To the radio, and I got the world, call me O'Pierce, tonight on the road. Ooh. Well, I'm not wiped out by this tool, I'm not living out. I'm on a quickest job, go to school, I have that home. And I'm not asking. They wanna do a story about me and you They'll be stringing up bright lights in the backyard There'll be cameras on their shoulders, we'll be reading cue cards Leave them long johns on the line If the kids look dirty, that'll be just fine They're gonna put us on lifestyles of the not so rich and famous They want to see us go hawk wild Over beans and barbecue They want to see my fair lane up on blocks Blows in all our socks Talking about lifestyles Of the not so rich in vain Tell about your mama and the boring leaves Tell him about Junior and his baseball team I'll show him my nine-point buck on the wall I'll blow a few times on my new duck call Let him see old Blue how he sleeps all day We'll bring out the Elvis TV trays They're gonna put us on the lifestyles Of the not-so-rich and famous They wanna see us go hog wild Over beans and barbecue They wanna see my fair lane up on blocks The holes in all our socks Talking about the lifestyles Of the not so rich and famous Yeah, our idea of high class living Sitting on the porch on a cool night Ice champagne and caviar There's an RC Cola and a Moon Pie I'm talking about lifestyles Of the not so rich and famous Lifestyles of the not so rich and famous I'm sorry. So many things they come and go Like your words that once rang true Just like the love I thought I found in you And I remember the thunder Talking about the fire in your eyes But you walked away when I needed you most Now baby, baby, baby, baby I found some water To take away the heartache To take away the loneliness I've been feeling since you've been gone Since you've been gone Dry your eyes I never could bear to see you cry Someday your love will shine through And show you the feelings if you never really knew Baby, don't you lose that thunder Talking about the fire in your eyes You're looking at me, but you still don't believe That baby, baby, baby, baby I found someone to take away the heartache To take away the loneliness I've been feeling since you've been gone Since you've been gone Too long on the borderline Wondering if your love was really mine But you left me with open eyes And when I realized Baby, I'm not one To take away the heartache To take away the heartiness I've been failing since you've been gone Maybe I'll find some hope To take away the heartache To take away the longing for I'll be ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Good afternoon and welcome. wonderful afternoon and we're going to try and get everybody in and out in a timely manner so they can enjoy the weather outside this is may 14th and i will call the meeting to order to my knowledge there's no minutes for approval today so at this time i would ask for any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda Anyone in the audience have any postponements or withdrawals? Staff? Mr. Chairman, if I could direct the Planning Commission's attention to page 4 of your agenda. Item B, DP 2015-29, Pullen Jefferson property, also known as Bruce Glenn property, amended. This is property located at 3390 Richmond Road. We have received a written request to postpone this for one month. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? That one month would take it to June 11th. I'll entertain a motion if there's no discussion. Yes, sir, Mr. Wilson? Mr. Chairman, I have moved for postponement of DP 2015-24 pool at Jefferson Property for one month's postponement. Thank you. Motion's been made in second of postponement. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, if you would move your attention down to item C on page four. DP 2015-30, High Point Subdivision. This is property located at 1123 Winchester Road. Staff has received a written request for a one-month postponement. Thank you. That would, again, be June 11th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of DP 2015-30 to the June 11th meeting. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement until June 11th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, I will ask Mr. Salee to walk us through the Kassin agenda, which is before you on a tan sheet of paper. Gladly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. There are five items appearing on your meeting agenda that qualify for your consideration at this time for approval on your consent agenda. There are three final subdivision plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee that do not involve any discussion items. The first appears on page two of your meeting agenda, Item D, this is Plan 2015-39F, Tuscany, Unit 8B. This involves property with an address of 1080 Hadrill Point. The next item on your meeting agenda on page 3, Item E, is also on the consent agenda, Plan 2015-46F, the Dozier property, Unit 1. It's companion plan. The next item on your agenda, page 3, item F, plan 2015-47F, the Dozier property unit 2, is also on the consent agenda. These properties have an address of 3581 Harrodsburg Road. There are two development plans that have also been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. First is on page 3, item A of your meeting agenda, DP 2015-28, an amended final development plan for Hamburg Plotted Place, Lot 3. This property has an address of 1863, Plotted Place. Final item on your consent agenda is on page 5 of your meeting agenda, item D, plan 2000, pardon me, DP 2015-31, a final development plan for Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 4, Lots 3 and 7. This property has an address of 3052 Beaumont Center Circle and 973 Midnight Pass. Mr. Chairman, at this time, the Planning Commission can consider approving these items as has been recommended by your subdivision committee unless a member of the commission, a member of the audience, or perhaps one of the applicants would ask you to remove it from the consent agenda to allow further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Anyone in the audience wish to have any one of these five items heard today? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I'm going to move approval of the consent agenda. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the consent agenda as read. Please vote when he comes up. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. with the remaining items on the agenda. We will take in order as printed on the agenda. We'll let staff start with plan 2015-36F. And I'll take one exception to what I just said. As they're setting up, we do have a performance bond and call a letter of credit memo that is before us and needs action. If we can do that, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move that we accept the call of bonds as stated on the document that we have. I think the motion has been made and seconded for the approval of the release and call of bonds dated May 14, 2015. Please vote. Motion passes. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I apologize. I'm Dick Murphy. I represent the first case you just called, Plan 215-36-F Ashland Park, Inc. I was conferring with my clients when you called for the postponements. I received 11 o'clock this morning revised recommendation of disapproval, changing from their postponement recommendation. We need more time to digest that and respond to it. I think it's fair to our clients. I haven't had a chance to talk to them other than sitting in the audience here about what the impact is on us. I'd request a one-month postponement of that. Okay, Mr. Murphy. With that, let me ask anyone in the audience who wished to speak to this request for postponement. good afternoon i'm linda allen i live at 504 clinton road right next to the subject property and i'm here with a good number of homeowners and we do you know have very strong objections to this proposal and we would prefer to settle the issue and we'd like for you to hear our objections. And thank you for your time. We really appreciate you letting us speak. And my husband, Mike, and I, we've lived on Clinton Road for 17 years. Hold on one second. Let's just speak in regards to the request for postponement at this time. Okay. If we go forward, you'll have plenty of time for the rest of it after the fact. I understand. Okay. I'm not a lawyer. We would like to allow this to go forward at this time because we have a very large group of interested and concerned Clinton Road homeowners with us today. Okay. Thank you. Let me see a show of hands of those that she is speaking of. Okay. Thank you. Staff, any comments as far as the lateness of this getting to Mr. Murphy? Just that we've been in consultation with the law department and myself with Mr. King since your subdivision committee meeting a week ago and concluded the report this morning. The basic issue on the plat is the same as was discussed with your subdivision committee last week. That said, we have no objection to a postponement. I can't think the last time the staff objected to one. Okay. Yes, sir. Bill, the issue is still the same as to what we heard the subdivision could be. Has there been anything that's come in since in the last week that would have changed? I mean, what changed it from a postponement to a disapproval, I guess is what I'm asking. The issue is the same, but no, there's been no revised plan submitted. We just understood that it either has to be postponed or heard today. Yeah, I understand. So we're prepared to go forward. Thank you. And, Mr. Selle, just to clarify, you said nothing's changed. If I understand everything right, there's basically one issue as far as the building line setback. That's correct. Okay. All right, then. Real quick, any other questions from the commission? No. Mr. Murphy? Again, we just, my clients, the Bustles, have spent a lot of time and money on plans for this property. And having a new staff recommendation just a couple hours before the hearing makes it extremely difficult for us to decide where to go with this and how to respond to it. I mean, it's, I think, out of fundamental fairness to my folks, we deserve some additional time to digest and make whatever response is appropriate to it. It's difficult to respond to a new recommendation just conferring in the audience here. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Yes, Mr. Murphy. Yes. Can we ask a question? Go ahead, Patrick. Go ahead, Patrick. I understand the difficulty that put this put the difficult position this puts you and your client in. But as I understand this, nothing has changed except for the recommendation. The issue is still the same. Do you all have something new that you would like to add to it that would help us make a decision to let you go forward? Well, the staff has articulated some different legal issues and were raised last week at the subdivision committee. And obviously we were hoping the staff would recommend approval. And in trying to respond to disapproval, it just puts us in a bad position to do it without at least having some time to view it. I understand. I'm just trying to balance that with 30 or so people who have taken time to come down today. So I'm looking for something to help. And I've got a builder and a designer and an engineer and my two clients. One of them is off work, and we understand that, too. But we think that it's important. Thank you. Mr. Penn? I think my question was answered in Patrick's follow-up. Okay. All right. Anyone else? Yes, sir. I'm a little confused. The issue was that there are new legal issues that have been presented since the last time. Is that correct? I think that's what Mr. Murphy has said. Is that your understanding from the staff? I now go to the staff. Have you all presented new legal issues? The planning staff are not attorneys. We've just finished going through all the sections of the subdivision regulations. There are some that we did not discuss with the subdivision committee last at your meeting last week. Yes, that is true. Thank you. Mr. Cravens, anything? I'll make a motion. No? If not, we'll move on, and it would be the wishes of the commission as to whether this goes forward today or not. So you have a motion? Yeah, I don't see any reason to not postpone this in light of this new information, disapproval at the last day sometime. And the subdivision committee didn't see your new reasons for disapproval. I don't guess. I've just now got it. And to be fair to him, I will move postponement. For how long? How long do you need? Month? That's up to you. Whatever is the pleasure of the commission, I'm assuming one month since that's your next subdivision meeting. But whatever your... Okay, I'll postpone it for one month, plan 2015-36F. Give them time to... Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement of Plan 2015-36F for one month. That would be June the 11th once again. As I said, it has been seconded, so if there's no discussion regarding the motion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. We have a tie vote, so that motion fails. Legal, I would presume that we go forward at this point. Right, okay. Yes, you do. Okay. So with that motion failing, we will hear this today. It is first on the agenda. It is plan 2015-36F Ashland Park, Inc. Subdivision Unit 12, Lot 3 amended. So we'll let the staff get ready. Thank you. before Mr. Saleh gets started. Hopefully we won't get to this point, but I feel like we need to at least say that time limits will be imposed if necessary. They are listed at the middle of page one. So, Mr. Saleh, good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate that. It is Plan 2015-36F that's first on your agenda today on the first page. This is a subdivision plan for Ashland Park, Incorporated, Unit 12, Lot 3, amended. This property has an address of 508 Clinton Road. We have received one letter regarding this plan, and we have been provided individual copies for you, and we placed that letter at your places. We'll enter this one copy into the record since you have individual copies. The staff has presented three exhibits, and that will kind of be the outline of what I anticipate to be about a 10-minute presentation on this subdivision plan. First, I'd like to orient you to the location of this property using Nova Head. The subject property is on Clinton Road, very close to Cochran Road, this location. This is heading north to the top of the drawing. Clinton is paralleled by Adair and Bristol, two cul-de-sacs that are off of Hart Road. Clinton crosses Hart at this location, and tees into an intersection, Prather Road at this location. This is Culpeper, which parallels Clinton to the east, and Chenowee Road, which most are familiar with, the highest volume street in the area further to the east. Cochran and Chenowee are signalized, as is Cooper and Chenowee, just off the map here. and Fontaine is also just off the map in that direction. I have an aerial photo or two to show you as well. Again, to orient you, this is looking from the north. Clinton is here. This is Prather. and Cochran, which is the sub-street in the area. Dare and Bristol, further to the east. And Culpeper at this location. The subject property is at this location here, and we have a close-up of that lot. This property right here. There's an existing single-family home on it. This can be identified from the others by the two trees that are in the photo here. and then an overhead view of the same property on Clinton that is before you today. This amended plat has one purpose, and that is to move the building line from the existing 50 feet to 30 feet. 30 is the minimum of the R1C zone. The lot is well over the minimum size requirement and has a frontage of over 80 feet, which also is far in excess of the minimum R1C requirement of only 60 feet. The staff has handed out to you two exhibits. One is the original plat for the subdivision, and then a second exhibit that I'll get to in just a few minutes. This lot is highlighted on the exhibit. And it's of interest to note that the entire building line on this side of the road is 50 feet and 60 feet across Clinton Road on these lots. The side street side yard lots were platted with a 20-foot building line, these four locations. And, of course, that no longer meets current zoning standards. This plat was approved in the 1950s. And there are four lots approved on Crather at this location as well, also with 60-foot building lines. There is a rather unusual note appearing on this plat that's also been highlighted. It says, any lot transferred shall have a minimum width and area substantially the same as shown on this plat, and only one principal building will be permitted on any lot. That is a fairly unusual note, although I understand there are some other units apparently in Ashland Park that have a similar note. There's also a note that's highlighted on Exhibit 1. This is a residential subdivision, and house plans must be approved by the subdivider. Again, a rather unusual note. The interpretation of the larger note really is the key to this subdivision plan that's before you today. The reason for that are two sections of the land subdivision regulations. Those are the first two pages of what's on Exhibit 3, the tan-colored sheet that's also been placed at your place. There are extra copies for anyone in the audience on the table here that wish to review these. Article 6.4.E. of the subdivision regulations say that the minimum building line has to meet the minimum standards required by the zoning ordinance. So the existing plat and the proposed plat meet that standard. There's a 30-foot proposed on this plat, which does comply with the R1C zone. The reason the subregs are important is that your review of a subdivision plat is ministerial, meaning if it meets the requirements of the subdivision regulations, you should approve that plat. You're almost obligated to approve that plat. And so the staff's review has been, does this fully comply with the subdivision regulations? There is one article of the subdivision regulations that the staff questions the compliance of this plat with, and we raised this issue with your subdivision committee last week. That is Article 5-4D6, which should be the second page of Exhibit 3. That requirement says that a developer is required to show the front yard setback as required by the zoning ordinance or, if more restrictive, as desired by the developer. So what the staff has wrestled with in the last few weeks reviewing this plat was, what was the desire of the developer? They put two unusual notes on the plat. They wanted to review the buildings on these lots. But how should that long note be interpreted? The applicant believes, at least as it was stated last week, that the area part of that note should mean the minimum lot area, which is one interpretation of that note. I think the difference between the applicant and the staff on this is the staff doesn't see that term area being qualified in the note. And so what area is involved? If you look then on Exhibit 2, which is the map that has the green highlighting to it, This identifies buildable areas on these lots, and the subject lot is identified in yellow with the proposed change to the building line. This exhibit also anticipates and finds that there have been three amendments to this unit of the subdivision since 1956. Those occurred in the late 90s and early 2000s. And those are shown on, if you'll look at the exhibit, lots 18, 25, and 11. And this exhibit identifies those. Lots 18 and 11 have been subdivided. And so those buildable areas have actually shrank since 1956. And the lot on Lot 25 had a similar amendment approved from 60 feet to 45 feet in the early 2000s. So this does reflect the current condition with what the applicant is proposing. When viewing the buildable area, the staff is not sure that the proposed change to the building line is in agreement with the subdivision regulations. It's a 40% reduction in the front building line. Historically, in this unit of the subdivision, a 25% reduction is the most that has been granted over time, and that is in one instance, not counting the two-corner lot splits. We look to other sections of the regs to see if it can help inform the interpretation of this note. I think that's the nature of Mr. Murphy's earlier request. In the third page of Exhibit 3, we have included that the staff has no authority to review or modify building setbacks with one exception. That exhibit shows that a corrected amended plat, for instance, cannot include a change to the building line, as that's considered a material change in a major subdivision plan. The only exception is the one further down, Administrative Action Platt, and those are usually recorded based on, say, a Board of Adjustment approval of a front yard variance or something of that nature. Finally, we looked to the first article of the subdivision regulations. I mean, it could be interpreted that one section in Article 6 requiring the minimum to be shown, and in Article 5 saying either the minimum or that desired by the developer are somehow in conflict. If that's the case, we have another provision of the ordinance that says in Article 112 that the more restrictive ordinance, regulation, or law should govern, and that's in the sub-reg. So generally the staff will tell folks the more restrictive is the one that's applicable. I think in conclusion, this particular section, the purpose is up there because one of the intents of the subdivision regulations is to promote harmonious development in our subdivisions. And for whatever reason, years ago, building lines were deemed to be under the purview of the Planning Commission unless the Board of Adjustment approved a variance. and not the planning staff. Staff really has concluded that both the proposed plat and the existing plat meet the one section of the ordinance, but that the proposed plat does not meet Article 5.4.D.6. We think that the viewing of that note indicates it is not consistent with the developer's original intent for restrictions on the lot area, furthered by the fact that that developer wanted to review house plans on the lot. That is an interpretation. I would dare suggest that if Mr. Murphy's interpretation of that note is what you agree with at the end of this hearing, then the recommendation from your technical committee, which also appears on the first and second page of the agenda, you have conditions to approve the plat. That is the reason that the staff has gone from a postponement recommendation to a disapproval recommendation on the plat that's before you. We've provided three findings. The first is Article 5.4.D. of the subdivision regulations, D6, I should say, requires the developer to show the front yard setback as required by the zoning ordinance or, if more restrictive, as desired by the developer. Secondly, the proposed amendment reduces the front yard setback by 40% on this particular subdivision, which this restriction was imposed by the original developer. And then thirdly, to echo the last point I made, amendment to building lines is not automatically allowed to meet the minimum requirement of the ordinance, but does require review and approval by the Planning Commission. I would point out on the very last line of the third finding, there is a typo. That article reference should be Article 1-12, not Article 1-1. We have copies of the three plats that I mentioned. I think that concludes my prepared remarks. I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Planning Commission about the staff's review or recommendation on this. Questions for Mr. Salley? Bill, let me ask you one thing. Yes, sir. With this here, you identified three lots. Lot 25 shows, I guess, an encroachment. Was that built? My understanding from comments at your subdivision committee last week is that although that plat reduced the building line, there was no addition made to the front. We can show the aerial photograph again to verify that. So it's essentially still at the 50 foot or greater? Well, I would presume it's at the 60 foot. 60 foot, I'm sorry. Okay. All right, then. Thank you. Thank you. I want to ask Mr. Murphy to come forward. I did have two questions from Bill. Okay, sure. I can use this. Thank you. Mr. Selle, I take it from your presentation that your determining of the intent of the developer is largely from the note on the 1956 plat. Is that right? I'd say it's probably both notes that appear on the plat. Which is the other note you're discussing? The other note is that the House plans must be approved by the subdivider. Okay. That and the other note I described, yes. Okay. So if not for those two notes, I take it you would give greater consideration to a recommendation of approval for the plant? Well, certainly those two notes are the indication of what or maybe why the developer made a more restrictive requirement than I presume was allowed by the zoning ordinance at that time. One other question. If I owned a vacant lot next to the Bustles lot and never been built upon, and I decided that I wanted to, my neighbors wanted a bigger yard, bigger properties, and I decided to divide it down the middle and convey 40 feet to one and 40 feet to the other, would that be allowed under the notes on this plant? I don't know about that. I can tell you that one lot, apparently according to the photo, or two lots I should say, have been built across. These two here. By the photo appear to have one house on two lots. Okay, so that essentially increased the size of the lots. Okay, thank you. That's all I have. Are you ready for you to go forward? Yes, sir. Ready as I'm going to be. God. Two, three, four, that was a good night. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm here today representing Mr. and Mrs. Bustle, Wayne Bustle, and Linda Bustle. With me today is Lynn Pedego of Pedego Designs, Greg Padgett of Padgett Construction. He's also in the third row. Justin Drury of 2020 Land Survey. He was our surveyor on this. And just to introduce Wayne and Linda, Wayne and Linda live in this neighborhood right now on Cooper Drive. Wayne and I went to law school at the same time. And Wayne is a lawyer here in Lexington, a practicing lawyer. He's also a former Army officer. He retired recently a few years ago as a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, and he's a combat veteran of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. And I'm telling you this not to get any special treatment for him, but what we want is equal treatment with all the other applicants that have been before you in the past in similar circumstances. Linda Bussell retired from the Legislative Research Commission where she wrote workers' compensation legislation for the state of Kentucky. They were interested in this house because they have a long relationship with the previous owners, the Mattingleys, Jack and Libby Mattingly. Jack, they're both deceased now. Jack was the first cousin of Wayne and had shared a number of interests, and they helped take care of them in their older age. Linda was over after Jack died. Linda Bussell was over here six days a week often with Libby taking care of her. So they acquired the house from the estate of the Mattingleys. It had not been updated very much. They want to update it. They're going to make considerable investment in this, as you can tell, from using one of the best designers in the community, Lynn Pettico, one of the best contractors in the community, Greg Padgett. They are serious about wanting to do an addition, which will add value not only to their property, but to the neighborhood as a whole. The house was built in 1957, 58 years ago. As I said, it has very few updates. We just want to give you an idea, show some of these photographs about what some of the issues are in the property and how this will help us solve them. These are the two properties. I sort of Googled a photograph at subdivision committee. This is an actual photograph taken by Linda Bustle. The Bustle house is on the right. It's 508 Clinton Road. You can see here that there was sort of a shared driveway area, but there was a brick wall down the middle of it. The Allen house is on the left. You can see the difference in the width of the two driveways. The bustle driveway is about two and a half squares of the sidewalk. The Allen is about four. The difference is about nine feet on the bustle driveway, about 15 feet on the Allen property. And if you can show the next photograph, well, you can see you saw going around the house what the difficulty is and making the turn because it's so tight in there. And this is heading, this is the corner of the house. You have to navigate to get back into the back garage. The next photograph shows another view looking over toward the Allen property. You can see that on our side there's a two-foot or larger elevation change. It's not near that on the Allen side. The result is that with the tightness of the driveway, it takes a lot of maneuvering back and forth, back and forth, back and forth to get out of or into the garage here on this property. And many people have unfortunately scraped their cars on that wall. We are doing this to, and there's a photograph of, if you're in the driveway, it is even difficult getting out of your car to the width of the driveway. we are doing this in order to put a garage on the front and there are other garages on the front in the area this is one that's four doors down it's on on our play out here it's about located in one of these lots right here garage on the front we want to do in a garage on the front as well because that is a much better alternative than paving most of the entire backyard yard to get adequate maneuvering room, but still having the problem with the very narrow driveway. So, and just a couple other shots. Next one shows another front entry. There are front entry garages on Clinton Road. I won't show you eight pictures of them. I'll just show you two. Also going on, a lot of people on Clinton have put in circular driveways. I'm not sure they're all permitted, but have permits, but they have circular driveways. And the last photograph shows a number of other, there's concrete pads and that sort of thing. This one has a basketball goal in the front. And I'm not showing these to criticize them. This is a good use of the property. This is how neighborhoods evolve over the years. Things have changed in the neighborhood since 1956 when the plat was recorded in the 50, however many that is, years 59 years since the plat has been recorded. And neighborhoods do change in other houses in the street and in this neighborhood have changed as well. The, if you could go to my handout, I had my handout here for you and we had a number of items I wanted to talk about. This was the, the first page is the plaid of the property which you've already seen. It's up on the bulletin board right here. but again it's a 1956 plat and I've noted I note the two two notes that Mr. Silly has meant it in page two I just have a copy of the zoning ordinance to show you that we do meet the required front yard setback line in the R1C zone which is 30 feet we meet the zoning ordinance requirement with this proposal to you. The next page, I have the ordinances that Bill has mentioned. These are all on the subdivision regulations. And the next page, I have the note. Just stay on this one, if you will, for a minute. The 64E, as Mr. Selle pointed out, says that lots for residential and non-residential use must meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance, which we do. The next one, 54D6, which Mr. Salee has cited, tells you what you've got to show on a PLAT, the setback, and the developer does have the option of making a greater setback than required in the ordinance, which they did on this. The last one I'll show you, too, is the definition of the developer. We have the right to file an amended PLAT, which we have. And this section, the last sentence, indicates that the term developer includes subdivider, owner, builder, et cetera, even though the persons and their precise interests may vary at different project stages. I'll point out to you that I'm representing the owners who are defined as a developer under your subdivision regulations, have the right to file a subdivision plan, and have a right to show the setback which we are proposing on this. That ordinance isn't just good for 1956. It's good for 2015 as well when we file this. We're standing in the shoes of the developer according to this government's subdivision regulations. I want to talk about the note because Bill said there's two notes. I'll read the other one off the plant, says this is a residential subdivision. House plans must be approved by the subdivider. Well, certainly it's still a residential subdivision. The subdivider is no longer in existence. If that's a requirement to be all plans approved by the subdivider, every renovation that has been done here in the last 40 years has probably violated that section. But I don't think that's what Mr. Selle is referring to. He's referring to the intent that this is a residential subdivision, which we fully agree with. We're not changing it. The second note is up here on the right side of the plat, but I've got it on page 4 of my handout. This is what that note says. Any lot transferred shall have a minimum width and area substantially the same as shown on this plat, and only one principal building will be permitted on any lot. There's three parts to that. One residential building on a lot, no question we're complying with that. We just want to remodel the existing house. The other parts are the minimum width and area. We are not changing anything on this plat. Justin Drury, when he drew the plat, drew the exact same boundary lines as is shown on the 1956 plat. 80 feet wide, 200 feet deep, 16,000 square foot lot. we are not changing that one square inch. We are not changing the width. We're not changing the area. One square inch. Now, what the discussion was at the subdivision committee, and here today I think some, is that we are increasing the buildable area of the property. well the note says shall have a minimum width and area there is no discussion of buildable area in this note whatsoever we are increasing slightly the buildable area and I'll point out that we are decreasing the buildable area slightly because KU has required us to increase the width of the power easement across the back so we lose some buildable area in the back we are gaining some in the front but we are doing it in order to put the addition on the front as we have further discussed. But I don't know of any reading of this language where we are changing the minimum width or area of the property. Although many people have in this subdivision in the past, which I'll show you in just a minute, we're not doing it. We're not violating that whatsoever. and we got a real good indication of what the developer's intention was on page five and six I have the deed restrictions for this property and you'll see in this deed restriction this is from 1956 it says on item three any dwelling house upon the property shall face Clinton Road and no part of any wall shall be placed within 50 feet of the front property line thereof That's a 50-foot setback line. But on item 7, they expired in 30 years in 1986. The way they worded it, so they'll be binding for a period of not less than 30 years from July 1, 1956. That was legalese back then for saying 30 years, not 29 years and 200 days, 30 years. Those have expired. but it's interesting that the next restriction, the easements is number 8 and it goes permanently so the developer clearly intended that he had a subdivision where he wanted the easements to be permanent but that the building line was for 30 years 50 feet for 30 years that has expired and that expresses the intent of the developer, I don't think it's a matter of the intent of the developer anyway, but if we're looking for it, these deed restrictions shows exactly what Ashland Park Incorporated, which was the developer, intended. And as I mentioned in the subdivision committee as well, under the, if that's a concern, back in the 80s, people were realizing that subdivision regulations were running out for a lot of these older subdivisions, and people were concerned about are they going to put vinyl on the houses? Are they going to do this or are they going to do that? You or your predecessors passed the ND1 overlay zone, which I've shown on page 8, which allows a mechanism for neighborhoods to petition the government for an overlay zone of ND, and they can propose their own building setbacks. They can propose building materials. They can say no vinyl. We want just stone or brick. They can even specify the slope of the roof. They can require landscaping elements. And Wayne is an officer of the Shriners Neighborhood Association, which is the organized neighborhood association for this area, and recalls that this was discussed a number of years ago, and the neighborhood at that time decided they did not want to apply for the ND1 overlay zone. But it's available today. If this is a threat to the neighborhood about having a setback change, because the deed restrictions have expired, you all, your predecessors, set forth a mechanism by which that can be remedied if that's an issue. The next thing in my handout is the Snyder v. Owensboro case. I just have that in there to remind you all that this is a subdivision case. It's not a zone change case. And the difference, as you all know, I know you all get orientation when you come into your office and every year and everything and get updated. It's not a discretionary matter. Reviewing a subdivision, Platt, is like reviewing a code, like the building inspectors do when you get a permit. Do you meet the electrical code, the structural code, the mechanical code? We meet all the requirements of the subdivision regulations. And this case and its progeny say that you don't take into account compatibility with the neighborhood or aesthetics, because those are set in the ordinance. The standards are set in the ordinance. If you comply with the requirements of the subdivision regulations of setbacks and that sort of thing, the Planning Commission is required to approve a plat. And we think we are in that position. Now, I want to show you a few plats here from the area to that Mr. Selle discussed as well about what has gone on on this particular plat right here, Ashland Park Unit 12. On page 12 is a copy of the plat, which was approved in 2001, and I'm sure Mr. Selle knows that I will point out that he was the one who signed this plat after the Planning Commission approved it. But it changed the setback line from 60 feet, which is on the other side of Clinton, to 45 feet. was approved by this Planning Commission. Apparently, it was not deemed to be in disagreement with that note, but probably the issue was whether it complies with the zoning ordinance, and it certainly did. That was a proper action by this Planning Commission to approve that. Next thing in my handout is another one that's not on this part of Ashland Park, but it's another change of a lot line in Ashland Park from 55 to 45 back in 1999, around the corner. There's two more plats on page 14 and 15 where variances were received. One was a variance on page 14 at Hart and Culpepper from 30 feet to 15 feet for the front yard. The next one on page 15 was a variance on the side yard along Cochrane from 30 feet to 7 1⁄2 feet. Now, we're not even eligible for a plight of a variance. You have to be varying the required setback line from 30 feet down to get a variance. We can't go into the Board of Adjustment and ask for a variance from 50 to 30 because 30 is allowed anyway on this. But next I'm going to point out this language in here that I talked about does talk about minimum size and width. But the Planning Commission in the past has gone by the law and decided that subdivision plats that follow the zoning ordinance requirements are going to be approved. The first one's on page 16. There's two on Clinton, two lots, as Mr. Silley mentioned. on this section have been subdivided. On page 16, it's at 427 Clinton Road, corner of Clinton and Cochran, lot 18, which is right here on this plat. The next one on page 17 is at lot 11, which is at Clinton and Prather, which is this lot right here. They clearly reduced the minimum width and the minimum area of the lot. And the Planning Commission very properly decided that those were in conformance with the zoning ordinance requirements and they approved them. The next one is not on this unit, but it's at Clinton and Hart where one was subdivided. Next on page 19 is at the other side of Clinton and Hart. Next one on page 20 is at Culpepper and Cooper. Next one on page 21 is at Prather and Culpepper. Next one on page 22 is at the other side of Prather and Culpepper. Next one on page 23 is at the corner of Adair and Hart. All in all, there's eight of them I could find easily in Ashland Park where lots have been subdivided, and the Planning Commission very properly approved those. And the next two I wanted to show you is that, as you all know, So back before the economy tanked, you all probably have one of these a month coming through. The page 24 is in Lansdowne. It was a change in building line from 45 to 35 Hildean Drive and Sherwood Drive back three years ago, 2012. And the final one is on page 25. It's in the corner of Lansdowne and Nantucket Drive where there was a similar change in the building setback. And I point these out just to tell you that it has been routine. And the Planning Commission, even on this same section of Ashland Park, has determined that, yes, it is proper to reduce sizes, reduce width. We're not asking for any of that. We're asking for a reduction in the prop, a change in the setback line, which is not mentioned in either of these notes on the plat whatsoever. The, I have plenty more to tell you, but I'm probably going to spare you of that here. The, and try to sum up and take me a moment to, I've been trying to respond to the staff's things, which I got new today, so I've been jumping all over and add stuff. I just want to make sure that I haven't forgotten to tell you something that I feel is important for you all to know. We tried to demonstrate to you that, number one, I know there's a lot of neighborhood animosity is generated by these type applications because this is a slight change in the neighborhood, but it is going to be a quality, well done change, not unlike many other small changes that have been done in this section of the subdivision since the plat was approved way back in 1956. If the staff's interpretation is to prevail, I don't think you can ever change a lot setback. You know, if it's shown on the plat, their interpretation seems to be it's set in stone. And if it's the intent of the developer to put that 100 years ago, we can't change it now because there's nothing in these notes on this plat that prevents us from changing a building setback. There is from width and area, but not building setback. Mr. Selle said you can increase the area of a lot. We're not increasing the area. We are slightly increasing, I guess, the area we could build upon. But he said we could increase the area if we were consolidating lots together on this. I guess the most important thing is I feel that part of the obligation of a government body is to be consistent in its interpretation of the law. and I think this planning commission has made an accurate and correct actions in the past when they have approved subdivision plats or plats for various other lots in this section. I point these other changes out to you not because the planning commission did anything wrong but because the planning commission was absolutely right when it acted in the past And I'm asking you to be right again today and allow us to make a change similar to a small change, similar to small changes that have been made in this area since the plat was approved back in 1956. As I said in the beginning, the Bustles don't want special treatment. They just want treatment like this planning commission has accorded many, many applicants that have come before you before. and I think there's some other people with us today who may want to speak. Mr. and Mrs. Buzzel may want to speak, but we thank you for listening to this, and we certainly hope you'll vote to approve our subdivision. It's not a subdivision plat. It's just a plat because we're not subdividing anything here. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I think at this point we'll hold any questions and hear from others that want to speak in favor of this request. And please come forward. Everybody else will be limited to three minutes. Hi, my name is Greg Padgett. I'm with Padgett Construction. We've been working with the bustles for quite a long period of time on this design. It's as far along as many selections have been made. And I want to verify that great caution was taken in the planning process to allow for the cornice, gable ends, and materials on the addition to be in kind with the existing construction and in kind with the existing neighborhood. I think that's it. Thank you. Others? Hello, I'm Lynn Pettigrew. I'm here with the Bustles. I've designed a lot of houses, changed plans, done renovations and additions in the Ashton Park neighborhood and all over Chevy Chase, and it's always been my intent to do tasteful design and try to keep the house within the same original look with needed changes. And the way these plans were done in the 50s is not the way we live today. The current location of the garage blocks the entire view of the rear of the yard. Most people don't formally entertain the front of their homes anymore and don't hang out on the front porch. They prefer to go to the privacy of their backyards. And that's what we're trying to do. Also, it eases the burden of getting in and out of the house into the garage and making it more accessible. It is very tight in that back driveway. I've tried to take, I don't have a large SUV or medium, but again, I know that would change. There is also fear, and I understand that the neighbors who are upset with this, I'd be glad to provide them with the plans and show them how it's going to look, and that we've taken great care and caution, as Greg stated, in trying to preserve the original integrity of the house, but make it more useful as today's living has changed. Thank you. Thank you. Others that would like to speak? Okay. At this point, let me just see if there's any questions at this point from commission members. No? If not, we'll proceed on to anyone that wishes to speak in opposition of this. and I believe we do have a spokesperson and anyone that wishes to speak can and we'll go from there. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. As I said earlier, I'm Linda Allen. I live at 504 Clinton Road with my husband. We've lived there 17 years. I am not an attorney, not a planner, not a builder, not a designer, and I have tremendous respect for the designer and the builder and for the bustles. We know them and know that they have good reasons in their hearts for wanting to do this. We've known them for 17 years. We knew Libby Mattingly for 17 years. But I'm the chief financial officer with the Asphalt Institute. And my husband's a post, he's worked for the post office for a number of years. He's a carrier, and I think he might be here. But if he's here, some of you may know him because a lot of people know Mike. So I want to thank you for giving us a chance to share objections with you. You have in front of you the objections. You also have some photographs that are referenced to the objections. And we, too, looked at the overall neighborhood design, and we have a few copies of that with you. And it's clearly marked with a line that shows that developers' intent, maybe some things have evolved over the years, But the intent of the developer to have this nice setback with this wonderful view of the street is clear in those plans, and that has not changed. That has not evolved at all. So I would like to then now read our specific objections. So, number one, the proposed setback change to 508 Glen Road from 50 feet to 30 feet represents 40% of the front yard. That's a very large area. That's not this 25% that they were talking about and some of these others. That is a huge area. Number two, the impact on the odd-numbered homes. Now, these things set precedent. He just cited precedent. The impact on the odd number homes would be so much greater because on that side of the street, it is a 60-foot setback, which gives that very spacious feel, the character of that street. That would be half of the front yard. Number three, the current setbacks are a distinctive feature of Clinton Road, and they give this harmonious appearance to that area. and you can see that in the photos provided. Number four, the visual line of sight of this feature, it allows you to see literally from one end to the other. It makes it a friendly neighborhood, a very safe neighborhood, one in which many of us have had our children playing out there and we can see them. In fact, children are coming back into the neighborhood and we're so excited to see that. And again, playing in those yards. And it encourages us to interact with one another. As you can see, clearly we do. Number five, the street is made up of older homes. It's a prime location for flippers who have no attachment to the area. The setback reduction will encourage investors to tear down these houses and divide these lots. And you can only imagine. And you can see on that layout that there are some corner lots that just, you make this change, and the entire character of this neighborhood would go against the wishes of the developer, would go against certainly the homeowners that have bought these homes and bought them for that reason. Number six, we did hear him say that there was a precedent set at 505 Clinton, and that's directly across the street from us. That was so confusing to us. 505 Clinton is and always has been set back at 60 feet. This was verified by the current owner, who is here, seated next to me. They did some construction a couple years ago, went down to the council. They put on an addition as he was talking. There was no mention of any sort of change to that. And not that they were interested, but they were so blindsided when that was mentioned last week. They had no idea that that had changed. You've got photos of that as well. You can see that. Number seven, we do strongly feel that moving the setbacks back to 30 feet will have a negative impact on the property values on Clinton Road and the surrounding areas. Number eight, a change in that setback would destroy the many ash trees, which is another distinctive feature. The ash trees line much of the 500 block. We have been told, and I've been told many times, by the Mattingleys, mind you, that the original Henry Clay estate had planted those trees. And we've just, you know, done all we can to save them. I lost mine in the ice storm, and it broke my heart. And there are photos provided of those trees. But I think that gives you a good indication of what the intent was of this developer. He planted a line of ash trees from one end of that street to the other. Number nine, at the meeting last week, the Bustle's attorney provided justifications for the Bustle's wanting a garage in front of the house. Now, the neighborhood, I've not heard anybody object to having a garage in the front of the house. No one's objecting to that. But we are confused about this, and being their neighbor for 17 years, I'm confused. The reason he's cited is that the former owner, Libby Mattingly, and you didn't hear this today, had to stop driving earlier than she liked because it was difficult for her to pull into the driveway. Libby had many, many people looking after her in her later years. She lived until her early 90s. All of them, every one of them, drove down that driveway, went around that corner, went to the back of the house, and picked Libby up. Libby did not come out the front of the house, and that includes Wayne and Linda. And more recently, a huge bucket truck went down the driveway, around the corner, and removed a very large old tree in the backyard, and did not appear to have a lot of trouble getting through. Plus, as their neighbor, there is the wall between us. They have never spoken to us about this wall. The wall is a very old wall. It's deteriorating. It's leaning. And we have talked to Libby about it. We've gotten proposals from builders to replace the wall. We wanted to talk to the buses. They refused. They've not been willing at all to talk to us. We could give them four inches back by just replacing this wall. So we're a little confused about that. Number 10, the Bustle's attorney stated that this would impact only one lot, 508 Clinton. He said this last week. He cited the precedents on the other streets where the setback was allowed, the changes were allowed. We're just very concerned this is going to establish a precedent, and it wouldn't end with 508 Clinton. And then number 11, a large number of homeowners have been very vocal in their objections and concerns, and I have got so many emails and yes they wanted a petition and they signed a petition and there's just a lot of concern about this and there are a lot of people here so I thank you for my time do you have any questions for me before I allow some of the homeowners to say a few words any questions at the moment no thank you ma'am thank you others that would like to speak at present. Thank you. I'm Monica Kern. I live on 505 Clinton across the street. I'm apparently the owner of the plat that had that one setback change that was quite a surprise to me when we heard about it last week because as far as we knew there had never been a change that is a picture of our house when we bought it over 10 years ago and when i'm sympathetic to the issue of getting in and out of garages our garage at that time was facing rear you know backwards we had to make a hairpin turn and that was hard for us and we wanted to change it we also wanted to add a first floor master suite so we decided to renovate and when we did we had no interest whatsoever in harming the look of the street we we wanted to leave the facade of the house as it was so we built back and we put a detached garage in the back and built changed the existing garage to our bedroom and if you look at the second picture you can't even tell that we did the renovation from the front of the street we have preserved the character of the street Clinton Road you saw a few pictures you really ought to drive down it. It's a beautiful street. Many people, when they come visit, they say this is one of the prettiest streets in all of Lexington. And what makes it so beautiful is that we've got these large lots. We have houses that aren't cookie cutter. They're all different styles of architecture, but they all share that uniform setback line that creates this, Linda used the word harmonious. It creates this harmonious look to the street that really adds greatly to the aesthetics of the neighborhood. If you were to approve this setback, we would have one house right in the middle of the block that would be sticking out way in front. And I think it would alter tremendously the look and the appeal of the street and possibly negatively affect our property values. And we're not opposed to renovation or rebuilding in general. They've shown lots of pictures of houses that have been renovated. But in each case, those renovations stuck to the same setback and were in the character of the neighborhood. And then at both the last meeting and this meeting, the gentleman representing the owners of 508 suggested that if we had wanted to preserve the setback, we should have applied for one of those ND1 overlays. I don't remember this discussion coming up in the Shriners Association. He said it does. I'm not going to argue with that. I guess this has been educational for me. I did not realize that restrictions on things like setbacks actually could expire after a certain amount of time. You know, now I know. And I don't think any of us on the street realized that this was even a possibility. I personally would be in favor of seeking such an overlay. I would do it today if I thought we could get it passed in time to prevent their change to the setback. So in conclusion, I ask that you second the committee's approval to turn down this request because I think it's important to preserve the character of our street and our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Others, please? Yes. My name is Linda Price and I live at 501 Clinton Road. And like Wayne Bustle, I'm also a member and officer in the Neighborhood Association. And I'll try not to be redundant. I just wanted to speak to a couple of points. One, if you do grant this, I don't think this will be a small change to Clinton Road. And also, Mr. Murphy talked about lots of exceptions within the neighborhood. He even spoke to one in Lansdowne. Today, we're really addressing the nature of Clinton Road, and we're trying to preserve Clinton Road. And if you grant this, this will make a substantial change and set a precedent for lots of things that could happen on Clinton Road, and we're trying to prevent that. If you talk about the area and width of Clinton Road, if you grant this change, this could serious impact on the corner lots on Clinton Road. For example, where I live at 501 Clinton Road, if the front setback was changed, my lot could be subdivided into three lots, and we wouldn't even need a variance. All we would need to do is have our lot surveyed, and we could divide it, and three houses could be built on that lot. And that would substantially change the character of Clinton Road. And this could happen on other corner lots on that street. We don't want that to happen. That's happened, Will Grant, on other streets in the subdivision. We don't want that to happen. We believe that that plat on Clinton Road is a covenant that was made with that builder. It's not been changed since 1956. There are 55 other families on that street that have abided by that plat. They have invested their money on that street. They love that street. That's why they bought on that street. They want that to stay that way. We don't argue that having a garage on the front of your house is nice, that lots of other houses on that street have garages in the front. and we think that's fine. We would just ask that Wayne and Linda come up with a different plan so that it doesn't change the front setback because that setback defines the character of that street. It contributes to the safety of that street. My neighbor, Catherine, down the street has a little girl. She can look out on her front windows and watch her little girl ride her bicycle up and down that street. If they build their house out like they want, she will no longer be able to monitor her little girl as she plays up and down the street and as the other children do. This will make a significant change in our street. I'm trying to not lose my other points. The problem with the driveway, as Linda Allen said, it's never been a significant problem in the past. Actually, we've measured the width of that driveway. The asphalt is nine feet wide. the distance between the side of the house and the other the wall that you see on the pictures is 12 to 12 and a half feet wide. In the back there's that turnaround. There's space back there. The standard car width is 6 to 6 and a half feet. So we think that's sufficient to get a car in and out of a driveway. and so my figures may be wrong you know I'm not you know I'm just saying that but as I said we think these flats are a covenant we ask that you not go in and change the character of our neighborhood and mess with it with the safety of our street and I guess those are the main things I would say we just just hope that you won't change these setbacks and if you look at the other exceptions that are cited in the neighborhood most of those really don't affect the setback lines as I drive up and down in my neighborhood the setback lines are pretty standard. Most of the exceptions affect the side yards. Thank you very much. I appreciate your work. Thank you, ma'am. Others that would like to speak, please be mindful. We're trying to stay with three minutes. We want to hear from you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Jerry Calvert. I live at 427 Clinton Road. My wife and I and family have lived there since 1985. We were very close friends with Jack and Libby Mattingly, We're close friends of everybody on this neighborhood. And I want to say to you, I've seen many changes in this neighborhood, many changes. But all of them were done by people getting together and discussing it. Our neighborhood, Clinton Road, is actually a part of Shriners. We meet with all those people in the other neighborhoods also. My neighbors, Mr. Price and Mrs. Price, they stand to gain if you do this. I stand to gain if you do this because I have one of the corner lots. I want this neighborhood to remain the same. If these people had come to the neighbors like everybody else has done, like Jack and all these other people have made changes, had done in the past, we could have worked this out. We've always been able to work it out. Mr. and Ms. Price made tremendous changes to their house. Mr. and Ms. Kearns made tremendous changes to their house. But everybody in the neighborhood worked together and worked with them. I can cite you many of those people. I have a big question here today. How many car garage? Are we talking about a 10-car garage across the front of this house? A five-car garage? A four-car garage like they've got now? They tell you they're going to lose a lot of their backyard if the KU gets 15 feet. I'm here to tell you they're going to lose two and a half foot of their backyard if they give KU 15 feet. You want to know why? There's already an easement of 10 feet. Five of that 10 feet's on their property and five of that 10 feet's on the people buying them's property. If they give another five feet for that easement, it's only going to be two and a half feet on the back of their property, not even a width of a bush. I submit to you that our neighborhood has great character. There's not hardly a month goes by that people don't come and ring my doorbell and want to know if my house is for sale. They like our neighborhood. It has character. And the reason it has character is we all work together. We've always worked together in the years that I've lived there. We've always worked together. Most of the families or a lot of the families have young children. A lot of them are retirees. In a lot of communities, that's a problem. That's not a problem here. Everybody works together. We live on the downside of Clinton. Clinton comes across and then comes down to Cochran. Many times I'm out in the front yard watching other people's kids come down on their bicycles, learning to ride the bicycles. I have to stop them before they get to Clinton. I watch their kids go out and play. I watch them play in their backyards, in their front yards. The reason I can do that is because of the setback, the enormous setback. It's a great setback. And it was planned that way by the developer, not just the developer. The developer's not the only person that signed off on this plant in 1956. The city signed off on the plant. The city didn't sign off on the deed restrictions, which they say have expired. Everybody's still living by them. Maybe they've expired. But they still live by the plant. all of these changes they've talked about with the backyards, not a one of them with the front yard. Mrs. Kearns didn't even know that they would have had a right to build farther in the front of the house. And yet she's the one being used as the example of why these people should be allowed to change the character of our neighborhood. I submit to you this. I submit to you this. the three documents by which the Bustles claim ownership of this property are as follows. Number one, Jack and Libby bought this property in 1960. In that deed, it contained the plaque that we're referring to today. In 2006, Jack died. Bless his heart, and I'm sure he's in heaven. In 2013, Libby died. Bless her heart, and I'm sure she's in heaven. And she left this property by will to Mr. and Ms. Bustle. The only will that I've ever seen in 50 years of my practice of law that contains a reference to the plat of the property which they're being given, contains the plat that has the restrictions in it. And I submit to you that's because Libby was one of the most vocal people about this neighborhood and its character. I submit to you the reasonable resolution to this matter for all of us, and a win-win-win for everybody, including the Bustles, is for you to sit here and deny this requested change. listen to your staff and make us all go back and sit down sit down like neighbors sit down talk like neighbors talk tell us what you plan to put here tell all your neighbors let your neighbors have a role in it and then let's all agree and let's come down here and say to you all this is what we propose all of us as a unit thank you for your time thank you mr calvert Thank you. Others? Others that would like to speak? We understand. I don't think we need any clapping, though. But, yes, come forward. You do have a three-minute clock that's running. Yes, ma'am. Hi. I'll be very brief. Thank you all for listening today. I'm not an attorney or a designer or anything else. I live at 512 Clinton Road, the adjacent property to the one being discussed. Your name is? Catherine Donworth. Sorry. Thank you. Catherine Donworth. and my main concern is primarily a safety issue. We bought the property in 2008 because of the location and the nature of the street and the large setback. It's very unique in that you can, as other people have stated, you can be in your front yard or your front of your house, you can look all the way to the top of the street and all the way down. I have an 8-year-old daughter and I can watch her walk all the way to the top of the street to visit her cousins. and if this goes through and this structure is allowed to be built, I'm not going to be able to do that anymore, and I don't think that's right, and that's all I have to say. Thank you, ma'am. Others? Hi, I'm Anne Donworth. I'm Catherine's sister-in-law. We just bought a house in March on 405 Clinton Road. We have been visiting my brother-in-law and sister-in-law there since 2008, so seven years. One of the reasons why we bought this house, we have a rising kindergartner. It is a great house for kids. It is a great street for kids. It still is like that 50s neighborhood where you can have your kids play in the front yard. It's a very quiet, wonderful street. It still has that same design. Our house also has a tight hairpin turn. on the back, and we probably will be doing some renovations as well. I am sympathetic to that, but these are also huge lots that we're talking about. Ours is 0.46. I think theirs was, I just pulled it up on PVA sitting here, is 0.36 acres. If it were a question of space, I might be a little bit more sympathetic, but there's plenty of space to make an alternative there. So I hope you all will consider that as well. Thank you. Thank you. Others, I'd like to speak. Yes, come forward. My name is Forrest McCloskey. I'm a retired architect. I've lived on Clinton Road for 40 years. And one thing I've learned over the years practicing architecture, if you make a mistake or if you can't do the problem right the first time, keep working at it. There is a solution, and the solution does not have to go to in front of a zoning board or committee to ask for a variance. First of all, as a designer and an architect, never put an elevation in the front of a house with a bunch of garage doors. The most ugly thing that we live by are cars, and it's destroyed our neighborhoods in most cases. So I recommend that it be disapproved, but I recommend it be disapproved because the designer, God bless them, ought to start over. They got an F at design school. Simple. They would have gotten an F. You always check your setback lines first. The intent of this design was to go forward from the beginning. That was their solution. they stuck with it. So that's all I want to say. I like the neighborhood. God help us because all the important words have been spoken before me today. So you all make up your mind. Thank you, sir. Others would like to speak. Yes, sir. Hi, I'm Michael Genovese at 525 Clinton Road. So I'll certainly keep within my three minutes. Just a few, kind of this whole situation, I tend to be pretty sympathetic to people wanting to do with their property, what they want to do with. But one thing I've learned, you know, this is really our first house. My family moved here, kids and wife, about four years ago to Clint Road. So when you buy the property, you're buying into a lot of your neighbors and a lot of situations that are more than just your plot itself and into the needs of the people around you. And one thing that just worries about me from the arguments I heard from Mr. Murphy earlier is that this is a very public, an attempt at a public solution to a private problem of a small driveway, lack of turn radius. And many of his arguments about, say, a garage on the front, there are other garages, divided lots, didn't really, weren't particularly relevant to the redesign of the front line, the setback line, or of the problem they were trying to discuss. Numerous other Clinton Road residents have talked about there may be other solutions to this problem that were not discovered or have not been explored yet. But in general, just this idea that for this kind of private problem, a dealing with a driveway that is not to taste, that seems manageable, as some other people have given evidence of, but is not perfect for them, a speculation that it may improve property value, which is just idle speculation. so nobody can know whether that will happen or not. Just because of certain difficulties seems to me a large solution for a very public solution to a private problem that will create other problems along the way. People have mentioned precedent as far as things go, too. I would just see that if we're going to think about precedent, yes, the law and the letter of the law, as pointed out, seems to have a setback of 30 feet. We're talking about a much longer tradition, it seems, on this street, going back longer that has been in practice for much longer of setting back that side by 50 feet. And regardless of what the letter is, there's a spirit here to the neighborhood, to this street, that it seems would be relevant in considering whether such a dramatic change that will reverberate as houses are redone along the way, whether that change to that president and tradition is worth making for this kind of driveway problem. And I've heard no other compelling reason for what is going on in this situation. Thank you all. Others that would like to speak? Hi, committee. My name is John Van Ogle. I live on 304 Clinton Road. I've lived there for approximately 12 years. I think there's been some great discussion today. I think we all have a lot to be thinking about for just the future of our neighborhood as well as how to progress. But one important thing is that was brought up earlier. A month does not go by that I don't have somebody call me or put a slip of paper on my front door wanting to know if I want to sell my house. What frightens me the most is the decision today, I don't think it's so much about this piece of property. It's the developers. I think that they like the size of our lots. as we all do. I think it's a very, I think they're very interested in this decision. Please think about that. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? A couple more? Yeah. Come forward. Real quick, I'm John Price, and there are 55 people, as you count the squares in front of you there, you'll count 55 houses on Clinton Road. Fifty-four of those people are tickled silly and have put down money in good faith, looked at a plat and based on that plat have invested in this situation. Now we've got one person that has inherited through an estate a home. They look at that plat and at this point it doesn't work for them. And with that, we'll find a loophole in the form of a deed restriction that has expired, and we'll hire the best lawyer in town, and we'll change this. Out of all due respect to the 55 or the 54 people that have played the game right and tried to do the right thing, I just ask that you step up and help them with the decision they've made. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. I'm Jane Farmer, and I live at 509 Clinton Road, and I've lived there for 15 years. And when I first moved on this beautiful street, that was quite a while ago, and there were a lot smaller houses. And since then, my neighbors in the back and each side have built, which is fine, but they've built up and out in the back, and they have big garages. But I've always had the front of the house and up and down the street. and I'm afraid now that that might be taken away and or some of it would maybe half of mine I think could be so my grandchildren come and visit still and it's a beautiful place to stay I'd like to stay in my house as long as possible so I just wanted to speak for a minute I spoke last week also so that's all thank you thank you ma'am any others that like to speak okay all right then i think we're done at this point uh we'll go to the rebuttal phase i asked for uh mr murphy to provide his rebuttal we've heard a lot hold on one second question patrick Yeah, we'll let them go at the end. Go ahead, Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much. And I think we've heard the microphone off. I won't do that again. I learned something today, I tell you. Everybody here cares about that neighborhood. And the reason I discussed in the beginning the fact about why we're doing this, and there's many other reasons, and I just cited a couple, is I wanted to let you know that Wayne and Linda Bustle are human beings also who care about this property. Wayne, the Mattingleys didn't have, they had one daughter who didn't survive them, unfortunately. Wayne is first cousin of them, and yes, they inherit it, but it means they care about this house even more. They had a close connection. As I said, Linda had told me she was over there six days a week. Very close connection to the Mattingleys, and that's why they're interested in this house. They're not flippers. They're not developers. They're people who have a big emotional attachment to the house and to the Mattingleys as well. They didn't come into this to tear the house down. They didn't want to do this as a tear down. They engaged, and I will contest something one person said, they engaged two of the people with the best reputations for design and construction in Lexington, Lynn Pettico, and Craig Padgett. And in exploring the options, there are many, many reasons, not just the driveway, not just the width and all that sort of thing, internal reasons not to go back, but the need to go front with this. That's not really relevant to your decision, but I wanted to let you know that there was a good reason we were doing this. We didn't just come in on a lark and say, oh, we want to be a mean developer and whatever and do this and that. There were very good reasons why they came in with this plant. And especially our designers knew that the Planning Commission approved plants like this as long as we met the minimum requirements in the zoning ordinance. They knew that. They knew the history of this sort of thing. And in design, this was the way to go, and this is why we're there. We're not doing this for a lark, for earning a lot of money or whatever. My clients are going to be spending, any time you do a remodel like this, you're talking well, well into the six figures. They're going to be spending a lot of money on this house. It's not going to be decreasing property values in this area one penny. This is a plat for one lot. It only affects the setback line on this one particular lot. There was discussion of some other things about corner lots, and I know some of the people, I know a number of people who testified on the other side today, and some of their lots, at least one of their lots has already been subdivided on this. And we're not planning on subdividing this, not planning on selling to a developer. We came in because I wanted to mention the increase in the easement. Just for the further record, KU wanted all the increase of the easement on our side of the property, So it was a full 10-foot increase in the size of the easement, all on the Bustles property. But a lot of the things that were discussed related to the nature of the neighborhood, and I've been in this long enough to know that it's fine to say we're going to have a communal get-together in the neighborhood and everybody's going to agree on a solution to something. But I know in the real world that doesn't happen. The Bustles haven't been keeping this a secret. They've been in the neighborhood a lot. They didn't know that it was required to have a meeting just to come in, receive a plaid approval for a change in the front yard setback. Others have not done that in the past. Others have not done that in subdividing properties in the past. But people talked about the trees, talked about the massing of buildings, talked about tear downs, talked about developers coming in, and I know things like this often bring up issues, and that's why I pointed out the ND1 overlay. Those deed restrictions have expired. There's nothing any of us can do about that. They've expired. But there is a way to deal with these things if they are a concern. setbacks, massing of buildings, the materials on them, the width of lots, and all that sort of thing is something that can be governed in the ND1 overlay zone. But that is not on this property. And again, my clients are just wanting to do something that this planning commission has always proved, has been done in this neighborhood, has not resulted in decreasing property values in this neighborhood, and will not result in any problem to this neighborhood. We're just wanting to be treated like every other applicant who has come before you in a situation such as this. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Rebuttal of any sort from the opposition? Just as that rebuttal. Jerry Calvert again. I apologize for a little disorganized, but I was just in, joined these people, the other neighbors about two days ago. I really ask you people, is this change really needed? Is this really needed? Is this something that is absolutely necessary? If it was, shouldn't they have been out talking to the neighbors and see what the neighbors can do to help? I submit to you, we hear a lot about there's not going to be any flipping, There's going to be an immense amount of money spent. How do we know? Have any of you all seen the plans? Can any of you all tell me how many garages they're going to have in front of this house? I submit until you know. Can any of you all tell me if it's going to encourage other developers to come in and buy other people's properties, try to develop them into larger and bigger lots and do other changes that this plant never meant to be? are we going to sit here and say that this plant expired 25 years? An agreement between the city and the developer and all future buyers of property in this neighborhood? I submit to you again what I said before. The best way to resolve this is for these neighbors to get together and everybody sit down and resolve this problem. If it's needed, we can work it out. But if it's not needed, then why work it out? And I thank you again for your time. Thank you, sir. Mr. Saleh, rebuttal? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I have three rebuttal points to make. The first, if I could refer you to page 12 of Mr. Murphy's handouts. he indicated to you that I certified a plat reducing the building line to 45 feet in this area and that is true what I'd like to do is read to you what is just above my signature there was an implication that that I approved that plat that reads I do hereby certify that this plat was approved by the planning commission at its meeting on February of 2001 is now eligible for recording and should you approve this plat today I would presume that either myself or Mr. King would at some point in time have the same certification on this plat. The second rebuttal point was a comment Mr. Murphy made about the staff is saying that building lines are set in stone by what we presented to you today. What I had told Mr. Murphy around the time of your subdivision committee meeting, I can't remember if it was before or after, was that what is unique about this PLAT is the combination of the subreg requirement in Article 5 that I mentioned and the two notes that appear on this PLAT. The two notes really are somewhat unusual from PLAT. I'm not sure if it was common in this era or not for those notes to appear, but that is certainly what's somewhat unusual about the PLAT that you're being asked to amend today. The third rebuttal point, Mr. Murphy told you that I said that you could increase the area of a lot. This was a question he asked me at the conclusion of my presentation. My exact words were, I don't know. But what I did go on to say was that there's indication from aerial photography that at least two of these lots have been built over. And those are lots 17 and 18 that appear on the exhibit and on this drawing. So I just wanted to clarify that for the record as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. At this point, I'll move to the commission and ask for any questions that any of the commission members might have of anyone. If they're, yes, sir. I have just a clarification, and this may be a question for legal on this. I'm hearing two things. First of all, the letter of the law says that they can do what they can do, I guess. the spirit of the law says no there are some conflicts and I'm reading at the top of the page and it says even if one of these things and this is from the staff recommendation even if the articles 5.4 D.6 and 6.4 E were somehow in conflict with each other you mentioned article 112 of the subdivision regulations would provide some guidance and what it seems to suggest here is that the more restrictive of the two would be the one that would govern. Is this what I'm, is that the interpretation? That's, Mr. Chairman, is it okay if I address that? Yes, yes. That was the point that I made earlier in my remarks, sir. Clarification? Mr. Wilson, you can get it? Okay. Anybody else? If there's no other questions, I'll close this part of it and for any general discussion and or motion. Yes, ma'am. I would like to say thank you to the neighborhoods. It's clear that you are devoted and you like where you live. You have a love for your street and we appreciate that. I would also suggest that you proceed towards an ND1 to avoid this type of situation down the road. And with that being said, I would like to move for disapproval for the three reasons cited by the staff. Thank you. Motion's been made for disapproval of Plan 2015-36L, Ashland Park Incorporated, for the reasons provided by the staff. Do we have a second? I'll second. Motion's been made and seconded for disapproval, as I said, of Plan 2015-36F for the reasons listed about staff. There's no discussion on motion. Yes, sir. Do we have discussion allowed now? Yes, sir. Okay. This is surprising to me on a couple of fronts. It was originally about to be postponed or put on the consent agenda. I can't remember which. And now looking up an hour and 45 minutes later, or however long it's been, it's been a very interesting hearing. I'm very torn because I think, as Bill put it, the letter of the law, I believe, allows this. But I'm swayed more by the spirit of the law in this case and the look and feel of this neighborhood. And I think that that's going to be the critical factor in my vote in supporting this. I would like to ask a quick question to the parliamentarian. And the last time we did a negative motion, you said that that was the inappropriate way to take it. Actually, parliamentary procedure will allow a negative vote, but it is not preferred. The preferred way would be to say in a positive that the motion would be to support the staff's recommendation for disapproval as opposed to simply disapproval. Because right now I was going to ask our chair, how are we voting? You know, nay or yay as it relates to this particular issue, because this is one of these kind that can get very confusing. Well, then that's exactly why I asked the question. I think we may want to rephrase the motion so we don't have any questions like the last time it happened. As the seconder, that's why I hesitated because that's a trap I didn't want to get into either. So if the person who made the motion wants to rephrase the motion, I would be glad to rephrase the second. Ms. Plumlee. Mr. Chair, I move to support the staff in this recommendation for the three reasons they stated. and I will second that. Are you still wanting discussion, Mike? Discussion is allowed. The reason for my hesitation I've already enumerated, my problem with what's happened here today is that I voted for the recommendation of postponement for a month, and the reason I did that was I thought maybe we could get a little better development plan, Mr. Murphy, and what we saw at the subdivision level. The other thing is I know that street. I like the way that street looks, and I don't have any heatharious motion that they're going to do anything to normally harm the looks of that street. I just think there's other options there that could have been done. I don't know the architect, but I certainly know the builder, and I know that they're not involved in the things that are harmful in any way. My concern about this whole thing is that if something isn't broke, I don't like to fix it. And so I would be inclined to obviously support this motion because I've seconded it. But those are the reasons I'd be inclined to do that. Anyone else? Mr. Cravens. Yeah. You know, I can go for a lot of things and do down here. But I think this is just a little bit too much. I mean, you can encroach a building line five feet, and you can just by a building inspector let you do that. I mean, you can put a porch eight feet across the building line. But to go 20 and basically the location of this house, if it were not in the middle of the block, but maybe more on the somewhere where it wouldn't be so noticeable that a garage was sticking out. And then I didn't see a site plan at all on this. I don't know if you all didn't want to show that to us or what. But if you showed a site plan, I might have seen a more corrective way to do it. But I'm probably going to support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Cravens. Anyone else? If not, I'll close by concurring for the most part with what has been said. But I do think that we do have sub-regulations to support the staff's decision or recommendation. I would concur with Mr. Penn that what may occur with this proposal, quality is not an issue, design is not an issue. I think the reason we heard this today, there was one issue at stake, and that was simply put, the setback involved. And I certainly feel that at the time this subdivision was developed, there was a definite intent with more restrictive setbacks. And I think what is being proposed would definitely hurt the neighborhood. As far as its character, the neighborhood would be compromised, and that is something I would not like to see. So if there's no one else, I'll call for a vote. The motion is to support the staff's recommendation for disapproval for the three reasons listed on the back of the revised staff recommendation. So please vote when it comes up on the screen. motion passes unanimously thank you folks thank everyone for coming and at this point we'll take a five minute recess before we resume The End Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Plan 2015-37F Kingston Hall Unit 2 East Bridgeford Land Development Company. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Plan 2015-37F Kingston Hall Unit 2 is the next plan to be considered on your agenda. This is an amended record plat. It is located out off of Newtown Pike, past the interstate, I-7564 in this location, with Providence Parkway being constructed to this point. The most recent plan you saw was for the farm credit folks in this location, and of course the hospice is located here at this location. This is a record plat whose intent is to subdivide and create a two-acre parcel in this location. It will be served by an access easement, part of which already exists across this property to this property line. It will be extended by this plat as you see here. What we have outlined in this location for you is the discussion item that you'll see on your agenda, in that there is a conflict with the location of this access easement with the required buffer along the urban service boundary. This remnant track is over 78 acres, which will be developed, no doubt, in the future. The intent or the purpose of this two-acre lot is for it to be subdivided, and then the pump station, the AMP-required pump station, sanitary sewer pump station, is to be constructed on that site. Now, that pump station is designed to serve both the expansion area and also will allow for numerous smaller, older, outdated pump stations in that entire area of our community to be taken offline. And these are pump stations that no longer function well, have problems with overflows and that sort of thing, and have been identified to be taken offline once this larger pump station is constructed. Now, it is an AMP item, and it is an item that they pay exactions to see that it will be built by the government in the future. The PLAT, as you can see on your agenda, was recommended postponement by your subdivision committee. The principal concern at that time was that conflict with the easement that I pointed out to you and has been highlighted in red on the plan. We have our standard approval conditions for a PLAT that you can see, engineering and traffic, again, those standard ones. There are some cleanup items. It's not unusual, as you all know, that staff comes up with cleanup items necessary to correct information on plans that you see before you. And again, as I stated, we need to discuss the conflict. Well, the applicant informed staff this morning, or I should say the applicant's engine landscape architect representative, informed staff that they were willing to remove that conflict. They're willing to relocate that access easement so there is no conflict with the buffer area. They're willing to work with us to resolve that particular item. One other situation, pardon me, would be item number nine, and that is you are required as a body under your subdivision regulations to make a finding on an access easement as the appropriate access to a piece of property, to a lot. And in this case, as I've pointed out, this is to be the site of a government facility. The access easement will be utilized by government personnel and folks whose job is to see to it that the pump station functions correctly and is maintained correctly. It's not going to be a public access easement at all. No doubt, I can't speak to this with any authority, but I would suspect that there will be a certain amount of restrictions and security associated with this pump station to ensure that folks can't commit vandalism and that sort of thing. But again, it's a government facility. The access will be for the government in order to maintain this facility. So with that conversation that we had this morning with the applicant's representative, and they have addressed staff's primary concern with that conflict and the willingness to remove that conflict, I think staff believes this is an approvable subdivision plant that you see before you today. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mr. Martin, I've got to ask, that access easement as it's drawn on there, are you suggesting that that thing's going to snake back and forth four times going down through there, or is that you're just highlighting the area of conflict? No, sir. Our effort is only just to show you that this is the area of conflict. All right. All right. We know how difficult it is sometimes to recognize what we're on the planet. I appreciate it. As far as number 11, you're saying it sounds like this has been addressed. Is this something that's resolvable at this point? Yes, sir. According to the conversation we had this morning, they have agreed to move it and remove that conflict. Okay. Very good. I think it would be resolved at this point. I believe resolved would be appropriate. Leave it and so forth. any other questions for Mr. Martin if not applicant anything to add want to say anything no okay all right I've never known Rory to be bashful but that's so I think I'm going to address this question to Rory okay I just can't let you get off easy Rory And the access, I assume, will go through the hospice facility? No. So where will the access for the pump station be? It will be down that neck, but not in the buffer area. We will work it out. We haven't come up with a new location yet. So does that mean altering the detention basin? No, it doesn't mean that either. Okay. So we can put the access in, keep the buffer, and not alter the detention basin? I don't know the engineering of where it will go yet, but they agreed that we need to go ahead and get this ready for the city to take that lot. We would keep it out of the buffer. So they'll have to figure out what works best for them to access it. So I definitely want to keep resolving there. Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. So at this point you're okay with access easement and required buffering? Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? If not, anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Thank you. If there's no other questions, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion and or motion. The motion would need to include, make attention of the finding for the use of access easement. Mr. Chairman, unless there's further discussion, I would move for approval of Plan 2015-37F, changing Note 11 from discussed to resolved, and including an approval for the access easement. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval, making the one noted change and recognizing the use of access easement. The findings, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Discussion? Yes, sir? Yes, sir. This is giving me heartburn. And the reason for it is that where the pump station could have been located and kept the sewer lines inside the urban service boundary was going to cost a whole lot more money because it had to be deeper, if that's what I understand. And so by agreeing to put it where it is, then I would really like for us to be very cognizant of the fact that the location of the trunk lines and the lines outside the urban service boundary, we are going to take that on a face value that is just to serve the ED land and take the four pub stations offline that are on Russell Cave Road down that way. I'm addressing that to you, but you're nodding your head, so I'm assuming that's right. Is that a good assumption? No. I know nothing of what DWQ's goal, plans, or alignment is. I just know they've asked the developer for this location to give them two acres. Okay. Well, then I'm going to vote for this under the assumption that I have that that's what's going to happen. Okay. Thank you. Other discussion? I'll follow up with Mr. Penn being outside the urban service area doesn't happen often but if I'm correct Blue Sky Parkway when it was taken care of recently the trunk line to take care of the Blue Sky problem was in the same situation outside the urban service area and I believe also airport is the same situation whereas capacity is just for those specific needs. So, and Spongebob Research Center. So, just for those specific needs. So, it would be something that we'll watch. Any other discussion? Yes, ma'am. Are we just assuming that then, or do we need to make it a condition? I just don't like assumptions. I like it to be numbered. I don't think it's tied to this at this time. No. I don't think it is. So, any other discussion? If not, we do have a motion and we're seconding for approval, making one noted change to 11, and also recognizing the findings for the access easement. If there's no other discussion, I'll call for a vote. Please vote when it comes up on screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Moving on down the page, Plan 2015-38F Local Enterprise at 4595 Tates Creek Road. You have 12 conditions, and also you'll find a waiver that is before you. And if I understand things right, there's three requested waivers. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, moving on to item C on page 2. It is plan 2015-38F, local enterprises. This, too, is an amended record plat. We are moving, of course, all the way from the north end of our community to the south end of the community. This is an area that is located right on the Jesmond County line. All this area down here is Jesmond County. Here's our county line and the urban service boundary as well. This is Veterans Park located here off of Takes Creek Road. And this is Henderson and then Boca Lane, which intersects with Lauderdale. And Lauderdale extends on over here and now, I believe, extends into Jesmond County. I don't drive out that way very often, but that's my understanding. The proposal is to subdivide this tract into two lots. Lot one, a little over seven acres. Lot two is 1.6 acres. You recently saw and approved a preliminary subdivision plan on this property that showed the street coming in and coming this way with a cul-de-sac. and there was a lot of discussion about the buffer along this border, this lot is restricted to no development until such time as you see a development plan or a preliminary subdivision plan. The applicant has requested several waivers to this property. and the reason for that is primarily that this piece of land is part of a larger parent tract in Jesmond County. In our normal process, when they would like to buy this property, they haven't yet purchased it, so they're creating this plat, so they'll have what in essence is a takedown plat. In our ordinance, generally a takedown plat is a minor plat, and it requires 10 acres. This tract does not meet that, could not meet that requirement in Fayette County. They offered a preliminary subdivision plan for review and approval so you could see how they intended to develop it. In this case, however, they are going to have to have waivers to the subregs in order to utilize this plat as a takedown plat. What they are asking for is a waiver to substantial completion. That's 4-7D1. And then they're also asking for a waiver of the bonding requirements under your subdivision regulations for public improvements. They also are asking for a waiver of the requirement of sanitary sewers. And you've heard this waiver request a little more frequently in these last few years. for this very reason, or particularly with school sites. Again, you've heard that request. They're trying to create a plat. They're required to have sanitary sewer. Public sanitary sewer is our requirement. And it's not the appropriate time for them to do that in this instance. Now, Lot 1 can be sewered. There is an access sanitary sewer easement that would allow Lot 1 to be sewered. In addition, you have seen and approved, and it's been certified, a preliminary subdivision plan. And in the normal development situation, you would have that plan approved, as you have done. They would build the infrastructure and then come back, and you'd see final record plots where they would dedicate that infrastructure and then be able to build on the individual plots, build single-family homes in this case. And that's what they intend to do once they take this piece of ground over and buy it, utilizing this plat. They have also requested a waiver to the access, pardon me, not access, but frontage requirements in Fayette County. That's for a lot, too. That point right there represents frontage along Lauderdale Drive. So technically they have frontage, and legal frontage is measured at the building line in the R3 zone. So they actually do have legal frontage for lot two, as well as lot one, which is right over here off of Henderson. So they really don't need that waiver. And you can see from the waiver requests that we have submitted to you, we are recommending approval of the waivers for the Article IV, substantial completion and bonding. And we're doing that because you have approved a preliminary subdivision plan on this property, and it will not be developed without public infrastructure. So staff is confident that that will be done. We are recommending disapproval of the waiver for the frontage because it's not necessary. And we are also recommending approval of the waiver of the sanitary sewer provisions. Because, again, they're not necessary at this time, and it absolutely was necessary to sewer lot number one in the immediate future. That easement does exist. We are recommending that as a condition of the waiver approvals that they provide access to Lot 2. And we would like to see them provide that access either through Lot 1 or from Lauderdale Drive. The option is theirs. We think this is vital for the very reason, and they're citing a hardship, and that hardship is the jurisdictional divide. And jurisdictionally, that's a wall. But for Fayette County, we need to see that they can provide access for our service providers and emergency vehicles and that sort of thing to these two lots. And that will meet the intent, we believe, of your land subdivision regulations, which is why we are recommending approval of the waivers, as I stated, along with the provision of an access easement to serve these properties. I know that can be a bit confusing when you talk about a lot of different waivers to the regs, but they're all united in the conditions that this is part of a larger tract in Jesmond County, and certainly that is a challenge. It's not unique, but it is a challenge. And the fact that we have a preliminary subdivision plan on Lot 1 and restrictions on Lot 2. What this will do for you in terms of your agenda, if you look at the standard conditions for approval, it will in essence answer by granting the waiver 10, 11, and 12, those three discussion items on your agenda. Mr. Martin, you're saying if the waiver is approved, then 10, 11, and 12 can just simply go away? Yes, sir. Okay. Questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, if I could elaborate, I think also we would suggest adding conditions A and B from the waiver report in lieu of deleting 10, 11, and 12. Okay. That's true. If you notice bill always says to jump in and remind me of that because I always think like that that's but he is absolutely right Other questions So this is the suggestion is that 10 and 11 10 11 12 go away in lieu of adding A and B as 10 and 11 to the conditions And then also Also, their recommendation on the waiver. Mr. Cayley, are you here with this group here? Yeah. Your name's on this. I am. Rory Cayley with the EA Partners on behalf of the applicant. I was real good with everything up until he defined what he meant with item A on the waiver request. When we talked earlier and they said that we had legal frontage on Lauderdale Drive and all we had to do was put a building line on there so that we did not need a waiver, I thought that we were done with that issue and that that would have taken care of item A. In reading that they wanted an access easement across lot 1 to lot 2 or from Lauderdale Drive, that's a bit of a problem. The area between lot 2 and Lauderdale Drive is an established HOA lot for what was Highland Lake Unit 7. And they did not grant access. They also did not provide the sanitary sewer easement. And we actually seeked and got that accepted on one of the single-family private lots out there. Putting the access, lot two is part of the big tract in Jesmond, and it's actually being used by some of that Jesmond County expansion. I don't know that that piece of ground, although it's located in Fayette County, will ever have to be accessed from the Fayette County side. If we were to put anything on lot one to lot two, we'd only want it to be a temporary access just until we came back with the final record plat, dedicating the 23 approved lots, the approved public street system, and we would not want to have that access easement going through those lots to this non-buildable lot too. It's not part of the home development. It has never contemplated that they were going to have to take it. and I think I'd rather have the waiver approved where lot two did not have to have its frontage because it is still a part of Jesmond County as opposed to hindering our lot one with a access easement. I know I wasn't ready for all that. So you're okay with everything else? Yeah. We worked out the waiver. We understood that, you know, the sanitary sewer easement's there. We're going to build for the 23 units. We just got to transfer the property from a very large tract that is mostly in Jesmond to Ballholm so that they could do this seven plus acre allot one site. And we didn't think, we thought that the waiver and then the, not omission, but the acceptance of frontage on Lauderdale with the building line was going to do away with that access need as well. So I'm a little stuck. You're a little stuck. Mr. Penn, any question? Well, I'm not stuck. I'm confused. Okay. If the reason for doing this plat is to be able to buy the property. Yes. And that's why we're not in the normal process of how we would do this. The word takedown doesn't register with me other than wrestling. Transfer plat then. And so if we have to do this plant before we've done all the other things that we have to do, that's a little convoluted from our normal way of doing things. So excuse me for being confused. But the part that I don't understand is are we treating this like a remnant lot? Are we treating this like if it was all in Fayette County and that's what was left? I mean, is that a fair question, Bill? Well, I believe it is, had it been the only piece of ground left of a property only in Fayette County, and we had lotted out all around it, there would be a deed record that you could say, I'm going to buy a parcel known as this deed except for Highland Lake Shoes 7A and B, and you could transfer it that way. But because it is in the farmer's hand who owns this, it's a bigger piece of ground. He has to have a piece of ground in Fayette County he can transfer. And as Tom was saying, normally you don't see the minor plots where we do all this transferring because they're 10 acres or more. We just don't have that much land here. And while Holmes is taking Lot 1, the Jesmond side is using that Lot 2. it sounds like the quandary that we're in you're saying we don't need to provide access to Fayette County property yes Mr. Craig is there anything what's going to happen on the lot that touches Lauderdale is that lot 2 or 1 Lot two is the smaller lot, and it touches Lauderdale at a point. Is it going to stay vacant? No. The plans for it is part of the site-specific agreements between the two counties. There is sewers that are going to come from Jesmond into Fayette. There's some water that's going to be detained from the Jesmond side, held there, and then it will be released appropriately into Fayette. It's not going to have houses on it? No. No, Lot 1 does not have any plans on it that has buildings or development. So you're saying that access to Lot 1 just needs to come in from the Jessamine County side? Yes. Okay. Rory Henderson Drive doesn't provide access? Henderson provides it to the seven acre lot one that we're purchasing and we will continue Henderson it will stub into the Jesmond County line and that's lot one and yes lot to the smaller pieces of item that we are trying not to have access easements encumbered across our development to get to because it's being serviced or being used by the remainder of the property in Jesmond Mr. Martin, do you have any suggestions for compromise? Perhaps a point of clarification that may help. We do these non-billed plats as a minor plat, but they always have access. We never have approved one that didn't have some sort of access or frontage, even though they're not developable per se. And again, our concern is the jurisdictional boundary. And so we believe access to lot two is necessary from Fayette County to meet our requirements and to ensure that access does exist to that lot in Fayette County. Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I might offer for Mr. Lengel perhaps to tell us his department's theory or opinion about this proposal to have a lot that really couldn't be accessed from Fayette County. While he's coming forward, Tom, clarify something for me. The small tract, lot 2, has frontage on Lauderdale Drive, correct? It has frontage. It's a mathematical frontage almost because it's a point. Okay. But it has frontage, and then from that point you measure it. Does it provide access? Yes. Physically, I don't know that there's literally enough room on the ground to provide access. All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. Hello, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. So if I'm understanding this right, there's not going to be any buildings or structures on the big lot. No, the big lot is where the small lot is. Right. It's not. If there's homes, we need access there. But if the other lot that's not going to have structures, I believe we can access through Jesmond County and backtrack. Is that right? I don't know if I'm making any sense. I don't see us needing access for a lot that's not going to have a structure. Okay. Well, that makes sense. Yes, sir. Let me, what is, is there timber on that lot or something like that? Let's say if something caught fire, you had, some person was injured on that particular piece of land, kids playing, I don't know, whatever. How do you get to it? Whose responsibility then would be to get there to service that, Jefferson County or Jessamine County or Fayette County? If it's on Fayette County's side, we'd be called. That's exactly right. And you couldn't get to it. I'd have to go out there and take another look at this lot. because I've been out there. I suspect that this is an HOA lot that stretches through here, and I have no doubt that our fire trucks would probably park right here and they'd come across that HOA lot to get to this lot if they had to put out a brush fire or something like that because I think they're allowed to, obviously. They could, I think, get there in that regard. Of course, our concern is that they meet the subdivision regulations. and provide access. And if they did bring an access easement through here to serve this lot, those things can always be modified and worked with in the future as this property develops, of which we're not sure what the timeline may be. And this may sit here for many, many years. I mean, we just don't know, and we have no jurisdiction over what happens in Jesmond County. So that's the staff's concern and why we recommended the easement. And you're still with your current recommendation? That is our current recommendation, yes. Mr. Martin, is there a note on the plat about lot two? There is, and it is restricted, and I mentioned that it is restricted to no development until such time as a preliminary subdivision plan or development plan is approved by this body. We could, if you like, try to strengthen that note. and state additional conditions governing it if it has no access from Fayette County. Mr. Brewer, question? Tom, so this is obviously complicated, but county lines and other things, but it seems a little bit silly to me to put in access to something for fire reasons when you're not going to need it. I think what you just described was different, though. was coming, your concern was connectivity between the lot that's being developed and the lot that could be developed at some point in the future? Yes. Is that something that we can note now, or is that something we can take care of at a later date so they can move forward, or is this the final time frame? Well, this could be the final time that you review this is part of the issue. The other issue is we have no ability to control how access would come to this from Jessamine County. So we have to be able to have a backup. Should it not be accessed? Should somebody buy it in the future and ask to develop this property? Yes, there is a possibility that access could come across Lauderdale. That's the most logical way. but at least until we know the future of that small lot, it seems prudent to have an access from the larger lot to ensure that we basically don't create a lot that can't be accessed for our Fayette County folks. If there were ever a housing development proposed on the smaller lot, we would want our solid waste people to be able to serve it, regardless of where the public streets were and all. It may be an interim thing, but you also, it's theoretical, you could see a plan for future development of lot two, and that's the real concern. It may not always be a non-developed parcel. Can we put a note on the plat that says it has to be resolved at the time of development that would allow them then to be able to move forward? I believe we could. We have the preliminary subdivision plan. Let's see if this might help. Along that, I'd say it might be a temporary access easement until we came back with the final record plat and that gives a chance for the legal people at my end to work this out. It was my understanding that... Here's Henderson coming into Lot 1 and how it will extend and elbow, as Mr. Cayley mentioned, and there will be extensions into Jesmond County. Of course, from our perspective, this is pure conjecture. Here is Lot 2, future development. And again, you can see just that little point, and they are separated from access. You can see on this elbow, there's a large lot in this location, and there's a smaller, more linear lot similar to these. Now, obviously, an access easement through here may encumber that lot, but it would be in the future. But, again, they have lots. They have a lot of development that could be dealt with when they do develop this. Again, it's just there's so many unknowns on our end of it. We would like to ensure, as Mr. Sally stated, that we have a backup provision. for access to lot number two. I don't think we would be adverse to some sort of temporary easement. Could we do a temporary easement on that one lot and that would allow them then, when they do get the development in from Jessamine County, to be able to release that lot? We could, except, of course, that lot doesn't exist yet. It would have to be platted to exist. This is a preliminary, so they'll need an easement across the entirety of Lot 1 to Lot 2, which could then, of course, be reduced as they develop Lot 1. I mean, it's an evolving process, and it could be something we could deal with as the property develops to ensure access to Lot 2. By that time, they may have a better feeling for what's happening in Jesmond County. Mr. Martin, so did I hear you as far as on the waiver under number A where it says denote access, do you think it can be shown to denote temporary access? I think it should be resolve access so that we can work on the best mechanism and best language to ensure that it will work. Resolve? Both in the public's favor as well as the developer's advantage as well. We certainly would like to craft something that will work for both parties. Mr. Cayley? Agreeable to that? I'm going to blame Rena for not being here with me. I know she's watching. You're going to fly on your own here, Mr. Cayley. I am. We'll blame her also. I kept checking for messages. Well, my hesitance is because they tell me they want to close on this month. That's why we're trying to get it done and move forward. Setting up access easements. Denoted has a temporary access easement on a plan. It allows you to set up a time to have it terminated. and is much cleaner and easier than having an access easement and then having to go through either a release or modifications of the releases. So that's why I was leaning towards a show. On here, we could show a temporary access easement across 1-2-2 and right in there that it would be resolved with the final record plat of our 23 lots. And at that time, we'd either give our guys three months or so to work with it, or we could encumber one of the specific lots there at the end, 22 or 23, with another temporary easement until the site-specific agreements and all that inter-county stuff is worked out. Staff's agreeable to that. You're offering the timber? Well, that's our whole intent, is that we can work this out and resolve it with them with the appropriate timing. Mr. Cayley, you were offering a condition that says temporary access shall be provided to Lot 2 from Lot 1 and resolved at the time of final record plat. Yes. I think it would be. Are we talking about a final? This is a final record plat. so it would be an amended final record of lot one. It would be what? Amended? Yes. Amended final record plat of lot one. And you're okay with the other recommendations? Yes, the rest of the waiver is being granted. Works out great. Okay. The thought is we've had discussion of 10, 11, and 12. We have a new number 10 that would read temporary access shall be provided to lot 2 from lot 1 and resolved at the time of amended final record plat of lot 1. That's new number 10. New number 11 would be to note building line parentheses 20 feet minimum from Lauderdale Drive on lot 2. So moved. Second. I'm glad Mr. Brewer made that motion. Motion has been made for approval of Plan 2015-38F, Local Enterprises. and seconded with the two revised conditions. Any discussion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. We'll move on to... Mr. Chairman. We'll move on to... Hang on a second. I think the commission might want to also vote on the waiver. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Alternative language of the waiver at all? There's no alternative language to the waiver. I don't, should we, A should be? I think with what the commission's done, the changes to A are already taken care of. Okay. So you want me to eliminate A? I think it's immaterial whether you leave A and B in. I think the important thing are both findings, one and two, for approval and disapproval. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I may move for approval based on the findings of staff of the waivers for Plan 2015-38F. As recommended by staff. Yep. Yep, as recommended by staff. The motion has been made and seconded for approval of the waiver plan 2015-38L for local enterprises as recommended by the staff. Seconded by Ms. Plumlee. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you for catching that. That motion passes. So, now, move on to, I believe, we can move to page 5. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. It's Brookhaven Subdivision, DP 2015-32. as they're setting up. I would like to welcome Ms. Brewer in the back. And now you can say that, yeah, you really do realize that your dad does something here. Welcome. Be cautious of Ms. Cocker sitting back there. Yes, ma'am. Okay. She's going to run away. Okay, we're looking at the final development plan, DP 2015-32, for Brookhaven Subdivision. This is located off of Nicholasville Road between the Malibu and the Surfside. We have the Rite Aid building up at the front and the corner. They're coming in for a redevelopment of this property to put in restaurants, retail, and a hotel on the property. With the committee review of the plan, they recommend approval with the first nine conditions as sign-offs from different governmental agencies. We have a couple clean-up conditions, 10, 11, 12. And condition number 13, it says discuss resolution of stormwater detention. We've had several emails back and forth with engineering water quality, and this is a redevelopment of the property. So at this time we believe that we can delete that condition because this is going to have to fall under the redevelopment guidelines of the engineering manuals to be able to be developed. So all that will be looked at at that time. Any questions? Questions? Yes. I would be remiss if I didn't ask you where's Rafferty's going. As soon as I find out, I'll let you know. The $1 million questions. Any other questions? Applicant, anything to add? No, it's been a very long and interesting day, though, I have to say. Oh, I'm sure. I'm Chris Westover for the developer, and we agree with the staff's recommendation, including removing condition number 13. We have checked, and there is documentation that there are no known downstream problems, and we have that documentation here. So, yes, we would ask you to approve it as laid out by Cheryl. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak on this plan? If not, any questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair. Yes. Move approval of DP 2015-32, removing number 13. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of DP 2015-32, Brookhaven's subdivision, with now the 12 conditions as shown. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. down at the bottom of the page, DP 2005-20, NDC Property Unit 4, Section 1, Law A. This is a reapproval. It has been heard due to the age. Maybe I should say it's been presented due to the age. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, as stated, this is plan, or excuse me, I'm sorry, DP 2005-20, the NDC property, Unit 4, Section 1, Unit 1, is final development plan for the property located at 525 Wellington Way. You can see here's Wellington Way. Further out, we have Clay's Mill Road. Up here's New Circle. Right here is the dog park over there, the Wellington Dog Park. Out this way, you have your roundabout, Myers. Further out is Nicholasville. The proposal is to develop as a professional office park with the seven buildings that you can see. As currently, only two have been constructed. it. The Planning Commission approved the plan in the February 10, 2005 meeting based on the 13 conditions you see listed on your agenda. The Commission's secretary certified the plan on July 8, 2005, meeting all 13 of the conditions. However, Article 21-4F of the zoning ordinance states that no further building permits can be issued until Planning Commission reapproves the plan. The applicant now is requesting reapproval of that plan. Staff has recommended reapproval based on three additional conditions you see here. Just the approval of the addresses for the E-9111 staff, the addition of a second commissioner certification to the plan, and then documentation from the Division of Water Quality for the Capacity insurance program. I'll take any questions or comments. Any questions? Can I have anything to add? Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, my name is Gene Alexander. I'm here on behalf of Banks Engineering and for this item we agree with conditions and request approval. Okay, thank you. And I believe As you can see on page 6, there are three additional conditions due to the age of this. So, any questions? If not, yes, sir, nothing? If not, I'll entertain a motion for reapproval. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move for reapproval of DP 2005-20 NDC Property Unit 4, Section 1, with the 13 conditions noted by staff, and then including the four conditions that are required for reapproval. Three. Three. I'm sorry. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded for reapproval of DP 2005-20. please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes thank you thank you that concludes items on the agenda any commission items for today any staff items Mr. Chairman just a reminder to the commission that you do have a work session scheduled for next Thursday afternoon at 1.30 thank you sir any audience items if not thank you folks I'll entertain a motion for adjournment Move adjourned. Second. And second. Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. We are adjourned. Thank you.