Hey, and though they struggle much, they told us, I said, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not And when the morning of the warnings Passed the gas and flies The kids are flung across the stars The psychodramas and the traumas Gone the sun, the love of the sun And hung upon the sky And then along comes Mary And unless she was to see the sting That didn't raise up all the pain She left the night before Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, will their waking eyes reflect the lies and make them realize The bridge of my one-sided mind When we went out, sure, I'd to lunch Now my empty cup is as sweet as a punch Sweet as a punch Sweet as a punch Sweet as a punch Sweet as a punch I'm not sure. Oh, baby, please don't go. Baby, please don't go. Signing you or a leech, you know I love you so. Baby, please don't go. Baby, you might not go. Well, you might not go. Well, you might not go. Left the county for me and the shackles on. Baby, please don't go. Before I be a dog. Before I be your dog Before I be your dog Get your way down here I'll make you walk along Baby, please don't go Baby, please don't go Baby, please don't go Baby, please don't go Down in your old ninja No love, so baby, please don't go 4 p.m. talk 4 p.m. talk 4 p.m. talk Get your rain on here Make a walk in love Baby, please don't go Well, how I feel right now My baby's living On that midnight train Yeah, I'll try Baby, please don't go Baby, please don't go Baby, please don't go And if you all leave, you don't love me So, baby, please don't go Before we are done Before we are done Before we are done Get your way down here, I'll make you walk along, baby, please don't go down. All right! All right! Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. One of these days we'll get all three clocks working, but I think it's a little bit after 1.30. so I will call this meeting to order for January 30th 2014 first on the agenda we do have some minutes for approval there are three sets of minutes that's been emailed to the Commission members December 12 2013 December 19 2013 and January 16 2014 I have not heard of any corrections if they if anyone has any Please let it be known. Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, can I move all three of them at one time? That's fine with me, yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of starting, first of all, with December the 12th, 2013, the Urban County Planning Commission subdivision items, minutes. I'd also like to move approval of the Urban County Planning Commission zoning items, public hearing minutes of December the 19th. And lastly, I'd like to move approval of the minutes of the Urban County Planning Commission subdivision items that's dated January 16, 2014. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of those minutes. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. I would remind everyone, hang on to those minutes for December 19th. I think we'll be discussing that or an item on that a little bit later. If the commission is okay and has no objection, I'm going to take one thing out of order. That would be to hear MAR 2014-2, the Auburn County Planning Commission's request for H-1 overlay on Jefferson Street, Ballard Street, Short Street, which starts on page 4 of your agenda. Yes, please. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. This item appears at the bottom of page 4. It is item 3A and in tab 4 in your notebooks. MAR 2014-2, this is a zone change initiated by the Urban County Planning Commission. at the request of a neighbor and property owner, William Johnston. The proposed zone change is to add a historic district to six parcels, consisting of approximately 0.4 acres of land adjacent to the existing western suburb historic district. Let me see if this works. I'm going to come over here. The existing zoning of the subject parcels is a mixture of B1 neighborhood business and residential or high-density residential R4 zone. It is bound to the southeast by mostly B1 zoning along Jefferson Street and to the southwest by R4 zoning along West Short Street. So Jefferson and West Short Street are the corridors that primarily run through this portion of the community and specifically the Western Suburb Historic District. So the yellow outline indicates the boundaries of the parcels to be added to the existing Western Suburb Historic District. And this is just a view of the zoning there. This is, again, mentioned initiation by Mr. Bill Johnston, a current resident and very active neighbor in the area. He is partial owner of four parcels, and then two others were added in order to maintain adjacency to the existing H-1 overlay boundary. To the staff's knowledge, this is the first time an expansion to a local historic district has ever been proposed. and that process involves initiation by the Planning Commission or the council and then we would forward it to the Division of Historic Preservation. They prepare their study of the properties and then prepare a designation report. So that occurred late in the summer and early fall of last year. Their designation report does cover the history of the western suburb, Also that there's been several distinguished citizens with connections to this district, either through their family members or themselves, like Mary Todd Lincoln. It covers the architectural styles in the area, describes the timing of the properties that are involved, their building construction, mostly their cottages or one federal-style building. And then it also does just include the back of a piece of property that was not included in the original historic district, but has always been part of 609 West Short Street. This allows for that adjacency issue to be addressed. And I'm just going to run through some photos of the properties. This small house at the corner or cottage is kind of obscured by the tree, but it's the yellow structure. and then the larger federal-style building next to it. On Ballard Street, there's four parcels. This is a small cottage to the rear of the Jefferson properties. And then down the street, 638, 640 is a duplex, and 644 is a single-family residence. Again, you can see the style of the buildings. And then this is the rear on the right-hand side of 609 West Short Street and then what the view would be from Short. but that's the part of the area to be included in the historic district. The Board of Architectural Review did hold a public hearing in mid-November, and they are forwarding their recommendation to the Planning Commission at this time for recommendation of the H-1 overlay to be added to these parcels. The two things that the findings cover from historic preservation or the board, BOAR, address the comprehensive plan and its recommendations for preservation. And then related to Article 13-3G of our zoning ordinance, which identifies the nine criteria for historic districts. And in this case, the board and the staff found that it met four of the nine criteria related to Article 13.3G of the zoning ordinance. The zoning committee reviewed this a few weeks ago, and they were in agreement with the staff recommendation of approval. And the staff is recommending approval for primarily two reasons. The expansion to the Western Suburb Historic District is consistent with themes, goals, and objectives of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, as well as the 2007 Comprehensive Plan as it relates to historic preservation. And those particular 2013 goals are listed in the findings on your agenda and staff report. And then second, the historic district for this area would be consistent with the recommendations of the Board of Architectural Review for expansion of the western suburb historic district. And I'd be happy to answer any questions about that. Randy Shipp is here from Historic Preservation to go over the recommendation of the BOAR related to this zone change. Thank you, Tracy. Any questions for Ms. Wade at this point? No, thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, member of the commission, my name is Randy Shipp. I am a staff member for the Division of Historic Preservation. Excuse me. I have presented to your staff and would formally submit a copy of the Western Suburb H-1 Overlay Expansion Designation Report, a copy of the design guidelines, and a copy of Article 13 of the zoning ordinance as part of the official record. I will keep my comments fairly short. Just to give you an overview of the area we're dealing with, the map that you see before you, So the red line is the boundaries of the existing H1 overlay zone. The areas in gray represent the six properties that are up for consideration to be added to this district. Just to give you an idea of what the western suburb consists of, I'll just show you a few sample properties within it to give you an idea of the varying architectural styles that are present. These are all located inside the boundaries and represent different time periods and different architectural styles that are present. They range anywhere from the simple cottages to the larger two-story, more than eight, and including some commercial properties. The six properties we are dealing with today, the first one is 611 Ballard Street. This is a one-story T-plan cottage that was built around 1890. Also on Ballard Street, 638 to 640 is a one-story duplex built around 1940. 644 Ballard Street is a one-story shotgun cottage. This one was built around 1930. Very simple, very clean lines. Then we have two properties on Jefferson Street. 149 is a brick one-story shotgun cottage. This was constructed circa 1880. It does have some additions on the back, but they are in keeping with the character of the house. 151-153 is actually a two-story federal brick-style house. It started out as a single-family dwelling but was converted to two-family. And this was built around 1818. And then finally, the riportion of 609 West Short. It's a unique situation here. In addition to providing adjacency, at the time that the district was formed or confirmed in 1975, this was a separate parcel and was not considered at that time. In 2000, it was consolidated in to 609 West Short. So now you have a situation where a single legal parcel of property has H-1 overlay on part of it and not on the other. so this would make the single parcel uniform. As the staff of the Planning Commission has so adequately put forth and done a good job, the BOAR met in November and approved this unanimously, stating that it makes four of the nine criteria for inclusion in this existing H-1 overlay. We'll end now and have any questions. I'll be glad to answer them. Any questions, Mr. Shoup? No. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? Yes, sir. I'm Bill Johnston, 645 West Short Street. and I've owned all of these properties except for the rear 609 at Shore Street at one time or another and still have an interest in several of them. And I've nurtured these things for about 25 years and I just want to make sure they hang around after I'm no longer nurturing them. So that was my motive. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak? Seeing none, if there's no further questions, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it to any discussion among the Commission members and or a motion. Ms. Blanton? I'd like to move approval of MAR 2014-2 for the reasons outlined by staff. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of MAR 2014-2. if there's no discussion on the motion please vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes thank you let me get back into normal agenda order and I will apologize I did skip over the postponements and withdrawals thank you any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. My name is Bob Cornett. Sorry I failed to pick up the agenda, but DP 2014-1, the Locust Hill Shopping Center, we requested a two-week postponement at the last meeting. We did manage to resolve our issues, but not until about 10.30 this morning, and that did not allow planning staff time to prepare any kind of presentation, and we request another two weeks. Thank you. That is on page one, item one, under development plans. The request would be for postponement until February 13, 2014. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Brewer. Mr. Chairman, for two-week postponement of DP 2014-1, Locust Hill. Thank you. I do have a second. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement of DP 2014-1 until February 13th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, we'll stay in the agenda order from here on. Under Development Plans at the bottom of page 1, DP 2014-2 Fritz Farm, LLC Summit, Lexington Bayer property, located 4100 Nicholasville Road. And who's going to start with this? Mr. Martin? We do have revisions that's on a white sheet that should be before you. There's also a waiver that's on a white sheet as well. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, as noted, the next item on your agenda is DP 2014-2, the Fritz Farm LLC, also known as Summit Lexington Bayer property. Here is the proposed final development plan on this property. It is located at Manowar and Nicholasville Road at the intersection of those two highways. You can see they also have access and some frontage on Tiverton Way in this location, Habersham Drive in this location, Tangley Way currently stubs here. They are proposing an access point fully signalized here and two access points off Tiverton Way. It is a mixed-use project. There is over 500,000 square feet of retail being proposed, a similar and somewhat smaller number of residential also being proposed. The residential is going to be located over the tops of several buildings. However, in this area, these are residential buildings, solely residential in use, proposed in this area of the plan. There are 2,383 parking spaces required. They're proposing 2,565. Now, again, you can see there's a lot of parking. And there's decks in this area. In this area, they're proposing parking structures. But with all that parking that you see, they're not but a little bit over. They're required in this case with the parking. It is a large development. There is a lot of square footage. It's over 50 acres in size. We have, as I stated, over a million square feet total. Now there's retail. There's residential. There is a motel. as a part of this development and some professional office. So there are a lot of mixed use land uses being proposed in this development. This is a proposed open space buffer. You can see down through here, there's a line through here. We highlight it in green as well, next to the residential neighborhood in this location. Here is the proposed stormwater detention. And I know you will recall all the discussion about the stormwater and the project and the fact that there's off-site improvements. There's a government project. They are cooperating and working with that project. This detention will be designed in accordance with the needs of that project to help address stormwater in this area. There's been longstanding stormwater problems, as I'm sure you're aware and you recall from the zone change conversation. the residential units total 306 on this plan with 490 bedrooms there is an addition again we have Habersham Drive here access here they are proposing a on man o' war a write-in, write-out, approximately in this location. I'm going to return to that because, as you're aware, there is a waiver request associated with that. Again, detention in this area. You can see the mixed use. This is dominated by commercial uses. There is some over-top residential proposed. We have an access point again here and here off Tiverton. This is a revised plan. We've had several versions come in. Some of it had to do with the fact that they have recommended some additional landscaping on this plan, and they brought staff a revised plan. With that, you can see from your handout, and it is white, there was a typo, unfortunately, on the gray one, so be sure, as your chairman said, throw that one away. Use your white handout. out. You can see that staff has recommended approval subject to several of your standard, always your standard sign-offs, so with urban county engineering, traffic, building inspection, bike and ped, your standard development plan sign-offs are your first nine. Now, we do have documentation of water quality's approval of capacity assurance, and I know that is of concern to this body. You will find in your handout a copy of a printout from the tracking that is available on the Capacity Assurance Program. It is staff's understanding that they have approval for Phase I, and in the future, they're on a waiting list. When capacity becomes available, they will be able to address Phase II. We have demonstrated for you the Phase I line. is right here. This is phase one. Back here, this area in our little dogleg towards Habersham, that's phase two. One of the important things that staff wanted to note it on this plan that they have addressed is when were they going to build the residential component. As this body is aware, staff was very concerned in a mixed use development that that residential component be integral and important to the development. They have stated that they intend to build that in phase one. And in fact, the residential is concentrated, as I said, here and over these commercial buildings. The hotel happens to be in this area, by the way, in case you're curious. They moved that. It was in this location. It's now in this location. We have several cleanup conditions, several of which address the Article 28-6, which is an article that just addresses design components applicable to all mixed-use zones. They have addressed those for the most part successfully. There are a few areas where we'd like to be sure that they do meet that requirement and graphically show those requirements. We have asked them to denote bicycle parking. You can dig into that plan. There's a lot of information. They have shown that, but there's also a numerical requirement in the ordinance. They need to specify those bike racks. They have actually denoted their lighting compliance on the plan, which is one of the conditions you see there in the middle of the sheet. The lighting MU mixed use, and MU3 particularly, is the one zone in the ordinance that actually specifies height on street light fixtures and some other aspects of lighting. They have actually documented that. We need them to document compliance with the tree canopy requirements for this development. And you may recall condition 14 relates to, pardon me, yes, 14, Financial participation and off-site traffic calming to the approval of traffic engineering. I know you recall, again, there was a lot of discussion about the impact of this development on the adjoining neighborhoods. Traffic engineering is working with the neighborhood. We view this as a similar situation to the Mitchell Avenue that you may recall, where that applicant agreed to financially participate. We would like to have that denoted. We don't believe it's the applicant's responsibility to determine traffic calming. That's traffic engineering in the neighborhood's decision, and they are working on that. We do understand there may be some differences of opinion how best to accomplish that, but we trust that with their financial participation that those issues for the neighborhood will be addressed. we had been concerned and staff had talked about architectural details in the building facades along these arterial streets and we have handed out to you renderings that they have given to us and i know the applicant wants to stress that and go over those with you and commit to meeting those as closely and as in spirit as they can staff is concerned always about this facing and in article 28 requires them to do some things and we think that's a minimum and we'd like for them to note some additional architectural details so that these don't look like the sides and rears of commercial buildings as they face the arterials and i think based on what you'll see from them we're comfortable that they can do that and will do that We have several issues on this plan that relate to the open space along the residential neighborhood. And these are 17 and 18 and 19, and they are all somewhat related. And very simply, in these areas here, again, next to the residential neighborhood, you can see they're offering 50 feet of ground, of open space in this area. 50 feet as we come down through here. 50 feet at this pinch point in the detention basin. Here, next to Tangley Way, it's further constricted to 25 feet by this vehicular use area and parking associated with building BB. Here again is the green space. Here, you can see 65 feet down to 50. I don't know how well you can see this, but we wanted to compare this. Maybe I should put it up here. We wanted you to see this is the preliminary development plan. This is the zone change that you approved. You can see 60 feet here, 85 feet, 60. This area is very similar, and staff is comfortable with the similarities. You can see as we move in this direction, it becomes much more restricted in terms of the open space, and staff is concerned with that and those conditions that you see on your plan address that. One aspect that we think is important to maintain the tree protection areas here and here and try to protect that existing canopy and mature trees and that sort of thing to help shield the neighborhood. We're aware that they're going to have to reconfigure and work in the detention basin, and it could be very difficult to save those trees. The work, in fact, may kill them, so there's no use in trying to preserve something that isn't legitimate or able to do. And again, you can see, here's the detention basin. There was a different parking structure configuration. Obviously, they've adjusted that out over the detention basin. But again, you can see how it's constricted the area in green. We also had a 70-foot difference here to parking, but it was 100 feet to the building, to the residential building. On their proposal, they've brought the building closer, and it's 50 feet now from the property line for the building. So staff, again, was concerned with that. You can see by the conditions that we are recommending that they relocate that vehicular use area, and that's number 17, to a minimum of 50 feet from the residential properties on Walhampton and Tangley Way. That is by BB. That's the building I pointed out to you, that pinch point at that location. We believe that the residential building, FF, should be moved a minimum of 70 feet back from the residential zone at a minimum. And again, you can see, pardon me, we said FF. It's G and this FF right here on the original. Again, what we're talking about is this building. We are talking about FF here. On the original plan, they called it GG, so you're clear. But you can see there were 70 feet to the parking. We believe at a minimum they ought to place the building at that location once again and that we are recommending that they do so. And I think I stated that we are recommending that they preserve those trees and those areas indicated on the plan. Now, I'm going to return to the waiver in the write-in, write-out, and you have a waiver report. The applicant is requesting a waiver on this plan for the write-in and write-out. again. Now, let me see. Let's do this. In this location on the plan, and you can see they have a modified design that they would like to utilize here at this location. This is approximately 940 feet from Habersham, or 45 and about 940 feet from Nicholasville Road. We have provided some information in your handout that addresses the space in the long man-of-war. With a few exceptions, it has well exceeded 1,200 feet, in some cases by quite a bit, but there's a breakdown of that. The key about those intersections are full intersections, signalized intersections. In this case, you have a full, of course, you have a signalized intersection here, you have a signalized controlled intersection here, and you have a median. And as you all are aware, right in and right out work well when there's medians and provide that control. So staff in traffic engineering have reviewed this, and we are comfortable with the spacing on the right in and right out on Manowar. And we would add this will be the first, right in, right out on Manowar. However, we are not comfortable with the proposed design by the applicant. What you see before you is a compromise that traffic has currently offered. And I'm not going to speak for them and say they're wedded to that, but that is a compromise that they designed to try to meet the applicant's concerns and our concerns with public safety. And this is pedestrian safety is the key here that we're concerned about. If you would go to the other exhibit, please. This is a typical right in, right out, and this is the one right across from this development into Walmart. That's what's there, and you can see we tried to highlight there's sidewalk, there's a deacceleration lane, and that's a typical right in, right out. That's a standard design. The concern that staff has is for the pedestrian safety on man-of-war, and that's our concern with the alternative design. There is, again, a typical design, which we think better addresses that. And, again, our traffic engineering folks have come up with a compromised design, and they, of course, are willing to work with the applicant on that. The staff is recommending approval of the waiver subject to a condition that they do modify their proposed design in accordance with the traffic engineering's concerns with the right in, right out. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? No? The waiver request does address and recognize the compromise, I guess. It makes a recommendation that they modify their design to the approval of traffic engineering, which will allow for compromise. Okay. All right. Very good. Any questions? No? Okay. If not, thank you, Tom. Thank you. Applicant, good afternoon. Thank you. delay. I'm Nick Nicholson. I'm here on behalf of Bayer Development. Bruce Simpson is here with me as well with Stahl Keenan. David Silverstein with Bayer Properties is here. We have Ben Eadlin, Keith Messinger, and Matt Williams from HDR. We also have the architect Michael Dunning from Shook Kelly. He's happy, all of us really are happy to answer any type of questions that you all may have if you need to go any deeper than what is necessary. I'd like to thank especially Tom, but all of the LPCG staff. We've come a really long way on this plan, and it makes my job a lot easier to stand before you and say that with the revised conditions that we have, we're pretty much entirely okay with them. There are a few things that we would nitpick with them, but in reality, we pretty much are okay with them. The main concern that we do have, again, as Tom was pointing out, It's going to be about public safety. We do believe that our main design for the right in, right out is, quite frankly, it's safer than a traditional right in, right out. We believe that the compromise that Traffic Engineering put forward this morning, it's better, but we do believe that ours is more safe. And I'll get into kind of the reasons why. But as staff indicated, they're okay with this access point as it basically exists. It is very necessary. You all heard a loud uproar from the neighborhood when we were here in June of the reasons why this access point is so vital. It keeps commercial traffic off the neighborhood, and it's good for internal circulation. The reason why we feel that this is safer, as you can see, we are basically taking, if I can do this, the sidewalk right here will go along here, and we have it slightly jut into our site, and the crossing points, and this is the key, are at hard stop intersections, right here and right here, before returning to Manowar. If you could show the aerial that I have up there. This is Great Minds Think Alike. Tom and I basically have the exact exhibit. I just went for easier to do a screen grab off Google Earth to show you all what it looks like in practice. As you see, the sidewalks come here, and you are asking pedestrians to essentially cross over on an active traffic lane. There is no requirement for these cars to be stopping. If you all have ever driven into this right in, right out, you know cars are coming off Nicholasville Road, coming up and speeding on. The exact same once they cross again. Again, when they're exiting, you are asking pedestrians to cross over at basically an active traffic lane. We don't believe that that is the safest for pedestrians. We more feel that a hard stop with a crosswalk at a typical intersection is much more advisable. Quite frankly, it's much more safer for a pedestrian. If you could go back to the first one again. again this is just a zoom in on what we are proposing we don't believe that this is just safer for the pedestrians we also think it is much better for vehicles that are accessing our site and also vehicles that are continuing a long man of war past our site here we have we've added in a new deceleration lane this is new from the preliminary development plan and it's one of the reasons why we had to shift some of the green space that we did. It allows for cars to go ahead and be slowing down and then enter into this area where there, again, is a hard stop. This will allow stacking to occur internal to the site and not on Manowar itself. Even if, in such an instance, where stacking overflowed, this little stacking lane, it would back into the deceleration lane, not onto Manowar itself. And so this allows basically smooth travel all the way along Manowar through to Nicholasville. We also have designed this in order to meet what we believe is going to be the major traffic generator is along Trifecta Drive. If you look on the development plan, this anchor building right here in this large parking field, we believe will be one of the major traffic generators from this access point. We believe most people will be continuing on to trifecta drive as opposed to going up into the site. And this allows them to approach this intersection in a much more normal manner that we're accustomed to. It's a three-way stop. It's easy. It makes sense as opposed to a hard right, which the normal right-in, right-outs are, and then taking a hard left across a lane of traffic while people would be exiting our property. Again, we feel that this is unquestionably a more safe alternative than a traditional right-in, right-out. Again, the traffic's compromise we received this morning is better, but we still believe that this is a safer alternative. And so we would request that you approve our waiver with this design as opposed to staff's alternative. With regards to just kind of clarifying a few other things on the staff's recommendation, note 14 where it says denote applicants' financial participation to on-site traffic calming, we're okay with doing that. We've said from the very beginning we don't have a problem with doing that. Our only concern is the writing of this leaves it wide open. There is no kind of determination of what those off-site improvements are. I mean, are we adding medians? Are we digging up roadways? If it's stop signs, speed bumps, whatever traffic we'd like, and I believe that is what their intention is, we are A-OK with. We would just like some clarification on that note. Also on note 19 regarding the tree protection areas, again, we are okay with that. But when our engineers met with Tim Query on the site, it was determined those trees were not of significance. We feel that the landscaping plan that we have put forth, I believe it's in tab number two on the exhibit book that I've given, it will do a better job at buffering than what the current existing tree lines would do. We are proposing to go well and above what Article 18 calls for. Article 18 typically will ask for a tree every 40 feet and a fence or hedge. We are putting a fence in, and then we are proposing to install basically a double row of conifer trees 20 feet apart. So with the double row, in reality, we're looking at trees that are basically 10 feet apart when you're looking at it from perpendicularly. These trees at install are 10 to 12 feet. They will grow to be 60 to 70 feet. That's in height and width. They will be 20 to 40 feet. We feel that these trees will much more adequately buffer, but we believe that that is better than any existing trees that were determined not to have significance. So we would request that it's not necessary to create the tree protection area, and we go with our landscaping plan. But again, if the staff so desires, we are okay with that. On tab three, I included a letter from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet that simply documents that the intersection on Nicholasville, It does have conditional approval, and in fact, I believe it is the chief deputy, let's see, what was his name? The chief state highway engineer has even given basically the traffic signal installation approval for that location as well. We just need the final development plan in order to take the next step with the state, but I wanted to make sure you all had official documentation from the KTC that that is in fact the case. I also put in the CAP approval that Tom referred to. I won't go into that simply to say is that we do have approval. While that is a certification issue, I wanted to assure this body that we do, in fact, have capacity for this project. That pretty much concludes what I had to say, at least on this initial go-round, since we've come so far with the staff. We had a much more elaborate presentation before we received the revised staff recommendations, and since then we are pretty much okay. I'm happy to take questions now. Our entire team is happy to take questions. If you would like to wait until after some of the opponents talk, we're okay doing that as well. Any questions for Mr. Nicholson at the moment? Yes, Ms. Plumlee. Yes. The alternative plan for the landscaping. Yes. Is that along Walhampton? That is entirely along Walhampton, yes. And Tangley, too? On Tangley, we have a slightly different plan where it is already a higher elevation. The natural slope basically will act as a buffer already. And so instead of a fence, we are putting a six-foot hedge wall and then a tree every 40 feet is called for in Article 18, yes. So on Walhampton, you're talking more off-center than a canopy? Yes, that is correct. Thank you. Other questions at the moment? No, I don't see any. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. There may be some later. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? Yes, sir. Are you asking anyone in the audience or anyone in support? Anyone in the audience? Let me see a show of hands as to who would like to speak in regards to this plan. Okay. Let me ask this then. In support or in opposition? Okay. Not seeing any others in support of this. Mr. Grady, go ahead and I'll get to the folks in the back here in just a few minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Hank Ratty, and I was here last year on this matter, and I appeared before you, your subdivision committee, earlier this month, January 9th, and expressed some of the bases of our concerns. And I also appeared before you briefly on the Planning Commission meeting on the 16th of this month, with Mr. Nicholson to join in a request for a two-week extension in order to try to have a meeting with the neighborhood. As my letter to you indicates, we have not held that meeting yet. We have scheduled a meeting for February 11th with neighbors to hopefully meet with the developers and talk about the landscaping plan, to talk about other buffering issues, traffic, stormwater, and sanitary sewer. But that meeting has not been held yet. And so while I did not ask to have this matter postponed, I'm not sure that the Planning Commission actually considers requests from opponents to postpone matters. I believe you only consider requests from the applicant to postpone. I would ask that the Planning Commission agree to keep this matter open to allow for a report back after the meeting on February 11th, next month, before you take action. I made that request in my letter. We are hopeful that we can find some areas of modification and that we can nail down some of the aspects of this plan, including some of the things that Mr. Nicholson was talking about. He asked about what are the traffic calming things that you are expecting, and that's a topic that we want to discuss with the developer. We've never had that discussion. It's important to remember that, as was mentioned on January 9th, Mr. Nicholson referred to the first meeting between the developer and, I think, the neighbors, and that occurred last March. And I think there were about 70 people in the room. And as I indicated to the subdivision committee a couple of weeks ago, that first meeting is the only meeting. There have never been any other meetings with the neighbors. And we have asked for those meetings. Now, we have now scheduled one, and I reaffirmed with the developers this morning that they will be there, and they have reaffirmed with me that they plan to be there. So we're hoping for a constructive meeting on February 11th at the Pox Christi Church, and we're hoping that we can answer questions and perhaps make some improvements on this plan. Now, if I may, I'd like to indicate what I've given you in my letter so that you and the developer know what our position is as of this afternoon, January 30, 2014. Again, my name is Hank Raddy, and I'm here with my associate, Randy Strobo, and we've prepared these comments in opposition to the development plan that is before you. As last year, I represent James Remus, Ed Prentiss at the E-STEP, and Don Gonzalez. And Don Gonzalez and Ed Prentiss are here today, and they will speak for themselves. We have formed an informal association. Don't overload our neighborhood with excess traffic, and that's what I'm here to try to advocate for. As I indicated last summer, we turned in petitions of 25 names of people that were supportive of our position. Before the Urban County Council, we turned in additional petitions of 75 names of people who were concerned about granting this zone change for a development of this scale at this location with Nicholsville Road in its current condition. If you look at page two of my letter, this tracks a little bit of the history that brings us here. But I want to go quickly to what I have been authorized to do on behalf of my clients in order to try to accomplish some mitigation of adverse impacts and, frankly, where we are. Last June, before the Planning Commission public hearing, I received authorization and I wrote a settlement proposal to Mr. Simpson and Mr. Lear of changes in this plan that if they were made, we could support, and we could support the development as proposed. And you'll see those modified to reflect the amendments in the plan that have occurred from last June to the present on page 2 and page 3. As we indicated, we certainly support the write-in, write-out of Manowar. And I'm not going to weigh in on the issue between the developer's design and the staff's design. I frankly need to have folks that live in that area and who will be walking along there express the opinions about the design that they believe is preferred. But we are supportive of that method of ingress and ingress to this development. We also supported the decision not to put vehicular access off of Tangley. and we support widening Nicholsville Road from Toronto onto this intersection. Those were traffic improvements that helped, and we supported those in this design. We have asked the developer, and we would ask this planning commission, to remove the commercial buildings WNV in the area along Habersham. This is what I think is now called Phase 2, and we have asked that that area be not developed as intense commercial, but that that area be developed in a way that is more green, more urban forest, that does more stormwater retention and capture rather than urban runoff, and provide some protection to the folks in Fox Harbor and Habersham from being made a part of the ingress and egress to this very large retail commercial development. We are asking for protection for the Habersham area and the removal of those commercial buildings at that location. We asked a year ago, and we would repeat our request, that this planning commission, at this stage, make sure that it does not approve pieces of this development that would foreclose the single-point entry design. This is in your small area comprehensive plan, and it's in the traffic plan for this community. And it is a plan to fix the intersection of Manowar and Nicholasville by building an overpass. Now, it's expensive, and it's not in the six-year plan, but it is what transportation says is needed to improve this intersection, and it is in the comprehensive plan that you all have adopted for this development. And so as we did last summer, last June, during the zone change decision, and you could argue we were talking development plan stuff, not zone change stuff, and maybe that's a valid point. Well, we're now at development plan. And so it's now time, if it wasn't time last summer, it's time for me to ask you not to approve development in this area that would foreclose building that traffic improvement for this intersection that is in your comprehensive plan. So look at what they have proposed and ask them to make modifications or require them to make modifications that do not put buildings where a traffic improvement is planned to occur. Give that traffic improvement an opportunity to arrive at this very necessary place for traffic improvement. On page 3, we ask that the residential buildings DD, EE, FF, and GG be removed. The summit is a retail development, and we understand that it is being proposed in a zone that is mixed use and we have no objections to the 175,000 square feet of residential that is on top of the existing proposed retail, not existing, proposed retail. A portion of the development puts residential on top of commercial and retail. And we support that additional residential development of perhaps 100 units. But this proposes a total of 300 units, and it proposes to build. Mr. Grady, excuse me. If you're going to go over there, you need to take the microphone with you. If you're going to go leave the microphone, you need to take the portable one with you. Tell me not to wander around. No, I'm not saying that at all. Unless I take the microphone with me. There you go. My clients live on Tiverton, Walhampton, Fox Harbor, and they have to exit every morning and come home in the evening. That's where the traffic is the worst. commercial and retail and office are not a direct impact on their getting out and getting home in the mornings and the afternoons. But putting 300 more or 200 more residential units on Tiverton right here as part of this commercial retail development does nothing but make the mess that is currently out there worse. There is no need for this residential development of this location. All it does is take an existing unacceptable situation and make it even more unsafe and more unworkable. Alternatively, if this cannot be removed based upon your decision or the developer's agreement, we would ask that these be made part of Phase 2. If this can be Phase II, these also can be developed as part of Phase II so that the summit can go forward the way it is something that we know and recognize as a high-end retail development. But this additional development, if it's not taken off the plan, can and should be postponed while we try to fix some of the transportation problems and some of the stormwater problems and some of the sewage problems that are all around this property. Thank you. or postponed. My last point is a request that this planning commission not approve this development and ask the developer to go back to work to try to improve the Tiverton interchange. That currently is unacceptable. It seems to me that this is an area where the neighbors, the developers, the planning commission, and the traffic engineers in this community all should be wanting to find a way to make that intersection a more workable intersection and, frankly, the intersection that might provide the best alternative, the best entrance into the summit at full development. Those are the proposals that we have made. We have never received a written response. We are hopeful that we will get a written response. Now, I have had one discussion with Mr. Lear and Mr. Simpson about any movement, any possibility of finding common ground, but so far we have a ways to go. But I would urge this planning commission to move slowly and delay action on this and encourage the developer to work with the neighbors, which has not happened, but encourage and facilitate the developers working with the neighbors to try to address some of these concerns. I promised the Planning Commission, just as I would promise Mr. Simpson, to be reasonable and to look for areas of compromise, but it does require that we come to the table and talk. And at this point, that hadn't happened. On page two, page three, there's some of the discussion of the two phases of this development that are in part because of the way they want to present it to you, but appear to be also because that is what is necessary to try to get to meet the requirements of capacity assurance. You've been given in tab four of Mr. Nicholson's handout one page of the Lexington Capacity Assurance web page record of the bank. and the page that you've been given describes phase one, and it describes a reservation request, a temporary reservation request, and the response is approved, offsetting credits assigned. Now, that page doesn't contain many numbers. The next page, which I have one copy of, I didn't know that I would need 20 copies, but the next page provides the numbers. And if you look at the numbers, the web page for this community says that the available capacity for the West Hickman Wastewater Treatment Plant is 3,000 gallons per day. That there's currently a deficit because of the projects that have been grandfathered in. There's a negative 475 gallons per day deficit. That means projects that have already been approved by the Planning Commission and the Urban County Government in the West Hickman Wastewater Treatment Plant appear to add 470,000 gallons above the current situation. The bank is in deficit about that much. It appears to say the available credit is 3,000. Now, phase one, if you look at the webpage, it says when they turned it in at first, they requested 125,000 gallons per day. and that exceeded capacity, so phase one was wait-listed. So in December last month, the developer modified the request, reduced it by 4,000 to 121,000, and that's now been approved. But it requires that the developer apparently invest in downstream capacity acquisition in an amount to accomplish the $121,000 or the $125,000. We don't know what those proposals are. We haven't seen those proposals. We look forward to discussing that with Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Simpson, and their engineers. But right now, what the webpage is telling us is that there's 3,000 available in this watershed, and there's a negative $400,000 deficit, and this would be adding $121,000. Now, it may be that they have identified what they can do to acquire that room, but we don't know what it is, and we are not sure the Planning Commission knows what it is, and we would ask the Planning Commission to ask the developers to explain where that $121,000, $125,000 is going to come from. On top of that, because the Phase 2 is wait-listed, we would ask that you approve the development plan, if you are inclined to do so, for Phase 1, and that you do not approve the development plan for Phase 2. They have acknowledged that they do not have even temporary approval for Phase 2, and we believe that it is imprudent to approve a development for another 40,000 gallons per day when it's on the wait list. So we would urge you to not approve what's in front of you today based upon what you've been told today, but gather more information and make your own assurance and provide some public assurance that they are going to be able to accomplish acquiring the capacity to add 121,000, 125,000 additional gallons per day to the West Hickman wastewater treatment plant. I'm not going to read my 19-page letter to you. I know that that is probably the best news I could have given you this afternoon. I would ask in closing that you look at page 4, where it is a page that's very similar to what you saw last June. And it compares the magnitude of this development on 50-some acres with Fayette Mall across the road. Fayette Mall, the total square footage by the total acres is 14,000 square feet per acre. That's the intensity of Fayette Mall. And that's considered, by Lexington standards, a pretty intense development. A year ago, this was just over a million. And it totaled in excess of 20,000 square feet per acre, far in excess of Fayette Mall. Now they have upped it from just over a million to a million 77. So they have made the development bigger than it was last summer, and it is way more intense than Nicholasville Road can handle or than Lexington can handle. It takes a problem and makes it dramatically worse. So today when we are talking about the development plan, my appeal to you is heed the warnings that I was trying to deliver last year during the zone change request and ask the developer to scale this back, either to make it smaller or to phase it so that the summit can get started as promptly as they can get everything else lined up and acquire the necessary space in West Hickman and whatever else they have to do. But part of this development can be postponed until these problems get resolved. That's what I've asked you to do. I've given you many more pages of findings to support our request. I've attached Adam Kirk's traffic study that was turned into the Urban County Government last September at the public hearing, where he provides the documentation concerning the deficiencies in the traffic study by these developers. I ask that you, as a developer, to require their traffic engineers to respond to our criticism. we believe that you need that in order to make a more intelligent decision. But at this point, my request to you is ask the developer to phase this, scale it back to what is essential to get the summit started, and let us and the neighbors try to digest what impact this is going to have on them. And don't do anything, finally, I hope, until next month when we can report on either a successful meeting with a developer or an unsuccessful meeting with a developer. Are there any questions? Mr. Grady, let me ask you this. Just in regards to what you just asked as far as the waiting until the meeting in February, when we were in the subdivision three weeks ago, this was discussed as far as the possibility of a neighborhood meeting, and everybody seemed willing to do it fairly post-haste. Why hasn't it taken place to date? Why is it next month instead of sometime in the past three weeks? Well, Bruce Simpson and I can give our own competing histories of whose fault it is. but my version is that when I was with you on the 9th and asked for the meeting, I did not get agreement on the 9th that there would be a meeting. That came a day or two later when I was told that they would be willing to meet. We then worked on finding a meeting place. When we were here on the 16th, I talked to Nick Nicholson about potential meeting places. We were working on the Pox Christi Church. which is where we met last summer. And at that point, we had not been able to get a room available this month. And the earliest that they could give us was February 11th. I told my clients, what about the Olive Garden? What about anything else in the neighborhood? And nothing worked. The church where the developer met last year, last March, I think Mr. Nicholson checked out, and they're under construction. So they were not available. So when we were here on the 16th, we were determined to meet, but we didn't have a place to meet. And my clients have wanted to try to make sure that once a place is settled on, they have enough time to try to notify people in the area that this meeting is going to happen. So having a meeting on February 11th doesn't seem to me to be too much of a delay. in light of the fact that we've had some weather issues and some location issues that slowed us down. I would have loved to have been able to meet earlier this week, but we tried, and this is the earliest day we could get. All right, thank you. Ms. Blanton, do you have a question? Yeah. There was no other place in the entire county that you could have met in the last three weeks. I mean, you checked two places, and that was the extent of it, It just seems to me if it was that important that there would be some place, your law office, their law office, where you could have held the meeting. I'm trying to locate a large meeting room that is within walking distance or short driving distance of people on Walhampton, Tiverton, Fox Harbor. There are two churches that are very close. One is under construction, and one is where we met a year ago. I talked to my clients about going across Nicholasville Road and finding a restaurant, buying enough meals at the Olive Garden, I mean at the Bellanote, that we can meet in their back room. Those ideas, my clients felt nobody would show up, that if we didn't have the meeting close to the neighborhood, that we would not get the kind of participation that we were hoping for. Now, we are hoping for a very strong participation from people on those streets. But my clients wanted the meeting place to be closely proximate. And, in fact, they wanted it to be in the Pax Christi Church because we had a very successful meeting there six months ago. So we were hoping to go back there. and they're the ones who said February 11th. So that's... Okay. Thank you, Mr. Grady. Let me hold any other questions right now and hear from the others that would like to speak in opposition of this. Sir, lady, madam. Thank you, Mr. Grady. Good afternoon, Council. My name is Dawn Gonzalez, and I live at 3817 Walhampton. I have been concerned regarding this project since its inception because of the impact it has on me and my neighbors. The biggest impact is primarily traffic and stormwater runoff. the traffic issues I already see major problems whenever there's any kind of a traffic incident on Nicholasville on how it brings the cars into the neighborhood angry drivers speeding through the neighborhoods with children playing is not safe in any regard I have seen originally I'm from Los Angeles California and I have seen the traffic there around the malls. I lived within a five-mile radius of three major malls in the San Fernando Valley. And currently, the traffic on Nicholasville is like trying to drive around those three major malls at Christmas time. And this is day-to-day on Nicholasville, what it's like down in our neighborhood. Currently, most of my neighbors avoid Nicholasville, like the plague, because of the traffic issues. We take all the back roads to try to get where we need to go. What this is going to do is it's going to fill those back roads, so there's not going to be any way to get out of our neighborhoods with the way the current development is, with all the residential that they're planning to load into that space. By my figuring, the current plan is more than 33% more dense than the Fayette Mall. for the acreage. And a lot of that being residential, what is that going to do with everybody trying to go to work and go to school in the mornings? There's not going to be any way to get out of the neighborhood. The water runoff currently on Walhampton, we already have problems with flooding with some of my neighbors' homes. And with all of that green space gone that helps absorb the water, it's just going to get worse. and I mean the last thing that I saw from the developers when they met with us a year ago was they planned on having a big ditch basically where the water would run off to and we currently have some of those in that basic area and it's not helping the issues so I don't see how So that's going to resolve those problems. I would like personally to see that the residential area be diminished greatly from what they're planning. Then we're only going to be dealing with some traffic issues when the stores open around 10 and there would be some difficulties added to people coming home in the evenings, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as if you've got people trying to go to school and go to work out of that area at the same time as the existing neighborhoods. Thank you. Any questions from Ms. Gonzalez? Yes, sir. My question is probably directed more at the developer, but I'd like to give them a heads up so that when it is their opportunity to respond, perhaps they can address this. It's obvious that one of the major concerns with this development is density, and there have been requests or suggestions that the residential density should be reduced and that some commercial structures should be eliminated. has there been any economic analysis of the impact of reducing density? And I'm specifically interested in, with reduced density, will revenue requirements that are necessary to meet your return thresholds price the rest of the property out of the market? I don't ask you to answer that now, but if you've got some thoughts about it, when you do speak, I would appreciate it. Thank you. any questions miss gonzalez no thank you others that would like to speak yes sir my name is edward prentice 396 fox harvard drive i'm coming for the planning commission requesting that your vote on the Fritz Bayer property development be postponed until after a neighborhood meeting scheduled February 11th at 7 p.m. at Pax Christi Church. This will be the second neighborhood meeting promised by the developer and its representatives. We will expect the developer to answer some of the following questions. Will there be additional traffic lanes northbound on Nicholasville Road from Toronto to development? And how many? Will there be a stoplight at Toronto and Nicholasville Road? How will southbound traffic turn onto Toronto? The total two is the total current amount of traffic at Nixie Field Road and Manawara intersection at peak hours of the 24-hour cycle. What is the expected increase if the development is approved? explain fully the entrance and nexus between Manowar and Tiverton Way, how many stoplights, how many additional traffic lanes at Tiverton Way and Nicholasville Road, the total amount of traffic expected from the two proposed streets onto Tiverton Way from the development, The total amount of traffic to and from proposed streets onto Habersham across from Fox Harbor Drive. How would this traffic be handled? How many stop signs or stoplights between Tangler Way and Manowar? A complete and approved plan concerning the water and sewer runoff affecting properties on Waldhammer? how many houses would be bought, destroyed, and what would be put on the empty lots after removal. The amount of water runoff downhill to Fox Harbor Drive. The Planning Commission should know every aspect of this project before voting for approval and leaving it to staff. This process should be fair and balanced between developer and neighborhood. The developer has refused to compromise on any issues outside the property boundaries. Don't let the amount of neighborhood turnout affect your vote. You don't need a large turnout to be made fools of. A few should suffice. This was learned from Euclid and Kroger's military pike area and the tree issue and others. This did not stop you from giving a unanimous vote against the neighborhoods. There is no reason to flood the dead-end neighborhood with cars. There is only two ways out, and there's Tiffany Wade and Manowar. Put all traffic on Manowar and Nicholasville Road. So, is it wise or premature for the Planning Commission to vote before all legal issues are settled? Would it be viewed of appearing as taking sides? What city, state, EPA approval and planning permits have been given on these proposed changes? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Prentice. Any questions for Mr. Prentice? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak? If not, Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Simpson, rebuttal, rebuttal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of Bayer Properties. I'm going to deal with the questions first that Mr. Grady has raised. I don't know that I have, in my experience before this body or the council, ever had to explain the efforts that I have undertaken to try to get a meeting with a neighborhood because, as most of you know, my practice over the years has been to seek out neighborhoods and to meet with them in advance of hearings so that we have a discussion and try to narrow the issues of dispute and hopefully come to some agreement. As Mr. Chairman pointed out at the subdivision committee on January the 9th of this year, Mr. Grady was mentioning the need for a neighborhood meeting. On January the 10th, the next day, I called Mr. Grady and explained that we're willing to meet. He indicated at the subdivision committee meeting that even on a short notice he could make it happen. I said, we can meet on Monday or Tuesday of the next week because this body was scheduled to take up this very same case on January the 16th. Mr. Grady said, well, that's not enough time. We can't do it on the get enough notice to meet before the 16th. So on Monday, January the 13th, I called Mr. Grady and sent him an e-mail and indicating that we were going to be postponing the scheduled meeting on this development plan that was set for January the 16th, and that we would like to meet with his clients as soon as possible, as early the following week that we could get together. We were willing to meet. I never heard anything back from him from the 13th, and so on January 22nd, I sent Mr. Grady another email asking him if his clients still wanted to meet, that the hearing was coming up on the 30th and we wanted to meet in advance of the hearing. I called him on that same day and never heard a response, never received a response from my phone call or my email. And so this Monday I sent him another email and indicated my frustration and disappointment that he had chosen not to respond to my emails or my telephone calls about a meeting he said he wanted. and a meeting that we specifically held or postponed from January 16th until today in order that we could meet. And then, two and a half hours before the meeting today, he sends me an email asking me to postpone until February 11th. I think that's unreasonable, and I think that's unfair to come before this body and suggest that we have somehow been unwilling to listen or to meet when we haven't even been extended the courtesy of having him respond to my telephone calls or my emails. Now, this is the record of my emails. Mr. Simpson, let me offer this. I think we're getting the gist of where you're coming from on the meeting or the possibility of the meeting in the interest of moving on. I don't tend to say anything other than what I've said. Okay. And that e-mail chain reflects the history of our efforts and the lack of response that we've received. Secondly, this is the third time Mr. Grady has tendered to you this 20-some page letter. He did it at the Planning Commission hearing, and I should say he also did it at the Council hearing, and now he's done it today for the third time. And the testimony has been as if we're going to do another zone change on this case. the zone change has been decided. The council approved it. You all approved it unanimously. And now we're on the development plan. And the standard of your all's decision-making is, is the applicant in conformity with the published zoning ordinance and regulations of subdivision to be approved? It's not about whether we should have this level of density or this kind of zoning. It's about are we in compliance with the published legal standards. And as you have heard from your staff, we are. We have their approval subject to the conditions that we are in agreement with, except for the configuration of the right in and right out. So retrying the zoning case, which is what Mr. Grady attempted to do in his presentation, is holding Mrs. Amark of this body's time and attention in connection with this particular matter that's before you today, which is the final development plan. And Mr. Grady's argument, which he made to the subdivision committee and the zoning committee and the planning commission the first time, The subdivision committee on the final development plan and for the fifth time today is that instead of this development that the Planning Commission approved by way of a small area plan, which took one year to accomplish along this part of Nicholasville Road, instead of following that plan, which you all found last June, that we were in complete compliance with because of a unanimous decision, as did the council, that instead of following that plan and that research that was undertaken for a year, his suggestion is that in lieu of this development, we have two urban forests, no commercial, and some professional offices. that is just simply absurd to think that that is an appropriate alternative kind of development to what we have proposed, what's been approved by way of your decision and the council's decision. And again, this is not a zone chain. This is a final development plan. These are technical compliance issues. are we in compliance with the zone that's now in place for this property? Now, Mr. Grady challenged that decision in court, and the Fayette Circuit Court dismissed his complaint on the basis that it didn't comply with law, and the court had no jurisdiction to hear his complaint. We're now in the Court of Appeals on that matter. I suspect that if you approve this plan, he'll probably file another lawsuit on your approval on this plan. and we'll be prepared to meet that test should it come. But I want to be clear that your counsel will advise you. The standards for today's decision are far different than the zoning. The issues of density have been determined. The issues of use have been determined. Everything else has been determined relative to the types of things we can put on the property. Today, it is the proposed plan subject to the conditions approvable, and we contend, certainly as your staff has, that they are, except for the adjustment on the right in, right out, which we believe is a safer option to the extent you're going to have a groundswell of pedestrians walking along the man of war towards the shopping center. Finally, with regards to the capacity assurance program, We've been assured as of today that we have capacity. Hiller Newman with the Urban County Government Division of Engineering will back that up. Certainly Charlie Martin, Commissioner of Public Works, and Rod Chervis from his office have confirmed that. Your staff has indicated we have that. But at the end of the day, we have to get a permit before we can take the next step, way beyond your all's decision-making today. So we have to have that in place or we can't move forward. But we have every assurance the government can give us today that we have the capacity to go forward under Phase 1. We'll be happy to respond to any questions. Again, in terms of compliance with the staff's suggestions, we're in agreement with those, so there's no dispute about those. We do believe, as Nick explained very well, that the design options for ride-in and ride-out on Manowar by having the traffic come to a stop so that pedestrians can cross safely rather than have to deal with oncoming cars that are not stopping on the ride-in and ride-out that is under the traditional approach is what Walmart has across the road and having a sidewalk in the island between the ride-in and the ride-out and expecting pedestrians to navigate to that area is very unsafe, and our design is more appropriate. We believe the applicants have failed to address the issues before the opposition has failed to address the issues this body has to consider. We're in compliance, and we ask your approval. We have our experts here that have done the development plan and the traffic to respond to any questions that you may have, But we believe under the law we're entitled to approval, and we would ask that. Thank you. Mr. Berkeley, question? I think David's going to address Mr. Drake's question about economic analysis on the density question. Okay. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm David Silverstein. I'm one of the owners of Bear Properties, and we are the developers, proposed developers, of the Fritz Farm. Didn't know exactly what I was going to say today because I'm not sure I had a full appreciation for how this meeting was going to go. But I do want to take just a minute to reflect on the last three years, and that's how long that we've been working on coming to this meeting. I quickly learned that at some point I was going to appear before you with the hopes of having you approve a final development plan for this project. And three years ago, I quickly learned the history of this site, the politics that have been involved with this site for all these years, the trouble that the Fritzes and the city have had in coming together with an appropriate development plan. So what did we do? How did we approach this? we first looked at the small area plan. Excuse me. I don't want to get into rehashing all this. We do want to hear what you have to say. This is probably something that should have came up earlier before we got into the rebuttal phase. Any of these comments, keep it brief. I think we'd be more interested in you answering Mr. Drake's question. Now let me just finish one thought. Okay. And that thought was we looked at the small area plan that was adopted several years ago for this site in terms of density. And the plan that you have before you today is far less a dense plan than we could have come before under that small area plan that's currently for the Nicholsville Road area. To suggest that this plan in any shape, form, or fashion is as dense as Fayette Mold is just a misconception. We do have residential. We do have retail. It's a mixed-use project. It by no means is as dense as Fayette Mall. But the point is this. I came and I hired the best that your community had to offer from engineering and traffic. We've worked with your staff. We did have a neighborhood meeting. I listened to questions, comments that they had, tried to incorporate those comments into the plan, have always made myself available, whether it be at planning commission meetings, city council meetings, staff meetings, to answer any and all questions. Mr. Prentiss has good questions that I had hoped he would have had answers to with all the public forums that you have had to get to this final development plan stage. It's been a pleasure working with your staff. They represent your community well. I believe they've represented the neighborhood well in looking at stormwater drainage and looking at landscaping and looking at density. To your question, Mr. Drake, to suggest that I can eliminate a number of commercial buildings on this project that Mr. Grady has set forth in his proposal is really not an acceptable compromise to try to make this project move forward. he is proposing that we eliminate some nine commercial buildings, all of the residential that's freestanding. It's really not a reasonable proposition sitting here today on January 30, 2014, after three years of working on this and the many, many public forums that we've had to address. We have reduced the residential from 400 units down to 306. We have worked with staff on coming up with a stormwater detention area that will help the neighborhood that has been punished, punished for so many years with drainage that really comes from off-site through the Fritz property that floods that neighborhood in the rear. It is far more than a ditch. Far more than a ditch. It's a major detention area that when we began working with staff, we recognized that if we construct such a detention area, it will help the city comply with the environmental issues that the court has required that the city comply with. So we soon learned that by this site really is the last party to the dance, so to speak. Off-site infrastructure has not kept pace with development. It drains through this. So our detention area is designed not only to handle the stormwater that we produce, but it's designed to help mitigate the downstream flow. And we have spent countless hours working with city officials to look at that and to ensure that what we build will help ease the problem that floods this neighborhood. So I hear you, and I appreciate your comments. I didn't know if I could even make it here. Birmingham was hit by a snowstorm that paralyzed our city. But I felt it was important that I get here because this is the culmination of a lot of time, energy, and effort to design a project that not only the city can be proud of, but I think at the end of the day will be a complement to the adjoining residential as well. And I would be glad to answer any questions that you may have for me. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Grady, any brief rebuttal? Rebuttal. Thank you. Thank you. I do have one area that I need to correct. I don't know whether Mr. Simpson gave you my email, but on the 27th when he emailed me, I responded within an hour or two hours saying, we have a meeting set up on February 7th, February 11th at Pox Christi. And I said, I didn't return your calls last week because I went back to Melissa at Pox Christy to see if I could get an earlier date. That's why I didn't respond to your 23rd message. But on the 27th, I said, we have a meeting and we will notify the neighborhoods. We hope you will be there on February 11th. And earlier today, I did say, I requested that he confirm that he was coming and that he agree to postpone this meeting, and he declined. So we're here. But I did not ignore Mr. Simpson, and I hope he didn't convince you that I was trying to ignore him. Okay. I also think it's unfair to say that I'm trying to get rid of nine commercial buildings. The only commercial buildings that we have. Microphone, sir. We have asked that these two buildings be removed, that we know they're going to be in Phase 2 and that it's some help, but we're trying to protect this area, and we have asked that these residential, and if a commercial building can be put here, that's fine. The issue here is residential, and that's what our major complaint is. We believe this building should be relocated if it has to be built. So from my perspective, I'm asking that it be reduced by three or two commercial buildings and one relocated. Okay. Not no commercial. Anything else, sir? That cover it? Thank you. Staff, rebuttal of any sort? No, sir, but we'll be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Why don't you come forward? I'll probably have a couple, and the Commission members may as well. Ms. Blanton, I'll let you start. Yes, I just wanted you to address, and maybe Traffic might have to come up with the question about what you want them to do in terms of tree preservation versus their landscaping plan. and then also the right in, right out differences. I don't know if traffic thinks that people aren't going to follow their sidewalk plan or why it's less safe than what you would prefer to be done. Again, you see their recommended plan with their trees and their hedge and their fence, and that is what they're offering. Staff is concerned, and we would like to preserve trees, in these areas because they're existing they have canopy we we think that will enhance the development and be of immediate benefit in screening the neighborhood and they're not extensive actually as you can see as for the right in right out we met and talked with traffic and traffic certainly can speak for themselves but it's staff's understanding it's it is the pedestrian traffic on Manowar that they're concerned about. They're very concerned about getting this design right. This is the first, as I stated in my presentation, right in, right out on Manowar. They're worried that in hindsight we'll find problems, and then we may be dealing with this in the future at greater expense, and they certainly wouldn't want this to be a precedence for other requests. So there's a very high level of concern on their part that this be done right. Other questions? Patrick? Well, to follow up on that, I think I would like to hear from traffic because the presentation that was given about the hard stops, three-way stop signs made a lot of sense to me than having free-flowing traffic and somebody trying to jump across there. So can traffic address that? Traffic is with us, and I'm sure. And if I may take a quick moment, because I introduced it to answer a question raised by the applicant. On the off-site improvements that they participate in, there's a dedicated fund, and that money has to be spent, I believe, within five years towards traffic calming, or it reverts to the developer. So that's how that works. Go ahead. Hey, good afternoon. Traffic's concerned with that right in, right out, with the proposed slip ramp design. They are bringing them in, but it's kind of like you insinuated to, expecting the pedestrians to come onto their site and then back out on the other side. I don't think that's realistic. I think the best design option would be a traditional standard, right in, right out. It provides the pedestrians, they cross one lane of traffic. At that time, the traffic is turning right, so it's going slow, and it's a straight path. The sidewalks on Manowar, that's kind of what they serve, is for pedestrians traveling on Manowar. Okay, so again, maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me a stop sign and a path is a lot safer than a single lane of traffic moving with no stop. Yes. What's the rationale of that being safer? Because I'm not sure the pedestrians will follow that route. I think the pedestrians will come to that intersection, and they will not follow the sidewalk onto their site. They will instead just cross at the point where the traffic is not stopped. The pedestrians will cross on the slip ramp, and that's at a location where the vehicles are still at a high rate of speed. They're pulling off. So when pedestrians cross at a traditional standard right in, right out, at that point, the car is pretty much at a stop. I mean, it's making a right turn. We're not talking about a large curvature they're going around. When you make an actual right turn, you are pretty much at a stop condition, and that's the location we would prefer the pedestrians cross. if you put up a little fence to guide you. Mr. Drake? Would it make sense in that instance then, if the problem is the pedestrians will not follow the designated sidewalk? That is the concern. Would it make sense to use some kind of a fence or barrier that guides them around the sidewalk? And if the proposed right in, right out is approved, then traffic engineering, and we have talked to the applicant that that would be their proposal to put a fence up there or something to keep the pets from going straight. Traffic engineering just sees the sidewalk along Manowar for the pedestrians traveling along Manowar. Will they go into their site and bike around? You can put a fence up. It seems like the best design would be a traditional standard, right in, right out, that we see other places. It keeps the pedestrians a long man of war, and it's a standard design that we use, and we know that it functions. Okay. Other questions for Ms. Cocker? Thank you. Other questions for staff? I've got a couple of questions. I guess for Mr. Martin, he may be able to simplify it the best. I think most of it has been asked already. The capacity came up again. The documentation that we have before us shows that they have capacity for Phase I. Yes, sir. And Phase 2 will not be built until they have capacity. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Plumlee. Yes, I think I would like to address this to Mr. Martin. Also, going from capacity assurance, the sewers, I'd like to go back to the stormwater. And this area has a storied history of flooding. And now that's going to be addressed. And if it had been addressed by the city earlier, it would have cost mega money. And now that it's being addressed, and now that this applicant has a TIF, I'm concerned that perhaps we might need to think about a security bond of some sort associated with that sewer project, the storm sewer, the detention basin. Well, again, with the TIF agreement with the city, there are certain things that can be worked out with the developer. Now, strict bonding from our perspective, staff's perspective, in working with this body, it's a subdivision item. When you have a subdivision plan and you build infrastructure, then they're allowed under your subdivision regs to post bonds or sureties. With a final development plan, the infrastructure that you see on that plan needs to be built from that plan and built in its totality when they permit it. So there's no bonding process available off a final development plan. It is through your subdivision process. Now, there may very well be, again, with the TIF agreement with the city, there can be conditions developed in that agreement that may address those issues. Well, should we look at those? Well, again, it's a large project. It's been developed. It's been designed. It's going forward to address the issues. And I have no doubt that our staff is aware of the need to get these things built and bidding it out and cooperation among all the parties. I think we're comfortable with their ability to manage that. Thank you. Mr. Berkeley? I can't see this real well, so the phasing that's going to be done, And is there an exhibit that kind of shows where that is, how that's being done? They did send us a PDF, and we had a small one, but it's very hard to see the line on it. So we just felt like, again, to try to highlight it on the development plan. Here is the line, and it runs right up through here. It's in red, just like that. So all this is phase one, and then this area, again, is phase two. Is all that commercial on the right side? This is all commercial. Phase two. Phase two is basically commercial along with the hotel. Have you all thought about any other phasing options? At this point, this is the phase that we've come up with. the staff pretty much was requiring us to do the residential at the same time as the main summit the way that the majority is being built it would not make sense to go ahead with this project in phases only build part of summit boulevard it pretty much has to do a build out this part of phase two it actually can be kind of you know tiered out without an impact to the existing phase one once it's completed. I don't know if that answers your question or not. Well, kind of where I was going, and I realize one of Mr. Grady's requests is kind of in conflict with what the staff has requested about the multifamily part, but I guess my question is, would that be a feasible alternative? We don't believe it would. The way that these residential developments go into place as far as kind of getting to your point on the economics of this. If you are going to have to put the residential above the commercial properties here and here, it basically, in order for the economics to work, they all have to go in at the same time. That comes into play when we're talking about the amenities with the overall architectural design. It just has to go into place or else I think we would be very priced out of the market as far as the residential units above the commercial. So all the residential is above the commercial? There are freestanding residential in this location right here. Okay. But there are above the commercial in other locations, yes. All right. Ms. Mundy? Nick, if you don't mind staying there, and this may go to you as well, But I'm seeing the split line there in the middle of the detention pond, which gives me a little bit of heartburn in thinking about, and I have limited development knowledge, but I have a little bit of development knowledge. And so I'm concerned if you do phase one and for some reason phase two drags, you may not get the detention pond finished. And that's real important, I think, to our city. Sure. A quick explanation on the phasing line is for actual buildings. The infrastructure will be put in together. Does that help? Thank you, Ms. Mundy. You stole my question. Other questions? No. So Mr. Nicholson interrupted you on one occasion or asked you to sit back down. Did you have another remark? The only remark was what Mr. Drake said for me. There are ways to design around to make sure that pedestrians are not running across onto the middle space. We'd recommend some type of hedge, some type of fence in order to prevent pedestrians from doing that. We've talked with traffic, and we can work out something to make sure there's no sight line problems in any way. It's just this is clearly safer to put pedestrians at hard stop crosses as opposed to what we know right now on the traditional write-in, write-out is an issue, running across on active lanes. And so I think what Mr. Drake proposed was exactly what we had in the past as well. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, commission members? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing. Mr. Wilson? I was just getting ready to ask you, are you ready for a motion? Headed that way, yes, sir. I was going to say we'll close this part of it, open it up for any discussion and or a motion. Before you make a motion, we need to clarify. There are several discussions between you. Okay, just make that point. Ms. Plumlee? Just a minute. I'm not going to make a motion. What I am going to say is that I'll pass the assurance, and that is that we have the figures on this, so we should be comfortable with these. And if they are not correct, then we will have the wrath of the EPA on the urban county government. So I see no reason not to move forward with phase one. I'd like to, if I could, Mr. Chairman, yield my time a little bit to Mr. Brewer. My only concern is we've had a wide-ranging discussion about this, And I'm not clear on at least two or three of these conditions where we stand between staff's proposals and applicants' acceptance and others. So I don't know. Would it be possible, Tom or Nick, to summarize where you all think you are? We are in acceptance of all the conditions. On number 19, we don't think a tree preservation area is necessary. But if you all would like to put that, we are in okay with that. On note 14 on the off-site, we were hopefully requesting for the word reasonable to be put in there so this doesn't turn into if they want to, you know, construct $20 million or some type of SPOEY, that that is suddenly on the developer. Otherwise, we are okay with all the conditions. Thank you. And along those lines, again, as I stated, using Mitchell Avenue as an example, they're requested to just put money into a dedicated fund. Traffic engineering, working with the neighborhood, will decide what the appropriate traffic calming features are. They're only obligated financially. And that's the Mitchell Avenue, I believe, was they put up $20,000 apiece. And that goes a long way in helping the government address these issues for neighborhoods. Okay, and Tom, then where do you see us being with regards to the right in, right out, long-term hard stop versus? Staff recommends, as part of the approval of the waiver, that they work with traffic engineering on an acceptable design. Not their design according to our traffic engineers at this time. Okay. You danced that one well. Mr. Brewer, if I could also address your question. I think if the Commission is desirous of a redesign of the write-in, write-out on Manowar, that in consideration of the waiver report, you would consider also adopting the staff recommendation, the one condition to approval of that waiver. If the Commission is satisfied with the applicant's design, I think you would just delete that condition to your approval of the waiver. Okay, thanks. I guess we would delete that. Any other discussion? Probably haven't. No. If not... Hang on. I'm sorry, Mike. Well, they just handed me something that we should have seen earlier. So this is the recommendation on page two of the waiver. The proposed write-in be redesigned to a more typical access to the approval of the division of traffic engineering. So traffic engineering, I think, has already spoken as to what they want to see, and that's not what's on the plan. I, for one, kind of think the plan looks better and safer, but, again, I'm not a traffic expert. So I don't think that's resolved. I think we need to put a little finer point on that before we make a motion. Okay. Do you have an idea? Do I have an idea? I think this makes more sense. Again, I'm probably the one with the least traffic experience on the commission, though, so I'd like to hear from others. I agree. I think having some kind of fence or something that guides people to do what they're telling them to do, because I think, barring that, it sounds like traffic engineering doesn't have a problem with it. They're afraid people are just going to do what they want to do. So if we have some offense or something to kind of make them go that way, I think that takes care of the issue. I agree. Do you think with this discussion, it can be left in the hands of traffic to follow these guidelines? Or you want something? No. Okay. But again, that's why I asked for discussion. Did you get the reasonable? It's not a discussion, Ben. Would you like to plan this here? It's a hard stop. It's a three-way stop. The traffic stops, and they have a dedicated place to cross. It may help if we put back up on the screen the possibilities. I think we're done. You're done? At least from my perspective. Does anybody else have strong feelings one way or the other? I agree with you. I do, too. Well, yeah. That's not for me. So the buildings are reasonable in number 14. Are you ready for a motion? Thank you. Mr. Wilson? Yes, first of all, let me preface my motion here by saying that any time that members of the community come out and speak related to a particular concern that they have, it does get my attention because we all live in these neighborhoods and we all have these issues and concerns. As it relates to the questions that have come up, all my questions have been generally answered. I still have a concern or two related to some of the traffic that's going to be out there, and I know with all the traffic studies and what have you, I still have some concerns there. The other part of it is, too, is that as a committee and a commission, We're still working with this infill development, and as it relates to an infill development project, I think this is still probably one of the better ones I've seen. With that said, I would like to move for approval for DP 2014-2, the Fritz Farm LLC Summit, Lexington Bay of Property, with the conditions outlined by staff, with the addition of one word in 14, where it says participation in reasonable off-site traffic, claiming to the approval of a traffic engineer. I'd like to add that one word. All the other conditions as outlined here would be appropriate. Is that clear? That doesn't deal with the right hand right out. No, that's the way. So, in other words, all the staff's recommendations, I think, are in order, and would like to add the one word of reasonable in Section 14, where it says denote applicants' financial participation in reasonable off-site traffic. Okay. Okay. Motion's been made for approval of DP 2014-2 with the revised 19 condition adding reasonable in line number 14. Do we have a second? Second. Motion made and seconded for approval. Any discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. I would echo Mr. Wilson's thoughts as far as we appreciate the concerns. And this is something that hasn't been easy. It's been heard many times from the zone change request to now. and this is a development that we've seen many different plans on over the years. And I think it has gotten better, and I think the applicant has worked hard to get to this point at this time. But I'd like to appreciate everyone coming and taking part in this. So thank you. with that. Mr. Penn's not here, but I think we'll take a five-minute recess. Oh, the waiver? I'm sorry. The waiver. Okay, I forgot now what the waiver is. Okay, we... The waiver was in the conditions, yes. The waiver is not part of the conditions. It just says you're going to approve, provide you grant the waiver. Okay. So you have to grant the waiver. I'm sorry. Okay. Right. You have to make a motion to grant the waiver. If you all want to delete that last condition, you can. It's up to you. Mr. Wilson. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we grant a waiver. with the conditions that set forth indicating it was a hard stop to a dedicated stop? I think it's just deleting A. Oh, just deleting A. Okay. I'll modify my motion to simply recommend that we approve a waiver subject to the following additional requirement. What is. That's it. As far as I know. If there's anything else I need to do. I apologize. Motion is for approval of waiver DP 2014-2, deleting the recommendation of A from that waiver. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of the waiver. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. My apologies. We'll take a five minute recess and resume. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo If we can get everyone to take their seats, we'll resume. Thank you. If we can get everyone to take their seats, we'll resume. Okay. Okay. Next on our agenda is on page three. it's RK Holdings LLC's on a map amendment Woodward Court subdivision preliminary subdivision plan this is a continuation we heard testimony one month ago I guess and after all the testimony the Commission felt is appropriate to continue this for a variety of issues so we will pick up where we left off any discussion will only be on new information that's being provided today so mr. Sally Thank You mr. chairman members of Commission good afternoon as you mentioned this is a continuation of a public hearing that you began at your December 19th meeting. At the conclusion of your consideration of this item, you decided to move it for further consideration today. The staff's main purpose today is primarily to update the commission on what is new or what new information we have about this request since your last meeting some five or six weeks ago. We have minutes at your place that you adopted earlier today from your December 19th meeting. And, of course, those outline the probably one to one-and-a-half-hour discussion that the commission had. In beginning our presentation, Mr. Martin will present to you some information, as will Mr. Wade, upon the conclusion of my remarks. There are primarily three new bits of information that the staff felt were very germane to share with you about this application, primarily the zoning development plan that accompanies the zone change request. Again, this does involve a zone change from an AU, agricultural urban zone, to a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone for just under 10 net acres, the property having an address of 690 Woodward Lane. We have the same map from last time, and to provide just a small bit of orientation, the subject property is to the south and west of Liberty Road and is immediately adjacent to a former spur of the CSX line that ends generally in this general area as well. it is surrounded on two sides by residential development by au zoning in the opposite direction where there also are single-family homes on fairly small tracks of land there are three individual au lots surrounded if you will by the subject property and across the railroad is light industrial use as well just as background from what we covered with your last meeting what What is new on this is, first, the staff has received information from the Department of Law about the status of Woodward Lane. You may remember there was a lot of testimony about whether that was a public or private facility, and we wanted to provide you an update on that information. From what the staff understands from research from an attorney who used to advise the Planning Commission, and Andrea Weddle, who's no longer with the government. Staff understands that generally this portion of Woodward Lane is thought to be public, but the portion where the subject property fronts upon from their files does seem to be private in nature. We have another communication that the staff had prior to that that showed the urban county government was maintaining the median area. If you recall from that hearing, there is a split in the roadway. It's more typical here, although narrow, from Liberty Road to the corner of the subject property. And at about that point, the road splits into two at this location. And we understand that this median has been maintained by the government. It is still private. The road apparently is private as well from law department research. But from about this point back to Liberty Road is our understanding that it is public. So the subject property does not apparently front on the public portion of Woodward Lane, according to that information. Secondly, the applicant has met with residents along Woodward Lane in this area at least on one occasion since your public hearing. And it's the staff's understanding that as a result of those meetings, they have submitted earlier this week a revised zoning development plan for the property. You have a revised set of conditions from the staff on a yellow sheet and a corresponding change to our zoning recommendation on a green sheet. Mr. Martin will go over the revisions on the yellow sheet to you, and Ms. Wade, of course, will cover the revised zoning recommendation. We have here the development plan that you considered last month at your meeting. It proposed some 48 lots for the subject property, including detention and basically a two-cull-de-sac design. The revision that we've received this week eliminates this connection and has one street and three fewer units. Again, Mr. Martin will cover the remainder of the development plan with you. Those are the updated information, and of course you'll hear more from the staff as well. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, as Bill said, we did receive a revised, and this is a preliminary subdivision plan, I would add. That's what you have before you today is a preliminary subdivision plan for the development of the property that demonstrates the proposed street system and the lotting pattern. And you can see from what you considered before, as Mr. Sally mentioned, the key change now is a connection across the property, eliminating this access point out to Woodward Lane. Staff has always been concerned. We were concerned originally. We were still concerned with access to this property. Ultimately, vehicular access is limited to a street system that brings you out to one point on Liberty Road, and that is always of great concern for public safety and emergency response. They had outlined on this plan at your hearing the access points for emergency access here and here. This is Wilderness Road, and they were going to have an access point in their property at this location. We still have access, emergency access, on Wilderness Road. Now, that's long and difficult, but it's there if needed. They are also proposing now an emergency access at this point on Woodward Lane coming down through here. It will be emergency access only, gated and controlled. And again, just in case an unfortunate thing happens and that our emergency response people cannot get back through this subdivision and back through Checkerberry Drive. So they've addressed those concerns. They've also added a turnaround, and that's what this is for solid waste. Our solid waste trucks have been driving these and serving this area for years, and they have to back up long, long distances, and that's extremely dangerous, as you're aware. So they've agreed to provide a cut-through, so now our trucks can just make a nice loop and come through. There was concern, as you can see on the conditions before you, about dealing with conflicts with the easements in the right-of-way detention location and that sort of thing. And we highlighted this for you in that this is that large Columbia Gas area and a large easement where there was a Columbia Gas facility. There's easements, as we highlighted, all across this property. That has to be resolved. They need to build infrastructure. They need to reconfigure these. And then they'll recreate them, delete them as necessary on the final record plant. They obviously can't do that at this time. They actually have to do the work and address those conflicts. They disappear, for instance, in a right-of-way. We aren't going to have easements through our right-of-way. We don't want necessarily to have easements through detention basins here and here unless, again, appropriate language and appropriate responsibilities are worked out, and that can be done again at the time of the final record plan. So staff is recommending approval of the plan, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Ms. Wade? In terms of the change in the development plan, that change should be reflected in the staff's recommendation in terms of findings for this zone change request. So on item C, excuse me, on the green page, the revised recommendation from the staff just reflects a change in the density proposed on the plan. and that that changes their proposed density from 48 units to 45 units, which is a residential density of 4.6 dwelling units per net acre. That remains within the range suggested by the comprehensive plan, and we wanted to just reflect that in the findings for the commission today. Questions for Ms. White? Questions from Ms. Wade on this? No? Thank you. Thanks. Applicant, anything to add? Yes. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jihad Halani, sir. As Bill mentioned earlier, we met with a neighbor to address some of the concerns that came up in the meeting, last meeting, and that resulted in a new layout, which is we lost three lots and we end up have to build approximately 200 more linear feet of roadway. And we are in agreement with the staff about the portion of Woodward Lane between Liberty Road all the way to the Y is a public road. And there was some question during the hearing last month about there's contaminated mercury on the site. We went back and did some research. There was a study that has been done by Applied Geology and Environment Science in August of 2004. It talks about in this area. Up, microphone. In this portion of this property, in green, there used to be two buildings. In this area, there used to be some contaminated soil, and this soil has totally been removed and replaced with new material and has been hauled to a special landfill that accepts hazardous waste, and a new material has been placed. And after that, there have been also some soil tests of 32 samples that have been taken and all revealed that it's all below detectable limits, all below federal regulation. And this study has been done in 2004, and this is a report for it. The third concern that the neighbor expressed is about stormwater issues. And when we met with them, we talked about the oversizing our two basins here. And so this two basin will not resolve all the flooding in this area, but at least it will help. So it's going to make it better, but it's not going to resolve all the issues ahead, but make it a better situation. And also the developer agrees to add the landscape buffer in this area highlighted in green. green and with the privacy fence. This landscape buffer is three feet high and privacy fence with a pine tree planted on it. And we agreed to do that. So I believe after our meeting, we get a lot of support from the neighbors. But to my understanding, there's a couple of residents on wilderness terrain in this area here. we are not tying to wilderness terrain as Tom and Bill mentioned it's going to be only emergency entrance in case of emergency that's it and if you have any questions questions Mr. Berkeley I don't have any real issues with the rezoning or anything I'm just wondering about the real workability of this plan having some knowledge of this site and that, you know, transmission lines were coming into here. And my question is, these easements that are crossing this property, are they still active? Is this really going to be able to be the plan, I guess is my question. Yes, the easements are active, and all the slot sizes have been sized in ways that we can build lots on it, have houses on them. So this lot dimension and the depth, if you notice most of the slot in that area where many easements are much deeper lots than the other lots, so that we're able to... That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the staff's concerns about the easements encroaching the detention basins and those kinds of things. Yes, yes, this is reasonable. I mean, we can consult this detention basin and work around the easement, or in case we can relocate some overhead electric. Is this electric and not gas, then? This one is gas, but this one is overhead electric, which can be worked out. Any other questions? Let me ask this. You said there are stormwater issues now, and you're putting in detention basins to help, but you said it wouldn't alleviate all of them. Where is all the stormwater issues coming from? Well, as you know right now, the site, the majority of it is impervious. We have no impervious area. and all the stormwater technically is coming from the subdivision. It's coming from this subdivision over here in this detention basin. So what we are planning to do is that to maximum oversize, sorry, maximum oversizing this detention basin, choke it tremendously so that we reduce all this runoff in this area. Well, as in here, this detention basin will detain what we'll generate, but this basin will be oversized to accommodate to reduce the peak flow. And then after it leaves the site, it goes between some of these two residents here and then goes to the adjacent downstream properties. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Let me ask others in the audience. that want to speak in regards to what, yes, sir, in regards to what you're hearing today? Yes, sir? My name is Jimmy Ease, and I'm representing my mother. Come to the microphone. My name is Jimmy Ease, and I'm representing my mother, who has property on Woodward, and my brother, who also has property on Woodward, 730 and 733 Woodward. And also, I live on wilderness, which is a road that accesses one of the emergency gateways or want to put in or whatever. If I could, I'd like to do that. Sure. My main issue is, as you know, this property was formerly Columbia Gas property. It owned those big propane tanks. They took them out. And there's a 12-inch, 800-pound pressure gas line that runs from Clay County that still runs out onto that property. you can quickly read this disjointed letter I gave you quickly or I could read it to you slowly. We'll quickly read it. I think in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama you're allowed to put a letter together like this. Thank you. up at the last time. Uh-huh. This Checkerberry, it's not a very wide little drive going in or out. And Woodward Lane is exactly what it is. I mean, two vehicles meet on Woodward Lane. You've got to pull off the side of the road or pull up into someone's driveway to get through. And the turnaround they're talking about putting in on Woodward. But, Mr. Eads, to my knowledge, this will not put any traffic on Woodward Lane. True. But they'll be coming on Wilderness Road. I mean, they're going to have to be coming in. Wilderness is just for emergency access only. How are they going to keep it closed? I would presume there'll be a gate there that only the fire trucks can go through. And we've got to have that for safety purposes. Yeah. So it'll be gated in such a way that only emergency vehicles can get through. No construction equipment will be going up Woodward or Wilderness? Construction access will be elsewhere. Correct. Yes. Okay. Okay. Anything else? No, thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Yes, sir. My name is J.W. Bailey. I live at 713 Woodward Lane. The only thing that I would like to – I have met with Mr. Jihad here, and we're in agreeance with most of the residents on Woodward Lane, with the exception of one thing, that is Woodward Lane is a private road, and it's been brought back up to the commission this afternoon that it's a public road. And we intend on proving that it is a private road. And if it doesn't affect, if it has no effect to this propose that they have, we have no problem with it. That's the only thing that we have as majority neighbors on Woodward Lane is that it is a private road and we would like it to stay that way. To my knowledge, that will not change. Okay. Okay. And that's the only proposed complaint we would have. Okay. Thank you. mr martin can you clarify that for me am i correct in saying that yeah the status of woodward lane will not change no sir okay so all right anything else folks any questions from the planning commission if not i'll close it uh miss bade First of all, I would like to say I really appreciate us going back and doing a little bit more research and detailing this from the initial time that we spoke with it. But along Woodward Lane, and Mr. Martin, you probably can clarify this, and I agree with the resident that talked about two cars can't pass. I mean, it's clearly a very, very narrow lane. Is it not part of that street? Is that not what you said is public and the other part is private? Is that correct? If I may, it's one of them. Ms. Beatty, in working with our legal department, In reviewing research that our legal department has done over the years, it is our legal department's opinion that from Liberty Road, at that intersection, approximately to this area, it is a public street. The rest of Woodward Lane, they are reasonably confident, is private. To counter that, they believe, would require a lot of research, surveys, title work, reviewing maintenance records with streets and roads to try to determine if the status was any different. It's not a task that seems relevant any longer to this proposal, because, as you can see, access to Woodford Lane is gone, and we're only recommending emergency access to that street. Okay. Then the follow-up would be, and given that kind of information, and since it's only going to be used for emergency access, that frontage that's private to the development, Is this an opportunity for the developer maybe to do some improvements to the part that is private to enhance that for emergency purposes? Is that an opportunity that the developer might enhance that roadway? They are providing a turnaround for solid waste, which is a tremendous safety issue. And then we are going to have two additional access points that will allow emergency vehicles to get into the new development, should it be needed. But we did not consider in discussing with other divisions the need to do any additional improvements just for emergency access. That's what I was just going to ask. It actually got kicked around a little bit, and that's why they're proposing that closer location. It avoids the need for any additional improvements to the area. Okay. I'm good with it. Ms. Plumlee, have a question? Yes. Is that a construction traffic related to Woodward Lane? They have noticed a construction entrance here. That seems to indicate that they would be using Woodward Lane. i believe you can restrict that if you so choose this what they have labeled construction entrance at this location this is an easement that comes off woodward lane of course it's public up to this point that would be i think if we will eliminate this construction instance would be the construction instance only on checkerberry okay okay any other questions if not i'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion from the commission members and or a motion miss blanton i just want to say i'm going to have to abstain from this one because i was not at the the original here. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'm like Patrick. I was not there either, so I'll have the same. Okay. Ms. Blanton. We're ready for a motion? I think so. Move approval of MAR 2013-18 RK Holdings for the reasons outlined by staff. Second. On the revised conditions, revised recommendations? Yes. Okay. The motion has been made and seconded for approval with revised conditions for MAR 2013-18. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. And for the development plan? With the development plan, then should I add a condition number 10? Yes. So move approval of Plan 2013-129P, Woodward Court Subdivision, with the nine revised conditions outlined by staff, and adding number 10 of removing the construction entrance on Woodward Lane. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval with revised conditions, adding number 10 for Plan 2013-129P. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. that motion passes thank you thanks to the applicants for working on this and bringing us a better plan and thanks to the neighbors for being here in participation next on our agenda is page four it's anderson campus rental property zoning map amendment and land grove edition zoning development plan mar 2013-20 and we do have revised recommendations on the zoning development plan that's on a blue sheet before you. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Wayne. Good afternoon. Our next item is MAR 2013-20. This is a request for rezoning from Anderson Campus Rental Properties, LLC, for properties along Simpson Avenue, Stillwell Avenue, and Fern Avenue. They're requesting a zone change from a single-family residential R1D zone to the high-density R4 zone. The existing zoning in the area is all residential surrounding the property. It's R1D to the northwest, southwest, and southeast, and then R4, the high-density apartment, to the northeast. Other zoning in the vicinity includes some B4 zoning towards South Broadway, B6P, and B3 zoning towards Virginia Avenue. And I apologize, the labels for my zoning are not on there. So, oh, we're down. Not up here. The subject property is 16 parcels. They did drop one small parcel here on Fern Avenue from the original request, so now it's 16 parcels for an R4 development. The petitioner is proposing to develop the site with an apartment building that is situated close to Simpson Avenue and then parking to the rear with access along Fern. Avenue is an aerial photograph, which does show you that in early 2013, there were still single-family residences on the property, but I'll show you a few photographs. The site has since been cleared, and there's no longer any of those structures that are shown in this aerial. You can see the photograph. I'm sorry. The photograph shows the apartment buildings to the northeast across Simpson Avenue on export, and then University Village continues along Simpson Avenue near its intersection with Prospect Avenue there, with the single family residential neighborhood continuing towards Burley and American Avenue. This is a view from Stillwell Avenue looking towards the railroad tracks and UK's campus, and in the background are the apartments. Some from the same vantage point looking down Stilwell Avenue towards Simpson Avenue. This is from the corner of Simpson and Stilwell. So those vehicles parked across the street there are along Simpson Avenue, and that's, from my experience, very typical to have the on-street parking. I believe those are mostly student parking locations. This is from the other corner of Simpson Avenue with its intersection with Fern looking back towards the west. And then this is from a similar location looking up Fern Avenue towards Burley. and this is a view also from Fern Avenue looking across the property towards Stillwell. I'm not sure if you can tell in these photos. I'm going to go back a little bit, but the drop of the site is about 12 feet. It's maybe not very easy to tell in the photograph, but if you're on site, you can definitely feel the grade change from Burley, which is parallel to Simpson. then there's at least 12 to 15 feet change. The comprehensive plan for this location in 2007 had a land use recommendation of medium density residential, and the reason we have the 2007 comprehensive plan information is that the applicant filed under that active comprehensive plan, and obviously the Planning Commission has adopted a comprehensive plan since then, but we do consider all zone changes under the comprehensive plan they were filed under. The medium density recommendation is for 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing 40 units on this property and 56 bedrooms, and that actually equates to a density much higher than what the comprehensive plan recommended. It's a density of over 34 dwelling units per acre. the petitioner is proposing residential development which is obviously similar to the land use recommendation of the comprehensive plan but the density is far greater the staff in reviewing this zone change though considered the fact that there have been two unanticipated zone changes in the area that significantly changed the density they were along burley Avenue to a townhouse development closer to the railroad tracks and then a subsequent zone change at the corner of Prospect and Simpson Avenue that also was to an R4 zone so those two zone changes constitute in the staff's mind a change to the immediate area that was unanticipated by the comprehensive plan in 2007 those recent zone changes do justify an additional zone change in this area the staff did recommend approval and the zoning committee also recommended approval of the requested zone change to an R4 zone for those reasons even though it's not in agreement with the land use recommendation of the comprehensive plan there have been significant changes in the immediate area that were not anticipated and those zone changes increase the density in this area and the staff also recommends that the zone change be granted and not granted but if approved that the certification of the zoning development plan be accomplished within two weeks be happy to answer any questions about this requested zone change questions no thank you miss white mr. Martin will Mr. Martin. We'll cover the development plan. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, this is the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change. It is located on page 4 of your agenda, CDP 2013-103, Lynn Grove edition. You have received a blue handout with revised conditions on this plan. Here we have the layout showing you Fern Avenue, Simpson, and Stillwell. This is the proposed building on the lot. It's oriented to Simpson. There's a 20-foot setback. You can see there's pedestrian sidewalks going to this right-of-way. The cross sections on each street frontage do reflect improvements that shall be done. We have access here and here to the 60 parking spaces that they are proposing from Fern Avenue. This is a detention, or they've labeled it a retention area, that they're proposing on the site. The modification to this plan that you see before you is significant in that this dumpster was moved from a location down here close to the single-family homes to the interior portion of the lot. By removing the building that was here, they did slightly change the proposal here, although you've got 12 bedrooms here, 12 bedrooms here. each single family are single bedroom units and then two bedroom units here. This is four stories, and these two parts of the building are three-story buildings. Staff has a condition that they denote, and if you look at this area that's highlighted in the stripes, we've asked that they denote compliance with the open space requirements of the ordinance. That's with the side yard, side front yard. You can't use, like this area, that doesn't constitute open space under our ordinance. However, on these frontages, you can utilize this area as open space, but it has to be physically delineated with a fence or a planting. They will need to denote that on this plan. Again, this is a preliminary development plan. You will see a final development plan on this property. On the blue sheet, staff is recommending approval subject to sign-off conditions that you can see. We do have a condition on there that they denote the area set aside for proposed detention, which they have done, and I will accept responsibility for that editing. That condition should have been removed. That was my oversight. And then we do have number seven, which is, as I stated, denote compliance with the open space in the side street side yard. Ms. Wade had already mentioned to you the number of units and bedrooms. And as I stated before, they're proposing 35-foot height on the two side sections and a 48-foot height in the middle on the building with 60 parking spaces. There's a little over 33,500 square feet total contained in the building. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. And did you say delete number six? Yes, you can delete number six. as you see outlined in blue, they did with that submission, which we received late in the day, yesterday or the day before, they did address that condition. And as I stated, I have to accept responsibility for that editing mistake. That's okay. You're allowed one mistake. Question, Tom, as far as what's now number six and number seven, to know compliance with open space inside yard. To be in compliance, they've got to put in a fence or shrubbery? Is that what you're saying? Yes, sir. Yes, and that's consistent with other aspects of our ordinance where we talk about usable open space and private open space, like in R1T. It needs to be delineated. It needs to be separate to the benefit of the residents. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions for Tom? If not, applicant? Oh, Carolyn, I'm sorry. Yes, we believe number six, but this area looked really congested, and I wonder, is there a potential for using underwater detention on this one? I do believe that what you see proposed there is an underground vault. Applicant? Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm here pleased to be representing Anderson Communities. Dennis Anderson, the owner, is here with me, along with Mike Kraft, the Director of Engineering for Anderson Communities, Tony Barrett of Barrett Partners, our landscape architect, Chaz Height, professional planner. And I'll try to talk relatively quickly because I know you have to get out of here at a certain time for the council meeting. We're pleased to be here with this application. It has been amended slightly from the way it was originally filed, as Ms. Wade had mentioned to you. We have 40 units on this property with 56 bedrooms. So I'm mentioning that because this is not a typical development in the area. The typical development in this area has been a unit, either a single family detached or in a department, of four bedrooms, four baths. That is the type of unit which appeals to undergraduate students at the University of Kentucky. You find all the new units up and down Broadway, which you see when you come into town. They're four bedroom, four bath units. These are not. These are only one bedroom and two bedroom units. so there are even though we have 40 dwelling units we only have 56 bedrooms on this property we have 57 parking spaces by the way so we take care of all our parking here we more than meet the required parking but I'm mentioning that because we've had discussion in the past around here of of the nature of this area should it be an undergraduate student housing area and to a large extent it is right now, it's of the residential lots within our 500-foot notification area, less than 20% are owner-occupied. Over 80% are non-owner-occupied, and probably the majority of those are undergraduate student housing in this area. We are doing a type of unit here which we think will be long-term economically sustainable because our target resident for this is not going to be an undergraduate student. Now, we can't restrict it. We can't say, you can't come in. We can't do that kind of thing. But the target we think who will be wanting to live here is a professional who works at the U.K. hospital, maybe a resident or an intern or a nurse or a lab technician or a respiratory therapist, physical therapist, all the many professions who work over there because we're in easy walking distance of the medical center here and also the University of Kentucky. Under the last two comprehensive plans, we have advocated greater density, especially near employment centers. And as you all know, there's probably no bigger, denser employment center in this community, and maybe the state than that which is just on the other side of the railroad tracks a block down. If you work at the medical center, you can live here. You don't even have to have a car. You don't even have to have a bicycle. Believe it or not, there are experiences that there are still people who do not have cars who want to live within walking distance of either the medical facilities or University of Kentucky here. So we're targeting right now probably there's such a great demand for undergraduate student housing. The supply and demand are out of whack a little bit. The demand is much greater than the supply. But we're looking for what's going to be here 10 years from now, assuming that supply and demand for undergraduate student housing reached some equilibrium point. We want to have a development here that is not oriented to undergraduate student housing. so that's what we have and that's why we're doing one and two bedroom units on this property in the design and the development plan as you can see we have our building up towards simpson it is oriented to simpson and the campus downs over here university village up here and you did a zone change just up here last year for additional apartment uses our density per unit is low is about 34 little over 34 University Village over here 13 years ago is approved 42 and a half units an acre down here it's about 43 so we have actually a lower unit density here than we do in these other units up here I want to mention to density because I know this was brought up at the zoning committee and had a lot of conversation or had conversation miss Daly and I enjoy talking to her because she puts a lot of thought in her comments but But I want you to know we have put a lot of thought into our development plan as well. We have 16 lots here. If we did not ask for a zone change and just did 16 single-family homes in here, 16 four-bedroom single-family homes, that would result in 64 bedrooms on this property. We have 56 bedrooms on this property. We have a lower number of units than we could do without a zone change, without coming before you, if we did single-family detached on this property. If we did townhouses on this property, we could probably fit about 21 townhouses on there. The townhouses also in this area are four-bedroom, four-bath. We could have 84 bedrooms on this property if we did townhouses, 84 versus the 56 bedrooms that we are proposing. An advantage of doing as one building, as a multifamily building, is that we have two access points to the roadway system rather than 16, if we did 16 single-family lots here. We have one parking lot here with controlled access rather than 16 different parking areas. We have a higher parking requirement here because we're R4. We have that .9 per bedroom, which you do not have in the single family in the R1T. I think it's one unit per one car, one parking space per unit, or one and a half. But we have a greater parking requirement, but still, we meet it here. We have 57 parking spaces, 56 bedrooms. Anderson Community's experience is that usually for one-bedroom apartments, one parking space per one bedroom gives more than enough parking. because some people don't have cars but we and and our our building is oriented to simpson it's up against simpson infill principles call for us to have our building along the road so we go road building parking behind rather than have the building up in the southern part with all parking up to simpson so we that's an infill principle we have learned through the years of infill that they if they want the building up against the roadway. So we have our parking behind, but we do have a secure, safe parking area there. And we do not have an access point on Stilwell for those safety purposes. We just have our access points on Fern over here. Ms. Wade mentioned the grade. I did want to mention it, too. We do drop off about 12 feet over from the back on the south to the front, so all our water goes down towards Simpson. We will, Ms. Plumlee, you asked about water storage. We do plan to have underground storage here. We do, as the staff has mentioned, we have agreed to the sidewalks and curbs along the road. want to mention that right now there are no gutters sidewalks in this neighborhood it was built way back before they were required so we are going to be providing the curb and the sidewalk along here we're going to be doing water retainage which was not required in the neighborhood when it was built as well so we will be doing improvements there yet I think this does agree with the comprehensive plans i agree with staff recommendation i just wouldn't point out that the 2007 plan and the 2012 plan do call for infill especially near employment areas and so the the only last thing i'll mention on here is that it does have central management and i know that's not a zoning consideration but i think it's important in my observation of areas of communities in this area central management is very important this will be managed out of university village less than a block away so that means this development will have every day a manager coming by looking at it seeing what's going on if there's trash out there they'll be able to respond right away and do something about it if a tenant has done something that they don't want them to be doing they can respond to it right away contrasting that to a lot of the single-family homes here which are absentee owned they may be owned by somebody in Florida or whatever who might see this property once a year I think you can see that the central management I think is a very key important factor on this on keeping this an outstanding development as we have planned so I had a few more things to say but I'll save those and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have any questions mr. Murphy nope thank you sir others that would like to speak in regards to this yes ma'am Hi. I'm Jenny Daly. I live at 136 Burley Avenue. This development is going on in my front yard. And I would like to make a request to have more than three minutes to speak since I'm the only person. There's a reason why people from my neighborhood aren't here. How much time do you need? I would like to have 15 minutes max. Just get to it. Okay. First of all, let me pass this out. Can we have image number one? Can we have two points that I want to make? Two points that I want to make. The first one here that I'm delivering to you is my big picture. And I think if you can grasp what's going on in this neighborhood and what we're living with, I hope this will penetrate and have an effect with you. In this image here, it's kind of hard to see. That's why I gave you a handout. You can see that basically what I've done is clocked the demolitions and the potential demolitions that are going to happen in this neighborhood. Just in this section, just Anderson developments. And I said demolished in the last two years. I think it's really been about three years. Those two unburly, I think, happened before, prior to two years. But you've got all of these houses that he has demolished. In spite of what Mr. Murphy has argued in other zoning hearings, he'll lead you to believe that their condition, that most of these houses were unlivable and that they were doing a great service to the community to take them down. But in fact, most of these houses were livable and had people living in them. Most of them were rented, which meant that they had some oversight for regulations. And many of them were, in fact, rented with Anderson as the landlord. Because these demos are done, before the application comes in, you don't see the checkmark about how many people were displaced. Most of them originally were low-income folk and were replaced when Mr. Anderson or an investor buys them and puts students in them, runs them down, then demos them. So, not a pretty picture. Can I have image number two? This is basically the parcel map of the neighborhood. And I want to show you kind of the cascade that's been happening in the last two years. On the left-hand side, this is on the flip side of the handout I gave you. On the left-hand side, you see the blue. This is what I call the Burley townhouses. These are done close to Broadway. This is not an Anderson development. However, Mr. Anderson used that impending development to leverage a zone change for his townhouses, which are on the right side of your page, the other end of Burley. next to the railroad tracks. When Mr. Anderson asked for rezoning on the townhouses, you allowed that against the staff recommendation. It went against the comprehensive plan at the time, and I'm not sure why you overrode the staff recommendation, but a lot of us felt that it was really inappropriate to make that little pocket of townhouses. Since then, that rezoning has been used to leverage other rezoning in that neighborhood. Since this was so controversial in a linchpin, our neighborhood asked for a hearing before city council. We were granted that hearing. It was scheduled, and due to a somebody on the developer side forgot to post the sign, so we couldn't have the hearing, and there was no time to reschedule it before it ran out. So our voices and our appeal process was stymied in this linchpin decision. Next you'll see the larger Anderson complex. You approve the request for rezoning in spite of serious stormwater issues with the development plan. And I think that this was approved. It went before City Council, too, because of grievances between developers in that area. But I think it's been almost a year. We've seen no final development plan. We've seen no action on the townhouses. No earth has been moved since that final development plan was approved for the townhouses. Now we have before us the request for zoning for this single apartment building in this next block. This is geared towards, as Mr. Murphy says, it's geared towards the professional market. Well, why can't this other stuff be geared towards the professional market? why not use these other properties to do that? And I want to point out to you all that, I'm just trying to see how I can illustrate this, in the zoning committee that we were in a couple weeks ago, I think the three of you were in there, somebody asked a question about why this house was removed here. And Mr. Murphy responded that this line here, this line of this subdivision, would continue on through with the rest of this and provide sort of a southern boundary to his development. Well, while we were in that very meeting, on that very day, can you do image number three? Mr. Anderson was sending out letters offering to buy properties on Burley Avenue. So the bottom line to me is we don't know what he's going to do. He's asked for these rezoning. He's got a development plan. Some approved. Some haven't moved forward. We really don't know what's going to happen in this. What is his big picture? What is his big plan? But wait, there's more. Can you do the last image, image number four? late last week burley residents received a flyer about yet another development located in the block adjacent to mr anderson's current rezoning request and that's in the green on your parcel map we're not even going to know until later this evening in fact i'm going to run right here to that meeting to see what's being planned for that block and who's behind it or anything. It's sort of a mystery. There was no signing. We don't know who the developer is. We haven't seen any plans. We'll find out. So I'm asking you to deny this zone change request. We really have no idea what Mr. Anderson's plans are, especially since he hasn't moved forward on anything, while giving us conflicting information about where the boundary of his interests are. So when zoning staff reports claim that this other zone change has resulted in physical and economic, major changes of physical and economic nature. It's not really true. All this land is still vacant. Secondly, you and planning staff should be able to examine both of these developments, this new mystery development, which is going to run adjacent. The sidewalks on this side, the sidewalks on Mr. Anderson's block, this stuff should be done in concert. We're talking about two sides of a very narrow street. I mean, right now, you can't, two cars can't pass. We get into somebody's yard when we go around each other. There's great needs for infrastructure, sidewalks, curbs, stormwater, street parking, traffic flow. I think it's best for everybody, developers, future residents, current residents, for all of this stuff to be looked at collectively, holistically. I think that you, am I getting through the picture of how much chaos there is in our neighborhood? This constant, we're going to do this. No, we're not. We're going to change this. The house is coming down. People don't understand. We have no guarantee about the future of our property in this neighborhood. And I'm asking you, would you live under these circumstances? If this was your neighborhood, what would you do? The second part, and this is a little bit shorter. I'll pass this out, although it's probably sort of moved. I took the time to sort of compare this, since in the application they talk about how the comprehensive plan, how this supports the comprehensive plan. And so I said, well, how this doesn't support, how it goes against the very nature and the letter of the law of the comprehensive plan. Well, I used the 2013 comprehensive plan because I was here on the night that you all approved it, and I thought it would apply. So this document, in essence, may be a bit moot, but I think the essence of it, because the essence of the comprehensive plan hasn't changed, and that is creating better communities. So let me just rip through this, but you've got it there to read. With the 2013 comp plan, growing successful neighborhoods is theme one and sort of the spirit of the planning. This density is being squeezed into a neighborhood that does not have the infrastructure to support it. This creates a student ghetto with high transiency, trash, illegal parking, and excessive noise. And you all have heard my neighborhood talk about those issues at length before. Ms. Daley, if you would, just hit the highlights on this instead of reading it to us. Okay. Just give me a second to group here. basically what I would say is that for all of these that are listed here the this development this rezoning it's not the development here it's the zoning I hear you want to hear zoning now not talk about the development plan the density is inappropriate for this neighborhood for this location and it flies in the face of the spirit of the comprehensive plan it doesn't make up for a better neighborhood. In fact, it makes for a horrible neighborhood. If you all have driven up in there, people drive up in there and they go, oh my God. I mean, it's just a horrible, what's going on is horrible to live in. It's not good for the current residents. It's not going to be good for the future residents either to have all of these problems. These don't, it does not respect the existing areas context and design. We need a more progressive approach, a more holistic plan, and I don't know what you can do to intercede in this process, but I think anybody can see that the wise thing to do is back out and get a holistic plan for this. And I don't know how you can help me on this, but I hope you can do something because we're a longstanding historic neighborhood that provides a lot of affordable housing, provides a lot of student housing. I work at UK, so I'm somebody who is a professional who works close by, but the value of the neighborhood for all of those parties is being eroded because of high density. It's just too much for the existing infrastructure. So I would ask you to vote against this zoning application. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Daley. Any questions? Mr. Murphy, any brief rebuttal? Certainly respect what Ms. Daley has to say, but as I said, a lot of thought has gone into this development as well. I would point out to you, we sent out over 100 notification letters. There's a lot of people in this area. And Ms. Daly certainly has a right to come and express her views to you, but I do want to point out to you that there are no other objectors here today. In this property that we're requesting the zone change on, there was one owner-occupier out of all these lots that Dennis purchased. That person passed away. um there have been uh there were a few houses on here which were demolished what Dennis finds is that there are code violations on these properties and I was just talking to him and he said as soon as I purchase these properties I get notice of existing code violations which must be fixed he doesn't feel safe renting these properties to people he must bring these be able to provide housing that is safe, meets codes, and is appropriate for the people who live there. I mentioned, Miss Daly mentioned, that we are consistent with the line. This is the white area is the area we are requesting rezoning on. The brown area is the area which has been rezoned to R4. We did adjust this to make sure our back line is consistent with the back line of this R4 area. There's another R4 area back there which isn't involved in this, but we thought it would be consistent through here. We are oriented toward Simpson Avenue. I want to emphasize, too, on the density. We are lower density on this property with this proposal than we could be if we developed without a zone change. as 16 single-family detached homes. I think one of the issues in this neighborhood is that this neighborhood has changed. There's been a change in the last 10 to 15 years. I'd say 10 to 15 years ago, I wouldn't have been able to say to you the fact that over four-fifths of the residential lots in here are owned by absentee owners. I would imagine it would have been more than half was owner-occupied probably 10 to 15 years ago. There's been a great change in this area, and part of that is because U.K. has moved west. When I was growing up, the boundary of U.K. was limestone or maybe the first tier of lots on limestone. Today, U.K. owns property touching the railroad tracks, and they have plans to come over there. to the railroad tax. UK has come over to this neighborhood immediately across the railroad tracks. It has come closer. We're here, we're in, and we are close to that. We think this is very appropriate for the development we're proposing, especially the nearness to the medical center. Our zone change, which we got last year, less than a year ago, as Ms. Daly mentioned haven't started construction on that. Dennis is starting construction on some of the townhomes next month in that area. But it hinges upon the pedestrian connection over the railroad there, which takes a long time to do. He's having a meeting Monday with utility companies. He has to deal with the railroad. And if any of you have ever dealt with the railroad, I love the railroad. but they move on their own time schedule. They meet with you when they're good and ready to meet with you on here, and we have to coordinate with them, with utility companies, and with the University of Kentucky because we're landing on their land on the other side. And so that's being worked out, and I'm confident will be worked out on the property. But again, we feel this is very appropriate. instead of having a piecemeal development, I think some of the issues been here, people coming in, buying a single house, tearing it down, putting up a house, which may or may not have architectural uniqueness to it, and everybody doing something different, somebody leaving a house up and making a big addition to it, and coming up with a hodgepodge of things. we have taken 16 lots here, built a multifamily, or showing a multifamily building here, which meets the infill principles, which is on the lowest part of the land, which orients to the higher density properties across Simpson Avenue, and we think will be one of the best developments in this neighborhood. Ms. Daly mentioned the town hall meeting that Flyers had gone out about. That is not Anderson Communities. It appears to be the Southside Church of Christ property, which is back down on the corner of Stilwell and Burley, back here. Dennis is not involved in that. We're as much wanting to know what the proposal on that is as anybody is. But it's another demonstration that this neighborhood is being redeveloped, and we feel what we're showing you here is just an outstanding project for the redevelopment of this area. So we hope you'll vote in favor. We agree with the staff reasons for approval of the zone change. We agree with the revised staff reasons for approval of the development plan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Any questions from the commission? If not, I'll close this part, open it up for any discussion and or motion. We do have revised conditions. Mr. Owens, may I make a clarification point? Yeah, I'm sorry. That's okay. I've been slipping up all day. The density of the other options that were out there, and just to clarify, the staff calculates density based on the number of units, not the number of bedrooms. I know that's a factor in terms of parking and the development layout that often comes out of these proposals, but the density is calculated based on the dwelling units. So in this case, they're proposing 40 dwelling units, which is a density of about 34 per acre. If they were doing 20 townhouses, no matter how many bedrooms, that would be about 16 units per acre. So just to clarify, the density is not based on bedrooms, although it does affect how a development falls out. Thank you. Tracy? So with that clarification, do you still support it? Oh, yeah. I mean, I still support. One little point, please. Before this block was clear-cut, there were six houses on it. After they clear-cut it and bought all that, then they subdivided it into 16 parcels. There weren't 16 lots there originally. Okay. Thank you. any questions if not we'll close it and open it up for any discussion and or motion I would like to say that I think that it has been expressed here today this is an area that is in transition I would say it has been redeveloped And I think we'll continue to see it occur in that area. Ms. Plumlee? I want to say thank you to this day as it's being announced again. I think certainly her presentation was well done. And I think her, I think, her role to the conference there is something that you're representing. Thank you for doing that. Mr. Berkley? We ready for a motion? I think so. Okay. Mr. Chairman, make the recommendation of approval of MAR 2013-20 with the two staff recommended conditions. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. And motion passes. And, Mr. Chairman, recommendation of approval of ZDP 2013-103, changing the number of conditions to seven by deleting number six. Okay. motion has been made and seconded by miss monday for approval of zdp 2013 103 with now six conditions please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes thank you folks thank you for coming uh we do have another item on the agenda it's on page five under commission items zoning ordinance text amendment initiation for recreational uses. Ms. Wade? The staff would ask the commission to initiate the text amendment that we've been discussing in work session that has come forth from the recreation work group from the council office at this time I think everyone knows this this is something that's been for the work session us in the work session on two occasions now and it was something that the council sent to us without initiating simply to give us time to work on this so I think everyone's well aware of it so what are your wishes you ready to move on yeah anyone wants to need a motion miss Plumlee microphones not picking up today I don't think it's on I'm not sure it is Is the red light on? Oh, is it on now? Yes. Okay. Move for the recreational ZODA to move forward. Thank you. Motion has been made for the initiation of the ZODA ordinance text amendment for recreational uses. Do we have a second? Second. Motion is made and seconded for the initiation. If there's no discussion on the motion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Any other items? I have two things, two pictures put up. Our commission members that are absent, one of them is on his way to Vegas. He sent me an email saying, by Route 66, as much as possible, we were able to find a picture of him. If we can get that closed up. Well, maybe not. Mike Cravens is on his way to Vegas. There he is. And then second, we hope he gets there. Secondly, Frank Penn is in Florida with family members. With that, any other items here? If not, a motion for adjournment. Chris, do you have anything? I'm sorry. We do have a, what's coming up next? We're back to subdivision committee meetings next month. That's our next venture. Okay. Motion to adjourn? So moved. So moved. Second. Okay. All in favor, please say aye. Aye.