Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey The End Oh, yeah. Feel with regret. I come back begging you to forget, forget. Where's the love we once did? Open up your eyes, then you realize. Here I stand with my everlasting love. Need you by my side. Girl, to be my bride, you'll never be the night. Everlasting love, from the very start. Open up your heart, be a lasting part of everlasting love. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. We'll be right back. My very own everlasting love Open up your eyes Did you realize Here I stand with my everlasting love Need you by my side Just to be my pride You'll never breathe tonight Everlasting love How could that stop Open up your heart, be a lasting part of everlasting love Oh, my God. Every night that people fed him well Cause he treated them so right Oh, oh, oh Jolly mom sing Oh, oh, oh Make her eye ring And they wanted him to sing On the island near and far He always found his way By a Ryan lucky star He'd tell them of their joys He'd tell them of their woes They'd love to see him come They'd hate to see him go Oh, oh, oh, oh, Jolly Monsign Oh, oh, oh, oh, make the music ring He was making his way home on a dark and stormy night When he heard a cry for help, he saw a flashing light When he reached the other boat and offered them a hand They said, give us all your cargo as they took a pirate stand Oh, oh, oh, Jolly Moms sing Oh, oh, oh, give them everything Jolly Moms, it's over singing, last song very well They tossed them in the ocean cause their hearts were made in hell Came along a dolphin, he said, Jolly Moms, hello I've always loved you singing, climb on board, don't let go Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, Charlie and Mama said Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, make the oceans ring The night was still with magic, they could hear the secret lie They slammed into the heavens, they stayed up in the sky And all the island people when they wish upon a star See the dolphin and the jolly mon and tell them where they are Oh, oh, oh, jolly mon sing Oh, oh, oh, make the heavens ring Oh, oh, oh, jolly mon sing Oh, oh, oh, make the magic ring Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh you can do something Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo I'm going to have to hear what comes up now. I'm a little confused. What's been agreed to? Thank you. gentlemen. We're a couple of minutes late. We'll call this meeting to order. And first and foremost, I'm going to take one item out of order. Dr. Lynn Roche-Phillips is not with us today. She served on this planning commission for actually eight and a half years, which I think is extraordinary. From January 13, 2004 to June 30, 2013, I would simply like to recognize her at this time, thank her for her services. I tried to get her to come and told her I would not embarrass her if she showed up. With her not showing up, I could almost say anything. But with the fact that the length of time that I've been here, she's typically sat on the left side of me, and we've had varied conversations. Most of the time is regarding what was on the agenda. I'm not going to say all the time, but most of the time it was. Her knowledge when it comes to planning, I've learned so much for. She's been a vision for Lexington, and I think any decision that she made in these eight and a half years was for the good of Lexington. If I can get her here at a later date, I will. However, in the meantime, I will be taking this to her and giving it to her on behalf of the Planning Commission and the Lexington Fayette County Urban Government. Thank you. At this time, we do have some minutes for approval. They were emailed to the Planning Commission, and I believe one or two corrections were made and emailed as well. And if I'm correct, maybe the staff can help me on this. We've got minutes from June 13th, June 27th, July 11th, July 25th, and August the 8th. There were two that were taken off that. Mr. Chairman, the minutes for your June 27th meeting and your July 25th meeting were not distributed electronically to the members. The other minutes should be available, those of June 13th, July 11th, and August 8th. So minutes from June 13th, July 11th, and August 8th, with some revisions, have been emailed to the Commission members. If there are any other changes, please let it be known now. Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I'm going to move approval of June 13th minutes, July 11th and August 8th, 2013. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of those minutes. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Thank you. I will apologize to everyone. Two weeks ago we did not have a quorum. I'd like to thank the commission members that were here, although not enough to carry on business for the day. We did roll that agenda over into today's, and I think we can move through most of it pretty quickly. The first part of that would be the consent agenda. And, Mr. Salley, if you would, please walk us through that. I'd be glad to, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. There are a number of the subdivision and development plans that appear on your agenda that do qualify at this time for your consideration on the consent agenda. Those items begin on the very first page of your meeting agenda. There are a number of final subdivision plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first is item B on page 1, Plan 2013-81F, Bluegrass Business Park Lot 7, involving property at 2381 Innovation Drive. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 2, item C, plan 2013-82F, Tuscany Unit 8A, for property at 2445 Patchen Drive. The next two plans are also on your consent agenda, page 2, item D, and page 2, item E. This is Plan 2013-83F, Mayhem Property Unit 2B, and Plan 2013-84F, Mayhem Property Unit 2C. These both involve properties with an address of 2980 Manowar Boulevard. There is an additional subdivision plat on your consent agenda, page 2, item F. Plan 2013-64F, Lakeview Estates Unit 2B and 2E, an amended final plat for property at 519 Lake Tower Drive. That particular plan requires the Commission to make a finding, and there has been a green sheet distributed to the Commission with the necessary findings for the appropriateness of the use of an access easement for that plat. There are a number of development plans. also on your consent agenda. The first appears on page 4, item C, of your meeting agenda, DP 2013-62, amendment number 19 to the final development plan for Willow Oak Shopping Center, also known as Mill Pond Center, for property at 730 Mill Pond Road. The next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 4, item D, DP 2013-63, an amended final plan for the guest property, Unit 1. That particular plan requires the posting of a sign and affidavit. The staff has received two affidavits for this sign, one for the original meeting date of August 8th, and the second, an updated version for today's meeting. In addition, the staff has prepared a memorandum to the Commission about that plan's compliance with the expansionary master plan. On page 5, item G, this plan is also on your consent agenda, DP2013-66, an amended final development plan for Lakeview Estates, Unit 2B, Block I, Lot 7, and Block K, Lot 3, involving property at 519 Lake Tower Drive. The next item on your meeting agenda also is on the consent agenda, page 6, item H, DP2013-67, Willhite Park, Unit 1B, Section 2, Lot 1, an amended final plan for property at 3500 Arbor Drive. On page 6, item J of your meeting agenda, DP 2013-70, Deerfield Shopping Center, also known as Hampton Inn. This plan involves property at 1949 Nicholsville Road and 145 Collins Lane. There is one remaining item on your consent agenda. It appears on page 7, item K of your meeting agenda. This is a plan that has been recommended for reapproval by the Commission from your staff. This is DP 2012-45, an amended final development plan for Pearson and Trapp Company, also Dawher's Association. This is known as the Gardenside Shopping Center and involves properties with an address of 1805 through 1865 Alexandria Drive. Mr. Chairman, at this time the Commission can consider approving these items as recommended either by your subdivision committee or the one item by the staff, unless a member of the Commission, a member of the audience, or an applicant would ask to pull an item at this time for further discussion later in the meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. And as usual, I have sometimes major and sometimes minor hiccups. I did forget to ask for any postponements or withdrawals from the agenda. So before we move on to the consent agenda, I will ask if there's any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy on page 5, item E, DP 2013-64, Kingston Hall, Unit 2, East Bridgeford Land and Development Company, amended 2356 Newtown Pike. I represent Hospice of the Bluegrass, and we're requesting a postponement until your next meeting, which is September 12th, I believe, and that's because the text amendment which you all passed, making hospices of principal use, isn't scheduled to have final approval from the City Council until a week from today. So the staff has asked that we postpone this, and we agree. so we're requesting postponement. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Yes, that is September 12th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion from the Commission. Move for postponement of DP 2013-64 Kingston Hall until September 12th. Thank you. Second by Ms. Plumlee. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Staff does have two items to bring to your attention. Okay. On page 3, under development plans, item A, DP2013-57 Jones Subdivision. This is property located at 1167 Appian Crossing Way. The applicant has requested a postponement of that plan to your zoning hearing 926-13. This development plan is now associated with the zone change request that will come before you at that date. Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Move postponement to 9-26-2013. Thank you. Ms. Mundy seconded. Motion has been made and seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, on top of page 4, item B, DP 2013-61, Lakeview Industrial Subdivision Unit 3, lots 1A and 1B, for property located at 2553 and 2555 Palumbo Drive, We have received requests from the applicant to postpone that until your subdivision meeting next month, 9-12-13. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Move for postponement of DP-2013-61 until September 12th. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement until 9-12-2013. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Any other requests? That motion passes. Any other requests for postponements? Yes, Ms. Waite. You can kick Mr. Martin later. Under the table, of course. Page 8, item B under zoning items for full public hearings on zoning ordinance text amendments. It appears at the very bottom of page 8 that ZODA 2012-9 amendments to Articles 1, 8, and 12 for modifications to the B1 zone. This is an item that the Commission is reconsidering at the request for suggested changes from the Council. And the staff did prepare a staff report a few weeks ago for the zoning committee, and we recommended postponement for reconsideration or further consideration among staff in the law department about rehabilitation homes. So we would ask to postpone this to September 12th. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Self-opposed. Thank you. Seconded? Seconded. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, I'll return to the consent agenda. One clarification real quick. Mr. Salley, with the DP 2013-67 Wilhite Park, which is page 6, item 8, did you mention findings for use of access easement? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did not mention that. The Commission has been provided with the finding necessary for that plan on the blue sheet of paper. This is also a finding necessary for the sole use of an access easement to serve some of the properties proposed on that plan. Thank you, Mr. Salley. We do have a consent agenda that has been read. Anyone in the audience or any commission member wish to hear any one of these items? Seeing no one, I'll entertain a motion for approval of the consent agenda. Yes, sir. Can clarification on DP 2013-68, I noticed that we're doing that page one, item B, that the subdivision plan is on the consent, but the DP is not. Is that correct? I don't see any condition. There's a revision. Okay. They're asking for a revision on the development plan. Okay. So we need to hear it. Thank you. They've already presented a revision. So if there's no other questions, I'll entertain a motion for the approval of the consent agenda as read. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the consent agenda as read, and that's all. There you go. Do we have a second? Seconded by Ms. Plumlee. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Moving on the agenda, we'll start at page one under final subdivision plans, plan 2013-78F, the distillery district west. we do have revised conditions which are should be in front of you on a gray sheet and there is a waiver as well which is on a white sheet that should be before the Commission members Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. This is Plan 2013-78F, an amended final record plat for the Distillery District West, located at 1200 Manchester Street. The property is located outbound on Manchester Street on the left side of the street between the railroad overpass and South Forbes Road intersection in this direction. The Planning Commission postponed this plan on July 11th and July 25th meetings. The purpose of this amendment is to subdivide the lot into two lots. Your subdivision committee had recommended postponement due to concerns with the sanitary sewer service on the property. There is a waiver associated with this plan. Since that August 1 subdivision committee meeting, the applicant has submitted a revised plan that has addressed a number of the issues previously identified. The staff has also met twice with the applicant and the divisions of engineering and water quality to resolve the appropriate provision for sanitary sewer service to the proposed lots. So based on that meeting, the staff now offers these revised conditions and revised recommendation of approval for this plat. These conditions being the urban county engineers, urban county traffic engineers, building inspection approval, addressing office, urban forester approval of tree protection areas, bike and ped planner, addition of utility and street light easements. We ask that they denote the location of the cross section shown through Manchester Street, denote the acreage on the lots, and provided this commission grants a waiver to the land subdivision regulations regarding substantial completion of the infrastructure, sanitary sewer infrastructure. We ask that they denote reciprocal parking and access for all lots and the addition of an access easement to lot 4 here, if deemed necessary. So at this time, we'll take any questions or comments you may have. Any questions? Yeah, please repeat what you just said about lot 4. I didn't understand. This lot four may require an access easement. However, if a note is added regarding reciprocal parking and access for all lots, that could presumably cover access to that lot. Okay. Any other questions? Let me ask this one. I believe I know the answer. with revisions, one condition got dropped off, reviewed by technical committee prior to plan certification. That got dropped off because I presume it has occurred? It has occurred, yes, sir. You are correct. Okay. It was reviewed by tech. Thank you. Applicant, anything to add? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I think we have a report. You want to go on with waiver? Okay. Thank you. Yes, we do have a waiver associated with this. Mr. Martin will present it. this time. Hold on one second. Ms. Plumlee, you've got a question? Yes, I have a question about number one regarding the sanitary sewers. It says their maintenance responsibilities and floodplain information. What are those maintenance responsibilities and will they carry forward with the deed and so forth so that the city doesn't get stuck with? Could you explain that a little bit? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Plumlee. That condition is associated with the waiver request. It was a condition that was requested by this body on the original lot split where the maintenance of the sewer system was also discussed as part of the waiver request. So those maintenance responsibilities were put into that condition. A note was added to the original plat. That same language is also on this plat as well. Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The waiver report that is associated with this record plat is similar, not quite identical, to the waiver request on the parent plat. As was just explained to you, here is the area in question, and the original parent plat created two lots that covered this area, and they requested a waiver of this body when that plat was approved. This is an amendment creating the lots that you see here. The lotting has been shown to you on the development plan, and this is really the key issue to the waiver request. The waiver is for substantial completions. As you all are aware, when you have a subdivision, they're required to build the public infrastructure prior to recording a plat. They would like to proceed with the recording of the plat to allow sale of the property and financing to take place. That's not an unusual request that's come before this body, particularly the last few years. The paramount issue that is raised by the waiver request is the provision of sanitary sewers. And you may recall from your last discussion, this area is in the FEMA floodplain. It is low in elevation, and the trunk line is above the elevation of the sewer service that would be provided to these buildings. Again, you may recall that discussion. We talked about a pump station and maintenance of the lines. What you have before you is the same request for more lots. The applicant has proposed to provide private sewer grinder pumps to each building on these four lots with their own private force main that will then go to the city's trunk line. now they are going to go from these buildings as will one over on the previous plat they're going to come in this direction and hook into a trunk line that exists in this area you may recall in the discussion before you last time it was the trunk line on the other side of the railroad track after reviewing the situation working on it staff did meet with the applicant with the applicant's design engineer, and it was agreed that this system could work. Again, the important caveat and the reason for that statement that you asked about, Ms. Plumlee, is to make it clear that it is to be a private system and to be maintained by the owners of the buildings. We have recommended approval of that in your waiver report that you have, And I would add just briefly, we included 6-6-D of your subdivision regulations because that particular requirement of the subregs actually states that all property will be served by a gravity sewer, which cannot be done in this case. We've also handed out for you a piece of paper with an orange highlight on it. This is from the Code of Ordinances. And it's a very long Article V, and there's a lot to it, but we made a copy of the relevant page for you in this circumstance. And you can see I've highlighted, staff has item M, which states where Gravity Sewer Service, as defined in the ordinance above, cannot feasibly be provided, the government may require the installation of a sewage pump. In such instances, the installation and maintenance of the sewage pump shall be the responsibility of the property owner. So, again, this is from the Code of Ordinances for the city. It's consistent with what they're requesting here and kind of dovetail with the waiver requests that they need in order to move forward. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Berkeley, question? Mr. Martin, I remember in subdivision we talked about the grinders and serving various different lots. I can't tell from here. Does our provision for Item 7, addition of utility and streetlight easements, does that cover any necessary easements that would be required between these pump stations and these lots? No, sir. That will have to be added. Staff has seen a document that addresses that issue that the applicant provided that describes those. We do want to make sure that it's adequate to provide that service so it is still under review. That would have to be approved. The issue primarily is to make sure there's room for each trunk line and room to work on it and provide maintenance without disturbing the service from the other buildings. We have seen an e-mail from our water quality engineers accepting this design in concept with certain requirements being imposed on the applicant. Okay, I may be a little confused, but if potentially they're going to sell individual lots off at some point, who knows, how will they do that without there being easements in place? They will have to be in place. They will have to have easements for those sewer lines on all the adjoining properties where they cross property. So I guess my question is, then what are we approving right now? Well, you're approving the record plat itself, and they will have to add the necessary easements. Of the whole property, then? Yes, sir. Yes, sir, to serve these buildings with the sewer system. Yes, that will have to be accomplished. That is one of the concerns that has been raised with the applicant. Again, we have seen a legal document that they recorded among the various entities addressing it. It's being reviewed to be sure that we agree that it's adequate, that the city would agree. My only concern is that those kinds of things can be missed on plats, and when people are doing mortgages and you can have trouble down the road, and it's pretty important, I think. So I'm just wondering why it isn't already on there is what I'm saying. I guess what you're saying is they haven't designed where the buildings are going to be. Well, the buildings are set, and the lots reflect the building locations, and I believe they haven't exactly nailed down where every trunk line is going to be. I'm sure they can elaborate on that. But that will, again, have to be reviewed and okayed by our sanitary sewer folks. Berkeley, if I could add, you asked about condition number seven covering those easements. I think the first condition that's being recommended to you is the one that will cover the approval of those easements. Thank you. That's what I was going to ask, if the sign-off from engineering would take care of that. Yes. Sounds like it will. Okay. Yes. All right. Ms. Beatty? Dr. Beatty? I'm sorry. Mr. Martin answered mine in his last statement about it would have to be approved as they proceed. Any other questions right now? Applicant, anything to add? Afternoon. Justin Jura, 2020 land surveying. The only thing that denotes the parking agreement is actually... Take the microphone, I'm sorry. On the plat, it does denote that the parking easement that's been filed in a deed book for the construction, maintenance, ingress, and egress parking easement that was signed by the entities is noted on the plat. And this graphical representation of the 15-foot sanitary sewer easement is the proposed layout of the trunk lines that will come service the lots that are being created by the plat. That would be all I'd have to add on that. Any questions? Yes, sir? All right, you said proposed location. Because I think one of the issues is that they're not located yet. And I guess I'm trying to understand why they can't be located before we approve it. Well, there's a proposed layout of where the trunk, that was sort of the reason for the waiver of substantial completion, that we could go ahead and have the plat recorded. And then there is a report done by an engineer that has given numbers to Division of Water Quality about the size and makeup of the lines, just the physical location on the ground, should, proposedly, should be very close to this easement. But they're not located in the ground as of right now. but that's that would be that that would be the proposed location where they would be installed okay so they that would be somewhat binding then mr martin i believe so at least and if i'm missing the point here well again let me elaborate the reason they're asking for the waiver is so they don't have to in effect fully design or construct the sewer first because they need to record the plats to move forward. But they won't leave occupy or utilize the buildings until it is designed and approved. And so that's the key. One of the discussions that came about concerning the 15-foot easement was whether or not that was of adequate size for four independent lines. So that's another thing that has to be fully explored and approved by our sewer people in conjunction with the applicant. Other questions? If anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this request, this plan, seeing none, if there's no further questions from the Commission, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or a motion. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. I'd like to make a motion if nobody has any more comments. Go right ahead. Okay. Move approval of Plan 2013-78F and also move approval of the accompanying waiver. Okay. We have a motion for approval of Plan 2013-78F along with the waiver that is attached with the recommendations by the staff. I would presume the revised conditions, Mike? Yes, sir, the revised conditions. Okay. Motion has been made for approval and seconded by Karen Mundy. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. The next item would be on page 5, item F. It's Denton Farm, DP 2013-65. We do have revised conditions on a salmon-colored sheet that is before you. There's also an EAMP compliance staff report that's on a white sheet that should be before you as well. Thank you. Mr. Markman. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is on page 5, item F, DP 2013-65, Denton Farm, Ellerslie at DeLong, amended. You will find at your seats an orange sheet that will have revised conditions. as well as an EMP compliance report that has been distributed by staff to you. The property in question, known as Denton Farms, is located out on Richmond Road. And here is Old Richmond Road as it heads out towards the river in that direction, and it becomes Athens Boonesboro in this location. Of course, Jacobson Park and the reservoir is across in this location. DeLong Road is back in here, and there are properties that back up to this property off of DeLong Road. The amendment that you see before you is primarily for an area in Phase 2, which has been known as the condominium area. And they are proposing buildings with associated parking in here, along with townhouses in this location. You can see a detention basin is located between these two groups. Over here is a townhouse area that is currently under development. These are your single-family home areas. This is the main entrance and the only entrance that exists into this subdivision. It's off of Richmond Road. There is an emergency entrance, but this is the primary and only actual entrance for everyday regular traffic into this development. And there's a slight revision going on in this area and this area to the single family lots. But the primary focus of the plan that you see before you today is to show the development of this area down in here. The property itself is conditionally zoned to a maximum of 495 dwelling units. And that means whether it's a townhouse, a single-family home, or a condominium unit, each one of those constitutes a single-family dwelling unit, and it is conditionally zoned to that total. The development that you see before you today is proposing 25 townhouses and 99 condo units. in the area indicated, and again, as I stated, they're tweaking the single-family lot area slightly, increasing one lot in one area in that location. There's been considerable discussion on this plan and some issues that have arisen. Staff has met with the applicant. Staff has had considerable interaction with the neighborhood as well. The hand does have your basic conditions as approved by your subdivision committee, including the urban county engineer and traffic, building inspection, addressing, those standard things on a development plan. We have a revision that you see, and we've added a couple of new conditions that have arisen out of our conversations and our concern with the proposed development. Importantly, number 10 is clarify the berms and or landscaping on Phase 2 to comply with Article 23A-2R of the Zoning Ordinance. And we have an exhibit that will help demonstrate some of our concerns on that to you. If you would go back to the previous one, please, the overall colored. Thank you. We'll start with there and then go to that one very quickly. on this plan there are berms proposed in this area and through here and there is some landscaping proposed here on the original plan on one of the amendments there was landscaping in this area a berm and landscaping and posts were required and i'm going to return to that in a moment but again And you can see it. It's hard to see, and that's why hopefully you can see that on the color up. And if we go in red, if we go to the next one, that takes us to condition 13, where staff believes that it would be important to extend this berm into planting along Tatton Park frontage. Now, what we're referring to specifically in this case in 23A-2R, the zoning ordinance, It is a provision that allows the Planning Commission, it states may, impose a buffer yard. And it's a very specific requirement. It's a six-foot buffer yard with trees every 40 feet. And it includes either a fence, a berm of four feet in height, a wall, a similar feature. It also then allows combinations thereof. The staff believes that it's important that that be clarified, that it's meeting that requirement, and we think it's important that that be extended in those areas that you see highlighted in yellow. This buffer requirement is based on density, and it was put into the expansion area zoning because the intent was to encourage different types of housing. And when you have single family detached in a mix of those, it was not deemed necessary. But when you have apartments or townhouses or something at a greater density, in fact, three units or more of density in an area adjacent to an area. Did you follow me? I see. if you have three units of density in one section and you have six or more in an adjacent section of units, that three or more higher density in that area, then you may, this body may, if you deem it necessary, impose a buffer. And staff, in this case, they have attempted to meet that in the locations highlighted in red on the previous. You can see it on this as well, crosshatched. and then in the yellow, and staff believes that that is an important circumstance in this case. We have another one that's a cleanup condition, which is document compliance with the open space in the special design area. Staff is always very cautious when you have required open space that we make sure that it's being met in our special design areas. and then of course there is a finding for the EAMP. Before I go there, I'm going to touch on this landscaping one more time. We did receive a revision after meeting with the applicant and they are proposing to remove a detail that was approved by this body and we have an exhibit on that as well. You see that detail at the top of that page? That's a landscaping detail, again, that was approved for this location next to the townhouses. It was very specific, berm, plantings, and various items to help buffer this area. Now, the applicant is proposing to amend that and remove it and basically replace it with the berm that is located there now. Now, staff is concerned with that part of the amendment in that we want to be sure that's been fully vetted with the townhouse folks and the neighbors and make sure because the buffering that staff is aware is a very key issue to the residents and to the neighbors. So we are a little concerned about removing that particular detail at this time. We also, as I stated, there is a compliance statement that's been distributed to you on the EAMP. The EAMP, as you all are aware, requires certain components. Where there's major collector streets, they are exactable and required to be built. Trunk lines, sewer lines can be required to be built, various features like that. In this particular case, the infrastructure is in place for this development. There are no major highways or other pump stations or anything required by the EMP in this area. There is a stormwater system that's distributed through the development. I pointed out to you this is part. There's detention, and there's detention in various areas through the development here and some other places. is that it's consistent with the stormwater requirements in the AMP, and for the most part that's been constructed. There are community design elements that are important to the AMP, and that's been addressed by the use and work with the terrain, which is typical. Some of the buffering, although as you heard me, we believe there could be some improvements along that one area. But connectivity, roadway design, those things we believe are consistent with the EAMP and have been consistent since the property was developed. We are recommending that you approve the finding that it is consistent with the EAMP. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, let me try, I guess, clarify two things. One, with number 13, extend berm planting along Tappan Park frontage. Where is Tappan Park frontage? That was the area in yellow on the handout. Okay. All right. Over here, the boundary. And then the second part, across the road, to clarify, what was proposed and recognized by the Planning Commission was not built, but a farm and landscaping was built? It's staff understanding that it's not been completely installed, and there have been conversations about why that is. I'm sure they would like to elaborate for you. Okay. Any other questions, Mr. Martin? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, for the record, I'm Tony Barrett, Barrett Partners, Inc. here on behalf of the applicant, Barlow Holmes basically, but DeLong Development LLC. And we are in agreement with the revised conditions of staff. And I'll go through some of the matters that were brought up. I have an affidavit for the posting of the sign. I've got an affidavit for the sign that was originally posted for the August 8th meeting, and then after the August 8th meeting, we went ahead and changed the date to today. So I've got both of those pictures on there and affidating to those. Mr. Barlow has been in, and myself to a lesser degree, have been in conversations since the filing with the neighborhood, primarily Mr. Albert Kelly, who's with us this afternoon, and I believe he's going to speak as well. but a couple of issues that were initially discussed with the neighbors was some street trees that were not initially installed. Since then, those trees have been installed, and an amendment to the bylaws has been made in order to assure that as the builders transfer houses to the homebuyers, that the HOA has the ability to capture money to plant the trees if the trees have not already been installed. And then on top of that, the contract for the lot buyer also stipulates and has. It just wasn't followed through on by the home builders in many cases. But that also stipulates that the home builder is responsible for installing the tree. But all the street trees have now been brought up to date, is my understanding. With regards to the berms and the hedge and the column, there was an amendment made several years ago, I think 2005, that showed, and there was some confusion on Mr. Barlow's part, based on a conversation or discussion during a subdivision committee meeting where it was his understanding that the hedge and the columns were removed in lieu of the berms that had been installed. And so it wasn't that he was avoiding that. He just had a misunderstanding. But we'd like to keep the berms as they're constructed. It's basically topsoil, and we'd have to go. There's irrigation lines in there to keep it watered, but it's basically topsoil, so you'd have to go in and level a lot of that out in order to have some structural material to build the columns and also to align the hedge. So we are requesting that the berms be allowed to stay and the hedge and the columns be removed. I've got some photographs to show you the area in general and the berms in specific, and I'll show you those. I would suspect that all of you all or most of you have been out to Ellerslie and have seen it. It's quite attractive. Can we go ahead and put that on? Did you turn it? this is the Richmond Road I'm actually these are the townhouses before the entrance but I'm standing in the meeting and taking the picture kind of looking back towards Lexington but you can see the landscaping and the grade difference on Richmond Road and that continues as you come down Richmond Road. This isn't the berm in specific that we're talking about, but it starts to give you the character of the area. This is the townhouses. Kind of looks like an artist's rendering, but it's an actual photograph. And those are typical of what the existing townhouses, and the new townhouses are proposed to be essentially the same. This is the entrance median, and this is at the bullet at Richmond Road in the median. You can see the landscaping on the sides down the median, and you can see the townhouses that were just in that picture above in the distance there, and the berming begins right there. And then it continues in this location here is the berm. The condominiums are proposed on this side of the road as well. There's pretty extensive landscaping in the public areas. This is the corner there at Ellerslie Park. and the first drive to the right. The condominiums will be using the same median cut to the left. Another picture of the median showing the trees. This is looking back towards Richmond Road. You can see the berms in front of the townhouses. And another picture of the townhouses with the berms at the intersection. And then a little bit further down, you might recognize this area. This is the circle, the roundabout or the circle there. When you have found Ellerslie, this is what you find. And then in the center is the classic water feature. So it's a significant investment that the developer has made in the community and is committed to continuing that type of investment for the balance of it. He has quite a bit of land left. He's not in his last stint and he's trying to sneak out or anything. This is just another phase of the development. But Mr. Barlow and I met with Mr. Kelly yesterday afternoon in my office, and we reviewed a couple of things, and I'll go over that now. And I sent these to Bill and Tom earlier, but I didn't have a chance to amend the official development plan. So Tom alluded to it, but since it wasn't a formal filing, It's really just kind of a consensus that Mr. Kelly and John came to, and I'll explain what we kind of agreed to. There were three elements to the plan that were kind of discussed. And the first, this is the condominiums in the townhouse area. and we agreed to eliminate one townhouse unit right there on the corner of Tatton Park and at the entrance there to the townhouses to allow for a little extra landscaping and buffering along that area. And that ties in quite well with staff's recommendation for this screening to be extended along there. And then in order to maintain our 495 units for the community, we've added an additional single-family lot along Weston Park in this area by just taking a few feet off of each lot and creating an additional lot in there. So we have one more single-family detached lot and one less single-family attached townhouse lot. So that was – oh, and then there was also a commitment by Mr. Barlow to $15,000 worth of landscaping to be placed along those berms at the condos to provide some assurance that he'll continue with the quality of landscaping that has been provided to date in the community. The reference to the berming and the screening along Ellerslie Park Boulevard and Tatton Park, the reference to the zoning, 23A to R, I think it was, we're in agreement with that. I don't know that the intent, though, or the vision of that was that it would be across a street, except for that one 200-foot lot across the street would have a change in density, nor for most of that part with a divided median between them as well. So for most of the area there, you've got a pretty significant buffer just built in the infrastructure of the development. But we're agreeable to, because it's the character that John has been trying to create in the development anyway, so it's what we're after as well. So we're agreeable to doing that. So with that, I'll have a seat if you've got any questions, or I think Mr. Kelly is going to have some comments as well. Questions for Mr. Barrett? Thank you. Others at this time that would like to speak in favor of this plan? Okay. Let me see a show of hands as far as those that would like to speak in opposition of this plan. A few more all the time. That's okay. Recognizing what's been offered here, keep that in mind. And I would simply ask, let me ask this. Are they a spokesperson for the group that's going to go first? Maybe so. Okay. All right. Let me just say this. Just, you know, stick to the point. Let's not be repetitious. We want to hear what you have to say. But, you know, we don't need 20 people coming up here asking for the same thing. So with that said, whoever is the spokesperson, please come forward and we'll go from there. I'll try to use the PowerPoint from the side here. Oh, they've got it already going. Great. My name is Albert Kelly, and I'm the president of the Neighborhood Association in Ellerslie, as well as on the Homeowners Association board with Mr. Barlow and his wife. What I have put together and what I'm commenting on is I'm going to be reiterating Mr. Martin's comment and concerns. In addition, on that pile over there, I have 29 homeowners who have signed this document in support of this presentation and its recommendation, in addition to the individuals that are here today. So the 29 other homeowners were unable to attend because of their conflict with work. Some of them attended the meeting previously, and so they couldn't take off another day again. Just to clarify on Mr. Barlett's comment earlier, the street trees are not in place in the areas where there's attached housing, and the berms are not landscaped. And the majority of the photographs that he showed you are HOA property, not property that is being paid for and maintained by the homeowners themselves through the homeowners' dues. It's not expenses and work that's being done by the developer. Some of the homes are paying over $1,000 a year to the homeowners association for the maintenance and repairs of the landscaping. So it is not the developer putting in, which is a traditional development where the developer puts in at his expense, and then the HOA, after the developer moves on, takes over and then maintains it. We are paying for what is being put in and maintained as it goes through our dues every year. And that's an important distinction. So based on that history, I'd like to review the guidelines that the county has already established on the nontraditional zoning that is in place right now, which facilitates social, cultural, and economic diversity. This is right out of your own documents. So it results in significant flexibility in the types of housing that can be built and the densities. And it's really what one could call a planning experiment because it is unique in that the city and the county of Lexington is on the forefront in this movement of smart growth and having mixed housing in a diverse neighborhood. The plan allows for all kinds of housing types, But the critical success is the interface, which is also spelled out again in your documents. The critical success is the interface between these housing types, that you're going to have dense clusters of housing, and there's a diversity in housing that results in a very diverse neighborhood. And that diversity is encouraged, but the success is based on the buffers between these neighborhoods. So, for example, from your own documents, it says that low-density single-family dwellings abutting high-density multifamily use, there should be wide and heavily landscaped buffer yards between these properties. And when there's low-density single-family detached dwellings abutting low-density attached dwellings, the buffer yards don't have to be as substantial, obviously. So what do we have now at Ellerslie? Ellerslie, in my opinion, is a spectacular success. As many of the people here will reiterate, it's socially and culturally and economically probably one of the most diverse neighborhoods any of us have ever lived in. It's an extraordinarily diverse and successful development. And that this development proposal right now will be a turning point for this development. Because right now we have an extraordinary range of housing size, types, families, ethnically, religiously, economically, you name it. It's an extraordinarily diverse neighborhood, and it's a wonderful success. We have low-density attached single-family dwellings and low-density detached single-family dwellings right now. Right now, the detached, there is a landscaping buffer that has been referenced earlier today between the attached homes and the detached homes. These homes have been occupied, some of them, for over six years. And on the next slide, you'll see an aerial photograph. I'll show you what I'm referring to. The area in question right here, what he was referring to as buffers, is there is no buffer between these multiple family attached homes and the single family area today. So this is what's existing now and has been in existence for over six years. The berms that were referenced are in place. My thing died, I think. but there's nothing on the berms. So there is no landscaping on those berms at all. Thank you. I brought another battery. I didn't think it would die so quickly. This is the proposal overview. What you see here, as we pointed out earlier, is the large area that's proposed today. This is the existing plan for the townhouses that I just showed in the earlier photograph. and then there's a range of housing single-family homes on smaller title lots and correspondingly smaller homes to large estate homes in excess of a million dollars in this area. And it's all pretty much going extremely well, I must say, and so is all of the neighborhood fields. It's going extremely well. This proposal is to put 123 units, 211 parking spaces, and five buildings. These buildings, each one of the five buildings will be equal in length to the width of four house lots. So if you put that building across the street, which is the plan, and you look across the other street, that one building, and there's five of them, will be the equivalent of four house lots, not houses, but the whole house lot, front and back, 35 feet tall. Those are substantial structures. Substantial structures. This is the current site as proposed. Right here. So when you take that sort of schematic and you look at the site, you can see that it's probably the single largest visual element to the subdivision. And because it's coming in as the gateway to the neighborhood, it will establish the tone and the potential market for this subdivision in perpetuity. Secondly, you'll notice there are substantial investments made already in the single-family homes that abut this property. This property is surrounded by single-family detached large dwellings right now. As you can see here, all of these lots, There's a house under construction now and planned right here. These are older Google map photographs, but there are several more houses that have already been built. Again, in a substantial price range of over a million dollars already. And they're abutting these apartment plan right here. And this is the high-density plan that you've seen already. and if you look, this house right here sold for a million four, no, right here, sold for a million four and the setback, if you look at this line right here is the setback for building single family detached homes these buildings right here, including these larger buildings, aren't even set back as far as the houses are exactly right now So this plan, I appreciate the opportunity to have this unit, which basically was on the sidewalk, removed from the plan. But if you take this line through and carry it around, you'll see that the setback that is in place right now for detached single-family homes actually runs into these buildings. So the buildings are that close to the street and across the street from these single-family homes. and here it is going down Ellesley Park Boulevard. This is in complete violation, if you will, of the recommendations of your own master plan saying the buffer yards should be wide and heavily landscaped when they are between this kind of density and these types of housing. The proposal, in our opinion, does not include sufficient detail. There's insufficient space for the recommended wide and heavily landscaped buffer yards. The interfaces between the housing types and intensities must be designed to ensure compatibility. Architecturally, we must compliment Mr. Barlow and the developers that the buildings and homes that have been built here, including the townhouses, have extraordinarily high quality attention to detail in the architecture. And the flow of the subdivision and the way it falls through the topography has been outstanding. So we want to basically keep that success going. That's the biggest concern, and that it's in full compliance with the zoning ordinance on buffers. Our recommendation is to reduce the parking spaces to what has been required, which is 147 versus 211. explore the potential with the builder if there could be underground parking for some of the apartment buildings, which would actually reduce the need for parking spaces outside. Further reduce the number of townhouses and apartments in exchange for more phase four single-family lots. When you have a development that's of this scale and for this many years over time in the marketplace, the expectation of housing requirements changes. And so we've already had a precedent established, which is the need of the marketplace, to take house lots that were originally designed for larger single-family homes and more expensive single-family homes and had them subdivided and made into smaller house lots to reflect the change in the marketplace. So our recommendation is that that precedent that's already been established in the neighborhood, keeping the number still at 495, be continued, and these large, massive components that are presently proposed are further reduced and that goes back into the subdivision instead, picks up the 5 or 6 or 10, whatever seems to be the best way to do it, number of housing units from those apartments, and then makes smaller house lots farther in the neighborhood. So the end number will still be there. The diversity would still be there, but you would cut down on the massiveness, the visual massiveness of this proposal as you come into the neighborhood. Secondly, we'd recommend that to help reduce the mass and bulk of these buildings that there be architectural details. It's virtually impossible, in our opinion, to be able to make an opinion and a decision on a piece of paper like this. I mean, if you go around the United States today, anywhere, even the smallest little communities, they are presenting 3D renderings of everything they're planning. And it's astounding to us as new residents to this area to see that's not considered a standard operating procedure before you make a decision of this kind of magnitude, this kind of permanence, to not physically have a representation that's based on software which is dirt cheap and available everywhere. There are literally 50 companies in the United States that make this kind of software. It's not a reasonable excuse, in my opinion, that you have to make a decision this important on a blank sheet of paper when you've got a topography going up 20 feet from Richmond Road and you have no representation of what this thing will look like in scale to the existing properties that are there. Another recommendation is that the parking lots, which is another common design that you see around the country, is they put the parking lots somewhat below grade with berms that are landscape so that you don't have that ocean of asphalt in cars, like as if you were at a supermarket. And then lastly, there is a movement, as you're probably all aware, called the dark skies movement. So when you do intense urban development like this, that the lighting that is used in the parking lots and around the buildings actually focuses down as opposed to having the spurious lighting going up, which causes serious problems as far as light pollution and glare. So we're recommending that there be a three-dimensional representation of the project and it has an illustration of the building architecture, that the scale and relationship of the buildings to the abutting homes is visual, that you can see it so that you can make an informed decision, and that these 3D views would show how the project will fit on the land topography, that they don't just sit up there going up the hill. There's ways of scoping in the landscaping and the berms. And that's really in compliance with the spirit and intention of the expansion plan and the buffering of uses, the zoning ordinances. And we'd like to also correct the deficiencies with the existing development and we'd like to see a submission and an execution of a landscape buffer plan for the area between the existing townhouses and single-family homes that fully complies with Section 23A. The berms that are there now and have been there for six years do not comply with your own documents. The street trees were planted last week. They have been in your own documents. There should be no occupancy permits issued, and these homes have been occupied for six years. So this is the kind of history that we're concerned with. If we've had to go through this much energy and effort, This much expense as HOA dues payers to pay to maintain what is physically there and to pay for the trees ourselves. What are we in for when we're talking about 200 feet long buildings, five of them sitting out in front of our front doors? That means we're going to be stuck trying to salvage this afterwards and making it a quality development. Because up to this point we've had to fight to have the stuff that's there put in place after years of pressure and then paying for it ourselves through the HOA dues. We see this as a potential to really lose a fabulous opportunity to continue with a tremendously diverse neighborhood that we already have. And this is our last chance, if you will, because once this plan is approved and the shovels start going into the ground, then we're going to have to mitigate what is built afterwards. And what people or some of them are even suggesting is they're actually putting their houses on the market. If there's someone based on this plan, across the street has already put their house on the market yesterday. So there's major, major concerns about this development and its impact on the rest of the community. And I encourage you to be measured, careful, and thorough, because once it's approved, it's done. And this is probably one of the most significant pieces of property that is left to be developed in this community. And it's a beautiful piece of property, and it's done so well up to this point, and we'd like to continue with that. And thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Let me ask, does any commission members have any questions for Mr. Kelly at this point? Since he's kind of been the spokesperson for the group. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Plummer. Mr. Kelly, we've got a question. Come back to my phone. I'm sorry. One question I have, have you talked with the developer with regard to trying to resolve? Oh, yes. We've been in continuous. I have to say we have a constructive, proactive dialogue on a regular basis. We really do. Okay. So don't misinterpret my tone or voice or whatever that is adversarial. That's not at all. I think we have a respectful disagreement of what constitutes attention to detail and quality. That's really what it comes down to. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Let me ask this of the rest of the group that I'd like to speak. I would presume that most are in agreement with what Mr. Kelly was saying. Show me the chance. Okay. Very much so. Thank you. Now then, anyone have anything to add to what Mr. Kelly has said? Please come forward. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Your name, sir? My name is James Todd. I live at 256 Somersley Place in Ellerslie. I've lived there since September of 2007. So I've had a lot of experience with what goes on in this subdivision. I want to ask a couple of questions about part of the proposed amendment that Mr. Kelly has not covered. And I may be mistaken about this, but the proposed amendment being asked for by Mr. Barlow is to subdivide nine single-family lots into ten single-family lots. Am I wrong about that? Okay. Good. As I understand it, there's been no final approval of that proposed amendment, and that's what this proceeding is for. I have two questions. One, when a proposed amendment like this is made, in other words, to change the number of building lots, and in this case to take nine building lots and turning them into ten, which means you're going to move some lot lines, you're going to reduce the size of some lots, if not all of them, until the final approval comes, is the developer or the builder allowed to build on any of those lots? I don't know. I just came here to get an answer to that question. Can anybody clarify that for me? Let me say one quickly. we would need a revised development plan showing their proposal for us to look at and sign off on and approve before it goes forward. So to answer your question, nothing would happen until we have that. Correct, Staff? Well, hold on one second. I'll get a clarification here. The Post Amendment refers to Lots 3805 and in Summersley Cove, which I live right adjacent to. I'm not in the cove, but the next house to me is in the cove. And some lots going down the street from me and Summersley Place. just for your information of those lots that were nine lots and have now been turned into ten there are houses being built on two of them and almost finished a matter of fact one of them the yard was sotted yesterday so I just wanted to clarify I didn't know so thank you for that information I'm happy to hear this gentleman talk about the street trees We've been arguing about street trees for years and years and years. And as a matter of fact, I brought some notes from a neighborhood association meeting made in September of 2011. And at that time, there were a total of 24 residences or houses in Ellerslie that were occupied and did not have the street trees in. And best that I could determine, 11 of those were built by Mr. Barlow, the developer, the builder, the head of the homeowners association, everything. So we've been arguing about street trees for years. I'm glad to see street trees put in last week. I think I know why they were put in last week. But there's a grassy median in front of my house in Summersley Cove. It does not have any plantings or trees or anything. These nice trees and plantings you saw in the color pictures is not the reality of the grassy median in front of my house. about four years ago i had to agree to use my own water to water the sod to get mr barlow to put sod in that median otherwise it was just weeds but he did that and luckily we had a real wet summer and the sod survived last week when they put street trees in they came to that median and dug three holes. I assume that there's going to be trees going in, but the trees aren't in yet. And there may be other places. I don't know, but I know in front of my house they're not. But that's all I have to say. I just want to reiterate and make it known that I and all of my neighbors want a quality place to live. And we want the developer to do what the developer has agreed to do in writing. And there's been deficiencies in the past that we've argued for, for years and years, about for years and years. We just want the vision that he had in making this development a pleasant place to live. We want him to comply with his own agreement, his own documents, and the things that he's agreed to with this body and with the city to do. So we will have a pleasant development. We don't want to drive in there and look over and see a Kroger parking lot on our left. There's got to be, as Mr. Kelly says, buffers. But we are not against this. We're not against the townhouses and condominiums because that was planned when we bought our property. We knew it was there. We just want to make sure that this development continues to be a pleasant place for all of us to live. apartment dwellers, condominium dwellers, and we single-family dwelling dwellers. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Todd. Anyone else have anything to add to what has been said? I do not want to keep anyone from speaking, but these two gentlemen have spoken very well and I think addressed most of the issues. But anyone else have anything to add? You're more than welcome to speak. No? Okay. Let me go to any questions from Commission members on this. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. As everyone knows, I am new to this body, so I'm sort of feeling my way. Do we have enforcement powers, or is there some other mechanism to enforce prior agreements that a developer has reached with homeowners? There is. Mr. King, would you like to, since we were talking about this earlier, would you like to address this? Yes, there are different aspects enforced by different agencies. And even within the life of this subdivision, enforcement powers have shifted. in terms of zoning items. Prior to January of 2012, such conditions that were on plats related to zoning were handled by the Division of Building Inspection as a part of their duties. On January 1st of 2012, they were transferred to planning. So now we, in planning, have approval to move into authority in some of these areas. And we have been doing that and working on that with the neighborhood and others. So also in terms of new conditions and things of that nature, we will ensure there is a new permit called a zoning compliance permit. So for new construction, we will and can condition some of these special conditions to that. and we believe that those will be followed up on much more diligently under the new arrangement versus the old arrangement. The other thing I wanted to point out that in terms of street trees, the failure of planting of street trees did not just occur in Ellerslie. It occurred in many developments over the past few years. And because of that, the laws have been changed for street trees. It's not retroactive. to developments approved before that, but now a bond or letter of credit surety is required to ensure that if the developer fails to put those in, then there will be the ability for the government to comply with that. I'll probably defer to Mr. Sally on some of the details of the particular subdivision and what can and cannot be built, the questions that Mr. Todd raised. there are some other things I would like to just mention in general regarding this the question of architecture I need to say the government does not have any control over architecture by law so as far as seeing rendering sometimes you do in conjunction with zone changes and there are times that architectural restrictions can be voluntarily done, but typically the Commission does not see those, does not ask for them, because, again, you have no control over them. Mr. Sally, if you would like to add to the things that I'm talking about, I'd appreciate it. Thank you very much. Certainly not much to add. the one example that Mr. Todd offered, it's possible in a string of nine lots where the lots, if you will, that are on the edge of that string may not be very much different from their geometry in a conversion from nine to ten. So it is theoretically possible where those lots might be able to get a building permit with their side yards only changing a matter of a few feet. the lots in the middle of that string probably are much more susceptible to change, and it wouldn't seem very prudent for anyone to get a building permit on those if they were going to change in the future. The other complicating factor can sometimes involve easements, because many of those side property lines either have utility easements or streetlight easements that in a reconfiguration may be in the center of a new lot. So those can also be complicating factors. But in the example that was given from taking nine and making ten out of them, theoretically the ones on the edge of where those changes are made may not be affected to the point where there would be a delay in building on those lots. If you like, I can put a graphic up that hopefully will illustrate that, but that was the only point I would add. Thank you. Yes, Mr. King. I thought of just a couple more things that might be good for the general education of the Commission and the audience as well. I assume that there are private deed covenants associated with this development as well. As the Commission is aware, the Commission and the government do not enforce any private deed restrictions. We are not aware of them. The building inspection, planning commission, and others, by law, do not and cannot enforce deed restrictions. So to the extent that those may be out there or questions that people mind, I wanted to mention that. The other thing I wanted to mention is that, because it was mentioned by Mr. Todd, the medians, there is no requirement for medians to be landscaped by government rules. The street trees only apply along the perimeter of the street. So I wanted to mention that. So any plannings that occur in medians are typically voluntary. Okay, thank you. Mr. Barrett, would you like to come forward and provide any rebuttal or closing statements, or are there maybe a couple of questions now? Okay. Well, just a quick, I guess I misunderstood Mr. Kelly's agreement yesterday in my office. I didn't realize that he had a number of issues that he presented this afternoon. A lot of what he addressed, Mr. King addressed in response, a lot of issues in the EAMP master plan are not necessarily implemented in the zoning ordinance as we're required to interpret. I really can't agree with a lot of what he said with regards to the building line setbacks. I think they're significantly further back for the condos than the single-family homes. The parking lot is significantly landscaped. There are large medians separating the landscape area. We've committed to the berms around the perimeter of the development. The number of parking spaces, we have 99 units, two bedrooms. That's 198 bedrooms. That's two spaces per bed or one space per bed. That's basically 200 parking spaces, which would be your .9 per bedroom. A little less than that, we're proposing 211. I don't think that's at align with that. The expansion area has a little reduced parking than our R3 that we developed to and the rest of the community. That's why the minimum is below what you're normally seeing. I think the more single-family development detached relative to the variety of houses is in exact conflict with the expansion area intent to have an integrated development. the lighting. We have lighting ordinances that will be in hearing which requires your lighting to stay on your property essentially so the dark skies shouldn't be a significant issue. Typically lighting today by practice is the shoebox style where it goes down and not the old lanterns where it goes up. and speaking on behalf of the developer, I really have to disagree about the HOA salvaging this community. I think that's a gross misunderstanding of their role. I think the developer has done a fantastic job in developing this neighborhood. There are significant infrastructure improvements, the medians, the street trees, the fountain, the entrance feature, the open space that has been provided on the development in accordance with the plan. I just don't see that. Yes, the HOA is a contributing element to the ongoing maintenance and continuation of that investment that the developer has made, and that is true in every neighborhood association that exists. The HOA pays for the continuation of that and ongoing improvements, yes, but salvaging, this is not a salvage job. This is a fantastic development. Mr. Kelly opened up his presentation calling it a huge success and then went on to talk about all the failures, and I don't understand that either. Mr. Todd's comments about the lots, Bill Selle addressed that, and that's exactly what's happened. There was a house built on the end of the unit, and it's in line with meeting the setback requirements for the further subdivision of the lots. And Mr. King addressed the grassy medians. They're not required to be street trees in the grassy medians, nor are street trees required in the townhouse development either. So I just wanted to address that. And we're in agreement with the recommendations of staff. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Let me ask you this, Mr. Barrett. You had mentioned, and it was also mentioned by the opposition, I think, that the agreement is to delete one townhouse and add one single-family house. Yes. Has that been reflected on this plan? Not on this. It was on the exhibit I showed you. Okay. Which will be part of the record here? Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Selle, your legal, will that suffice as far as the revision of the development plan, the agreement and what is attached? Yes. We will then make sure as a condition that that is incorporated into the plan documents before it's certified. Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Kelly, Mr. Craven, you got any questions? I was going to ask a question. Yeah, sure. Go ahead. Excuse me. This is for Tom Martin, I guess. He's still here. I can't see him over there. So far as this reconfiguring these nine lots, hadn't it been done on some other streets out there previously? There have been some slight reconfigurations in this development. Yes, sir. It seemed like there was some other streets over there close to those townhouses that were reconfigured a little bit. I mean, there were two feet here and three feet there. There have been, yes, sir. There have been some reconfiguration. And then on the cut you had on the landscaping up on that plant, was that fire bushes or what was that? The detail? Yeah, the detail. That was a landscaping detail along the townhouses that had been previously approved. I know, but what does it consist of? I would have to read it. I don't have it in front of me. I think it does list vegetative types on that detail. You showed it up there. I showed it, yes, sir. I don't have it in front of me. They now have it. It lists the berm, vegetative types, and the posts. It seems like, I mean, I was on that committee back then. It seems like that we agree that the berm was landscaped then it was that those bushes would interfere with the look of the berm if there were fire bushes. Yeah, that right there. I don't know what that is. It appears to be. Taxis and evergreen. Okay, so is each one of them a bush or what? Yes, it appears to be. Yes, sir. Tony can. I don't know what it looks like. I don't know what it is from here. It's labeled as a four-foot hedge. Okay, but it seemed like there was some discussion about that, and we on the committee at that time agreed that we didn't think those were necessary because he had planted some other stuff in lieu of that. That may be true, but at this point it was on the approved plan. And when they brought it in and we discussed it and we felt it should remain, and then with the discussion of their concerns, they submitted the revision that you see. where they're requesting that that be removed. And that's why we raised a little bit of concern to make sure that it was fully vetted. All right. Thanks. Tom, let me ask this real quick. So where are we today with, as far as the proposed development plan right now, are we talking about a berm or are we talking about columns and landscaping? berm with landscaping or are we talking about the columns? As I understand the applicant's request, they want to keep the berm but not the columns or the vegetation. Okay, that's for this request today? Yes, sir. For the left-hand side of LSEER? For the Article 23-2R? Yes. That specifically calls for a six-foot buffer yard, one tree for every 40 feet, and there's a list they can pick from A, B, or C from Article 18, plus a minimum four-foot-high hedge, fence, wall, or earth mound, or a combination thereof. And that's the specific zoning requirement for that buffer yard. Okay. All right, then. Thank you. Mr. King, did you have anything? I'm sorry, Mr. Dike. No, go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Dike. I have another question for Mr. Barrett. There's been a tradeoff suggested here of multifamily for single family as a compromise, I guess, with the homeowners association. What are the economics of that? And I'm not asking you to disclose proprietary information, but does that have a significant impact on rates of return and risk to capital? I'm not able to answer that. The townhouses typically have sold quicker than the single families, so your return would be quicker on those. But the value of the lots, I would say from the developer's perspective, it depends on if he's selling it as a single-family lot or a lot in the house. If he's building the house, there may be a different equation there. But on the townhouses, he's building the houses in the lot. So my guess is it's somewhat of a wash, but it could be, depending on if he was building the house on the single family, he would have probably a net gain on that. But it would take longer to realize. I understand. Thank you. Mr. King, do you have any sort of rebuttal at this point in regards to what has been rebutted? No? Steph is available for any clarifications. I know there's a little bit of confusion over this feature here, and I want to make this clear, which is on the opposite side of the boulevard from the main part of what you're seeing today. The staff's point of view on that is that this has been the commitment all along. If there isn't an agreement from the development and the neighbors to change to something else, we would support going ahead and doing this on that side. On the other side, again, we have said a buffer yard with the restrictions and conditions as described by the ordinance, we are fine with. Okay. Let me ask you this, Mr. King. How do we tie that on the other side to what we're seeing today? Well, they have made it a part of the amendment. I was not aware of that earlier, but Mr. Martin informed me that it is a part of the purpose of the amendment that is before you is to make this change. And, again, that's at the Commission's discretion. And some folks may feel it's better to have something that's more alike on both sides of that road. I don't know. I would defer, again, to the folks that apparently, between the neighborhood and the developer that have been discussing this, I'm a little unclear where folks might be as to this particular feature. Again, I just want to, I know it's a little confusing, that this is older history on the other side of the road from the site you are talking about today. But it is a part of the amendment. Yes, Mr. Drake. Review with me specifically what we're being asked to approve today. Basically, you are being asked to approve the plan, as you saw, for the property on the other side, as described and as shown on the development plan. Correct. And you are being requested to, if I understand correctly, and other staff, please correct me if I'm wrong, You are also being asked to relieve them of that old requirement on the other side of the entry boulevard there, Ellerslie Park, I believe it's called, in favor of the berm that is there now. And I did look at Mr. Barrett's photos, and I think you could only see that area in the back of one of those. There was not, I don't believe, a good shot shown of just what that looks like now so that you could compare whether you would think compared to what was supposed to be there is what is there is adequate. It wasn't clear to me. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Payton, let me hold on just for a second. Mr. Barlow is here. I think we'd like to add something. Would you? My name is John Barlow. I'm the developer, and hopefully I can give you a little history about this hedge. The initial development plan for the whole subdivision did not have that hedge on it. And speaking, Louis Pillemire helped me design the entrance, the medians, and all that. And without the roads in the first phase in, we thought that Ellerslie Park Boulevard and Wentworth Court, which is the cul-de-sac of the townhouses, were going to be basically the same elevation. So we came up with the hedge idea. It was not a requirement, but trying to make the ambience of the neighborhood what we wanted it to be, We talked about it, and Carol Goes, who was my in-house landscape architect at the time, who did the wonderful job of designing the roads and along the ridges and all that, when we went in front of the commission for the first phase of the townhouse final development plan, she put it on there without me knowing about it. And, you know, that's the only final development plan that was isolated to itself initially. So when the two roads went in, there was as much as eight feet difference in elevation. I said, well, that's crazy. You know, you're going to have a hedge buffering nothing but grass. And it's my fault. I didn't know that it was on the isolated final development plan. When I found out about it, I think two years ago or three years ago, we requested, as Mr. Craven said, to have the berms, which were in existence with irrigation, to be in lieu of the hedge. and I thought there was a motion to add that to the conditions. It's my fault. I didn't make sure it got followed through to the conditions when it came in front of the full commission, so I take blame for that. That's my fault. So I didn't find out about this until I think about a month ago, and that's why Tony has put the berms in lieu of the hedge. I've talked to a number of residents that do not want the berms taken out. They love it. I think it's a nice feature. So that's the history of how this mysterious hedge has survived to the development plan to this date. So I hope I've clarified that. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Yes, Mr. Dirk. I have one. It's not quite related to that. but earlier there was a statement that there, I think, was 29 homeowners that are, at least in some way, objecting. What's the total number of homes in the development? I would say roughly we may be up to 65 or 75. I haven't done a fiscal count. Okay. Dr. Lady? Before I ask my question, I want to follow up with Mr. Drakes. I was under the impression that the petitions that we saw, those 29, there was a statement made that those were the individuals who could not be here and those that could be present are here. So I guess we have the 29 plus. Is that a correct assumption? Okay. I just wanted to be sure. I haven't seen the petition. That's news to me. But I knew that I had probably about 14 homeowners call me and say that somebody had been coming up to their door and asking it. But that's all I knew about it. And I didn't really, I'm sorry, I didn't intend for you to address that. I was just trying to be sure that what we heard was correct based on what we were seeing circulating. My question is probably for Mr. Barrett. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Barlow. Thank you. And I think Mr. Barlow has already alluded to this in some way. So the Berm versus the Hedge debate, has that been discussed with the residents? Because I know there are a couple of times you mentioned that you thought that you did not know that Mr. Todd was going to present some additional information as if you all had been in conversation with each other. So has that piece been discussed with the residents so you're clear that, yes, in fact, the berm versus the hedge versus whatever the new landscaping is going to be? Are you in agreement on both sides with that? When we met yesterday, that was the first time I had met personally with Mr. Kelly, with Mr. Barlow. So really the question would probably be more appropriate for John. But that was not part of the conversation yesterday. We talked about the hedge on the condominium side and not the townhouse side. But this is a part of the amendment. Is that correct, that we will be voting on? Yes, it is. Okay. Can someone address that? Yes. Mr. Martin, if you could clarify number 10 and number 13 one more time. Make sure everybody's correct on what we're talking about. Number 10 is relating to clarify the berms and or landscaping on phase 2 to comply with Article 23A. That's where we showed you the exhibits, where they were showing berms and landscaping, and then where we showed the additional exhibit in the yellow to extend it, which is condition 13. We would like to see that that article of the ordinance is met. That's on the proposed new development? Yes, sir. Which is in the green shaded area? Yes, sir. That is not along the townhouse site. And then number 13 is relating to what? Extension of that. Extension of that berm. Okay. So neither of these are relating back to the other side of where the condos are that hasn't. You are right. Yes, sir. It does not apply to the detail that was on the plan. Okay. All right. So are we having to address the old final, the old detail? Yes, ma'am. The applicant is requesting that you do so. Staff raised a concern that that had not been fully vetted with the neighborhood. I was thinking, Mr. Martin, that one of those two were addressing the old development. of the landscaping that had not been put in. I'm not necessarily talking about the street trees. How can we address that on this plan then? I believe you could approve the applicant's request to just utilize the berm as the landscaping in that area. In a separate condition? It could be, yes, sir. Okay. Chairman, I believe the Commission would have the right to either approve that change or deny that change as part of any action you would take on this. Okay. All right. Thank you. But it would be a separate condition, number 14, if we went that way. Otherwise, it stays where they – it's billed as shown on the plan. Well, it is actually a part of their purpose of amendment. So if you approve the plan without directly addressing it, then you would be approving that part of their amendment. So that's why we raised the issue that had not been fully vetted with the neighborhood. Okay. Yes, ma'am. You've stuck your head up a couple times. Come forward. I think you have something to add. Your name, please. I didn't sign in, but I'm Judy Blankenbaker, and I live right in front of the fountain, so all of this is directly affecting me. But I would like to comment about the berm here that is being questioned. I got a copy of this plat just yesterday afternoon, And seeing that on there was the first time that I knew anything about the berm that we have supposed to be a hedge with columns. And I didn't know anything about that before. So, no, I'm not aware of anything being discussed in the neighborhood on that. And I think that would probably be something. And I'm just speaking purely for myself right now because I haven't had a chance to discuss it with anyone. but I think that would be something that we might like to be able to discuss about it. We like the berm. Just personally, I would be happy with the berm that is there, but the photographs that you were shown were showing the front of the subdivision along Richmond Road, and there the berms do have trees, shrubs that have put on them, and they look really nice. So personally, I would be happy with the berm that's there, but I would like to have some landscaping put on it. Now, how you're going to deal with this, I don't know, but just answering your question there. Another thing that I would like to say also, that I'm behind the pieces of paper that are over here, so I'll take the blame for those, but they are not a petition. All it was is we just wanted to, There were a lot of people in our neighborhood who had seen the sign out there about the commission meeting that was taking place, but they had no idea what it was concerning. So with some help from some others, we took those papers around just as informational. And as I talked with people, I put on the bottom a place where I knew that a lot of people would not be able to come today because they could not get off from work. And all that was saying was it was not a petition by any means. It was just saying we cannot be there, but we are interested in what happens to our neighborhood, and we just wanted you to know that there were a lot of people that cared about the neighborhood that could not be here today. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Commission members have other questions at this point? Yes? I guess this goes back to Mr. Kelly. What is unaddressed from the old deficiency that you might like to have changed at this point? Are you satisfied, or what remedy would you appreciate? Thank you very much. That's a good question. and that's really the basis of the whole concern of the neighborhood, is we presently have two types of housing, freestanding single-family homes and attached single-family homes. By your own documents, it is specified that there is supposed to be a buffer between incompatible housing types. Now, these present housing that is in the neighborhood are relatively compatible in scale and size. the berm that has been discussed at length is effectively part of the intention of having the buffer between the freestanding single-family homes and the attached single-family homes. That berm has not been landscaped. And contrary to what was discussed earlier by Mr. Barrett, is your own documents specify with small rectangles in front of each one of the townhouses that there's supposed to be a street tree. And so given that history, that's the concern, the fundamental concern of the neighborhood, is on something this small, in an area where the homes are physically already very compatible, we're having, it's like birthing an elephant. It's a huge amount of effort to get stuff done that should be usual and customary in a quality development. So when you then take that six-year-plus history and now overlay it on what is proposed, there is a tremendous level of high anxiety. If you do the math, as was pointed out, how many people signed these documents and how many physically came here, it's virtually the whole neighborhood of current property owners are physically here. That's how concerned people are. And it's, again, based on history of disappointment and anxiety over the past six years. The potential is spectacular. The design is spectacular. We just want it to be continued and done properly. So this berm that we're discussing that is effectively shielding between the single-family homes and the townhouses is not landscaped. And that's the issue, is that we're not getting that kind of attention to detail. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. At this point, I'm going to close this part of the hearing as far as any other evidence. I will offer the commission members to ask questions if needed. I believe in what I'm hearing is the fact that, as Mr. Kelly just said, there has been some deficiencies. I think the street trees are being addressed. The landscaping, the berm, I think we've got the ability to address. and with changes that have been made, as Mr. King stated earlier, assurances are in place now that this will be done, these items will be done going forward prior to occupancy through zoning compliance reports. So with that, questions from Commission members? as far as what we need to do. We've got a development plan here, and I believe it addresses this development plan. The only question is, do you want to add anything as far as addressing the barm and or landscaping across the road? Yes, Mr. Carr. if everyone is okay and if there's any concerns. If there's not any concerns, then yes. Are we ready to go forward? I think so. Give it a try. Okay. Okay. I'm going to make a motion for approval of DP 2013-65. These things that are being changed on it are typical of most subdivisions. The lot's being reconfigured. That's been done before out there, just a few streets over. Street trees, as a home builder, we build the houses, and generally the developers either charge us for the trees and then they plant them all at one time when there's more completion because otherwise we'd tear them all down while we were driving trucks through there. The hedge on the previous plat, I think the berm is a better solution. And I was present during those conversations, and it was decided, at least then by the committee, that the hedge wasn't needed because they'd done such a nice job on the berm out there. And then Mr. Barrett had stated that there was a $15,000 that Mr. Barlow was going to use for landscaping. Is that right? Correct. Okay. So with that being said, I'm just going to go on and move approval of the revised staff recommendation. I was beginning to wonder if there was an actual motion in that, but you do have a motion. I got it, too. eventually yes does that include those you said the steps 13 does that include the revisions that were yes it does it it's the whole the new plant with the berm all the way around it and it was revising the the nine lots into ten and taking one of the townhouses out on the corner there and it was eliminating that little hedge thing on the old berm. OK, so we have a motion for approval with the revised conditions and the amendments that are attached. Do I have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded by Mr. Drake. Are there any questions regarding the motion? No. If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. I'd like to thank everyone for coming. Hopefully there are some assurances here and confidence that moving forward, things will be resolved as they go forward prior to occupancy. Thank you. At this point in time, I'm going to ask for a five-minute break. and we'll resume in five minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Members of the Commission, this plan that you see before you today is out located on Innovation Drive, where we have big-ass fans and where the beer distributorship was built and other developments. It is an industrial subdivision. This land is owned by Commerce Lexington. What you see before you is a proposal to build a 105,000-square-foot facility here. You can see associated parking in the front, access points at this location, along with proposed detention. The reason this is not on your consent agenda is that the applicant listened to the advice of your staff and went ahead and added Phase 2 to this plan to have you approve it. And this is a 48,600 square foot phase two. And we thought it'd be wise to have this body approve the entire development so that they wouldn't have to come back and amend this plan should everything go as well as I'm sure they hope. So again, it's a very simple, straightforward industrial development on property that is zoned for that. It was recommended for approval by the subdivision committee subject to the conditions that you see. There are just a few cleanup conditions beyond the standard sign-offs by your staff on a development plan. There is, just as I said, cleanup conditions about height of the building, road frontage in linear feet, deleting some unnecessary notes, correcting note number eight, clarifying statistics. They're Phase I and Phase II. They followed, as I said, staff's advice. We just want that clarified. They have Phase I and Phase II, but Phase II is actually total for the entire development, and we'd just like to have that clarified. There's a TPA area along the border that we want to be sure is well shown and protected, and I might add the significant item of interest on this plan is actually a 60-foot access easement. This is to serve the Kurtzinger property. It was intended to be a public street once upon a time. They've requested that it be a 60-foot access easement, again, to serve this property because it would front on Georgetown and we'd want it to utilize Innovation Drive. It is to be built to the specifications of traffic engineering, the Division of Engineering is one of the conditions on the plan. Again, our concern being because it's industrial, et cetera, that it meets the appropriate street standards to handle industrial traffic. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. Questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, I guess one thing, and I'm sure it's an easy answer, with the proposal for the second building next to the access easement. It seems like the access easement in the building is very close proximity-wise. Is it set back okay? We believe it will work, yes, sir. It's a 60-foot wide access easement. Well, what I'm seeing is the access in association with the building. it seems like the building's right on top of the access. It is very close, yes, sir. You are accurate. I think staff's comfortable with that. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Jason? Mr. Apthorne, anything to add? No, Mr. Chairman. Jason Banks, Banks Engineering. We're in agreement with staff's conditions. And just to clarify the access easement, we actually have 15 feet of what you would call grass strip before you actually got to the sidewalk. So we did kind of plan for that. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Banks? If not, thank you, Mr. Banks. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this plan? Seeing none, if there's no further questions, I'll close this part of the hearing. I'll open it up for discussion and or a motion. Yes, sir. I don't see anybody has anything else. I'll be glad to make a motion. Go right ahead. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion for approval of DP 2013-68 with the 14 noted conditions. Wait a second. Wait a minute. We've got a pink sheet. Revised conditions. Sorry. 16. Pink sheet. 16 revised conditions. 16 noted conditions. Motion's been made for approval with 16 revised conditions. Do we have a second? Ms. Plumlee? Seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you all. Moving on, page 7, item K, DP 2012-45, Pearson and Trapp, Company Daher Associated. This is a re-approval. Pearson and Trapp was on the consent agenda. I'm sorry, that was on the consent agenda, wasn't it? We're going to go down the next one. Let's move on to the next one. How about Zandell Shopping Center? There you go. There you go, DP2002-70. This is a re-approval that is 11 years old. Correct. We're going to head out Nicholasville Road. We're located between Zandell and Lowry. This is the original Zandell Shopping Center. We have O'Charlie's. We have a Walgreens. And then we have a vacant lot to the rear. This development plan, when it was signed in 2005, allowed them to build the Walgreens, and they had proposed this along the back portion of the property. Since then, first of this year, they brought in another development plan, which was approved by the Planning Commission, but it has not been signed. They've asked to withdraw that plan, and they're wanting to bring this plan back and create that building in the rear portion of the property. That's why they're in for a re-approval with the conditions of it as it was approved in 2005. They had ten conditions. Now we're just going to modify a couple of the conditions. Number three for building inspections, approval of landscape and landscape buffers. Number five for urban foresters, for tree preservation, required street tree information. Also, the documentation of the Division of Water Quality's approval of the Capacity Assurance Program. Since we've started that, they need to have proof that they have capacity before this plan can be signed. And to note that this plan voids and supersedes DP 2013-13, which is the plan I was speaking about that was approved the first part of this year, and now they want to withdraw that. With that, the staff recommends re-approval. Thank you. Questions from Ms. Galt? Applicant? Thank you. Anything to add? You don't have to. Mr. Chairman, I'm Roger Ladenberger. We're in agreement with the conditions and request approval. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Thank you. Any questions from the Planning Commission members? Thank you, Mr. Leidenberger. If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or a motion. Yes? Are we going to ask a question? Move for approval of DP 2002-70 Zendale Shopping Center. Second. The staff's recommendation for reapproval. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for reapproval of DP 2002-70. Our grant is screen stuck. Yes. So we can vote on that. There it is. Maybe it's coming up. Is it coming up? No. Okay. Well, it has come up, so please vote on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Leidenberger. Thank you. Next would be moving to zoning items, which is what we're supposed to start the day with. Zota 2013-8, amend the definition of vehicle storage yard. that information should be in your packet as well and was emailed to you we can while they're setting up we we can have a motion for the race and call of bonds mr chairman yes i move approval of the release and call of bonds Thank you. Motion has been made. Do we have a second? Motion has been made and seconded for the release and call of bonds from the memorandum dated August 22, 2013. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. I will take a show of hands. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Tracy Wade, good afternoon. Good afternoon. How are you all today? The first item in the zoning items category for your zoning hearings today is ZODA 2013-8, and it's a request by L. Roberts Properties, LLC, to amend the definition of vehicle storage yard in the zoning ordinance. That's in Article 1-11 in our definitions. Vehicle storage yards are currently permitted in our light industrial zone as a conditional use. In some cases, they were approved in 1985 or before, and they are principal in that zone if they were approved before then. And then in our I-2, our heavy industrial zone, they are principal use as well. So conditional in our I-1 and principal in I-2. The request today is to amend the definition of vehicle storage yard. The language is listed on your agenda as well as in a staff report in the notebook if you'd like to look at that in more detail. Vehicle storage yard is a place where vehicles which do bear a current license plate in accordance with state law and are not used in conduct of a trade, business, or profession are kept for 24 hours or longer. And then it does, the definition also excludes or differentiates between some of the other uses in our ordinance. It is not a yard for storage of dismantled vehicles. It's not a junkyard. It's also not a parking lot, truck terminal, automobile wrecking, and I guess the other one would be junkyards again. So there is some distinction in our ordinance between these other uses. The applicant is asking to add a term or a phrase into the definition so that inoperable vehicles can be stored in a vehicle storage yard for up to 60 days. Currently, inoperable vehicles cannot be stored at all. So when an accident occurs on our roadways, the vehicles are often towed to vehicle storage yards, but by definition that wouldn't be permitted. They would need to go to a junkyard or possibly to an automobile repair shop, but not to a vehicle storage yard. And that's really, by the applicant's opinion, a practical problem with the definition, and they see that that's really the main purpose of a vehicle storage yard is to hold vehicles, either if they've been towed for parking violations, accidents, or perhaps being repossessed. And they hold them for a period of time. State law allows for beholding of the vehicles or requires them to be held for up to 45 days to allow for the owner of the property to come and secure it again. if it stays for 45 days, they can actually dispose of the property by state law. So this definition change would allow them an extra two weeks beyond what state law allows for them or requires for them to keep the property there. It would allow them an extra two weeks for them to basically advertise and dispose of the vehicle if they needed to. The applicant has indicated that on average vehicles stay in the vehicle storage yard for only three days. So staying beyond the 45 days is not very common. And this particular applicant works with people to get their vehicles back as quickly as possible. Lastly, I just want to emphasize that no work is being done on the vehicles while they're in a vehicle storage yard and nothing is being dismantled. So it's not a junkyard. It really is just a storage location for vehicles. And they must have a current registration or license plate. Actually, the definition currently says current license plate, but the staff would like to add that they also have a current vehicle registration and bear a license plate. I think that that is it in terms of the staff recommendation. We recommend approval of this, the applicant's change, as well as adding the phrase about having current vehicle registration as the staff alternative. I believe the zoning committee also recommended approval for the reason provided by staff, which is that the proposed text amendment to modify the definition of vehicle storage yards to permit temporary storage of inoperable vehicles for a maximum of 60 days is a logical and consistent change in accordance with state law as well as community and national business practices. I'd be happy to answer any questions about this proposed change, and the applicants here as well. Questions for Tracy? Thank you. Did you say the applicant was there? Yes. Anything to add? Oh, Mr. Murphy. Well, you know I have to add something to that. Well, of course. It won't add much. I'm Dick Murphy representing Lee Roberts. Lee is with me today, the applicant. And I think Tracy has very well explained what we're here for. The primary reason is that occasionally, for example, if a car is towed in after an accident and the owner doesn't have collision insurance and it may be an older car, the owner may decide, I'm just walking away. And even if the owner walks away and not claiming that vehicle, the operator of the storage yard is required to keep it for 45 days before he can dispose of it because you have to give that time for the owner to come claim it during that 45 days. So we are simply asking the ability to keep that car. We said 60 days because once the 45 days runs, we figure 15 days we can get it out of there and get it cleared out. As Ms. Wade mentioned, most of the cars are removed within three to four days. This just impacts a small percentage of the cars that are in a storage yard. The other thing I want to mention is that we've had some questions about this. Does this relate to your pull-apart application, which you had a month ago? No, it doesn't. Pull-apart is a junkyard. We're asking for an amendment to the definition of a storage yard. As part of a storage yard, we cannot work on cars. We cannot remove parts from cars. We cannot have people coming in to buy parts off of cars. What this storage yard primarily is is a place where the cars are stored for a day or two until either an owner claims them or an insurance adjuster comes and says, well, that's totaled or that's not totaled. If it's totaled, the insurance company owns it. They've got to tow it out of there to wherever they take it to. If it's not totaled, the owner's got to come there and have it taken to wherever they're going to have it fixed on there. So there's no parts removal or anything like that going on here. This is not a junkyard. It's a vehicle storage yard. There's one thing I wanted to clarify and what Ms. Wade mentioned in the staff revisions. We don't have a problem with them, but I talked this over with the staff, and just wanted to state on the record that occasionally there will be a car towed that doesn't have the little proper sticker on the corner of the license plate. In other words, they might have forgotten to re-register their car. And talked to the staff, and they said, well, that's okay. You can take that car there. For instance, in a snow emergency case, we don't want to get a situation where a police officer is saying tow that car and the tow truck operator looks and says, well, I can't tow it because we can't take cars because his sticker expired last month and he hasn't got his new sticker on there. And I think everybody agrees that we would be able to tow that car to this yard and we just wanted to have that statement on the record so that 25 years from now, if Bill Silley and I are no longer here, somebody can look at the minutes and determine that. So thank you very much. We appreciate your consideration of this, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I'm sure our fine pull-apart folks would take exception to you calling them a junkyard, which they spent quite a bit of time trying to defend that they were not. But we understand where you're coming from in this situation. Any questions for Mr. Murphy or anyone? Yes, Mr. Wilson. Just one quick clarification. If the owner wanted to take a part of that car and recycle it, is that okay? No, you couldn't do it there. You'd have to get the car off first. Oh, so you had to take the car to the recycling center or the junkyard or whatever, and then the owner could come, but they couldn't remove any parts or pieces while it's? Okay. Not while it's at the storage yard. Any other questions? Does anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this plan? Yes, sir. My name is Mike Markland. I live at 1298 Viley Road. I was here with the Pull Apart junkyard presentation. Just a couple things that slightly alarmed me here. it seems like in heavy industrial we can build this so we take light industrial and we start to do text modifications I just didn't want to set it see a precedent started where we start for the line between heavy industrial and light industrial is is so fuzzy we keep chiseling away at light industrial by allowing extra extra text amendment extra wording so that it's basically heavy industrial sounds like what you're presenting here i'm not here to oppose what he's wanting to do no it's not a junkyard it's just a place to get these cars off the road so i'm not here to oppose it i just had a couple things that i didn't want to see this as a first step towards allowing a junkyard to come in under light industrial so i'll be very brief i guess that pretty well covered it one thing that i did notice i apologize for going back to another hearing but a couple of the commission members here commented that the people in the subdivision we moved in near an industrial park we moved in 20 30 40 years before and then this commission allowed zoning changes to allow an industrial park to come into my neighborhood. And that's, I'm not wording this very well, but that's kind of my concern, as the hearing we heard before. For most of us, when we buy our home, that's the single largest purchase we make. And we depend upon the zoning that's in place when we purchase that home. So I just want to use caution as we move forward to not forget that the people who lived there before, who bought the home based upon what was there existing have some kind of security that that won't be taken away what you're doing downtown revitalization staying within the laws that were put in place and following the master plan is great i plan to go down here thursday night live quick so i can let you all get out of here so moving forward and developing is a great thing just let's just use some caution let's try to think about the people that have been there if a guy bought a horse farm and plans to work with a developer to make money i think that person needs to think of how it was on when he purchased that land let's not just continually make changes to allow a little more business not exactly the way i wanted to word it but i think i want to get the idea also we need to do something about these uh these easels we always cover up our planning staff. And they do a great job. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Mike and I are both people you've seen before. I'm Todd Strecker with Calumet Area Neighborhood Association, and we also were concerned with the light industrial property that's over there behind Calumet Farm off of Alexandria Drive, and that's the issue that Mike was just talking about. We don't want to lose light industrial, and we don't object to what these folks are trying to do. We understand it, and I've talked with Dick, and we don't have a problem with any of that. But what we don't want to see is a creep in the light industrial so that a pull-apart-type operation can be planted on light industrial property that did not exist before us. We were part of the process of creating it. We went along with it, and it's okay. But not if it creeps such that we end up with an auto salvage or recycling program and facility on that property. And I think there are probably other properties in the county and in the community that fit this as well. I've written a statement I don't need to read. I'm going to turn in the bill so it becomes part of the record. But it basically says this. Let's not blur that line between heavy industrial and light industrial to the point that all of a sudden, Steve and crew from Boulevard in Atlanta come back and say, now we can do it because this has allowed us to fit on light industrial because light industrial and heavy, there is no line between them anymore. That was my point. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Stryker. Questions from the Commission? Mr. Murphy, do you have any brief rebuttal? Hi. So we just want to emphasize we're not changing the zones in which these are allowed, just where they are currently, and just tweaking this due to a little issue in the definition. And I understand why the association is here. They don't want this to morph into something which would allow a salvage yard to come in that zone. and I understand that, and I think we've done this tightly so that that will not be the result. Thank you. Staff, any sort of rebuttal? I would just say that the staff did have conversations with the applicant about the fact that when they found a new location, that they would still need to secure a conditional use permit if it's in an I-1 zone. So there would be an appropriate application and hearing process if that's where they found a location, if they found an I-2 location, then it would be a principal use. So they do understand that. Okay. And we're changing the definition, not changing anything as far as conditional uses or zones or anything like that? That's correct. Thank you. Any other questions from commission members? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion among the commission members and or a motion. I move approval of ZODA 2013-8, amend the definition of vehicle storage yard for reasons provided by the staff with their language. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of ZODA 2013-8. And to clarify, that's with the staff alternative language, Ms. Plumlee. That's with the staff alternative language. Okay, thank you. If there's no discussion on a motion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you. Thank you. Down at the bottom of page 9, under commission items, we've got a request for initiation of a change to conditional zoning restrictions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It is a request for initiation of a change, a zone change, to alter the conditional zoning restrictions for a piece of property. This property is located on Newtown Pike and does have addresses of 760 and 789 Newtown Springs Drive and also 1433 and 1445 Newtown Center Way. I do have on the overhead an exhibit that was presented to the Planning Commission over a decade ago when this property was initially zoned. This property is at the southeast corner of Citation Boulevard and Newtown Pike. This is, of course, a major signalized intersection, but in this particular area, most of the traffic goes from Newtown Pike to the west along Citation Boulevard, where this property is on the southeast corner. This property has not been developed, with the exception of the street system, which is mostly in place through this area, and some single-family homes here in Newtown Springs, and also, some of you may recall, an assisted living facility that the Planning Commission approved a few years ago that's now under development. This particular request involves the very frontage of the property along Newtown Pike. And this exhibit shows a landscape plan that was approved at the time the property was rezoned. Along the frontage of Newtown Pike is a buffer area of 75 feet in width. and when the Planning Commission approved this rezoning, which was the third attempt for a rezoning on this property, they imposed two conditional zoning restrictions. The first was that there be a four-plank horse farm fence installed along the frontage of this property, and secondly, that trees be planted in this buffer area, as was depicted at the Planning Commission meetings involving this zone change. The petitioner is asking that these conditional zoning restrictions be changed in two ways. First is that the plank fence be reduced to a three-plank fence, and that instead of this landscaping plan, a substitute landscaping plan be allowed to occur in this location. We could go to the next drawing. Thank you, Barbara. in this buffer area over the last few years the legacy trail has been installed and as part of that there was a landscaping plan done for the installation of trees along the trail now this has a different orientation but again we're along the frontage of Newtown Pike this location, citation is here. Mr. Shelley, I don't know if everyone else is in the same mode as I am, but I cannot see that pointer of yours up on the screen. Is it red, white, or is it different? Tell you what, I'll move over to the board. I think it usually shows a little better there. Go ahead and try it up there. Ah, yeah. Yeah, that does work. Newtown Pike, Citation Boulevard, is here. So the Legacy Trail has been constructed along this frontage, crosses the one street that's been connected, and this is about milepost four of the trail, and there is a demarcated crossing of Newtown Pike in this direction, and the trail heads west from this location. This planting plan was for about 25 trees. By our count, there were about 30 that had been installed along this frontage. I have one more drawing to show you on the overhead. Again, the orientation is now a third way. We have a citation here. Yeah, thank you. Newtown Pike here, citation is here. This is the buffer area. And again, 31 trees were counted along this edge of the property as it's developed. The frontage would dictate that about 35 trees be planted along the edge of the parking lot for all of this commercial development. As you can tell, the zoning is B6P and B1, so we wanted that for comparison purposes to illustrate why this request is being made. The petitioner negotiated the legacy trail in this buffer area along with the landscaping, and this initiation request will, if you will, finalize the negotiations between the private property owner and the government at the time the legacy trail was constructed. So the real purpose of this initiation request is to ask the Commission to begin the process of changing the zoning to revise these two conditional zoning restrictions so that the legacy trail landscaping that was put in as part of the legacy trail be substituted for what was originally contemplated in 2000 prior to the trail for this particular development. I think in a nutshell that summarizes the information that was shared with the zoning committee about the contractual negotiations between the government and the applicant, but also, and for today's purpose more importantly, summarizes the applicant's request in the letter that we supplied you a copy with. I would be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about this request. It's been my goal to try and help you understand what is being asked of you. And with that, I appreciate your time, and I hope that I have explained well what it is that they're asking the Commission to do. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Any questions for Mr. Salley? Two questions, Mr. Salley. One, this is just an initiation that will bear further discussion and who knows, modifications, if maybe. But one thing real quick. the request is mentioning four different addresses, 760, 789, Newtown, Spurring's Drive, and then 1433 and 1445, Newtown, Center, White. The 31 trees that you were mentioning that's on the Legacy Trail, is that just part of those four addresses or is that all of those four addresses? This frontage, let me back up. This zoning map does not show the street that has been constructed here. Okay. And as part of that, this frontage has been divided into the five properties that comprise these addresses. Okay. So it is the entire frontage of Newtown. Today it involves five properties where originally it was just one. Okay, then. All right. That answers my question. Thank you. Any other questions? Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this? Mr. Chairman, just in closing, you were correct. If the Commission were to initiate this, the staff would begin preparing the application. There would be a future hearing. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Applicant here wanting to speak? Maybe. I'm Ike Fleming with the firm of Densborn Shill and represent Newtown Springs, the development entity in Rosenstein Development, its general manager. What you're looking at is the byproduct of a contractual obligation that this city undertook three years ago as it was contemplating the trail. Although we wrote the letter, it's really Ural's application. It's the government's responsibility to proceed with these changes as approved by the contract adopted by the council and obviously signed by the mayor. So I think that's the only distinction we're trying to make, is you're just really beginning the process of fulfilling the contractual obligations that the city undertook. Thank you. Any questions from commission members? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan, this request? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and entertain a motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to initiate a change to conditional zoning restrictions for the Newtown Crossing addresses 760 and 789 Newtown Springs Drive and 1433 and 1445 Newtown Center Way. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. The motion has been made and seconded to initiate this change of a conditional zoning restriction for Rosenstein development. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you. Next, we have a public facility review. It's 2013-5 Lexington Fayette County Airport Board. Good afternoon. This is one of two biggies today. This is item B, under commission items. And as Mr. Owens said, this is for the Lexington-Fayette County Airport Board. It's property on Gumbert Road, which is off of Versailles Road. It's a portion of the airport property. The entire outline here is airport property, and then this is the Gumbert Road property. Here's Gumbert Road that comes right along here. We've got Versailles Road. Keeneland is over here, Man of War, and Parker's Mill, which runs along the back part of the airport property. This is about 25 acres. The entire site for what they're doing is about 25 acres of the entire airport property, which consists of about 1,000 acres. And what they are doing is they're going to build multiple T-hangers and box hangers on the property on the concrete apron that you see right there next to the runway. And this is for the use of private and corporate aircraft operating community. They also went into a future fueling and washing facility near the center of the apron in that area right in there. And that is future construction. They're going to do this in phases. The 2007 land use recommendation from the Comprehensive Plan recommends about two-thirds of the property for other public uses, which is the Rural Activity Center area, which is that right there, and the rest of it is recommended for Carl. It's based on the Rural Activity Center boundary. It's a split comprehensive plan recommendation. Other public uses are prominent facilities that benefit the public, and they're generally large facilities, such as the airport or universities or hospitals or government offices. and as I said, this has got a split comprehensive plan recommendation. This is similar to the situation where Bluegrass Station was. It was all zoned AR, but it has split comprehensive plan recommendation because part of it is the Rural Activity Center and part of it is not. The concrete apron and the existing runway extend over the Rural Activity Center boundary, so they're existing, and that's one of the reasons why this whole project is not in compliance, total compliance with a comprehensive plan. But most of the project will be within the Rural Activity Center. There are seven goals and 38 objectives of the 2000 plan that generally apply and support this project, and those are listed on pages 3 to 5 of your staff report. There are three goals and four objectives of the 2012-2013 plan that are listed, and those are from the bottom of page 5 to the top of page 6. They also support this. And then there are two goals and several objectives that directly relate to this because they reference the rural activity centers and the airport in particular. It states in our comprehensive plan that our mission statement of Fayette County is to provide a vision for physical development that will allow Lexington-Fayette County to grow and prosper, promoting economic development and viable job development while preserving the quality of life that makes it a desirable place to work and live, and protecting and enhancing existing neighborhoods downtown in the rural bluegrass cultural landscape. And this applies to this project on multiple levels, both directly and indirectly. The airport contributes to the employment of about 3,500 jobs, and the total economic output of the airport is about $370 million. And that applies to and affects both the rural and the urban areas. It plays a significant role in Fayette County's economy. It's a major support facility for the equine industry. and the colleges and universities and the health care facilities in Fayette County. This project is known as the Westside General Aviation Development Area, and it was a recommendation of the airport's master planning consultant. The findings from that study are contained in their master plan update, which was completed in November of last year. The development area joins Runway 927, which was constructed in 2010. This right here. and that replaced a shorter, older runway. And as I said, this will be constructed in phases, and ultimately they'll have 11 hangers and nested T-hanger buildings of varying sizes, and the building system is pre-engineered metal building system. It's a specific product that they have. The total square footage when it will be completed will be about 100,000 square feet. They're also going to have an asphalt parking area to accommodate 60 vehicles to facilitate the use of the hangars. And then on the hangar buildings, they will do exterior architectural features, additional features to allow the buildings to blend in with and reflect the rural and equine nature of the Versailles Road corridor and its location across from Keeneland. They did a substantial amount of site work and infrastructure improvements when the new runway was constructed in anticipation of this project. And those include improving the stormwater quality of runoff, a detention basin to contain and control the runoff, a storm drain system, sanitary sewer mains and manholes, a pump station, a forced main and potable water main, fire hydrants and electric main, fiber optics, access security and fencing, and communication mains for operational support and services. One of the basic principles of the comprehensive plan, and it's contained in the text as well as the goals and objectives, is the protection of the environment, and all of these site improvements are going to help with that. They will help to minimize any negative effects of stormwater runoff. That'll benefit the airport property as well as the adjoining properties to the west. And, Bill, if you could put up the, I was going to say put up the original, the site layout. This is what they're planning on doing. This will be the fueling facility right here. This is a storage building, and all these other buildings will be hangars. And this is the runway up here. but they did several site improvements to help with the runoff in that. And if you could put up the next map, please. The properties to the west, all of these properties down here are in the FEMA floodplain area. And because of this, because it's to the west and downhill from the development area, we are recommending that they do best management practices as far as any kind of construction. because, as I said before, because this project expands over the rural activity center boundary, which is, again, this right here, this is not in total compliance with the comprehensive plan. It's not in compliance with the land use element of the plan, but it is supported by the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, and it is existing, and so it's the most logical place on the property for the project. we are recommending approval of this and that you find it in substantial compliance with a comprehensive plan and the only recommendation to go along with that is that any permits be obtained from the state and inspection by the fire marshal be done prior to the construction and occupancy of the buildings especially the fueling facility before that's done if you have any questions i'd be glad to try to answer them about the staff report and we have a slew of people here from the airport board including the executive director so any questions any questions for Ms. Rackers? Yes, David. Again, I'm feeling my way. What are our responsibilities vis-a-vis the airport board? Do they have a say in this, or should this be their decision? I'm not sure what you mean. What your responsibility is to review this in compliance with the comprehensive plan. You can only say yes it is, no it isn't, and if you don't find that it is, you can make recommendations to make it more in compliance with the comprehensive plan, but you don't approve or disapprove this. You just make a recommendation that it is either in or not in compliance with the plan. Thank you. Other questions? Members of the airport board or airport like to say, speak, yes, come forward. Mr. Chairman, excuse me, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Charlotte McCoy. I'm here on behalf of the airport board, and as was mentioned, we've got a slew of people here with us today. We've got Eric Frankel, the executive director, Mark Day, the manager of engineering and construction, as well as Joanna Hay from J.R. Miller and Associates, the architects who've been involved, and they're here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Any questions for any of our fine guests? Don't think so. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? Yes, sir. You've been getting your money's worth today. I didn't make it to Thursday Night Live. Just very briefly, Mike Markman. I didn't know this was on the agenda, but I've been working with Eric Frankel, the executive director in the airport, for several years. I waited three years at Lexington Bluegrass Airport to get a hangar, so this development is greatly needed. They have been just outstanding on the amount of time they've spent. dealing with Keeneland, hiring an excellent architectural and engineering farm to come in here and make this hangar development attractive. So I didn't know it was on the agenda. I just want to say I highly support it, and Lexington really needs this. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? If not, any questions from commission members? If not, I'll close this part and entertain a motion. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Recommend approval. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval and for clarification that would be that this is in agreement with the conference plan. So please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Next would be another public facility review, 2013-7 Bluegrass Domestic Violence Program. Yeah, that's item C on your agenda. And before we get started, I have a letter of concern from Mr. Jim Shropshire, who is representing the Briar Hill Neighborhood Association that we got today, or maybe yesterday. This is a request by the Kentucky Domestic Violence Association on behalf of the Bluegrass Domestic Violence Program, and it's for their transitional housing that they're proposing. The property is located at 4400 Briar Hill Road. This is Briar Hill Road. And this is the subject property. Well, I think it goes all the way up straight around here. And then there is a small church that was approved by the Board of Adjustments several years ago as a conditional use. And then the rest of the area is all agricultural uses. It's all zoned AR. The property is about 40 acres in size, and it's the location of the Bluegrass Domestic Violence Shelter, which is a shelter for spouse abuse victims and their children. And before I get into anything, I'd like to make a correction on the site characteristics. The PVA records had the basement of the shelter being about the same size as the rest of it. I found out within the last couple of days that it's only like 400 square feet, so it's not nearly as big as PVA has on there. But I just wanted to make that noted. What they're proposing is six duplexes near the rear of the property for transitional housing, and this, again, is not in complete compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. It's not in compliance with the land use recommendation, which is for CARL, which is core agricultural and rural land use. That's a carryover of the general rural recommendation from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. This property was the subject of the very first public facility review that the Planning Commission ever reviewed. Back in 1998, the Mary G. Copeland Home, which was a facility for abused and neglected children under the age of 10, they became the original occupants of the property. They relocated from downtown, but they had a public facility review to determine whether that was in compliance with the comprehensive plan or not. They located there once it went through the public facility review process, and it was closed, the facility was closed. It reopened in 2000 as the Bellwood Presbyterian Home for Children, and it's still known as that, but it operates as a bluegrass domestic violence program, and that's been since 2005. And as I said, it's a shelter for spouse abuse victims and their children. When it was first reviewed in April of 1998, the Briar Hill Neighborhood Association and the Fayette County Neighborhood Council where everybody was here, and there was strong opposition to this. They just were totally against the proposition that anything like this should locate in the rural area. Since then, we met with the program director, and since then, apparently they have obtained the respect and support of neighborhood area residents, and they have been a good neighbor, apparently. They keep the property maintained. It's a quiet and obtrusive use of the property. You can't even see it from the road. It's about 825, at least 825 feet back from the road, and you can't see the building itself. It's huge, but you can't see it from the road at all. When it was reviewed in 1998, it was reviewed for compliance with the 1996 comprehensive plan, and then, like now, it's not in compliance with the land use element of the plan. Several parts of the 1996 plan were in support of this, and several were not, and it was noted in the staff report in 1998 that it was probably an equal amount of support and opposition in the comprehensive plan for this. And we, well, before I go into that, when that was reviewed by the staff, they made several recommendations to bring it into compliance with the zoning ordinance, more in compliance with the zoning ordinance because the zoning ordinance implements the comprehensive plan. Some of those recommendations were taken to heart, not all of them, and they were implemented and they are reflected in the current development of the property. Reviewing the 2007 Comprehensive Plan and the goals and objectives of the 2012 plan, more is found to be in support of this now than was in 1996. With this request, there are only two objectives that are not in support of it, and they're basically a reflection of the goals and objectives that were cited in 1996. It's Goal 6, Objective J, which is to discourage residential development that is unrelated to agricultural in the rural service area, and Goal 7, Objective A, which is to support development of the urban service area as planned, reserving the rural service area for the uses and activities outlined in the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan. And then 3, apply. They don't supply support or opposition to this. That would be Goal 2, Goal 2G, and Goal 20G. Four can be found to be either supportive or in opposition or both, depending on your interpretation. Those are listed in your staff report. And then several support this project directly. And again, in 1998, when it was analyzed, it was noted that since this was the first public facility review staff report done to the Planning Commission, it was done kind of differently than we do it now. We're not as detailed as they were back in 1998. But it was noted that the closest analogous uses in the zoning ordinance were orphanage and rehabilitation home. And both of those could be considered either other public uses or semi-public facilities. And neither of those land uses are recommended for the rural service area. They're not a category that exists in the rural service area, although facilities that fall into these categories are located in the rural service area. And it was also noted that those facilities that were located in the rural service area at the time did not pose any kind of a threat to the character of the rural service area. And that holds true today. The Board of Adjustments still approves conditional uses in the AR zone, although most of them are limited to 10,000 square feet in size, and they don't pose a threat to the character of the rural area. Good examples are the Indian Temple that's out on Cleveland, the corner of Cleveland and Winchester Road. I mean, that is far enough back from the road, and it's a nice facility. It doesn't take away from the character of the rural area, even though it is not a typical church building. But because this use is so unobtrusive, that statement as far as a threat to the rural area applies here, and it provides a level of support for the proposed housing. They do operate a small working farm on the property, and that can be seen right in this area here. This is the area where the proposed housing is going to be. This is their structure right now. Their parking area is here, and then this is their small working farm. That operates or supplies a food source for the residents, and then a lot of the produce is sold at the farmer's markets. They raise vegetables, herbs, honey, and flowers, and they use flowers for special community events. And so it is a support and it is a level of agricultural use on the property. It helps to maintain the Carl recommendation for the property. It doesn't take away from the non-agricultural use, but it does bring a degree of agricultural use back to the property. The Domestic Violence Program, located here in 2005, and they leased the property from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, They provide emergency shelter for domestic violence victims, and they offer other support services. They help their clients to find safe, affordable housing, and if they don't live there, they help them to find housing elsewhere. They provide other services such as clothing, offering clothing, household items, counseling, legal aid, and other intangible services. What they're proposing for the residents is six duplexes of varying sizes. There will be one- and two-story residences that go from 822 square feet to about 1,236 square feet. One, two, and three-bedroom units. And it will be near the rear of the property, clustered around the park area. Bill, if you could put that one showing the layout, please. Here is the property again. Here is the site. You can see that it's got lots of trees around here. This is how it's going to be laid out. We've got six duplexes, kind of a playground park area here, and then the driveway will come back like this. It will be a circular area. Each one will have driveways for itself. These are not unlike tenant homes for full-time workers on a farm, but they do have a different purpose. It's for transitional housing for their residents. The main difference from the tenant homes is it's part of an established program, program, and it will provide a means for the residents who are domestic violence survivors to attain an independent functional as opposed to a dysfunctional lifestyle. The potential residents have to qualify by being either at or below 60% of the area median income. They will have to rent the duplexes. They're not going to get it for free. All the duplexes will be wheelchair accessible, and one will be totally handicap accessible. This is a development team that has been working on this, and the project will be funded by low-income housing tax credits that are issued by Kentucky Housing Corporation and a loan from the State Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Lexington Housing Authority is one member of the development team, and they will provide Section 8 vouchers to the residents who qualify for that. So to summarize this whole thing, although it isn't in compliance with the land use element of the 2007 plan, the program and the property have not been in compliance with this since 1998 or 1999. As part of the 1998 review, the staff and the Planning Commission made many recommendations to bring it more into compliance with the zoning ordinance and therefore the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. Many of those were implemented as part of the development of the property. They now have a small working farm on the property, which helps to be in compliance with the Carl recommendation. Some objectives do not support this, but the text and the majority of the goals and objectives that were cited do support it. It's a logical extension of the existing use. The housing is very substantial to tenant homes on a working farm. Use, size, and function, and the only difference is the purpose of what they're doing. The program is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. both text and goals and objectives of the 2007 plan and the 2012-13 plan, as it applies to providing needed social services and safe, affordable housing for disadvantaged persons. We recommend that you find it in substantial compliance with the comprehensive plan and have a recommendation of approval with several recommendations that are listed in your staff report. Those are that all fencing be maintained on the 40-plus acre property, that the perimeter screening be maintained inasmuch as possible and that it be supplemented when needed, that the new driveway and road to the proposed housing as well as the individual driveways be paved, that the working farm on the property be maintained, that at least an 825-foot setback be maintained for any structures, which was recommended by the staff in the original staff report for the Mary Copeland home back in 1998. It was upheld by the Planning Commission. That the housing duplexes be constructed and laid out according to the submitted site plan, and that they only be used for the purposes described in this public facility review request. And there is one other that I didn't put on there that I should have, that the septic system be approved by the Board of Health. And if you have any questions about the STEC report, I'd be happy to try to answer them. And we have Ms. Mary O'Doherty from the Kentucky Association for Domestic Violence and the Program Director, Darlene Thomas, and Mr. Jim Burris, who is the architect here, if you would have any questions for them. Thank you, Barb. Let me ask this real quick, I guess, to clarify. And, you know, as Mr. Drake asked a moment ago on the other one, our duty, I guess, here today is to decide whether this is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Yes. And you're saying it's not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Well, it's not in total compliance because it's not in compliance with the land use recommendation because what they do is more substantially similar to what would be classified as another public facility or a semi-public facility, other public use, or a semi-public facility. But they have been there, and they are in partial compliance because of the goals and objectives and the texts that support the program. They're not in compliance with the land use recommendation because it recommends core agricultural and rural land use, which this is not, but they have a working farm on the property, so it is partially in compliance. Okay. All right. Thank you. Questions for Barb at this point? Dr. Beatty? Are they currently under conditional use? No. No, it's not a conditional use. It was done as a public facility. So they're just in partial compliance? It's in partial compliance based on the goals and objectives, the text of the comprehensive plan and the fact that they have a small working farm on the property. Yeah. Okay. So anyone, applicant or anyone like to add anything at this point? No? Okay. I'm the director of the program, so if there are questions about our vision, I'd be happy to answer that. Okay. Any questions for the director? I don't think so. So, okay. Normally, I give my commission members a chance to speak first. I guess this time I'm going to speak first. As far as the program, I think everybody recognizes the need, and I think the need probably will increase. and with what Barbara's saying I think there are various parts of the comprehensive plan that addresses that need and yes therefore would be partially in compliance with I look through the staff report and personally I would take exception to I've got like an Eight count as far as not in compliance as far as the goals and objectives, and a five count as being in compliance or in favor of what is being done. My concern is that, in essence, we're putting a group residential project plan development out in the rural area. And my take on it is that's not where it's supposed to go. That, simply put, is my concern. I would have a very grave concern of buying into this plan and approving it or saying it is in compliance with the comprehensive plan with the fact that John Q. Public down the road, if we did today, would be coming in six months down the road and saying, boom, you know, if we're agreeing to part of the comprehensive plan today, then it should occur for them down the road. No, it would have to go through a different process if it was just a member of the general public. No, I understand that. But you couldn't use this as a precedent because this is a government function. This is a government entity. It wouldn't set a precedent. My mother always said that, and I've got two uncles that are Baptist ministers, and she looked at me, she said, listen, badness ministers put their pants on just like you do, one leg at a time. And when I'm looking at this, I'm looking at it as what's going on here. It is a state-run facility, and they do have considerations that we can do nothing about, and that's okay. However, I'm trying to look at it as an apple-and-apple type situation. What happens down the road? I can very much say, and I sat on the Board of Adjustment for several years, and there was a, Louis Stout was there for many years, and he always said, you know, we are looking at cases individually. We are not setting precedents. And, you know, I'm just concerned about this, whereas we say here that parts of this is in compliance. and what might happen down the road. That's my take on it. I have no problem with what they're doing. I just have a concern with 12 residential units going on a 40-acre track out in the rural area. That's my take on it. So I will ask if anybody else has things to say or questions. Yeah. Is this the old Briar Hill School site? I mean, the school's part of this. It's the 19,000. I'm not sure if it is or isn't. No, sir. That's further to the east on Briar Hill. Okay, so what is the existing building there? That's the shelter that's for the domestic violence program. It used to be the Mary Copeland Home for Abused and Neglected Children. And then the property sold. It changed to the Bellwood Presbyterian Home. And then now it's leased by the applicant from the state of Kentucky. I thought it was the school. And where were the residents going to be on the site again? Back in this area right here, here's the main building right here, and then here's their working farm area right in here. Here is where they're proposing to do this right here. I don't seem to be as concerned as my chairman sitting next to me because it's already a use going on there. I mean, it's not like they're just going to go out there and build this whole thing from the start. It's existing, and I think it's good. I guess you could have just, if you didn't want the duplexes, I guess you could add it all on to the one building. But I think this makes a better. It's a transition. Yeah. So I support it. Others, Ms. Plumlee. First, I have no qualms about the quality of the program. That's not up for discussion. I think it should be a fine situation. what does raise my antenna is this is 40 acres. And that raises the question of 40 acres in the rural area that you need to build a residence or whatever. And so I think it does set a precedence that further down the road sometime, somebody will come in and say, look, you did this, even though it didn't really comply with the comp plan. And if the government did it, then I can do it too. So really I'm concerned about that, and for that reason I would oppose this. I think it would have to go through, I mean, wouldn't it have to go through the law department to determine whether they were exempt from the zoning ordinance or not, or exempt from any? Yes. Well, no, not necessarily. I mean, the governmental entities are not required to follow our zoning ordinances. So, you know, we just are asked to review them in light of the comprehensive plan. What you decide isn't going to disallow them to do it or not. You know, I understand what you're saying, but there would be a completely different process. And I understand the 40 acres and everything that this community has been through in regard to that, but this is just a public facilities review, and the fact of the matter is that they aren't subject to our zoning ordinances. So if they don't want to do anything, we tell them they don't have to. But, you know, someone else who is subject to them would have to go through a different process and would be subject, and I'm sure our zoning staff, as well as our law department would pick up on that immediately when it came in. This was reviewed by the law department back in 1998 when they first wanted to do, because the attorney for the neighborhood thought that it should go to the Board of Adjustment as a conditional use. And the law department here determined that it was a government entity because it was run by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the Cabinet for Families and Children. And so it was not subject to zoning requirements. and like Tracy said, if somebody did want to do this, if it wasn't a government entity, they would have to go through a totally different process to even attempt this. They would probably, first of all, have to ask for his own change, and that wouldn't fly, probably, and it's just a totally different situation. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. Excuse me, I'm tearing up my situation. You're talking how you pay. I'm just a little confused. Why are we here? Because they are required. They're required. This is something that's required by KRS 100, that any government entity, any change to a property, that's why Fayette County Public Schools has to come for a band tower. Any government entity, any public property that's owned by something that is considered a public facility, like Fayette County Schools, the urban county government, the airport, state of Kentucky, needs to go through the public facility review process for determination of whether it's in compliance with a comprehensive plan or not. Okay, but I guess the bit of confusion I have, it doesn't really make any difference what we say. Well, exactly, and that is, you know, I mean, that's probably why everybody questions it, because it's true. They don't have to do. A lot of times they choose to, which they did. You know, back in 1998 when the staff recommended certain things and the Planning Commission recommended certain things, they did do some of those certain things, but they didn't do all of them. They recommended that the structure be 10,000 square feet or less, and it's 19,000 square feet. But they did keep the building back 825, at least 825 feet from the road. Just as a clarification, it doesn't really make any of what we do. They can do whatever they want to do. Basically. Okay. Mr. Wilson, if you look in the staff report, Barbara, she cited the KRS-100s at the bottom of the first page that talks about the need for a public facilities review. But immediately under that, she cited the KRS-100-361, which says, nothing in this chapter should impair the sovereign immunity of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. So that's, you know, it's a Kentucky legislative function. I don't know what else to tell you. You should do this, but following that, it doesn't matter, you know. So, I mean, I think it's because they want input from the, you know, local communities so that there can be some effort to work with the zoning ordinances in certain communities, even though the sovereign immunity won't be impaired by doing that. Well, let me just say for the record, I'm all in favor of the program and the project as such. You know, I was just a bit confused related to that, but that's fine. Thank you. Mr. Berkeley. I think getting public input is important, I guess, in the process. And, you know, I don't know to what extent that has happened in this particular case. At the end of the day, we can't really do anything about this. We can say it doesn't comply with our land use, and I think that's probably the appropriate thing to say right now, but it can go forward. Any church or any office use or anything that's out in the rural service area, you can say the same thing about it. It's just that it went through a conditional use process. Churches are not core agricultural or rural land use, but they get approved all the time by the Board of Adjustment. So it's, you know, same kind of situation. Not exactly the same, but it's the same kind of situation. It just seems like we're kind of put in the position to recommend something that we think is a good cause, but that's against what we have set up in the rural area. So it's a catch-22 for the Planning Commission. Sort of. Yeah. And, you know, I mean, other public uses, They don't recommend in the rural area anything other than core agricultural and rural land use, except for the properties that are probably zoned B1 already or that have been zoned commercially for a long time. They might recommend those. I mean, in the rural activity centers, they recommend that for other public use. But the rest of the property, even though it's part of that same property, is recommended for the rural agricultural land use. And so that's what makes the airport thing and the Bluegrass Station thing partially in compliance and partially not in compliance. Because what Bluegrass Station was doing, they were doing their construction in the rural recommendation part of the property. It was close to the rural activity center, but it wasn't in the rural activity center. The airport is partly in and partly out of the rural activity center. And so, I mean, neither one of them was totally. And like I said, churches are not rural land uses exactly. They're not core agricultural land uses. So I don't really see this as a difference. Churches do have conditional use. Oh, you're right, right. But it's still recommended for core agricultural and rural land use, which is not the same as a church. Sure. Ms. Mundy? I realize that nothing we really say makes any difference in regard to what is going to happen. However, I feel one thing we need to do to help us with this Catch-22 is we need to be sure we go on record and say that this is only partially in compliance. Again, I'm very supportive of the program. I think it's awesome. But I have a problem with this. My daughter is going to law school. I know what lawyers do. And if we come out in support of this, it's going to come back on us, I think, whether you want to call it setting a precedent or whatever. Somewhere down the road, I think somebody, you know, the attorneys want to make money, and they're going to see this as an issue, and that's my opinion on it. Sorry, Tracy, I don't mean to be putting you down, but I know they're out there. You know, I just know, and you're going to get somebody who comes along who may not be as credible as Mike Cravens as a developer and says, whoa, wait a minute, we've got 40 acres here, they've put 12 units on it. As you said, they're very much like farmhouses for the help on the farms, so it's very much like that. Maybe somebody comes in from New York, Connecticut, wherever, with deep pockets, and he says, I want to build my kids' houses. You've got 12 on this one. I just see it opening up a whole big can of worms for us to go forward in support of this. Not that I don't support the program, but I have a real problem with opening up this can of worms, knowing, I guess, that side of things as I've seen it coming through life in different places we've been. And the Planning Commission in 1998 didn't find it to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan because, I mean, it wasn't in compliance with the land use recommendation. It's not. But it is supported by the goals and objectives, several goals and objectives and the text. And I didn't ask you to say that it was totally in compliance. Yeah, exactly. I will. And I guess the thing that is slapping me in the face is, you know, we sit here making decisions based on the comprehensive plan, And then this puts us in a position of it doesn't matter what we say in support of the comprehensive plan. It really doesn't matter in this situation. But in my mind, we have to support the plan that has been put before us. Dr. Beatty. That's a part of the follow-up Karen. But first of all, let me say I strongly support the program. And I think that the idea of having transitional residential living, that is a great idea. Now, with that being said, I can't get past the two objectives that are on page. Well, it's not paged on here. There are no pages. Goal number six, objective J, and goal number seven, objective A, which sort of give us the idea of it does not meet the comprehensive plan. It's in opposition. And so I don't see how we could understand that it will probably happen, But I don't see how we could say anything other than that's not the way that we say that the rural area should be used in that way. And I'm looking at this development plan and thinking that probably in the next three to five years, we would probably need another little cul-de-sac similar to that. And so I don't see this being something that is finite, that it's over with. So what I would strongly recommend, I would love to see this plan inside our urban service area. And I don't know how the state handles that kind of, I know they have a site where they are now, But that would really be a great residential area to find someplace inside our urban service area where it is within our comprehensive plan that we could strongly support that because it's needed. Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Drake? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I'm in a minority. Let me say that I understand the concerns that have been expressed. There's obviously some question, and I think that one of our greatest duties as public servants is to exercise judgment, and that's particularly important when there is some question and perhaps things aren't clearly defined. And no one has questioned the value or the worth of this program. I think we all support that. My concern is that programs like this, and I'm not intimately familiar with this. I know a little bit about it. They're under siege. Budgets are being cut. People on certain spaces in the political spectrum are railing against these kinds of programs. And given that circumstance, I think the greater good argues that we try to find a way to do this, not to find reasons why we shouldn't do it. And for that reason, I would support the staff recommendation. Something just occurred to me. I don't know if this, based on what Ms. Beatty said, something inside the urban service area, but something like this needs to be isolated, basically isolated, so that it's safe for the people that are living there, because these are domestic violence, spouse abuse victims. Yes, I've worked directly with those groups, and I understand that. It may be that it needs to be, as far as the program goes, it needs to be isolated. I don't know, but when you said that, that just hit me, and I thought, I don't know. But I understand what you're saying, though. I do. Well, yes. Mr. Wilson. Well, I was just curious. We just voted on this airport thing. How is this different from the airport? I mean, it's the same thing for the most part, isn't it? It's similar in some ways. It really is because it doesn't go along. Part of the airport thing, part of it is within the rural activity center. The majority of it is within the Rural Activity Center. Part of it is not. But the apron, the concrete apron that's there and the runway that's there also span that boundary. And so, I mean, it is in partial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan because it's mostly in the Rural Activity Center. It's partially not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan because part of it is outside of the Rural Activity Center. Same with Bluegrass Station. But we found that it to be substantially in compliance with the comprehensive plan because it was so close to the rural activity center. This, you know, I understand what you all are saying, but I believe it is substantially in compliance with the comprehensive plan based on the text. And it's not in compliance with the land use recommendation. I agree with that. I do totally agree. But the facility is there. It's been there since 1998, 1999. it's been out of compliance with the comprehensive plan as far as land use goes but it's supported by the comprehensive plan as far as as far as the goals and objectives as far as the text as far as providing housing for disadvantaged people as far as providing safety for people that kind of thing okay it is and it isn't well i guess the point is i was just trying to figure out for the standpoint of consistency. I mean, we just voted on the airport and said, and it's partially, and now we're saying that we've got issues with this one. And I understand the issues and I appreciate the issues. But at the same time, I see we're in kind of a dilemma as it relates to the catch-22 that you explained. So backing off of that, I'm going to take the position of my colleague. I mean, I'm looking now at the product of the program and what they're doing and how they're doing it. And so I appreciate your best clarification as you possibly can. I'm still lightly confused, but that's okay. That's okay. We all are. I think now most everybody has weighed in on this. I'm going to close this by agreeing with everybody as far as the program and the need for it. And, yeah, two points. As far as being similar to a tenant house on a farm, I don't think that I would ever get approval to build 12 residential units for tenant houses on my farm. Secondly, most of the goals and objectives that are in agreement of this would be goals and objectives that's in agreement wherever this is located, whether it's inside the urban surface boundary, outside the urban surface boundary, or whatever. I just feel like that there's more statements that are contrary to this as far as the goals and objectives is concerned than they are in favor of. With that said, I'll entertain a motion. Ms. Mindy. First, I'd like to say thanks for all your hard work. Yes. I'm going to make a motion, Mr. Chairman. I move to disapprove this based on goal number six, objective J, and goal number seven, objective A. but I would like to recommend the things that were recommended by staff, the one, two, three, four, five, six items that were recommended by staff. There's another, the septic system also. Yeah, and I'm adding three more. One is that the septic system must be approved by the Board of Health. they continue to work on site with the working farm and that they might consider and look at relocation inside the urban service boundary which would be better and more compliant with the comprehensive plan. Motion has been made for disapproval of the recommendation. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded. Are there any discussion in regards to the motion? Yes, sir. Clarification is for disapproval. What is the motion? Disapproval. Disapproval? You said disapproval. Move to disapprove. Okay. Motion is for disapproval of this recommendation. But adding those items that I noted at the end. Okay. Motion is for disapproval. The second, you're in agreement with that? Yes. Okay. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. We have a tie vote. Which means nothing. Which means nothing. The motion has failed. Another motion, Mr. Parliamentarian? Not asking for it, but clarification? If you have another motion, it has to be substantially different than the first motion. I mean, first of all, you have to have a motion of reconsideration, and it has to be offered by someone on the prevailing side. In this case, it could be anyone around. So if you're going to offer another motion, it has to be substantially different than the motion that you just offered. Otherwise, the motion fails. And if I remember from past meetings, if there's not something substantially different, this would come up for reconsideration in 30 days? You are not really recommending approval or disapproval. You're just finding it either in compliance with a comprehensive plan or not in compliance with a comprehensive plan for the reasons that Ms. Mundy gave. And I don't think you have to take another vote. Mr. Chairman, that 30-day provision is only on a zone change. Is it? Okay. Thank you, sir. The statute says that if you don't take action on this, that they have to wait 60 days from the time they filed their request, and they can go forward. Okay. Okay. What is it? Mr. Chairman, what does that mean? They have to come back before this body again? No. The statute says, and it's at the bottom of page one, it says that if there's no permit required for public facilities, and so at the expiration of 60 days or whenever you issue your report, they can go get their permits and stuff without you taking any action. Okay, so in accordance with that, then the boat as we have it currently can be registered and they can do whatever they want to do. But they have to wait. But they have to wait 60 days. It delays the insurance. Mr. Dirk? Yes, sir. Question. What is the implementation schedule and plan? My name is Mary O'Docherty, and I work at the Kentucky Domestic Violence Association, and we are working with the Kentucky Housing Corporation to apply for the low-income tax credits and for the funding to build this housing. And the timeline for that would be we're preparing our applications now. We'll find out from Kentucky Housing Corporation if we get the low-income housing tax credits in December. It would take us. So the 60 days doesn't hurt you. Well, we need from the Planning Commission a letter explaining that zoning laws don't apply, and we need that letter for our application to go forward. So if we don't get a letter from the Zoning Commission, then we won't be able to apply for the tax credits. I don't know how much, I mean, your split vote, I don't know how that would affect the process. Counsel? Mr. Chairman, we can give them that letter. That is totally independent of the Commission's action on this facility review as to whether they need zoning or not. Correct. Correct. So the tie vote then and the 60-day requirement is really not going to impact them. It just means that if there are any permits that they need associated with this, they cannot be given until, and Barbara will have to tell me what date it was filed with us. It was filed August 9th. So we have until October, actually, to hear this, but this was filed just last week, or the week before last. I think they're in good shape. When will the 60 days expire? October 9th, I think. Early October. October 9th. All right. Am I allowed to address that? Interesting, isn't it? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Clarification. Clarification. Because I voted no on a disapproval because I'm looking at this kind of as the program. But I think the question I have is our real, and maybe the motion confused me a little bit. I mean, we're either saying it complies or it doesn't. That's what I was saying. Okay. Okay. So maybe we could, I don't know if we could re-vote or what. Because I would agree that it does not comply with the comp plan. but I'm not wanting to vote against the program per se. I didn't mean it against the program. Well, I know that. I'm not saying that. It's not against the program. It's against the compliance. And I said that wrong. I didn't mean it that way. No, not at all. I am concerned that a vote that is not in support of the project might hurt us in terms of getting support from local government officials. I mean, I hope you'll consider that. But yet we endorsed the purposes or the restrictions. So that means that we were more against a comprehensive plan, noncompliance, and not your program because we wouldn't have said you may move forward with these. You have to do the septic tank or the field and that sort of thing. Plus, we didn't hear neighbors' opinions so much this time either, and that might have weighed a little bit more, too. And, Chris, if they need a letter, can the letter be sent with us in support of the program and the housing plan? Even though we don't, we're not saying. This commission can only speak through its votes. Unless you took a vote saying you supported the program, I could not report that. But in terms of the fact of law that they are not subject to zoning, I can give them a letter to that effect, or law can give them a letter, someone in the government can give them a letter to that effect. That has been studied before and opinion rendered on that. And so is that what is needed, a letter just that simply says that you don't have to adhere to zoning? Is Chris, and I'm asking you as well, is that, I mean, will that suffice for them? I don't know. Because I do not know their needs in terms of permitting, grant applications, and things of that nature, so I cannot speak to that. I can tell you that we do need a letter saying that zoning laws don't apply. We also need a copy of the map that was shown. I think in terms of our application, I think we can go forward with that. We also, though, need support from the political leaders here, and I'm just saying that I'm concerned about that. I think your actions have the ability to affect that. Darlene, would you like to speak? I don't know if it helps at all because I can't tell you I'm overly familiar with planning and zoning and those purposes. My job is to really serve women and kids who've kind of been hurt throughout their lifetime. And for this program, we've made a very conscientious effort to look at the 40 acres that we have and hold true to our neighbors. We work really well with our neighbors. To my knowledge, the neighborhood association has never had one complaint. We've been out here nine years. We care about the safety not only of our families that live there, but of our entire community, just like anybody else does that lives in a community. With that said, we were very purposeful. We started a farm three years ago. It continually has grown. We're marketing a lot of our own products. We're teaching families how to be self-sufficient. I'm not sure. I was raised on a farm, and so some of this comes really natural to me, and I care. My staff care deeply about this property. It is very special to us. We have horses. We're looking at having cows and working with some neighbors and talking about that. So this project was very limited. The reason we did not look at the urban core right now, like going into town right now, is because I need to have enough space, just a little more space with these units. There were people five years ago that said I need to put 40 apartment complexes out here. And I said, no, it does not fit who we are and what our land is. This fit perfectly with what our need. We've been here long enough. We've been here nine years. I know now very clearly what I need. I needed just a little more time for families to move from that crisis situation. They're working the farm. They're working stipends. They're learning about financial literacy. They're learning how to become self-sufficient. We're also hoping to put a commercial kitchen in over there so that our neighbors and our families can learn to create and grow. Whatever we grow, they can stipend off of what we grow. They can create and market their own products right there, and neighbors could use that because it will be a certified kitchen. I just needed enough room, and we thought about 12 units. Very cottage style. Looks like they're stick-built. the back of the property beautifully. And it helps families that just need that extra time to become self-sufficient. And our goal is to get them back into their communities as quickly as possible. So most of these folks through these units will be there from six months up to two years, depending on their needs. And then hopefully we'll have them back in their communities quite self-sufficient. And that's our vision. We're very committed to our property. We treasure it. We are a blessed program. We're a national model. We're very proud, but we care about how we utilize our land. So thank you. Well, I think the whole commission could say that. We're very supportive of that. Once again, my concern in the simplest way is that we're taking core agricultural land out of production. And once again, John Q. Public couldn't do it. So that's my problem. Well, we are Kentucky proud. Thank you. Thank you. We are really trying to be agriculture, a mix. Mr. Chairman, I want to make another motion that we, the Planning Commission, find for the staff report. So moved. Mr. Parliamentarian? He asked me that question earlier privately, and one of the things, the issue from parliamentary procedure, as it's written, is that whatever new motion has to be done has to be substantially different than the original motion. His argument is that it is. The ultimate parliamentarian here, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not you'd like to entertain such a motion as that. In my mind, I have indicated I don't think it is. My advice is I do not think that it is a substantially different motion than essentially what we have, because ultimately all he's done is reversed. Sure. Okay. Since it's been put on to me in trying to move this forward one way or the other, I will go ahead and accept that motion and ask for a second. What is the motion? I didn't understand it. Motion? Mr. Cravens, repeat the motion? I'm making a motion that the Planning Commission accept the staff report. The motion is that the Planning Commission finds in favor of the staff report on this. Do we have a second? Motion is made and seconded by Mr. Craig. Any discussion on the motion? Do we need to include that septic tank situation in there? Because it's not in there. You can't get a septic tank unless you go get a PERC test and a permit and all that. You can't do it. Even the government can't do that. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded for approval with all the staff recommendations. Can we vote on the screen here? Yes, Dr. Beatty? Would you accept an amendment to say, noting that it is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan? I think the staff just spent about an hour telling us about all that. I mean, Barbara explained all that, that it wasn't in compliance. No one is part of the motion that it's only in partial compliance. I mean, I just voted to approve the airport here out in the rural area. I mean, surely we can sue this. So the question is, would you accept that as an amendment? That it's in partial compliance with the comprehensive plan. I mean, if he accepts the amendment, then the amendment can be made. But if he doesn't accept it, we go we go on. Yes, sir. Okay. Tell me what your amendment is again. That there is an exception that it is in partial compliance with the comprehensive plan. Okay. I don't disagree with that. I care if I accept your amendment. And the amendment is that the approval, although we are approving it, that it is in partial compliance with the comprehensive plan. Could I make a suggestion that you say that it's not in compliance with the land use element of the comprehensive plan, but it is in compliance with several goals and objectives and is supported in that way by the comprehensive plan? Would that be acceptable? Yes. It says basically what you're trying to say, but it specifies the land use component. Right, and it is just the land use element basically. As she stated it. That's up to you. Barb, could you restate that? This is not found to be in compliance with the land use element of the comprehensive plan, although it is supported by text and several goals and objectives of the plan. It's impartial compliance but not total compliance. It's just the land use element that it is not in compliance with. Okay. The amendment to the motion is that it is not in compliance with the land use element. However, it is in partial compliance with the comprehensive plan. It is in compliance with several goals and objectives in the text of the comprehensive plan. Okay. So that is the motion as far as the amendment. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the amendment. Okay. So please vote when it comes up on the screen. Mr. Chairman, on the amendment, we cannot do an election. Okay. Okay. A show of hands on the amendment, please. Four. Those opposed? The amendment fails. Okay. So, excuse me, Ms. Parliamentary, may I change my motion on that? No, not my motion, my vote on that. If I wanted to. Okay, I'll leave it alone. That motion for the amendment failed. Mike, we're back to your motion as far as approval, as far as the staff's recommendations. So the motion was made and seconded for approval of subject staff recommendations. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Can we now? We can. Did everybody vote? I'm missing a vote here. I know. One, two, three. How far did I go? It's five to three. Mine's not showing up here. The fifth one's not. Okay. So, who did? You voted against him. Yeah, but I'm only showing four is what I'm saying. Let me ask for a show of hands as far as those in favor, please. Okay, five yays, nay, three nays. Okay, motion passes. There you go, folks. Sorry for the difficulty. Thank you, thank you. Other items of business? I will tell everybody I did get a notice from the Lexington Tree Board expression their appreciation for our support in the saving borough tree. Commission items, anything? Stife items, anything from staff? Mr. Chairman, just a reminder that you do have a work session next Thursday. Thank you. We do have a work session next Thursday. Mr. King will be sending out the agenda rather quickly. That's the fifth Thursday of the month. Yes, sir. Motion has been made for adjournment. Second. All in favor, please stand.