thrilled that this plan has now come into compliance. Give it a little bit of time and it will ripen. And I would therefore like to move approval of DP 2012-46 for the 12 reasons cited by staff. Conditions. Conditions. Thank you. The motion has been made for approval. Do we have a second? Second. The motion has been made and seconded for approval of DP 2012-46 Santa Barbara Land Company. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. As has been said, thank you for the work. Our next on the agenda would be page 2, number 1, Anderson Campus Rental Property, LLC, Robert C. Hodges and Anthony McIntyre Zoning Amount Amendment, and P.B. Devereaux Subdivision, Lynn Grove Edition Zoning Development Plan. This is MAR 2012-9. You do have a supplemental staff report in print of you on a manila-colored piece of paper, as well as revised zone and development plans that's on an orangish-colored piece of paper. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. This item does appear on page 2 of your agenda. It is item 1A, MAR 2012-9, a request by Anderson Campus Rental Properties, LLC, C. Robert C. Hodges and Anthony McIntyre. This can also be found behind tab 1 in your notebooks today, including the supplemental staff report. The petitioner is requesting a zone change from a single-family residential zone, R1D, to a townhouse residential R1T zone. The subject property is comprised of nine parcels, starting at 99 Burley Avenue through 119 Burley Avenue. It does include the face of this block of Burley Avenue. Burley Avenue is a local street that intersects with South Broadway to the northwest and then continues to where it terminates adjacent to the Norfolk Southern railroad tracks here. It does run sort of parallel to Waller and Virginia Avenue in this area, but because of the railroad tracks does not continue over to South Limestone. Zoning within the vicinity, the subject properties are surrounded on the north, west, and south by R1D zoning, which is the rest of the American Avenue neighborhood. Across the railroad tracks, there is R2 zoning for two-family residential, but it is all residential within this area. The subject properties collectively are approximately one acre in size. and you'll notice from the overhead, you can see a little bit better, that this includes in whole some properties, but it does cut 101 and 103 Burley Avenue, not quite in half, but the rear portions of those are not included in this zone change. This subdivision was laid out in a grid pattern with some cross streets, such as Prospect Avenue, and Prospect does kind of create that barrier along the end property there. The petitioner's request for R1T zoning will redevelop all nine parcels. It will propose to add some townhouse units but keep some single-family structures. This is an aerial of the vicinity. you can see that this is within a single-family neighborhood. There's a utility substation across from a portion of the property, the railroad tracks, and then across the railroad tracks is another neighborhood. And then as you get further towards South Limestone, of course, it's University of Kentucky campus, and Press Avenue has a few university uses as well. I'll show a few photos of the area. As I mentioned, the applicants are proposing to redevelop a portion of the property, but maintain, you can see five single-family structures in the middle here, maintain those five structures. The four parcels on either end are either vacant, or there's one single-story residence that would be demolished, and those kind of the end caps of development would be redeveloped or the property would be redeveloped. They're proposing a total of 14 dwelling units and 42 off-street parking spaces along the rear of the property. Give you a little bit closer look at kind of sections of the property. This is the vacant portion of the property near the railroad tracks. There were two single-family residential, probably three single-family residential homes or duplexes there in the past, but those have been demolished. These are two single-family residences also closer to the railroad tracks. Three newer and then the existing structure at the corner single-family residences, the three in the middle there to remain. And then this is the intersection where Prospect Avenue intersects with Burley. There is a handout that I've, and this is, I'm sorry, the opposite side of Burley in this vicinity. The staff did hand out to the Planning Commission a packet that includes the South Broadway corridor plan, detailed recommendations, and the land use map associated with that. On this aerial, which is a little dated from 2010, you can see the two structures that are twins in the middle there. There's three more structures and then the end structure. Those three structures have been replaced. Didn't bring my pointer. And then the two towards the railroad tracks have been demolished. in the south broadway corridor plan that was adopted in 1990 this particular area of burley avenue was studied and specifically there were some a few things that were highlighted about that area recommendation number 13 speaks to establishing a buffer along the railroad track in terms of providing dense landscaping, open space, or birming to help mitigate noise, vibration, dust, and odors associated with the train travel. And this portion also states that the area along the railroad tracks is further impacted by stormwater problems, complicated by karst topography. Recommendation 14 also is directed towards this portion of the South Broadway corridor, and it suggests that properties along Burley Avenue and other streets in the area be redeveloped as medium-density residential due to some structural conditions of the buildings. And then the third recommendation that does apply to this area is recommendation number 35 on page 75 of that packet. And it suggests addressing a stormwater management issue that, after reviewing the maps, is associated with the low-lying area for the rear portions of 101 and 103 Burley Avenue, which are not included in the zone change. But overall, on the last page of that handout, you'll see the map that was included in the Broadway plan. It recommends a medium-density residential land use for most of the neighborhood, and it also recommends a buffer along the railroad tracks, a dense buffer. So the 1996 Comprehensive Plan adopted in whole this corridor plan, and the land use recommendations that it incorporated are what we see on our Comprehensive Plan today. So from 1996 until the 2007 plan, the land use recommendations have been what you see on the overhead here, which is for five of the parcels, excuse me, looks like six of the parcels, it's recommended for medium density residential and that's the parcels closer to Prospect Avenue in the orange on the overhead and the larger three parcels close to the railroad were recommended for green space and open space land use and the staff's assessment of the South Broadway plan is that this open space recommendation is meant to implement the buffer recommendation suggested within the South Broadway plan but it has carried forward to the current comprehensive plan. With the proposed 14 dwelling units on the property suggested by the applicant, there would be a residential density of 13.88 dwelling units per net acre, and the comprehensive plan with a medium density recommendation, even if we assumed it for the whole area, is still 0 to 10 dwelling units per acre, so it's about four units above what's recommended by the comprehensive plan. Replacing the existing single-family residences with open space, which is sort of the case today because it's vacant, which the plan appears to suggest is not very feasible unless the government is willing to purchase those properties. And given budgetary constraints, the staff believes that's fairly unlikely. The applicant originally, in their original justification, stated that they could meet the medium density recommendation of the comprehensive plan, but then found later when they reviewed their information that that was not possible, given the area that they brought in and the number of units they're proposing. So the staff had previously concluded that given the land use recommendation of the comp plan and the South Broadway corridor plan, it was appropriate and reasonable to assume that medium density would be appropriate for all of the property that the applicant was bringing forward. But that still would only permit about 10 dwelling units on the property, not the 14 that the applicant is proposing. In addition, the staff felt that a buffer along the railroad tracks would be not green space for three lots, would also be appropriate. With the previous development plan and previous application information, the staff had three major concerns. First, that the requested density was still above what the comprehensive plan recommended. second, that the applicant had given no indication that they were willing to do open space or any buffering along the railroad tracks and third, there was still some concern about what the rest of 101 and 103 Burley was going to be used for since those tracks would become split zoned. The applicants did submit a revised justification which is also in your notebook today and have asserted that the proposed townhouses are, excuse me, that the revised justification does state that their proposal is close, but slightly over the density of the comprehensive plan, and that there are a few developments in the nearby vicinity that have multifamily developments that are also higher density than this. And then the staff doesn't believe that the comparisons that they're offering in their justification are really pertinent in this case and not similarly situated. They mention a property along Burley that the Planning Commission considered earlier this year for redevelopment, which is already zoned for a higher use of R4. And then they also mention an apartment complex that's been developed in the last 10 or 12 years, which is, on our comprehensive plan you'll see, actually recommended for high-density development. So those aren't really similarly situated cases. The petitioner is contending that the existing R1D zoning is inappropriate at this location, and the R1T is appropriate because it will serve as a transition between high density and single-family residential. But as you can see by our zoning map, the property is still surrounded in this neighborhood by single-family residential and single-family residential uses as well. In evaluating this, excuse me, the last thing that they mention is that they're meeting several of the goals and objectives of the current comprehensive plan as well as the new goals and objectives that the council recently adopted for the 2012 comprehensive plan. And generally they cite that they're encouraging or fulfilling infill and redevelopment. They're reducing pressure on the urban service area boundary. They're using adequate essential facilities in an efficient way and encouraging a range of housing opportunities. The staff, as I mentioned, doesn't believe that this subject property would act as a transition area because it is still surrounded by single-family residences and zoning. Secondly, the staff believes that the petitioners, because they do have control of adjacent parcels, could meet the density recommendation of the comprehensive plan by including the rear portions of those two parcels that have been excluded. but the applicant has not been willing to include those to date. And then lastly, there's been no unanticipated change in this vicinity since the 2007 comprehensive plan was adopted. Because of these issues, the staff cannot support the proposed development as proposed by the petitioner today, and although we respect their attempt to maximize density on the site, density is not always appropriate at every location. Higher density is not always appropriate at every location. So the staff is recommending disapproval for the following reasons. The R1T zone is not in agreement with the recommendations of the 2007 comprehensive plan for green space and open space for buffering along the railroad or medium density residential land use. The petitioner's proposal exceeds the medium density residential range suggested by the comprehensive plan. In addition, the R1D zoning is currently appropriate and the R1T zoning is not appropriate at this location. And then lastly, there's been no significant changes of a physical, social, or economic nature since the comprehensive plan was adopted that would warrant the increased density now requested by the applicant. The zoning committee did recommend postponement when they first heard this application and did not make any other recommendation subsequent to that. I'd be happy to answer any questions at this point. Questions? Yes, Ms. Blanton. So no changes have been made since when we first heard this in committee in regards to the density? That was their justification. Okay. They shifted some buildings a few feet from the railroad. Other questions from Ms. Feith? Yes. Oops, I'm sorry, Ms. Blumley. Hold on one second. Go ahead. My question has to do with the two lots, the flagship lots, that maybe Tom will address this. It might be a development plan. How big are those lots? I know the whole area is a little over an acre. Right. But those two lots are kind of funny shaped, and I wonder what their sizes are. If that property were included, in total, it would go from being 1.009 acres to 1.3858. So the back portion is about a third of an acre. that's both of those lots the portion that's not included so I would say together maybe half an acre those two lots 15,000 square feet something like that 20,000 Mrs. Flimley Tracy the five houses there those people park on the street currently some of them do utilize the street the two houses that I mentioned look kind of like twins we can go back they have rear parking on this aerial photograph there's a gray area in the back that's a paved parking lot behind those two they share a driveway thank you they share a driveway and there's pavement in the back and the buffer area for the railroad is how many feet and with what the plan I don't remember if it suggested a specific width I think the staff would be comfortable with 15 feet as a buffer with planted with materials I mean trees shrubs something that would help with the noise dust but 15 feet I I mean, that's off the cuff. We haven't met about it. Another question? Ms. Mundy? I'm sorry. You're talking about a third of an anchor along the railroad track, but they only have to put in a buffer of 15 feet along the railroad track. Is that correct? I'm not following your question. Are you referring to this map? Yes, you said that the area, as I understood you, was about a third of an acre. The two parcels, Ms. Roche-Phillips' question was about those two parcels. Okay, is that in the same area that we're talking about, the green space, the buffer, is that about a third of an acre? No. Okay. Okay. I guess where I'm headed is if you're setting aside more than the, are you just setting aside the 15 feet along the railroad track is what I'm trying to understand. Yes, and possibly something along the rear. If the rears of those property were included, that's a low-lying area that acts as a detention basin for the neighborhood currently. So I think the staff, if that area was included in the development plan, it probably would have been a detention area because it acts that way today. Okay, and then the responsibility of the maintenance of that area would be whose? I don't know. Okay. I typically don't deal with the maintenance of detention basins. Mr. Martin might be able to answer that question. Okay. All right. Ms. Phillips. Tracy, my question has to, if you could go back a couple of slides to the aerial that shows Newtown Crossing. Do we have that 15-foot buffer at Newtown Crossing along the railroad track? I don't know. The applicant might know it's their property. Go ahead, yeah. What you see there is University Village. It's owned by me. And there's no buffer in there presently. We did redo our plan and made the driveway smaller and provided for a five-foot buffer with a fence and plantings next to the railroad track. Okay. Okay. There's this real scare. Thank you, Mr. Henderson. Other questions for Tracy? If not, I guess we'll go to Mr. Martin and the development plan. And there are very, excuse me, never mind. Later. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the zoning development plan that is associated with the zone change before you today is on the bottom of your agenda on page 2, ZEP 2012-31, PB Devereaux Subdivision, also known as the Lynn Grove Edition. This is a combined preliminary development plan and preliminary subdivision plan. Again, very briefly, just to orient you, here is Burley Avenue as it dead ends to the Norfolk Southern Railroad. Here is Prospect Avenue. This is the proposed development. these houses right in here are your existing units. Your new townhouse units are being proposed here, along with there will be new units at this corner as well. This plan was revised from a previous submission. It does show a buffer through this area that you can see. They are proposing one-way access here and one-way access back out onto Burley. They are proposing full access to Prospect at this location. Again, there are 14 dwelling units on the plan. There are four bedrooms apiece, so that's 56 total bedrooms, and they are proposing 42 parking spaces. The new units that they're going to construct will also be 30 feet tall. The plan was originally recommended for postponement due to a concern primarily with open space requirements under the R1T zone. And the applicant did submit an exhibit that demonstrates that they can meet that requirement. That is a requirement that there be private open space on each lot. this plan does meet that requirement. The plan went through several changes, as you can see from your original agenda. We've handed out on this orange-colored handout revised conditions. They are standard sign-off conditions, the first six. The seventh is to provide the lotting and site statistics as required for a preliminary subdivision plan. When this plan was originally filed, it was just a preliminary development plan. We recommended that they consider making it a dual plan, so they just need to make some adjustments in the normal site statistics required on a preliminary subdivision plan and add them to the plan. The staff has recommended approval of this plan, And if I may briefly explain to, I know we have some newer members and we have people in the audience that may not know that when we review a development plan and a subdivision plan, we review it as if the zoning was in place. And we review it on its technical merits and see if it meets the requirements of the requested zone. So that's why you can have a disapproval recommendation on a zoning, but yet have an approval recommendation on a development plan. I just wanted to briefly explain that for folks who may not be aware of that, how we review things. They have, I would add, they are proposing to put a sidewalk along the frontage, which was an issue for staff as well as the green space. on the individual lots. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Ms. Phillips, question? Tom, my question has to do with the setback. The existing five structures seem to be setback farther. Is that because of the zoning restriction that's currently in place and the R1T allows for a closer setback? Yes, ma'am, and the R1T allows a 10-foot. And what is the existing, 20? I believe so, yes, ma'am. That would be appropriate in the existing zone. And if you would like, I could just briefly touch on this back area. We wanted to outline, here's the lot, the triangular lot, and they are proposing to consolidate it, all this, with this lot. If this was detention, the private property owner is normally required to take care of that, Although with residential detention, the city does have a policy of taking that over, but it's on our terms, I would say. It's the city's terms. They are trying to take over residential detention. However, multifamily is considered commercial, and although this is technically a single-family development being a townhouse, I'm sure that that would be part of the consideration that the city would have on whether or not they would maintain any detention in this area. Other questions for Mr. Martin? If not, we'll ask for the applicant to come forward. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I do have a handout here for you. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased today to be representing two different development groups that have agreed to cooperate together to come up with what we think is a better plan on this property than either of the two development groups could do alone. And it's not easy to get two different developers to cooperate, but they are cooperating here because I think it's to the benefit of both of them and to the benefit of the community as well. So today I'm representing Dennis Anderson Campus Rental Properties, and Dennis is here. and the other entity is a partnership of Robert Hodges and Andy McIntyre and Andy is here on the third row today as well and also with us today are Tony Barrett, our landscape architect and designer John Strom, in-house attorney for Anderson Communities Chaz Height is with me, a planner I think Mike Kraft is in the room with engineer for Dennis Anderson as well But I'm very pleased to be able to have these properties come together and both development groups work together on doing this. Dennis has taken the step, which is unusual, of sharing his plans with Mr. Hodges and Mr. McIntyre, and builders and developers don't do that very often. They consider their plans very special, but we wanted to do that so that these units could be architecturally similar and present a similar appearance on the streetscape here. We are asking for a density of about 13.88 units per acre. As Tracy mentioned, the medium density classification under the comprehensive plan calls for 10 units per net or 8 per gross for about 10 point something gross, 13.88 per net. I'll go by the net figures on that. So we're asking for something a little higher. But I do want to point out to you, it hasn't been mentioned, the medium density classification includes townhouses. Attached homes are allowed as part of the medium density classification. And we think this is entirely appropriate for the property. Just going around here, we have the Norfolk Southern Railroad, as Ms. Wade had mentioned, going here immediately to the east of our property. well we have there's a neighborhood here which i'll show you in a minute is is in transition itself as well as this one right across the street from us we have the large ku substation which is about 25 feet tall and we do have some single family right here up here we have single family up here we have property that i'll discuss this area because staff has wondered what we have plans for this we do have some plans university village is up here which is a high density student apartment complex i do have just a couple pictures wanted to show you here the first one we'll put up there is uh we've been discussing the buffering along the railroad tracks So we wanted to show you what's actually there. Well, excuse me, that is along the railroad tracks. This is the KU substation immediately across the street from us, 25 feet tall. Second picture, if you go to the second picture, is just another shot of that, showing the extent of what we have immediately across the street from this property. We think this will be a better transition than single-family detached houses there. Going to the third picture, we're showing you the, this is a photograph from our property to the railroad tracks. You cannot see the railroad tracks there because the vegetation is so thick. Now, much of it is on the railroad property. Some of it is on our property. But the railroad tracks are back there. They're so hard to see that for the first three weeks I was working on this project, I thought the railroad tracks were 10 feet lower than grade. Dennis told me to go back out there and look again. and when I hacked my way through a little bit, I found out that the railroad is actually six feet taller than we are at Great. I just couldn't see through to see where the railroad tracks were on this one. You can see in the background there, I don't know if that's a U.K. building or one of the ones along Waller Avenue, right back there. But it's very thick here. It's very well screened as it is right now. The next picture also is a picture from our property to the railroad tracks again, showing at a different angle looking back in the property again, showing how well screened it is right now. We are going to meet the required screening that everybody has to meet at a railroad track. The ordinance requires 15 feet, which can be reduced to 5 feet if you provide an opaque fence along the railroad track. We will meet that, just as everybody else up and down the railroad track, if they're doing new development today, has to meet that as well. So we're meeting our buffering requirements. The next picture is 119 Burley. This is the house on the corner. This is not owned by either of my clients. It's owned by a woman who agreed to be part of the zone change. Dennis' agreement with her, this is at the corner of Burley and Prospect, is that when she decides she wants to leave, Dennis is going to build her a new house and trade her a new house in the neighborhood which meets code and safety requirements for this house. And we hope to be able to demolish this and put two units where this house is right now. And next is a picture. This is on prospect. This isn't on the subject property, but I just wanted to give you a flavor of what these houses are like when they have been purchased. in some cases by Dennis or Andy or Robert on there. They are often boarded up, don't meet code, and in many cases I know Andy and Robert have told me that people in the neighborhood have thanked them for buying houses and tearing them down because in conditions like this, squatters get in, live there, crime is going on in these houses, and by having redevelopment here, it has been a benefit to the neighborhood to get rid of houses such as this. The last photograph is the University Village. That's just half a block behind us, and Dennis owns that, operates that. That's at a density of about 42 units per acre right there. Dennis' manager on site here will also manage these units. Andy and Robert also are local owners. They're on site looking at their properties every day. So I say that to let you know that they have the benefit of the on-site manager here and local managers who eyeball these properties every day, and if something is going on on one property that the other one sees, they'll call each other and say, hey, you get out there and you better do something about this. So it's under the supervision of the manager or the owners here at this property. As I said, the neighborhood itself, if you could, I wanted to just tell you a little bit about the neighborhood. The neighborhood is changing, and if you look at, we just did an interesting little study on the property here. If you look at page three of my handout where we have the colored-up notification map, back when the South Broadway small area plan was passed in 1990, 22 years ago, In reading that plan, there was not a single mention of student housing in this neighborhood, not a single mention of it. They mentioned that the housing stock was of poor quality. Most of it should be replaced and redone. But in the 22 years since that plan was adopted, students have come into this neighborhood. And in looking at this map, we wanted to find out what the percentages were. In looking at this map that you have, the blue is owner-occupied property. This is in our 400-foot notification area. And in that notification area, a little over 18% of the properties are owner-occupied. The orange is renter-occupied. That's over 70 percent renter-occupied, which has been increasing year by year. The green on here, the group of green on both sides of the railroad track is owned by there and here. That's KU, the substation and then a property on the other side. The green down here is a church, and that plus U.K.'s property is about 10% of the property. Now, the interesting thing here also, you see the purple is U.K. property. You can see they're coming down this neighborhood down to the railroad tracks. Now, that's had another impact in addition with the construction of the medical center coming down here. Obviously, the U.K. hasn't built student housing. I'm glad they're building a little bit of it now over the years. But an unreported consequence of the building in the medical center area is that that has taken up residential properties. And in many cases, it's taken residential properties that have been rented to students, further moving them farther from campus. A major reason students live over here now is because they can walk to campus. I know we had some discussion of the subdivision committee about how do students walk to campus from here. Well, most of them will be the central campus, forgetting that vicinity map, but they'll walk up here through University Village to get to Virginia Avenue when they can walk on a sidewalk, on a bridge, over the railroad tracks, and they're right in the central campus there. That's the way most of them do it. Now, they can walk to the south, and there are some openings in the fence. There are streets that come from this neighborhood, Camden, American, that back up the streets that come off of Waller Avenue. The streets don't connect, but there's pedestrian openings in the fence, and they can walk through there. Now, they'd have to walk across the grade crossing at Waller Avenue to get, if they want to go to the south part of the campus. There was some discussion, well, they're going to be crossing the railroad tracks. That's, I guess, theoretically possible here. But as I mentioned, the tracks are six feet above grade. To get in there, they'd first have to get through the jungle of plants that you saw in the pictures. Then they've got to scramble up a six-foot high, pretty steep grade to get to the tracks. Then across the tracks, and they've got to slide down the six feet on the other side to get over there. So it's possible, but it's pretty unlikely in this area. But it is certainly possible to do it. Dennis has started discussions with the U.K. about putting another pedestrian overpass over the railroad. I can't say this is for sure going to come through. It's for sure something Dennis is working on, and we'll discuss that maybe a little further in a couple minutes. But that's what we have around us, and that's how the neighborhood has had changes lately with an influx of students coming in here, and it's logical, and you can see why they're doing it. It's within walking distance. Unlike many of the new developments on the other side of Broadway, which have come in lately, if you drive down Red Mile Road during the school year, you'll see scores of students waiting at bus stops to take a bus over to the U.K. Here, that's nice they're taking buses. That's great. Here, they don't even have to take a bus. They can walk. They don't add to our carbon footprint at all. They'll walk or ride a bicycle over the campus. They leave their cars here. They do have cars, but they leave their cars here. I want to talk about density for a minute. If you could look at page one of my handout, I have the original and current, by the way, current plat for this neighborhood. It was recorded in May of 1923. It's the map of Lynn Grove addition to the city of Lexington. And if you all wouldn't mind putting that up on the board, I'd like to point out a couple things about that, Bill. This is the way this subdivision was originally laid out. And looking at the properties on the north side of Burley Avenue, this is the tract which was in those odd configurations right now. Back then, if there was a tract like that, you could sell it off in pieces without bringing a plant back. You can't do that after 1966, but now you can. But these lots down here, this one's a little bit wider, but from here all the way going down Burley down to here, every lot is 25 feet wide and 125 feet deep. That equals 3125 square feet, which is 1 14th of an acre. Burley Avenue was laid out at a density of 14 units per acre when it was designed in 1923. Now, some people have bought two lots. They could do that back then. They could buy one lot, build a house. They could buy two lots and build a house. Some people bought two lots, which lowered the density. But my point is, when this was designed 89 years ago, 89 years ago it was designed at 14 units per acre. What's our density? We're proposing a density to you of 13.88 units per acre. We're actually a little less than the way this was laid out 89 years ago. The layout's the same along Simpson. Those properties, these properties up here are four inches deeper than the properties down here. They're basically the same. These are a little smaller. These ones in the middle ones were longer because they took up the space in there. But Burley Avenue and the ones on the side of Simpson Avenue were designed at a density of 14 units an acre. Exactly what we're proposing to you, except we're a little less, actually. So I think our density historically is in keeping with this area. I know the plan designation of medium density is less than this, but it is less than what this neighborhood was laid out originally. And we looked at what's gone in there lately. Now, the property and next topic I'll be talking about is right down here on the next page, on page two of my handout. That's the development plan for the townhouse development that is going on in old church property. The Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses used to be there. And you want me to get moving faster there? Okay, I'll move faster here. And this has a density of 16.99 units per acre. It was approved earlier this year. The Board of Adjustment granted a variance, changing the lot lines, moving them forward, which allowed a greater buildable area on this lot. Also, the city government itself has participated in moving a park from this property across the street, all to accommodate a development that's coming in at 17 units an acre, which is three units greater than we have. I only make that point to say that we feel that this is appropriate. This was the right thing to do for this property. It's townhouses with a design like we have, building them closer to the street and putting parking in the back. And the government has participated in that through moving the park and through granting the variance. The other one the staff mentioned is one Dennis did himself. I was involved in that 11 years ago, University Village. We had two acres of additional property. That was approved for 85 units on two acres, a density of 42.5 units per acre just a block away. So I think the historical density of this neighborhood is consistent with what we're doing, and we're consistent or less than all new development that's come in here in the last 10 or 11 years. So we feel the density is appropriate. I feel the question really is, are the units going to be spread out as single-family detached? Are they going to be put together as townhouses? We feel there is absolutely no downside in this project to put them together as townhouses. The reason that's better is illustrated by this one down the street or more on our development plan. And what it lets us do is it lets us put our townhouses closer to the street. And the implication of that is that the dominant visual feature of our development is going to be the buildings. It's not going to be the cars that are parked throughout there on the street or on the driveway in the front yard or sometimes in a gravel patch on the front yard. Our visual focus is going to be the units. Now, a lot of these, even some of our new ones, don't have parking at all. Some of them do have front yard parking. Why are we including the single-family detached units that we're going to keep in this zone change? Why don't we just leave them off? Well, the reason is, by putting them in this zone change, we can put them on one development plan, and we can get this joint parking in the back. We can get the parking off the street, put it in the back. We have a good circulation plan. We have a driveway here. We have a driveway here. We have a driveway here, all of which are available to parkers no matter who their owner is. We may have designated spots for some of them, but they all get through here. We eliminate all these individual driveways except for this one, which goes to the back, on to Burley Avenue. It's a much better plan. It's a much better plan. It's more of an urban design as opposed to requiring us to come in and put small houses in a suburban-type development with a house and a driveway and whatever we have on here. I know you want me to hurry up, but I do need to mention the comprehensive plan because staff mentioned that. But I feel we agree with the comprehensive plan. I feel we agree with everything, the comprehensive plan, Fayette Alliance, Bluegrass Tomorrow, this planning commission. Every consultant has come in for the last 20 years, and that is let's build up, not out. And a corollary of that, which everybody acknowledges when these plans come through, is that we have to put a little greater density in some of our existing areas where we have vacant lots. Now, I won't read every goal and objective, although I'd love to, but it would take some time on here. But I can summarize the goals and objectives. They're sort of summarized in the 2012 goals and objectives, which I view you all have done a Reader's Digest condensed book version of the 2007 comprehensive plan doing the essential things out of there. The essential things are up, not out. Let's put density in the core of the city rather than putting pressure on the urban service line. But let's do it where services and infrastructure is available, which it is here. There were houses on these properties before, connected to the sewer, having all city services. There will be in the future. We've got the infrastructure here as well. And number three on there, which is goal E1B, I think sort of summarizes it all up. It says, encourage compact, contiguous, and or mixed-use sustainable development within the urban service area as guided by market demands to accommodate future growth needs. That's exactly what we're doing. We're being compact, contiguous. We don't have mixed use. I don't think commercial would be appropriate on this location mixed in with residential. Sustainable. There's nothing more sustainable than being able to walk to school or where you go to work today. Nothing more sustainable than that. Guided by market demands. This property is probably going to be student housing, whether it's single-family attached or single-family detached. But the market is there for what we're doing here as well, and it accommodates a little bit. We've got a couple extra units to accommodate future growth needs. And as I said, I think the pluses on here of attaching these units together much outweigh leaving them as they are with detached units where we're forced to either have no parking or a driveway and putting them back farther on the lot and all that sort of thing. We can group them here. We can put the parking in the back. We can have a nice street scape for this area. Dennis wants to address you a little bit. He's going to show you what he wants to do here. I'm going to address just a little bit about what we're going to do with this triangle back here, because that seems to be something people are interested in. And Dennis right now owns all these lots that run on Prospect Avenue except for one. There's one person who has chosen until now not to sell. And Dennis and Robert and Andy own this piece right here. Now, our plan, which we'll be very open with you about, is probably, hopefully, at some time to come in with a zone change on this property in here to an R3 or something like that to transition between the high density on University Village, coming on to this. and we establish this as the end by putting this in R1T. We keep it single family. It's attached rather than detached, but we keep this single family. Now, this is the right thing to do on this property regardless of whether this ever comes through or not. But you can see the historic line has been this line. You saw it on that original plat coming on down, extending it on through here. We want to just extend that original line, keep it intact, along with all the other properties along Burley Avenue, and put our R1T through here. This would be part of this development out here. Whether it ever happens is going to be under your all's control on it. But we think this stands on its own. But since people were asking about what's going to happen with this tract, But that's our desired goal, that this track be used with this track as part of future redevelopment when and if Dennis gets the last of the properties there on that. So anyway, again, we feel this stands on its own. It's the best thing for this neighborhood, and it's much better for this neighborhood and this property than leaving it single-family attached. So with that, Dennis, I'll turn it over to you here. I'm Dennis Anderson. I live on Still Meadow in Lexington. I wanted to share with you why we came to this. Ms. Plumlee hit the nail on the head. What are you going to do with the cars? You can see when these were built, they were built in the late 20s, early 30s. And the Model A Ford was 31. So they weren't built with an audible wheel in mind. They were 25 feet. You can see kind of the character of the neighborhood. This one's boarded up. This one's owned by Chinaman, and it's vacant. He's been unable to lease it. This one's owned by me, and I've sold it to the gentleman next door. And in turn, he sold me a house on prospect. This is where I started going around to these guys saying, you know, we're all scattered around. If we build single houses on this, where are the people going to park? I think you see where they're going to park. They're going to park in the front yards. In order to accommodate the automobile and the redevelopment of this, I thought it was better for us to work together, swap watts around, and create blocks so we could create a driveway and have parking in the rear. This is the product we're building. We've already built these different places. This is the brick version of what we're wanting to build. This is the vinyl version with the rock footer. It's attractive. It's safe. It's tight. It's weather efficient. It'll accommodate the residents much better than many of the homes that are over there now. But if you take today to accommodate the parking, they've either been parking in the front or people have been buying two lots and cantilevering the second floor and creating a driveway in between them to get to the backyard. I just felt we could do a whole lot better putting them together in townhomes. If you get three lots together, you can create a driveway and create better parking, more parking in the backyard. So I think it's about the parking. Essentially, we have three ways to redevelop this, the same way it was laid out to begin with, with the parking in the front. counter-levering second floors, or zoning an R1T and moving the parking around back. I hope you find the R1T with the parking back favorable. I ask for your support. Thank you. Do you have a question, Mike? Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Any questions for Mr. Anderson? Why don't you set the microphone? Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Mr. Penn? As I look at that, Mr. Murphy, those five houses that are built there, those five new homes, are they rental property or have they been sold to each individual person? They are rental property. They are rented to students at the University of Kentucky. So we built those five single family and then we decided we wanted to change the model for what we were doing here. We built five homes in the middle of the block or the upper middle of the block. And I guess my question is, if you started out with five single-family homes, why would you want to change in the middle of the block? And I know you're going to say parking, but that's not all of it. What's the rest of it? I don't know where you're going. If you will look on your page at my apartment community down the street, look at that parking lot. Well, I'd like to finish my question before you change venues. There's lots of availability for parking there. It was my intent to have them park on my parking lot for the apartments. Did you build those five individual homes? I built three of them. And what was your intent to park on those? They were going to park on the parking lot of my apartment complex that I have a block down the street. They parked their car and walked to school. I understand. So you built the five houses built there, and it was supposed to be all street parking. I built three. Okay, but there's five there now, right? There's five there now. My question is this, Mr. Anderson. We built five houses with a single-family zone. Now we're turning around and asking us to go from a medium density to a higher density, and you've given the reasons for that. Is it the fact that you can have more square footage for rental if you do the duplexes versus the single family? Or is it the fact that you can rent those easier than you can rent the single family homes? The single family would rent better if you had parking than the attached. The single family builds less expensively than the attached. The attached, you have to build the commercial code firewalls and all these different separations. It costs more to build the attached. Now, if you take three units and take three lots and put those together, it costs you more money, and it's a little bit less desirable as far as living, but it's more desirable because you can provide parking right there. You don't have to park down the street. Now, if you go to four, you're going to have a little bit more economies. You may pick up a small profit. Is that what you want here? So that's your reason for changing? No, it's not. I didn't think so. It's a better design this way is my reason. Okay. Thank you. That's why I had to know where you were going with this because most people don't change ships in the middle of the stream. It's a better way. That's the reason we change ships. Any other questions for the applicant? Mr. Penn, I just might add that we originally got about one hour away from filing this zone change just for Dennis' property on the end. and we realized Andy and Robert had this vacant parcel too, and we had an opportunity to work with them. We called them up and talked to them, and they said, yeah, it's worthwhile doing. So we stopped and redid our zone change before we filed it to include them on it. Mr. Wilson. I'm a little confused about the one issue that seems to be that you all are so close yet so far apart on and that's the density issue the medium density of earth it seems based on what i'm reading here you're close and what i'm hearing you cannot negotiate that well we felt like i'll use an example the university village which is the one that has 42 units an acre that wasn't residential on the comprehensive plan when we got the zone change back in 2001 it is now but when we got when we asked for a zone change, it was shown as retail. We came in and we said we thought in this location, having something walking distance from UK was real important to have it residential and something appeal to students. We got that zone change through. Everybody recommended approval of it. Here, similarly in this case, we feel that with the opportunity we have here, there's not many properties like this close to UK. We think it's worth having two or three units perhaps above what the strict reading of medium density would be because if we're going to do infill, which means a little higher density than normally allowed, we ought to do it here because of the walking distance to UK on that. We thought it was appropriate and that's why I looked at the historic patterns and what everything else has been coming in the last 10 years and everything else is higher density than this area. From a developer's standpoint, all the other lots are 125 foot deep. We jag that out. We create corners. We don't have a definitive layout on the rest of that property yet. We do intend to come and ask for a zone change. If we're successful, we're going to build apartment buildings on it. Those little jags always come back to haunt you. They create great inefficiencies in your parking or something. They just jump out and wear you out. So that was my reason for wanting to keep that line straight. Do we have other questions? There are a couple people here from the neighborhood who are in support of this. Okay. Do we have anyone in opposition of this? Let me ask that. Okay. Before I get to you, what I would ask, now that we're well into this, I didn't expect Mr. Murphy to supply such in-depth information. I don't know why, but it shouldn't have surprised me. But thank you. Let me ask for those in favor of this to come speak briefly. I wouldn't limit them to three minutes. If you would, please give us a name and address. My name is Carol West. I live at 1310 Southern Avenue. I think what these guys are doing is marvelous because our neighborhood, I mean, it really, really looked bad. Houses were falling apart and people going there, do their drugs and stuff, and they come in and bought all that property up. They have built better homes there. In fact, it's made our neighborhood look a whole lot better. and it's also going to make the value on our property school the way they're doing this. And I'll tell you, I really feel safe in my home with all these college kids up there. The cops come through our neighborhoods on bicycles and I've even seen them up there one time on horses. So I really appreciate it all and I am tickled to death. They're up there making it look a whole lot better because it don't look nothing like it used to. and I'm very appreciative of them doing it. That's all I've got to say. Thank you, ma'am. Others? My name is Casey Collins. I live at 1306 Southern Avenue. I like what they're doing. It does, it makes our neighborhood look a lot better. When I go to sleep at night, I know I'm safe. And the college kids, a lot of people say there are a lot of problems and everything. No, they're not. We have several that live on our street. I don't even have time to know that they're even there. I don't even hear them. And that has made our property values look a lot better. It's better than seeing houses all boarded up, drug activity. Since they came in there, to me, it's 190% better. Before, I didn't feel safe in that neighborhood. I wouldn't even walk out my door. Now, yes, I would. And I hope they keep it up, and I hope they keep doing what they're doing. Because to me, that's better than what I'm seeing now. I'd love to have one of them. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else to speak in favor of this? If not, we'll provide the same opportunity for those in opposition. We'll see if anyone else comes forward. Come ahead. Your name, please, and address. I'm Jenny Daly. I live at 136 Burley Avenue in the block just adjacent, one block down from the proposed development. If you don't mind putting up my first picture, I know you all have seen a lot, but I'm going to reference the neighborhood. I'm here to ask you that you deny the request for a zone change for this block and the development plan as well. First, the proposed zoning and development is inappropriate for the existing neighborhood. This neighborhood is already fairly dense. You get the picture. These are small lots with small cottages, small yards, mature vegetation, and gravel driveways. The proposed development retains no vegetation, paves the entire yard to accommodate added parking due to the higher density. Denser building and paving will result in increased runoff from the new and expansive impervious surfaces. And I just want to point out there are no storm sewers in our neighborhood. Higher density also increases car traffic in a walking neighborhood with narrow streets, lots of on-street parking, and no sidewalks. If you can imagine, this block, the subject block here, is at the headwaters. It's a dead end at the railroad tracks. It's the headwaters of our neighborhood. Adding 42 parking places, a lot of runoff, adding 42 cars. For those students to get out to go to job, visit friends, go home, whatever, they've got to come all the way through the neighborhood. So this really affects everybody in the neighborhood, not just that block, not just the local vicinity. Also, I know you spoke to being safe. Our neighborhood is safe now, and it hasn't been in the past. I wouldn't attribute that to the new housing. And, in fact, I'm afraid that this higher concentration of students at a dead end, adjacent to a railroad track, is really going to invite crime in an otherwise safe neighborhood. And so when I'm – do you want to put up that other picture? You can see how these, you've seen the pictures of their proposed houses next to what is the existing cottages. This is the block adjacent to that coming down towards my house. And you can see the road, the sort of way the yards kind of gravel into the street. You get an idea what I'm talking about, how increased traffic on this already dense little neighborhood, more density is not the solution. Second, it does not support the major goals. as I read the comprehensive plans and infill guidelines. The 2007 comprehensive plan outlines the need for more affordable workforce housing. This development is designed for student housing, which is not affordable. These students pay about four times as much as a single family would pay for one of these cottages. Plus, it tears down at least one existing affordable housing. They've already torn down two additional affordable housings. Since you mentioned the carbon footprint, I'll bring that up. The 2012 comprehensive plan asks us to reduce our carbon footprint. Teardowns and new construction, especially dense new construction, add waste unnecessarily to the landfill, thus increasing our carbon footprint. Also, trading the existing vegetation for parking lots makes the area hotter. Also, the 2012 Consprehensive Plan lists a goal of expanding housing choices. This development is designed exclusively for student housing, and it's unusable. It cannot be recycled as workforce or elder housing, thereby creating a limited market for this development over its lifespan. And I will tell you in these, correct me if I'm wrong, y'all, but they rent these, at least the existing houses that have been built in this block, are four-bedroom, four-bath, and they rent them out to the student by the bedroom. There's a small common living room, kitchen area. But that doesn't convert. A $2,000 price tag on that is not affordable housing in an affordable housing neighborhood. So it's not really recyclable. for, say, somebody who works at UK or St. Joe's, walking distance from there. In general, I feel that this infill is not sympathetic with the rest of the neighborhood in terms of scale, density, or function. Lastly, this development plan exceeds the density limit for the requested zone change. In this case, there is no compelling reason to allow a variance to the zone density restrictions. It does not benefit the immediate neighborhood, nor does it benefit the larger community goals, as I see it. It serves only the developer's desire to maximize profits, which there's no guilt in that, but that's a small portion of our community to serve. I fear that if you grant this today, it will set an unhealthy precedent for future development in my neighborhood. And as you've witnessed, they've told us what they want to do with the rest of that block. In my opinion, it's just not the right zoning or development for this part of our neighborhood at this time. And that's sort of the end of my prepared comments. I would love to rebut some of the things that Mr. Murphy has brought up. Should I do that later when you have comments, or do you want me to keep going? I'll give you, since Mr. Murphy took his length of time, I'll give you a few more minutes to make those rebuttals. Thank you. Mr. Murphy mentioned blight in the neighborhood and showed a boarded-up house right now. I will say, 20 years ago, when the Broadway corridor plan was implemented, there was extensive blight in the neighborhood. Now I feel that Anderson Properties is the cause of most of the blight in the neighborhood. They buy the houses. They run them into the ground. When they can no longer maintain them, they board them up, wait until they demolish them, and leave vacant lots which you've seen are overgrown and attract rodents. They're our problem, not our solution right now. You talked about owner-occupied. For one thing I want to call into question, you've got my house as rental on there, so I wonder how accurate your data is. But I'd also like to say that tenants don't necessarily mean transient. This is a longstanding historic neighborhood, and people have lived there, rented there their entire life. Students are the transients in the neighborhood. Also, you mentioned U.K. encroachment. And U.K. does not intend to hop the tracks at all. The 2050 Master Plan is not showing them coming past the railroad tracks or past Virginia Avenue. UK's new housing initiative, I predict, is going to alleviate the need for student housing in this area, which kind of circles back to can we recycle this housing as something besides student housing in the future if that need is not there. You mentioned the carbon footprint walking. This is a prime neighborhood for staff. I work at UK. I can walk to work. Students aren't the only ones who need to walk and who need the convenience. St. Joe, Lexington Clinic, they're all very close. And then lastly, you mentioned the development on Lower Broadway, the apartment complex that's going in there, and you referenced the agreement that it has with the city. That's a really different kind of project. It is higher density, but it's right at the intersection with Broadway, so these people do not have to travel through the neighborhood, the new tenants there. Also, the agreement with the city, this developer, it's not that this project is completely rosy, but I will say that the developer in the Lower Broadway apartment complex project is giving back to the neighborhood. At his own expense, he purchased three houses and is building the park himself. He's putting in between a quarter and a half a million dollars, giving back to the neighborhood in order to provide parking to expand his lot down there. I haven't seen that kind of generosity from these two developers in our neighborhood at all. So thank you very much for listening to me and for your consideration on this matter. Thank you. Hold on, Mr. Anderson. Anyone else that wishes to speak in opposition of this? If not, I'll move on to the rebuttal side, and I believe we just heard from the opposition. Mr. Murphy, any possible rebuttal? Or from Mr. Anderson, either one. Let's just, we do have time limits, so keep it brief. I wanted to defend myself about my charitable actions in the community. The Town Branch Trail was made available by a 24-acre donation from me. It was valued at $1.7 million. They used that to get a federal grant. It was enough to build the whole trail. Whether the city kept up with their end of it or not, I'm not for sure. But that's a sizable donation. I also gave the church next door half the land for their new church. I've given away millions of dollars. I have charitable contribution carry forwards because I've not been able to use the write-offs. I've not made enough money to use my charitable contribution write-offs. I find that a little offensive. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Murphy, anything else? The only other thing I'd point out is that the situation in this neighborhood is like this. when somebody wants to sell their property, they call Andy or Dennis or Robert and say, I'm ready to sell. That way they cut out the realtor, the seller doesn't have to pay a real estate commission, they know they'll get a fair price and a quick price on doing it, that sort of thing. Not that a realtor should be cut out, you know, okay? That is despicable. But it happens. But when every city has a double standard on code violations, a landlord has to be very careful with code violations here. A landlord cannot buy a property as it is, rent it out, put somebody in there. Unfortunately, a property owner may have been living in there. And as you all know, a property owner can live in their house, and it can be falling down around them. The electricity can be off in the summer, and there's no code violation cited because the owner is not going to call in a violation on himself. But if it's going to be used as rental property, that is critical. And the properties are not up to code. There's usually no choice that they have to be demolished in order to make a house which meets code and meets all safety standards. The reality is that students come over here looking for places to live because it's within walking distance of UK campus. They come over and look. The demand's much greater from students than it is from UK employees or people from other areas or not. And it's obvious it's because of the location here. This will be student housing, no matter if you grant this zone change or not. The only question is, as I said before, whether we're going to allow them to be attached or detached. And as I said before, I see no downside whatsoever to attaching these units. I'll see only plus because it lets you design it better. It lets you have them up against the street. It lets us have the parking in the back. Even the objectors, the objector mentioned problems with on-street parking and problems with no sidewalks. That's not going to be a problem here. We're doing sidewalks. We're going to have off-street parking for everybody on this one. So, again, we feel this is the appropriate thing not just for this property, but it's best designed for this neighborhood as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Does staff have any rebuttal? Ms. Wade? Yes, sir. First, I would mention that the historical development pattern, if you would look at the packet that Mr. Murphy handed out. He showed you the Lynn Grove addition subdivision plat as it was originally platted. But he also mentioned that in many cases, lots could be combined without changing the plat. So the density depicted on the plat is not the historical development platter. Many lots were combined, and the historical development density in this area is medium density. It's less than 10 acres. It's actually between a half and two-thirds of what was originally platted, if you compare it to his other graphic. In fact, the adjacent block on the original plat had 28 lots, but this graphic that he showed and was part of our zone change application shows 15 lots. So there's a big difference from what was originally platted in the historical development plattern in the area. As I mentioned earlier, I just want to reiterate, the density developed on the nearby locations are not comparable to the subject property, which is located at the back of a single-family residential area and is recommended for medium-density residential. The other property that was mentioned with the park swap is currently zoned R4, so they have the inherent right to build at a higher density at that location. And the other apartment building was rezoned, not in agreement with the comprehensive plan according to the applicant, and that would be why it was granted in a higher density designation. But it is not consistent with what the application that you see today is. Happy to answer any other questions the Planning Commission might have. Mr. Wilson, just a couple of questions. How many, I'm looking at this sheet and I got this color code and I forgot which is which, but how many people own their homes that live in this neighborhood? Is that the blue markings? Does this neighborhood have a neighborhood association of any kind, even though I know that most of the people that live there are renters? I'm not sure that they have a registered neighborhood association. I'll have to check the file. Did we have a letter? Do you remember? I can check the file and see if there was a registered neighborhood system. Well, I guess so. Normally when we have these issues that come up, we always go to the neighborhood and ask in a more concerted survey fashion, like if they approve, disapprove, and what have you. We didn't do that here, right? I would have to check the file. Let me grab the file. Ms. Blanton, is your question for Ms. Wade or someone else? Someone else maybe could answer it. Okay. One of my biggest questions and concerns with this density is drainage, storm and sanitary sewer issues. So I don't know if anybody can help me with what their concerns might be on that or what the problems might be. I would say probably Mr. Newman would be the best person to answer questions about drainage. As he's coming forward, did you find your answer? We did send one neighborhood letter to the nearest neighborhood association, which is the North Elizabeth Neighborhood Association. So that is probably the next neighborhood or two over. so this neighborhood does not have an organized association associated with it. What were the results of the survey that you sent out of the letter? We don't send a survey. We just send a letter notifying that association or multiple associations that there's a zone change in the vicinity. And in many cases, they'll contact the staff or the attorney associated with it and ask questions. Thank you. Mr. Newman? Yes, could you repeat the question? I'm sorry, I was distracted. I'm just wondering the impact with this increased density and the fact that we're replacing what I would guess were probably two-bedroom, one-bathroom homes with four-bedroom, four-bathroom homes, and then there was a testimony from a neighbor that there are no storm sewers. I'm just wondering what the ramifications will be for adding all those additional homes with additional bathrooms as well as the large paved parking area in the back? Of course, that's usually addressed with improvement plans for the subdivision. But from what I understand, they have plans to make use of low-impact development and best management practices with this plan, which could be like pervious pavement, possible underground detention if that was needed, or possible off-site detention, I guess, if they chose to go that route. So those things will be required before they can build this? Yeah, after, say, if the zone change is successful, then they'll follow up with a final development plan or i guess is this also a preliminary subdivision plan okay then their if this was approved then their next phase would be to prepare improvement plans that would detail that kind of information there would be a drainage report But I think the drainage from the site naturally goes back into that triangular area in the back. So just based on the contours there. Thank you, Mr. Newman. Other questions? Tracy, did you have anything to add? No? Okay. If there's no further questions, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion between the commission members and or motions. Ms. Phillips? No? Oh, you were moving. Okay. Any questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, Commission members, personally, I don't have any problem with this. I think that the R1T zoning is in agreement with the goals of the comprehensive plan, with the 2012 comprehensive plan, as well as with the 2007 comprehensive plan. And the parameters of density associated with the comprehensive plan land use map, I think, just guidelines. From 10 to 14 is a 40% increase in development density, but we're not talking about an increase of development density from a recommendation of two units per acre to 40 units per acre. I think that given this location, its proximity to the railroad tracks, attached single-family housing, which is more sustainable, which is more energy efficient, which is greener, lower carbon footprint, is a better use of this property than the single family that currently exists. I'm sympathetic to Ms. Daly's concerns, very, very empathetic with your concerns. We've had discussions, numerous discussions among commission members, about wholesale turning over of vacant lands in this community to student housing, and I don't think that's appropriate. I don't think that because the market calls for it, because there's a willing developer, that we should just concede lands like this. But in this instance, I think that this is probably a better use of the property. We've heard testimony that the residents do feel that it's an improvement to their neighborhood in terms of safety. My concern had to do with stormwater detention, and we just heard from Mr. Newman that it's going to be low-impact development with pervious parking areas and best management practices. So any concerns that I have in terms of developments, plan improvements, I think are alleviated. So I'll stop there. Mr. Penn? Ms. Phillips, are you making findings to overturn the staff? Is that what you're doing? I haven't made a motion. I just think maybe somebody ought to be writing some. But my question is this, Lynn, in response to yours. I thought Mr. Anderson made some good points about the parking. I certainly understand that. And I just have a real hard problem with just turning everything over that's within walking distance of the university to student housing. I think there's other needs out there that need to be fulfilled. Now, whether the market will accept them or not, I don't know. But the point that the one lady made that these are not convertible to traditional family housing, if the housing should go south, if the university should change its housing policy, I have some issues to whether these could be converged into single-family homes or not. That being said, we own a tobacco warehouse that's pretty close to where your development is right now. I've seen that whole area change and change drastically. The railroad track has not changed. It's either higher or lower, and it's been a place to either hold water or dam up water or let water come across. And it's still there, and it's still an issue, and we're still not addressing it. And every time you come back in with that square that you say you may not or may do, sooner or later we're going to have to pretend some water here. You can't just run everything to somebody else's property and then hope they're going to take care of it. And that's my problem with this development plan, is that we're running water down against the railroad into that triangle piece, and then we're going to take care of that when the next development plan comes in. And if that's going to be your development, then I'm going to be asking at the same time, you can't run it under the railroad because it's six foot high. So you've got to do something with it, and we're going to take care of that water, and this will definitely create more water. So I guess that's my comments on this. I'm struggling with this one. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, I think I can support this. It's mixed-type housing. a townhouse is the most compatible type of attached unit to a single family a lot of times they're even sold fee simple the same way that a single family house would sell and the fact that they're cleaning up the streetscape with the parking in the rear I think that's great and adding sidewalks I don't see any in those pictures I don't know if they're putting curbs down there. New curbs, are you? No? Okay. But sidewalks. And so I think it makes a better streetscape. And I think you can rent these to whoever wants to rent them. I mean, they're just townhouses. I mean, anybody can rent those. Somebody wants to work over there and rent one. It's a chance for them to rent a brand new one. And I will say that this is where American Avenue is where my great-uncle built his first house in 1923. So I kind of know a little bit about that a little bit. So that's all I have to say. Other discussion from anybody? I'll add Matthew Sinsworth. And overall, I'm not concerned about the extra density. I think overall it will improve the whole area. I am concerned as far as stormwater, as Mr. Penn mentioned, at some time, at some point, it's got to be addressed. There were a few comments as far as purvis pavers and so forth. that's yet to be seen, but when these plans do come through, anything we can do to help mitigate that will be greatly appreciated. And as I said, at some point in time, we've got to address the stormwater and where it goes. So at that point, if there's no further discussion, we're back to entertaining the motion. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion for approval of MAR 2012-9 for the reasons that I have here that I'd like to put over on the overhead. This is a modification of the justification that's provided by the applicant. and it is page 7 of the applicant's packet, and you can see that some things per our legal staff have been scratched. Should I read it? We have it on the overhead, and it's in the right. Tell us what's been scratched. Paragraph by paragraph. I gave my copy. What has been scratched is from paragraph 2A, the sentence that begins in 2001, has been scratched. The entire sentence has been deleted. under paragraph C on that first line. After the word between, scratch the single family, scratch all of the second line, and the first half of that third line, stopping at residential. Residential is included. So that would read, R1T zoning will serve as an appropriate transition between residential uses and the large KU substation located directly across the property on the south side of Burley Avenue. And then D will stand intact as well as B. And that's my motion. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Phillips. Let me ask just for clarification. of what was on page 6. You're not using? Okay. So simply page 7. Which would be as number 1, A, B, C, and D. So, motion's been made for approval of MAR 2012-9 Anderson Campus Rental Properties, LLC. Do we have a second? Mr. Craven's seconded it. So, if there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. I now need a motion for the ZDP 2012-31. As I did mention, we have seen we do have revisions. Yes, Mr. Chairman, move approval of ZDP 2012-31, the revised staff recommendations. With eight conditions, it looks like. Thank you. Motion's been made for approval. Do we have a second? Second. And seconded for the approval of ZDP 2012-31. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for coming. and we're going to take a five-minute break before we move on to the next plan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want you to know that. Thank you. Thank you. I'm out. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The discussion item is the Montessori High School of Kentucky's under-mapa amendment and barley tobacco growers. It's MARB 2012-10. It's on page three of your agenda, item number two. I think we do have several presenters from the staff on this with revisions, so we'll cover those as we get to them. I think Ms. Wade, you're first up. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. then this item can also be found in your notebook with a staff report behind tab 2. The request is to rezone property at 620 South Broadway from a wholesale warehouse business zone to a professional office zone for approximately two-thirds of an acre. And the property is situated on the southeast side of South Broadway, approximately 250 feet from the intersection of South Broadway and Bolivar Street. The existing zoning is B4, as I mentioned, and there is some other B4 properties in the vicinity, including some of the UK property and property on the other side of South Broadway, as well as the parcel that's being utilized for parking for the subject property. Other zoning categories within the area, the two parcels to the southwest are zoned P1 and have professional services uses. The Tally Ho building to the northeast is zoned B1 for a restaurant. And then across the railroad tracks, or what used to be the railroad tracks to the rear of the property, there is some residential zoning for what was a multifamily development. I believe UK is now utilizing that for their art department. South Broadway has a mixture of commercial uses in this vicinity, and this location is part of the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan. That was a small area plan adopted by the Planning Commission as part of the Comprehensive Plan. That plan specifically was adopted in 2003, and it became part of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property in order to utilize a portion of the building for a school for academic instruction. And they will be only utilizing about 2,000 square feet of the building. The existing owner and current user is the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association. And they've been at this location since approximately 1920. The building is a two-story structure with a basement, and the applicant will be remodeling or utilizing just a portion of the building, and the rest of the building will still be utilized by the Tobacco Growers Cooperative. The area, as I mentioned, is part of the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor, and that plan recommends professional services for the subject property as well as the two parcels to the southwest that are already P1 zoning. The small area plan also calls out a vision to create a vital part of the, for this area to become a vital part of the core of Lexington to exhibit a mixture of uses and to create a place where residents can live, work, and entertain themselves. in a network of neighborhoods. Since the petitioner is requesting P1 zoning for this location and the comprehensive plan does recommend professional services, the staff can find that it is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. Additionally, the petitioner's proposal will create a better mixture of uses in the area by adding the school use, thereby being supportive of the vision for the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan. Additionally, the petitioner's justification does state how important it is for this particular Montessori school to be located near the University of Kentucky's Department of Education, which they have a partnership with. Currently, the school is located on Rose Street, but they have experienced some parking and space limitations, and that's what's precipitating the move and finding this new location. There are several variances that are being requested with this application, which will be addressed separately, as well as consideration of Newtown Pike extension access and design standards. The staff and the zoning committee are recommending approval of this request for the two reasons listed on your agenda and on the staff report, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Thank you. If not, thank you. We'll ask who's next. If you do want to see photos, they're up here, but you may not need them. Mr. Chairman, the next presentation will be on the zoning development plan. Thank you. Ah, there he is, Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Excuse me, Chris. The zoning development plan, we've got revisions, which is on the green sheet. I'm sorry, Chris. Go ahead. The zoning development plan for this property is ZDP 2012-52, the Burley Tobacco Growers Montessori High School of Kentucky. Again, as Tracy mentioned, it is located at 620 South Broadway. The property currently has a roughly 23,000 square foot existing building on South Broadway. Roughly 2,000 square feet of it to be utilized for the school. there's an existing access point at this location on South Broadway one shared with the adjacent lot and a third one off-site here all three are supposed to be utilized as part of this development there is also an exit access through this property where the tolly hoe is out to ball of the boulevard into the light for easier left turns. The subdivision committee reviewed this plan and did recommend approval at its last meeting. The staff did have further discussions with the Division of Traffic Engineering about condition number 12, which was to discuss the need for access improvements and controls. The applicant had supplied to Traffic Engineering a copy of the circulation plan off of south broadway their first primary option for entry is at the second entrance with a drop-off location in this area of the building with an exit to either make right turns out or out to boulevard to use the light for a left turn the second option was to come in at the first exit for entrance and to drop off at the rear the building this circulation plan was accepted by the division of traffic engineering and they were comfortable with the limited scope of the development and the limited scope of the school as well as with the circulation pattern that they've proposed provided that the new condition addressed the maximum number of students as you can see is new condition number 11 to denote that the school use is limited to no more than 40 students traffic engineering felt comfortable with up to that many students it is more than what the applicant is currently proposing at 25 but this traffic engineering staff felt comfortable that 40 was where the line could be drawn to safely handle access and parking on the site the revised condition also talks about condition number 14 which was to discuss possible turn lane improvements if you can change slides for me the proposed newtown pike extension and again to orient you to this photo here's the tolly hoe here's the burley tobacco growers building south broadway boulevard and newtown pike extended south broadway continuing on up it's tough to see in this in this photo but what's important is that there's a proposed turn lane improvement through the center of south broadway all proposed improvements and right additional right-of-way proposed to come from the other side of south broadway in this area there are no proposed facilities or improvements to be done on this side in front of the subject properties access so the staff felt comfortable in deleting condition number 14 and the remaining condition number 12 is to denote the approval of variances to the vehicular use screen and parking, which Mr. Salih will cover. But if you have any questions on the development plan, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Mr. Penn? Chris, you talked about being able to go out behind Tally Ho to Bolivar. Is that an access easement? Is that a letter of agreement? Letter of agreement that we have in our file. It's a what? It's a letter of agreement that we have received from the ownership of the adjacent lot. Is that just for the Montessori use or is that for the Buried Tobacco Growers use? It's made up to the Montessori group at this time. It doesn't state to any other users. So we're granting an access easement? We're granting a thing based on the person that rented it, not on the basis of the use of the people that own the building? To my understanding, that's the way it was worded. I understand how it's worded. My question to you is, are we granting something that we don't have the ability to grant? Their primary access is off of South Broadway. I think what they were attempting to do was to have permission to affirm a safer access point out. There is not an access easement proposed on the plan, though. But it's a letter of agreement from Tally Ho. That's correct. Wouldn't we be safer to have that with the Burley Co-op than we would with the Montessori? Perhaps it would be a safer arrangement for any users of the building. I mean, I'll defer to anybody at the law or whoever else, But it seems strange to me to grant a use for somebody that rents 2,000 foot of a 26,000 square foot building. I mean, to me, that just doesn't make sense. You ought to be able to use it with people that use that building. And maybe I'm way off base here, Bill or Chris or whoever, but I don't understand this. I mean, maybe somebody needs to explain to me how we can grant an access easement for somebody that uses 2,000 square foot of a 26,000 square foot building. Mr. Penning, I think we've received it what's in essence a private agreement, and it's not technically, I don't believe, an access easement. I don't think the Commission is approving an access easement behind the Tally Ho with the application that's before you today. I do think if we were to see a development plan for this property that governs the entire building, we'd be having the same discussion about that sort of access agreement to serve the entire use. However, this is, to my knowledge, the first time the development plans come in. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, Chris, but we are trying to grant a zone change for a building, for a piece of property. We're not granting a zone change for the high school. We're granting a zone change for the property. So if you're going to grant the zone change for the property going from a B4 to a P1, logic would tell you that if you have an easement, forget the easement, if you have an agreement, it would be safer for us to have the agreement with the co-op than it would be just to have it with the high school. Understood. Other questions? Ms. Plumlee? Yes, Chris, left-hand turns are still permitted on Broadway. They're not prohibited, yes, ma'am. They still would be permitted. Okay, clarify that for me, Chris, because I've got a statement here that's got Jeff Neal's. It's to the tension of Jeff Neal, I guess. What is being said is that everybody concerned with Montessori, am I correct? Everybody concerned with Montessori will be limited to right in, right out only on South Broadway. There's no proposed signage on the development plan to restrict it. That reads like an agreement in an on-site maintenance and management agreement, not something denoted currently on the development plan. If that's part of Jeff's additional sign-off to be denoted on the plan through signage, that's something we would obviously include. Personally, I would think that would be needed, at least as far as Montessori is concerned. Ms. Blanton? It was my understanding in committee that the Montessori mentioned that there would be signage that said right turn only for the safety of their students and the drivers. But that was my recollection. Okay. We might get it clarified as we continue on then. Any other questions for Mr. Taylor? No? Okay. So who's next? Mr. Selle. Sally? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The items I have to present to you today are all under tab 2. There are three items. There's our original staff report on the variances. There is a supplemental staff report on the variances, which is a blue sheet, and then a legal size sheet that is titled Staff Exhibit Findings for All Variances. If you look at the agenda on page 3, item B, you'll see that three weeks ago at your zoning committee, the staff had an approval recommendation on the parking variance and a postponement recommendation on the landscaping variance. Since that time, the Landscape Review Committee has met, and our supplemental report outlines the discussions that occurred with the Landscape Review Committee about the landscaping variances. There are two variances proposed by the applicant as part of the zone change. The first is a parking variance seeking to reduce the required parking from 62 spaces to 31 for this property. The second is to reduce the required vehicular use area screening from 5 feet to 0 feet. Article 18 requires that when a change of use is proposed on a property, such as the case with the zone changes before you with some of the office for the Burley Tobacco Cooperative going to educational and school use, that a landscape buffer be provided along the perimeter of the property adjacent to the paving of five feet in width, and that in that buffer there be a tree every 40 feet and either a continuous hedge, planting wall, or earth mount. And it is those requirements that the applicant is asking the Planning Commission to consider granting a variance to. Of note, if that requirement were fully implemented according to the bounds of the plan that Mr. Taylor just showed you, staff estimates that there would be about a 25 percent tree canopy provided on the site. The parking variance is requested, and what is ironic to the staff is that the proposed use will actually result in a required parking of about four spaces less than the current use, just because the generator for a school is not as high as square footage for office use. Of note to the staff, also, the parking immediately to the north and east of the subject property that's not part of the zone change is available to the applicant. It's controlled by the applicant. They currently lease about half of those 38 spaces to the restaurant for their use, but they still retain the use and the ownership of the other 19 spaces. South Broadway does have existing sidewalks. So it is somewhat walkable, although walking from this property to the west, you do encounter the underpass, which is a pedestrian challenge. The zoning committee asked about bus availability at this location at the zoning committee meeting. And the diagram, or I should say the photo that's on the screen, shows the approved bus stops currently in existence. There's one very near the corner of Bolivar and South Broadway, this location, and then directly right across the street from the subject property, which is here. So there is bus service available here as well. The staff and your zoning committee have recommended approval of the parking variances. Excuse me, Bill, can you show us again? Your pointer was so faint. Sorry. Sorry. This is Bolivar. This is South Broadway. Here is the proposed location for the new extension of Oliver Lewis Way. The subject property is here. And the existing bus stops are here, just in front of the Tally Ho restaurant, and then directly across the street on South Broadway at Chair Avenue here. We believe that this is an anomaly, according to the database. right in the middle of the road there. The supplemental staff report deals with the landscaping variances. At the Landscape Review Committee, the applicant was very concerned about the expense and the timing of installing the required landscaping. From the staff perspective, there are some challenges to implementing the required perimeter landscaping. here along this property line this building is a very tall building very few feet from the property line even if the landscaping were installed there it would be very challenged and we're not sure would survive that environmental condition along the rear of the property you can see there is a green space this was a former railroad spur that is now controlled by the university of kentucky and is proposed in the future to be a greenway so really the utility of the landscaping there is not that great in the staff's estimation. On the other side property line here, this installation here would go right through the middle of the parking lot and would make it extremely difficult for the vehicles to move in and out of the site safely and, again, would probably compromise the ability of the landscaping to survive. There was one potential location, though, from the staff perspective that was shared by the members of the Landscape Review Committee, and that is in the front of the property. And we do have another exhibit to show you of the front of the property between the building and South Broadway. The committee did think, along with the staff, that there was an opportunity to plant some hedges in this existing grass area and two trees in each of the islands that currently exist on the property. The timing of the installation and the size of the material was also discussed by the Landscape Review Committee members that were present, and there was some thought given to the fact that they would agree as part of the landscape variance to allow smaller-than-usual material to be planted, both for a cost-saving impact for the applicant, but more also their timing restrictions. The members thought that this could also possibly be made part of the curriculum of the school for the students, either to be involved with the planting or certainly the maintenance of the material. If smaller-than-usual plantings occur, for instance, the caliper of the trees not being the ordinary one-and-three-quarter inch but something smaller like one inch, then they will need more limbing and more maintenance so that there is not a conflict with the vehicles that drive underneath them. So that was all discussed two weeks ago at the Landscape Review Committee meeting. The staff has, on our supplemental staff report, provided findings for approval of the requested landscape variances. And if I could direct you to the top of page two, item D, strict applications of the requirement of the zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary and undue hardship to the applicant. And then further, the installation of a fully compliant perimeter landscape buffer would not permit a reasonable use of the subject property as the main drive aisle in the parking lot would become bifurcated and not permit vehicles to safely enter and exit the existing parking spaces. This finding is significant for the Commission to waive the tree canopy requirement of 25 percent for the property, so I did want to point that out for the record. The staff is recommending seven conditions associated with both variances. The first four appear on your agenda and on the original staff report, that is, provided the Council rezones the property, that a note be added to the development plan, and that prior to any construction, proper permits should be issued. Conditions 5, 6, and 7 are a result of the landscape review committee meeting. dealing with the recommendation that ties to the graphic that's on the overhead. That is that six trees shall be planted on the front half of the property, at least one inch in caliper at the time of their planting. Again, that is a little more than half the usual size. Condition number six, hedges shall be planted in the existing grass area immediately adjacent to the sidewalk, a minimum of 12 inches in height at the time of planting. That is about two-thirds of the normal size. and then seven, a recommendation from the members that it be considered as part of the curriculum for the new school. Your zoning committee did recommend approval of both variances. Before Mr. Emmons presents the Newtown Pike ordinance report, which will be the last staff report I hope today for you, I'd be glad to answer any questions about our variance reports for you today. Questions, Ms. Planton? A question about the hedges. So they're right alongside the sidewalk? My concern is, are cars coming, are the drive lanes on either side, and is that going to present a problem for drivers to see pedestrians as they're entering and exiting the property? Very good question. Of course, a 12-inch hedge, a type of planting, would not be. This type of planting under Article 18 is required to be a low planting that would block vehicle headlights but not grow above that and provide the site triangle issues. Other questions? If not, it's Mr. Emmons time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. The staff report that I'm going to present to you today is also located in your notebooks. It's on the pink staff report. For those commission members that don't know me, my name is Jimmy Emmons. I'm a senior planner for the Board of Adjustment and in film redevelopment. For those commission members that do know me, I guarantee this will be the most expedient presentation of a five-page staff report that you've ever seen me give. With that in mind, if the Commission could turn your attention to page 5 of that staff report at the conclusions, the Newtown Pike ordinance requires access and design guidelines. It's an ordinance that was passed by the Urban County Council in 2009, and it applies to certain properties that are along the Newtown Pike and South Broadway corridor areas for this project. There are a total of 13 categories of provisions in that for design that cover building exteriors, parking, site design, pedestrian accommodation. For this particular project, I think it's quite clear now that the applicants are proposing no real physical change to the existing site development. and they're proposing to move into an existing building, keep the existing parking lots. With that in mind, the staff has reviewed each of the recommendations and found that most of the standards are not applicable, as that they were written with the intention of new development along this corridor. A couple of note that are applicable, that the applicant is meeting, would be the provision for bicycles. They are proposing to put in the required bicycle racks near the entrances to their facility. And as Bill has gone over the landscaping, as proposed in the landscaping variants, that landscaping would meet the provisions of the design guidelines in the Newtown Pike Corridor. The staff is recommending approval. As you can see under our necessary revisions for this plan, the staff did not find that the applicant needed to revise their plan at all in order to comply with the standards of the Newtown Pike corridor. We are recommending approval with some provisions for future amendments, future signage, future lighting, and future changes in the dumpster location, should that ever occur. occur so that those would be notes on the plan to alert reviewers that if those things change, that it will require a re-review of these Newtown Pike standards. And if the applicants were to propose a revised development plan at any time, they would also have to do that. The staff is recommending approval for the two reasons listed on your staff report and subject to the three conditions, A, B, and C. The first condition being that if there is a revised development plan in the future, that a re-review of these standards will be required. That concludes the staff presentation on the Newtown Pike design guidelines. If you have any questions about those, I'd be happy to answer them, and I do believe that concludes all of the staff presentations on this piece of property. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Emmons? Thank you. Thank you. And at this time, we'd ask to hear from the applicant. Good afternoon. My name is Janet Shedd. I work at the Montessori High School, and our board president, Jennifer Peterson, is also here with us. We just want to say that we've been very involved with this process with the staff, and we definitely will comply with all of the recommendations. and if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. Thank you. Mr. Pym? How long term are we talking about here? We're zoning a building. We're changing the zoning of a building for 2,000-square-foot use of a 26,000-square-foot building. My question to you is, is this another temporary place? Do you see this as a long-term solution? Time-wise, how long do we think this will be in use? That's a good question. It's a good question. We're intending on signing at least a three-year lease at this point. And part of the reason it's so attractive to us is its proximity to the university's Department of Education. So we really can't get a much better space than this that we know of at this point. So I would think it would be relatively long-term. Have you talked to the folks at the Burley Co-op about the landscaping and the needs of that? Are they aware of that? They're not aware of that at this point, but we are going to make them aware of that, and we are planning on handling some of that ourselves. We're looking into grants to pay for that. And as was mentioned, we want to make this part of our curriculum, so it's likely our students will be doing the plantings and maintaining them. I may have a follow-up, but I'll stop at that. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Planton? We talked earlier about right turn only, and I believe when you were at our committee meeting last month. Were you not at our committee meeting last month? I thought that you had mentioned that there would be right turn only. Is that correct? I said we could do that, but I don't know what the rules are for putting up signs. But we were going to tell our families that was the only option. What we have proposed to Mr. Neal was that we would state in our handbook that you are only allowed to make a right turn into the property and a right turn out of the property as shown in those traffic plans. Other questions? I have a question. A couple of times it's been mentioned as far as the proximity close to the University of Kentucky with the Department of Education and so forth. But reason for the wanting to be close, are there interaction going on? Yes, we're in a working partnership with the College of Education. So we use a lot of their resources, Internet, library access. We work closely. The dean of the College of Education is actually on our board of directors. So who will be going back and forth, students or just? The students and the teachers. And then also, hopefully, staff from the U.K. coming over to ships and stuff. What's the primary source of transportation? Walking. Walking. Okay. All right. Right now, 25 students? Mm-hmm. We're limiting it to up to 40? That's what we're hoping. Yeah. Up to 40? We have 21 right now. Yeah. Okay. How many employees? Well, we have like 12, but most of them are part-time. We only have two, three full-time. The rest are all part-time. Okay. During the school day, how many employees are going to be there? Well, at one time, four or five maybe. Okay. All right. Other questions? Okay. All right. Very good. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? Seeing none, I'll... Unless any other questions from the commission? I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motions. Mr. Penn? I don't know why my antenna is up on this, but it is. Part of it is that I've known that the Burley Co-op my whole life, that's been my life, is tobacco production. And if they're going to do this and they're going to change the zone of their building, which is a benefit to them, I don't understand why they're not involved in the zone change, number one, and number two, why they're not the ones to put the plantings in because they're getting the zone change and you're putting it on their property, and you all are willingly accepting that. So I kind of get a – I don't know what kind of relations you have with the Burley Co-op, But my concern here is that if this is going to be an ongoing situation and we're changing a B4 to a P1, which is definitely to their advantage, I don't understand why they're not involved in the zone change. Basically what's happened with the Burley people is that we dealt with the zone change with their office manager, Brian Furnish, and he has resigned to take another job. So Roger Quarles, who's the president of the co-op, is also, you know, we had to sign off for this. He's very much behind it, but his hands are kind of busy right now trying to figure out what to do. So that's just something we haven't had a chance to talk to him about yet. Most of our dealings were through Brian. I understand. But you understand where we are. You know, we're rezoning a building and land in a parking lot. Yes. for 2,000 square feet that may be leased for a few years, and yet they're not down here requesting a zone change, and we're talking about putting things on their property that the renter is going to have to put on, and that's just not normal. Well, no, I'm not saying that we'll have to put them on. We don't know that. We just haven't talked to them about that yet. All right. Thank you. Ms. Phillips? Just in response to Frank's point, I was looking for the zoning ordinance. We usually have a copy of the zoning ordinance here that we can make reference to, but I think that the P-1 zoning is probably more appropriate for that land use. The existing as well as the Montessori would not be allowed there. So I think that the Burley Tobacco Growers Association is going to be better off. They are. That's my point. The point is they should be involved in this, and they all do the landscaping because they're the benefit of this. and I want it done right. I don't want to put in there that's just going to be there and die. I mean, that's my point. I may be taking it farther than I ought to take it, but I've been on both sides of that fence, and this just strikes me as a situation that they ought to be able to take. Ms. Mundy? I have to agree with Mr. Penn. I have a real problem with granting a zoning change to someone who is not the property owner. I mean, I feel like the property owner ought to have some skin in the game. It's their property, and I just have a real problem granting a zoning change to someone who is not a property owner. If I were the property owner, I wouldn't like it if one of my tenants were changing the zoning on it. Yes, ma'am. The KRS actually does not allow a tenant to rezone someone's property without their permission. The applicant today, as many applicants in the past have had, the permission of the owner to move forward. So the only way that a zone change can move forward without an owner's permission is if the council or the planning commission initiates that. So the owner, the Burley Tobacco Group, has given permission to this particular tenant, and they are aware they're asking for a P1 zone, and the P1 zone is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Mr. King? I was just going to comment. You probably have as many zone changes where an applicant is not the owner as you do ones where the owner is actually the applicant. So it's not an uncommon thing. But as Tracy just said, they do have to have the written permission of the owner to proceed. But Chris, may I respond to that? Yes, yes. But we're asking the tenant to put an improvement on the property that the owner doesn't know or agree to or anything else. And my point is that I don't understand why we got this far. I mean, Brian left, and I know him well. Roger is there. He's been there forever. My question is, if this is something we're going to ask them to do, and I'd like to do the landscaping, I just have a problem asking the tenant to do the landscaping on the landlord's property without his approval. I think that's a problem. Well, in the end, I think the landowner will have to give that approval, or they will withdraw their permission for this to proceed. At this point, you are just setting what the plan would be in order to do this. They'll have to sign off on it. Yes, I believe they will. They will have to sign the development plan, those types of things. And also these conditions are required to be on the development plan. And in addition, the conditions are structured for the landscaping to where it can be installed either by the owner or the tenant. Thank you for the information. Other questions? I have one and I'm up for sure if it would be for, I guess maybe for the staff at this point. We were talking about the access on the South Broadway. The applicant is saying in their handbook they're willing to put in that it's right in, right out only. and I thought I heard something as far as during zoning committee that there's the possibility of putting it on the development plan and I thought Chris Taylor made mention of that in his presentation. Is it possible to include that in the development plan, that it would be right in, right out only? Gee, I had staff jumping up and down a moment ago. I don't have anyone now. Oh, Mr. Neal's coming. There he is. Yes, you can add something. I just wanted to add, this is how we got to the conversation about the easement off of Bolivar, is to try to discourage parents from trying to make that left turn. They'd go up to Bolivar and then hit the right. Sure, which I appreciate very much. Yeah, since this is a unique situation with such a small tenant going in here, we didn't want to restrict everyone to right in, right out, since most of the people using those access points will actually be the ones that have been there for years. Sure. And I was out there this morning, and there are gaps at times on South Broadway because the signal's on either end. So if they want, I think it's a great idea to have it in their handbook. But as far as signing it, we can sign it or not, but I prefer not to at this point. Okay. I'm just in a situation, you know, no pun intended, but we've been down this road before, and as we're trying to make improvements on South Broadway, this seems like a good time to try and make an improvement. And from what we're hearing now, it sounds like there's going to be a turning lane in front of this property for the Newtown Extension, Alvaro and Lewis, whatever you want to call it, at some point in time. And now somewhere down the road asking someone to turn across three lanes of traffic is just adding to the chances of an accident occurring. And if we've got a development plan before us, it seems like an appropriate time to improve the situation as far as I'm concerned. Well, the guidance in their handbook is typical to what we see on some of the public schools. When we ask for a circulation plan, they will send that out to the parents and say come in from this direction and leave this direction. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, discussions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. As far as motions, we've got several of them. The first motion we would need would be for the zone change itself, which is on your agenda as MARV 2012-10. Mr. Chairman, I'd be willing to make that motion. I'm glad you clarified because I was concerned about the ZDP-2012. We'll get to that part in a moment. Okay. Well, I move that we accept the motion MARV 2012-10 Montessori High School of Kentucky for the zone change of B-4 to P-1 and with the conditions set forth by staff. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the zone change MARV 2012-10. It was seconded. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up. Motion passes. The second motion that we need would be for the variances, staff findings on the white sheet. One motion would cover both of them. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I would move that the variances, parking variances, 50% reduction from 62 to 31, and also with the approval of landscape variances with the conditions set forth by staff for both items. Thank you. Motion has been made for approval of the variances. Do we have a second? Thank you. Second. I think Ms. Phillips beat you, Mr. Penn. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. The next motion that we would need would be for the Zoning Development Plan, which is on your green sheet. We're covering all the bases today. Colors. That's ZDP 2012-52 with 12 recommendations, conditions. Okay. Mr. Chair, continuing on, I ask for approval of ZDP. P. 2012-52 Burley Tobacco Growers, in parenthesis, Montessori High School of Kentucky, with the 12 conditions set forth by staff. Motion's been made and seconded for approval. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. The last one would be in reference to our pink sheet in regards to the Newtown Pike design guidelines. ZDP 2012-52 with the staff recommendations that's listed on page 5. Mr. Chairman, so moved. Motion's been made and seconded for approval subject to the staff recommendations. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That's his job. According to parliamentary procedures, the Chair's job. Mr. Chairman, this one is not eligible electronically. We have a three-vote limit. I think we're okay on this. I hope we are anyway. Can you state the motion? Motion's been made to follow the guidelines of the staff on the Newtown Pike design guidelines, which you've got recommendations on page five for reasons for approval. The applicant has demonstrated significant compliance with a few applicable MPE standards for this proposal. The applicant has provided a reasonable justification with their request noting which design guidelines are not applicable because the applicant is not modifying the existing structure or lot and it's subject to ABC conditions. And, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what I said. I thought so. I'm sure the second follows. So if you can put it up on the screen, we'll vote on it. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. All of those that are in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you for your patience with the staff. We do have one more item on our agenda, which is on page four. Under staff items, it's number A, the colony neighborhood zone change initiation request for an ND1 overlay. I've got one. Chairman Owens, the staff distributed a map for the Planning Commission to review, And then I handed out something that one of the neighbors brought in that they wanted distributed early so that there wasn't a lot of reading during their presentations. This is a ND1 overlay zone request that has been requested by the Old Colony Neighborhood, which refers to themselves as Residence, Inc. and that area associated with the neighborhood association encompasses 72 parcels within the colony neighborhood. On our old zoning map here, the colony is located on the south side of Versailles Road, just inside of New Circle Road. That interchange is located here. And the access to the colony is on Versailles Road, very near where Bordeaux Drive also intersects with Versailles. The streets associated with this area, there's four parcels along Versailles Road, Colonial Drive, Standish Way, a few parcels on John Alden Lane, and then Mayflower. The neighborhood has done the required study, and I believe that that's at your seat. They appeared at the zoning committee also three weeks ago, and the staff did the required mailing associated with an ND1 request to the 72 properties and received about two-thirds of the postcards back. Of those that responded, 67.5% were in favor of the three restrictions proposed by the Neighborhood Association, and 32.5% were opposed. The map you'll see also indicates one parcel is on the National Register as a landmark property, and it is situated in the middle of the neighborhood there. And the reason I bring that up is because Article 29 of the zoning ordinance actually prohibits including a property if it's been listed on the National Register as part of a district. This particular parcel is not really part of a district, but I believe that may have been the intent of the ordinance was to not add layers if something's already listed on the National Register that it wouldn't have an ND1 restriction as well. In this case, the applicant or that particular property owner is in support of the request, and I'm not sure that the restrictions are run contrary to National Register requirements since they deal with accessory structures in terms of size, front yard fencing, and floor area. But the ordinance itself doesn't restrict a landmark property from being included, only a district itself from being included. I think that's a matter of interpretation, and if the Planning Commission wishes, we can exclude it from the area. The only other thing I would mention is that the staff was contacted yesterday about one property that was inadvertently not included in the neighborhood's request for the neighborhood ND1, and unfortunately this wasn't brought to our attention until yesterday. At that late time, it wasn't possible to send out a letter and postcard to the property to find out if they would be in support or not. And one of the neighbors did contact the property owner, but they were not willing to agree in terms of signing a letter saying that they would be part of the boundary at this late date. Actually, the situation is it's a vacant lot and they don't live there currently, so I believe they're not willing to sign the restrictions having not been involved with the process. I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time. And the applicants or the requesting neighborhood has done neighborhood meetings. They've done a neighborhood survey and provided those responses to us. Mr. Wilson? A question about the survey on the response sheet on the green sheet here seems to suggest that what it says, 67.5% supported, but in the survey they had options too. They could either say they approved one or disapproved the other. Correct. So did they, am I to interpret this as meaning that 67.5% approved all the options and 32.5% said no to all the other? Yeah, this is the postcard responses, so the staff's postcard doesn't give the option to check yes or no to different ones. The survey that you see is what the neighborhood sent within to gauge support before they brought it to the to the planning commission and the staff so the responses to the to that survey they were able to line item whether they supported fences whether they supported the floor area ratio or the accessory structures in the responses it appeared that they were more supportive of the fencing restriction, slightly less supportive of the FAR restriction, and then, again, slightly less supportive of the accessory structure. It appears they had 29 households respond. 72% of the responses were in favor of fencing. 65.5% were in favor of the floor air ratio requirement. and 48% were in favor of the accessory structures. And that's the survey that the neighborhood did. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, how many respondents didn't respond? I guess, I mean, that's kind of, I said that backwards, but how many of these properties didn't respond either way in this legend without me counting them all. I believe 24. Okay. 24? Mm-hmm. And out of what's the total? 24 of 72. So one-third did not respond, exactly one-third. All right, 72 are the total amount of properties? Yes. Okay. Other questions for Ms. Wade? Mr. Penn? Tracy, refresh our memory on the process here. We're asked to initiate this, walk us through the rest of the process so we understand what we're doing here. Okay. If the Planning Commission chooses to initiate a zone change for the ND1 overlay, the staff will begin the process of preparing the application by preparing a map, a general application page, doing the mailing to the property owners, as well as any property owners within, at this point, 400 feet of the area to be rezoned, and then establishing a hearing date for that. and then it will follow the same process as a zone change. It will go to zoning committee and then come to the full planning commission. At zoning committee, the staff would have a written report about the standards proposed by the neighborhood association and that the hearing you would vote on. We have tried to also provide information about whether there's any nonconformities in the neighborhood in association with the restrictions proposed. Other questions for Ms. Wade? If not, do we have a representative from the neighborhood that's asking for this? Mr. Hart is here to represent the Neighborhood Association. Thank you. This is also, my name is Mike Hart. I'm a past president and the current ND1 chairman. Mr. Bozart is the current president of the Neighborhood Association. we're going to pass out a letter that we just recently received since filing the application from Clyde Carpenter, FAIA, and a known expert in historic preservation. One thing before I get started, I'll try to be brief. I'll take my cue from Mr. Timmons. The property that we're speaking of, and we have a unique neighborhood that was left off. is not familiar with the colony and I've made references in some of our to the old colony we Residence Inc is more or less termed the old colony we also the entrance for the new colony and also within there there's the original home place which is not the heat leaf that's been referred to but it's Tom or the Sturgill house and Tom I think once he sold his house that once he took over his father's house, he then divided that lot into three pieces. And that is one of the lots that we're talking about that is actually listed on John Alden. And it has just, I think, changed hands within the last 30 days. And this is the owner we're referring to. And it's been an issue from the beginning whether or not Tom Sturgill's house, because he wrote all these original restrictions, whether it was listed in, because Sturgill's house is not listed in Indy 1. Am I correct? And this was a part of his original lot. So we would have listed it if we could have. It's been a – because the neighborhood is chopped up. We have Chinquapin, and we also have Parker's Landing, and all of that was originally. So we're referring to the old colony. I want to read – we're 71 homes. We're in the entrance of the Versailles Road corridor. and if you refer to the second page on Dr. Professor Carpenter's letter, the colony has been described as a place of integrated diversity where the design and placement of houses in the landscape create a unified environment of diverse integrity, wherein individual structures display mutual respect for the overall image and character of the neighborhood. This has been achieved through design principles found in the work of the nationally known Frederick Law Olmstead firm who advocated streets designed to follow the contours and terrain of land and buildings carefully sited to maintain unity of placement on individual lots so as to respect the prevailing streetscape for the neighborhood. The result is a beautiful enclave which has great integrity as a place and which is certainly worthy of preservation. We started this process, as you can imagine, almost three and a half years ago. And it's gone on through several administrations, and our first step was to obviously discuss the possible restrictions within the program of ND1. Isolate the issues that were to be addressed in the process and eliminate those issues that were easy. And, for example, as Mr. Carpenter stated, integrated diversity. A lot of the things in the ND1 just didn't relate to the colony, so they were easy to get rid of. The next cut that we had to deal with, and this goes to our extreme and integrated diversity, real concerns were voiced dealing with building setbacks, lots of divisions, and this was probably one of the impetuses that started this four or five years ago, is when people were buying lots, putting two or three houses on them, and this was a real fear in the colony. It was interesting at this point, and someone that actually is not for this overlay, that myself and Tom Wade, then President and Vice President, we met with Mr. Walt Whitlow. And we discussed, because at that point he had problems with this process. We got with him, and one thing we found out that was the most informative thing about that meeting was we really didn't understand the R1A and the restrictions that we already were under. Once we, because we've only got three restrictions that we're proposing to you, once we learned what those were, we were able to really basically focus on the three that are in our application. During this period, we started with the anti-fencing. I think you saw within the surveys that we're talking about that that was one of the more, I guess, issues that resonated with our neighbors. We had a fence constructed. Unfortunately, we did not bring that picture with us today, but it was a fence constructed out of material on a corner lot that you buy at Southern States. This obviously created a lot more buzz in the neighborhood. At that point, the ND1 was on track, full one. We then did our survey that you were referring to, Mr. Wilson, 2010. We tried at that point to just see what percent of the neighborhood. The board of directors in this whole process always tried to stay extremely neutral because it was a contentious issue. At that time, as we can see, 74% in some form or fashion were for it. So that's when we moved ahead with our application, and that's what you got today. And I think, again, I'm going to end my comments with another line from Professor Carpenter's letter. I applaud the decision of the residents of this neighborhood to apply for ND1 overlay zoning to ensure that the integrated diversity and the diverse but unified integrity of this special place will be maintained. The three crucial design goals cited in the application of ND1 designation are, in my judgment, very appropriate. And with that, got questions? Thank you, Mr. Mr. Hart, I'm sorry. Any questions for Mr. Hart at this point? Mr. Finn? I'm making the assumption that a big percentage of these homes in the colony are owner-occupied. Is that a correct assumption? That's true. They're owner-occupied, and, Mr. Finn, we are also going through a transitional period where, like every neighborhood, there's several now that are unoccupied. The owners are out of state. You know, decisions are being made. We've an older neighborhood that's also lost residents. We've had a real, we visit people at the Lafayette today. So we have several neighbors there, and we have houses that are unoccupied. But a lot of the, like the fence, for example, is erected at a residence that is being rented. What would be the average lot size in the colony? It's an acre, just over an acre, the average. Well, we've been down this road before, and it always concerns me not to initiate one of these. That's the easy part. What we're going to do here today is, I mean, that's the easy part. The tough part is when it comes time to have the hearing, and then you have just as many people down here that don't want it as you have that do want it. it puts us in a situation that's really hard for us to deal with. And so what I'm trying to figure out today is, have you done enough homework? Do you feel confident enough that you can come down here with a proposal that the staff has spent time and effort on, that we can get enough support that it's worth us doing this? I can say confidently yes. What happened, and this is the attitude that we took, When the postcard, because we took the survey, and each step along the way, we wanted to make sure that we had what we felt a solid backing of the people, property owners. Well, when the postcard came out, there was definitely a campaign that was, for whatever, opposed to it. We met, and we have not done anything to, we wanted a genuine and real response. And that's what we got. And we took the attitude of making sure that people knew they needed to send their postcard in for or against it. And I haven't seen all that. But going back to the survey, I think our biggest job at this point is to further educate our neighbors on what ND1 is. And I can only quote one response, which hopefully you can find interesting. A lady, she's opposed to it. I assume she opposed it on a postcard. But her comments were, I wish there was another way to get rid of these fences and accessory buildings other than ND1. Now, she's 80 years old, and we're going to have to deal with that. But she wants the fence gone, and she wants the accessory structures, but she doesn't like ND1 because there's a government connotation. So I think in that process, I think we've got a job, but I'm confident that we can do that because at this point, people are becoming more open about we did not want to pressure anybody. We didn't want to go out and say, oh, you've got to be for this and that. Actually, there's been a campaign for that on the other side. So we decided we'd go the upper road, and what you see is what we got. So I'm confident that will happen. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, are there any deed restrictions? No, not. That's why I said we're in an interesting place. We have the R1A. There is another little caveat, and I'm actually one of the people that live on the tail end of Colonial Drive that was actually put in when the Chincampan was developed. So we do have, but we're not eliminated from ND1. We actually have some fairly stiff restrictions. But the rest of the deal, everything is voluntary. You can look at our votes, too, sometimes go right down because we do not have the ability to maintain a, what is it, homeowners association dues. That's all voluntary. Say that again. What part of them are covered by deed restrictions? Four houses are. That would be under the Chinquapin deal, but we face colonial draft. Okay. And that's just, there was a lot of different, and of course, everyone that comes into the new colony, and that was, it was interesting, Walt Whitlow, who was president at the time, wrote and authored the deed restrictions for the new colony. And they probably complained the most because they're under some pretty stiff restrictions. Let me ask this, show of hands, everyone in the audience would like to speak on this today. Okay, thank you. Let us continue then. One, if we don't hurry up, we'll have more. She's got twins. She's very close too, so we should be careful. We could deliver before this is over with. If she needs to come first, we'll let her come first. We'll let her go first for safety reasons. That's right. That or let me go with any that wish to speak in favor of this, and then we'll go to the opposition side. I think, Mr. Chairman, we've got – we'll have – most everyone here is in favor, and I don't think it's going to be a problem if you let the other ones go because I think – Okay. I don't need to get everyone out of the free. That's fine, and we may cut this somewhat shorter since this is just initiation. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Perry Bozarth, and I am the incumbent president of the Residence, Inc., Homeowners Association of the Colony. It is a pleasure that you initiate this with us. We have worked on it for three years. Mr. Penn asked about present deed restrictions. No, we do not have deed restrictions. From my understanding is the subdivision was developed in 1947, and I understand that those restrictions ran out 30 years after that in 1977. So the majority of the homeowners are not under any deed restrictions. We are not a mandatory dues-paying people. The monies that we do receive, we do keep up the islands, the lights. We pay our own utilities. We do our own mowing. We do our own landscaping. And it's a piece of paradise in the middle of a very hectic quarter. and I would hope that you would send this on for initiation and approval to maintain the integrity and the presence of the beauty that's in Lexington. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Buzarth. Others? Anyone that wishes to speak, please come forward. Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission, their staff and fellow members and neighbors and friends, it's a difficult position to be here today as the lone one, I believe, speaking in opposition. But as you might imagine, it's very uncomfortable for many to feel as if they want their vote known. When you live in a neighborhood where you're close and have friends, it can be a difficult time. I first moved into the colony. Yes? Excuse me. Give us your name, please. I'm sorry. I am Jennifer Hamm Blakely. I moved to the colony with my parents in 1968, Rosemary and Frank Hamm, and am proud to live in that home now with my husband, who cannot be here today because he's totally disabled from a service in Afghanistan. So I'm speaking not only for him, but also Walt Whitlow, who has been battling for his life and is currently at the hospital undergoing yet another procedure as we speak. I'm also speaking on behalf of the property where the fence, which has received so much discussion, is involved. And I am mindful that the mind can only absorb as much as the seat can endure. My father did teach me that. The fence that has caused so much discussion within the neighborhood is what one calls an old-fashioned double hoop with cast-iron finials and custom gates at a cost exceeding $7,000, which I don't think one could pick up at Southern States, with all due respect to Mike. Also, I can tell you that it was prominent in the older neighborhoods in the 50s, and that dates exactly with the home. Yes, a renter does live there, but the owner has put over $100,000 into that property to improve our neighborhood along with the fence that has received too much attention. I wanted to give back to our neighborhood, and so I served on the colony board for two years. My term just ended this summer. I resigned in spite of my being in opposition. They didn't kick me out. I'm happy to report. I do not feel the ND1 process has been vetted as neighbors were told it would be in 2009 when it was first introduced to the colony residents. And I'm here in the spirit of fairness and consider these individuals as my friends, but found some of the things that Mike said, including the assurances he gave you, to be quite surprising. In 2009, the board had concluded our neighborhood must have a dedicated committee of its residents to study, meet, and educate all property owners. Since that initial handout in 2009 that was made available to members who attended that meeting, they asked for interested persons, and only 14 came forth. We've talked about the numbers in the colony, and the old colony, I thought, from the Platts and the 40, maybe number 47 or so, showed 75 homes, and that's before Chinquapin informally joined us in those houses fronting Colonial Drive. And so also I noticed that the Sturgill property, which I thought was in Colony Units 1 and 2 originally, were there. So I'm not sure the number of 72 is accurate or not, and unfortunately I cannot turn to Walt Whitlow on this occasion who could answer that. But I'm only aware of two subsequent mass mailings since 2009 that went to all of the residents in the old colony and in Chinquapin, which has joined us. The first was dated November 3, 2010, providing some background regarding two-and-a-half years of ND1 efforts, which you have before you, inviting residents to attend a meeting for information sharing and discussion, and that meeting was held November 18th of 2010. The board agreed in advance that no vote would be taken at the informational meeting, and I expressed my concern to the board president in an email dated November 22nd, since a vote was in fact taken at that meeting where people thought they only needed to attend if they desired additional information. The fact we were going forward with only 16 households out of over 70 at the informational meeting, and the surveys revealed at that time showed nine were opposed entirely to ND1 and only 18 favored some or all restrictions, was not in keeping with what I was originally told was needed. The city recently sent a brief letter and postcard, which was followed by only the second mass mailing, of which I am aware. It is the handout dated July 3, 2012, on Colleen Letterhead. It appears to be official being on the letterhead, and you have it before you, but I also have an enlargement. It very positively portrays the zoning overlay. It refers to it as having been proposed by resident members at the annual meeting, which always has a low attendance except for those who have been very aggressive in pushing forth with ND1. And it directs all questions to Mike Hart, who has been one of the strongest and most vocal proponents since 2009, although he lives in Chinquapin. Not only does it give the names and numbers for contacting the current board members, but also includes all the past board members in favor of ND1 and their phone numbers. I was not asked if I would like my number provided for those who might be in opposition, and I was quite surprised to hear that the group who has put this before you today has taken the high road and didn't pressure anyone, whereas others did, because I don't think I've been able to feed anyone's dog a treat at my mailbox without Mike stopping by to speak with whoever I'm visiting with at the time on other matters to let them know that one more fence in the neighborhood like this will certainly bring about the downfall of the colony and cause property rates to diminish. At every step, they said they wanted to ensure they had support. Admittedly, I might have missed a board meeting or two, as many have, but I certainly am not aware that a vote other than the one already referenced to you was taken until the postcards returned to you. We had a two-and-a-half-hour meeting October 2, 2010, of the board members and the subcommittee members on ND1. Walt Whitlow has been on that committee since 2009. Again, cannot be here today for health reasons. And yes, he is strongly in opposition. He too is a previous board member and has great history on the colony. The board president at that time stated that it seems it will be difficult for the neighborhood to reach consensus that we still have no proposal after this past year, and if there was nothing to propose, what is there to vote on? It's interesting that in the submission to the city, it states in print that for the purposes of transparency, the oppositional comments are described. I believe I'm one of those to whom they reference having been emotional. That was not anger or raising my voice, but tears over how the resident with the fence had been treated. Walt Whitlow's arguments were characterized as complaints, and because he is a very long-term member, and I have been a long-term member of Residents, Inc., I was very disheartened to see that in this transparency, there was no mention of an individual no longer with us who stated quite emphatically that he could not stand Walt Whitlow and stormed out of the meeting. And yet two others of us who I find were quite well behaved were considered forceful and emotional. And we're to believe that opposing opinions are encouraged, as in that last letter that was sent on the colony letterhead to all of our residents, and that prevailing goodwill will not be affected. I hope that's the case. I love many of these people standing behind me here today, but it's not fair to misrepresent. represent everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but I do not agree that they're entitled to their own facts. The neighborhood has lost character, but it's not due to offense, in my opinion. Walt Whitlow has been, as I said, a committee member since 2009, and since we ended with no decision being made at that October 2010 meeting, he has not been invited to a single gathering in spite of asking specifically at the time of that meeting that any and all meetings at which ND1 was going to be discussed, he would like to be present for. I was a board member and never saw what was submitted to you in April until after it was sent. The same can be said of Saskia, who's expecting twins behind me, nor did any other board member I'm aware of from the past who's not on the side of ND1. The person who I am told did most of the work on the submission for your consideration today, stated 20 months ago at that two-and-a-half-hour meeting that there was nothing clandestine going on here. So I'm not sure how we got to this point, and I'm not sure why the subcommittee member, the only one who was opposing ND1, has not been involved in the last 20 months. I did not realize we had an extremely comprehensive data bank in support of this project, and my term on the board ended at the same time as our president who sent the letter. Unless the proponents have convinced more neighbors since yesterday, it has taken since the summer of 2009 to get less than half of the neighborhood to favor restrictions, and that has been without informing them fully and objectively. There may be 30 more households to come, but there were fewer before the city's letter asking if we want to protect and preserve the neighborhood. Of course we do. I love it. I refer to it as my heaven on earth, and it is. But preserving the neighborhood is about more than someone putting a fence that doesn't even cause the green space to not be seen, who thought, along with the owner of the property, that that was appropriate, and there were no restrictions against it, and the city, in fact, allowed the permitting of the fence to be constructed. Everyone is trying to do their best to improve the colony. Some of the elderly residents may not be able to do as much. Some of us who had to leave our jobs to care for loved ones may not be able to do as much. But when a rental house puts $100,000 into a home, to me that shows caring. Some of those here today are not responding perhaps because they felt beaten down by the conversations, certainly not by me. I have no dogs, but I give dog treats to everyone and love to visit with neighbors. and I'm actually still asked to be the welcome to the neighborhood by the board for the past two years. I love talking with people, and I can't think of a single one with whom I initiated a conversation about ND1, and when asked, I told them to vote their conscience because this was about learning what they in fact wanted because I have not had the sense that we in fact knew what was wanted. To presume the failure of one-third of the neighbors to respond does not imply that they're in favor. And so I just want to say that when the first submission, April 10th to Barbara Rakers, was made, it was stated in that original submission before the changes that the colony's ND1 quest was revitalized idolized, and a strategy had been defined. I'd like to know whose quest that is. I was told at the two-and-a-half-hour meeting when I became tearful, overthinking the character of the neighborhood had indeed changed, but not for visible reasons, that rules are necessary to help prevent controversy. Well, I find it interesting that the neighborhood established in 1947 has required no such rules until then. I was raised with one rule to live by, and that was the golden rule, and I've done my best to live by that. If, after hearing this today, you, in your learned capacity, which was evident from sitting through the previous discussions, feel that this should be put forward, I would ask that you might want to consider first hearing from some of the neighbors who cannot be here today due to health or even reading a written submission by them. But others expressed to me, not everyone, of course, because I didn't bring it up, but those who felt in opposition to the good people behind me did not feel as if they wanted their votes known or their names used or their faces. And so I stand before you today believing fundamentally that property owners have the right within our existing zoning regulations to do what they want with their property. And if you feel otherwise, I will respect that and probably live in more peace than I am going to otherwise. But I don't think it's about peace at any price. I think it's about fairness. I thank you for your patience in allowing me to speak on behalf of those who are not here today. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions at this point? If not, I'm going to ask anyone else wishing to speak, since we have heard from applicant and opposition in somewhat fair time limits to limit your time to three minutes. But, yes, by all means, come forward. One at a time, though. Whoever, whoever. Hello, my name is David Kessler. I live at 1228 Standish Way. I've been the treasurer for Residence Sink, the Colline Neighborhood Association. I'm in my third term. My wife, Laura, and I have lived in the colony for 15 years. We very much enjoy the unique character, the mature trees, the open spaces, the beautiful and unique homes, and the expansive landscaped yards. Homes like the Healy Home, the two Eisenhowers, and many more beautiful places. Dr. Carpenter's letter describes it better than I can. We have invested heavily in our home, renovating our master bath, kitchen, new windows, patios, new roof, landscaping. So we're here to stay. Most of our great neighbors feel the same as we do about this special place and want to preserve what we have because we love it so much, but also to preserve our home values and the characteristics that make what we have unique. I feel that the modest ND1 proposal before you today strikes a balance between preservation, progress, and personal liberty. They are common sense standards that most of us would follow regardless of ND1. But the ability to enforce these standards is our best hope to preserve our beautiful neighborhood. We strongly support the ND1 initiative, my wife and I, and respectfully ask for your approval. and I joined Mike Hart and Perry and the others who are in support. I wanted to make a quick, as treasurer, I was involved in the survey that was discussed earlier, and I wanted to make a clarification about the accessory structure. The accessory structure that we asked about in the survey provision actually excluded an accessory structure. And only about 50% of the respondents were in favor of that. So in the proposal that we finally submitted, we changed that to allow one accessory structure. So I just wanted to clarify that there weren't 50% opposed to the one accessory structure that's before you today. I want to point that out. And another quick thing, I just wanted to emphasize that, you know, my opinion, the process was very transparent and very inclusive of all views. There were many meetings where this was discussed. There were multiple mailings, e-mails. You know, so I feel that we really have vetted this thoroughly. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Kessler. Others? Yes, sir? I'll be quick. I'm Todd Strecker. I'm president of the Calumet Area Neighborhood Association and president of the Lexington and Versailles Quarter Coalition. I don't live in the colony, but my good friend Walt Whitlow, who was the president, can't be here because he's in the hospital. I took him there today myself. That's why he's not here. He opposes this in the extreme. There are others who do. They've not been heard from. You all said you didn't want to have to go through this passage and then have the next meeting be one filled with people who are opposed. My prediction from out where I am is that's precisely what's going to happen. The folks that were against it are going to fire away. You went through it once with Westmoreland. I know that story, what happened there. That's what's going to happen again, in my opinion. It seems to me, looking from the outside, that if this neighborhood has existed since 1947 with no further restrictions needed, why are these needed now? They aren't. That's how it looks to me from where I am. That's the conclusion the people in Westmoreland made relative to this whole thing. What's it needed for? Nobody's threatening to do anything. And you heard the story on the fence. That isn't a few-dollar fence. It happens to be objectionable to some, period. That's about the only thing that's happened. Anyhow, that's all I'm going to say. And I'm basically here because we'll be here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Strecker. Others? Hold on, Mr. Wade. Hold on. No, no, no. I'm going to let anybody else speak first. Yes. Hello, everybody. My name is Linda Burke. I used to be Linda Mitchell. And I live in a colony at 1240 Standish Way. I thought I should come forward, present myself as the primary author of the submission, and allow you to ask any questions that you might have. Any questions? I didn't invent everything, but I am the primary author. So I just wanted to be accountable to that and let everybody know. Thank you for coming forward. Any questions for Ms. Burke? No? Thank you. Thank you. Others that wish to speak? Mr. Burke, in all fairness, we're not making this decision today. The only decision we're making is to go forward. Yes, ma'am? Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, no, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I misspoke. I misspoke. I was talking to Mr. Hart. Mr. Hart, in all fairness. Just one comment. We were under restrictions. Come to the microphone, sir. I wanted to make sure that when the colony was originally constructed in 1947, there were deed of restrictions. It did include what we've got here today. That formatted. They've been updated. But there were restrictions. They did expire, and that was part of the reason that this process was brought back. Thank you, sir. Anyone else wish to speak today? If not, questions from the Commission? Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion amongst Commission members and or motion. Yes. Go ahead, Ms. Plann. I just have a comment to make before we have a motion. Just based on what I've heard today and heard at the meeting the other day and the applicant's submissions, this is a neighborhood squabble that began in 2008 over an eight-foot stone fence fence and continued in 2010 over a wire fence. And I think it's a very poor use of taxpayer dollars for us to be using staff time to go through this process. There is not complete agreement on what they want to do, and I don't think we should move forward with initiating this. Thank you. Thank you. Hold on a second, Mr. Crevins. Did Mr. Penn try to chime in or not? Well, I mean, I said to Mr. Hark what my problem with this whole thing is, is that I don't want us to get in a situation where we have a room full of people. Half of them have on T-shirts that says, don't do it, and half of them have on shirts that say, do do it. And then we're sitting here trying to make a decision that affects their, and we don't have the buy-in that we'd like to see. And I just don't know if we're going to have it now. I mean, I don't know what to do here. We can initiate it, and we can go forward with it. That's what you're asking us to do, and we certainly can do that. But you've all got one heck of an uphill battle to get to sell it, and it's not our job to sell it. And so we're going to sit here and vote for it if we believe you all can sell it, and we're going to sit here and vote against it if we don't think you've done your homework to this time. Now, that's kind of where we are, and anybody can speak up, but that's where I am. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, I agree with much of what Frank and Carla have said. These restrictions that you want to put on yourself, I mean, I never want to put restrictions on myself, especially when it comes to property. But there's some minor, I mean, why go through all this? And then I saw somewhere in here that said, how do you change it? Well, how do you change? If you disagree with this and you come down here and get a permit and you want to change something on here, you've got to get a zone change. You don't just walk over there to the counter and get a permit to build it. You've got to come back through here and get a zone change. That might take you six months. And I never like to see people give their property rights away. Accessory structures are covered under the zoning ordinance. So is fences. They're covered under a zoning ordinance. I think it was a new fence ordinance maybe that was put in. And then on top of all that, I don't think enough people in your neighborhood support this. I get about 48 people either didn't sign up or are opposed to it out of the 72. Best I could count with this little sheet here. So I'm not going to support it. Others? Ms. Phillips? I have a question for staff. Could we take no action on this and the neighborhood re-petition? Ask us maybe in several months to initiate. You want the neighborhood to survey again, or you want the staff to send out postcards again? I didn't say either. Oh, okay. Could we delay action on this or take no action? Yes. And maybe the neighborhood come forward at a later date with a new proposal? I think we'd want to give them some direction as to what that new proposal would be. Okay. Let me ask you this. you laid out the ground rules if the initiation did take place. What sort of time frame, if we took no action today, what sort of time frame are we looking at a reasonable time frame of them bringing this back to us? Well, I guess it would need to be really clear to them what they needed to bring back. But if you took no action, I really can't comment on how long something might take. If you took action today, we typically would have a hearing in two months, three months. We're not under a time limit. No, we're not under a time limit. No, if you initiated, the staff would schedule it as it fits in with other staff or other applications. Usually it's within three months. One second, Mr. Penn. Mr. Wilson? I guess I'm, if I could, I'd like to address my question to my colleague. What would we gain by not moving forward today with this in terms of, you said, postponing? What is it? Why would we postpone? For what reason? Well, I was just wondering about, I saw some ambiguity with the letter that you all sent out and wasn't sure if people were in support of limiting accessory structures or limiting fences or, yeah, yeah. Their survey, yeah. Right, the neighborhood survey. And, you know, the question that Mr. Cravens just brought up about the numbers, the numbers don't look very solid, and I'm wondering if it is because of ambiguity. and I'm all in favor of adding more restrictions, much to the chagrin of my buddy over here, because I think that we want to protect those special places, and I think that the ND1 is the way to go to protect what we have intact. But I just don't see the support from the neighborhood, and I'm wondering if maybe there should be a more proactive, instead of taking the high ground, There should be more of an information campaign. And I'm just kind of spitballing here, looking for some support. Mr. Chairman, if I could, for the reserve part of the time, you know, we always get, I agree with my colleague down there, Mr. Penn, when he says we don't, the last thing we want to do is to be in a neighborhood squabble of any kind. While at the same time, you know, I keep thinking, well, you all have really gone through a lot of trouble for three restrictions. That is a lot. But on the other side, I agree, too, that neighborhoods ought to do what they can to protect what value they have within those neighborhoods. So I, too, am in favor of moving this particular activity on. The only reason I would vote to postpone is if there was something specific we were going to ask the neighborhood to bring forward. And I understand that. I kind of agree with the letter situation. But it seems to me that we're already in for a struggle here, one way or the other. and it's not one that I'm looking forward to. While at the same time, I think there is a process, and we're a quasi-judicial body, and I think we are here to hear what the good news and the bad news is about these types of activities. So when I signed on, I knew the bed was burning when I got in it. And so I would propose to my colleagues that we move forward and listen to the neighborhood and listen to the neighbors and encourage them to do what they can while we're not in session to ameliorate whatever consensus they can among as many people as they can one way or the other. Mr. Kim, I think I'm going to lean to going forward with this, but I ask you, and I beg you, to don't come back to a public hearing and put us in a situation where all we do is damage your neighborhood. That's all we do. We don't want to facilitate a situation where we absolutely put brother against brother and neighbor against neighbor. That's not what we're here to do. We're here to initiate this at your request, and if you still want us to do this, I don't think there's enough land to postpone this. I think we just vote whether to initiate or not to initiate it and trust that you all will not put us in a situation where we ruin your neighborhood. At this point, I don't think so. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate it. I'm going to agree with Mr. Penn once again and Mr. Wilson in the fact that, one, I do not relish two months down the road, three months down the road going through this with half on one side and half on another. We have gone through it before. Westmoreland, we did not approve it. I know others, we have approved it. So if we have to get to that process, we'll decide at that time. I'm going to go with the numbers that the staff came back with at this point in time, where we've got two-thirds that's in support of this. Roughly one-third did not respond, but if they did respond, I would think that you'd still be in that two-thirds type realm. So, like I said, I don't relish the idea of doing this three months down the road and having a three-hour hearing. However, if process, I see no reason to delay that at this point in time. No, thank you, ma'am. Yeah, sure. Ms. Mundy? No? No? Anything else, Ms. Fundley? I move that we move forward on ND1 for the college. Thank you. Motion has been made for initiating this ND1 overlay and has been seconded by Mr. Wilson. Any further discussion? If not, please vote when it comes to the screen. Thank you. The motion passes. I appreciate everyone coming here and their concerns. and I really hope that when this comes back to us, that if it comes back to us, that there's a clear decision one way or the other which way to go. Anything else? Anything from the staff? Can I just say? Any commission? Yes, you may. I just wanted to thank everybody who sat through three and a half hours of hearings and everybody has more fun things to do, I'm sure, on a Thursday afternoon. But thank you all. I appreciate it. Yes, thank you. If there's no other items, entertain motion for adjournment. Ten seconds. All those in favor, please stand. Thank you.