# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - July 23, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 23, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3724 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3724?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-07-23 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 23,537 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on July 23, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting. The Commission addressed seven agenda items during the session. The meeting began with a call to order and approval of minutes, followed by consideration of postponements and withdrawals. The Commission then reviewed and approved land subdivision items and zoning items. Commission items and staff items were also addressed, with staff items presented for informational purposes. Overall, the Commission took seven motions and votes and heard five public comments during the meeting. ## Attendance **Present:** Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Carolyn Richardson, Joseph Smith, William Wilson **Absent:** Patrick Brewer, Carolyn Plumlee **Late:** None reported ## Votes and Decisions **MARV 2015-8: Dr. Michael Gentry Zoning Map Amendment & Cadentown Subdivision Zoning Development Plan** [timestamp: 00:12:20] Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Karen Mundy. Outcome: Postponed. Voice vote. **MAR 2015-11: Lex Properties, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment & Winding Creek at Monticello Zoning Development Plan** [timestamp: 00:13:29] Motion by Karen Mundy, seconded by Joseph Smith. Outcome: Postponed. Voice vote. **PLAN 2015-64F: The Grange Estates (Lots 8, 10, 12 & 17) (AMD)** [timestamp: 00:18:52] Motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Outcome: Passed. Voice vote with all nine members voting in favor. Conditions of approval: - Urban County Engineer's acceptance of drainage, storm and sanitary sewers - Urban County Traffic Engineer's approval of street cross-sections and access - Addressing Office's approval of street names and addresses - Addition of private street and access maintenance note - Denote date of review by Paris Pike Corridor Commission on plat - Denote building, development, maintenance and use restrictions for HOA lot (Lot 17) - Correct Owner's Certification - Review by Technical Committee prior to plan certification **MAR 2015-10: North Forty Properties, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment & Clark Property, Unit 4, Zoning Development Plan** [timestamp: 02:04:28] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Outcome: Passed. Voice vote with all nine members voting in favor. **ZDP 2015-52: Clark Property, Unit 4** [timestamp: 02:10:10] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Outcome: Passed. Voice vote with all nine members voting in favor. **ZODA 2015-6: Amendment to Article 17: Construction Screening Signage & Identification Signs in Business & Industrial Zones** [timestamp: 02:45:24] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Outcome: Passed. Voice vote with all nine members voting in favor. **PFR 2015-5: UK Healthcare – Good Samaritan Hospital – Public Facility Review** [timestamp: 02:53:09] Motion by Karen Mundy, seconded by Joseph Smith. Outcome: Passed. Voice vote with all nine members voting in favor. ## Public Comment Five residents spoke during the public comment period, all expressing opposition to the MAR 2015-10 rezoning proposal. **Marsha Stanhope**, Vice President of the Greenbrier Residents Association, requested a postponement of the rezoning decision [timestamp: 01:03:44]. She asked for additional time to allow the association to study the plan and understand its full implications before proceeding to a vote. **Elizabeth Booth** raised concerns about the rezoning's impact on neighborhood buffers [timestamp: 01:05:17]. She argued that the proposal would destroy the buffer between agricultural land and residential development, and stated that approving it would set a harmful precedent that violates the intent of the Expansion Area Master Plan. **Brandon Jacobs**, a homeowner, expressed concerns about encroachment on his property [timestamp: 01:15:18]. He stated that the proposed development would encroach on his private backyard and disrupt the green space he was promised when he purchased his home. **Dave Booth** challenged the developer's density averaging claims [timestamp: 01:17:37]. He argued that approving the rezoning would set a precedent allowing other adjacent properties to request similar zoning changes. **Susan Enloe**, a resident of Greenbrier Subdivision, opposed the rezoning on multiple grounds [timestamp: 01:55:39]. She cited lack of notice to affected residents, concerns about increased density, and potential negative impacts on neighborhood character. She requested postponement to allow affected neighbors adequate time to review the plan. Common themes among the speakers included concerns about inadequate notice and review time, impacts on neighborhood character and green space, precedent-setting implications, and requests for postponement of the decision. ## Contested Items **MAR 2015-10: North Forty Properties, LLC Zoning Map Amendment** This proposal to amend the zoning map faced significant community opposition. Residents from Greenbrier Subdivision and surrounding areas objected to the rezoning, citing multiple concerns. Their primary objections centered on the potential for increased density in the area, the lack of adequate notice to affected residents, and worry that approval would set a precedent affecting agricultural land buffers in the region. **ZODA 2015-6: Signage Amendment** This item involved a disagreement over the permitted size of identification signs. The applicant requested approval for signs measuring 100 square feet, while staff recommended a smaller alternative of 75 square feet. The disagreement reflected differing views on appropriate signage dimensions for the proposed use. The staff recommendation for 75 square feet was ultimately approved. ## Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber [timestamp: 00:00]. Mike Owens presided over the session. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:10:18] A motion was made to approve the minutes from three previous meetings held on May 14, June 25, and July 9, 2015. Mike Cravens made the motion, and Carolyn Richardson seconded it. The motion passed unanimously. ## Postponements and Withdrawals Two items were postponed during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:11:02]. **Items Postponed:** - MARV 2015-8 - MAR 2015-11 **Reason for Postponement:** Attorney Dick Murphy requested the postponement of both items due to pending property transactions and environmental studies that require additional time to complete. **Outcome:** Both items were deferred. ## Land Subdivision Items The Subdivision Committee presented a recommendation for approval of PLAN 2015-64F [timestamp: 00:14:00]. Tom Martin and Rory Kahly were the key speakers on this item. The committee recommended approval of the plan subject to eight conditions. These conditions included a requirement for review by the Technical Committee and notation of the Paris Pike Corridor Commission's review date. The item was approved. ## Zoning Items The Zoning Committee reviewed three zoning map amendments during this portion of the meeting. [timestamp: 00:19:27] **Amendments Reviewed** The committee considered the following zoning map amendments: - MAR 2015-10 - MAR 2015-11 - MARV 2015-8 **Outcomes** MAR 2015-10 was approved with conditions. The other two amendments—MAR 2015-11 and MARV 2015-8—were postponed. **Key Participants** Traci Wade and Dick Murphy were the primary speakers during the zoning items discussion. ## Commission Items During this agenda item, the commission reviewed PFR 2015-5 concerning UK Healthcare's Good Samaritan Hospital expansion project. [timestamp: 02:46:25] Barbara Rackers and John Hunt presented the matter to the commission. The review determined that the proposed expansion was in compliance with both the Comprehensive Plan and Destination 2040. The commission approved the item. ## Staff Items [timestamp: 00:07:13] Staff provided an informational update on ongoing planning activities and administrative matters. Chris King and Traci Wade reported on several operational areas. **Planning Activities** Staff reported on the processing of zoning applications, subdivision plans, and public facility reviews. These routine planning functions represent the core workload of the department during the reporting period. **Upcoming Work Sessions** The staff update included discussion of upcoming work sessions, indicating planned meetings to address specific planning or administrative topics. **Software Implementation** Staff also discussed the implementation of new software, suggesting ongoing efforts to modernize departmental operations and systems. **Outcome** This agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal action or decision required. The update provided the governing body with visibility into staff activities and upcoming initiatives. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed: Approval of MARV 2015-8: Dr. Michael Gentry Zoning Map Amendment & Cadentown Subdivision Zoning Development Plan - **Motion** — postponed: Approval of MAR 2015-11: Lex Properties, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment & Winding Creek at Monticello Zoning Development Plan - **Motion** — passed: Approval of PLAN 2015-64F: The Grange Estates (Lots 8, 10, 12 & 17) (AMD) - **Motion** — passed: Approval of MAR 2015-10: North Forty Properties, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment & Clark Property, Unit 4, Zoning Development Plan - **Motion** — passed: Approval of ZDP 2015-52: Clark Property, Unit 4 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of ZODA 2015-6: Amendment to Article 17: Construction Screening Signage & Identification Signs in Business & Industrial Zones - **Motion** — passed: Approval of PFR 2015-5: UK Healthcare – Good Samaritan Hospital – Public Facility Review --- ## Full transcript Thank you. But I'll just keep chasing havens, even if it leads away. Or would it be a way, even if I knew my head? Should I leave it there? Should I give up, or should I... ...doubt a thing, say some vows, spread their wings, Settle down just what they need Living on love She don't care about what's in style She just likes away smiles It takes more than marble and tile Living on love Living on love Buying on time without somebody Nothing ain't worth a dime Just like an old-fashioned storybook rhyme Living on love It sounds simple That's what you're thinking Love can walk through fire without blinking It doesn't take much when you get enough Living on love Thank you. Two old people without a thing Children gone but still they sing Side by side in that front porch swing Living on love He can't sue anymore She can barely sweep the floor Hand in hand they'll walk through that door Just living on love Living on love Buying on time Without somebody Nothing ain't worth a dime Just like an old-fashioned storybook Right? Living on love It sounds simple That's what you're thinking But love can walk through fire without blinking And it doesn't take much when you get loved Living on love You're living on love Buying on time without somebody Nothing ain't worth a dime Just like an old-fashioned storybook around Living on love It sounds simple That's what you're thinking But love can walk through fire Without blinking And it doesn't take much When you get enough Living on love No, it doesn't take much When you get enough Living on love I'm sorry. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Ladies and gentlemen, if everyone take their seats, we'll get started. Good afternoon. I will call this meeting to order. It is July 23rd, 2015. first on the agenda would be approval of minutes from may 14 2015 june 25th and july 9 2015 i have not heard of any corrections or changes if there are any uh please let it be known now mr chairman yes sir i'm going to move approval of the minutes for may 14th and june 25th and july I second. Thank you. Motion's been made in a second. And for approval of those minutes, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Next would be any postponements or withdrawal requests from today's agenda. good afternoon mr. Murphy good afternoon mr. chairman I'm Dick Murphy on page one item one dr. Michael Gentry zoning map amendment in Cadentown subdivision zoning development plan that's MARV 2015 5 excuse me 2015 8 I represent the applicant dr. Michael Gentry and we have just in the last few days got in some very serious discussions about purchasing the next door property and another transaction and like it always happens they don't get serious until two days before the meeting but we're going to request a one month postponement to try to work that out and and bring an amended plan back to you on august 27th thank you mr murphy um anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement commission members not i'll entertain a motion mr chairman i move for one month postponement mar 2015-8 to the august 20 whatever it is 27th yes motion has been made and seconded for postponement of marv 2015-8 dr dr michael gentry until august 27th please vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes thank you sir yes sir thank you mr chairman also on page four item three lex properties llc zoning map amendment and winding creek at monticello zoning development plan that's mar 2015-11 i represent the applicant on that and as reported in the newspaper yesterday. We are obtaining some sampling, and those results cannot be back today, so we're requesting a postponement to your August meeting as well on that one. Is that August 27th? 27th. Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of NAR, MAR 2015-11 Lex Properties until August 27th, 15 meeting. Motion's been made and seconded for the postponement of MARV 2015-11 Lex Properties, LLC until August the 27th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, sir. Any others? No? Okay. Any others from the audience? Any, any, Tom Martin, do you have anything? Not today. Okay. We have limited items left, therefore we'll just take it as they come. First would be page one. It's plan 2015-64F, the Grange Estates. Probably located 501, 601, and 651, the Grange Lane. Good afternoon, Mr. Martin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. The first item on your agenda is the Grange Estates, Slots 8, 10, and 12, and 17. This is property located out on the Grange Lane. This is property located out on the Grange Lane. It's off of the various parking lot. It's close to the treatment site. Tom, microphone? I don't think it's on. No? All right. There we go. There we go. Again, the LaGrange Lane is a private drive off of Parris Pike, serving a 10-acre rural subdivision. In this particular instance, they are reconfiguring three lots. And it's a little unusual in the sense that they're reconfiguring these lots in order to create an HLA lot, which will function as access to the property here. I'm sure the applicant can elaborate, but there's been an arrangement over the years that has allowed movement from the training center into this subdivision area. The plan was recommended for postponement so that staff could present it to the Paris Pike Committee, which is an intergovernmental committee that is informed and asked to review developments that fall within the Paris Pike corridor. The plan has been reviewed by staff, and we can recommend approval of that plan now subject to the conditions that you see on your agenda. They're very basic. Again, this is a very limited plat in what it's trying to accomplish, but just creating this little HOA. It's an access easement by another name is what it is, an HOA lot. And again, we have engineering, traffic addressing, private street and access maintenance notes. Again, denote the date of review by the Parris Pike Corridor Commission on the plat, along with building development, maintenance, and use restrictions for the HOA lot. And then just to correct the owner certification, very basic conditions. So with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, before you hear from the applicant, I would like to elaborate on condition number five. The corridor commission did meet on Monday, July the 13th, and that commission did vote to recommend approval of this plat to you. Thank you. Should we include that date in this? We would ask that condition number five just remain, and then there will be a small note added to this plat just referencing that date. It will be added to the plat. Anybody that might ever do research. Okay, thank you. Applicant, anything to add? Good afternoon. Hello, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Rory Cayley. On behalf of EA Partners, we have read the eight conditions and are in agreement. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Cayley? Nope. Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, and if there's no questions from the Commission, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, make a recommendation of approval of Plan 2015-64F with the eight noted conditions. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2054-64F, the Grange Estates. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Next, we move on to page 3, North 40 Properties, LLC. It's a zoning map amendment and Clark Property Unit 4, Zoning Development Plan, MAR 2015-10, North 40 Properties. you do have a revision that's on a light purple sheet of paper as well as the EAMP compliance report before you. good afternoon miss wade good afternoon chairman owens members of the commission our first zoning item today is mar 2015-10 and it's a request by north 40 properties llc they're asking to rezone property with an address of 1551 Deer Haven Road a portion of that to from an expansion area residential one zone to the expansion area residential two zone in terms of the location of the property it's situated on the east side of Polo Club Boulevard and Polo Club is one of our established boulevards within the expansion area master plan and expansion area land in general so it lies to the east of polo club it lies to the north of the brighton trail as well as the formerly king property which is proposed as a neighborhood park in the expansion area and it also borders the blackford property with an extension of blackford parkway through that parcel expected to continue through the subject parcel in addition other roadways in the area here's deer haven lane to the southeast which has a cul-de-sac or interdiction to the south southeast of the subject property and then walnut grove lane exists also and terminates in the cul-de-sac to the more to the east of the subject property for reference interstate i-75 us further to the east here so we are outside the interstate in this location and man-o-war Boulevard is off of our map to the north the subject property is has been presented as unit 4 of the Clark property it was originally rezoned just double-check my notes I did not make that note in the I believe in the late and early 90s excuse me it would have been after the expansion master plan late 90s to the existing configuration the existing configuration of ea r1 and ea r2 zoning did match the expansion area master plan that was approved in 1996 the proposal at this time is to rezone the property in order to provide for kind of a more of a shared density or average density across the entire Clark property. Unit 4 of the Clark property is proposed to be developed in a similar pattern to units 1 through 3, which are in existence to the north and east, or excuse me, west of the subject property. Those units all contain single-family residential dwelling units with property lots approximately 40 feet wide. Unit 4 is currently split zoned with 47 acres in the EAR1 zone and approximately 25 acres in the EAR2 zone. The difference between those two zones, EAR1 allows a density of 0 to 3 dwelling units per gross acre, but the EAR2 allows twice that density, between 3 and 6 dwelling units per acre. the applicant is requesting that the ea are one portion of unit four the 47 acres be rezoned to allow the higher density the article 23a of the zoning ordinance does permit density clustering of lands that are all part of one single development plan but they also have to be in the same ownership in the same zone and in the same expansion area in this case they meet three of the four criteria, but because they're in different zones, they cannot average across the zone line. The applicant would like to continue this same development pattern from the rest of their property by utilizing the zone change in order to change the density calculation or permissions for this part of their property. The 2013 comprehensive plan, actually before we get to that, I'll just show you a few photos of the parcel. It's currently vacant in agricultural use. You can see from our aerial photographs a few years ago, just open green space and trees. The little notch at the bottom south side here is the King property, which will become the neighborhood park. You can see on the aerial photograph the interdiction of the two roads. And then this is the trail, Brighton Trail, that runs along the south side of the property. Again, just an aerial from a slightly different perspective. The Blackford Parkway is labeled there. It is constructed for the most part. Actually, it is all the way constructed to the subject property's edge, and then it's planned to be continued through the subject property. This is just a view of the subject property from Polo Club Boulevard. We posted our signs. This is a view along the Brighton Trail. adjacent to the subject property on the south. And then looking across Polo Club where that Brighton Trail crosses Polo Club. And then a view of Polo Club Boulevard from the subject property toward the north. This is the location where Blackford Parkway will intersect, that stub is already, or curb cut is already cut into Polo Club there. And then looking the other direction to the south from a long polo club so the comprehensive plan as the planning commission knows is really geared more towards themes goals and objectives currently than land a land use map but the 1996 comprehensive plan or excuse me 1996 expansion area master plan does remain in effect especially especially since article 23 of the zoning ordinance refers back to it and identifies the need for compliance with the expansion area master plan. In this case, the subject property is located in expansion area 2A of the master plan, and the entire Clark property was proposed through that plan for a density of between 403 and 953 dwelling units. More specifically, this piece of the Clark property would have been, or unit 4, excuse me. so the piece a little bit to the north as well, would have been recommended for between 77 and 300 dwelling units. The applicant now proposes to average that density across all of the Clark property, but stay within the overall density cap of 953 dwelling units for the Clark property established by the expansionary master plan. So the Clark property, as proposed with this plan and including units one through three, is proposed to have 879 dwelling units. And that leaves a balance of 74 dwelling units, given the expansion area master plan recommendation. Besides the density recommendation for residential development, there were also other facility recommendations from the expansion area master plan. one being a proposed park road which is blackford parkway and again i'll note blackford parkway is built on the blackford property and this will be the last piece that would connect that so that's was planned through the expansionary master plan for this piece and then polo club boulevard was a proposed boulevard and that was also planned at the time and that piece has been built so they've already met that requirement from the expansionary master plan. And then the third thing was that there be a conservation area, and that also has been met through LFUCG's purchase of the King property for a park in this area. The greenway on the development plan, they are also continuing to incorporate a greenway into their development plan, which will connect from the park location south into the Blackford property in their greenway so the staff has concluded that the petitioner's plan does meet the critical elements and principles of the expansion area master plan based on five facts first there's no density increase beyond levels originally proposed by the expansion area master plan second the Park Road will be constructed through this property and serve the area's needs and and connect to Polo Club Boulevard. Third, the greenway system will be extended through the subject property to cross Blackford Parkway and provide linkages to the neighborhood park. Fourth, the shift in zoning to the southeast will mirror the shifted location of Blackford Parkway, which occurred on the Blackford property. And then fifth, the increased EAR2 zoning and land area will have no effect on what the expansion area identified as flexibility of housing types because both zones permit the same types of housing for these reasons the staff is recommending approval of the proposed rezoning and findings are listed both on your agenda and our staff report for this application be happy to answer any questions Questions for Ms. Wade? Nope. Not at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, The development plan that you see before you associated with this zone change is on page four of your agenda. This is ZDP 2015-52, Clark Property, Unit 4. You have a lavender, light purple, lilac sheet that has been handed out to you with revised conditions. the again here is the proposed plan for the property you can see polo club at this location here is blackford parkway which will extend through the property tying in to polo club The park, along with the rails to trail in this location here, developed Blackford property, developed Clark property in these locations. And, of course, this is the large part of the Greenway area in this location. This is the second revised plan that planning staff has received from the applicant. We had a couple of meetings with them to address staff concerns. They have addressed those concerns. and it's why you have a purple sheet to review with revised conditions. You can see that they are offering medians in Blackford Parkway. That is a new element, has not been introduced or used in other parts of Blackford, unlike our other larger and wider collectors in the area. Polo Club, of course, extends all the way now to Winchester Road. Eventually, at this location, it will extend to Todd's Road. Blackford was originally known as the Park Road, and it will extend around, once this section is constructed, all the way around to Manowar, and eventually it is shown on the Hamburg East property as well. So in the future, you may very well see that. You can see from your sheet that we have some standard requirements. for approval of the plan. There are several small items that staff would like to have cleaned up that remain on the plan. We'd like to increase the frontage on the park in this location. They need to remove their entrance details or signs from the plan. And then we need a median cut. We like the median. Staff was very pleased with that design element. But in order to provide good and safe access into the park, we'd like to see an opening in the median. Several of the issues that this plan resolved early on, as you know, staff likes its connectivity. And we were concerned with a very long cul-de-sac in this area on the original plan. You can see that the applicant has created a loop street in this location. This particular street layout, obviously with the greenway, this cul-de-sac works well here. With the park, this one does too, but this is a well-connected, nice street layout here. And then again, with the park and the development of the property, they have a loop system here with a small cul-de-sac in this location. This particular coal sack, again, this property being constrained by the Greenway, staff worked with the applicant, and they have reversed this street so that now it originally was backing up to the neighbors here with a very long, difficult own homeowners association lot. staff was concerned about that and the applicant did agree to flip that so now we've got single family home backyards with a tpa against single family home backyards so these were some of the major items the staff was concerned about that the applicant has addressed with this revision we have some you can see some lots that are rather deep some are oddly configured some of those are are related to a cul-de-sac, but early on we asked them about some of these lots. And one of the issues that we've had and applicants and developers have had in the expansion area and in this area has been conflicts between the trees and utilities. This provides a lot of room to accommodate both of those goals. You need a utility easement, and again, the trees can be protected. So that's one of the items and one of the reasons you see some of the lot sizes that you do see. They are proposing on these 72 acres, 356 buildable lots. There's over 14 acres in the street right-of-way and roughly eight acres in that greenway. Now, one of the items on your agenda is, of course, that the Planning Commission has to make a finding that this plan is in compliance with the AMP. And Ms. Wade covered some of those elements very well in her presentation. You have a report before you on the AMP compliance. In terms of the future land use, as previously stated, this is a single-family development in an area that was recommended for single-family low-density, I should say, development by the expansion area plan, which they are proposing. The community design element, again, they have good connectivity. There are sidewalks proposed. There's a bike lane on Polo. There's good connectivity to the rest of the existing neighborhoods in the area. When Blackford is constructed, it'll be the final piece in this particular area, providing excellent connectivity throughout this area to shopping and other areas that have been developed in this part of our community. The Greenway provides a very strong central design element with a good orientation to that. With the neighborhood, it is a very distinct and well-defined neighborhood, and that is something that, of course, is encouraged by the AMP. The infrastructure element of your AMP is, of course, It addresses sanitary sewer, stormwater facilities, and your road system. The sanitary sewers are in place for this area. The stormwater facilities, of course, again, the greenway is part of the stormwater system in the AMP. There are no required engineered facilities, constructed facilities in this part of the AMP. They're all further downstream. There's no wetlands. There's no detention as part of that regional system required. You're at the head of the watershed up here in this particular location. And as we have stated before in terms of road infrastructure, this piece of the Blackford Parkway will be constructed with its development and therefore complete that required element of your EAMP. So with that, staff has submitted a report to you. And we are recommending that you find that this plan is in substantial compliance with the AMP, both for future land use, infrastructure, and community design. If you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, just one, with number 11 on the revision, you were talking about a median break for vehicular access. Am I to presume there's parking going to be allowed in the park? I believe that the Parks Department would certainly like that option to exist. All right. Very good. Just wanted to make sure. I didn't think there'd be vehicles on the trail itself. Very good. Any other questions? No. Applicant? Thank you, Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a small handout here. Rory's going to hand that out. Now, of course, I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing the applicant, North 40 Properties. And as you all probably know, North 40 Properties is owned by the Clark family. Marion Clark is with me today on the second row who's the general manager of North 40 properties Ralph Rochelle is the development manager of course you know Rory from EA partners our designer along with Al Gross and Chaz Height planner is in the back along with my law partner Chris Clendenin in this zone change we're requesting a change from the EAR 1 zone to the EAR 2 zone for about 47 acres and our development plan shows more than we're asking for the development plan shows a larger tract of land the dividing line currently from between the ear1 and ear2 goes somewhere down here this area is already zoned ear2 but because it's contiguous we just showed it all on the same development plan the the other thing i wanted to point out that even though we have an address on Deerhaven Lane, we do not touch Deerhaven Lane. We have no frontage on Deerhaven Lane. This is part of a remnant of a farm that used to have frontage on Deerhaven Lane, but it no longer does. So our frontage is on Polo Club Boulevard right now, which is right down here. And we will also have frontage on the Blackford Parkway, which all we're showing is not yet constructed, but it is constructed down to this point through the Blackford property, which Ball Homes is developing. It stops right here, so we'll have frontage on Blackford Parkway, and we'll also have pedestrian frontage on the rail trail, which is a very popular feature out here. And as you all know, the Clark family has been developing this property for about 15 years in a very orderly, well-planned method. The family built mile, mile-and-a-half Polo Club Boulevard well before they needed to to get the connectivity out here. They donated or they dedicated their interest in the rail trail out here, and they made a partial gift of the land for the new elementary school out there. So they've been very, very careful and very conscientious about how they've developed the property. This has a good range of residents in it. We have people who are buying their first house. We have people buying their second house. We have downsizers buying their fifth house out here. We have people who really like the access to the interstate highways. If they're in marketing and they need to travel the state, this is a very popular area for them. We have people who enjoy the access to Hamburg, and we have a lot of people who enjoy the access to the rail trail feature and the other pedestrian features. That's a very, very popular feature out here. And this is one of the few subdivisions in Lexington that sells lots to independent builders. North 40 doesn't build houses. It sells lots to independent builders, and a lot of places, independent builders can't buy lots anymore. So it's important for the economic health of the building industry and here in Fayette County as well. Just to give you some background on this, in 2003, we had the zone change on this property, which zoned it EAR2 and EAR1. At that time, the dividing line between the two was where the park road came in, which is now Blackford Parkway. At that time, the park road was supposed to come in back here, and the adjacent developer to us to the north shifted it over. Our zone line, of course, wasn't shifted over, but that was supposed to be the boundary. Our lot sizes are compatible with the, through here, the lot sizes on the other side of the boundary on the Blackford property, which is developing next to us. For instance, on this property up here, we are going to have 40-foot average lots. The lots up on this road, Bay Springs Drive, median frontage on those lots is 40-foot lots as well. The median is 40, the mean is 43, our median will be 40, and our mean will probably be larger than that too to reduce some variance in sizes on lots. the we are doing this because when this was zoned ear2 back 10 years ago we were given a range of densities that we were trying to meet as you know in the in the expansion area you have unlike other areas we have a a minimum density we're supposed to build and a maximum density we're supposed to build in the other areas of the community we don't have a minimum density but in the expansion area we're supposed to be meeting and be a meeting a minimum density and as miss wade mentioned to you 12 years ago our maximum density was established as 953 units on this property that we're coming in today the by doing this zone change i want to emphasize we are not increasing that number at all not by a single unit we are still going to be under the maximum density which was proposed for this property in 2003 the reason we're asking for it is that the EAR two part which which does continue up this way there's more in this area which has been developed we have been coming in below our proposed density and the bulk of that reason is because most of our green ways like this one we have more over to the west most of our greenways on the Clark property are located in the EAR2 area so by having those greenways taken out our density on the EAR2 has gone down so we're going below what our target density was what we're trying to do here when with this issue first came up I thought well no problem we can probably average these densities like we do in other parts of the community. But in the expansion area regulations, they do not allow averaging between EAR1 and EAR2 and EAR3. So to accomplish the averaging, we need to get the zone change here, which will allow us to build units over here so that we maintain the density we originally planned. And like I said, we're not increasing the density on this Clark property north of the railroad tracks, which was the unit that was counted back in 2003 at all, not by a single unit. The types of units we will be building are similar to what's already out there right now. We feel we're accomplishing the goal that was set by the Expansion Area Master Plan and the comprehensive plan in meeting minimum density requirements in the expansion area, and that was one of the key reasons why the decision was made a few years ago not to expand the urban service area, I think, through the last two comprehensive plan revisions, is because they are counting on us building a certain amount of density here. We could accomplish that by two ways. we could we can rezone this as we're requesting to ear2 to allow us to spread our density out a little bit more another way would be to build apartments or multi-family housing we felt like in our experience in in receiving feedback from our neighbors that it would be much better for us to continue to do single family detached housing on this property as i said we have a niche which supplies lots to independent builders we think that's important for this community there is multi-family housing up here available in this area so it's there is it is available and we didn't see the need for additional multi-family in this area so we proposed to do the single-family detached residential i handed out to you the comprehensive plan excerpts i'm not going to read those to you i don't need to put you to sleep any more than i already am and but i do want to point out as miss wade said we do agree with the principles of the expansionary master plan we do agree with the goals and objectives of the 2013 comprehensive plan and i'll just quote the last one on my list to your objective e1b encourage compact contiguous and or mixed-use sustainable development within the urban service area as guided by market demand to accommodate future growth needs and that's what exactly what we're doing on this property we think we've been accomplishing that for this community exactly as as proposed wanna so i'm like i said i'm not going to read that but i just want make the point that we do agree with the comprehensive plan. I want to talk about the development plan issues just a little bit. We had a number of meetings with the staff that went well. I would like to say we compromised on a lot of issues, but we actually didn't. We just ended up doing whatever the staff wanted us to do on these things. And so we revised our plan. It took us two or three meetings to be convinced to change it the way the staff wanted us to, but staff went through those meetings and was patient with us and we've we've complied with what they requested the the major changes from the ones you may have seen at the subcommittee reviews are just a couple here we had increased the frontage along there the park to make the accessibility into the park easier we'd widened our access point to the rails trails right there we have three one two three on their access points we um i can't even remember a couple what we did here we we we moved this we had a cul-de-sac down here which we like because people like to buy cul-de-sac lots but the staff showed us that they really wanted the through street there so we got a three street here up here we had the road up along our boundary line because we had people backing up into the greenway which we think was desirable but they felt it was more in compliance with the comp plan to do the road this way so we flipped that road to the south the there were a couple new things on the staff report today i think we're agreeable to those i would say that we do want to do an entrance feature right there i think what the staff is saying is that we've got it on the right of way and we're not supposed to have it there which we understand on that so we do want a reserves right to have an entrance feature maybe not on the right of way and the other thing that's different and you all saw it i think at the subdivision committee is blackford parkway blackford parkway from this point on as i said is constructed up to its intersection with man of war boulevard and at the suggestion of al and rory this part of blackford is basically a collector street pavement curb sidewalk this one we've thought would be better looking more aesthetically pleasing and be a good traffic calming feature to put the median in so you can see we curve the road through here which is sort of a traffic calming feature itself and having the median in there gives the appearance of having a narrower traffic way and operates as a traffic calming feature as well in addition to be a very very nice aesthetic feature in the property we think this would be a a very beautiful entrance into this portion of the subdivision. So that is something I do want to point out. That is something that we are doing that is over and above what's required. It was not requested by the staff. It was proposed by us, and staff, I think, agreed that that would be a real good idea. So with that, I think I can say we're in agreement with the staff recommendations on the development plan. and in conclusion I know there's some people here want to state their opinions on the property and I'd like to be able to respond to anything they do bring up but I think that we're doing as I said development out here this is something it's you have to when we first started out you had to really know where it was to find it but i think probably most of you all have seen this now and we think as i said we're doing exactly the way the expansion area master plan calls for out here i think we're and this has taken some education of developers and builders over the years because we are building houses on smaller lots out here as called for in the expansion area it's it's called for more creativity on the part of developers and i think the clark family has responded and supplied that the the what we've done with the rails trail i know the city built it but it was after a lot of discussions and the clark family donated their ownership interest in lots of and a good percentage of that rails trails they've made a partial donation for the school. They built Polo Club Boulevard 10 or 15 years earlier than they needed to. They would have to do it eventually, but not when they built it so as we could supply connectivity out here. And I think they've responded and done what this community has suggested of you through the expansionary master plan. Similarly, our builders have responded. it's amazing how our builders have come up with very varied house floor plans varied architectural details varied details on these on these properties so that we can do a high quality development out here on small lots that is very desirable for people in this community as I said we're proud to have a mixture of this isn't this is starter homes for some people but for some people like I said it's their fifth home many people it's their second home and many people like it because of the community because of location and so it's taken a taken some attitude changes on behalf of developers and builders and we have responded out here and all we're asking through this zone change is to be allowed to continue to develop this the way we've been doing for 15 years and the way the expansionary master plan and the comprehensive plan call for us to be doing this so thank you very much and like i said i'd like to be able to respond to any other comments and but we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have thank you mr murphy yes you will have the opportunity to respond um any questions for mr murphy at this point no thank you sir thank you Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in regards to, let me put it this way, in favor of this plan? Support of this plan? Okay. Who would like to speak in opposition of this plan? Okay. Please come forward, give us your name and address, and we're more than willing to hear from you. Good afternoon, members of the commission, Mr. Chairman, Mr. King, behind the easel, and members of the planning staff. My name is Susan Enloe. I'm a resident of the Greenbrier Subdivision. My address is 2382 Walnut Grove Lane. I'm here today to oppose the change from EAR1 to EAR2. and I will give you a little history. Because the address of this development was listed at Deerhaven Lane, no one in our subdivision and surrounding subdivisions was given notice of this proposed development and change in zoning. I understand now that the address on Deerhaven Lane was given because this is a remnant of a farm originally at 1551 Deerhaven. However, all the discussion today has centered on the part of the property really that is being compared to earlier developments done by the same building company, the same developer, which is further up Polo Club, and as a result, very far from Deerhaven or Walnut Grove Lane. When we looked at the property being proposed, it comes very close to Walnut Grove Lane, which is on the other side of the interdiction where the railroad tracks were and where the bicycle trail and park is. This is much, much closer for comparison purposes to EAR1 developments that had been there prior to the expansion and now with the expansion. And the neighborhoods I'm speaking of are Greenbrier. We are EAR1 with three houses per acre permitted. The Cayman extended property, which was the old Hatfield Farm, which is also EAR1. And the Walnut Grove Estates, which is right across the street, right across Walnut Grove Lane from the proposed development. So when you hear things that it should be in character with the development, it's not at all in character with the closest developments. It's almost like we don't exist in terms of what's described to you. My initial request of this body is that this hearing be continued or postponed until these neighborhoods can study this more and give you their opinion. We learned about this last Friday. I actually sent an email to Mr. King, and he, you should know how devoted this gentleman is. He responded to me on Saturday. He wasn't even in the office, which I very much appreciated. So we didn't even get before the staff to discuss our issues until Monday morning. So, this, I don't think it was by design, but just by virtue of the fact of the address, nobody knew about this. And all our area residents in our neighborhoods, which have evolved over 40 years in the case of Greenbrier, we have had that type of evolution of larger houses, larger lots, and that's being continued in these newer subdivisions that have been developed in this area. You can throw a rock from where this proposed development is across the road and hit huge homes on larger lots. And so the density, 950-some houses on 46 acres, is dramatic, dramatically different from what the surrounding properties are. And people have put a lot of money in building and buying and remodeling larger homes on larger lots in this area, expecting the EAR1 designation to be there for them. So I would, first of all, request a postponement for those neighborhoods to be able to get full information on this. And failing that, I would like to request that you do not change this density. Several years ago, I worked with Mr. King and his staff on another development that abutted Greenbrier, and it was going to involve a request for density change. We worked very hard, and everyone was very collaborative in that. And I'm proud to say that we all came away friends. There was no real bad action in that process. And Greenbrier is very pleased with what happened with that development. And I would like that to happen with this. There are two remaining vacant tracks adjacent to this proposed track that are in EAR1. They go right up to the back of Cat K, which is the boundary street for Greenbrier. If you let this go to EAR2, those properties are gone to us from EAR1 because they will expect your automatic approval of that to EAR2 if you've approved that. So that will be the knife to the heart of density abutting a very large lot development, Greenbrier. finally I will say I don't really know how to interpret this in our first go around with with the developers that turned out so well with with the ball developers everyone was very respectful there was no arm twisting there was it was it was very very much on the up and up and I will tell you on Tuesday I got a call from the attorney for North 40 properties, and I really had not solicited this call. I felt like it was a veiled threat not to oppose, and after some discussion, when I indicated we were going to oppose this, I was told that we could have this or 950 apartments, And frankly, I have to tell you as a citizen, I really thought that was not very professional. And I don't think that's how the planning commission or the planning staff works. So that's all my remarks for today. And I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Unlo. Others? Yes, ma'am. Please come forward. Thank you. I'll be brief. My name is Marsha Stanhope. I'm the vice president of the Greenbrier Residents Association, and I live at 2496 Walnut Grove Lane. I'm here to oppose this today for one reason, and that has already been indicated, that we are just learning about this development that's going to basically be butting up against the subdivision. And we would request a postponement for a period of time so that the Greenbrier Residents and Association can have an opportunity to understand the plans, what is being proposed, and then come back with either an approval or continued opposition to the plan. So that's why I'm here today is to make the request that the approval for this plan be postponed until such time. And we would even invite someone to come and discuss the plan more closely, more thoroughly with us, so that we can have a better understanding of what this is all about. Thank you. Thank you. Others? Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Elizabeth Booth and I live at 1940 Deer Haven Lane. To answer Mr. Owen's question real quickly about parking for the parkland, there is to be no parking off of the two cul-de-sacs. Does this come out? Can I use this? Yes, ma'am. There is to be no parking for the park from these two cul-de-sacs to access the park. So I don't know if they have the parking in there, but that's a real good question that needs to get solved before. Another thing I want to point out, the biggie here, this boundary, this is all agricultural, rural land. This is AR land. These people decided to be out of the expansion area master plan, and this is the boundary that we are talking about. So you are way, way, way, way, way at the end, deep in, abutting your AR land, and that's what we just have to remember. So in the big picture, this boundary is your EAMP boundary, and you're against agricultural rural land. I'm here today to ask you to deny the request zone change from EAR1 to EAR2 for the property listed at 1551 Deer Haven Lane. The request is to change land buffering our agricultural land, AR, are from three houses per acre to six houses per each acre, so on 46.6 acres, going from 139 houses to 279. Let me repeat, 139 to 279. That is twice the number of houses on the same acreage. That is no longer a buffer and protection for our AR land, but rather a dangerous precedence. I will point out to you where my house is, where 1940 is. I bought my farm in 1993 and immediately thereafter, by necessity, became involved in the EAMP process. And just so I can understand the background of all of you on the Planning Commission, Can those of you who lived in Lexington in 1996 and were actively involved in the EAM process, please raise your hand. Great. Okay, so there's some of you, but there's a majority are not. So you need to realize how critical this is and understand the entire process. So just to remind everyone in the room, the EAMP, it was one heck of a process. The city, which was a town then, hired a consultant at a hefty price. There was inputs from hundreds, if not thousands, of citizens, and there was meeting after meeting after meeting after meeting. After quite a cost and hours and hours of time and energy spent, a plan was put into place, the EAMP. In short, the EAMP are rules that were established and agreed upon to be followed. If you wanted your land included in the EAMP, here are the rules you need to follow. If you want it excluded, like I did, that was fine. But know that the EAMP, it's here to protect you, your land, and your quality of life. That's fine and dandy on paper and theory, but in real life, it's not so. If the developers followed the guidelines as laid out by the EAMP in the past 19 years, they should have never come in front of the Planning Commission for zone changes or development plans. Changes. And that's not been the case. It has been countless requests and pushing the envelope. It just baffles me. By asking for her land to be included in the EAMP way back, Marion Clark agreed to the terms and conditions set in place. So why is she constantly in front of you asking for changes? Can we please just say no? follow the rules you agreed to? So here we are once again right on the border of the agricultural rural land and on the verge of setting precedence which will jeopardize it forever. And that's it, setting precedence. The EAR1 zoning was put on certain critical parcels of land to act as a buffer from high-density density homes out to our agricultural rural land. You should be looking at this parcel not to conform to what's going on here, but to protect this out here. That's the reason that they put this density on here, was to protect this land. It was supposed to go from agricultural rural to less dense, to less dense, to more dense, to more dense. Not put this high density right against our agricultural rural land. There was a reason for it. So you should be looking at this parcel instead of conforming to match the new building in the area, but rather look at it to blend with the AR back in. The zoning was set in place to blend zoning, not to have two drastic zonings and way of life right against each other. This zoning was to protect the land, the people, and the quality of life of those who requested to be outside the EAMP. And please be aware, if you allow this zone change, you, the Planning Commission, will be setting precedents, which this is a scary one, to allow this continue to happen again in this and other of the EAMP. Look what's coming next. You give it to them here, they're going to ask for it here. They, the builders, are approaching the outside limits of their available land and that which is most sensitive because it abuts designated rural scenic roads and agricultural land. I don't have a crystal ball, but going on experience, I can almost guarantee you that if you allow this zone change to go into place, the developer at some future time will come back to you, the Planning Commission, and they will ask to allow me to do it here. Now I want to change the zoning in these other areas. And if you don't allow it, it would be a hardship to me. It may be a different planning commission. It may not be you guys, but it will give them a leverage to push future zone changes to harm our AR land. And once it's destroyed, it's gone forever. It's once again changing the overall intent of the EAMP. Prior planning commissions have made decisions which were not in the overall intent of the EAMP, but rather in favor of the builders which continually come back to haunt us today. Please, I ask this planning commission to not allow such a harmful precedence today. Just say no. It would be interesting to bring Mr. Charlie Siemens, the consultant, back today and ask him, Kim, what we have built today so far, is that really what you have envisioned for the EAMP? Do you know that there was not to even be one house built on the Clark property until there was road connection from Polo Club to Todd's Road? So the road that they're bragging about building before, yay, rah, rah, we built this before, it wasn't even supposed to go in. And And there's thousands of houses out there. And every time I have spoken to the Planning Commission, I have brought this up in the past 19 years. Every single time, I said, what about that road connection? And every single time, that was a prior Planning Commission who set the precedents. We're just following the precedents set. There are also supposed to be no driveways were to be built directly on Polo Club. Years ago, one planning commission allowed it, so now that's a dangerous precedent everywhere up and down the boulevard, the bike pathway. Prior planning commission once out a community center to be a bank. Certainly not the overall intent of the EMP, but now our other community centers are a drugstore, a gas station, and a rehab center. Even allowed were homeowners' yards to be included as part of the green space and setback requirements. I can only imagine what will happen when I set my volleyball up in one of those yards. That is what we call setting precedents and proof that the developers will continue to ask for the same ruling again and again and again once it is allowed anywhere. Some past planning commission granted moving the location of the park road. Now that decision is coming back to haunt us today. The developers are using this road location change to say, Now we need the zone change. Really? The land hasn't moved, the AR land hasn't moved, and the need for the buffer is not gone. But now it's just not easy for the developer to do it. It's not a reason to change a critical zone boundary. Please, I ask you the Planning Commission to say no to the zone request. Follow the guidelines of the EAMP and do not set a harmful precedence by allowing this very dense building against our agricultural rural land. Thank you. Thank you. Others that would like to speak? I'd just simply ask, we're here in density, let's just not be repetitive. Yes, sir. Yes, my name is Brandon Jacobs. I live at 3416 Bay Springs Park, and I'll keep this brief. I'll show you where my address is on this map, on this development plan up here. I live at this corner right here on Bay Springs. There's about 30 houses, approximately 30 houses that run here on Bay Springs. I really enjoy living in this house. I love the area and I really really enjoy my nice wooded private backyard. I just ask that on this development plan they are now adding, they're adding, they're building you know very high density houses in my own backyard. I just ask you to consider that when I built this house eight years ago it was, it was, I was told it was a tree protection area, Greenway, and now imagine I get a letter in the mail and um that just says deer haven lane is being rezoned i and i looked at the letter i looked up the address and i said oh deer haven lane that's not near me through the threw it away i had no idea and i imagine my neighbors had the same issue right they probably didn't even realize it affected them luckily one of my neighbors in the audience here looked searched on the internet this this development plan was not included in the letter found this development plan and showed it to me he said you know they're building houses in your backyard i was like what it's supposed to be a green space so my main complaint is this development plan they're basically ruining the backyard of about approximately 25 30 homes to add what 10 or 15 more why can't they incorporate the green space as originally planned or as originally as i was told it would be green space and that's all I have thank you thank you sir others my name is excuse me my name is Dave Booth 1940 Deer Haven Lane I'm Liz's husband I'll try and keep this brief and I've just got a couple of points I want to make out I want to clarify both sides there's some facts I think that have been thrown back and forth that are not necessarily necessarily clear I'll put it that way from both sides so I want to start off with I assume you all got the letter was the statement of justification for this own change and I really appreciated this letter this was online I was able to download it this was the whole point that brought this here this was the only online document I could find regarding this that was presented by the Planning Commission initially but I really appreciate the letter because I actually think it makes the points not to approve this better than it does the points to approve it so I want to use their own letter and they've got it and i assume the planning commission has a copy of this it's statement of justification was provided online as the justification for this zone change got that okay good the first paragraph starts out we are request second sentence in the first paragraph says we are requesting a zone change from the expansion area residential ear1 to the expansion area residential EAR2 zone so that the property can continue to be developed in a similar manner. Okay, I hope you realize that this now becomes a form letter for the other EAR1 people that are bordering this property. So they can say, hey, well, you let them go from EAR1 to EAR2, now I should be able to go from EAR1 to EAR2. And that's really very valid, and I'm going to take this microphone just to point it out. This is the property in question. this is all zoned EAR1 but yet to have development plans put up. So you're going to let this go EAR2. What are they going to say? Well, I want to be like the property that's right next to mine. You let them go from EAR1 to EAR2. Why can't I? Why can't I? Why can't I? Why can't I? All of this here is zoned EAR1, including this piece here and a portion of this. So now you're going to say, oh, well, you can go EAR2, I cannot even begin to imagine what this person's going to say when they get there. They're going to say, hey, here's the letter. I don't even have to repeat it. I can just put my name on the top of it. I can change the letter and say, I want to go EAR2. You let them. Why not me? So you're setting a precedent. Second point, we keep talking about averaging the density. I love that when they say averaging the density, they're averaging with properties that have already had the development plans approved it's kind of like saying well the average density of Lexington is below what it could be so let me put more houses in they already went through that that's water under the dam they approved those plans at the density they're there at you can't say well I won't be able to quite get my maximum density because I didn't get it on my last two pieces of property so give me some more houses here beyond that and they put in here the zone line of the Caulk property, I'm sorry, upon consultation with staff, it has been determined the ordinance does not allow the average densities between EAR1 and EAR2. We already addressed this. The plan says you can't do it. But they said it's allowed in other areas in the community. Well, not here. Sorry, that's the rules. Better yet, when I look at their own plan, they say they have 47 acres, give or take, of EAR1. 47 times 3, the maximum is 140. They have 25 acres, almost 26 of ea are two 26 times six 154 when i add those together that comes out to 294 houses they're proposing 356 per their own documents so they're not even averaging on their own property i mean that would seem at least to be reasonable to say hey you had this group amount why don't you put in what's maximum allowed in that area don't come back to me and say well I wasn't quite able to get it over here. The other part I like to point out, he kept saying, well, the only number that the developer ever talked about was the maximum number. He said, well, we could put 953 houses. Our EMP also said you could put as few as 400 houses. But he keeps talking, oh, I'm not getting to my 958. I'm not getting to my 958 yet, but he's already over his 400 because of the other two properties. because when he's talking that 958, he's averaging development plans that he's already proposed that they're building houses on. He's not talking about averaging on this property. He's talking about averaging on properties that's water under the dam. You already approved them. Sorry, that's where you approved them at. We all agreed to it. Who knows what went down in those meetings to make them that density, what concessions were made to get them to that density and what requirements. But now they want to complain, well, I didn't get my total amount of my total acreage. So move some houses over into this and violate what this was intended to be. Final point. They put a long list of how this all meets the expansionary master plan. They come up with about 12 items that say by allowing this zone change, this is why it meets it. I challenge the developer to explain to me by how not allowing this zone change, any of these become worse. You know, he goes on to say, well, by doing this, principle one, it continues to preserve the natural topography of the land. So less dense housing doesn't preserve the natural photography and more dense does. That's why it meets it. His reason to change is to preserve the topography. But if you left it at EAR-1, wouldn't it preserve the topography? Principle two, it allows flexibility in housing types. And I love how they say, well, we're allowing independent developers and builders to build here. What, independent builders don't build on EAR-1 zones? They don't like large lots to build on two? They only want to build, independents only want to build on small lots? Wouldn't EAR-1 allow independent builders some flexibility? Their point number two, flexibility in design choice and options? So allowing the change, to me, just lessens that flexibility, not increases it. Principle three, recreational facilities to serve residents and multi-use trails. So EAR1 doesn't allow that, but EAR2 does. I don't see anything in their reasoning that the zone change enhances. Matter of fact, if anything I see all the zone change does is it takes away from the exact points they're making. yes it does meet them not as well as what was intended what was written in in 1996 what was reconfirmed in 2003 and what was reconfirmed when the zoning master plan was updated in 2013 just two years ago the same lines were drawn on this piece of property in 2013 that now we're trying to change and because oh well if i get more and i can still sort of meet these to me you're setting a precedence you are guaranteeing the next developer will send you this same form letter with my property address across the top because you allowed it for the guy next to me that's all i'm going to say thank you thank you mr booth others that like to speak if not then what we'll do is move to the rebuttal stage and after rebuttals we'll take questions from the commission members uh mr murphy well uh have have quite a bit to respond to that was brought up our objectors were in greenbriar subdivision and across caddy corner down deer haven lane from us and one homeowner across us from the back so i'll try to respond to each of those first on the greenbriar concerns and and we understand everybody's concerned about what up what goes on in their neighborhood and it's and it's good the the we notified sent letters out to 137 properties here in our 500 foot notification and our supplemental location and i think the staff notified the is required to notify adjacent neighborhood associations greenbriar is not adjacent and i don't think got that notification and that's part of my point here on the distance we are from Greenbrier our point here which is our closest point is about 2,200 feet from I guess that's Greenbrier subdivision up there I think the golf course is over here 2,200 feet if you're on Greenbrier property you You can't see the Clark property. You can't hear what's going on the Clark property. You can't even drive to the Clark property. This is one of the interesting areas in the community where our traffic will never mix with their traffic, and that's because of the interdiction here. If you want to get from our property to Greenbrier by automobile, I clocked it yesterday. It's just under three miles. You have to go out to Blackford Parkway, up to Manowar, down Winchester, and then at Greenbrier. So we feel we'll have no impact on Greenbrier whatsoever on this. And I want to emphasize that the area talked about the fact that there is some EAR1 area, which is three units per five acres, and that is this area over here. This is Walnut Grove Lane. As you all know, this used to be Walnut Hill, Childsburg, Pike. It now has three different names. Up here, it's Walnut Grove Lane, and then down here, it's Deer Haven. This is the interdiction where you cannot get from one to the other. over here on the east side of walnut grove lane this yes this is zoned ear one but it's also in what the the expansion area master plan has as a special design area which limits the combination ear one special design area to three units per five acres we do not have the special design area over on the west side of deer haven lane what we have on the west side of deer haven lane is that's where the regular zoning categories kicked in, and we have a 200-foot scenic resource area along Deerhaven Lane, which is the area in which we could not build. We just have to keep it open. We've discussed that before. It's a scenic viewshed so that people driving along Deerhaven Lane have that scenic viewshed on the west side of Deerhaven Lane. That is there. we are encumbered by that we have to observe that but I wanted to point out that difference and that over on the east side there's that difference about the kit the densities and that's how that has developed according to plan and we have developed according to plan as well and i apologize i i tried to reach out to miss anlow and i certainly apologize if my comments were taken as a threat i i mentioned them i think in about the same wording i used today that we do have enough density you know using the density can be used in the these expansion area zones you can use it for single-family duplex townhouse apartments we felt a better use of this density was as continued single-family detached and use it for apartment units the we are not it and it was continually referred to as an increase in density on the Clark property which we got the zone change in 2003 we are not increasing the density yes the density may go up slightly on this area we're rezoning from ear 1 to ear 2 and that's because we're so much below it on ear 2 part ear overall we're coming in about 4.5 4.6 somewhere in that neighborhood units per acre on this property when we're in the EIR2 we're allowed six units per acre we're coming in about 4.5 4.7 and we anticipate that's going to be about the same in this area the and as I emphasized we're not increasing at all a bit above the maximum number we were granted in 2003 no mr. and mrs. booth were here and I appreciate their comments they have been very faithful attenders of all meetings through the years I want to make a couple of corrections though I know they say we come over and over and over to you which we do but this was decided we have had two zone changes on this property over the years the first one was the area south of the railroad tracks which I was not involved in I think was about 1998 probably all the area south of these what's now the rail trail was 1998 and the second one for the area north of the rail trail was 2003 I was involved in that one two zone changes in since 1996 what's that 19 years we have been before you a lot though because under the regulations we have to come in with every preliminary development plan final development plan preliminary subdivision plan final subdivision plan has to get approval and many of those require notice signs go up and everything now the hearing is only to determine whether we are agreeing with the regulations of the zone that has already been granted and we've been before you on that and I know the booths have been here expressing their their opposition to development of the Clark property consistently from day one but we're here because we're required to be here and because you are required to review us on that the parking for the park we have increased our front we have frontage on there and we're going to put a median cut in there so that anybody can get in here and if the if the Parks Department wants to put parking in there great they can put it on the area we're dedicating to them along blackford parkway or they can put it further in here where they can have parking there if they want that that's totally up to the parks department on there the i want to emphasize to you another change that was a result of the expansion area master plan and that is the status of Walnut Hill-Charlesburg Road as I mentioned as a result of the interdiction Walnut Hill-Charlesburg Road is not the major thoroughfare it would have been through here save for that interdiction so today 20 years later I'm guessing they have 1 20th the amount of traffic they had 20 years ago and probably 100th the amount of traffic they would have if if this hadn't been interdicted as part of the expansion area master plan which is what we're going under too as well The, the, I think this, we're not proposing any change in the interdiction. We're not proposing any change in the required 200-foot setback we have along Deerhaven Lane. I want to talk about this precedent issue. Oh, and I want to mention, I mentioned we had, or it was implied, the Clarks had done a drugstore, a rehab center, and a gas station. and that is not on the Clark property. They have nothing to do with those. That was never a part of the Clark property. I will say that a lot of properties, part of the Clark property is called the New Market property. The Clarks own that, and that name was used in other areas too, which the Clarks have nothing to do with. So just because something says New Market property doesn't mean it was the Clarks involved. I want to hand it. You can put this up on the right screen there. There's been a lot of concern about what precedent effect this will have on the Ball Homes property, otherwise known as the Blackford property, which is to the north of us. As I mentioned to you, that's a big farm. That's about as big as we are. It's 22,200 feet wide at this point. So Ball Homes has been developing that as long or longer than the Clark property has been developing. There's concern about what kind of precedent we're going to be setting. And this is the Bay Springs Drive here. and just to spend a moment discussing that, I think the gentleman who testified lives in this area and is going to be backing up to us. We are showing, he said he thought that was going to be, we were going to be providing green space to him on that, even though he bought from Ball Homes, not us. But we are showing the greenway as shown in the comprehensive plan. And in addition, we are showing more greenway than was called for in the comprehensive plan, which is this area. There were a lot of trees and things in there that were well worth saving. So we're showing that over and above what was shown in the comprehensive plan. But this configuration is taken directly from the expansion area master plan. We have this area here, which is available for development. We did have the street going up behind here in a short green space along that side of the street, which would take away the possibility that these folks up to the north are looking at our backyards. You know what I'm going to say. We will flip this back up here and do it the way we originally had it if that will help the situation. I mean, that's the way we originally had this road coming up here with a little green space that we were going to have to maintain on our side of the border. And we will do that. We thought it was probably better for the people looking who are north of us, looking at the fronts of houses rather than back. We thought it was better for us, our people who'd have their decks looking out over the green space. I want to say we're fine with the way it is. The staff convinced us. We moved it. We're fine with it. But we're also okay with moving the street back there if that's better for the people who are living up here. But I want to get back to the precedent issue. What's going to happen on the land north of us? Well, as I've told you here and as was pointed out by one of the neighbors, Bay Springs Drive, our northern border here along this piece, is totally developed right now along our border. It's developed, and I said I had Mr. Height do research on what size lots these were, and these are the median frontage of these lots to the northwest, 40 feet. The arithmetic mean is 43 feet, exactly comparable to what we're proposing here. So on this side, we're doing exactly what's comparable, what's already there. We can't set a precedent for them. They're already there. Down here, this point of our northern border from here to here is not yet developed. But I want to show you what's on the approved plan for this area from here to here. Because I brought that in. I don't know if you can see it very well here or not. I'm going to tilt this around, but that point here is this point here. Our far point there is this point here. This area right here, you can see the developer to the north of us has about 20, 21 lots. Again, comparable to size to what we're proposing here. Now, the logical question is, how could the developer next door to us put in the same size lots as we're proposing, but we're proposing the EAR2 zone, and he's in the EAR1 zone? How is it that he's already got planted here or put on his preliminary subdivision plan here and built up here from here? This is the AR1 line on him down. Same size lots we're proposing. That gets to the heart of what we're doing here. In none of those zones do they control the size of the lots. It's the density that's controlled. on the Blackford property, the difference is the fact that you can see most of their green areas, greenways, are in the area from my hand to the right, which is their EAR1 area. So the existence of the greenways, it's not the size of the lots, it's the existence of the greenways that has driven down the density here. The houses are the same. Over on here, from here over, you see on this one, I know they have more down here I don't have those plats but they don't have any greenways the opposite on our property we don't have all our development plans over here but over here we have a lot of greenways in our EAR2 area we don't have as many in the EAR1 area so our density has been driven down in the EAR2 area and we have more available non-greenway area in the EAR1 area. But I'm sorry to take so long doing that but that's why we're not setting a precedent here because the property to the north of us has already been either built or put on a signed development plan this is the one signed by your secretary on October 19th 2011 which approves this is a preliminary subdivision plan final development plan which you all know allows them to build the streets off of this plan they'd have to come back before they sold lots but allows them to build streets so when we talk about what impact this will have again that's why i'm saying it's not going to have an impact we're not setting a precedent for anybody because they've already decided what they're going to do up here and they already have lots exactly comparable to what we're proposing along our side of the border there just want to make sure i'm covering what issues came up here i'm jotted myself down some notes here we have a tree protection area 20 feet on the back of those lots same as the one on the lots behind us so it's going to be 40 feet total between these two lots up here we're showing our tree protection areas the I think that's the main thing I wanted to rebut to. Again, I guess the, we feel that the overall thrust of the expansion area, it came in to avoid a major expansion of the urban service area out into the horse farm and agricultural regions. And as you all know, this community, the motto in every election period is Lexington, let's grow up, not out. And the development community 20 years ago was probably dragged kicking and screaming into that. But what we've done is we've understood that. We've done our plans. Everything we've done has been in agreement with that expansionary master plan. We like the amenities that are here. We like the rail trail. The greenways are good. We're having a new school out here. the I guess it's debatable whether the interdiction should have taken place, but it did. It separates Greenbrier from us. It separates the property in the north from us on that. And the overall thrust, I disagree when it is said that the movement has been for lower and lower density. No, the movement in the community, as you all know, has been to greater density. But I want to put this in perspective. We are proposing single-family detached residential homes on this, single-family detached, the lowest density type of development we have in the community. What we're fighting over here today is whether we can continue to do a development which has been very successful, very popular with the everybody. I was going to say the young professionals who were trying to get to the community, but it's not just young professionals. It's everybody. It's older people, younger people, blue collar, white collar have been moving out here. and I was just driving out there the other night and those trails are heavily used, heavily enjoyed and it's been a major community focus out here. And yes, people have smaller lots. They have more outdoor recreational outlets. They have very nice houses. These are not duplicate houses going down the street. These are all different houses with all different architectural features. has been done a good way and we just want to continue to do that and thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Murphy. Ms. Enloe, then President of the Neighborhood Association, would you like to provide any sort of rebuttal on the information you just heard from him as far as his rebuttal? Well I have several comments. We are very pleased with the Greenway Trail. We utilize it. It is a wonderful asset to the neighborhood, but that's not the issue with this development. I think that Mr. and Mrs. Booth made excellent points that this is a buffer area. We feel like the greater density that fronts on Polo Club, and we agree with these. These are, I would term them starter homes. They're three-side vinyl, one-side stone or brick. And they're nice houses for that. I don't have an objection. We ride our bicycles in that area. But as you come further out and the houses get larger and the lots are larger, you're suddenly just truncating what is a natural flow into that area. And there are very successful developments that are going on along Walnut Grove. I keep hearing that we're not close to this. We are on the same side of the interdiction as this point that comes to Walnut Grove. We are there. Deerhaven is across the other side of the interdiction, and the address of this property would lead one to think that the development is there. But it's not. It's to the Greenbrier side of the rail trail. And I think the point's well made. We are for development. We want people to have homes. We want builders and realtors to build. But I think we need to have a healthy appreciation of what happens when those are gone, when those individuals have finished their project and what the residents who were promised EAR1 many years ago. I have a 1996 comprehensive plan that shows the expansion area. It hadn't even been approved yet, but it was designated EAR1. So I think our issue is don't compare us to what's on Polo Club because that's not us. We're the development out on Walnut Grove Lane where this does come out. And again, I would just request that perhaps a postponement would allow us all to have more impact. I know that the Walnut Grove Estates people did not know about this. Their president had surgery, and the other builders in the area were unaware of this as well. So there's a lot of, I think, interested and appropriate parties that haven't been aware of this. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Booth, brief statement? I just want to point out quickly that as a rebuttal, he brought up a plan from 2011, four-year-old plan that never got built, and say, well, this is already cast in stone. okay well it's not cast in stone probably waiting to ask for their zone change I mean apparently this didn't when I say that this has never been built so this isn't cast in stone a person can come up with a new development plan at any time they want so when we say that well I'm just gonna make this all the AR two over here this is this piece right here that they responsibly I will say responsibly made the density conform to ER one which is all we're asking for these guys to do is make your density conform to EAR1. We're asking them to do the same thing that this development plan that they brought as a rebuttal up is doing. And that's what we're trying to say is don't let them violate that because this plan isn't built. They can tear this up and come up with one tomorrow that says, hey, give me EAR2 like you did so I can now up that density. This then bounds directly to Greenbrier and Cat K and all that. That was this piece. And so, you know, we didn't fight this one because it conformed. I'm saying this one doesn't conform. The last part I just want to say is the Blackford Parkway is the park road. That was supposed to be the divider. So why at least wouldn't we say, make this EAR2, make this EAR1, and go on? It just seems to me to be logical. That was the intent of the AMP, to use the park road as the divider between EAR2 and EAR1. Just draw the line here, make this EAR1. ends his argument because we said okay you can be ea r2 on that side but this side which will be then the divider between greenbrier cat k everybody once you're on the other side of this road make it ea r1 seems yes maybe that swished from where that road was drawn to the benefit i will note of the developer it moved further giving him more ear too but that would seem to me to be just the logical answer thank you mr booth miss wade this may have been helpful earlier in the hearing but the expansion area master plan land use map for expansion area 2a as you can see and I don't have my pointer Barb would you point to the proposed Park Road Blackford Parkway as the boost indicated I think mr. Murphy did as well that was intended in the expansionary master plan to be the boundary between ea r1 and ea r2 zoning the park road shifted as did the conservation area which is sort of a green blob along the boundary between expansion area 2a and 2b so there have been some changes in the expansionary in terms of a master plan is a road map and as we get to implement things do as you all know change when on the ground we have to acknowledge environmental features in this case the king property was available and and purchased by lfucg so the conservation area shifted so it's not completely on the clark property as was intended but it actually shifted closer to where the booths live so they now have that as a buffer the park property is a buffer between them and the development on the on the clerk property but the the shifting of the road when they brought in their first zone change they agreed not to shift the zoning they left it where it was and and through their development process have found a niche and again the comprehensive plan supports developing you know where the market demand is in addition the other thing I would mention was just wanted to throw that up there for you all to get a better reference but the density of the zone change area and we've talked about the Clark property as a whole unit four which is on the development plan but the zone change area is a portion of unit four right we 25 acres that's already er2 and 47 that's in the ea r1 on the 47 acres they're proposing approximately 225 units mr booth was correct he stated with their existing zoning they'd be allowed approximately 140 units so they're about 85 over for that area down here in the south portion and that's where they found if we can continue to develop at a similar density it provides for a more uniform neighborhood for the i think they call themselves the home place without creating in their minds too big of an impact the interdiction as was mentioned was not part of the ea mp that was a separate initiative that the council took move forward but it was not ever a recommendation of the expansion area master plan the expansion area master plan recommended these boulevards and parkways as connections between within our expansionary areas and then the last thing mr murphy indicated that he was meeting the staff's desires in terms of making changes to the development plan a few of those changes had to do with connectivity one had to do with the cul-de-sac along the north east boundary that they flip-flopped putting the houses not along the greenway but next to the blackford property and the phrase i've highlighted directly from our comprehensive plan page 38 adopted two years ago by this body says what does the 2013 comprehensive plan recommend in terms of growing successful neighborhoods it recommends place the fronts of housing towards parks and open space so the staff is implementing our comprehensive plan by suggesting that those units face the open space this is not something that we dreamed up it's the comprehensive plan that's adopted so just want to be on the record for that thank you thank you miss wade at this point we'll move on to questions from the commission for miss wade absent or opposition any questions yes I just want to make sure I'm not confused. We've heard some testimony about the AR designation along Deer Haven Lane and King property, and also the AR designation to the south of that. yet the maps in our information indicate that that's not ar it's ear2 and i assume that's correct and that there's only a small a relatively small sliver of ar land off deer haven lane is that right mr drake the um ar zone is the king property that remains for the park ear2 is what mr murphy mentioned the rest of the clark property they named it new market was rezoned ear2 there's a 200 foot setback which isn't drawn on here because these lots haven't been platted yet but you can just vaguely see it down here there's a 200 foot setback where no development can occur along deer haven so that provides a very succinct buffer along deer haven and then in this regard the park would provide a buffer between the subject property and properties outside of the expansion area. Does that help? Yes, you confirmed that the information we have is correct. And then these properties to the north of the interdiction are also inside the expansion area, but as Mr. Murphy mentioned, they have a different overlay on them. So they're EAR1, but they require the cluster development of common open space and three units per five acres. thank you Tracy Tracy if I may before we go on since you're here explain or clarify the notification process the area how that comes about and who all was notified there was a mention as far as the address on Deer Haven but you know some may not have been notified because of that address when a property is rezoned we utilize the pva address so in 2003 i'm assuming the project or that property had frontage on deer haven lane since that time it's been terminated because of the brighton east trail and the dedication of that right away and also the interdiction where frontage no longer exists along deer haven lane but the address doesn't automatically change so we have to by state law use the property valuation administration's designation in terms of addresses we provide notice in fayette county to properties within 500 feet of the subject property for rezoning and that's indicated on our notice maps that you all have in your notebooks but also on our color up the colored area indicates the properties that also received notice in this case much of the surrounding area of the subject property is not platted yet in individual homes blackford parkways and bay springs that portion of the blackford neighborhood they did receive individual notices but because the king property is also still in an agricultural zone the applicant provides supplemental notice for two more parcels and so they went two parcels south generally of where their other notice ended so they ended up notifying properties to the south here on passage mound way and angus trail as well and then the rest of the properties on um deer haven most of them okay thank you mr pen tracy while you're there in response to mr drake's question everything south of king property is ar isn't that right right they're outside the expansion area so the expansion area the point has made is ar1 was what was supposed to be next to the to the ar zone ea mp1 not in every case no but in this particular case um the ea r1 is supposed according to the expansionary master plan and bill can put that back up on this area is all supposed to be a r1 on this side of the road if we look in section And then let me grab that one. I think I just put it in there. In unit or expansion area 2B, it was recommended for EAR2. So where the green. I'm trying to get what's there. This is the Clark property that we're talking about. is the remainder of the clark property the king property stretches across so this is recommended for ea r2 the buffering that's there is that 200 foot setback from deer haven but what about the property going north that's undeveloped this piece no farther farther south from the yellow up toward uh greenbriar this is all this boundary that i'm pointing at here is the edge of the blackford property right so barbara if you can you switch back to the ea expansion area 2a on the expansion area master plan you have ear one and then this area kind of rounded bump mr murphy referenced is also recommended for the special design density restriction of five or three units per five acres and that's on the blackford property here right so you don't see lot lines well a few but this is them kind of cutting it up as no non-build plats but they'll have to respect that density clustering and i believe that's what they were trying to show with the blackford preliminary subdivision plan okay thank you other questions no tracy before you get away uh maybe this is a question for mr martin i'm not for sure on the revised recommendation for the ZDP under number 10 statement says delete proposed entry feature from right away off Blackford property I thought I heard from Mr. Murphy there was some need for some sort of clarification on that or maybe a little bit more work on that he wasn't in total agreement with that or something and if you need that's not the right mr mr kaylee yes sir i can clarify that one um there's a small rectangle that we drew on there and flagged as an entry feature we incorrectly drew it in the right-of-way it was supposed to be behind the right-of-way in on the private property where she is circling up near polo club boulevard coming off there we're wanting two entry features we're also asking for one as you leave the blackford development into this property we just drew it in the right of way which we can't do we got to draw it on private property so we still want the entry feature we're just going to move it 20 feet back okay mr martin so is number 10 okay in that regard okay yeah we'll delete it out of the right of way and keep it on private property chairman the staff's fine with that it was the issue of it being in the right of way versus on the private property okay very good just just wanted to clarify while we're here anything else if not i'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion among commission members and or motion mr chairman yes sir um i can i can probably make a motion if we're ready i'm not hearing any discussion so go ahead okay I'm probably going to move approval of this zone change based on the some of the things I saw where the Blackford Park Parkway got moved so that changed the whole layout of the land there the density still is best I can calculate four and a half an acre which 0 to 5 is low density, considered low density. And then based on the track record of this applicant, the way they've developed and put their money up out there and been a good neighbor to the community. So I'm going to move approval of MAR 2015-10. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. second well once a motion has been made in second for approval is there a question i just asked if that included incorporated the staff reasons of approval okay yeah thank you uh for reasons provided by staff all right thank you mr cravens miss richardson you're okay with that okay brief addition so we have a motion for approval of mar 2015-10 north 40 properties uh as recommended that's further reasons recommended by staff any discussion as far as the motion if not uh you got one well i'm sorry oh yes sir i'm sorry uh i'm gonna vote against this motion for one particular reason and that reason is is that i believe that the ea r1 was promised to a community for a reason but my main reason for for doing it i'd like to vote for a postponement because i'd like for the people that disagree with this that did not get notified to have the opportunity to see how they could fix this or make it work better for them and i don't think there's anything really urgent to make this thing happen um i'm a little leery to make postponement motions but i decided that i would uh at what mike make his motion and then i would i would say that i'm not voting for it and the reason i'm not voting for it is i really think the notification 500 feet didn't serve the the people that needed to be served here and i don't see any really urgency to make this thing happen today so i'm going to vote against the motion not that i don't think they've done a lot to improve your your development plan because you have from what we saw to what we see now there's a lot of improvements been made here and i wish that the people that are here in opposition could have seen where we started and where we are now and i give mr murphy and roy and all of them a real kudos for that because we haven't made a lot of improvements but that being said i think we ought to defeat this motion and postpone it and give the people that are bordered by the ea mp1s an opportunity to see this therefore i'll be voting against this motion let me let me say this add add a just add a clarification and it should have been addressed earlier uh once we got started with this i think we moved away from the postponement phase and And, you know, after hearing this, would have continued it to a future date. I agree with it. There's been a lot of work here. And also the discussion that's taking place here merits that a postponement would have made a start all over. A continuance would allow us to continue from this point on. and I guess at this point I would ask Mr. Cravens if he'd be willing to withdraw his motion for continuance. You know, Mr. Chairman, I don't see a need to continue this. They mailed more people than the zone, the 500 feet around there. It's been in the pipeline for, what, 90 days or so whenever they filed a zone change. The people that wanted to object to it are here and they stated their objections. So unless the applicant wants to continue it, I don't want to change my motion. I'm standing ahead nodding. Officially, you're saying no, Mr. Murphy? Right. We'd like to go forward. Okay. All right. they've acknowledged the fact moving forward so we have a motion on floor for approval it has been seconded any further discussion on the motion if not please vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes so we need a motion on the mr. chairman yes sir move approval of ZDP 2015-52, the revised staff recommendations, and also finding that in favor of the EMAP compliance report. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the ZDP 2015-52, noting the compliance report. Any discussion on this motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. We'll take just a very brief recess and resume in about five minutes. Okay, I'll call this meeting back to order. Ms. Wade is about to explain our ZODA text amendment 2015-6 in regards to construction screening and signage identification signs and business and industrial zone in which i believe we've taken care of part of this yes so the next item on our agenda is zoda 2015-6 it is on the bottom of page five of your agenda item number one and copies of the staff's original report are in your notebooks behind tab one it's the first thing but i distributed a supplemental report earlier it's on a sunshine canary yellow page and that should be at your seat this is a request to amend article 17 of the zoning ordinance which is our sign regulations requested by ma i mi a brookhaven llc this is specifically about project identification signage in addition to other business signs or are you permitted in zones but it applies to the b3 b4 i1 and i2 zones and this is the second of two parts to this text amendment the first was related to the construction screening signage which we held a public hearing on last month and then this second piece is about identification signage so just as a more informational identification signs are defined in the zoning ordinance as a sign which establishes the identity of a building or building complex by name or symbol or combines name street address and our management and has no direct advertising value so the idea with the identification sign and we use it in those in the zoning ordinance in terms of subdivision identification shopping center identification project identification signs are to identify not just one particular property or business but a whole area so we use it for professional office projects we use it for mixed-use projects and then we also use it for shopping centers these are just some examples that we pulled off the web not locally obviously but it could be in office park and some of these examples and i think one of them is more of a shopping center sign so So the staff reviewed the applicant's proposal that they filed in May, and we made a recommendation in June to the zoning committee of disapproval. At that time, we noted several very specific concerns, and I'm going to go through those just so you're aware as we went through this process. First, the business and industrial zones, this section of the sign ordinance, provides the most permissive signage to these zones b3 b4 i1 and i2 and the applicant was asking for additional signage on top of what is permitted for business signs so that was one concern the property owners do have the ability to shift signage from one type of business sign to another through the board of adjustment and the staff felt that that was the appropriate avenue for this applicant in terms of if they wanted to move signage around and create it create an identification sign the petitioner in their initial application did indicate that they utilized the project entrance identification sign in the p1 zone as sort of a model for their regulations the professional office project is required to be 10 acres in size and they are permitted 32 square feet per sign and limited to two signs per entrance but the original application and then also their revised text proposed something much larger now up to 100 square feet and then lastly the staff was concerned about the community aesthetic and the possibility of signage clutter where we have a identification sign very closely located with a business sign and you'd be trying to kind of figure out what was going on so the staff recommended disapproval since the zoning committee we've looked a little bit closer at the ordinance and found that we needed to really rethink one of our justifications for disapproval which was the board of adjustment can address this through an administrative appeal but because an identification sign is not a permitted type of sign at all for these zones that's actually not true so um the staff did take into consideration the applicant's willingness to revise their text and in fact they've revised it three times from the original so i think that shows that they're willing to negotiate and work with the staff however i think there's still two areas that we're not in agreement on so i'm going to go through those um we remain concerned about the applicant's proposal primarily because it doesn't fall within what i'm going to say fall in line with the rest of article 17. so i'm going to refer now to exhibits one and two in the staff packet actually exhibit one shows the applicant's proposals to date so their first proposal was on may 1st first or fourth excuse me with their application original application and they proposed identification signage for this section and also b1 for up to four signs and 60 square foot each in the end of may they made a change to their draft text and without kind of filtering reading word by word they changed to three identification signs i've kind of highlighted that in blue and then increased their square footage so they dropped one but increased their square footage to 75 up to 75 square feet per sign with a cap of 150 i will note that in July they brought back another revision and this time there wasn't a specific cap on the number and they now increased their size to a hundred square feet of each sign in in late or mid July we had our fourth revision from the applicant and this time they did agree after the staff again expressed here are concerns they agreed to one identification sign per street frontage and then a limit of again 100 square feet per sign so the staff I think those two identified areas are what our sticking points are the staff asked for is there a reason why you no longer have a maximum number a cap so one per street frontage depending on how much areas in your project and if you have public streets going through it you could have more than four street frontages you could have you know an endless number really um over because it's for a project over four acres and they indicated well we agreed to one per street frontage and the staff would um as we move forward ask you to look at exhibit two but and then the other problem sticking point is the hundred square feet they've increased from their initial point of 60 now to ask for 100 per sign and the staff again was a little confused as to why we were going in our opinion the wrong direction there so on exhibit two the staff polled what are existing regulations for identification signs so as i mentioned earlier we have identification signs for professional office projects those have to be 10 acres in size they're permitted one large identification sign up to 100 square feet but then they can have entrance ones at only 32 which is smaller a shopping center which probably is what we're most familiar with in terms of an identification sign a similar sized development is deemed a community shopping center between three and 10 acres and they're allowed one per street frontage with a maximum of two up to 75 square feet and then in our mixed use zones the same regulations apply a maximum of two up to 75 square feet so the staff would suggest a staff alternative that addresses those two issues and that's going to be behind the staff report on a white sheet then I'm going to jump to the bottom of the page the the section they're proposing to amend is 17 7g to add a new subsection 10 for identification signs and the it's not immediately obvious but I'll identify the areas where we we reworked this paragraph mostly because it didn't really match that or wasn't consistent with the formatting of the rest of article 17. so identification signs only for projects governed by a unified development plan and exceeding four acres in size we're fine with that one identification sign shall be permitted per public street frontage and the staff would like to add with a maximum of three signs and change from 100 square feet to not exceeding 75 square feet per sign with a maximum height of 10 feet and again the applicant suggested the 10 feet the total square footage of each identification sign shall be counted towards the maximum amount of business signage available for the lot allowed under section 177 g1a above which is their business signage identification signs shall be located at least 50 feet from any freestanding business sign the rest of that language the staff is agreeable with and an applicant offered there might have been some tweaks in terms of the references there the other piece of the staff alternative above is amendment to article 17 7g related to business signs if an applicant is coming in and asking for an identification sign and there's a spacing requirement from their business sign the staff feels it's important under the business sign section to also note that spacing requirement so that if applebee's is coming in for a sign and the venue they both know that there's a spacing requirement whether you're the business owner or the identify project identification developer so that explains the amendment to the earlier section of of the ordinance the kind of the point about the size the app the staff's perspective is now that we're in we're increasing their side they're asking for an increase of size from 60 square feet in their original application up to 100 it's a 60 percent increase and that seems a bit excessive 75 is the staff's recommendation that's consistent with other project identification signs for projects of similar size in our community and we'd ask that that planning commission consider that as the appropriate size as i mentioned earlier the sign ordinance has sort of a tiered approach and we feel like the same type of development should have the same type of signage so that you don't create a incentive for people to rezone to b3 to do a shopping center we want there to be other reasons why someone might need a b3 zone not a sign so the staff is recommending approval of the staff alternative for two reasons the proposed text will allow for a unified project on at least four acres of land to provide an identification sign that would create a distinct sense of place for their project and a destination identification signage would benefit customers and businesses within these areas and then second the community signage has been regulated in a tiered approach so that projects on multiple acres of land are permitted an identification sign to complement the individual business signs these larger projects such as shopping centers professional office projects or mixed-use projects are permitted such identification signs and a unified project in the b3 b4 i1 or i2 zones would likewise benefit from this type of signage and so the staff alternative we feel is more consistent with the rest of article 17's regulations happy to answer any questions about the staff proposal questions for miss wade or recommendation tracy the images of signs that you showed earlier can you give us some idea of the the size of those i'm to be honest with you i don't it's hard to tell with the scale a shopping center sign is 75 square feet that you would see for gosh the any of the kroger shopping centers pretty much are 75 square feet so do you have any examples bill that you could offer probably the newer centers would have been erected signage that meets those requirements fayette mall signs are older and non-compliant turfland or mall sign the same way it mall would be a regional shopping center though so they'd get more yeah it would tates creek south is a newer center i'm not sure that sign approaches the maximums in the zone i'm just trying to think going around park hills is a community-sized center again their sign to me seems a little small it's certainly taller than we're talking about here maybe the best example might be the sign you see up there the southwick sign or the one in the lower lower left corner those are looked to be under 10 feet in height generally it's hard to estimate the square footage of them without much more scale sorry i wish i could give you some more concrete examples thank you other questions but assigned 10 feet tall which is the maximum height could be seven feet wide so i mean we're talking still pretty pretty large tracy let me ask you one question um you know size four acres one identification size one identification sign per street frontage with maximum three if if everything else is you know if you got four acres if you got four street frontages with only two entrances or two accesses still allowed a third identification sign good yes okay all right other questions if not absent thank you actually no it would be one per one per street frontage with a maximum of three so if you have a dish you have three street frontages or more you still just get three yeah but if you have two street frontages you'd only get two my question was access if on that development there was just simply two access points with four street frontages yeah i think we have examples like lexington green has frontage on new circle they should be able to put up a sign on new circle if they were beat they're not b3 but in terms of a shot you know a center or project area having frontage on a road you should be able to put up a sign whether you have access or not okay thank you yes sir Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My name is Jacob Walburn. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, MIA Brookhaven. This is part two of our ZODA with regard to signage. I've put together a lengthy presentation anticipating that the commissioners might be presented out today. I'll make it very brief because we are very, very close to an agreement on this. There are just a couple of minor sticking points that I would like to address. primarily to give you an idea of what we're trying to do. This is a property that you all are more than familiar with. I'll preemptively anticipate the question that, no, I don't know any more about Rafferty's than the last time I was here. But we are, and this is a term of art that my mother likes to use, but smack dab in the middle of Nicholasville Road. If you think about the commercial corridor that runs between Manowar and Southland that, in my semi-informed opinion, is probably the busiest in Lexington, We have a lot of competition in terms of other projects, other developments, and we're trying to find a way to set our development apart. If you think about the truly signature developments in Lexington, they get referred to by name. It's not lost on me that you all recently heard Zoda regarding that people don't care about shopping center names. They care about what's in the shopping center. And by and large, I would agree with that. But the truly signature developments in Lexington, we call by name. We call it Hamburg. We call it the mall. We call it Lexington Green. We call it Beaumont Center. We're trying to create a destination location in a very otherwise busy corridor. We're trying to set ourselves apart. All of those places I mentioned have identification signs. Is that why they're successful? No, probably not. But it does help contribute to an overall identity, and that's why we're asking you to do these things, to make this approval for us. I do want to address the various incarnations of this have gone through it. It may seem that we're being unreasonable based on what's going on, and I want to point out that we're really not. Several of you heard this in subcommittee. The proposal we were bringing forward at that time, I can admit to you now, probably was not approvable. But we have been working very closely with staff, very appreciative of staff's indulgence of going through these multiple drafts. But if you refer to Ms. Wade's exhibit where she went through our various incarnations, you'll notice that the first two were actually very, very closely modeled off the professional office project signage in that professional office project signage is in addition to other signage available in the zone. So I could max out my P1 signage, and if I had a professional office project, I could do these identification signs in addition to any other allowable signage. That's what we were trying to do here. We wanted this signage not to count towards our overall business signage. Staff basically indicated to us that there was no way they could recommend that for approval, and we've conceded that. The signage that we're bringing towards you now would come out of the overall business signage that's available for the lot. So if you think about how much business signage you have available, it's a fixed pie. We have a pie of available signage. In B3, it's two square feet of signage per one linear foot of frontage. So we have a fixed pot that we can pull our signage out of. We're just asking to be able to allocate 100 square feet of that per sign on an identification sign versus a business sign. The overall signage is going to be the same. We're not adding any additional signage. Additionally, I would indicate to you that identification signs are available in every single zone in Lexington but this one, B3, B4, I1, I2. This is the only place in Lexington you can't put up an identification sign. They are of various sizes and of various restrictions. That's not uniform. This is literally the only place in town that we can't put one of these. And that's why we're asking you to make the amendment. Speaking to the maximum number of signs issue, our property has three street frontages. So if you were to cap the number at three, that would have no impact on our project. I'm fine with that. I would suggest to you, though, looking at this more globally, one per street frontage is appropriate. Mr. Chairman, you raised the issue of putting them at entrances. and that's a valid place to put one of these. I also suggest the corner of the properties could be very appropriate and these large projects to kind of set them off from their neighbors. We're just asking for the flexibility to put one per street frontage and deploy it where we find it most effective, albeit adequately spaced from other business signs, a point that staff has brought up and we're completely in agreement with. With regard to the 75 versus 100, it doesn't seem like a substantial difference and I understand staff's perspective. But as I mentioned, we're drawing out of a fixed pot of signage. So we're just deploying this in one place versus another. It's not overall increasing to anything. Secondly, most of when the ID signs, when you think about the ones that are around town, they're lofted, they're elevated, they're on poles. We've agreed not to do that. That's really not the focus of our proposal. We've limited it to 10 feet tall, But we're also on Nicholasville Road, where there is an abundance of signage. So if we're not going to put our sign in the air, we need to make it big enough that people will see it. That's frankly the difference in opinion between us and staff. So we would be certainly fine with you all imposing a maximum, if that is the commission's desire. We would respectfully request the latitude to deploy our signage up to 100 square feet, as we think that's more appropriate. There is a self-limiting component here. Business signage is more valuable than identification signage. In fact, at the very top of her presentation, Ms. Wade read to you the identification sign definition that says in the definition can have no direct advertising value. So we have to be pretty dedicated to wanting to create this project identity to pull it away from business signage, which can have value, versus this ID signage, which can have no direct advertising value. So I appreciate the Commission's indulgence here. We would respectfully ask for 100 square feet of allowable signage, and I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have. Questions? Yes, sir. First of all, let me say how much I appreciate the working with the staff and trying to resolve this, and I think you make a good presentation and a good argument. But you started off with saying that these were just a couple of minor issues. If that's the case, why can't you all resolve those things before? Well, and I think we had a very similar issue, maybe even raised by yourself last time. I don't believe staff will be inclined to go beyond 75 feet, And frankly, we're asking for the flexibility to have 100 square feet. I guess it's time for the commission to decide what's most appropriate. We don't find 100 to be offensive. We don't think it will contribute to significant over-signage. As I mentioned, it's coming out of a fixed budget. So we have worked with staff. We've tried to address all of the concerns we possibly can. I just don't think I can agree to limit us to 75 feet. May I ask Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. is the big sticking issue then the difference between 75 and 100? As far as we're concerned, yes. That's the one sticking point. That would be the one point. Yes, sir. Let me ask you, as your project goes along, you will be changing these signs? No, no. So the sign that you put up will be the sign that will be there when you put the trees in? Yes. This is envisioned to come after. The best example that I can think of is really more of what it looks like in front of a residential neighborhood, but it's slower to the ground with elongated. It's probably closer to the Southwick sign that's on the screen right now. That's what we're envisioning to create an identity for the complex. It's permanent signage that would go in basically when we're ready to open for business. It's not preliminary to anything. Thank you. Mr. Drake? Does your applicant, the developer that you represent, I assume that they have some experience in other instances in which they feel that 100 feet is adequate? Absolutely. Correct? We have seen some. Do you have any instances in which 75 feet is inadequate? I would say that the 100 square foot number, and to give you an idea of the evolution, we had said 60 feet initially because we thought that that was going to be the most we could get the staff to agree to for additional signage. As we reduced the number, we tried to make them a little bigger. Once we drew out of the same pot, we started to look at renderings that our developer had put together with their architect of what they wanted this actual sign to look like. Unfortunately, I can't share those with you today. not because they're top secret or anything like that. They're simply not done yet. They're not at a point that the developer is willing to release them publicly. But our developer has had extensive experience in other areas developing property, feels that the type of signage they envision, I think the most recent version I saw comes out at about 92 square feet. We're asking for the little 8-foot wiggle room. As far as citing a specific example, the developer does have a representative here today. He may be able to think of one, as I expressed to the commission last time. I'm a little new to the real estate development world, but perhaps, can you think of an example? And our developer has primarily been operating out of state, and he's more involved in Kentucky. But the 100-foot figure did come from an architectural rendering of what they would like the actual sign to look like. That's where that number came from. Thank you. You're welcome. Other questions? Yes, sir. One other quick question. We're talking about between 75 and 100 feet now. Is this a deal breaker for you? I'm not sure that it's a – should the commission will these only be 75 feet? I'm confident we'll find a way to work around that. However, it is our preference and the designs we are looking at would call for the greater allowance. we're in agreement on everything else we're asking for the commission's latitude on 25 square feet nice answer thank you let me let me ask this um you know when this started it looks like according to this exhibit in may uh collectively you you know the request was for 240 square feet of identification sign now we're up to 400 square feet I thought there was supposed to be some compromise there and I would again point out that that was 240 additional feet of signage that we could have had beyond what we could have had as staff referred to it in our email exchanges it was double dipping we were trying to max out our business signage and then get more and they could not endorse such a proposal we have been consistently at the 400 now 300-foot level since we have been pulling it out of our business signage. Our thought basically is if we're sacrificing business signage, we'd like the additional latitude to build the actual ID signs we want that we think an appropriate size, appropriate scale for the Nicholasville Road corridor. Okay. Mr. Wilson, are you done? Yes? Okay. No? I didn't clear you. Any other questions? Thank you sir. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience want to speak or? Okay, very good. Miss Wade, anything else? The examples the staff provided in terms of identification signs were related to business. So their claim that identification signs are permitted in all zones is true. Ag zones can have an identification sign for your farm, but they're very limited. For the church, it's 32 square feet. Most identification signs that are permitted in our community are smaller than 75, and the only sign that's permitted larger than that is for a project of at least 10 acres. Their proposal is for a project of only 4 acres. the staff feels that it should be proportional then to the size of your project and then in that way we don't encourage zone changes to be three for signage the other thing is there's going to be other projects besides this one that we have to think about the unknown really of b3 b4 i1 and i2 that will utilize this identification signage and whether a hundred square feet is appropriate in all of those instances as well not just b3 so the staff feels it's more consistent to have that 75 square foot for all identification signs related to the business uses and not jump to 100. i think that's it thank you miss white commission have anything else otherwise i think mr derek uh yes mr chairman i'm i'm way out of my field here i haven't had any experience with signage since the 1970s but i do recall at that time and the what what i was working with then was real estate sales and we had difficulty getting the information that we wanted on those kinds of signs in 75 square feet. We typically used about 96 to 100 square feet. And I'm confused about the exceptions that exist now because there are some apparently destination signs, that's a new concept to me too, that are larger. Fayette Mall was the example. Does that, will that put these kinds of developments at a disadvantage? The larger shopping centers can have 150 square feet. They have to be, again, over 10 acres in size. So the ordinance is set up sort of in a, as a project gets larger, you can have more signage, more identification signs, more business signs too, because you have more frontage on roads most likely. I don't personally think that puts anybody at a disadvantage because I think it makes your sign proportional to your project. The larger project, the larger the sign gets. The smaller the project is, the smaller the sign gets. If you only have an acre B1 site, your sign should be smaller than if you have a 10-acre B1 site. Your signage. It grows as the project grows. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Otherwise, I think we can probably move on. If there's no other questions, I'll close this part of it and have any discussion and or a motion. Well, we've got a staff alternative here, or we can change it. As you have heard from the applicant and his wishes. we do have a staff alternative with supplemental staff report here well i think they're working on it yellow alternatives behind the yellow staff report we can put it on the overhead that's for clarification purposes I think the colloquy between Commission members and the applicant that the the only issue we're just discussing is 75 versus 100 is that correct thank you Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, then, I haven't spent as much time before debating an issue of 25 square feet, but what the heck. I move approval of the staff's alternative text as identified by the staff. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the staff alternative text. as presented by the staff for their reasons this is the zoda 2015-6 any questions on the motion if not please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes thank you folks thank you good luck only you're sure it's not going to be a rafferty's identification sign or something um miss barb rackers is next with the public facility review 2015-5 staff report on uk health care good samaritan hospital well let's see that's what i'm thinking Much to do about nothing. You said you don't want to do that? I heard you had a 25 index card or something. I was just told. I heard you had 25 index card. I've been in real estate long enough to know that 25 square feet can make a big difference. Say that again? Try. Okay. This is PFR 2015-5, and it is a request by UK Healthcare. It can be found on page 6 of your agenda. It's to review the expansion of their emergency department at their Good Sam campus. We've got South Limestone along here, Maxwell Street here, Martin Luther King here, and this is the property. It's a 4.53-acre property. It's Zone P1, and it is on the northern edge of UK's campus. It's within the downtown master plan area, is designated by the 2007 comprehensive plan. And then from the 2001 comp plan, it had an underlying land use recommendation of professional service and office use. And a hospital is a typical use in a P1 zone, and it's also typical of the uses that are recommended for the professional service. land use category. This hospital has been in this location for at least 60 years, and they have existing buildings. There are three main buildings. This is the main hospital building here. This is the three-story parking garage, and then they have a cooling and equipment building, cooling tower and equipment building right there. All together, that goes over 315,600 square feet. it's a big a lot of a lot of building for that small property what they want to do there will be selective demolition and construction they're going to expand the building if you'll put the next one up bill please this is what the back of the hospital looks like right now this is the emergency area they're going probably to demolish some of this right here because that's where the two-story expansion is going to be and then they're going to expand the canopy out about 1200 square feet and then they'll have some sidewalk improvements in there also and the two-story building on the first floor will be an expansion of the emergency room it'll have the waiting and administration area and it'll be able to accommodate six exam rooms when it's finished and then the second story will be an enclosed hvac penthouse that is all located in this area right here. This is the existing canopy, and this is the emergency department right here. This will be the sidewalk improvements, and then this will be the two-story building. This is where the canopy will come out with the 1,200 square feet. These plans have been in place for about five years, and they plan to start this in October, and it'll probably be finished by August or September of 2017. It'll take about 21 months, And the reason for that is that they're phasing their interior renovation. They're also going to be renovating the pathology lab and the radiology area. They're phasing it so that they won't be interrupting the services that they offer. The comp plan entirely supports this, the mission statement, the goals and objectives, and the text. The mission statement sets the tone of the plan and says that it seeks to provide flexible planning guidance to ensure that the development of our community's resources and infrastructure preserves our quality of life and fosters regional planning and economic development. And that can be on both a large scale and a small scale. And there are several goals and objectives that support this. Those are on pages two and three of your staff report. The community facilities section of the plan states that a desirable community must possess quality public and semi-public services, including fire and police protection, public schools, libraries and hospitals parks and recreation and utilities and it also says that these facilities should be accessible and available to all citizens this is also epgood and destination 2040. so all of these documents support this good sam hospital was founded in 1888 and it's been its current location since at least 1954. it was a private hospital up until 2007 when uk bought it and made it part of their health care network. It's a regional hospital that serves mainly central and eastern Kentucky and it does have its own specialties just like other hospitals do. And then once this project is complete, the emergency department will be able to offer improved and expanded service to their patients that are in and around the area within and outside of Lexington. We find it to be in compliance with a comprehensive plan. It's supported by the goals and objectives, the text, the mission statement, Destination 2040, and ask that you find it to be in compliance with a comprehensive plan. Mr. John Hunt is here to answer any questions about the project that you might have, and if you have any questions about the staff report, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Any questions for Ms. Rackers? No? Mr. Henry or Hanna? John Hunt. Hunt. I'm sorry. Mr. Hunt, anything to add? No, no, no. I'm just more here for questions. Any questions for Mr. Hunt? Thank you for your patience today. Thank you. where the ambulance is going uh no sir no it'll stay the same height it'll be just full extension the grade fortunately falls away come forward to the microphone say we we had to get you up here anyway i sit there long enough i deserve right no sir the canopy will stay at the same height uh fortunately the grade of that end of the drive falls away so it will in essence make it a little bit higher but no whatever the clearance is now we'll stay the same so as emergency vehicle is getting bigger you know that thing is pretty it is tight i don't i don't disagree with you there uh at some point they got to stop getting bigger they'll be hitting bridges too so anything else commission members thank you mr hunt if nothing else i believe we can entertain a motion anyone yes ma'am mr chair i move approval pfr 2015-5 uk healthcare good samaritan hospital motion's been made and seconded for approval of pfr 2015-5 uh if there's no questions please vote when it comes up on the screen That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hunt, for your patience once again. Commission items? I think we're going to. I think Mr. King is just chomping at the bit to tell us, give us official notice on that. Mr. King. Just a couple of staff items. First of all, that we will be having a work session a week from today here in this room, and I'm tempted to just add that it will not include the recreational soda for the first time. It seems like it. I can't remember. So we have a number of other items that have been kind of pending that activity that we look forward to bringing to you some new initiatives that are pretty serious and pretty important, so we look forward to that. The only other thing that the staff would like to mention is that one of our own is celebrating a birthday today, so we'd like to give a shout-out to Mr. Sally. and thank had the commission join and wishing him a happy birthday i would offer a song but i think we'll run everybody out of the building if we did that yes sir mr king related to the recommendations that came to this body from the um subcommittee related to environmental sensitive areas yes where will it be where will when will we hear about that uh we will be developing text amendments as a staff from that and we're bringing that to you the future work session okay it's on the work program i don't think we have any audience items or anything else from the the commission if not thank you I'll entertain motion for adjournment all those in favor please say aye any opposed thank you meetings adjourned you