# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - August 27, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 27, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3749 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3749?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-08-27 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 20,739 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 August 27, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Mr. Chairman presided over the meeting, which included consideration of five agenda items. The Commission approved the minutes from the July 23, 2015 meeting and took action on three zoning map amendment and zoning development plan proposals. Two of these proposals—one from Solomon Van Meter and another from Gulfstream Enterprises, LLC—were approved, while a proposal from Lex Properties, LLC was denied. One item regarding postponements and withdrawals was deferred. During the meeting, the Commission took 10 votes and heard 7 public comments. ## Attendance **Present:** Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Carolyn Plumlee, Frank Penn, Carolyn Richardson, and Joseph Smith. **Absent:** Will Berkley and Bill Wilson. **Late arrivals:** None. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included ten votes on various zoning and development matters, all conducted by voice vote. **Postponements** Three items were postponed to later dates: - MAR 2015-15 (Flying Dutchman Properties, LLC) was postponed to October 22, 2015. Motion by Ms. Mundy, seconded by Mr. Smith [timestamp: 0:19:00] - MARV 2015-8 (Dr. Michael Gentry) was postponed to September 24, 2015. Motion by Mr. Penn, seconded by Ms. Richardson [timestamp: 0:20:03] - CT 2015-1 (Skyway Towers, LLC & Cellco Partnership) was postponed to September 10, 2015. Motion by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Penn [timestamp: 0:21:05] **Approvals** Four items were approved: - MARV 2015-12 (Solomon Van Meter) for zone change from B-4 to B-1, with three conditions including Urban County Council rezoning requirement and development plan compliance. Motion by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Mr. Owens [timestamp: 0:44:18] - A variance to increase maximum front yard setback from 20 to 100 feet in B-1 zone, with the same three conditions. Motion by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Mr. Owens [timestamp: 0:44:49] - ZDP 2015-61 (Meadowthorpe Community Business Center, Unit 1) with thirteen revised conditions addressing engineering, traffic, forestry, and site design requirements. Motion by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Ms. Mundy [timestamp: 0:46:00] - MARV 2015-14 (Gulfstream Enterprises, LLC) for zone change from B-6P to B-5P, with seven conditions including rezoning requirement and prohibition on outdoor swimming pools. Motion by Mr. Owens, seconded by Ms. Mundy [timestamp: 0:57:28] - ZDP 2015-65 (Man o' War, Unit 2A) with the same seven conditions as MARV 2015-14. Motion by Mr. Owens, seconded by Ms. Mundy [timestamp: 0:57:59] **Disapproval and Indefinite Postponement** - MAR 2015-11 (Lex Properties, LLC) for zone change from A-U to R-3 was disapproved, with findings that the R-3 zone conflicts with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and is incompatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Motion by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Penn [timestamp: 2:51:40] - ZDP 2015-53 (Winding Creek at Monticello) was indefinitely postponed pending further review of environmental and zoning concerns. Motion by Mr. Owens, seconded by Ms. Mundy [timestamp: 2:52:48] ## Public Comment Seven members of the public provided comments on the proposed development during the meeting. **Flooding and Drainage Concerns** Larry Stahlman [timestamp: 0:41:00] expressed concern about potential flooding on his property due to the proposed development, particularly during heavy rainfall, and requested assurance that drainage would not worsen the situation. Mark Tucker [timestamp: 2:20:14] shared personal experience with sewer overflows and warned that new development could worsen downstream flooding and overflow issues. **Environmental Contamination** Otto Pioski [timestamp: 2:04:04] raised concerns about possible PCB and heavy metal contamination from the former sewage treatment plant. He cited a soil test result slightly above EPA limits and called for further testing. **Zoning and Land Use** Robin Young [timestamp: 2:21:53] advocated for R1 zoning instead of R3 to maintain compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and preserve the current use of the property as a buffer. Daniel Evan Belt [timestamp: 2:24:41] questioned the developer's claim of needing R3 zoning flexibility, asking whether the plan could be changed after approval and whether lot sizes would be fixed. **School Enrollment and Lot Size** Molly Franklin [timestamp: 2:19:07] noted that Wellington Elementary School enrollment will increase next year due to redistricting and expressed concern that R3 zoning could lead to smaller lot sizes than promised. **Property Access** Cabby Acres [timestamp: 2:25:51] asked about access to and responsibility for land on the other side of the creek, which is currently undeveloped and inaccessible. ## Contested Items **Lex Properties, LLC Rezoning from A-U to R-3** A proposal to rezone property owned by Lex Properties, LLC from A-U (Agricultural-Urban) to R-3 (Residential) zoning generated significant community opposition. Over 400 neighbors voiced concerns about the proposed rezoning, citing multiple issues with the development plan. The primary concerns raised by opposing neighbors included: - Environmental contamination at the site - Development within the floodplain - Incompatibility with surrounding neighborhoods Staff analysis supported the community's position, with the planning staff recommending disapproval of the zone change request. The Commission voted to disapprove the rezoning from A-U to R-3 and indefinitely postponed the associated development plan, effectively blocking the project from moving forward. ## Approval of Minutes – July 23, 2015 The minutes from the July 23, 2015, meeting were presented for approval. [timestamp: 00:17:53] Mr. Cravens and Ms. Richardson were the key speakers on this agenda item. The minutes were approved by a vote of 9-0, with no objections raised. ## Postponements and Withdrawals During this agenda item, the meeting addressed requests to postpone three items from the current agenda. [timestamp: 00:18:27] **Items Postponed:** - **Flying Dutchman Properties** – postponed to October 22 - **Dr. Michael Gentry** – postponed to September 24 - **Skyway Towers** – postponed to September 10 **Key Participants:** Jacob Walbourn, Richard Murphy, and Mr. Sally participated in the discussion of these postponements. **Outcome:** All three postponement requests were approved and deferred to their respective future dates. No withdrawals were requested during this agenda item. ## Zoning Map Amendment & Zoning Development Plan – Solomon Van Meter [timestamp: 00:25:28] The Planning Commission heard a presentation regarding a proposed zoning map amendment and development plan for 1447 Antique Drive. The application sought to change the property's zoning classification from B-4 to B-1, along with a variance request for a 100-foot front yard setback. **Key Speakers and Presentation** The discussion involved Mr. Sallee, Mr. Martin, Mr. Emmons, and applicant Solomon Van Meter. The applicant and staff presented the proposal to the Commission. **Basis for the Proposal** The zoning change and variance request were supported based on compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding neighborhood context. The presentation emphasized how the proposed changes aligned with existing planning documents and the character of the area. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the zoning map amendment and zoning development plan for Solomon Van Meter's property at 1447 Antique Drive. ## Zoning Map Amendment & Zoning Development Plan – Gulfstream Enterprises, LLC [timestamp: 00:47:26] The Commission reviewed a zoning map amendment and development plan request from Gulfstream Enterprises, LLC for a site located near the I-75 and Man o' War interchange. The proposal sought to rezone the property from B-6P to B-5P to facilitate hotel development. **Presentation and Staff Recommendation** Ms. Wade, Ms. Gallagher, and Mr. Turner presented the request to the Commission. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning, citing the compatibility of the proposed hotel use with surrounding commercial and transportation-oriented uses in the area. Staff also noted that the site was currently underutilized, and the rezoning would allow for more productive use of the property consistent with the area's development pattern. **Outcome** The Commission approved the zoning map amendment and zoning development plan for Gulfstream Enterprises, LLC. ## Zoning Map Amendment & Zoning Development Plan – Lex Properties, LLC The Commission considered a proposal by Lex Properties, LLC to rezone a 10-acre site near Monticello from A-U (Agricultural-Urban) to R-3 (Residential). The rezoning would allow development of 27 single-family lots on the property. **Presentation and Discussion** Key speakers during the agenda item included Ms. Wade, Mr. Martin, Dick Murphy, Greg Edmondson, Otto Pioski, Bob Seelback, Molly Franklin, Mark Tucker, Robin Young, Daniel Evan Belt, and Cabby Acres. The discussion encompassed approximately 59 minutes of the meeting [timestamp: 0:59:13]. **Concerns Raised** Neighbors and community members raised several significant concerns about the proposed development: - Environmental contamination risks at the site - Floodplain development issues - Density concerns regarding the 27-lot proposal and its compatibility with the surrounding area **Staff Recommendation** The staff recommended disapproval of the rezoning proposal, citing two primary reasons: - Environmental risks associated with the site - Incompatibility with surrounding neighborhoods **Outcome** The Commission denied the zoning map amendment and zoning development plan for Lex Properties, LLC. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of MAR 2015-15 (Flying Dutchman Properties, LLC) to October 22, 2015 - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of MARV 2015-8 (Dr. Michael Gentry) to September 24, 2015 - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of CT 2015-1 (Skyway Towers, LLC & Cellco Partnership) to September 10, 2015 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of MARV 2015-12 (Solomon Van Meter) for zone change from B-4 to B-1 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of requested variance to increase maximum front yard setback from 20 to 100 feet in B-1 zone - **Motion** — passed: Approval of ZDP 2015-61 (Meadowthorpe Community Business Center, Unit 1) with revised conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of MARV 2015-14 (Gulfstream Enterprises, LLC) for zone change from B-6P to B-5P - **Motion** — passed: Approval of ZDP 2015-65 (Man o’ War, Unit 2A) with revised conditions - **Motion** — passed: Disapproval of MAR 2015-11 (Lex Properties, LLC) for zone change from A-U to R-3 - **Motion** — postponed: Indefinite postponement of ZDP 2015-53 (Winding Creek at Monticello) --- ## Full transcript This city, head down to the sea Gonna shout out at the ocean, it's me I feel like a number I feel like a number I feel like a stranger A stranger in this land I feel like a number I'm not a number I'm not a number Damn it, I'm a man. I feel like a nut man. I feel like a man. I feel like a man. Devil or angel, I can't make up my mind. Which one you are, I'd like to wake up and find. Devil or angel, dear, whichever you are, I miss you, I miss you, I miss you. Devil or angel, please say you'll be mine. Love me or leave me, I'll go out of my mind. Devil or angel, dear whichever you are I need you, I need you, I need you You look like an angel, your smile is divine But you keep me guessing, will you ever be mine? I'm devil or angel. Please say you'll be mine. Love me or leave me. I've made up my mind. Devil or angel. Do whichever you are. I love you. I love you. I love you. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh I love you, I love you He works way too much for way too little He drinks way too early till way too late He hasn't had a race since New Year's Day in 88 He gets trampled on by everyone except when he comes in here Now he's a product of the haggard generation He's got a redneck side when you get him agitated He got the gold tooth look from a stiff right hook He's proud he took Oh, his right wing stand on Vietnam Says he lost his brother there He yells out Johnny Cash And the band starts to play A ring of five as he walks up And stands there by the stage And he says, hell yeah, I'm turning up Right on Hell yeah, sounds good Sing that song, guitar man, playing all night long Take me back to where the music hit me Life was good and love was easy She got an MBA and a plush corner office She got a don't mess with me attitude She'll close the deal when she don't reveal That she can't feel the loneliness The emptiness up when she comes in here She's a product of the me generation She's got a rock and roll side when you get her agitated She's got the tattoo there on her dairy end From a spring break there in Panama When love was all she thought she'd ever need She yells out to the band No any Bruce Springsteen Then she jumps up on the bar And she, and she starts to scream She says, hell yeah Turn it up, right on Hell yeah, sounds good Sing that song Guitar man playing all night long Take me back to where the music hit me Life was good, love was easy Yeah, yeah It'll paint to get my mind off thinking about Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday Hey, hell yeah Hell yeah, turn it up, right on Hell yeah, sounds good, sing that song A guitar man playing all night long Take me back to where the music hit me, life is good Hell yeah, turn it up, right on Hell yeah, sounds good Sing that song, guitar man Play it all night long Take it back to where the music's in Life is good, love was easier guitar solo I'll never smile again Until I smile at you I'll never laugh again What good would it do For tears would fill my eyes My heart would realize That our romance is through I'll never love again I'm so in love with you I'll never thrill again to somebody new. Within my heart I know I will never start To smile again Until I smile at you Within my heart I know I will never start to smile again until I smile at you. I'm sorry. On a western bay and it serves a hundred ships a day. Lonely sailors pass the time away and talk about their homes. And there's a girl in this harbor town and she works laying whiskey down. They say brandy, fetch another round. She serves them whiskey and wine. The sailors say, Brandy, you're a fine girl. What a good life you would be. Yeah, your house could steal a sailor from the sea. Brandy wears a braided chain made of finest silver from the north of Spain. A locket that bears the name of a man that Brandy loved He came on a summer's day Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It is 1.30, and I will call this meeting to order for August 27, 2015. I'd like to welcome everyone here. First on the agenda would be approval of minutes dated July 23, 2015. They were emailed to commission members for their review. At this time, I have not heard of any corrections or changes. If there are any, please let it be known now. Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of the minutes of July 23rd. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made in second for the approval of July 23rd, 2015 minutes. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Next would be any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Please come forward. Good afternoon. Jacob Walburn, on behalf of Flying Dutchman Properties, we're item 6 on your agenda. We're in the process of amending our application and would request a postponement until October 22nd at the commission's pleasure. It's at the bottom of page 7, item 6, Flying Dutchman Properties. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move postponement of Flying Dutchman Properties, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment, in Gibson Park subdivision until October 22nd. Twenty-second. Motion has been made and seconded for the postponement of flying Dutchman properties, the zone change, and the associated ZDP until October 22nd. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir, Mr. Murphy. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. On page one, the first item, item one, Dr. Michael Gentry, zoning map amendment, and Cadentown subdivision zoning development plan. I represent the applicant. We are amending our application, too, so we would request a one-month postponement on that. I presume that would be what date? September 24th. Thank you, Mr. Sally, until 9-24. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion for postponement. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of MAR 2015-8 to September 24th meeting. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for the postponement of Dr. Michael Gendry, the zone change in associated variance and associated ZDP until 9-24. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chair, if there are none from the audience. On page 11 of your agenda, item A, under commission items, we've received a request for a postponement until September 10th of CT 2015-1 for Skyway Towers and Selco Partnership. Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members if not I'll entertain a motion for postponement until 9 10 2015. Yes ma'am. Mr. Chair move postponement of a CT 2015-1 Skyway Towers to for one month. Not one month September 10th which is less than a month. Thank you. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for the postponement of CT 2015-1 Skyway Towers until September 10, 2015. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? seeing none we may have a couple of items on the agenda today that could be sounded for abbreviated hearings i'll ask mr sally to take us through that part of the agenda thank you mr chairman members of the commission good afternoon you do still have a number of zone change items on your agenda but we do think a few of them may qualify for your consideration at this time under the rules you have for abbreviated hearings. The first would appear on page 4 of your meeting agenda, item number 3, MARV 2015-12, a zone change request by Solomon Van Meter, requesting a B-1 neighborhood business zone for property at 1447 N.T. Drive. At this time, the staff would ask if there is anyone in the audience who is present who wishes to discuss or object to this zone change proposed by Mr. Van Meter for property on Antique Drive. Again, is anyone here for that item? Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this can be your first abbreviated hearing this afternoon. Okay. Do you want to go with others now? Yes, sir. Okay. On page 6, MAR 2015-14, Gulfstream Enterprises, LLC. This is a zone change request involving property at 2008-2024 Bryant Road and 1976 Justice Drive. This is requested for a B5P interchange service business zone. Again, at this time, we would ask if anyone is present in the audience who wishes to speak or to object to this item on the bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7, zone change to B5P for property on Pleasant Ridge Drive and Bryant Road. Anyone here for that one? Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this can be our second abbreviated hearing today. We could ask about the item on page 8 of your meeting agenda, MARCV 2015-16 National Station LLC. This is a zone change request from an R2 two-family residential zone to an R3 planned neighborhood residential zone for property with an address of 334 Richmond Avenue. The associated development plan does encompass more properties than this, but the zone change is just for a single property. Again, this is recommended for approval, and the staff would ask if anyone's present who wishes to discuss or object to this zone change proposed at 334 Richmond Avenue. Thank you. We do have someone here. Okay. So we will need to have a full hearing on that. So we have other possible item, item four on page five. We believe we have a development plan issue on that one that will require a full hearing. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very good. So the item three on page four should be our first item. Thank you, sir. Page four of the agenda is item three, Solomon Van Meter Zoning Map Amendment and Metaphor Community Business Center, Unit 1, Amended Zoning Development Plan. That's MARV 2015-12 will be our first one. We'll let the staff set up and go from there. As they're getting ready, just take note, it is a zone change request along with a variance and the associated ZDP. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This item is on page 4, item 3 of your meeting agenda, MARV 2015-12, a zone change request along with a preliminary development plan and a variance request for Solomon Van Meter. This is a zone change request from a B4 wholesale and warehouse business zone to a requested B1 neighborhood business zone. The zone change involves just under three and a half gross acres of property, the property being a single address of 1447 Antique Drive. We have on the aerial photo part of the application that was submitted by the applicant. This is the Zomar Platte. It is a combination of an aerial photo and also the survey work done for the zone change. I'll orient you to the location of the subject property using this and then move to the zoning map. Subject property has an address of Antique Drive. We'll just use a pointer here. Antique Drive, which connects North Forbes with Burke Road, both of which parallel Leestown Road here. Subject property is behind the commercial area known as Metathorpe that's been there for many, many years. It is a triangular-shaped piece of property, but it does have what the staff has described as two wings, if you will, along the frontage of Antique. that have about 40 feet of frontage along both North Forbes Road and along Burke Road. Subject property. The zone change is from B4 to B1. This property was rezoned to B4 in 2008. and was B1 zoned before that. But over its history for the past 30 to 35 years, it's been a vacant tract, remains vacant today. The applicant is proposing the zone change in order to develop either an assisted living facility on the property or a licensed physical care facility for this location. The applicant's justification for the zone change is that it is an agreement with the goals and objectives portion of the comprehensive plan. The staff has reviewed that application and believes that it does meet the test that this zone changes in agreement with the plan. B-1 would also be consistent with the zoning that's provided surrounding the property. The property is almost entirely surrounded by B-1 zoning, with one very small exception. Next to Mittathorpe, this area is zoned R1C, single-family residential. The surrounding zoning otherwise is B1, neighborhood business. The uses that are proposed are allowed in the B1 zone, neighborhood business zone. The staff and your zoning committee have recommended approval of this rezoning to B1 for the reasons that are listed in our staff report and on your agenda. That is that the requested B-1 zone is in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan for three reasons. The first being that the goals and objectives of the plan provide for safe, affordable, and accessible housing to meet the needs of older residents of the county. This development will accomplish that goal by providing a specialized residence for seniors in need of assistance with a spectrum of care. Secondly, the goals and objectives encourage infill and redevelopment to create jobs where people reside. Obviously, this will provide employment opportunities for the service providers and those employed to provide medical services at this location. Finally, the plan's goals and objectives support health care facilities to meet the needs of the county's residents. The petitioner will provide such a residential care facility at this location for a portion of the county that traditionally has been underserved by these types of facilities. The staff also placed in our report a finding that the proposed B-1 zoning is appropriate for the subject property since it is more than 90% surrounded by existing B-1 zoning. Our recommendation on the zone change is made subject to your review and approval of the zoning development plan that will be presented to you in just a moment. After you hear that presentation, Mr. Emmons will also describe to you the dimensional variance that has been requested with this request. Prior to those presentations, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about this zone change request. Any questions for Mr. Selle? No? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan that is associated with this zone change is on page 5 of your agenda, the ZDP 2015-61 Metathorpe Community Business Center. You can see here on the rendering that this is Antique Drive, this is Public Right-A-Way that runs in behind the Metathorpe Shopping Center at this location. We have Burke Road and Metathorpe Avenue here in this location with residential in this area. And here we have the site in question. This is an 18,000-square-foot building they're proposing. There are 40 parking spaces principally in this area, the majority, and then there's 10 in this area. There are 30 beds being proposed for the assisted living facility. You can see there is considerable green space, and this is a large recreational area that's associated with the development. There is a large easement that runs right down to here along the existing property line. This will have to be addressed prior to any permits and any construction taking place. And, of course, at the time of the final development plan is when they will pursue permits and construction. Here we have a proposed detention area. There has been some issues on this property with some water and with detention. It is interesting that this existing storm sewer that you see here, this is a large, older easement, actually runs under the commercial development in Metathorpe. That's something, of course, we try to avoid nowadays, but that's an older situation. They will have to collect the water and they will have to bring it through here and into our existing system. There is a large access easement right through here that you can see, and that has a bearing to a certain degree on the variance that Jimmy is going to be explaining to you. The request for B-1, as you all are aware, B-1 now has a Build-2 line from 10 feet off the right-of-way to no maximum of 20 feet off the right-of-way. This is set back considerably further than that with the parking in the front. And a big aspect of that request has to do with not only with its location here at Antique Drive and the commercial area, but the access, the large existing access easement, as well as the need to address the stormwater. But Mr. Immens will elaborate on that for you with his variance presentation. Your subdivision committee did review this plan. It is subject to the standard sign-offs for a preliminary development plan. There are a few cleanup items you can see, just some additional information that is required on the plan. As I pointed out to you, one is to denote the timing of the resolution of the building easement conflict on the plan. I just described that to you. That will be something they'll have to address. We would anticipate it would be addressed with the final development plan. There are two discussion items that remain, one of which, number 11, I'll draw your attention to first, and that's the front building line. And again, that will be handled by the variance request. Should you approve that variance, then that item will be addressed by that action. We do have an additional one, and that's discuss pedestrian access to the site and street improvements. Antique Drive is public right-of-way, not in the best of condition. There are very few improvements that exist along the frontage. As you are aware, staff and traffic engineering, we like to see improvements to our public right-of-ways. We particularly think that is important. They're showing a walk here that will connect the development to this area. We do believe pedestrian connections would be very important to this area, this facility, serving the neighborhood, people living in the neighborhood who could both come here to visit, have relatives here, also be employed on the site. So, again, we believe pedestrian access into this site is important. Again, this is a preliminary development plan, and at the time that we get a final development plan, we believe we could address the specifics as to the improvements to the right-of-way as well as pedestrian access into the site. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. Mr. Emmons, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Bill and Tom have done a very good job of describing the zone change in the property. I will jump directly into the requested dimensional variance. As Tom mentioned, the B1 zone has a maximum front yard setback of 20 feet, and the applicant is requesting a maximum front yard setback for this project of 100 feet. And at first glance, going from 20 to 100 seems like a very big variance to request. However, there are several unique circumstances with this particular piece of property that warrant and justify this request. The first one being that the property is oddly shaped. It's described in the staff report as essentially a triangle with wings, and I told the zoning committee this because I didn't think I could get shaped like a newspaper party hat through the final staff report. But the subject property is oddly shaped. It does have the physical feature of the drainage area that goes right through the center of the property that Tom mentioned. And it also has an 80-foot easement that goes along over half of the frontage along Antique Drive. But probably the most significant factor that the staff looked at is Antique Drive itself. It functions primarily as a service road to the back of the Metathorpe shops. This is the only property that fronts on Antique Drive. And if the overall purpose of our setback requirements are to create compatible development and bring those neighborhood businesses forward, in this particular case, this is a very unique circumstance, much like most of Metathorpe is very unique. This is no exception to that. We feel that the fact that Antique Drive in and of itself is a public street, but it functions more as a service road to the backs of the commercial businesses, that for the proposed use of the care facility, it is justified to go ahead and move this facility back further and grant the 100 foot that is requested for this variance. The staff is recommending approval as listed on your agenda and in the staff report. Our recommendation of approval is subject to three very standard conditions that provided this property is zoned, B-1, and also that it will be developed in accordance with the submitted development plan, and that a note shall be placed on that development plan noting the Planning Commission's approval of the requested variance. If you have any questions for me, I would be happy to answer them. I believe this concludes all of the staff presentations. So if you have any questions for any staff, we will be happy to try and... Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Any questions for Jimmy? No? Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any questions at this point for any other staff members? No. Applicant? Would you be in your name? I'm Solomon Van Meter. Thank you, sir. I really have nothing to add, but I'd be happy to answer any questions. In agreement with recommendations from staff on all three issues? On the zoning development plan number 10, discussion of pedestrian access, would you be acceptable on that reading resolve at the time of final development plan? Yes. Okay. and number 11 may go away depending on the variance. Okay, at this time, duly noted, thank you for being here and we can move on. We did sound this and at the time there was no one that was interested in speaking. It seems like we do have one interested party. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Would you like to speak? Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to ask or mention as a... I'm sorry, your name? Oh, Larry Stallman. My lovely wife and I own the building at 1481. We purchased it last year. To our horror this year, we realized in March how prone that area is during a very wet year to flooding. We sustained a huge damage to our building because we literally had water coming out of our door. So my concern, and I think they tried to address it here, at least put it in condition of approval, that the drainage area, I forget the name, sir, but you did mention there's a storm drain coming through our section there. And I want to make sure of two things. One, it doesn't make it worse, which I believe is covered here. But I'm also concerned about the new construction, how that will flow, i.e., will we get any overflow from the surface area into our business and into our front streets. And that's my concern, sir. Thank you. Okay, thank you. A lot of this, I think, can be addressed through what we'd call the sign-offs and so forth, which you're noting on number two. Mr. Martin, would you like to add anything? Of course, engineering doesn't appear to be here. However, as you all are aware, at the time of the final development plan, When they pull permits, they'll submit an improvement plan that will address the drainage, and it will have to be handled on-site. I mean, that's how our rules work, so they will have to address that, and there should not be any overflow onto adjoining properties. Mike? Yes, sir. So, Tom, you're saying during construction, they still have to have the on-site detention to handle the runoff? Well, they'll have to deal with it during construction, yes. But when it's all built, they will have detention. I understand, but this person's question was how you're going to handle this during the construction phase. That's handled through the permitting process and the inspection process. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I guess one other question, Tom. With Mr. Stallman being a neighbor, business neighbor, I would presume he'd be notified of development plan notices and so forth. Well, we don't advertise final development plans, but we could certainly send him a notification should he request to be notified. I think that would be appropriate. We'd be happy to, of course. Okay. Very good. The commission can also make that a condition of your approval, is that notification be sent to the owner of that business at the time of the final development plan. Okay. All right, then. Okay. Thank you, sir. so we'll move on with that any questions from the commission before I close this part of the hearing if not I'll close it and open it up for any discussion and or motions we would need three separate ones for the MARV the variants and then the zoning development plan yes sir no discussion Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of MAR 2015-11. I got the wrong one. Sorry. MARV 2015-12. It's on page 4. Yeah, I'm on the wrong page. Excuse me. Although that one looks good, too. Yes, sir. Excuse me. Move for approval of MARV 2015-12, Solomon Van Meter property. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of MARV 2015-12 with the reasons noted by staff. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Next, for the variance request. It's so moved. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of the requested variance with three conditions noted by staff. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And then for the Zoning Development Plan 2015-61. Yes, Mr. Chairman, move for approval of ZDP 2015-61. The motion has been made and seconded for the approval of ZDP 2015-61. Mr. Brewer, the two conditions under discuss, I believe there was discussion that number 10 could be resolved at the time of final development plan. and with the approval of the variance, we could now delete number 11. Is that okay with you? Okay. And notification as well. So we'd add one, as Mr. Sally suggested, which would be now the new number 12, notifying the neighbor, Mr. Stallman. Are you okay with that? Sure. And who's seconding? Second. Ms. Mundy's second, and she's okay with that as well. So the motion's been made and seconded for ZDP 2015-61, Metathorpe Community Business Center, revising the approval. Number 10 to resolve at the time of final development plan. Number 11 is to note emergency access. And then number 12 is to notify Mr. Stallman at the time of final development plan. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. that motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks. Move on to our next abbreviated, which is at the bottom of page 6, Gulfstream Enterprises, LLC. It's MARV 2015-14, and it has the associated ZDP 2015-65. there are revisions on a tan sheet of paper that is before you. There should be revised staff recommendations on a 10 sheet. Maybe. Yeah. Tracy, we've got members that's still looking for the revision, revised staff recommendations. You do have it? Okay, very good. All right. We're together. Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. There's not a revised staff recommendation on the zoning, on the MAR, though. That's in your notebook. So I think Chairman Owens mentioned this is behind tab 6 in your notebooks and at the bottom of page 6 of the agenda. It's MAR 2015-14 Gulfstream Enterprises LLC. They are requesting a rezoning to properties 1750 Pleasant Ridge Drive, 1976 Justice Drive, and 2080 and 2024 Bryant Road. So the subject properties are located in the southwest quadrant of the interchange between Interstate 75 and Manowar Boulevard. Hamburg is to the west, northwest, and Timber Creek subdivision, a single-family residential subdivision, is to the south. There's some other commercial, mostly interstate-related development along Manowar Boulevard and also along the interstate with frontage along the interstate and Bryant Road. Bryant Road loops around the subject property and borders it to the north. Justice Drive borders the properties to the west and then Pleasant Ridge borders to the south within that block there's also a car wash which is currently zoned B5P and a detention basin and then tire store which is currently B6P in the vicinity there's also I1 zoning to the east some of the uses there, many warehouses. I think there's a few automobile-related uses. Again, across Manowar Boulevard is Hamburg Pavilion. Across the interstate is the expansion area. To the north is the Hamburg East development and the Costco new development. And then on the southeast quadrant of that interchange is mostly residential development. The applicant is asking to rezone their four parcels from currently a shopping center neighborhood shopping center zone excuse me plan shopping center zone which is b6p and they're asking to go to the inter interchange service business zone which is our b5p zone. Just an aerial view of the subject properties you can see that a lot of the area around these properties is already developed. I mentioned the car wash. There are restaurants, small shopping center across Justice Drive from the property, single family residential to the south on Redstone Drive, and then hotels to the north along the interstate. The applicant is asking to rezone in order to construct two hotels on their site, and Tom will, I guess, discuss a little bit more detail about their plans for that. The property was originally rezoned in 1989 from an agricultural zone to a B5P zone. No development occurred, and a previous owner to this entity rezoned again in 2004 to a B6P zone, which it is currently, with the intent of developing more shopping-related businesses, similar to what is developed in hamburg after a decade now of no development on this portion of the site the new owner has opted to request a rezoning to back to the b5p zone and again the requested use of this property is a use permitted in b5p but not in b6p our shopping center zone hotels are not permitted within that zone so that would be the impetus for rezoning at this point Although the applicant contended that their request was in agreement with the comprehensive plan, the staff believes that the comprehensive plan doesn't directly address modest or minor changes between different commercial land uses. Rather, the staff would find that the B6P zone is inappropriate at this location and the B5P zone is appropriate. We listed three reasons on the agenda as well as the staff report for that. First, the existing B6P zoning is no longer appropriate because demand for general commercial is being met on alternative sites, being Hamburg Pavilion and then the commercial across the interstate. But neither of these two developments have successfully incorporated hotels to serve the traveling public because of their zoning. The site also remains underutilized after a decade of B6P zoning and should be considered for possible change to an alternative business zone in order to better serve our community. And then lastly, the B5P zone is appropriate at this location because it's compatible with the adjoining uses and zoning, as well as it meets the Article 11 requirements from the zoning ordinance. The staff makes this recommendation of approval. As well, based on the associated development plan and the need for it to be certified within two weeks. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the proposed rezoning. Any questions for Ms. Wade? No? Thank you, ma'am. Thanks. Ms. Gallagher. Good afternoon. And as Tracy said, they are asking to have the B5B sewn. They have proposed to have two hotels. We have Plains Ridge, Justice Drive, and Bryant Road. Currently, I believe they are working with the client towards the hotel here, and they're hoping to find somebody else to occupy this proposed hotel also. We received a revised plan from what the meeting, from our subdivision committee meeting. so we were able to come up with some revised conditions. I believe you'll all find them on the TAN sheet. So provided that the Urban County Council rezones the property, there's one, and then we have three sign-offs from governmental agencies, and then there's just a few cleanup conditions just to verify certain things on Hotel A, which is the proposed hotel that they have, asking for no outdoor swimming pools, and just to make sure that they clarify the area for the canopy. On note number eight, it says clarify note number 17. It should be clarify note number 11. They have a note that is making reference to no building permits and shall be submitted until a consolidation or final record plat, and we cannot hold that. building inspection cannot ask for that to verify for consolidation plat. What we want them to do is no building permit shall be issued until a final development plan is certified. That's just to change that note number 11 on the development plan. With that, I'll leave that with you if there's any other questions. Any questions from Ms. Gull? No? Thank you, ma'am. applicant thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the commission I'm Darby Turner representing the applicant in this case and I have with me Farh Shunj and Matt Hayden who are representatives of the developer and Jason Baker who is the engineer as well if there are any questions but the short response is we're in agreement with the staff's recommendations and the revised staff recommendation on the development plan as well, including the revision to the typo. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Be glad to answer any questions. Any questions? Nope. Thank you, sir. I don't think there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this. If there's no questions from the commission, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion, noting the one change on the ZDP correction of typo on number 8. So, yes, sir. If you're here for a motion, I'm ready to go with it. Yes, sir. I think so. All right, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of MAR 2015-14 for the reasons presented by staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. The motion has been made and seconded for the approval of MARV 2015-14 Gulfstream Enterprises, LLC. For the reasons presented by staff, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. And then for the ZDP. Yes, sir. I move for approval of ZDP 2015-65 on the revised staff recommendation. Changing number 8 to clarify note number 11 as a typo for 17. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for the approval of ZDP 2015-65, Manowar Unit 2A, with the revised aid conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Good luck on your travels. at this time we will back up to I believe it's page three item number two Lex properties LLC zoning map amendment and winding creek at Monticello zoning development planets in my art 2015-11 Lex properties The ZDP is 2015-53. There is a revision on that. It's on a purple sheet that is before you. We'll let the staff set up and present. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, before the staff started, I had talked to them earlier this week. In between the time the zone change was filed and today, my client has closed and purchased the property, so we need to amend the application just to list who the correct owner is. It used to be a Ted Osborne company. Now it is a company called Burlington Heights Condominiums, LLC. I have that application revision and the new deed to put in the record, which I'll give to the staff. And I'll explain during my presentation the fact that the word condominium is in the name of this company does not by any means mean that we will be building condominiums on this particular property. Thank you. Thank you, sir. yes ma'am chairman owens before we start with the presentations from the staff we've received quite a large amount of communications from neighboring property owners related to this requested rezoning there's a petition that was submitted in july when this was first scheduled to be heard and then there's a more recent petition which I would consider kind of an addendum to that original. So I labeled those petition one and petition two, the second petition we received earlier this week from neighboring property owners or residents. And then we also received emails and letters related to the rezoning. I would characterize a majority of these probably all as opposition. And as Ms. Wade's doing that, I will take note of the fact that we do have to vacate this premise ourselves if we're not finished by about 4.15. So if need be, time limits will be imposed on this as well. So go ahead, Ms. Wade. Thank you. this item appears on page three of the agenda item 2a and it's in tab three in your notebooks however the staff has submitted additional information to the Planning Commission just now including a revised or supplemental staff report which we have also put on the back table if anyone would like to see that it's in the tan sheet front and back we've also submitted to the Planning commission a staff report from 1994 which was the previous request for rezoning and also an excerpt from the zoning ordinance related to residential zones so the petitioner in this case is re is Lex well excuse me they've just amended their application Burlington Heights condominium Association and they are requesting a rezoning of 3455 Saybrook Road from the existing agricultural urban zone to a planned neighborhood residential zone, which is the R3 zone. The subject property is about a third covered with, well, it's actually mostly treed or covered with vegetation, but about a third of the subject property is occupied with a floodplain associated with the South Elkhorn Creek, which traverses the property. Saybrook Road stubs into the site, and it's about a 10-acre site. Just in terms of its general zoning, the subject property is AU, but all of the properties around this location are currently zoned R1C, which was one of our single-family residential zones. with the exception of a small lot to the south. And when I look at this property, it sort of looks on the map, looks like a D. But the leg, if it were a P, that piece is also currently zoned AU, but it's owned by LFUCG. So it's not at any time going to be developed to our knowledge, even as a park or anything else. Let's see if there's anything else I need to say. This property is bordered by Robinwood Subdivision and Monticello Subdivision. In the general vicinity, sort of collector streets that you see are Boston Road, Cromwell Way, and then just off our map would be Monticello Drive to the north of this. It may help if I use the bigger map too. Monticello intersects with Clay's Mill to the north of the property, comes into the neighborhood, and then there are connecting streets that come north-south from the south of the subject property. We have Man of War Boulevard, so Clay's Mill-Man of War intersection is further to the southwest of the property. Winthrop Drive is also a collector street that runs north-south to the east of the subject property, and then Shillitoe Park is to the east of the subject property. I hope that orients the Planning Commission. The applicant is proposing to rezone to an R3 zone in order to develop single-family residential. They plan to have 27 single-family residential lots on the property for a resulting residential density of 2.66 dwelling units per acre. Just a few photographs of the subject property. Because it is mostly vegetated, we didn't climb through the vegetation to take photos of the creek. This is the view from Saybrook Road looking into the property. you'll notice sort of a deteriorated driveway there, and I'll possibly explain that in a minute. Just a closer view of the entrance. It is gated, so there's no access into the property. This is a view of the subject property looking towards the creek, and you can see it's adjacent to existing single-family homes, so it's looking towards the east. This is a view looking towards the west, again, adjacent to single-family residential lots. This is a view of South Elkhorn Creek off of the property. Again, it wasn't really accessible. That photo was taken along Halifax, which is to the north. And South Elkhorn Creek is channelized through this location, but it is more natural through the subject property. and it is something that is running 24 hours a day, you know, seven days a week. There's always water in this creek. And this is a view looking from Cromwell, which is south of the subject property, again, of the South Elkhorn Creek. It's a little bit more natural in this location, but it just trees everywhere. Just an aerial of the property again. In terms of the history of the zoning in this area and the activity on the subject property, in 1964, the subject property was rezoned from a residential zone to a heavy industrial zone to allow for development of the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant, which was a private sanitary sewer package plant. that allowed for this portion of the county to be served with sanitary sewer prior to public sanitary sewers coming this far to the southwest in our community. In 1969, the property was rezoned from the I-2 zone to the AU zone, part of a comprehensive rezoning that happened for the entire community. That zoning has remained in place since 1969. Other activity on the property, though, includes 1984. The government went through condemnation action to remove the private sanitary sewer plant and require that all of the adjoining areas be connected to the public sanitary sewer. At that time, or shortly thereafter, the park was utilized for a, I'm sorry, the property was utilized for a neighborhood park. In 1993, the park equipment was removed and the park was closed. And then in 1994, there was a zone change requested by Ball Homes to rezone the property. At that time, from the AU to an R1D zone to develop 22 single-family residential lots. Ultimately, their request was withdrawn, even though I would note that the staff recommended approval at that time because of the R1D's appropriateness. But they withdrew their application after concerns surfaced about environmental contamination on the subject property. The comprehensive plan, 2013 comprehensive plan goals and objectives emphasize the importance of growing successful neighborhoods, specifically supporting infill and redevelopment and providing well-designed neighborhoods. The COMP plan also recommends protecting our environment by supporting the community's green infrastructure program and the more general environmental policy. And then lastly, the plan also advocates that infill and redevelopment be in a compact, contiguous, and or mixed-use environment in order to accommodate our future growth needs and sustain the urban service area. And these themes and goals and objectives generally speak to residential development in our community. And the staff reviewed that in July when we made our presentation to the zoning committee. At that time, we recommended postponement of this request since the zoning for two reasons. First, there were environmental concerns on the subject property and whether it should have residential development located there because of the previous sanitary sewer treatment plant and any other issues that might have arisen from that being located there. And second, the staff made a statement that the requested R3 zone was not the most compatible residential zone with the surrounding single-family neighborhoods, specifically the Monticello and Robinwood neighborhoods and the site was more suitable for development of R1D lots rather than the proposed R3 lots since the zoning committee in early July the applicant has taken the opportunity to do soil samples on the property and they provided for the staff earlier this week a report which I believe is at your place from Childress and Associates LLC and environmental consulting yes that's it Frank an environmental consulting firm the soil sample locations were established in consultation with the LFUCG division of environmental services and the results of their soil samples indicate that there's no significant contamination on the property. So generally that would satisfy the staff's major concern about the environmental suitability of the property for development. But that leaves our major concern about whether R3 is appropriate at this location. And the applicant, while they revised their development plan again earlier this week, their changes did not impact the density. There are still 27 residential lots, and they made a few changes to the lotting patterns, but they are still lotting off portions of the creek, portions of the floodplain, and the tree stands within that area. The petitioner does seem intent on subdividing the floodplain and the creek portion of the property rather than leaving it in the ownership of an HOA, which can better manage and maintain an area like this compared to a handful of residents. This remains troubling to the staff because we have seen similar instances where single-family residential lots abutting creeks with the floodplain crossing their property does lead to a degradation of the environmental quality of those lands and can impact the stormwater if they're mowing the riparian area, et cetera. Although the applicant contends that this request is in agreement with the comprehensive plan and also that the AU zone is inappropriate and R3 is appropriate, the staff cannot come to that same conclusion. First, the comprehensive plan, while it speaks of infill and redevelopment, it emphasizes very heavily developing in a compatible nature and doing so in a context-sensitive way both to the environment which would mean not subdividing the floodplain as well as matching or being context sensitive to the scale of the lots compared to the adjoining neighborhoods so the staff is glad that the applicant does want single-family residential here but the number of lots proposed and even more so the number of lots possible in the r3 zone are troubling to the staff and that led us to recommend disapproval of the r3 zone for this property. The staff would note that the applicant also went into how agricultural and urban zoning is no longer appropriate here. The staff would note that the AU zone is also intended to be more of a holding zone until appropriate urban development is proposed. And in this case, the staff doesn't believe that the R3 proposed is appropriate. We believe the R1D would be appropriate in this case and not the proposed R3. Although the applicant would note for you that they are proposing a density much lower than the adjoining neighborhood, the staff believes that that calculation only comes out as a lower density because a third of the property is in an undeveloped state with a floodplain. So it's a little misleading in terms of density. The R3 zone would allow the third packet I handed out of white sheets with the zoning ordinance shows the requirements of R1C, which requires an 8,000 square foot lot, R1D, which requires a 6,000 square foot lot, versus an R3 zone, which allows as small as 2,500 square feet. The difference in terms of frontage is 60 feet of frontage versus 25 feet of frontage. So the applicants proposing 27 lots with 50 feet of frontage, but in reality, they could double the number of lots shown on their development plan, and the staff doesn't feel comfortable with that kind of density adjacent to the single-family residential established neighborhoods in this area. While the applicant can offer conditional zoning restrictions just to limit it to single-family, the staff still doesn't believe that that would go quite far enough to make sure that this development's compatible with the adjoining neighborhoods. So the staff recommends disapproval for three reasons. First, the R3 zone is not in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan for the following reasons. The comprehensive plan recommends infill and redevelopment that is compatible with and context-sensitive to its environment, and in this case, it would need to be context sensitive with the adjoining single-family residential neighborhoods the plan also states that infill development can have a positive impact on neighborhoods but only if it respects scale and massing and size of adjoining areas and buildings the site is still an environmentally sensitive area that should be protected as recommended by our comprehensive plan for environmental protection to the greatest extent possible. And the petitioner, again, seems intent on subdividing the floodplain, which could cause problems in terms of maintaining its integrity. And then although the petitioner is proposing a residential zone, which generally would be compatible, we believe that the smaller proposed lots are actually, are the smaller lots of the R1D zone would be compatible. The existing AU zone remains appropriate for the subject property because the intent of the AU zone is to be a holding zone until appropriate urban development is proposed. And then lastly, the proposed R3 zone is not appropriate for the subject property because an R1D zone would be more appropriate in that it provides lots that are more in character and similar in size to the adjoining neighborhood. And lastly, this site is located on the interior, not near any of our collector streets or arterials, interior to two established low-density residential neighborhoods where there's no existing R3 zoning at all. So staff would entertain any questions at this time. Questions for Ms. Wade? Not at this time, it looks like. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I forgot my agenda. We do have a handout for you. We have revised conditions on the plan for you today. the the preliminary plan that you see before you is at the bottom of page 3 on your agenda, Winding Creek at Monticello's EDP 2015-53 and as I pointed out we have revised conditions for you I would like to take a moment to remind the planning commission and to inform the neighbors and folks that are here to discuss this plan that your subdivision committee and your subdivision staff review these plans as if the zoning was already in place. Okay, so that's some people it takes a little getting used to, but I just wanted to make that clear so that everyone understands. That's why things may sometimes seem a little different from the zoning report to the plan report. With that, here we do have the plan associated with this proposed zone change. Saybrook Drive comes in at this location. They are proposing to extend it through the property with an elbow and a cul-de-sac. This is the LFUCG property. Cromwell Drive is down in this location. They are proposing, this is a revised plan that you see before you. Again, they are proposing 26 single-family lots with a 27th lot, which is the large floodplain area that you see here. This is their revision in an attempt to address the staff's concern about the floodplain area. The plan itself has minimal recommendations, of course, being a preliminary plan that you can see on your handout. We do have several recommendations on this plan that go to the heart of our concerns on this property. And you can see the lot sizes do vary. They're relatively standard through here and here. And then again, as you go around a cul-de-sac, it's not unusual to see this type of lotting pattern. The large, very considerable concern that staff has, Ms. Wade touched on. Now, there's no prohibition against lotting in the floodplain per se. And in this area of our community, an older area, frankly, most of the floodplain has been lotted and is in private hands. And it's that experience that leads to staff's concern about lotting in the floodplain for correct management. When you have a lot of cooks, you can spoil the broth. And so we're concerned and we believe it would be better to have as much of the floodplain as possible under HOA control so that it can be maintained in its appropriate state. And with that, you can see that we have a recommendation. and that is number seven on your revised agenda. And you can see we just dashed in a little line here. And that is we are recommending that these lots be shortened and that the rear end of these lots be included in the floodplain lot. Now, it's not going to completely reduce the floodplain on some of these properties, and that would be they would have to come up in here and do this. This is your 25-foot setback. That's not entirely impossible under other three zoning because of the size of the lots that are allowed. So they could actually, to a certain degree in this area, reduce virtually all the floodplain on these properties. I mean, that option does exist for them. They haven't proposed anything, and we just wanted to demonstrate to you one of the possibilities to create a larger floodplain lot under the control and maintenance of a homeowners association. There is one item that you can see that was an issue, and that was access to the LFUCG property. And that is no longer on the plan, and that is because on Robin Hood Unit 6A, Recorded in 1973, you can see it there, access is provided via an access easement. So access to the government property does exist at this time legally and is not necessary from this particular property. And you can see that we did have environmental concerns. Those have been addressed with the work that the applicant has done on the site, so those conditions are no longer a part of your revised staff recommendation. It is recommended for approval by your staff, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, Tom, what's the smallest lot on the plan as it exists now? Square footage what? I believe it's 25, and some of them are similar in size, and they're all approximately these about 50 by 115 to 120, which is around 5,000 square feet. Thank you. Other questions? Tom, let me ask you this. You mentioned the access to the LFUCG property. Can you show us over there? Yeah, it's actually not visible on this plan, but Cromwell and the lotting is down in here. There's an access easement between a couple of those lots into that little square, that very square little area that you saw on your plan. That's when that was done in the early 70s. Did I understand you correctly? You said creating the lotting to keep the floodplain out of the lots is possible. It's kind of going to be an unusual lot line, I know. Well, it would be an irregular lot line. Under the R3 zoning, with the smaller lot sizes that are allowed, it's certainly possible that that floodplain could be virtually removed from all of the lots and placed under HOA. And if you could, one more question. We've got two creeks or streams there? No, sir. There's just one. What you see is an outline of the actual floodplain with the setbacks. Okay. Yeah. So you can see that it is extensive floodplain in the area. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? No. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Applicant? Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm pleased today to be representing the applicant, which is Lex Properties, LLC. Both the entity, which is the applicant, and the entity, which is the owner of the property, are owned by Steve Perry, who is here with me today. As I introduced at the subdivision committee and the zoning committee, his partner in development on this will be Cloyd Morgan. Cloyd has built houses around Lexington for many years. Cloyd could not be here today. Rory Cayley is with us today from EA Partners, our designer. Anne Childress from Childress and Associates Environmental is on the second row who did our environmental study for us. Chaz Height, who's a planner who works with me, is handing out the handouts. My law partner, Chris Clendenin, is here as well, along with Greg Edmondson. with who's a realtor in Lexington as well on the third row. So we're pleased to be here. And as I mentioned at the beginning, we did correct the current name of the owner of the property. But I want to make it clear that we plan on this property being single-family detached residential. And on the revised plan, we have actually noted conditional zoning restriction that it be single-family detached residential only on this property. But Ms. Wade and Mr. Mark gave you a lot of the history of this property. I won't dwell on it, just to mention that there was a packaged sewage treatment plant on a portion of this property up until about 25 years ago. By 1990, that had been removed, was taken off of service offline. Back in the 70s and 80s, there were about 10 or 12 private sewage treatment plants around Fayette County, and it was the city's policy to take those offline, and this one was along with the other ones. You heard some discussion, if you were at the subcommittee level, about people pumping sewage at night on this property. And due to that, we did the environmental study on this. We found out two things. I interviewed Wayne Waddell, who was in the city law department back at the time. They took this over and was involved with it, and he indicated that when the trunk sewer was put in here in 1990, they had to drain the lagoons after the plant was taken offline. So they developed a siphon system to siphon the water into the trunk sewer so that the lagoons could be emptied. And interestingly enough, I asked them when they did this, and they said they did it in the middle of the night. And the reason they did it in the middle of the night was because that's the low flow time of sanitary sewers. So the city got into this property, and there were people down there in the middle of the night working on this. But they were not dumping sludge onto the property. They were siphoning off the water out of the lagoons into the new trunk line. Ms. Childress and I independently verified from different sources that also the sludge was removed from this property and taken to the main sewage treatment plant, which had the capacity to handle the sludge at that time. The neighbors have been vigilant on this, and I'm glad they have been vigilant. They should have been vigilant to watch over what was happening on this property. There have been complaints through the years. We did an open records request to get those complaints, and unfortunately most of the records no longer existed. But in my handout to you at, I think, page 3, I gave you the most recent call, which was in the records there. And as you can see, there was a call that a company called HydraMax was dumping raw sewage in a vacant parking area. the city actually sent about six divisions to check that out and the report back was went out to the area and found sanitary sewer manhole with tire tracks near it no evidence of dumping contacted hydromax and found out they were tv testing cleaning and smoking these sewers on december 8th and december 14th 2011 no sewage dumping notice for further action no further by Division of Water Quality. So I can understand the concern because a truck that is TV testing has a motor which runs, which sounds like a pump. It's feeding that TV line into the sewer to test them, but that complaint was thoroughly checked out and it was somebody who was actually testing the sanitary sewer lines. So we did both a phase one and a phase two environmental study on this property. As you know, phase one is an inspection of the property by the consultant and a check of public records to see if a phase two was needed. We determined a phase two probably wasn't really needed, but to be safe because of the concerns, we did a phase two. And the phase two is what you were handed out. And as Ms. Wade mentioned to you, there are no concerns coming of that. And we're very pleased to report that to you. And I'm very pleased, too, because in doing in these cases, you find out a lot about your clients. And whenever there was a doubt in this case, Mr. Perry said, go ahead and test it. We need to know. We need to know what's going on in this property. And we're very pleased to be able to tell you that we got the Clean Bill of Health on the environmental matters. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail. Ms. Childress is here. If you have any questions about the environmental report that she can answer any questions you all may have. I know there's always concern in the neighborhood when new development comes in when there hasn't been any for 30, 40 years on this, and we fully understand that. We feel our development is fully compatible with this area. I'd like to deal with a few issues that the neighbors have brought up and their concerns that they have brought up, and they're very legitimate concerns. One was traffic. The statement was made that didn't want more traffic on Saybrook. And for better or for worse, this was planned to have access by Saybrook. As you can see from our development plan and the notification area map here, there is only one way in and out. Saybrook stubbed in. It was always planned to come in here and call the sack. that's because the rest of the roads around here there's a cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac I think there's another one right down here were not provided access to us so we have one way in and out, that's what we're using but it's a single family detached area and that's the way the community was planned with Saybrook stubbed in to provide access to this property there was some concerns about But the school, Wellington Elementary, I checked on that with the Fayette County Schools. They had a projected enrollment this fall of 666 students there. They have an actual enrollment of 640 students, so they're running below projected enrollment at Wellington Elementary. There's a concern about wildlife there. There have been reports that there is some level of wildlife on this property. I want to point out to you that a third of this property is floodplain. It's going to remain floodplain. We're still going to have wildlife on this property. And then the wildlife, most of it's going to be where it is probably right now, which is in the floodplain, which has more places wildlife likes to hide out in down there. Noise. There will be some noise during construction, but it'll be over once construction's over. property values. I'll talk a little bit more about this in a minute, but we estimate our houses will market in the range of $240,000. Greg Edmiston is here, is going to talk about that. We'll have about 2,000 square feet. Each one will have at least a two-car garage. These are going to be a little larger houses than are in Monticello right now. Each will have a garage. Many of the houses in Monticello don't have garages, so we're going to be building a little larger house, which we think will appeal to today's market. I think by no means will these houses be lowering anybody's property values. And I'll discuss that more in just a moment. The comprehensive plan, we agree with the comprehensive plan goals. I think the staff agrees with us that this property should be developed and is suitable for development. It's just a question of whether it's R1D or R3 on this property. But as you all know, the overall thrust of the comprehensive plan in 2013 was that we should use vacant, overlooked parcels to develop in this community, whether we call it infill or something like that or something else, before we are forced to expand the urban service area boundary. And in fact, in 2013, there was a study done of vacant parcels, and I put a black and white copy of that in your handout as page one. I have a color copy right here. And this property was noted. There it is right there. I've circled it with an arrow. This property was noted as one of the vacant parcels, which was counted in that survey, and counted in the 6,700 acres, which was determined that are vacant and developable and available to develop, and for that reason, the decision was made not to expand the urban service area boundary in 2013. And the development community understands that. They understand that and realize that, But to meet that goal, we do have to develop the properties that have been identified by your planning staff as vacant land and capable of development. And I would point out that this property has been designated for residential development for every comprehensive plan for at least the last 40 years. That's been colored for residential development. I think the main issues we have with the staff are two, which Ms. Wade mentioned and Mr. Martin touched upon as well. One is they're troubled by the fact that we're not proposing a homeowners association for maintenance of the floodplain area. And the other one is the R3 zone. I'll deal with the floodplain area first. As you can see on our development plan, the staff has drawn in the blue outlines of the floodplain. On the west side, very irregularly shaped. On the east side, a little more straight. The little thing that's a little deceptive is the stream is not in the center of that. It's over toward the east. It's going down this side here and may come through there. But on this side, it's way over toward the east side. These property lines here go down to the center of the stream. Now, we lotted that off in individual lots. As Mr. Martin mentioned, I think all the other floodplain around here is lotted off in individual lots. It was the developers thinking that in a homeowners association of this small size, it may be a better idea to put this in individual lots. I have seen homeowners associations much bigger than this go defunct, basically because of lack of interest. And it's very difficult to get one going again once they go defunct. So it was felt that by placing this in individual lots, it would place that responsibility on an owner who has direct responsibility to do that. We have also, what we also did here was, since you saw the original plan, these lots were going all the way across. We have incorporated the rest of the floodplain into lot 27, which fronts Saybrook right here, and then we'll go back. And we're doing that because the developer will hang on to that lot. He would like to do a hydrological study to determine the exact location of the floodplain. And until that's done, he would like to keep, he will keep lot 27 and determine where the floodplain is. And then once that is determined, we will take further action on it. But he will maintain the balance of the floodplain himself as the owner of lot 27. We've been talking out in the hallway. I got the staff report, the revised staff report this morning. and we've been talking about, well, what about a homeowners association? And I talked to Mr. Perry about it, and if you all feel a homeowners association is important to do this, we will do a homeowners association. We will also bring the lot lines back here to put the area in a homeowners association. We're not disagreeing with that concept. It's just what's the best way of getting somebody who's responsible for maintaining that. We felt it was to lot it off, but if you feel that it's the best thing to put in an association, we will do that, and we will move these property lines back in order to do that. Now, that dovetails into why we're asking for R3. To be honest about it, staff got my dander up just a little bit when they made the statement in the new report saying the only reason the density is lower than the adjoining subdivision is because of the calculation factors in the large amount of undevelopable land and floodplain. But that was good because it forced me to do the calculation on what this is. Our overall density here is 2.6 units per acre. And as you all know, low density is defined as 5 units per net acre or less, or 4 units per gross acre or less. We're 2.6 overall on this. And that's usually the way you calculate. But I went back and recalculated this, taking out the floodplain completely. And the numbers are that we have, Rory calculated the amount of floodplain we have, and the staff was almost totally correct. About a third of our property is in floodplain. 3.34 acres is in floodplain. We have 10.14 acres overall, which leaves us 6.8 acres not in the floodplain. When you divide 6.8 acres into 27 units and we throw out the floodplain completely, that leaves us with about a quarter acre average lot, just under 11,000 square feet average lot, or 3.9 units per acre, 3.9 units per acre, which is below the definition of low density, whether you use gross acres or net acres. 3.9 is below 5 per net, 4 per gross. We're still within the low density limit on this property if you discount all that floodplain property on it. And I might add that that was included in our neighboring properties. They all have it in their property. So we feel very strongly, well, the next question is, then if all this is true, why do we need R3? Why do we need R3? Why don't we just go R1D? You know, because R1D has a 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We've got about 10,000 or 11,000 square feet average. Why do we want R3? Well, the reason is because this irregularly shaped floodplain coming through here, the topographic features that we are faced with. In order to deal with this, we need the setback flexibility that we have in the R3. The difference is the setback and the side yards. As you all, we would plan on probably having three-foot side yards, just as is 90% of all development today on this property. Why do we need that? We need that because we are doing larger houses on these lots. Each house has a garage. I'll give you a little comparison sheet which tells our story on our property here, if we can put this up. Chas did a, asked Chas to study all properties within our 500-foot notification area. And you can see there, there's 161 properties. The average lot size was .26 acres. Our average lot size is .25. And I should have put in there, not counting the floodplain, just based on our 6.8 acres, which is out of the floodplain. Just about the same. Average frontage is, they have an average, most lots in the neighborhood have about a 60-foot frontage, but there's a lot larger ones that skew it up high. They have an average of about 74 feet average, although probably the mean is lower, median is lower. We have 50. Assessed value, the average of all 161 is 141,000. We plan on having a price point of about 240,000. Square footage is 1,300. We have a plan on about doing 2,000 here. So, but we need it because of the irregular shape here and fitting our lots in, and because we've got a cul-de-sac. We can't do a grid development here like they perhaps can in other places because of the floodplain, because we don't have a through street coming here. That's why we need the flexibility of R3. And it's to the extent that we were doing calculations out here, and Mr. Perry would agree to a minimum of lot size of 6,000 square feet in the R3, meaning the only difference would be our dimensional requirements in the R3 zone on this property. So we'll leave that up to you. Number one, whether we do an HOA, we're agreeable either way on that. Have an HOA or don't have an HOA. We'll do whatever you want. If you do have an HOA, we're going to pull these lot lines back out of the floodplain. Number two, we will agree to a restriction of 6,000 square feet per lot, but we do need the flexibility that the R3 gives us. And that's important because in my handout for you, I've got on page two neighborhoods that have been developed to single family which are in the R3 zone. And just looking at the zoning maps last night, I came up with a number of them. And most all development of single-family, I think, which is not in the expansion area today, is being done in the R3 zone. I remember I did one 25 years ago, Firebrook. We had to explain to people why we're doing R3. They said this would be terrible. Firebrook has turned out wonderful. It's a wonderful subdivision. It was one of the first ones that was done R3, single-family. West Wind over in Hamburg, Tuscany in the Hamburg area. The Harvey property, which you've just come through over on Harrodsburg Road, is R3. Palomar Hills, Copperfield, Tanbark, Fairhaven, Hidden Springs, Willow Oak, Pinnacle, Highland Lakes, Lake Crossing, Bluegrass Wilkes, Masters of Station. All have R3 zoning, but single-family detached residential uses on the property. So we feel that we hear the staff's concerns on this. We understand that, and we fully understand this homeowners issue. There's pluses and minuses, both ways you go on it. We want to take care of the floodplain. They want to take care of the floodplain. We want to build houses that sell in today's market. They will be somewhat larger than around us. and to do that we do need the flexibility of R3. We know the concern about the lot size. That's why Mr. Perry is willing to agree to a 6,000 square foot minimum. I would say, too, as part of the legal requirements on here, an alternative reason for granting the zone change, haven't had much discussion about it, but this property is no longer appropriate for agricultural use. It's a 10-acre lot. A third of it's floodplain. can't farm in the floodplain. We don't want to farm against people's back fences on here. Nobody has farmed this property, as far as we know, for half a century. So we don't think it's appropriate anymore for agricultural use, which the only uses, I know they still talk about AU being a holding zone, which means you can't do anything with it, which really isn't right. But the only uses in AU are farming and one house. You know, that's the only thing you can do. there's an AU. So we feel clearly AU is no longer appropriate. We feel residential development is appropriate for this property. And the one thing I hope you know from what we've done, especially during the environmental study, is we feel we've gone over and above to try to satisfy concerns on this. We've done the studies that maybe they weren't needed, but they were done to reassure everybody of the safety of this property. On the same token, we're willing to do the HOA if that's appropriate. We're willing to agree to a 6,000 square foot lot minimum on this property if that's appropriate, if you feel that's appropriate. So I'm going to stop here. I think I have a couple pictures of types of houses that we feel will be built here. I forgot to put in. I just want to show you those real quick. and these were houses that Mr. Perry did not build these houses. These were houses that were built by Ball Homes in the Wellington subdivision. We chose those because that's R3. It's about 7 tenths of a mile away. And just to show you the type of houses that would come up, you can see the top of the house there. It looks good. So let's go and see the top of the other house on the other picture here so we can see what that top of the whole thing there. There's the other one, just examples of types of houses that would be built on this property. So we appreciate your time. Greg Edmondson is here, who's a realtor, who did some comparable studies and some comparisons with the Wellington, and I'd ask him just to take a minute or two to tell you what he found. But again, we feel that we do agree with the comp plan, and we feel that this was an appropriate use for the property. And I hope you can see we're doing it the right way. And we thank you very much for your attention to this. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Any questions for Mr. Murphy at this point, or would it be worth reserving them until later? I think we'll move on at this moment. Let me, we'll continue on for the moment, and at this time I'll ask for any others that may be in favor of this development to come forward and speak that wishes to, knowing that you do have a three-minute time limit. If not, no. let me ask the commission then before we go to the opposition, which I think there are a few, would you all like to take just a brief recess? Let's just take a brief recess and we'll resume in about five minutes. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Everyone take their seats we'll resume. I will call this meeting back to order. In doing so, before we move to the opposition, I think there is one person. Mr. Murphy said there's one person who wants to speak just briefly. Your name, sir? Yes, my name is Greg Edmondson. I'm a realtor here in Lexington, a lifelong resident of the central Kentucky area. I've been a realtor for 31 years with the Lexington Bluegrass Association of Realtors. I also lived for 12 years, just a few blocks away from the Saybrook area, Monticello area. I lived in Robinwood. Just wanted to point out that the single-family homes that we would build on these lots would be energy efficient, well-constructed, attractive, and highly desirable, which would do nothing but increase the property values of the homes in the Monticello, Robin Wood, and the Stone Creek area. In many ways, they would be found similar to those found in the Wellington area, which is also referred to as Wellington Gardens, and they are currently zoned R3. As Mr. Murphy pointed out, that area is right here. and 7 tenths of a mile from the state book, an area that we're developing. We'd also ask that one other thing to be considered for the R3 zoning would be keeping the costs of the homes down because the construction cost would be less per lot. The medium sales price for the Wellington area that we talked about is $202,000. for Monticello is $131,000 for Robinwood is $172,000 and the next adjoining neighborhood is Stone Creek which is at $202,000 again the R3 zoning will allow for more affordable housing and I've got plenty of comparable sales I'd be glad to share with everyone to confirm that the prices would be accepted in South Lexington, which is one of the highest demand areas in the Lexington area. So I'd be glad to provide that information to you. In the Wellington area that I talked about, the median price there was $217,000. The average days on market there is 25 days. In the last year, there's been 12 properties that have sold. Again, that's 7 tenths of a mile from the Saybrook area that we're developing. And I'd be glad to make that part of the record if you all like. You can supply that to the staff over there. Do you have anything else? No. No? Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Edmondson? No, thank you, sir. Okay, thank you. What we'll do, we'll move on to opposition at this time. Who all wishes to speak? Is there a spokesperson? person? Okay. That's fine. Let me just offer this. We, one, appreciate you being here. Please be cognizant and not repetitive as to your discussion or your opposition. And we will have to vacate in an hour. I think we can get through this part of it before that time though. So please come forward and give us your name and address and we'll continue. Members of the planning committee, Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking Mr. Salee, Mr. Martin, and Ms. Wade, who through all these meetings have been a lot of help to us who don't understand these processes. And your name, sir? My name is Otto Pioski. I live at 3451 Saybrook, which is the property immediately adjacent to this property. Ms. Wade, if you could put up the slide of the road going into the property again, I'd appreciate that. Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I want to understand what authority this commission has. Does it only have the authority to change the zoning, or could it reject this development of cloth? We could approve the zone change or disapprove of either one. All right. Then I'd like to begin. Lenatec is a company specializing in water treatment solutions, and it defines heavy metals as elements of heavy density which are seriously toxic. If you look up here at this road, to the left you'll notice it's mowed, to the right you'll notice it's mowed, and that's because Mr. Elkhorn on the left and my wife and I on the right have mowed it for 20-some years. We've also picked up cans and the like. We've gone down there and picked up all sorts of trash. In short, we've cared for this property for 20 more years than the people who wish to develop it, and we'd like you to keep that in mind as I continue. Mr. Alcorn, a former electrician on nuclear submarines, has testified that there were two sewage treatment tanks which were removed. I have in front of me the Childress study, and they do not indicate where those towers were, nor do they indicate testing of where the towers were. And I'd like to point out that the reason heavy metals are called heavy metals is because they're heavy. They go to the bottom where they're deposited. If illegal dumping was done, then those sites have to be found and tested to their full depth. Second. We were told a few minutes ago that there's no significant contamination on the property, that there are no concerns. The Childress study says that at one site was found 0.017, slightly above 0.017 milligrams per kilogram of polychlorinate biphenyl. I believe I'm correct that that represents 20 parts per 100 million. If anyone knows different, please correct me. Parts per 100 million. 20 parts per 100 million. Right. Therefore, 0.017 would be 17 parts per 100 million. Mr. Piawski, continue on. Any sort of rebuttal will come later. Thank you. In 1979, the Environmental Protection Agency made polychloric biphenols illegal because they are so carcinogenic and toxic that the EPA said that in drinking water, the level must be zero parts per billion. It allowed 0.5 parts per billion because that was the only sensible way to go. 17 parts per 100 million is 100 times the toxicity of the EPA ruling. I do not see then how we can say that there's no possible significant contamination to the property. But there's a further problem. Mr. Alcorn has told me there was a transformer on this site, an electrical transformer, which at that time probably used PCBs. It has not been determined where on the site that was. It has not been determined where that transformer was taken, perhaps deposited in one of those tanks. Obviously, that has to be found, and that soil right there needs to be tested. So there's a problem of heavy metals. There's a problem of PCBs. We have heard some mistaken information which has been passed on you today. You were told there's one river here. There are two. If you're going to speak, you need to take the microphone with you, Mr. Pesky. There's a second river that comes right there from a small spring. Lexington's regular rainfall is 45.2 inches per year. Over the last six years, the average has been 50.9 inches. In 2011, there was 65.2 inches, 20 inches above the normal. Because of climate change, it is suggested that the new normal may well be five inches above the current standard. With all the houses, with all of their asphalt being made, with all the driveways in that, there's going to be a lot of water coming down. Mr. Warner, who you should have been told is on the Cromwell end of this property, who has testified that there is flooding going on in his house, which the city cannot correct, Well, this will increase the flooding in his house, but more to the point, flooding will be the least of his problems if there's PCBs at a toxic level in that water or heavy metals. I would ask you to reject this proposal because the proper testing has not been done. Finally, I'd like to conclude with a statement about green space. Mr. Chairman. Neighborhoods lacking in sufficient green space often occur. We are not meant to be inundated by cement, asphalt, glass, and metal, and to be defeated from our physical contact with nature. There is a need to protect common areas and urban landscapes, which increase our sense of belonging, of rootedness, of feeling at home within a city. which includes us and brings us together. Into urban settings, it is helpful to set aside green spaces which can be preserved and protected from human intervention. Those words I'm sure you recognize are the words of Pope Francis given three months ago. I ask you to reject this proposal in toto. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Piosky. Next. Yes, ma'am. Let me say, when I mentioned time limits earlier, there was staff, Mr. Murphy, a representative of the opposition all should have equal time limits. I want to give equal time. Mr. Murphy took about 25 minutes. And I'm not saying that you all are limited to 25 minutes. But, you know, I want to make sure everybody gets heard by the same token. So continue. I'm going second so that you can understand the same last name on the other Piosky. And my thanks to all the staff. They really have been very helpful. They have, I just want you to all understand that over 400 members of our two neighborhoods have signed petitions about this development. because of the environmental concerns and the density concerns. I understood Ms. Wade to say that it was possible at some point, wherein we neighbors would not be notified, that once receiving the R3 zoning, that the developer could split the size of the lots. and instead of having an extra 60 or 70 cars up and down our narrow street, that there could be many, many, many more. And for the gentleman, the realtor who tried to reassure us about the Wellington Garden style of house to be built, that is not reassuring. That development is claustrophobic. It is a series of garages with houses pushed back to the side, and it looks very unappealing, and it has no green space that is warm and welcoming and comforting. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, and please feel free to line up and be ready. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Bob Seelback, Robert Seelback, and I used to live at 3485 Boston Road. If you can see up there, it shows, I don't have a pointer, I'm sorry, but I lived on, there you are, thank you. I used to live there for many years, about the time that this treatment plant was taken out. The treatment plant itself was located right behind my house, so I'm very familiar with where it was, the two tanks. My brother was hired to paint those tanks one summer as a college project. The tanks were immediately north of what still stands there as an asphalt blacktop basketball court that currently has trees 18 inches in diameter going through the top of it. They ran right through it. So I'm very familiar with the area. I have mentioned many times, I have photos of all these areas prior to the downhill slide of this area, back when it was an active park. At one time, I was the chairman of the park committee before Robin Wood even existed. We collected money in Monticello subdivision to buy park equipment for our children that was put in there. Me or Pam Miller later took it out without asking anybody's permission or even mentioning it. That's immaterial. What is material is the fact that in that drawing, if you could, at the end of the court, the cul-de-sac, if you could sharpen that some way, that is where the retention pond existed. It's a rectangular space. And that is where the testing was done, all due respect for the people who did the testing with the trials. However, I want to point out that that is where the affluent went after it was treated. The actual, perhaps, testing should have been done where the tanks themselves were and where it was pumped out from. Now, I know it has been stated that the retention basin was pumped out. I lived at 3485 Boston Road. I could look out my back porch, and I could see them with a backhoe tearing down the corner of the berm to let that effluent flow into the creek. And I'm willing to testify to that effect. It may have been pumped out, but a lot of it was drained out. Lastly, or perhaps not lastly, if I could please, could we have that other, this is a Google map, and it was mentioned that there is access to the Lexington Fayette Urban County government, and I challenge anyone to meet me there and show me where that is. We have over 400 signatures on the petition against this rezoning. One of them is Scott Warner. I believe he lives at 529 Cromwell, where this supposed access is. I'd be happy to have anybody go out there and meet me there and talk to Mr. Warner and have anybody show us where that access is. It doesn't exist. His lot is very narrow. there's a bridge, and there's a creek. He has very heavy flooding problems now. And one of those letters that you've received already has his name on it, at least one. Lastly, I'd like to just mention that in one of the previous meetings that we attended, it was, I believe, perhaps the technical committee meeting, it was pointed out that there's 10.1 acres in this entire area. but that the developer was going to use 4.2. I remember because I wrote that number down. 4.2 acres would be developed. Now, that's where the properties are actually being developed on this map. Now, granted, they've gone into the floodplain. It was mentioned earlier today that the floodplain is only one-third of that property. That may be true, but 4.2 acres was mentioned by the developer at one of the early meetings as being developed. The rest of it is the unusable land that backs up to Boston Road where I used to live. I just want to make sure that everybody is aware of the details on this. I think R3 is just not the right one. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Seelbeck. Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Molly Franklin. I live at 556 Merrimack. I have two comments. One, a concern on the R3. They say that the houses will be this big and that the frontage will be this big, which is larger than required. But without the guarantee, I'm worried that once it's approved to change to an R3, that we'll just shrink down to fit the maximum number of buildings in there. So I don't know that R3 is our best bet. Second, I'm a Wellington Elementary School mom. I have two kids there. It was said that, I think it was 662 were the projected number of students enrolled this year. 640 is what's enrolled there now, but that's before the redistricting goes into effect next year. which Wellington didn't lose any houses in the redistricting plan, but we did add houses into the Wellington district. So there will be many more than 640 next year, and that's without building new houses. So I'm not sure that that information is fair to be presented to say that there is room in Wellington Elementary for new houses. Thanks. Thank you. Hello, my name is Mark Tucker. I live at 545 Promwell Way, downhill, downstream from the proposed development. I echo my neighbors' concerns regarding an R3 zone change. In fact, I think anything other than R1C to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood would be inappropriate. I echo all the concerns you've heard, but in particular, I want to talk to my concerns with the wastewater, be that storm or sanitary sewers. My family has had two sanitary sewer overflows into our living space in the past five years. We live downstream from here, so obviously deforesting five acres, how many of our acres? I think he said six a while ago, which I challenged, but deforesting how many of our acres, essentially paving it over with the size of these lots. I'm concerned with the stormwater runoff, what effect that will have downstream. I'm concerned with that runoff and the additional 27 units, what effect that will have when the sanitary sewer overflows. I'm not a hydraulic engineer. I'm an electrical engineer by trade. But I do know enough about hydraulics and fluids that it tends to flow downhill. And until the city has addressed the ongoing concerns and the EPA lawsuit that's been going on, I find it highly imprudent to add yet more development in an area already prone to sanitary sewer overflows. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Hello. My name is Robin Young, and I live in Robinwood. And I want to thank you all for letting us speak today. and mostly I know you're here because you want to keep Lexington healthy and prosperous, and I appreciate you, and I appreciate Lexington and our community. I think after it's determined that this property is safe, it's the zoning that we are most concerned with. I think that Robin Wood, Monticello, and Stonewall, because I feel like the three of these neighborhood associations kind of work together to keep the south end of Lexington clean, healthy, and safe. And I think it's obvious today that the neighbors take care of each other and we look after each other and are concerned for our neighborhood. It's not that we don't want some new friends and new neighbors because they're all precious. All the people in our neighborhood are precious. So with that being said, the main thing that I think if they determine that this property is safe for, you know, development, that they zone it an R1 and keep. Actually, neighbors in this property, seeing how it's not being used is a good thing, because it gives us more eyes and ears to keep our neighborhood safe, and this property from, I don't know, hiding or drug exchange, whatever people do in property that people can't see. And you cannot see in here anymore because it is heavily forested. So if they do determine that it's okay to develop, I plead that you just zone it an R1. And that's all. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I need clarification. I failed to mention that my name is Bob Seelbeck. I mentioned to you that I lived for many years at 3485 Boston Road. I failed to mention that when we moved in 1974, we moved to 3386 Tisdale Drive, which is the other side of this property. So I have been on both sides of this property since 1963. Okay. Thank you, sir. Others that would like to speak? Yes, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Daniel Evan Belt. I live on 3439 Sabrick Road. I'm a little concerned about Mr. Murphy's claims that they needed the flexibility to devise the R3 zoning to fit the terrain when they're willing to guarantee that there would be at a minimum 6,000 lots, 6,000 square feet. and I guess my question is when you present a plan does that change based upon the if this body actually agrees to zoning change does that mean that that plan is the plan or can that be changed he mentioned flexibility to build yet I'm a little confused with if you want to make the provision for a specific square footage, a specific lot size, what's the, how final are those plans? Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. I'm Cabby Acres at 3436 A. Brook, and I haven't heard addressed, and I'm curious as to what's going to happen with the land. On the other side of the creek, there's right now, the creek goes through and there's land, it goes up to the Boston Road, but nothing's been said about what's going to happen to all that land. There's no access to it. Who gets to it? Who takes care of it? I haven't heard anything about that. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else? If not, we'll move to the rebuttal stage of this. Rebuttal's five minutes, and we'll start with Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Well, we surely understand that there's a lot of concern in the neighborhood about what's going to go on with this property. And as I said, that's always totally understandable when nothing has happened on it for 40 years and people have gotten used to there being nothing there. The treatment plant was taken out 25 years ago, and the records we determined at that time indicated that it was environmentally okay that time but to be safe we tested it and we it's rare that you have cases come in here where there's been environmental testing on the property because that is not a requirement of zoning it's not a requirement of our zoning ordinance that we do environmental testing but we understand the concerns and for that reason we went out and did it and hired a consultant, Ms. Childress, who is experienced in doing this and did it the right way. And I can hear the concerns that, well, must not have done it right because you didn't find anything. Well, we did it the right way and we didn't find anything on the property. We have done the testing. every fact that we have presented and found out indicates that we are, there's no environmental issue on this property as the staff found when they reported that to you I can certainly understand people's concerns because it was a sewage treatment facility which did receive residential sewage by the way not commercial or industrial sewage the as far as whether we will increase flooding on the property, as you all know, we have this day and time very stringent engineering manuals which we must meet to prevent ourselves from presenting a flooding problem to the property. At the same time, I will point out to you that we have a floodplain on this property, and floodplains are supposed to flood. That's why we have them. That's why we have them designated, and we cannot build in the floodplain or within 25 feet of the floodplain because floodplains are supposed to flood. That's what they're supposed to do. In this day and age, we are not allowed to do much alteration in the floodplain, and that's the way we're treating this property. This will not be the last checking of the floodplain issues. As you all know, even after you are finished with plans, every permit requires checkoffs of the Division of Water Quality, the Division of Engineering, and all the other agencies that check for our flooding issues on this property. I will point out to you that, yes, we do have to conform with what was required as part of the consent decree. We are subject to CAP approval. That's the capacity assurance approval, which was the direct outgrowth is what the consent decree requires, is the CAP program. That is the enforcement of the consent decree. And most every plan you have coming before you, and this one, too, will require the CAP to be complied with through the permitting process, through the Division of Water Quality and the Department of Public Works and Environmental Safety of this agency. It's a very stringent process, and it's not something that just because you approve it, we're approved through them. It's not that at all. We have to go through separate approval through those divisions of environmental quality and water quality. So we will fully comply with that. I want to mention to you the conditional zoning procedures because people have said, well, how do we know we're not coming in later on and doing whatever? I've heard doing apartments or doing whatever. Well, when we put a conditional zoning restriction on the property, which we have volunteered to do and which is already on the face of our development plan, by the way, if we want to come in and do something else with the property, we have to come back to you. we have to file essentially a zone change application with you all, notify the same people within the same 500-foot radius, go through the same subcommittees, go through this hearing, go up to the council to do that if we want to change a conditional zoning restriction on it. And believe me, you and me, I've done it maybe once in the last 20 years, and it's not worth it. It's not worth trying to change these conditional zoning restrictions on the property. So, again, we're mindful of the concerns here, and I hope you understand we are mindful of it. And we have done everything that people have asked us to do. And as I said again on the HOA issue, we're willing to do the HOA. We'll do the HOA. We'll move the lot lines back. We'll agree to a 6,000 square foot minimum restriction. The only difference, I guess, between what the staff is asking for us and this one right now is we are asking for our three because it does give us the degree of flexibility on the setbacks and dimensional requirements of those lots, the setbacks, front yards, side yards, and that sort of thing, to do a house which is marketable for new home buyers in today's market. people come in here looking for a new house, they're looking at new houses all over the place, and they want to see in these new houses the features they have in other new houses and other parts of this community, and that's what we're providing. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Anyone from the opposition like to provide a rebuttal on what he was just rebutting? Yes, my name is Evan Belt. Well, I didn't hear anything about a single-family home dwelling addition or addendum to that. I just heard the square footage. And I would also add that the south side of Lexington, the current market, his interpretation of the market, the demand is there. It doesn't have anything to do with as much try to get as many supply in there. The demand is already high. So to say that we have to build homes in terms of how we see the market so people will buy them, it's already there. So I don't think that that's really accurate in terms of St. Brick Road. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Wade. Just real quick, yes, sir. Just to clarify, we are asking you to impose a conditional zoning restriction on us that limits us to single-family detached dwellings on this property. Ms. Wade. I'd love to hear from you. That the applicant is offering a conditional zoning restriction is fine. The staff just received that information on Monday when it appeared on the face of a plan, so it was never really communicated in terms of an email or a letter from the applicant indicating that they were asking for a conditional zoning restriction now. but can according to the zoning ordinance which is based on state law the Planning Commission and the council may grant a zone map amendment and restrict the use of the property affected I'll have bill put this up on there on the overhead may restrict a property to a particular use, a category of uses, or a density, a particular density, or in this case it's not really relevant, impose architectural or visual requirements, or impose screening and buffering restrictions upon a subject property. If the Planning Commission or the Council sees fit to use conditional zoning restrictions, it's limited as to what you can do. You can restrict density, but you cannot restrict to a particular lot size. So if the Planning Commission believes that there's a particular density, four units per acre, or a number of lots to limit this property to, that would be appropriate. But limiting it to a 6,000 square foot lot is not something the Planning Commissioner of the Council has ever in our recollection done. So I would not advise to jump down that road considering it's not something specifically outlined from state law that the planning commissioner or the council can do. If you believe there's a number of units, and again, it's my opinion that the applicant hasn't offered a particular density restriction because their intent, as Mr. Murphy said, is to see if they can change the floodplain and create additional lots. So why offer a restriction of 27 lots when they think they can get three more in? So I don't think they've offered that. In exchange, they've offered a lot of restriction. So I would caution the Planning Commission not to go down that road, if you will. Again, the staff still believes the R1D is the appropriate zone for this particular property and that the R3 zone setbacks are, again, the comprehensive plan recommends compatible development in terms of massing size. the massing getting to the three-foot side yards and 20 feet from the street is a different massing and scale than what's currently in the adjoining neighborhoods, which have a 30-foot setback and actually eight-foot side yards. So the staff, again, recommends disapproval of the R3 zone. The AU zone has a number of uses that are conditional, actually 24 conditional uses that are available for an AU zone besides just single-family residential and agriculture. So saying it's not ready for the R3 zone still leaves a number of possible uses in AU while a property is waiting to be a more urban development. So I think that addresses our concerns. Thank you. Real quick, yes, ma'am. Come to the microphone, please. Janet Piosky. I just wanted to know if one of those uses for the agricultural zoning would be community gardens. A garden center, a commercial garden center is a conditional use in the AU zone. Community garden is not specifically listed in our zoning ordinance. currently the I guess we don't enforce against people planting community gardens or private gardens on any properties they're just sort of deemed appropriate in any zone at this point I'm going to close the public comments section and open it up for any questions from the planning commission member any questions they may have yes sir thank you Mr. Chairman I have a Tracy I have a question And one of the major points of difference or contention that I've heard is R1 versus R3. If the applicant agrees to or if accepts R1, it's my understanding that that's got a larger frontage requirement. Yes, it does. It's 60-foot frontage versus 25. So he's going to lose lots. To be honest with you, I have not sketched that out for them. Well, I'm not trying to quantify. I'm going perhaps a little different direction. They could lose a few lots. I'm sorry. They could lose a few lots. And that will change the economics of the development. It seems to me it will force him to build bigger homes, higher-priced homes, that are going to be more inconsistent in terms of scale and price with the surrounding development. Is that an issue that we should be concerned about at all? I think you're making a lot of assumptions that I don't know that we can assume all of those things. He could choose to do larger lots but smaller houses that do fit in. Or he could sell the property to someone else who would develop that way. There's a lot of options. But all of those options are limited by economics, and there's money at stake here, and there's a minimum rate of return to make this happen. Well, the planning commission and then the planning staff does not look at any pro formas that the developers bring in. we sort of just take everybody's word for it that they want 27 and here's 27 and you look at it for 27 lots and we never crunch numbers on well what if they only went to 25 how would that affect their economic value or income or return on investment because long-range planning and planning for our community shouldn't be about a developer's return. And I'm not asking you to go there now. I'm just, I am simply taking a step of logic. And I know that if the number of lots are decreased, he's going to have to get the same amount of revenue. And the only way to get that amount of revenue is more revenue per lot. And the only way that will come is with larger homes. So I'm asking conceptually, does that fit with our objective of trying to maintain compatibility with the surrounding area? If I had to give it a one-word answer, I'd say no. Thank you. Other questions? Tracy, don't go anywhere. you were talking as far as conditional zoning restrictions use we can limit density you said something about limiting the number of lots and then a couple statements later it was like you were offering that maybe we shouldn't go down that road The planning commission, under previous comprehensive plans, we used the density recommendations of our comprehensive plan land use map to generate a maximum number of units for development. And we used that, the comprehensive plan, to generate a number of dwelling units that were appropriate for a particular property. So the Planning Commission and the Council have adopted conditional zoning restrictions based on comprehensive plan recommendations for a particular number of units on a piece of property. That has occurred before. We no longer have the land use map, so the staff doesn't feel comfortable indicating a maximum number of units for any property anymore. without that kind of adopted, agreed-upon plan. Instead, we think the more appropriate zone should be chosen. What I indicated the road we shouldn't go down is restricting lot sizes. I don't think we should restrict, through conditional zoning restrictions, the lot size. If we limit the number of lots, are we limiting the lot size? No, because they could vary the lot size, much like they are currently doing on their development. So the lots on the west side are smaller than the lots on the east of that cul-de-sac. All right. Other questions? Yes. Just so that I'm clear on this, Tracy, I think I've got what you said. We can't restrict the lot size. That's off the table. And because we've lost the map guidance, we really don't have a guide to do it. So staff's recommendation is not to try to do it by number of lots per parcel or per place, but instead by the appropriate zone. Is that correct? Thanks. Anybody else? Are you ready to talk just to the planning commission? Yes. We've already closed it. Yes. We have seen today we're trying to push a development through without hearing what the subdivision committee said to them at that time and without working with the staff to come up with a plan that worked in the R1D zone. this is the very reason we have subdivision committees is to work these kinds of things out we're asked to change this development plan not only change the zone but to change the development plan to fit the zone and that's really not what we should be doing here today we either ought to support the staff or have reasons not to support the staff and come with this or we shouldn't have subdivision committee because what we're doing is we're doing a plan on the fly here and it doesn't matter what's based on economic conditions or what it's based on it's based on zoning law and that's what we're here to do and therefore unless we can find reasons to overturn the staff on this disapproval motion we're spinning our wheels and so I think we need to focus on what we can do and can't do here and one of them is to support the staff and the other one is to find reasons to overturn the staff. And I think we as a commission have to focus on that or we're not going to get anywhere. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. I wish to thank the neighbors that come down for their opinion. We always respect those. And I have some concerns about this plan. I'm concerned about the floodplain, who's going to take care of the floodplain. The homeowners are individual lot owners. I have concern about the government access to what is left of their portion of this. I'm concerned because of, I heard Lot 27. It's complicated. It's mysterious. They don't know really what's going to happen there. and I hear that it's incompatible development. And I think the neighbors have expressed themselves well, and I, for one, would go along with the staff for disapproval of this plan. Others? Yes, sir. Yeah, I think this is a preliminary development plan. We're just here to try to determine if the zoning is correct or not. And, Frank, you know that the subdivision committee is to review these plans like the zoning was in place. But anyway, if you went to an R1D lot, 60-foot lot, and I happen to know how to calculate this, everything works on a ratio. In other words, the lot can be a percentage of the price of the total house. And so a 60-foot lot from a 50-foot lot is about a $12,000 price increase right now. And then you have to multiply that by four, so you would get a $48,000 more expensive house, which probably in that area puts it pretty much out of what it should be. and I would favor them taking the lots out of the floodplain because that triggers flood insurance if you buy one of those houses. You don't want that, do you, Greg? I mean, you don't want that. Does somebody buy a house and have to buy flood insurance? So, you know, I would favor that, and this being a preliminary plan, you can change that when you come back. And I would also favor conditional zoning and eliminate the 27 single-family houses. Others? Yes, Chris. First of all, I too would like to echo my colleagues' comments. We always appreciate when the neighbors come down. Sometimes it puts us under the gun a little bit. I've been up here Googling PCBs a little bit, trying to educate myself while listening. I have a smidgen of background in sanitary and wastewater treatment, only by osmosis, really. And I do know that sludge sometimes is hauled away and sold and used as fertilizer and other things. So I'm not too concerned, I guess, about the sludge and that side of things. I do feel that as neighbors, one thing that maybe you are missing a little bit is when you go to a $240,000 house, if we can restrict to please you and to support your thoughts, a $240,000 house is going to increase the value on that end of the neighborhood for sure, and it might be a helpful thing for you. Our market has picked up here in Lexington and really pretty much across the nation. But I do think that that's something you might think about if we can get some things resolved that we need to resolve. And as Frank said, some things that we mentioned in subdivision committee earlier. So, again, thank you all for being here and for your comments. Mr. Brewer? Yep. I'll try not to repeat anything anybody else has said. It's awfully hard to vote against 400 people, first of all. So your presence does influence us, rest assured. I think kudos are due to the applicant as well. I mean, you guys have done this right. You've done the testing. One of the comments that I shared with my colleague earlier was, you all have been living with whatever is there, this mysterious heavy metals or whatever is there. You've been living with it since it happened. And only because of this development do you have a scientific test as to what it is. So, again, this was not something they were compelled to do, but I applaud you all for doing that. And it's above my head for sure what's there, what could be there. If you all feel like something more is needed, you know, who's going to do that and who's going to pay for it? I don't think the applicant's going to do more, and I don't think you are going to come up and hire your own people. That being said, I haven't heard any compelling reason to go against our experts, which are the staff that have researched this. And even after all the discussion, the staff is still recommending R1D. So without something that compels me to do something different, I have to agree with the staff. Anyone else? Ms. Plumlee, anything? I believe so. Mr. Chairman, I move that MAR 2015-11 Lexington Properties, I move for staff agreement of disapproval, as stated in three reasons. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded to support the staff for... The motion is actually for disapproval. Yes. Yes, the motion is to support the staff for disapproval of MAR 2015-11 Lexington Property, LLC. Any discussion on the motion? Everyone clear? This is for disapproval, to support the staff in disapproval. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, we did not get the second. It was by Mr. Penn. Thank you. If there's no other discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion for disapproval, supporting the staff, is approved and stands. We need a motion for, I believe, on the ZDP to probably postpone. Indefinite. Thank you. Do we have a motion? Mr. Chair, I move for permanent. Indefinite. Indefinite postponement, not permanent. ZDP 2015-53, Winding Creek at Monticello. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for indefinite postponement of ZDP 2015-53, Winding Creek and Monticello. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes as well. I'd like to thank everyone for coming. Let me say I think this property at some point in time will be developed. And, you know, stay tuned. Thank you for coming. It's at 4.06. We have still items left on the agenda. I think would it be appropriate just to take a brief recess to reconvene across the street on the seventh floor? Yes, sir? Mr. King? If I could have everyone's attention, please. On the seventh floor of 101 East Vine Street. Okay. The Phoenix Center. We're going to take a recess to transport ourselves across the street.