# Planning Commission Meeting - January 17, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 17, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2833 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2833?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-01-17 - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 24,882 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on January 17, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which addressed 17 agenda items related to various development projects and property subdivisions. The Commission took 12 motions and votes during the session and heard 5 public comments. Of the 17 agenda items considered, 11 were approved, including projects such as Mahan Property Unit 2A, Riddell Plaza Lots 1-22, Coldstream Research Campus Unit 6, Pratt Addition Lots 11A & 11B, Higbee Mill Reserve, Watts Farm Tract 4, Pinnacle Lot 1, Red Mile Mixed-Use Development, Glen at Lochdale Unit 4, Manchester Development, Newmarket Property Unit 7 & a portion of Unit 1, Anderson 2 Subdivision, and Lakeview Estates Unit 2B, Blocks J & K, Unit 2E. Three items were postponed: Deerfield Shopping Center, Glen at Lochdale Unit 4-F, and Newmarket Property Phase 1 Unit 10, with those items scheduled for future consideration on dates ranging from January 29 through April 9, 2013. ## Attendance **Present:** - Mike Owens - Eunice Beatty - Will Berkley - Carla Blanton - Lynn Roche-Phillips - Karen Mundy - Carolyn Plumlee - William Wilson **Absent:** - Patrick Brewer - Mike Cravens - Frank Penn **Late:** None reported ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes** [timestamp: 0:10:36] The body approved minutes from November 8, 2012, and November 15, 2012. Ms. Plumlee moved and Ms. Beatty seconded. The motion passed by voice vote with 8 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor: Mike Owens, Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, and William Wilson. **Postponements to February 14, 2013** Three items were postponed to February 14, 2013: - **DP 2012-89: New Market Property, Ph 1, Unit 10** [timestamp: 0:11:45] — Ms. Beatty moved and Ms. Plumlee seconded. Passed 7-0 with Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, and Frank Penn voting against. - **ZDP 2012-76: Deerfield Shopping Center** [timestamp: 0:13:20] — Ms. Plumlee moved and Ms. Roche-Phillips seconded. Passed 7-0 with Brewer, Cravens, and Penn voting against. - **PLAN 2013-4F: Glen at Lochdale, Unit 4-F** [timestamp: 0:14:23] — Ms. Blanton moved and Ms. Mundy seconded. Passed 7-0 with Brewer, Cravens, and Penn voting against. **Consent Agenda** [timestamp: 0:18:50] Ms. Beatty moved and Ms. Roche-Phillips seconded approval of consent agenda items. The motion passed 8-0 by voice vote. **Agenda Amendment** [timestamp: 0:19:55] Ms. Roche-Phillips moved and Ms. Mundy seconded an amendment to allow the Chair to change the order of the meeting. The motion passed 7-0 with Brewer, Cravens, and Penn voting against. **Bond Release and Call** [timestamp: 0:21:43] Mr. Berkley moved and Ms. Mundy seconded approval of release and call of bonds as detailed in a memorandum dated January 17, 2013. The motion passed 7-0 with Brewer, Cravens, and Penn voting against. **Development Plan Approvals** Four development plans were approved with revised conditions: - **DP 2013-5: Manchester Development (AMD)** [timestamp: 0:25:29] — Mr. Berkley moved and Ms. Beatty seconded. Passed 7-0 with Brewer, Cravens, and Penn voting against. - **DP 2013-7: New Market Property, Unit 7 & portion of Unit 1 (AMD)** [timestamp: 0:29:14] — Ms. Splendon moved and Ms. Mundy seconded. Passed 7-0 with Brewer, Cravens, and Penn voting against. - **DP 2013-8: Anderson 2 Subdivision** [timestamp: 1:24:46] — Ms. Plumlee moved and Ms. Mundy seconded. Passed 7-0 with Brewer, Cravens, and Penn voting against. - **DP 2012-104: Lakeview Estates, Unit 2B, Blocks J & K, Unit 2E** [timestamp: 3:09:41] — Ms. Blanton moved and Ms. Plumlee seconded. Passed 7-0 with a 60-foot height limit at Lake Tower Drive. Brewer, Cravens, and Penn voted against. **Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments** [timestamp: 3:13:33] The body initiated four Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments addressing Vehicle Repairs Accessory to a Residential Use, Parking and Storage of Vehicles/Trailers/Equipment/Materials in Residential Zones, Temporary Signage, and Zoning Enforcement Abatement Authority. The Chairman moved and Mrs. Plumlee seconded. The motion passed 7-0 with Brewer, Cravens, and Penn voting against. ## Public Comment The meeting included five public comments addressing the proposed Lakeview Estates development. **Opposition to Development** Darren Dusik, representing the Lake Owners Estate Association, opposed the Lakeview Estates development [timestamp: 2:13:25]. He raised concerns about the building's height, impact on neighborhood character, light pollution, and potential decrease in property values. Dusik noted that over 280 residents signed petitions against the project. Joel DiGirolamo, a Lakeshore Village resident and board member of LELA, also opposed the development [timestamp: 2:19:36]. He argued that the proposed five-story building would disrupt the natural and scenic character of the lake, cast significant shadows, and negatively affect wildlife and property values. DiGirolamo presented a solar study to support his claims. Pat Robinson, representing the Lakeshore Village Homeowners Association, echoed concerns about the development's impact on neighborhood character and traffic [timestamp: 2:38:22]. She urged the Commission to listen to the community's voice. **Support for Development** Clarence Cundiff, a state-certified appraiser, testified in support of the project [timestamp: 2:46:42]. He stated that property values in the area have increased over the past three years and that the proposed development is unlikely to decrease values. Richard Polk, an architect and Bridgeport resident, presented a solar study [timestamp: 2:50:32]. His analysis showed that the proposed building casts minimal shadows, especially compared to existing three-story buildings in the area. ## Contested Items **Lakeview Estates Development** The Lakeview Estates development faced significant community opposition. Over 280 residents signed petitions against the project, with multiple speakers presenting concerns during the meeting. The primary objections centered on the proposed height of the development, impacts to neighborhood character, light pollution, and potential effects on property values. A solar study was also presented as part of the opposition materials. **Anderson 2 Subdivision** The Anderson 2 Subdivision generated heated discussion among the Commission, applicant, and staff. The debate focused on three main issues: the timing of wetland construction, fencing requirements, and compliance with the EAMP (Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Plan). Both the applicant and staff presented detailed reports on these matters. The Commission ultimately required findings on two specific items: an access easement and the timing of wetland work before the meeting concluded. ## MAHAN PROPERTY, UNIT 2A (2/24/13) **Overview** The final subdivision plan for Mahan Property, Unit 2A was presented under Plan 2013-1F. [timestamp: 0:15:27] **Recommendation and Approval** The Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the final subdivision plan subject to conditions addressing multiple aspects of the development: - Utility requirements - Drainage provisions - Traffic considerations - Landscaping specifications - Tree protection measures **Outcome** The plan was approved via consent agenda without discussion. ## RIDDELL PLAZA, LOTS 1-22 (AMD) (2/24/13) **Plan Identifier:** PLAN 2013-2F The Subdivision Committee reviewed this agenda item and recommended approval subject to specific conditions. The conditions addressed access easements, street names, and reciprocal access arrangements for the proposed subdivision. **Outcome** The plan was approved via consent agenda without discussion at the meeting [timestamp: 0:15:27]. ## COLDSTREAM RESEARCH CAMPUS, UNIT 6 (2/24/13) **Plan Identifier:** PLAN 2013-3F **Overview** The Coldstream Research Campus, Unit 6 proposal was presented to the committee for consideration. [timestamp: 0:15:27] **Recommendation and Conditions** The Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the plan subject to specific conditions. These conditions included: - Building lines requirements - Zoning labels - Access resolution **Key Participants** Mr. Sallee was the primary speaker on this agenda item. **Approval Process** The plan was approved via the consent agenda without further discussion at this meeting. **Outcome** The proposal received approval. ## PRATT ADDITION, LOTS 11A & 11B (2/24/13) **Plan Identifier:** PLAN 2013-5F **Overview** This subdivision plan for Pratt Addition, Lots 11A & 11B, was presented for approval. The item was processed through the consent agenda without discussion. **Recommendation and Conditions** The Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the plan subject to conditions. These conditions addressed utility easements and property deed references, ensuring proper documentation and access rights for utilities serving the subdivision. **Outcome** The plan was approved via consent agenda. [timestamp: 0:15:27] ## HIGBEE MILL RESERVE (AMD) (2/24/13) **Identifier:** DP 2013-1 **Overview** The Higbee Mill Reserve amendment was presented as a discussion item. The Subdivision Committee had previously recommended approval of the proposal subject to specific conditions. **Committee Recommendation** The Subdivision Committee's recommendation included conditions related to three areas: - Fire safety requirements - Waste management provisions - Zoning compliance **Presentation and Action** Mr. Sallee was the key speaker on this agenda item [timestamp: 0:15:27]. The proposal was approved via consent agenda without further discussion at this meeting. **Outcome** The amendment was approved. ## WATTS FARM, TRACT 4 (AMD #5) (2/24/13) **Identifier:** DP 2013-2 **Item Type:** Discussion The Subdivision Committee recommended approval of this item with conditions related to tennis court status. The plan was approved via consent agenda without discussion [timestamp: 0:15:27]. **Outcome:** Approved ## PINNACLE, LOT 1 (AMD) (2/24/13) **Item:** DP 2013-4 **Overview** This agenda item concerned a subdivision plan for Pinnacle, Lot 1, with an anticipated decision date of February 24, 2013. The item was presented as a discussion item and processed through the consent agenda. **Recommendation and Conditions** The Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the plan subject to conditions. These conditions specifically addressed signage and access requirements for the project. **Presentation and Outcome** Mr. Sallee was the key speaker on this item [timestamp: 0:15:27]. The plan was approved via consent agenda without further discussion, indicating that no additional debate or concerns were raised during the meeting. **Result** The proposal received approval as recommended by the Subdivision Committee. ## RED MILE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (4/9/13) **Project Identifier:** DP 2011-91 **Overview** The Red Mile Mixed-Use Development proposal was presented to the committee for consideration. [timestamp: 0:15:27] **Committee Action** The Subdivision Committee recommended reapproval of the project with revised conditions. The plan was subsequently approved via consent agenda without discussion. **Outcome** The Red Mile Mixed-Use Development was approved. ## GLEN AT LOCHDALE, UNIT 4 (MINOR AMD) (3/12/13) **Identifier:** DP 2012-114 The Subdivision Committee reviewed a minor amendment to the Glen at Lochdale, Unit 4 development. Mr. Sallee was the key speaker on this item. The Subdivision Committee had previously recommended approval of the amendment subject to conditions. These conditions specifically addressed tree canopy requirements and certification standards for the project. The item was approved via consent agenda without further discussion at this meeting [timestamp: 0:15:27], indicating that the committee's prior recommendation and conditions were accepted without additional deliberation or debate. **Outcome:** Approved ## MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT (AMD) (2/24/13) **Overview** This agenda item (DP 2013-5) addressed a Manchester Development amendment proposal. [timestamp: 0:22:13] **Key Speakers** - Ms. Gallt - Tony Barrett **Discussion and Process** The Subdivision Committee initially recommended postponement of the Manchester Development amendment due to numerous conditions that required resolution. Following this recommendation, staff revised the conditions associated with the proposal to address the committee's concerns. **Outcome** The plan was approved with 19 conditions. The revised conditions addressed the issues that had prompted the initial postponement recommendation, allowing the project to move forward. ## NEWMARKET PROPERTY, UNIT 7 & A PORTION OF UNIT 1 (AMD) (3/26/13) **Agenda Item:** DP 2013-7 **Overview** This agenda item concerned a development proposal for the Newmarket Property, specifically Unit 7 and a portion of Unit 1. [timestamp: 0:26:34] **Discussion and Process** The Subdivision Committee had initially recommended postponement of this proposal due to numerous conditions that required resolution. Following this recommendation, staff revised the conditions to address the committee's concerns. Key speakers on this item included Mr. Jarman and Rory Kaley. **Outcome** The plan was approved with 14 conditions. The revised conditions addressed the issues that had prompted the initial postponement recommendation, allowing the proposal to move forward. ## ANDERSON 2 SUBDIVISION (3/26/13) **Identifier:** DP 2013-8 **Overview** The Subdivision Committee reviewed the Anderson 2 Subdivision proposal. The discussion took place approximately 31 minutes into the meeting [timestamp: 0:31:00]. **Key Participants** The agenda item involved remarks from Mr. Martin, Dick Murphy, and Dennis Anderson. **Committee Recommendation and Conditions** The Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the subdivision subject to 14 conditions. These conditions addressed three primary areas: - EAMP (Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Plan) compliance - Access easement requirements - Wetland timing provisions **Outcome** The subdivision was approved with the 14 recommended conditions in place. ## LAKEVIEW ESTATES, UNIT 2B, BLKS J & K, UNIT 2E (AMD) (2/13/13) **Identifier:** DP 2012-104 **Overview** This agenda item addressed a development proposal for Lakeview Estates, Unit 2B, Blocks J & K, and Unit 2E (Amendment). The discussion focused on resolving planning and design issues that had been raised during the subdivision review process. **Key Issues and Discussion** The Subdivision Committee had recommended postponement of the project due to concerns regarding height-to-yard ratio and floor area issues. These technical requirements are critical to ensuring the development complies with zoning and design standards for the area. Following the committee's feedback, staff revised the conditions of approval to address the identified concerns. The revised conditions formed the basis for reconsideration of the proposal. **Speakers** The discussion involved Mr. Taylor, Dick Murphy, and Alan Schubert. **Outcome** The plan was approved with a 60-foot height limit imposed as a condition of approval. This height restriction was a key element of the revised conditions that resolved the previous concerns about the height-to-yard ratio. **Meeting Reference** [timestamp: 1:35:42] ## DEERFIELD SHOPPING CENTER (1/17/13) **Identifier:** ZDP 2012-76 **Overview** The committee discussed the Deerfield Shopping Center proposal during this meeting. [timestamp: 0:12:15] **Key Participants** Bruce Simpson was the primary speaker on this agenda item. **Committee Recommendation and Concerns** The Subdivision Committee recommended postponement of the proposal, citing screening and buffering issues that required further attention before the plan could move forward. **Outcome** The Deerfield Shopping Center proposal was postponed. The plan is scheduled to be reconsidered on February 14, 2013. ## GLEN AT LOCHDALE, UNIT 4-F (2/24/13) **Identifier:** PLAN 2013-4F **Type:** Discussion Mr. Martin presented this agenda item to the committee. [timestamp: 0:13:52] The Subdivision Committee identified discrepancies related to utility easements in the plan and recommended postponement to allow these issues to be resolved. The plan was postponed to February 14, 2013. **Outcome:** Postponed ## NEWMARKET PROPERTY, PH 1, UNIT 10 (1/29/13) **Identifier:** DP 2012-89 **Discussion Type:** Subdivision Committee Review [timestamp: 0:11:13] The committee discussed the Newmarket Property, Phase 1, Unit 10 proposal. Richard Murphy presented information related to this agenda item. The Subdivision Committee had previously recommended approval of the plan subject to conditions. However, rather than proceeding to a final vote, the committee voted to postpone consideration of this matter. **Outcome:** The plan was postponed to February 14, 2013, for further review and discussion. ## HIGBEE MILL RESERVE (AMD) (2/24/13) **Identifier:** DP 2013-1 **Overview** The Higbee Mill Reserve amendment was presented as a discussion item. The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed the proposal and recommended approval subject to specific conditions. **Committee Recommendation** The Subdivision Committee's recommendation included conditions related to three areas: * Fire safety requirements * Waste management provisions * Zoning compliance **Presentation and Action** Mr. Sallee was the key speaker on this agenda item [timestamp: 0:15:27]. The proposal was approved via consent agenda without further discussion. **Outcome** The amendment was approved. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of minutes from November 8, 2012, and November 15, 2012 - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Postponement of DP 2012-89: New Market Property, Ph 1, Unit 10 to February 14, 2013 - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Postponement of ZDP 2012-76: Deerfield Shopping Center to February 14, 2013 - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Postponement of PLAN 2013-4F: Glen at Lochdale, Unit 4-F to February 14, 2013 - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of consent agenda items - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Amendment to agenda to allow Chair to change order of meeting - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of release and call of bonds as detailed in memorandum dated January 17, 2013 - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of DP 2013-5: Manchester Development (AMD) with revised conditions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of DP 2013-7: New Market Property, Unit 7 & a portion of Unit 1 (AMD) with 14 revised conditions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of DP 2013-8: Anderson 2 Subdivision with 14 revised conditions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of DP 2012-104: Lakeview Estates, Unit 2B, Blocks J & K, Unit 2E with revised conditions and 60-foot height limit - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Initiation of four Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments: Vehicle Repairs Accessory to a Residential Use, Parking and Storage of Vehicles, Trailers, Equipment and Materials in Residential Zones, Temporary Signage, and Zoning Enforcement Abatement Authority --- ## Full transcript Yeah, he comes. We're going country. Everybody's going country. Yeah, we're going country. The whole world's going country. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Our first hearing of the year. Welcome. And our first order of business for this afternoon would be approval of minutes. Minutes were sent to the Commission members on November 8th, for November 8th, 2012, and November 15th, 2012. And it's my understanding there's been one correction that Ms. Plumlee has noted to our staff. So with that one change, anyone else have any changes? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Move to approve. Thank you. That would be for November 8th and 15th? Correct. Okay, thank you. Motion's been made for approval. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of minutes. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Next on the agenda would be any postponements or withdrawals. Do we have any from the floor? Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy on page 3, item 2A, DP 2012-89, New Market Property, Phase 1, Unit 10. I represent the developer on that. We'd request a postponement on that item one month. For one month? Okay, thank you. I should have asked. Mr. Saleh, do we have a date? We do, Mr. Chairman. Your meeting in February devoted to development plans and subdivision plans is scheduled for February 14th. Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request for postponement? Any Commission members? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Yes. I move that we postpone DP 2012-89 to February 14th. Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion's been made in second and postponement of DP 2012-89 until February 14th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Other postponements or withdrawals? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Bruce Simpson on behalf of Deerfield Shopping Center, which is item on page 6, item number J. We'd like a 30-day postponement. We intend to meet with the neighbors before we come back on this preliminary development plan. I don't know that we'll have everything ready to go by the February meeting, but we'd like that 30-day postponement to work toward that end. Shoot for the 14th? Right. Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request for postponement? Commission members? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion for postponement. Move postponement of ZP 2012-76 View Fair Shopping Center to February 14th. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement of ZDP 2012-76. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Thank you, sir. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Does staff have any? Mr. Chairman, we would like to direct your attention to page 2, item D. It is Plan 2013-4F Glenn at Lockdale Unit 4F. This plan was recommended by your subdivision committee for postponement, and we have not had any discussion with the applicant, the engineer on this case, since that date, since that recommendation. They do not appear to be here today, but we just wanted to bring that to your attention that that item is recommended for postponement. Thank you. Anyone in the audience here to speak in regards to Plan 2013-4F, Glenn at Lockdale, Unit 4F? Seeing none, I'll ask the Commission if they're interested in postponement. If so, can I have a motion? Move postponement of Plan 2013-4F, Glenn at Lockdale, until the February 14th meeting. Thank you. Do we have a second? And motion's been made in second and postponed. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, we will move to the consent agenda items. I will ask Mr. Salley to walk us through the consent agenda. Members have a tan-colored sheet, brown-colored sheet in front of you that has the consent agenda items on it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. I'm pleased to report that many of the remaining items on your meeting agenda today do qualify for consideration at this time for approval of your consent agenda. The first four items on your consent agenda are final subdivision plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision subcommittee. The first is the very first item on the agenda, page 1, item A, Plan 2013-1F, Mayhem Property Unit 2A. This involves property at 2980 Manowar Boulevard. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 1, item B, Plan 2012-2F, Riddell Plaza, lots 1-22, amended. This is an amended final record plat for property at 301-343 Burley Avenue. On page 2, item C of your meeting agenda, another item on the consent agenda is Plan 2013-3F, a final record plat for Coldstream Research Campus Unit 6 for property located at 1350 Bull Lee Road. It's a portion of that address. The final plat on your consent agenda is on page 2, item E of your meeting agenda, Plan 2013-5F, the Pratt Edition, Lots 11A and 11B, located at 633 and 635 Bel Air Avenue. There are also a number of development plans appearing on your consent agenda. The first appears on page 3 of your meeting agenda, item C, DP 2013-1, an amended final development plan for the Higbee Mill Reserve, located at 4250 and 4290 Harrodsburg Road. On page 4, item D, this item is also on your consent agenda. It's DP2013-2, Amendment No. 5 to the Final Development Plan for Watts Farm, Track 4, located at 420 and 430 Redding Road. The next item on your meeting agenda also appears on the consent agenda, page 4, item E, an amended final development plan, DP2013-4, Pinnacle, Lot 1, located at 1099 Duvall Street. There are two remaining items on your consent agenda. The first is a development plan recommended for reapproval by your staff. That appears on page 6, item I of your meeting agenda, DP 2011-91, Red Mile Mixed Use Development. This involves property being a portion of 1200 Red Mile Road. And the final item appears on page 7, item 1. It is a minor amendment, DP 2012-114, the Glen at Lockdale, Unit 4. This plan has been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision subcommittee. and involves property located at 3600 Winthrop Drive. Mr. Chairman, at this time, all of these items can be considered for approval as recommended either by your staff or the subdivision committee unless a member of the Planning Commission or a member of the audience or perhaps even one of the applicants would ask that one of these items be removed for further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Anyone in the audience wish to remove one of these items to be heard? Any commission member? Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion on the consent agenda. Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we approve the consent agenda as submitted by staff. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the consent agenda as read. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Thank you. I'm going to ask for approval. I'll probably make a few people happy. We've got four remaining items on the agenda today. Three of them should not take long time-wise. I'm going to ask to hear those first, give them consideration to let those that would not be here for the Lakeview to get on about other business instead of waiting towards the tail end. It's been brought to my attention. We may need a motion for approval to amend the agenda. So at this time, I'd ask for a motion from the Commission. Mr. Chair, I move that we give the chair permission to change the order of the day. Thank you. Do I have a second? Motion is made and seconded for allowing me some discretion. Let me just have a show of hands, I believe, won't suffice in this situation. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, thank you. Motion passes. Any opposed? I'm sorry. I didn't think I saw. Okay. Motion passes. What I'm going to do, therefore, we're going to stay with the agenda, except for the fact that, and I apologize for the Lakeview folks, but in the interest of, like I said, getting people out of here, we're going to move to page four with item L on the agenda, which is DP 2013-5, Manchester Development. and let the staff set up, we'll bring to the Commission's attention. We do have revised conditions. They're on a blue sheet of paper that you have in front of you. While the staff is setting up, I will direct attention to the Commission. We do have a memorandum for the release and call of bonds dated January 17, 2013. If I could entertain a motion for that at this time. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a recommendation for the release of call bonds. Thank you. Do I have a second? Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of the memorandum for the release and call of bonds dated January 17, 2013. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Ms. Galt. Hello. Good afternoon. As you pointed out, we're on page four of the agenda for the DP 2013-5 Manchester Development. amendment this is a final development plan for the adaptive reuse project located off of Manchester Street there we go okay the property that we are looking at this is Manchester Street we have all over Lewis way when we go down between tar and Willard this is the property right in here we've been working on this property up here this is all zoned I want this property we're looking at is zone B4 the proposal is to add a building with 1200 or 2800 square feet to use as a catering and a pub when at the subdivision committee meeting we had a list of conditions but since then we've had a list of revised conditions so if you look at the blue sheet we've been able to eliminate several cleanup conditions the conditions are the first aid are just typical sign-offs condition number nine clarify site statistics including required parking and provided parking and then condition number ten it says clarify proposed uses including square footage and parking requirements there's an additional white page attached this has a breakdown of the square footage and how the calculation for the parking has been met so that we can show that they are meeting the minimum parking on the lot with that the staff recommended approval or the committee recommended approval to you thank you miss call any questions for miss call at this point if not as for the applicant Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Tony Barrett, and we're in agreement with the recommendations by the staff and the findings and ask for your approval. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Thank you for the revisions. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Thank you. I have a notification sign. Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, any questions from the Commission? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for other discussion or a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion for approval of DP 2013-5 with the 10 revised conditions. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of DP 2013-5 with the revised conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, we did not get the second to the motion. I'm sorry. Second. Thank you. Ms. Beatty was. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Next on the agenda would be on page 5, item GDP 2013-7, New Market Property Unit 7. We do have a revision on that as well. It is on a green sheet that you have before you. Also attached to the green sheet is an EAMP compliance statement. Mr. Jarman. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, The next item on the agenda, as you've indicated, is Development Plan 2013-7, New Market Property Unit 7, and a portion of Unit 1 as amended, located at 1321 and 1201 Deer Haven Lane. the staff had received a revised submittal for this plan on the 14th of january from the applicant which addressed a number of the conditions associated with this plan therefore these revised conditions are recommended by the staff for this plan as a result of that submittal we are at the terminus of polo club boulevard terminates into deerhaven lane this is the last remaining property here at the end of a developed section along stolen horse trace the staff had recommended approval subject to the standard sign-offs the in addition to that the note 10 revised note number 14 to indicate construction access to deerhaven lane will only be via an existing driveway 11 denote pedestrian access and walkways to all townhouses from the rear oriented garages note 12 denote height of townhouses and size of optional sunroom in the development standards 13 clarify the tree preservation in the open space that is lot 63 long deerhaven Lane adjacent to Meadowcroft Park and 14 provided the Planning Commission makes a finding that this plan complies with the expansion area master plan. At this point, we'll turn it over to the Commission for comments and questions. Any questions from the Commission for Mr. Jarman? Thank you, sir. Anyone, I'm sorry, applicant here for this? Good afternoon, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. We are in agreement with the revised 14 conditions and request approval. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Cayley? Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in regards to this plan? Thank you, Mr. Cayley. Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any comments, discussion from the commission members and or a motion. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out for the record we have received what you required after date. Thank you. Thank you. Commission members, your interest? Yes? Move approval of DP 2013-7 New Market Property with the 14 conditions outlined by staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion was made by Ms. Splendon, seconded by Ms. Mundy for approval of DP 2013-7. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Next on our... It was noted that the plan is in compliance with the AMP. Next on our agenda would be DP 2013-8 Anderson No. 2 subdivision. We do have a revision showing changes to conditions that's on a white sheet, and then also we have findings for use of access easement in an EAMP compliance report and an infrastructure statement that's attached to a yellow sheet. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the next item on your agenda is on page 5. At the bottom of the page, item H, DP2013-8, Anderson II Subdivision, which is located out at 425 Childsburg Road. We have a photograph to put up now for you to orient you to the property location in the area. This is to orient you to the location of the property. I'm not currently armed with a laser, which is probably a... I'm not sure if this is wise to give me one of these, but what are we doing? There we go. This is Hayes Boulevard running down through here. This is much of the guest development that you're familiar with. Here is development in here also associated with the guest property. Tom, microphone. You can't hear me, can you? No, I'm used to being heard. I know. Well, again, you see Hayes Boulevard in this area here. Pardon? I'm sorry. Oh, you want me to point it up there for you? Okay, I'll do that. I'm just... All right. Tom, let me offer this. Mr. Sally has gone to the projection screen over there in the past. Is that possible so that it shows up on both screens? they could certainly okay I'm not personally used to doing that that's not now where do I right here okay I know you're upside down alrighty this is real this is high tech for a guy like me you know I'm old school anyway there's Hayes Boulevard you can see through there and Childsburg Road I'm upside down now and I've got to locate myself thank you the property in question is right in that curve in Childsburg that's the important point I want to orient you to right up in there is the subject property over here you can see a detention basin associated with the guest's property was developed in conjunction with that property over in here the treat area and that area is Jacobson Park and again I just wanted to give you a general orientation to where the property is the thing to remember is to key on that hard turn in Childsburg Road and that will be keyed on the location of the property the next picture that I have for you this shows the flood plain in the area it extends from the guest property down through this property again if you see the hard turn in Childsburg Road That is the property in question, Anderson 2, that you have before you today. You can see how the floodplain extends on down into the Jacobson Park Reservoir. Next picture, please. That is a close-up to show you the extent of the floodplain as it crosses the properties below Charlesburg Road and flows into Jacobson Park. and the next picture please oh sorry too early for that one apologize i'm going to take you now over to the proposed development plan here's childsburg road here's that hard right turn as pointed out on the map here's the long rectangular piece of property in question this is the floodplain that you were just shown that you can see up there as it comes across adjoining properties, flows across this property between these two blue lines, all this hatched area, that's floodplain, flows on down into Jacobson Park. They are proposing to develop this property with townhouses in this area, in the front end of the property, and then single-family lots that you can see here. A local street will be constructed, intersecting with Chilesburg Road, as you can see in this location, running back, crossing the creek, coming through here, and then there'll be a future connection as planned to across the adjoining property and into the existing street system that currently exists here in this development. And again, to help orient you, guests is back up this way, back down this way up. Childsburg is the Lockdale and the Miller House development. This is the intervening developments, Still Meadows and those developments in here. Eventually this will tie in to that local street system. This is a revised plan. There was an issue along this area through here where you can see this highlighted. There are several issues along this border, one of which was a 25-foot setback is necessary, and they had a conflict with that. The plan you see has revised the townhouses and the single-family lots, but they have removed that conflict with the slight exception there's a unit right here, but that unit encroaches slightly. It's allowed to do that under averaging, under Article 15 of our subdivision regulations. What they did to make up for the loss of a townhouse, they lost just one townhouse in here. They added a lot in this section right up in here is what they've done. So they've maintained the same number of dwelling units, which is 38 dwelling units, a mix of single-family detached and, of course, the attached single-family in this location. The area you see here is common open space. This highlighted in pink for you is the required 200-foot setback that is associated with the special design area under your EAMP. Those special design areas recognize the rural character of Childsburg Road. And so to maintain that, there is a large required setback along Childsburg. You can see they have accommodated that on this plan. the issue that you see before you highlighted here is got several conditions one i mentioned the previous 25 foot setback and the need to adjust but staff was concerned about increasing the landscaping along the townhouses adjacent to this development or this property we don't know what's going to happen over here but we thought it appropriate to be sure there was adequate landscaping to address what development may happen over here. The applicant has given staff an exhibit, which I'm going to have them put up for you. You can see the area of the townhouses. The screening is to the side, the proposed screening. There you go. You can see they're proposing to plant medium-large trees or large trees and include continuous hedge and a six-foot-tall privacy fence along the vehicular use areas associated with the townhouses. They're also proposing then to place trees, and you can see them in the lower exhibit, pine trees that will be staggered eight feet height at planting and ten feet on center along the townhouse area to provide additional buffering. I would add that there isn't existing fence row trees in the area. The applicant many years ago planted evergreens along this tree line. However, they don't appear in photographs to be consistent everywhere, and staff believes that this would be an appropriate way to further screen these townhouses from any future development. The associated condition with that, and what I might do if I would turn to that in just a second, and I want to briefly go down your agenda with you and point out that your subdivision committee, when they recommended approval of this plan, did so subject to your first standard nine conditions. These are standard development plan conditions, urban county traffic engineer, et cetera, that you see on virtually every development plan. There was a couple of cleanup conditions. That's just to address the townhouse units and their lots and be sure we're clear on the typical size and how they're going to be laid out. That is, again, just a cleanup condition. You are going to, I am going to present an AAMP report to you shortly. You will need to make a finding that this plan is in compliance. You also have a gold sheet in front of you that provides you with the finding for the use of an access easement. the townhouse development you can see this bank does front on what will be a public street however these houses are going to be fronted on an access easement and here is the lotting pattern around the townhouses we highlighted for you they are going to include the townhouses are going to have garages and private open space on those lots but you'll need to make a finding on that access easement as well Finally, we did have some discussion items for you, and we've handed out a sheet. The front of it will have orange highlighted information on it for you. And that's related to the condition of the screening that I referred to previously, again, on this area through here that I highlighted. Your subdivision regulations require that this land be fenced because of the fact that the land adjoining it is agriculturally zoned. When that happens, the regs require a standard fence be installed. It's a wire gauge fence, 52 inches, with a board along the top. that has been addressed on this plan by requiring that fence to be installed on this property prior to any lots being recorded. In this area, if you accept the applicant's proposed six-foot privacy fence, that will actually serve in lieu of the required agricultural fence, the wire fence. We have panned it out on the back of that page that has the fencing requirement for you, a revised condition addressing this. We are recommending that you do find that that six-foot privacy fence is an appropriate substitute for the agricultural fence in this area. we also although it's not clearly expressed as you can see before you we would like all this to be revised and placed in a note that's already on the plan that does address the agricultural fencing the timing that i mentioned on the lots is important we know we'll get the fence because we're restricting the lots here because they can build off this plan and build the townhouses without recording the plat we'd like to make it clear it is our intent to have that fence in place prior to building permits being issued on the townhouses, and we have discussed that with the applicant. Now, there are two remaining discussion items that are addressed by the handout that you have before you. Those on your agenda, those would be conditions 16 and 14, and they address the wetlands that are part of the AMP. And now I'm ready for that other handout that had the EAMP wetlands. You can see on this map, this is directly from the stormwater management plan from the EAMP. You can see the detention basin that is above Childsburg Road. Again, you have to remember to look at that hard right turn, that curve in Childsburg to orient yourself. As you move up from that, in that area exactly, as you go up, you'll see that there are some designated wetlands that are a part of your EAMP required stormwater features that are on a portion of this property. You can also see that they are contiguous, and they run all the way from Childsburg Road into the Jacobson Park property. In the AAMP compliance report that is before you, staff has reviewed the various elements of the AAMP. We find that the zoning and the density, the proposed housing, does comply with the AAMP. This area is EAR1, that is low-density housing. This plan comes in at three units per acre. That is consistent with the EAR1 zoning in the area. They have addressed the community design components. That's the setback of the special design area. They are providing alternative housing in the area by combining townhouses and single family. These are goals of the EAMP. They have a stormwater facility, as I mentioned, in the floodplain. That's also part of the greenway for the entire area to see of your EAMP. And there is a trail that will be constructed throughout that greenway. This is the last linkage, last little segment of that trail that will link this entire development eventually to Jacobson Park. So we have found that they comply with the land use and the community development design standards of your AMP, including the future street linkage at the top in the single-family area that will provide this neighborhood with linkages to the adjoining neighborhood. In connection with this, you can see that it's a well-defined neighborhood, and some of that has to do with man-made features but also with natural features, the fence rows, the trees. These are all things that are consistent with your EMP. Now, the wetlands. The wetlands are a part of the AMP, as I stated. I handed out some information, strictly information, that is straight from the stormwater plan. It lists the wetlands. It has a table where they're listed. These have all been quantified. Costs have been associated with them. Design criteria established. However, because of the nature of wetlands, because of how they function, And they don't just function as detention, although that is a small part of their role. As you're aware, they are a water quality feature, and they require habitat construction and that sort of thing. And as I pointed out on the previous map that showed the wetlands, they are located in this part on this property. But there's four of them required, and they extend all the way up to Childsburg Road, and they're contiguous. even though they're positioned along the creek, they are in effect one area of wetlands. And they were designed as part of the plan to complement existing wetlands that exist in the park associated with the reservoir. There are a lot of difficulties associated with piecemealing and putting together wetlands at one time. This was discussed on your previous plan as well. And there was a note that addresses that, that they have to pay exactions, money goes into a pot, and the idea that there's a consensus among planning, engineering, water quality, that the best way to approach it is along the way the applicant is suggesting, and that is these all be constructed at one time as one project. Now, it is important to note we don't know the time frame on it because there's intervening property that this applicant has no control over. And until all this property is able to be worked on, we're not sure when we'll get those. And we're not sure where the money will be either at that time. That is important to note. But that's something that is outside the applicant's control, and the time frame at this time is an unknown. With that, we are, again, recommending approval. We have stated in your AMP compliance report that they do comply with the AMP with the exception of these created wetlands because that is, again, as stated, that's a project that needs to be put together as one project and by preferably one entity if it can be accomplished. And I will quickly add the other EAMP features of infrastructure that are required is a trunk sewer line and, of course, Hayes Boulevard, both of which have been constructed. Although this property is not affected by them, those components are in place. So in that sense, this property does comply with those required elements of the EAMP. I do know that briefly there's a neighbor here who has some concern on the property associated with the wetlands. I have one more little map, the very last one. Thank you. It's a little hard to read, but if you follow the curve in Childsburg, and it's over to my right as I look at the map, And again, if you follow that up into the property, into the area of the floodplain, and I'll orient you here. It's on over. Yeah, go up. Go right up there. And there's a little blue dot right below the creek. No, back down in the creek. Right there we go. All right. That little blue dot is somewhere approximately in here. It is a former pond. It was identified as a pond. It is our understanding that pond has been filled in with some construction debris. We've had numerous conversations about that with various entities, and we do believe, yes, it has been filled in. It is construction debris. If for any reason it affects the construction of the road, if for any reason it affects the construction of those wetlands, that material will have to be removed and replaced. and that is that standard of the permitting process and its standard construction procedure to do that sort of thing. Staff does not have any knowledge and cannot address the why or with all of why the debris was placed there. We just know that it was, but that it can be dealt with under our standard permitting procedures. And I would add that when they begin this development, they will be required local, state, and federal permits on this property to work in the floodplain and work in this area. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin at this point? Mr. Martin, I would just ask, as far as your condition number 14, you're satisfied that it's detailed enough as to when the fencing would be built? We would be happy to add that timing component to that as part of the note that exists stating that no building permits shall be issued on the townhouses until that fence was in place. And it's already required as far as on the backside of the property? Yes, sir. The agricultural fence, the subregs specifically state what type of fence is to be provided, and we're comfortable with that time frame. Okay. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Yes, Ms. Phillips? Tom, with respect to the wetlands, you keep talking about constructing wetlands. Are we not going to try to avoid destroying the wetlands in the first place, or are we doing a no net loss rebuilding wetlands elsewhere? It's hard to see on that map before you, Ms. Phillips, but there actually are some identified existing wetlands, and they're just to the north or above the Jacobson Park area that you see there. They're little dotted. You have a map in front of you, by the way. You see little blue dots on that map. Those are, under the plan, are recognized existing wetlands. If you move up to this property, it's the map that you see on the screen before you, which may be different than the one Ms. Phillips I believe you're looking at. If you see the area outlined in red, that encompasses the subject property. There were no wetlands identified at the property in the 90s when the study was first done. And that is why they've recommended constructed wetlands to complement the existing wetlands that are associated with Jacobson Reservoir. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Ms. Beatty? Mr. Martin, with regards to the pond debris, will there need to be a note attached to that regard, that if that debris interferes with the construction of the road, or is that just a given? It is our understanding when I'm talking about engineering and various people It will have to be addressed if it's present there. I mean, it's part of what they require people to do. We do have a geotechnical note requirement on the plan now, but it addresses the steep slope area for the foundations of the townhouses. We certainly could expand that note to include the area of the pond. Okay. When you say that, would that include, obviously, any cleanup if needed? Absolutely, yes, sir. Okay. The geotechnical report that you're talking about, is that under, I'm looking for it. Is that? There's not a requirement. On the development? On the development. It's part of the review process. Okay. When we have steep slopes, we have a standard geotechnical note, and that will address these townhouses right in here. They border this steep slope, and they may have walkouts. That's a pretty standard requirement under our ordinance. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I'm pleased today to be representing Dennis Anderson on this. Tony and Barrett and I are here on Dennis' behalf. Dennis is back in the back of the room here as well. Just as a little background on this property, this is one of four properties that were created from property that the Tucker family owned years ago. They're sort of piano key lots. They're wide. They're about 270 feet wide of frontage at Childsburg Road, so they're not teeny tiny piano key lots. But Dennis had purchased this lot from another member of the Tucker family about 20 years ago or so. The property right to the northeast of us is owned by John Tucker still, this lot. The third lot was bought by Barlow Homes a number of years ago and developed. That's already developed. And the fourth lot was bought by Dennis from another member of the Tucker family and has already developed as well. So there's two left. this one that we have before you and the one right to the east of us that's still owned by Mr. Tucker. The lot that's before you today was rezoned to EAR1 about two years ago, and we had approximately the same road configuration then that was approved two years ago as is today. I wanted to point that out because I know on the subdivision committee when this came up, There was a statement from a neighbor that this road was going to dam the floodplain and cause backup of water onto the property. And I want to emphasize on this that all this area through the middle, through all four lots, is a floodplain. Of course, it goes right down to the reservoir. You know, it's part of the reservoir, sort of, the system. It's a floodplain, and we are not going to be able to build this roadway through. We are allowed to cross floodplains with roadways. You are allowed to do that. But we're going to have to get all our permits. This is just the start of a very time-consuming process to go through. Once we know where our units can be and where we want the road to be, then we have to take that to all the federal, state, and local permitting agencies that have jurisdiction over floodplains and demonstrate to them that we are not going to be causing any disruption into the floodplain. So with that, I do need to state on the record, though, that this is a floodplain, and under our plans for the community, it's designed to stay as a floodplain. It's a floodplain today which backs up water, and it's going to be a floodplain which backs up water 20 years from now. So whether or not you approve any plan on the Anderson property, there will still be backing of water up through the next property and the next property and the next property because it's going to stay a floodplain. So we are not going to be eliminating a floodplain. It's going to stay there, and that's the way this community has planned it. Tony has modified our plan from what you all saw at the subdivision committee, and that is down in this area where the staff pointed out that even though we were meeting the side yard requirement for EAR1, which I think is six feet, we were next to property which is still zoned agricultural, and so we have to meet the agricultural setback on the side, which is 25 feet. So Tony has modified the plan to do that. As Mr. Martin mentioned, we lost one of the townhouse units and put another single family on there to do that. But we do meet the 25-foot setback along the property line. It's ironic that when the property next to us develops as EIR1, they won't have to have a 25-foot setback because they won't be next to agriculturally zoned property anymore. So we will have the setback, but they won't have the setback. But that's just the way it goes. If you're in first, you have to deal with that sort of thing. Another thing we're dealing, as the staff has mentioned, was the additional screening along Mr. Tucker's property line right there. You can see there's a little notch in the property there. It goes in, and I can only guess, assume, as to why that notch is there, but i think it's to save the the barn that's located right here on the property they did it to make sure the barn was totally on the second lot not the first one but what we're screening if you could put the pictures up we wanted to show you what the neighboring property is the barn which you can see outlined on the neighboring property on our on our our plat is this barn uh there that's the one shot of this another shot of the barn which we're going to be be screening is there now Dennis's property line is right down down there down this side here on that if you could go to the next shot this there's a there's a storage building next to the barn as well I think that's outlined on the on the plan that Tony had just the site of it there the next one is Dennis this is on Dennis's property the picture in Dennis's property that Dennis bought this about 20 years ago and did plant a line of evergreen trees along this property line to try to get that screen going this is part of that you can see the evergreens in there that he planted and the last shot is just another shot of the evergreen screening we're standing here toward the back looking toward childsburg road childsburg road is right back there looking south there on that just to orient you so we do plan on keeping just as much of those trees that he planted as possible to to keep it as screening now as tony said his or as tony showed in his exhibit which mr martin mentioned we do have a landscaping plan for this townhouse area which involved a privacy fence that should count and we we know that we there has to be an agricultural fence along the rest of the way. There's a fence there, and where it doesn't meet agricultural fence standards, we will have to bring it up to agricultural fence standards. I know there's a dispute between our adjoining property owner and the next property owner over an agricultural fence, and I believe there was some sort of agreement made on there, and there's allegations whether that agreement was adhered to or not. We are not going the agreement route. We're going the route that Mr. Martin had mentioned, so everybody knows exactly what the agricultural fence is going to be on this one. The constructed wetland here I think is an important issue to discuss. Again, there's a floodplain through here, but there's two important issues about the floodplain and the wetlands. One is that we have to have our drainage off, which we have to have drainage issues, but the wetlands are not for water retainage. They are for water quality, in other words, to keep the water quality clean. When it goes through vegetated areas, it is clean naturally rather than going down concrete and asphalt to a stormwater pipe where it doesn't have a chance to leave the sedimentation out. So the water constructed wetlands is a water quality feature. Now, as we discussed two years ago, it's supposed to be in this area, the floodplain area, constructed wetland, which will be built. Most of it's not there now. And the issue is timing. Do we do that now, just on this strip of the property, or do we wait and do it all together in all four pieces? And as Mr. Martin mentioned, I think generally it's agreed that it's good to do it at one time so it can be coordinated and done uniformly. And that's important because until all this property develops, we don't know what size the constructed wetland will have to be. And that is because the wetland is just one way of ensuring water quality. Builders get credits for doing other things. One thing is putting their gutters to grass so that water runoff from the roof doesn't go down a driveway to the street to the storm drain, but it goes into grass and is cleaned that way. So they get some credits for doing that. They get some credits for doing other things. So until all this is done, we don't know what size this is going to have to be. Well, the next question is, well, how do we know it's going to get built if we don't build it now? Well, this is an exactable item. All the properties out here pay exactions out here, so there will be money. For instance, if Dennis doesn't build it, he doesn't get credits, so he's paying exactions. So at the end of the day, there will be money to build this. If the local government ends up building it, there's exaction money to do it. So that's how it's ensured that it's going to be done. I wanted to mention, too, the issue Tom Martin mentioned about the old pond on the property and the house. There were comments at the subdivision committee that there was a house on the property which had been demolished and buried in a pond and making construction debris. I've talked to Dennis about that, and what happened is this. is there was a house on the property when he purchased it, which was demolished. There was a fire there when they were demolishing the house. The people who were demolishing the house found a beehive in the chimney and decided it would be a good idea to pour kerosene down the chimney to get rid of the bees. And you can figure out what happened from pouring kerosene down the chimney. The house caught fire. And when the fire department got there, they decided that since the house was being demolished anyway, they would just let it go ahead and burn down. So the house burned down. And now, separately, the pond was filled in with dirt and rock. It doesn't have construction debris in there. There are probably remnants out there of an asphalt drive and that sort of thing still on the surface of the ground. but there is not construction debris in the pond. Obviously, as Mr. Martin mentioned, that I'm sure will be checked out as part of the road construction process, so if there is, it will be dealt with. But to our knowledge, there is not construction debris in that old pond. It was filled in with what's supposed to be filled in, earth and rock on there. So anyway, we agree with the staff conditions that have been set forth for approval, and obviously hope that you will vote in favor of approval of this. We think we meet all the conditions that the staff has proposed and all the requirements of the zoning ordinance, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Ms. Bumley? Could you remind me, on the reservoir side, what is the buffer there? What kind of fence on the reservoir side? On the reservoir side, there is a fence there. I think, is it a wire fence? It's a broken down wire fence. But what will it be, though, when it finishes? Mr. Anderson. If you want to speak, come to the microphone. Thank you. I'm Dennis Anderson, 3804 Still Meadow. So we really haven't made any plans as to what it would be or what it should be. We'd like to have some openings so the residents could go to the park, whether we would replace it with plank fencing. I wouldn't want to go back with wire. Or what that, I guess we'd probably get with the parks and see what their wish is. You know, there's lots of trees and evergreens, but the connectivity with the greenway from our community to the park, there should be openings that allow for that. Does that answer your question? Maybe yes, maybe no. How would you like to see it? Well, what I'm wondering is that's an AU zone, so isn't there a specific fence to address an AU area? The ordinance says that there is a fence required between AU land that is being actively involved in agricultural use. Now, the park is not actively involved in agricultural use, so I don't think that ordinance would kick in on the fence on the park side. Nevertheless, I think, as Dennis just mentioned, he does plan on doing a fence on the park side. Other questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, I do have one since we're... Do you have something, Ms. Batty? I do have something since we're talking about fencing. I believe Mr. Martin outlined it pretty good as far as agricultural fence on the back side of the property. And the subregs, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, call for a five-foot diamond mesh fence with a six-inch top board. I think it's a 52-inch fence. Yeah, I'm sorry. Four and a half feet with a top board and diamond mesh, yeah. Okay, that's what you're agreeable to? Yeah, that's what's set forth on that. As far as the timing of it as well, and then also in the townhouse section, you know the history around here. I just want to make sure it's not there. I think the ordinance says it has to be done before construction commences, so we're fully aware of that. As far as the townhouse section of it? Yeah. Yes. You're agreeable to prior to permitting as well? Yes. Okay. One other thing, and I'll ask for Mr. Martin to clarify it. I believe there's been conversation with Division of Water Quality already in regards to this pond. Can you speak as to what you know about that, Mr. Martin? There's two things that we're aware of on the pond. One, when we first heard about it, I inquired of some other agencies if they had any records of investigating any complaints and that sort of thing. Our environmental department, as you know, was D-E-E-M. They are now D-E-M. At the time when they were still environmental management, Ms. Duggar, the director, replied to my request stating that she did recall investigating a complaint, and I have an email, made the determination that there were no environmentally hazardous materials involved, and it was outside of her jurisdiction. So that was the first thing. The other thing that we're aware of is that our water quality people have a system set up to investigate pollution complaints. And so if there is a concern that there's a material that is polluting the water in this area, they will go out, they'll investigate the complaint, and they will test it. And if they find a problem, it'll have to be cleaned up. So that is something that our water quality people are doing now actively at this time. They investigate these types of complaints. Do you know if there's been a complaint filed? With them, I do not know if there's actually been one. Okay. Okay. Good deal. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, I guess what I'm getting at, you mentioned roadway, that you would do whatever is necessary. If water quality is in the same boat that is environmentally sensitive fill in this pond, I would presume you're agreeable or your applicant would be agreeable to also clean that up for that reason. I think we'd have to. Under the environmental laws, we'd be obligated to do that if something like that is found. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant at this time? no yes I'm sorry mr. Martin I just want to follow up with miss plum plumley's question I'm assuming the way that her question was just answered by the applicant that that will be followed up with under just those general approvals under like green space and trails those kinds of things as far as green space and access greenways, is that something that gets handled in the normal approval process? Well, the greenway is part of the designated just overall system that is part of associated with the drainage system in the area, and a trail will eventually be constructed. But are you referring to the pond and the debris? No, her question had to do with fencing on the reservoir side. Yes, ma'am. and access, is that what you were asking, Carolyn, access to the park area? I was just asking what kind of fence, what kind of buffer, what kind of screening would be against the park. As Mr. Murphy stated, and as you have before you, you have on a handout the relevant regulation. It's not required unless the land is being actively farmed. Now, if this body wants to impose fencing, you are certainly welcome to do so. You may recall on the last plan there was some discussion, and parks weighed in on that discussion about access to the parkland and how best to accomplish that. That was never fully resolved on that plan, how that might be accomplished. Okay. Any other questions? Others in the audience would like to speak to this? Yes, sir. Good day, and thank you. I see Mr. Martin and the staff has worked hard. A lot of things have been accomplished here today, and I'm really true and deem. And all of you, I'd like to thank you for your time. And I'd like to thank Mr. Murphy for coming up here, Mr. Barrett for his office. For identification purposes. I'm John Tucker. I'm the property owner joining it. And, yes, the bar is falling down. It's an insurance issue. We're having a windstorm how much is covered. So, yeah, it's been a problem. I have addressed it with Mr. Jarvis, and we have resolved a lot of issues, and we're moving debris on a regular basis, not as quick as everybody would like for it to do. So, I mean, I'm not embarrassed by it. It happened. It's an act of God. So kind of like Mr. Dennis and his house catching on for it. You know, things happen. Sometimes we have no control. I'm concerned about the fence instead of the wood fence along the thing I would request. chain link fence for the privacy fence for the reason of public safety. I'm the party that has the property over the fence from it. It can be privacy fence with the strips in it for the chain link, the six foot tall. I'm in agreeance with that. I think that that's a good thing. I'm glad they addressed it. I'm really up front with it. As far as meeting the EAMP plan, this road has a restriction on it to how many people can access onto Charlesburg Road with the development. In the past plans, they have put a road stub in at the front of the property, in between the townhouses. I request that to be there so I won't have to build another road accessing onto Charlesburg Road, which is a scenic byway and a historic preservation. Other than that, I'm in compliance with everything they've asked them for. I'd like for them to check on the water. I've been informed of water quality today that they are going to look into it. That's all my request is. So I have no complaint. Just ask for the few things I ask for. The road stub on compliance so that if other development happens with my property, it's there. The fence, we want to do that. So thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Ms. Mundy, Mr. Tucker, hold on just a second. There may be a question for you. If I understood you correctly, you've asked for a stub, a road stub. A stubbing. But you have access there at the back, right? You have access. Mr. Tuckerman, I need to take your microphone. In the past, they've had a road stub in here, here for the adjoining of this road here across this section. What we're having here to save access on the Charlesburg Road in the event that we sell to a developer, and this is what we're supposed to be doing is protecting under the EAM plea plan, Charlesburg Road, we request a stub in between the first two buildings here for a road. And other than that, I'm good with it. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Mr. Martin, would I ask for any follow-up from you? I would say particularly as far as the possibility of a Stub Street. I apologize. I did not see the exact location he indicated. He was talking about somewhere in this area. In the future, when we saw what was happening here, that would be something that could be discussed. Obviously, Mr. Anderson would be involved in that discussion. I would point out that, again, as I pointed out before, you have a 200-foot setback, a lot of required open space. You have floodplain in here. There's an easement. There are a lot of development constraints on this property. We really don't know, obviously, what could happen here. that might be useful, depending on what happened here, to allow people out to hear. At this point in time, we are very comfortable that this will provide the necessary connection to tie this neighborhood in to the overall development. This would be very tough to determine what might work there. If the applicant was agreeable, we might have a note that would address a future connection if plausible, if feasible, if we've done that in the past. I know at times it's, but of course now we're talking again of private access easement, other people maintaining it, that sort of thing. Those are issues that have to be addressed if a development here accessed it. I mean, that's a bit problematic from the staff's perspective at this time. Thank you, Mr. Martin. I wanted to ask Mr. Morton, the setback, the scenic view shed setback is 200 feet? Yes, ma'am, it's 200 feet. So that road connection, I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but that road connection is going to be so close to Childsburg Road that that concerns me, and it's going to be going on a private easement that would then have to become public. and I'm concerned already about turning over that road that's going to go through the floodplain, making that public and imposing the burden of repair costs on the city. I just don't think that's... There is, I might add, a 60% open space requirement in the special design area. It encourages clustering, but you have to meet that. Again, these are all challenges, big challenges facing the development of this property. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin, you are seeing challenges facing the development of this property that we are looking at? It certainly has its challenges that you can see, but Mr. Tucker's property adjoining faces in staff's estimation some very large challenges to develop, and they include the same. floodplain, they're the setback. There's a 50-foot gas transmission easement as well. But as we're looking at the Anderson property, we really, for our discussion, we can look at the Anderson property as Mr. Anderson is proposing it. We really don't have to consider whether or not how the property next to it will be developed and where roads may come in at this point. Is that correct? You don't have to, but it certainly is a reasonable request to ask you to look at relationships. And again, this would be a prime example. We have a stub here and a stub here that recognizes the future development of this problem. That there is a future development. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Microphone, Mr. Anderson. Sorry. Microphone. Oh, I'm sorry. That's right. I forgot. That's true. this Anderson Creek will come in right along potentially here. Thank you, sir. Mr. Tucker, anything else? I'm good with it. But to meet the EAMP plan, that's why the request for the stubbing is on the front part, because it restricts Childsburg road access. Thank you, sir. Mr. Murphy, anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Mr. Murphy, anything you'd like to add before we close? Dennis mentioned there's multiple ways in and out of the Tucker property plan. We're planned so we have a connection in the back. There's a connection in the middle on Andover Creek Way and to the Tucker property from the other property as well. So we are proceeding according to the road plans that have been laid out for this property previously on it. All the properties interconnect back in the back. You can get into Andover proper in there as well. So there's multiple street connections already which are planned here. And as far as chain link fence, we would not prefer chain link fence on these properties. I think chain link has generally been discouraged over the last 20 years in subdivisions. Most subdivisions now have deed restrictions prohibiting chain link fence. The wire mesh fence with the board on top will more than adequately take the function of a fence to do it just as well as chain-link fence will, less visible as well, and it has more of an agricultural look to it. And then as far as in the townhouse section, Mr. Murphy, I think you're proposing a six-foot solid wood fence? Yes, the fence that I was speaking on the family part. The part that is in Tony's plan is what we propose for the House part. All right. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant or anyone from the Commission? If not, then I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any comments, discussion, and or a motion. Currently, we have, I believe, 14. Two of them have been, if I'm, Mr. Martin, if you correct me if I'm wrong, but I think with the revised conditions, we've eliminated 14 and 16, and now only have a revised 14 conditions. Is that correct? Okay. And noting that we do have an EAMP compliance statement and a finding for use of an access easement. I think it all can be made in one motion. Okay. Okay. On your agenda, 13 has been... 14 and 16 have been deleted and 15 has been changed to what is shown on the revised conditions, which now makes 14 conditions. Is that clear? Okay. All right, so. I move that we approve DP 2013-8 with the 14 conditions, and I think that there was some wording that Mr. Martin had said to include under number 14. Is that the revised condition? The fencing prior to permitting. Okay, yeah. The fencing prior to permitting building, is that correct? Yes, ma'am. As part of the discussion, we agreed to add a timing restriction to that note addressing the fencing along the townhouse area of the development plan. So we have a motion for approval with revised 14 conditions, adding to number 14 that the fencing in the townhouse section will be installed prior to building permits. Correct. So, motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Mr. Chairman, I hate to inform the Commission we're having server issues with the electronic voting and I'm afraid we'll have to do it the old-fashioned way. We can do it by a show of hands then. It did pop up, so vote on the screen. Motion still passes. Thank you. Our last item is Lakeview. I appreciate everyone's indulgence, but we'll take a five-minute break and then get started. Thank you. Yeah, I have been advised I need to provide some disclosure here. I have a little bit of history with this property, having done some work for a couple banks on it, but in no way is this going to affect my ability to listen to the evidence and make a decision. Thank you, Mr. Berkley. Mr. Taylor? All right. Starting off, I have placed with Mr. Berkley a collection of e-mails and letters that we have received. The top one is the one in favor. The rest below that are the letters and emails in opposition. Again, those are placed. That's everything we've received since this plan has been filed, and that should be circulating its way through you now. The next item on your agenda is on page 3 under item B. It's plan 2012-104, Lakeview Estates, Unit 2B, Blocks J and K, Unit 2E. This is a final development plan for property located at 475, 503, 517, and 519 Lake Tower Drive. This property is located off of Lakeshore Drive. If you were to come off of Richmond Road and Lakeshore Drive, a row of single-family homes and homes here, Seton Road comes in, Lake Tower Drive in this area. A previous development plan was approved by the Planning Commission, altering the apartments and approving the townhouses, the unconstructed townhouses shown back here. This development plan, this amendment, adds a five-story apartment complex with access off of Lake Tower Drive, a parking structure adjacent to the development. This is the reservoir and the duck pond in this area. The subdivision committee recommended postponement due to primarily two reasons on this plan. There's a floor area requirement and a height to yard requirement in the R4 zone. This property, again, has 118 units, 192 parking spaces. It is currently zoned R4. The height-to-yard ratio, the issue related to the height-to-yard ratio was primarily related to the fact that this property is R4 and a portion of the lot is R1C. The zone line runs in this area. The height-to-yard relates to the fact that the height of the building is established by how far into the lot it comes, The previous development plan, the previous version that was seen by the subdivision committee, had a height of 70 feet and six stories. This revision lowers the building by one story by 24 units to the 118 units as shown, but reduces the height by 5 feet to 65 feet. That creates a yard that is required of 32 1⁄2 feet based off of the height. There is still a front yard setback of the R4 zone of 20 feet, but the function of the height of the building creates a different yard requirement of 32 1⁄2. They have altered the building envelope and moved the building such that in areas where they are proposing the building, there's at least a 32 1⁄2-foot distance between any property line. That is one of the significant changes to the development plan that allows the revised recommendations that you see. the second condition was related to the floor area requirement the floor area requirement is 0.7 in this zone the property the previous amendment to this develop revision of this development plan did not indicate the amount of area that was r4 and r1c for the purposes of floor area they can only use the r4 zoned property the applicant gave us a revised plan that clarified the acreage of R4, the acreage of R1C, which does allow us to verify that the floor area proposed is coming out of just the R4 property. The exhibit that you see above gives a breakdown of areas under the ordinance and definition of floor area that are not considered as counting towards floor area. In other words, they are square footages that you can deduct from your gross building area, and gross square footage to equal the total floor area ratio. Because this plan is so close, as you'll note, at .69, with the FAR required and permitted at .7, the staff felt it very important to verify and double-check their areas that they were deducting in order to meet that floor area requirement. What you see on the board with those balconies, interior courtyards, and utility rooms on each floor, the staff was able to verify dimensionally that those deductions are accurate, that the square footage and the total floor area on this plan does meet at .69. That exhibit was the other piece of information that the staff needed in order to be able to give you a revised recommendation that you see on your pink sheet that does revise and eliminate conditions number 10 through 13 and does allow this plan for the staff to provide a revised recommendation of approval subject to the nine sign-off conditions remaining that you see before you. If you have any questions, at this time I'd be happy to try to answer them. Questions for Mr. Taylor? No? Okay. Thank you, applicant. As the applicant's coming up, I appreciate everyone being here and want to hear from everyone that has something to add to this, has a concern, interest, like, dislike, whatever, in the interest of time and efficiency, I would ask let's not be repetitive and strictly stay to the point of the matters on this plan. And I would add, before Mr. Murphy started, we do have time restrictions on this, so we will have clocks running. What's my time restriction, Mr. Chairman? Did I say five minutes? No. Up to 30 minutes. Okay, we'll be within it. Thank you very much. We appreciate the chance of being before you today. Again, I'm Dick Murphy representing Lakeshore Apartment Associates, which is the owner of this property. The person behind the company is Alan Schubert, who's right here with me on the front row today. And we're very pleased to be working with Alan and his partner, John Knapp, who is probably on his way over here right now. And Alan grew up in this area, grew up in Lexington. As you probably read in the newspaper, he's done development work in Houston and Louisville as well. But he owns and operates Beaumont Farm Apartments here in Lexington over in the Beaumont area. He obviously owns this property. He has developed the old Lafayette Academy building on South Upper Street, which I've got a little information on that in my handout to you. I forgot to hand out my handouts first, so Tony's going to be handing those out to you. Again, Alan and his company bought this property two years ago, giving you a little background of this. At the time he bought it, the property was in a bank receivership. It was known as Sonnet Cove Apartments. Unfortunately, Sonnet Cove was on a number of lists, which it's bad to be on. It was on the code enforcement list. There were numerous code violations. I'll just show you a couple of these things. I've got some before and after pictures. There were mold issues, as you can see, in the property. These are they got some before pictures and these were actually in some of the units which were able to be rehabbed the Pictures and some of the ones the ones they tore down were in worse condition. They had sewage problems there on that The first floor of these apartments weren't even able to be rented when he got them. They were in such bad shape The exteriors were bad. These are some of the pictures of those. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on them because Some of you may have seen this and been aware of the conditions. Again, another exterior picture of those. We had numerous exterior problems, and I've got a few more of these that show you what condition these were in. So code enforcement of Lexington was extremely happy to have these purchased by a responsible developer. Alan proceeded to tear a number of these down. Another list of what it was on is a bad list to be on, and it says something about your property if you're on the list. It's the no pizza list. the pizza delivery companies and fast food companies would not deliver to this property on it. And after Alan got some of these units demolished and rehabilitated many of the other units, he had to have his manager go by to each individual pizza and fast food company which delivered and convinced them that it was now safe to make deliveries to what used to be Sonic Cove Apartments. It's now Lakewood Park, and the part we want to construct is being called the harbor at Lakewood Park. The third list that was on was the crime list, unfortunately. This all came to the head when the receivers held the property and there was an armed robbery at the rental office, and the receivers would no longer work there unless there was a security guard on there every minute. that the office was open. So when they took this over, it was a genuine community problem. And we've been very thankful for all the meetings that Alan has had. I haven't been to them, but I've had various reports. And I think people have almost uniformly thanked Alan and his company for coming in here and turning around this apartment complex. We're in the final stage of doing this right now. And what he's done is he got some pictures of the, that's a before picture, after picture. As you can see, this is an interior of one of the rehabilitated units that were kept up and were in good enough condition to kept up. Those are being rented right now. If you've been out there, you can see those are very good looking apartment units. And here's another picture of the exterior here of those units. So it's been a success story, and we want to continue it to be a success story as well. As I said, we're on the third stage of this, and it has been very well received. I did want to show you a couple exhibits in my handout. There's just on the first three pages, there's a story from the Herald-Leader written by Beverly Fortune about Lexington native remakes dilapidated apartments. It quotes David Jarvis, the director of the city's division of code enforcement, saying this is definitely a success story. It quotes Kevin Atkins, the economic development officer for Lexington, saying that we talk about infill. Here's a developer who took existing dilapidated structures, redid them without using up more land capacity, and increased the city's tax base. It's a big plus for the community. And that article also mentions in there that the final phase of this development will be a multi-story luxury apartment building targeted to older individuals. And that's what we have before you today, the final phase of this. I just wanted to tell you on page 3 and 4 and 5 of my handout is a write-up in the Herald-Leader when Mr. Schubert did the Lafayette Academy apartments at 333 South Upper Street. The Herald-Leader columnist wrote a story about that and the improvement it has done for the downtown area as well. Alan does quality redevelopment work and is experienced, knowledgeable, and has a track record of doing good work both in Lexington and in Louisville and in Houston. He knows what he's doing. Allen's plans for this property have always included a mid-rise structure. As a newspaper said, this is targeted toward older empty nesters. He told me in one meeting, I asked him what his target audience was for, and he said it was for me. Somebody who's older, whose kids had moved out of town. After he asked me how old I was and where my kids were, he said it's targeted to me. So it's targeted to me, but it's not an assisted living facility of anything like that, But it's targeted toward a person who may want to lock up, go to Florida for a month or whatever, come back, not have any maintenance worries, but wants to live in a nice setting such as this. I want to give you a little history of this. The plan we had before you last month was a six-story tower. and as mentioned with the floor area issues the fact that we could not use the portions of our lot which are zoned single family we could not use those to calculate our floor area ratio so we've reduced both the footprint of the building and the height of the building we've reduced the height five feet from 70 feet to 65 feet which will result in a five-story building at this time at this point and we've reduced the footprint as well the but I do want to tell you about the original plans for this property back in 1970 when the Planning Commission first had plans for Lakeview area this is the plan which was signed in 1970 approved by your all predecessors this is a final development plan for this portion of the property, the portion we have here which is A, B, and C off of this one. This one was A, B, C, D, E, and F. But A, B, and C was a final going down to where it is. This is where Allen's property is right here. And what is it showing in 1970 as an approved part of this plan? This is an eight-story residential tower approved in 1970. It's named Lake Tower Drive, and that's probably the reason for the name of the road, Lake Tower Drive, is there were towers proposed. There are eight-story towers for this site. There were also some other towers proposed out there. It wasn't developed like that, as you know. It was developed as three-story garden apartment pods, various separated buildings of three-story garden apartments located in this area. Mr. Schubert has removed them in this area. The plan that was actually constructed on this has about the same number of units. I'd like you to look at in my handouts the page which is back on page 8 for the Lakeview Estates Development Plan. I was curious as to how we're changing the number of units and the number of bedrooms, because I know there's been issues raised about increased traffic in the area, and I wanted to see exactly what we were doing to the unit count on this. Tony compiled this for me from the previous plans. As you can see at the top of the page on page 8, the July 9, 1970 plan, which is the one which is over here to my right, which was approved by this planning commission, had 332 dwelling units, and those were on the area which is in the development plan which we have before you today, 332 units. At the time of the purchase, as it was built out, that's in the middle of this handout, you can see there were 331 units actually built. So they built just one less unit that had been approved originally for this property. Now, the original plan didn't list the number of bedroom units, but that's important as far as traffic generation. So we got that number, and it was 632 the way this was built when Mr. Schubert's company purchased this property. Now, the bottom numbers are what's on our plan, which is before you today. and that is the count we have of number of units is exactly the same as it was when Mr. Schubert purchased it. 331, counting our proposed mid-rise building and the townhouses we have here. Exactly the same number of units. Bedrooms is about the same. It's a little less. We have 624 bedrooms versus 632 which were on the plan which was as built on there. So we are exact same number of units, fewer bedrooms. We're going to generate about the same amount of traffic from the same number of units, same number of bedrooms as we had before. And I want to remind you that that street system and the infrastructure was built even in accordance with the original plan, which had about the same number of units on there. So the infrastructure, the streets, the traffic is going to be equivalent to what it was previously on there. We're not increasing the number of units. We meet all requirements of the R4 zone. On page 6, I just put in the copy of the zoning ordinance, which gives us what our requirements are, the lot size, the frontage, the front yard, the side yard, the rear yard, the open space, the lot coverage, the maximum height, and the off-street parking. We meet every one of those requirements. Now, normally, I could just sit down and not say anything more when I tell you we meet all the requirements of the R4 zone, because that's what your examination is. Do we meet the requirements of the R4 zone? We do. The staff conditions that are being proposed to you, the only conditions we have are the standard sign-off conditions for administrators after you approve the development plan. and it's one of the smaller number of staff conditions you have on your agenda today. There are no discuss, there are no resolve, anything like that. That's because we meet every requirement of the R4 zone, and I think that's extremely important to have in front of you. I did put in on page 7 a copy of the comprehensive plan definition of densities. The comprehensive plan really isn't in play at this hearing because we're already zoned. We've been zoned for 42 years, the high-density apartment zone, our four high-density apartment zone. But I wanted to look at the Comprehensive Plan, too. The Comprehensive Plan calls for high-density residential on this property, and it is a level of between 10 to 25 units an acre. We come in at about 18 or 19 units per acre, So we're about in the mid-range of the high density as called for on our comprehensive plan. I wanted to talk to you about the height of the building. I know it's good for me to say that we meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance, which we do, but I know people have other concerns as well. People have said, well, let's just do three-story buildings on there. Well, we looked at the height of these, and what I have up on the screen before you is a three-story apartment building with a hip roof. It's an 812-pitch roof, which is a common pitch these days, which is 58 1⁄2 feet tall for a three-story building. And the line above that is 65 feet. That is the height of our building. Now, our building has a flat roof. It does have a parapet wall around it like you have to have on the top of a roof of about a foot and a half or two feet, which is counted in to 65 feet. But I wanted to give you that comparison because it's easy to say I'll just do three stories instead of five stories. But when you count in what kind of roofs you can have on these buildings, the impact on sun massing can be almost as great. It wouldn't be as great with three-story buildings, but it would be almost as great with a three-story building it can be as it is as a five-story building. Now, maybe somebody would build a three-story building a different way, but I just wanted to point out that this is a three-story building which comes in just six-and-a-half feet lower than our height on this. And as far as the height of the building goes, I want to point out to you that our land slopes off from Lake Tower Drive down to the reservoir. And we have to average that height because down toward the reservoir side right here, we're going to have a little taller look than we are along the street on there. So we have to be able to work that in in our 65 feet height. Another thing I want to point out about the height is we do have a three-story parking garage attached to our building. But I want to emphasize that that's three stories parking garage right there. The sort of double L-shaped building is five stories, but next to us, which is next to the townhouses over here, most of that is three stories. It's the parking garage right there. As I said, the traffic should not be any greater because of the number of units we have here. I did want to, Mr. Chairman, I know there's been discussion here about light and shadows and shade, at least previously on this application. I've been told that there's what they call a solar study. I'll call it a shadow study, a computer program that shows where shadows fall on this, which some of the neighbors may have. And I have a shadow study as well, which I'd show you. Now, I feel that is irrelevant and probably beyond the pale of what you consider here because our ordinance considers light and openness, but it does it through the requirements which we read before, the open space requirement, the lot coverage, the floor area ratio, the setbacks. That's how we in Lexington govern the openness and the light, and we meet all those. There is absolutely no provision for studying where shadows fall, but if you're going to get into that and admit that, I have one that I want to show you. So if you're not going to get into that, fine. But I guess I need a ruling from you on how you want to proceed on this. Mr. Murphy, at this point in time, I would ask that you just hold off and wait, and let's see what they present. If you're in agreement, fine. If you're in disagreement, then we'll go with that and let you get into it at that time. Okay. So you're saying that shadow studies are not relevant? this? I'm not saying shadow studies are or are not relevant at this point in time. Well, we do have one, which I will hold off and not show. And we do cast a shadow, as any building does, on this. We cast a shadow on neighboring properties. My next-door neighbor has a two-story house, and he cast a shadow on my one-story house at certain times of the day. And this building will cast a shadow at times, but it is not nearly the shadow that we might have been led to believe on this. We think it's actually a remarkable small shadow that this casts on other properties, although that's really irrelevant. As I said, we meet the open space requirements, the setbacks, the height, and that sort of thing. So I will hold that off. I did need to mention a couple other things to you. Just in my packet, I have put in two Kentucky Appeals Court case precedents, and I just put those in to mention two things. The first one on page 10 is the leading subdivision case in Kentucky. It's Snyder v. Owensboro. it's back in 1975 but in that case a lot of cities have ordinances that say you have to comply with their zoning ordinance on development plans and also we can look at the health, safety and welfare and that sort of thing the highest court in Kentucky said that after a property is zoned a property owner has a legal right to develop the property as long as it's consistent with the requirements in the zone in which that property is located. And it said in this Snyder case that looking at health, safety, and welfare issues after you've already looked at the requirements of the zone in which you're located is not something the Planning Commission gets into. Those issues are considered at the zone change stage, not at the subdivision plant stage. The next case is the Wolf-Penn case, and that's from 1997. And that's sort of similar here. Neighbors felt that it wasn't proper to build on a piece of property in Louisville because it was a buffer area they'd counted on for a number of years. And the neighbors said that it wasn't compatible with the neighborhood. And the court again said that the public body and neighbors must accept the rights attendant to ownership of property, specifically the right to use property as one sees fit within the parameters of zoning legislation, and that issues about compatibility and that sort of thing are not addressed through that direct question. They are addressed through the question of whether you comply with the requirements of the zone in which you're located again. And they said that case where the neighbors were making arguments that the proposed use was not compatible with the existing neighborhood were really zone change type arguments and that once the zone change is granted, you are entitled to build again in conformance with the zoning regulations in the property. And I know we've got to recognize that people have concerns about this building coming into the neighborhood. We have to recognize that. But I think everybody also needs to recognize that, number one, Mr. Schubert is a very responsible developer, has been complimented for everything he has done here in Lexington, and does good quality projects which are a quality contribution to the neighborhood he's in. And number two, we have been very careful to design this so that it does meet all the requirements of the R4 zone. We are in the high-density zone. We're in the high-density area under the Comprehensive Plan. We're on a street called Lake Tower Drive, which has been named that since at least 1970 on there, and we think will be a very quality contribution to the area. There's probably some issues I'm missing on this. I did want to point out we do have a flat roof on this just to make sure it's clear with everyone on that. Our parking garage is three stories, not five stories over there. We are not a group residential project. We are designing this so that the townhomes, which I have really not mentioned, we have a line of townhomes along the reservoir here which are going to be for sale on individual lots. So these are each going to be on individual lots. Our mid-rise building is on an individual lot as well. So we are governed by the R4 requirements, not the group residential project requirements. I do want to emphasize, too, you may see mock-ups of what the view is across the lake, and obviously this will be visible, but I think what the mock-ups don't show is that we have a ring of two-story townhouses, which are going to be in the range of $600,000 to $800,000, which are on the lake, which are the second visual buffer as you're looking across the lake. The first visual buffer is a group of existing, rather tall and mature deciduous trees, which are on the lake. Then we're going to have these two or two-and-a-half-story townhouse units. then we're going to have our mid-rise five-story building here. So I think the mock-ups you're about to see are not going to show our townhouse units along the lake right here. As I said, these townhouse units will be selling for approximately $600,000 to $800,000. And the mid-rise building is designed so it could be condominiums. There's no market for condominiums right now. They will be rented initially. and it's anticipated that the rents for those units are going to be between $2,000 and $4,000 per month. So I think you can see what the type of development. To attract that type of target tenant, you have to do a good job on this. And for the market here, too, I want to mention a couple things about the question might be, why don't we just build three stories? I've heard that. Why don't we just build three stories here? There's a couple reasons for that. One is the three-story model is a failed model on this property. It was a failure in every conceivable way you measure things in. We don't want to repeat that. There have been parking ordinance changes since this was built in the 70s. What was there in the 70s? In the 70s, you had to have one and a half spaces per unit. Today, you have to have nine-tenths of a space per bedroom. That increased the parking about 10 or 15 years ago. People realized there wasn't enough parking in a lot of these units for three- to four-bedroom units, so they increased the amount. We are required about 100 more parking spaces today than was required in the 1970s for the exact same number of units and fewer bedrooms. We're required about 100 more spaces than we were required to do. Parking garage is the way to go for that. Four minutes is okay. I'll get in under that, I think. And as I said, the third reason is we want to do this in one building, the big building, the five-story mid-rise, is that the target audience is the empty nester who may want to leave. and the first floor will have common areas in there. We want rooms where people can have some social life in it, a room where you can go and watch the U.K. basketball games on a large screen TV or where you can play cards and do something like that. We want people to have the opportunity to meet and socialize. It's much easier to do that in one building than if you had pods of three-story apartment buildings around the parking lot. If you can think about it, are you going to want to go out and watch the U.K. game on the 70-inch TV if it's icy and snowy and cold, if you have to go outside? You're much more likely to do that, go down and see some other people or play cards, if you're in the same building as the other people who are living there. And again, we actually have a smaller footprint on this lot per unit than we did previously because we can do it in five stories. We have room for amenities. There's a swimming pool here. I'm hoping to have other amenities. We have more open space because we're able to do this in a five-story building. And we want Freedom to do the design, and we think this is a very good design for the area and for the property. So I'm going to sum up, and you may have questions that other Petoni or Alan or Rebecca, I don't know if I introduced Rebecca, our development manager from Alan's company, who is a well-known architect here in Lexington as well. But just to sum up, the last thing in my handout is a letter we have from Bill Lear. And Bill is a resident of the island, and I hope you will read that. He is very complimentary of what Alan has done and goes into the history of this project as well. But the thing in the back, he mentions that a number of people in the neighborhood have objected to the height of the mid-rise building in here. He said he respects their opinion but doesn't share it because for three reasons. He says, number one, history has shown that initial negative reactions to other different developments in our area turned out not to be well-founded. Number two, diversity in housing types is a good thing, not a bad thing, and it is something we have sought to do throughout the community increasingly in recent years. And three, I think this is important. If the developers, Alan and his partner, had come to the neighbors before they bought Lakeshore Village, and propose to buy and do exactly what they have already done and now propose to do, we would have thrown them a party. I don't think we should treat them any differently just because they didn't try to strike that deal beforehand. I think that sums it up very well. And as I said, I'm pleased to present this development to you. Alan does a very good job with everything he does. I know what he's going to do here is going to be just as good as everything else he's done in Lexington. We appreciate your listening to us, to our presentation. I have lots more I could tell you about this, but I think my time has about run out on it, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. With your timing, I was wondering if the clock on the podium was working. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Murphy at this point? No? Okay. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in favor of this development? Let me see a show of hands. No. So the rest are in opposition, I presume. If I understood everything right prior to the hearing, there's a couple of gentlemen maybe that's tag teaming Mr. Murphy here in response. We'll start with those and go from there. And as I said a moment ago, we are interested in hearing from those that do want to speak. I just simply wish and hope and would ask that you not be repetitive and simply stay to the issues at hand. So, gentlemen, who's first? I would say, timing-wise, the two of you all are going to have the same time combined. Okay. Mr. Chairman, my name is Darren Dusik. I live at 775 Harbor Point in the neighborhood commonly referred to as the island. My home is directly across the water from the applicant's development. along with me is joel de girolamo my friend and neighbor from across the water we're going to split our time we have more than 30 persons who've signed in and yielded their time but i think you'll be pleased to know we're not going to use it all um also i'd like to point out preliminarily both mr de girolamo and myself are on the board of directors for the lake owners estate association which is the owner of Lakes 2 and Lake 3. In the packet that Joel just distributed, there's a letter in opposition on behalf of the association. It also authorizes myself and Joel to speak on behalf of the association in opposition to the plan. Before we go any further, if I could ask the members or the people in opposition to stand that are present today. Thank you all. Thank you for being here. I'd also like to point out that at least seven or eight people approached me personally and had to leave that were here earlier. In your packets, you will find a group of petitions identifying over 280 individuals that have signed the petition in opposition to the development plan. these people reside on the island they reside in lakeshore village they reside in the lakeshore corridor the lakeside neighborhood bixby norbourne the other streets off of lakeshore they live in 150 000 homes they live in homes well in excess over a million dollars they include teachers doctors lawyers construction workers homemakers yoga instructors and every walk of life you can think of, including one federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, one former urban county council member, and one former director of planning for Fayette County. Just to clarify a couple of points Mr. Murphy raised, which I really didn't anticipate, this commission has the authority clearly under its purpose in 1-3 as well as 21-4-D to reject the plan as submitted. The two cases cited by Mr. Murphy have no applicability to this situation. One is the development and density issue on a 57-acre tract in Jefferson County off the Jane Schneider Parkway. The other involves a congestion and traffic issue in western Kentucky. Not what we're talking about here. I would like to point out that, and I guess back to Mr. Murphy's submittal, Mr. Lear, who I'm sure each of you is well familiar with by virtue of the work that he does, is a resident of the island. He does not live on the side of the island exposed to the water. He lives on the opposite side of the island. I would like to also point out that we requested a meeting with the developer, the applicant, and met with him, both myself, Joel, the president, Pat Robinson from Lakeshore Village Homeowners Association. we met with both Mr. Schubert and Mr. Knapp, as well as their architect and their construction manager, and tried to have a discussion where we could come to some common ground on the parameters, not so much of the development, but the height of the building. And I will be very straightforward with you and tell you that he has done wonderful things with the development and the work he has accomplished so far. We made that very clear to him and how appreciative we were for his efforts so far. Our issue is solely concerned with the height of the building, and we made that very clear to him. The conversations, while they said that they would look into and explore what we proposed as a three-story building, they proceeded with essentially or originally the approval of the six stories, and now, although it's only five feet shorter, it's five stories. So the conversations ended, and we came to no resolution, although we approached it amicably and are still willing to do so. In our discussions and with the developer applicant, his architect also showed us the rendering that Mr. Murphy used of a three-story building with a hip roof. The roof on that building is not a flat roof as is depicted in the proposed development plan. And while it's depicted in his middle as 58 feet, it's because it's a hip roof. That's why it's so high. It does not have the same flat roof. The comparison is not an apples-to-apples comparison by any means. Joel is going to walk through the submittal and some more details and factual basis for our opposition. Before he does, I'd like to leave you with a quote from the Mayor's Fresh Start Plan, which is on the Mayor's webpage, where he states, Nothing is as important to the health and prosperity of a community as neighborhoods. It reflects our belief that neighborhoods define the quality of life in Lexington for most citizens. I think that's an appropriate way for me to leave off. I'm going to reserve just a couple minutes at the end of Joel's comments and readdress a couple of other factors. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Duzak. okay as Darren mentioned my name is Joel DiGirolamo and I live at 543 Lake Tower Drive so I'm a resident at Lakeshore Village and I own a condo there and it's immediately adjacent to this property so what I want to give you is Mr. Murphy did a really good job of providing the technical details of the project itself. And what I want to do is give you an overview. So I'm here today as a resident, as a homeowner. I'm also here representing all these folks. I'm also representing about 280 people who have signed petitions. And I'm also a member of the board of directors for LELA, LELA's Lakeview Estates Lake Association. LELA owns Lake 2 and Lake 3 and the dam, and I'm representing them as well. So we're trying to save you folks some time and consolidate it all. I know you appreciate that. So as this indicates, and I've got on there that red dot, which is where the proposed apartment complex is, you can see that there are actually three reservoirs. This is Lake 1, which is next to the road, which is owned by the water company. Lake 2, which is in the middle, and then the apartment is on that one, and then Lake 3, which is back here, and the dam is here. So this is an area that's really important to the city, and we view it as a gem of the city, much like the Henry Clay Estate. It's like having the country inside New Circle Road. There's no other thing like it inside New Circle Road, and our view is that it should be protected. People go there to canoe. They go sailing. They go fishing. They go paddle boarding. And so we want to protect that. There's a lot of wildlife there. And so what I want to do is walk you around the property and give you an idea of it. So here you see this is looking south. This is looking at the island. And you can see all these are two- or three-story buildings well under the tree line. This is continuing around in a clockwise fashion. And now these are some of the apartments that Mr. Schubert and his associates rehab. As Darren mentioned, we're very happy with that. We really appreciate it. He's done a fine job there, and we really do like that. These are two-and-a-half-story buildings. Notice they're well below the tree line. Continuing on around, this is Lakeshore Village. These are the condos in the area that I live in. And, in fact, as we continue around, I happen to live back in here. These are condos, two-story and two-and-a-half-story. Looking a little bit further, these are condos on the other side of the lake. This is called Lake's Edge Condominiums, and those are three-story buildings. So within about a three-square-mile area, there are no buildings over three stories. So while this was originally zoned, R4 and a lake tower was originally in mind, What's happened over the last 40 years is that this has been a suburban area with three-story buildings. You can follow along in here. We're now on page six. Let me just finish. It's a lake. Very enjoyable. We enjoy fishing there. and there's a lot of nature there. So this is a bald eagle. We have bald eagles occasionally in the winter. We would like to keep them coming. Our concern is that if we build a massive five-, six-story building, that these birds are not going to come back. There's an osprey that's there a lot in the summer. While it's not rare, it's really not common for this part of the country. We want to keep that wildlife coming back into the area. and as Darren mentioned the mayor and his fresh start plan talked about how important neighborhoods are this is it and that's on his website as well and we feel that neighborhoods are very important to the city as well and we want to keep this neighborhood the way it is so what are our reasons well as Mr. Murphy talked about the height Darren talked about the height so I want to just walk you through these. We consider the height to be a nuisance. We have no opposition to anything three stories or under. The drawing that Mr. Murphy showed with the hip roof, that's kind of disingenuous because a hip roof, the shadows that it would cast would be completely different and much less than a flat roof. And so while it appears shorter, the shadow that it casts is considerably less. So we need to keep that in mind. And keep in mind that you have to, from where this proposed apartment complex is to be, you have to drive over a mile to get to any other building over three stories. Parking structures don't fit in with our neighborhood. We've had some situations where parking structures have been unsafe here downtown. People have been killed by things falling off parking structures. We really don't want that in our neighborhood. We talked about the shading of the homes, and we will show you our solar study. We're concerned that it will destroy the views, people from across the street, people on the island, and we will show that to you as well. This idea about putting a lot of light on the lake, if any of you have been around the lake at night, you will notice that any light that shines out onto the lake, you see it everywhere, because there's nothing to block it. And so if you have this massive building, 65 feet tall, with lights in the evening, it's going to throw a lot of light out onto the lake. There's going to be a lot of light pollution. So that's a concern. Talked about the traffic issue. We consider that a safety issue. If you've been around the intersection of Henry Clay and Fontaine Road at either 815 or 215, you'll see how bad it is. I'm going to get into that in a minute. Our concern is that it's going to lower property values. since the apartments have been rehabbed, number one, our units, our property values have not increased. I've talked to some realtors about this. Secondly, they have not turned over more quickly. So our concern is that once this building, this massive building gets built, our property values will actually decrease, and therefore the tax base into the city could decrease. There's a cycle of build and decay. It's a natural cycle. We saw it with Sonic Cove. We saw it with Pennington Place. Buildings get built to very high standards. They change hands several times over the years. We saw that with Sonic Cove. They don't get maintained. They become blighted, and they get torn down or rehabbed. What's going to happen when you have this big building that it goes through that same cycle of decay? Is it going to look like the south side of Chicago? That's a concern. We're concerned about drainage issues. In fact, before I came, there was somebody who wrote an email to Bill Farmer, copied me. She's a hydrogeologist, and she has studied the lakes, and she's very concerned about what's already in the lakes and then what could be additional pollution during construction and later with this construction. So what can you folks do? in article 21 as Mr. Murphy says there are the technical issues of the ordinances but then there's also here it says you may modify or disapprove the development plan if it finds and then there's all the technical stuff or if it finds there are existing or potential flood, drainage, traffic topographic health, safety, nuisance or other similar problems relating to the development of the subject property. So it's not just all technical. He also mentioned, Mr. Murphy also mentioned group residential. Now, this project to us feels and looks like group residential. The only reason it's not classified as group residential is because of the way it's lotted. If it were lotted differently, it would fall under Article 9. Article 9 states the project shall be planned to properly blend with all surrounding property. In no way does this blend with the surrounding property. That's our concern. So let's look at the other buildings that are over three stories, and now we're on page seven. And if you look in the upper left, that is Chevy Chase Plaza. It's five stories. Continuing on around clockwise, you see 1999 Richmond Road, which is where Lakeshore Drive dumps out into Richmond Road. And then there's an office building near the corner of New Circle and Richmond Road, and then Alumni and New Circle Road. Within that approximately three-square-mile area, there are no other buildings over three stories tall. So let me take you to these. So here's Chevy Chase Place. and to get there you would have to drive 2.3 miles. Richmond Road, you'd have to drive 1.3 miles. Here we are. This is the four-story building at Richmond Road and New Circle. This is right next to Pennington Place, which part of it's being torn down right now. Interestingly enough, Pennington Place is only zoned R3. So I find that really kind of interesting as well. And then continuing on, here's the one at Alumni Drive. Okay, solar study. So this is the shadow that this building, this massive structure, will create at, this is the winter solstice at 9 a.m. in the morning. And you can see it's going to affect a lot of the condos there. Now that shadow will go around in an arc until at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. then the shade will hit the buildings on the northeast. So when there were three-story buildings there previously, none of that shading occurred. So I want to point that out. Okay, traffic. What Mr. Murphy failed to mention was that there were two ways into Lake Tower, Manor Drive and Seton. And Manor Drive has now been closed to public traffic. It's private. There was a quick claim deed given over to them. And so it's closed to public access, so there's only one ingress and egress road, Seton Road. So our concern is that these additional units are built, and then there's going to be more traffic problems there. Secondly, the demographics of these folks are different than who was there previously. Previously, you had some lower-income folks, folks who didn't even have cars. There was bus service back in there. There's no longer bus service back there. Henry Clay High School is overcrowded, and our concern is they may be building more classrooms there, and so that's going to be an additional problem with traffic up there. And it's also interesting that we found out that when they're trying to sell those townhomes that they aren't even telling people what's going to be built there in the middle. Some people have come to us and they said, well, we didn't even know about this. now who's going to be affected on if you look at starting on page 11 and 12 you will see some homes that will have their views affected these are not inexpensive homes this particular one 759 lakeshore drive is about a 1.2 million dollar home the apartment building this massive apartment building would be directly behind it across the lake. This building, this house on Harbor Point, about a million dollars fair cash value according to the PVA. Let me show you. The top is what's there today. Notice the tree lines. Notice all the structures are under the tree lines. Notice the bottom one. This is the architect's rendering, our architect's rendering by the way. I need to put that disclaimer in there of this five-story building, and notice how much higher than the tree line it is. So our concern is that you're really going to affect the neighborhood. You're really going to affect the characteristic of the neighborhood. Now, as Alan mentioned, we did meet with Mr. Schubert and folks, and that happened on, and I'm just going to add to it, that happened on Friday, November 30th. That meeting didn't happen until I called Mr. Schubert on his cell phone. That's how we got the meeting. You'll see the list of attendees, John Knapp, Alan Schubert. John Knapp is a partner with Mr. Schubert. John Knapp lives in Houston. Mr. Schubert lives in Louisville. We talked. We explained how much we appreciate what they've done. We also explained our concerns. And we said that we respect and understand their view to develop their property. It wasn't until about an hour in the conversation that I had to say, you know, I don't hear you folks saying you understand and appreciate our view. And, okay. So my point is we've tried to work with them. They've not done their homework. They're not trying to work with us. There was no commitment to change. Darren talked about the Lila letter on page 15 of your booklet. You have the letter from Lila. Their view is it's not consistent with the history and use of the surrounding neighborhoods. It detracts from the scenic and natural settings of the lake. So LELA, these are the members, all the people who are members of LELA are homeowners around the lake. Secondly, the Lakeshore Village Homeowners Association is against it. Their view is it doesn't fit in with the general characteristics of the neighborhood, casts a significant amount of light onto the lake at night, and it reduces property values. and that letter is on page 17 of your handout. Now, in the rest of the packet is all the petitions that we have received, except one. I got three more signatures since then, but we've gotten 278 signatures. Now, my understanding is the Hampton Inn issue only got like 200 signatures, and I may be wrong on that, but we've gotten considerably more people people who are opposed to this issue. So we have the originals here if anybody would like to see them. So in summary, we view it as, you probably like this slide the best, we view this as a safety concern, certainly with the traffic, a drainage concern once you start building up onto the property, and a health concern with all the shading, and surely a nuisance because it's going to change the characteristics of the lake and of the neighborhood. Again, we consider it a gem in the city, and we really don't want to see it spoiled. So here it is, the lake. We would like to keep it low-lying. We would like to keep the characteristics similar. I want to kind of summarize here. Who doesn't want it? Well, we know there's more than 278 homeowners who don't want it. The neighborhood association doesn't want it. The lake association doesn't want it. Who wants it? an out-of-town developer. So in my business, I try to make issues as simple as possible. And I think this issue comes down to a very simple thing. And that is, who gets to decide the character of a neighborhood? Is it the neighbors or is it a developer? Thank you. Thank you, sir. I can appreciate that, please. Ms. Blanton, do you have a question? I do have a question. First, I just wanted to clarify something that the Hampton Inn was a zone change. It wasn't a development plan, so there is a difference there. But I have to say this is the first. I've never had neighbors come to complain about the development bringing higher income people to the neighborhood. So would you be in favor of this being affordable housing if Mr. Schubert were to change plans and make this affordable housing? I just was curious about that comment that you had. Well, you have to realize what Sonic Cove was like at the end. My understanding was like 40 percent unoccupied. A lot of the units were condemned. It wasn't too bad when it was low-income housing and it was reasonably well-maintained. It's when it became unmaintained when it was an issue. I don't know that we'd have that big of a problem. We do appreciate that it's higher income, probably higher income people coming into the neighborhood. But, you know, I don't know. It's kind of a wash. Well, they're also, it's apples and oranges. Sonic Cove was bad. In my mid-40s, I learned new words from across the water. Trust me, it was very bad. but it's a different type of evil with the size of the structure. It's a difficult determination to make. We've had that discussion as well. Okay, thank you. At this point, I'm going to continue on and ask for others that's in the audience that would like to speak, that would have anything to add. I appreciate the job that these two gentlemen did. And like I said, are there anything else that anyone would like to add to this? If so, please come forward. Yes, come forward and state your name. Good afternoon. My name is Pat Robinson. I represent the Lakeshore Village Homeowners Association. And as the majority of your audience, we're with them. We're with them 100% all the way. Please listen to our concerns. Please hear us. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? If not at this point, I'm going to go back to Mr. Murphy. Any questions from the Commission at this point for anyone? I would have one question for that. Yes, Mr. Wilson, go ahead. One quick question. And I understand how many signed the petition, 298? There are 278 in your packet. Okay. And I have another three here. How many houses or homes are in that area? That approximately three square mile area? I honestly don't know. And that was something I thought would be a really interesting statistic. But overwhelmingly, the people have been opposed to it. there have been just a few people who are either neutral, and you have one letter in favor of it. So, you know, that's why I had the chart that said who wants it and who doesn't want it. Okay. All I'm trying to find out is what percentage does that represent of the total neighborhood? Yeah, I can't give you a number, but it's high. I can tell you it's high. Any other questions from the commission at this point? If not, I would ask for Mr. Murphy to come back, and since they did have some sun, solar information, would you be in agreement with what they offered, or do you have anything different? I'd just like to show you what we have. I think the shade picture showed only our building casting a shadow. Go right ahead. I don't think it'll take very long. We're going to put a thumb drive with a little video showing the shade in various times and situations while we're doing that. Hopefully we can get that going here. While we're getting that up, I did want to point out a few things. And that is, one, the Hampton Inn, as pointed out, was a zone change issue. And that's where these topics, you've heard a zone change discussion today about this when we're not on a zone change. We're on a preliminary subdivision plan slash final development. Here's the study of the shadow. And this is taken, we go through December. Every second is one hour going from here's the midday going to the end. And we come toward the in the morning. Everybody's in shadows and everybody casts a shadow on somebody else. It's difficult to see right now. But the once you look there, dawn two hours after. Look at we don't even cross the street with our shadow. We come on down. We don't hardly hit the townhouses until an hour and a half before sunset going here. Yet when we're coming up on sunset again, everybody casts shadows on everybody. Again, going back through here, hitting the street. Everybody casts shadows. The three-story buildings do, the two-story condos do. Windows. the sun's just at the surface of the earth everybody's going to be casting a shadow and if the one thing i would point out you can hardly make it out here but when you can see the purple on the top of the building that's in the sunlight and the shadow from the five-story portion of our building doesn't even leak over the side of our three-story parking garage until right then just before the hour before sunset on there. Every other time, it's the three-story parking garage, which is casting the shadow, which everybody's saying three-story building is fine on there. So our five-story building set back here is not really casting that shadow on there. So that's enough. Take that off if you would. Just wanted to show that to you. There are a number of concerns raised, and And we certainly understand that when a new building is built, people are concerned about it, curious about it, and it arises issues that people bring to the fore. But many of the issues that were brought up, for instance, the threat of pollution to the lake due to construction, that's going to be a case no matter what's built there. We have very strict guidelines here in the city, and this area has already been disturbed and demolished. Those issues are being raised only, it's not only because of five-story building, it's whatever that goes in there. Same thing on traffic. As I pointed out, this was a development for targeted empty nesters who don't have kids going to Henry Clay. they already graduated from Henry Clay by the time they move here, aren't going to be generating additional traffic. There was a comment about Manor Drive being closed. Manor Drive was legally closed because it is now a private drive so that Mr. Schubert's property could have additional parking on the sides of Manor Drive. It's still open through traffic. Anybody can drive through there who wants to. I drive in and out there to get to this development. It's still open to traffic that has not been obstructed to the traffic flow. The property, the mid-rise has been shown on the master plan two years ago. It was mentioned in the newspaper article some time back. There's not been an effort to conceal what's going on on this property. So the same thing applies to light on this. The issue of light coming across the lake is an issue of the direction and intensity of the light. That would be a concern with whatever goes in here on this. Now, I talked to Ellen earlier about what kind of lights we're going to be using and that sort of thing, and the fact that if this were just a big sea of parking around three-story garden apartment buildings, you'd have tall parking lot lights. We'll have lights, too, but we'll be shielded. Like shoebox lights are in parking lots to prevent excessive light emanation from this project across the lake. But that would be a concern with anything that's here. It's the intensity. It's the direction of the light, again, as well. It was interesting that although it was stated that a five-story building would likely be a blighted building, when we pointed out when all the buildings in this area that are four- and five-story buildings were pointed out, every one of them is in good shape, looks good, going well. It's the three-story, it's the Sonic Cove, and the other one they mentioned that have had the problems with the old-style garden apartments on this. There was a discussion about property values, and we did ask, and again, that's not something normally relevant you get into. It was raised. We consulted with Clarence Cundiff, who's a state-certified appraiser, and just wanted him to come up a minute and give you his thoughts on the impact this building is going to have on property values. Just very briefly. your five minutes as far as rebuttals up, but just very briefly. Sir, go ahead. I can be brief. Clarence Kindiff, I'm a Kentucky certified general appraiser. I actually live at 2010 Bixby Way. The thing that I did look at was the assessed values at Lake Tower, which were generally at a low of around $80,000 up to $130,000, which is less than the median in Lexington, which is around $150,000, $160,000. and the apartments next door generate good rents. And there have been some sales over the last three years. The median price has increased over there from, I think, 92 to about 112. So there's been some increase in property values next door. And considering the properties next door are generally below the median, I feel like property values will go up. Okay. Thank you, sir. Ms. Beatty, do you have a question? Mr. Murray, I just want to clarify to be sure I heard what you said. On the original final development plan, did you say that that construction site was eight stories? Yes. This right over here is the 1970 development plan. We did approve. It was signed off by Bill Qualls, who was then planning director. eight-story building on the property we're talking about today. Yes. And approved by the commission? And approved. It was approved by the commission on March 26, 1970 and June 4, 1970. Ms. Phillips? I just wanted to ask the staff, there's got to be a statute of limitations on approvals. and 40-year-old development plan approval is... I was just pointing that out to illustrate that this had been originally planned for that eight-story building. Obviously, they would have to come back before you just like we are. And, Mr. Chairman, I was just finishing up my final rebuttal. The only other thing I wanted to say was that for the last 15 years, the motto of this community, and it sort of sums up our comprehensive plan, is Lexington, let's build up, not out. And I don't know who came up with that, but as an accurate summary, of every comprehensive planning material that has come down the pike, every comprehensive plan has had it, every mayoral candidate has run on that platform for the last 12 years, every council member has too. We have a case here where we're not really growing. We're not increasing the number of units. They are going to be slightly higher, maybe 6 1⁄2 feet higher, maybe 10 feet higher than a three-story building with a hip roof could be on it here. The only difference. We have a proposal that has met every requirement of the zoning ordinance. The staff has recommended approval with only administrative sign-offs. We're in the high-density apartment zone, R4. We're in the high-density category on the comprehensive plan. Mr. Murphy, let me cut you off. That's more just summaries of rebuttal. Okay. Sorry about that. I was talking about my case. You were on the road. We still feel that's a good proposal. Thank you, sir. A question for Mr. Berkley. And then I'm going to go to offering a rebuttal from the opposition. If you want to do that, sir. Go ahead. Okay. At this time, I'll ask for one of the two to come forward, sticking to your rebuttal comments. I promise I'll be brief, Mr. Chairman. First of all, one thing that I did want to point out is the architect who performed the solar study and the rendering that's included in your packet is Richard Polk of EOP Architects. I'm sure this group is well familiar with his work and his reputation. He's also a resident of Bridgeport. He could not be with us today to further explain it, unfortunately. Back to the question about the eight-story approval, I'm not sure if that was the entire lot. I dare say that eight stories would not meet the setback requirements and the floor area ratio requirements that we have today. Lastly, I guess I would ask you all, you're asked to do a lot of different things, and we have presented you factual support and data for our opposition. I would ask you to not only consider the factual and objective criteria, but the subjective criteria. A five-story building going in across the street from where you live, next door to where you live, across the water from where you live. You have been presented with a number of people in opposition to it because of the character of the neighborhood change that will come about with this size structure in a residential area. Mr. Schubert does not live here. His partner does not live here. His other investors do not live in this area. The only person in support outside of their team is Mr. Lehrer, who lives on the opposite side of the island, as opposed to the numbers that you've seen today. But I will leave you that one final thought to put yourselves in our shoes as you consider the decision on whether or not you will permit them to change the entire complexion of this neighborhood. Thank you all. Thank you, sir. Mr. Berkeley, if it's all right, I'll let staff come in with a rebuttal, and then we'll get to questions. Any rebuttal from staff? No rebuttal? Okay. Mr. Berkeley, you've got a question? I just want to say first, I have some familiarity with this project, and I think Mr. Schubert has done a very nice job to this point. I kind of do have some concerns about height, so I've got a couple of questions in regards to that. I guess my first question is, is what we see on the ground today, is that the height of grade, of final grade? And then there is also in the neighborhood's material, they've said that the site has been filled three to four feet, and I wondered if you all could comment about that. Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners. The fill that has been placed there is a result of excavation that occurred in the five buildings that he rehabbed. We excavated around all the foundations to improve the drainage around the buildings, put in new drain tiles against all the buildings. As you can see from the drawings, there was a lot of water, and that was why the first floor was not habitable. So all of that material was excavated out and essentially spoiled on this lot and then backfilled with the drain tile and the suitable material. The finished floor or the grade of the ultimate grade, a lot of that material will have to be either removed or redistributed because I believe we're a little higher than we want to be at that point. So, yeah. Any idea how much further you're going to go down? Because they've based some of their studies and information, I'm sure, on what is out there right now. Well, we're grading the building from what controls the height of our first floor elevation is our relationship to the road. So at our – Try turning the switch, Tony. Very good. Okay. We have two points of control. This is our shortest distance. We have our entrance to the building at this location and our driveway entrance here. That will control the finished floor elevation of the building because we're not going to want to create too steep of an incline at the entrance. We want to be maybe about a foot above the curb at that location. And then we also have a similar situation here where we're entering the garage. So that street elevation will control our garage elevation at that location because of the relationship to the road. So those are the two elements that control the finished floor elevation. And so the best way I can answer your question is we're going to be about a foot above the existing road at that point. Thank you. Other questions from the Commission? No. I do have a question. I don't know, Mr. Murphy or Mr. Barrett, who wants to answer it. Really what I see at issue here is height of a building. Originally it was six stories at 70 feet. Now it's five stories at 55 feet. 65, I'm sorry, thank you. Hold on, no, hold on, no question, no, no sir. Okay, I made one mistake, okay, and we're at 65 feet, I understand that. My question is, how did we end up getting to 65 feet if we lost a floor? Is there any room there to do anything else? Well, I'm not sure there is because of what Tony talked to you about, our set points on there. I will tell you that around the top we do have to have a parapet wall, which we have to count in our height on that. around the edge of the roof. Our floors are generally a little taller in a building of this sort, of this type of construction, rather than in a three-story structure. The average floor elevation or the height is going to be a little higher on this one as well. It is five feet lower. I mean, it is lower than what was presented to you last month by five feet. That's our maximum here. Our maximum is 65. We can go lower. We haven't built it yet and totally designed it yet. We may not go up to 65, but we need the flexibility on doing that. Okay, so at this point, I'm just trying to clarify this. You're dropping one story as far as the building, but you may add some overall height to other floors to get back to that. Some, there will be. Okay. Perhaps, yes. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from Planning Commission? At this point, I'm going to close this part of the hearing then, and we're going to open it up for any comments, discussion between Commission members. And whenever everybody's ready, we'll go with a motion. Mr. Berkeley? I guess I still don't have a good understanding after the questions. It does sound like we're going down from the existing grade that's there. And if I just heard you, I think, say correctly that there is maybe some flexibility in the actual building height. Can you give us an idea of how much height that we can cut off of this, if necessary? Okay, that would be fine. Go right ahead. We'll give you two minutes. Or thereabouts. Ms. Blanton? While they're talking, I guess I just want to share my thoughts with you. They have met every single criteria that they needed to meet under our code and ordinances. They are doing infill, which we all say that we want. It's beautiful looking. It's been praised. They mentioned the mayor's office has been praised by the mayor's office. They're saving an area that has been a blight for a long time. There is no reason for us to vote against this, and I think if we do, we are sending a really chilling effect to anyone who wants to come into this community, invest money, make it better. I think it would be a huge detriment to everything that we are trying to accomplish. Thank you. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Ms. Plumlee. While we're waiting, I would just like to thank the people that came down and spoke in opposition. It takes a lot of courage to come downtown, and you have a potential that your neighborhood is going to be changing a whole lot, and sometimes it's hard to accept that sort of advancement into your neighborhood. I hope before this meeting is over that we can work out something that will be palatable to you and to your neighbors for this development. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Plumlee. Any other commission members wish to chime in? Sure. Ms. Blanton? I'm sorry, Ms. Phillips. I just wanted to ask Tracy Jones, our legal counsel, about the ministerial. I know that under Article 21 we do have some leeway in terms of things that are at least superficially ministerial, and this seems to be one of those cases where the Council of the Commission does have some flexibility, given the proper evidence. Can you articulate that? Primarily, this would be a ministerial function. It is an amended plan, and so you can look at some of the criteria in 21.7E that talks about that. you would have to make some kind of finding which would have to be based on some type of factual information that you've heard today that the plan has a negative impact on public health, safety, welfare, or alters the essential character of the development as it was originally approved. So you do have some latitude to not just say you have to do it because that's what the subdivision regulations say, but you're going to have to base it on factual information that you heard during this hearing. Thank you. Other comments at this point? It seems like the hearing has been closed. This is for commission members. Mr. Murphy? Since this question was presented to you, I'll let you speak. You asked us about being able to lower the height, Mr. Berkeley. In doing the quick calculations in the architect, we can go to 60 feet at this point along Lake Tower Drive where it's established, 60 feet, five additional feet. Now, we weren't able to calculate the whole thing, So I'd have to say 60 feet at Lake Tower Drive and whatever that leads us to back here. I don't know. We don't know. We can't figure out what that's going to be. Because 60 feet right at this point along Lake Tower was the set point we were able to measure on that to bring that down from 65 to 60 feet. Now, and that will be the set point on it. Now, whether it might be slightly higher back here measured from the ground here on that. but 60 feet would be so that would be a lowering of five feet on the on the development here and we can't go any lower than that but that's 10 feet lower than what we were one month ago and feet thank you mr murphy other other comments or questions miss phillips i was just going to ask the staff if with the 60 foot height that will also increase the yard ratio decrease the yard ratio can you explain that yeah it would decrease the height to yard ratio it would be at 30 feet they would be allowed to move the building up closer to lake tower two and a half feet and still meet the height that they're proposing at that point so the net effect of a lowered building is more mass on the property potentially? It just allows them to move it closer to a property line within that ratio. It doesn't mean they have to. It doesn't mean they will. It just gives them the ability to move it closer. The 20-foot setback still pertains to R4, but the 30-foot would be required at a 60-foot height. Okay, thank you. Ms. Bader? And I guess I'd like to hear from, and I don't know, Chairperson, if we can do this, but I'm looking for a compromise between the residents because I hear loud and clearly what you're saying about the character of the neighborhood. But I also agree with the density and growing up and not out, and so I'm trying to find some compromise between that. So I hear that we can go down to at least 60. So is this feasible at all? Can we get a response from the residents on how that feels to them? Yes, ma'am. If you'd like a response, well, Mr. Dusik. Yes, sir. Thank you. Yes. We've tried this. We tried to have this discussion before it came this far. And we would welcome it again. But if they would consider a discussion with us where we can all get on common ground, this group of folks behind me is all for it. It's a little, to our disadvantage, I am an attorney, and I'm a construction and engineering attorney. That's all I do. They have their architect and engineer here. We do not have any technical expertise here. But by dropping it five feet, they've taken, when they went from 70 feet to 65, they went from 11 1⁄2 feet per story to 13 feet per story. Now they've taken it, it appears they've taken off roughly that same number and gone back to shorter stories to get to a five-foot less in elevation. I would ask you to pass on any vote if that's the case as opposed to a compromise here in front of you and give us the opportunity to meet and discuss it with them, but that will require them to participate. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Berkeley, did you hit? I thought you were reaching. Okay. If there's nothing else, I'm going to throw in my two cents worth in listening to all this. One, I'm going to appreciate everyone being here, the turnout, the signatures, and it is a strong voice. We've got our staff that says that except for a couple of items, it's almost a ministerial type action. there are always those couple of possibilities. I've heard many arguments. What it comes down to, as far as I'm concerned, is height, traffic, the number of units. It was there previously with prior development. so most of it I do not see relevance. Looking at shading, looking at views, there is some, particularly in looking at views from across the lake, views from whatever angle and so forth. You're talking about trees. If we're talking about 60 feet, I'm seeing 60-foot trees there that's in front of it as well. It's a tough call here, simply put. But at this point in time, I would be voting in favor of this. If there's any other comments from the commission members, I'll entertain it. If not, I'll entertain a motion. Ms. Blanton? Move approval of DP 2012-104 Lakeview Estates with the nine conditions outlined by staff. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of DP 2012-104 Lakeview Estates with the revised conditions. Nine conditions? Is that what I heard? Does that include the 65th? That was the question I had. With the agreement? Yes, the question I had is at what height? Are we talking at 65? The developer is willing to commit to 60-foot height limit on the Lake Tower Drive area. I amend my motion. That's in your motion. Okay, very good. Second? Yes. In agreement as well. So that's with the nine conditions. So with that, I'll ask everybody to vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. I sincerely appreciate you all coming down here and voicing the concerns. We do have a few remaining items. On our agenda, we have taken care of the performance bonds and letter of credit. Under commission items, we have the initiation of a zoning ordinance, text amendments, vehicle repair, accessories to residential use. You do have a white sheet in front of you for that text amendment. Thank you very much. We shall meet again. Do you want to? Do you want to? I know. We will. It's not personal. It's not personal. I'm not excited to look at a 60-foot building. Mr. Marks, if you're ready. Yep, I'm ready. Good afternoon. Thanks for sticking around a little longer to hear these. These four text amendments are the same ones presented at the work session you all, at least some of you, attended back at the end of November last year. All four of these relate to issues that have been problematic for zoning enforcement over the, I guess now, full year that we've been doing it since it was transferred from building inspection up to planning. So I'm at your pleasure. I can go through these with a little bit of detail or just answer questions that you might have at this point, all of them. or in your packets kind of towards the end on the white paper. It's actually a three-page handout, front and back, copied. Any questions for Mr. Marks regarding any of these proposed tax amendments? Mr. Wilson? Actually, it's to you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, I've heard these four now for about four or five months. I guess my question is, could we vote on this by consensus if everybody thinks it? I think so. Yes, sir. We can take them all four at one time if you'd like to. Mr. Chairman, whenever you get ready, I'm ready to make a motion. If there's no other questions, I'm ready. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve the four amendments that's listed there as the initiation of zoning ordinance text amendments as given by staff. Thank you. We've got a motion for the initiation of all four text amendments and a second by Mrs. Plumlee. Any further discussion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you all very much. I would say as far as a commission item, I was very prompt. I turned in a statement of financial interest across the way today. Everyone else, we've got number two here. you should have sounds like everybody's getting them so the only thing I'm saying is please turn them in friendly reminder we do have a work session next week that Jim Duncan will be presenting a lot of information in regards to the comp plan for us anything else from the commission any staff items looks like they're vacating so if not I'll entertain a motion to adjourn All in favor, please stand.