Maintenance of trees, protection of trees. Well, we're getting, and we would like to see every corridor, every area that's under our control have a pruning cycle and basically prune those trees, prune the deadwood out, basically give the trees the care and the maintenance that they need. Again, the goal is to get those trees to maturity, reap the environmental, the economic and social benefits they provide, and that's basically, you know, we have some growing pains as we're moving through this first year of this new change with the division, but we're now picking up the equipment and getting the right knives in place to make this happen. Okay. Well, one of the reasons I was interested in doing this, little council comments, was that I've had a concern that in the past we've done a better job of planting, things in the ground and then not as good a job of maintenance. And now we're shifting. I think it's the right thing to do. I think we need to keep funding it adequately so that when we have an asset like trees, that they grow up. We view trees as green infrastructure and we want to maximize the benefits they provide. And then you mentioned the WEG games. Often what you see is ribbon cuttings and we'll do a big fancy planting. and then after the event's over, we walk away and we don't maintain them like you just mentioned. So that's our goal is we want to maintain what we have. And then even the plants that we're putting in for the Breeders' Cup, the perennials, the annuals will be replaced on an annual basis. But the perennials and the trees and shrubs, you know, we want to sustain that. We want to, you know, sustainable plants and sustainable landscape. Okay, so I think that's a good place to end on maintenance, sustainability, improvement of our tree canopy. So thank you, John, for joining us. Thanks again to Susan Klugam. Thank you all for watching. We'll be right back. We were riding on the freeway, all the love wins against our pay. And we're riding on the freeway, all the love in the pink and black. Whenever you mind the exercise, we've got lots of time. We can't quit till we get to the other side. We're the lady you're playing a song We keep rolling Cause girl you're amazing Just the way you are The way you are The way you are Girl you're amazing Just the way you are When I see your face There's not a thing that I would change Cause you're amazing Just the way you are I don't know. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. October 22, 2015. I'd like to say welcome to everyone that is here. First and foremost on the agenda would be approval of minutes. Minutes from September 24, 2015 were emailed to commission members for review. I have not heard of any changes. If there are any changes to be made, please let it be known now, or we can entertain a motion for approval of those minutes. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chairman, move approval of September 24, 2015 commission meetings. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Wilson for approval of the September 24, 2015 minutes. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Next would be any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Nothing from the audience. Commission members, I'm sorry, staff, do you have anything? No? Okay. If not, what we will do is go ahead and take the items. We do have two development plans. First on the agenda, we'll take those first and then get to the zone changes. So first on the agenda is on page one, it's plan 2015-67P Copper Creek Subdivision. We'll let the staff set up. You should have a pink sheet that is before you that has revised recommendations on it, as well as white sheets for waiver request. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Item A on your agenda, Plan 2015-67P, Copper Creek Subdivision. This is a preliminary subdivision plan that has been submitted for your review on property that is located in this area. As you can see, here is Manowar. Here's the intersection with Old Higby Mill. Down here we have Copperfield that stubs into the property. Steamboat Road in this location, stubbing into this property here. It is surrounded by the Wyndham Hills and Wyndhamdale subdivisions. Again, this is old Higbee Mill. It's been cut up over the years with man-of-war. You can see the property here. It's a little over 15 acres. Over 8 acres is in floodplain and proposed for greenway in this location. You can see we've highlighted it in blue. This is the center line of the stream, South Elkhorn Creek, tributary thereof. We have highlighted as well, again, the floodplain in blue here in pink. This is the 25-foot floodplain setback. That's an ordinance requirement. That's a structure, a building setback relative to the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The area is a little bit interesting. It is zoned R3. It's been zoned this way for many, many years. And right here is an adjacent piece of property, and this extends in this direction. And this is downstream, by the way. We're headed towards Harrodsburg Road in this direction. This is a little bit of B6P that comes into this property. And again, it goes way back in the day when all this was rezoned. They envisioned there might be a small shopping center in this location. So you can see that we've highlighted that for you, the B6P. And you can see in red a little bit on these proposed lots. Now, that area is entirely within the floodplain and constrained by the floodplain and that situation. But we did want to make that clear that there was a little bit there. It can't be developed in any meaningful fashion because of the impacts of the topography in the floodplain. The applicant is proposing to extend Steamboat Road here. There will be an intersection with Copperfield Drive. They will extend Steamboat, ending in a cul-de-sac in this location. They are proposing buildable lots here, a buildable lot here, and here. So there's 21 buildable lots. There's an HOA lot here. This area is HOA. That area is HOA. the HOA is going to maintain this. And in fact, they're going to, the developer has agreed to construct the trail. This is part of the trail system and maintain it until such time that it is dedicated to the city. Now, we're not aware at this time of what that timeframe may be. Probably be dependent upon other sections of the trail being constructed. So they'll have something to tie it into. But again, that we don't know its exact location, but it will be on this side of the creek. The lot that you see here, 25, reserved for future development. This lot is non-buildable under our current circumstances on this property. Again, you can see the floodplain. You can see the 25-foot setback. This will not be able to be developed unless they do a loan or modify the floodplain. And even with that, you never know until, of course, that is submitted and approved by FEMA. and our state and local folks as well. Sewer, there is existing sanitary sewer that runs through the property. The plan, of course, that you see before you is a revision, and there have been several revisions to this plan. It has been postponed, as you are aware, at least three times, and the primary reason for that being the environmental constraints that impact this property. We do have revised recommendation on pink for you that we've handed out, as well as a waiver request. And the waiver request has been handed out to you as well. And then in conjunction with all this, one of the reasons is, again, as I talked to you about the reason for postponements, again, large floodplain. FEMA floodplain along South Elkhorn Creek. And this area, you see shaded in gray? Steep slopes. Now, these slopes on this property go from anywhere from around 6% all the way to 30%. And that was of considerable, considerable concern to the staff of both staffs of planning, engineering, traffic engineering. how were they going to deal with the environmental constraints. Article 6-11 of your land subdivision regulations require that they submit material, a report on how they do intend to address that. That is this handout that you'll look. It's double-sided. You'll see a lot of information. There's a cover letter, a report. There's some profiles and information, again, that they submitted for our review and engineering's review to see how they did, in fact, intend to deal with this situation. Now, the environmental constraints on this site dictated that the best location for Steamboat Road would be along this part of the property. and that's relative to the greenway to the creek to the steep slopes the floodplain all that would have had been extremely difficult to deal with in terms of a public street in this area and of course the other very significant constraining circumstances you had a fixed point right here and a fixed point right here and in order to make that intersection work you know you've got to start with that and start with that. So there was a lot of constraints that went into that. As we reviewed their material and looked at the revised plans, another item came to our attention. And we've highlighted it in yellow here. I know it may be a little difficult for you to see, and it's contained in your supplemental materials. This is a retaining wall, wall. And it's a significant retaining wall. There are smaller ones right here and right here to deal with the grade changes on the property. Now, these are, as I stated before, these will be in an HOA lot. There's going to be significant screening installed to protect these single family homes. That's part of the material that they provided as an exhibit that shows that they will have trees, both evergreens, deciduous, things like that to help shield this development from their neighbors and soften that relationship. The other thing that you'll see, besides the design of the retaining wall, and I can't overstate the serious concern that our engineering department had about this retaining wall and having it constructed, of course, not only correctly, but who's going to maintain it. And that's an issue. Maintenance is an issue. At this time, it is within the HOA, and the HOA will have to maintain that. Now, these things are very well constructed. They have to be, and they last for a long time. So maintenance should not be a significant issue. It's, frankly, all over town, we have stream crossings that have associated retaining walls with them, and that sort of thing that we actually maintain. But that's one important aspect, and we were very concerned, and we wanted to know how they were going to construct that. You'll find a detail in your material again. And they've addressed our maintenance concerns with that by keeping it in the HOA. The evolution of this plan and the concerns with environmental constraints led to a revised waiver request. And if you look at the waiver request, and they're requesting waivers to the geometrics of your cross-section of a public street. And we get these types of requests on a regular basis to make modifications. And originally there was one request, and that was not to have a sidewalk on this side of the street. and that was because of the buffer area and they didn't want to encourage people walking behind these houses and they want to have this all HOA and maintained. So that was, again, the sidewalk was not going to be, the original request was no sidewalk along. Now there is one here, you can see, to connect Steamboat to Copperfield because they have sidewalks and we wanted to maintain that pedestrian system. But it's only through this section and around through here. As this plan evolved and as they tried to address our concerns with the cul-de-sac, they made some changes. And that resulted in additional waiver requirements. One is the right-of-way to 40 feet on the cul-de-sac. The other is just a reduction in the right-of-way of the street itself. And that's for this area through here due to, again, no sidewalk buffer in the green space HO area. This is a result of modifying the cul-de-sac, getting the retaining wall into an HOA lot. Because it's imperative, of course, that we stabilize the public street and, again, not have a maintenance concern with that retaining wall. In addition, as I mentioned before, you have set points here that they have to meet and have to tie in together. That impacts this intersection. Now, our subdivision regulations try to, well, they recommend 80 to 90 degrees at an intersection, which is just about a right turn. That's for sight distance issues and make sure it's safe so you don't have to bend back over your shoulder to see who's coming. because of their need to tie these fixed points in together and adjust the road, they have requested a waiver, and it's a minimum. Instead of the minimum of 80, it'll be a minimum of 65% on this intersection radius, as well as because Copperfield is already at a 6% grade, they're going to have a waiver. They're requesting a waiver to have a 6% grade to tie them together. Normally, we want 3% within 50 feet of an intersection. You can see, again, we're dealing with a lot of geometric design issues on the street, and it's tied into their need to put the street in at this location and, again, and deal with the steep slopes and the flood plain. Well, staff has reviewed, along with engineering and traffic engineering, the various materials that have been submitted to you. We've reviewed the waiver and the revisions. And based on those materials, you can see on your revised conditions, staff is recommending approval subject to standard sign-off materials or departments that would be common to any preliminary subdivision plan. You can see those first nine. We are requesting that they denote the screening and the maintenance in the HOA area next to the subdivision. We want that denoted on the plan. They've given us an exhibit, but we want that on the plan. Excuse me. We want a statement stating that future development of Lot 25 shall be determined pending the modification to the FEMA floodplain, if and when they should do that and it be modified. That's that odd little lot up on Old Higby Mill Road. And then, of course, provided the Planning Commission grants the requested waivers that I have discussed with you. And we have, again, recommended approval of this plan. We are recommending approval of the waiver request. You can, and again, just bring your attention to the tremendous amount of supplemental materials that they gave us, one of which I think is incredibly, is something that I think you'll find interesting, that we don't see not only the design of the retaining wall, but they actually went so far as to provide us cross-sections of how the houses would be situated and the slope dealt with on the lots. And frankly, that's not something we have seen very often. I guess the good news is that we've not had to deal with slopes quite like this in recent years. But with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, ma'am. I do have a question. First of all, the lot that is the B lot off there on the corner of Old Higby Mill, is there any way at some point, no, the other lot, the big B? Oh, this? Yeah. Is there any way at some point they could request a loamer and with some fill dirt do something business-wise in there? There is a way, yes. They can always request loamers. They can always try to do that sort of thing. This is not going to be any easy floodplain to modify to any great extent, I believe, in staff's opinion. But, I mean, there is more of it. They may have some information on where that's headed and what may be the plans for that that staff does not have for you today, but they may be able to elaborate on what may be happening with that property. Thank you. Ms. Plumlee? Yes. what material is a retaining wall? The material? Their engineer will explain that, I'm sure, in depth, but it's our understanding that it'll be poured in place concrete. But they can elaborate on that. Any other questions, Mr. Martin, at this time? If not, thank you, Mr. Martin. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I could clarify just one item. Mr. Martin described to you the three waivers that are requested, the sidewalk and the right-of-way. He mentioned the third waiver about the intersection angle, but he described that in percent. The waiver is to take that intersection from a 90-degree angle and shallow it to 65 degrees. I just wanted that terminology clear in case there was any confusion. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm pleased today to be here representing the applicant. Steve Perry and Cloyd Morgan are the developers who are with me today, and we brought our engineers, Tom Hatfield from EA Partners, and Rory Cayley, our landscape architect from EA Partners, is here as well. Just wanted to emphasize a couple things on this, and the main one being, which you all know, but this is not a zone change request. This is a development plan request. It's a preliminary subdivision plat request. And I want to emphasize that this has been planned to be developed for as far back as the records go in the community. This has been zoned R3 for over 30 years. It's been in the comprehensive plan for that time or longer. And incidentally, I have an exhibit from the current comprehensive plan, which... Excuse me. This is... The previous comprehensive plan has all designated this for residential. Of course, our new plan doesn't have a map, but I just wanted to point out that right there, This is Exhibit 2.1, which is the vacant land inventory, which you all know when you started the comprehensive plan process, you asked the staff to do an inventory of the vacant land that's available for development within the urban service area boundary. And they came up with, I think, 3,900 acres that was still available. And from that, you made your conclusion that there was no need for expansion of the urban service area boundary. This property is shown on that map as one of those properties that was counted as being available and vacant for development when you made your decision about expanding the urban service boundary. The third thing I'd want to point out about this, the history of it, is that 30 years ago when the previous developers developed the surrounding land, your predecessors on this planning commission required stub streets to be built to this. So there are two stub streets. One is Copperfield Drive, which stubs right there. The other one is Steamboat Road, which stubs right there, which have been there for as long as the subdivision has been built. And there is only one purpose for those stub streets, and that's to provide for the street continuity and connection here, which we are proposing on this property. So not only in the zoning ordinance and the comp plan, but on the ground, This property has been planned for further development for at least 30 years and going farther back in the comprehensive plans. I mentioned this is zoned R3. We did discover through this process that there's a little piece of it here, which Ms. Monday, you mentioned, is zoned. We found out B6P. It's not up at the intersection here. It's back on the property. We don't have any plans to use that. They bought this for residential purposes. Our request here, we have noticed that up here along Higbee Mill Road, there's an area that's closer to Man-O-War. There's an area in which the area out of the floodplain widens out, and we've designated that as a possible development area. As the staff has noted on their conditions for approval there, that could only be developed. We could only come back to you with a new plan if we get a release of the floodplain for this. and we think there might be a possibility of doing that. We don't want to remove the possibility, and if that's the case, we might be able to put some more residential lots up there. But that would be only if we get the release from the FEMA and only if we come back to you to get that approval, and it would be for residential lots up there. This is all in the floodplain. We don't plan on development, and we have a note on here that says that one single-family house per lot on the property. It's already a note on the development plan. We have to come back to you to do anything like that. I want to emphasize, too, that this is R3, which allows not only single family, it allows duplexes, it allows townhouses, and it allows apartment complexes on this property. And perhaps this was deemed suitable for an apartment house back then. I don't know. But we are planning on single family, detached residential units on this property. We have a note on this plan saying one single-family detached residential unit per lot on this property, so it's similar to the lots that are behind us in the Copperfield subdivision. So even though it's R3, we're proposing single-family detached one house per lot on here. I want to tell you how we've changed this. We appreciate the process we've gone through on this and appreciate the staff working with us. There's been a few changes from what you originally saw when we submitted it to you. One is we're clearly showing, and by the way, this is maybe another answer to the B6P question. The floodway is going to be dedicated to the city for a park on there, and most all of that area is in the floodplain. We're committed to dedicate that to the city for the area that's going to have the trail and the addition to the park up here, all through here. It's going to be dedicated as requested. Another thing is we've reduced the length of the cul-de-sac, and we've lost one buildable lot in that process. What's happened to that buildable lot is now a non-buildable lot. This little sliver down here is a lot, but it's for the connection of the Waverly Park up to the new park. So that'll be a non-billable lot which will provide pedestrian access to connect the existing Waverly Park to whatever they're going to call this, whether it's New Waverly Park or Waverly Park 2.0 or whatever it is they want to call that on there. That'll be the connection there. We're showing that connection. We've lost a lot in order to do that. We understand that. and we've greatly widened this landscape area between us and the properties behind us. That was quite a bit narrower when we submitted to you. That's now about, averages about 37 and a half feet in width along here, and we're going to be planting it. We have a planting plan, if you want to see it, to show very dense trees along here to give screening to the people. A couple houses here have been used to looking at greenery out their back door and they can continue to look at greenery out their back door. We're going to be planning that. That will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. We don't think it will be a major burden on the association because it's mainly going to be trees on here, but it will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. The street has been slightly moved since the original plan. We've moved it to the location a little farther down that everybody agrees is the right location for this property. Our engineers, City Division of Engineering, Planning Division has all agreed that this is the right location for this street on this property. I wanted to mention the retaining wall, and we have our engineers here to answer any questions. You all might have on the retaining wall. This is going to be a poured-in-place retaining wall. It's not going to be a block retaining wall. Probably the most famous retaining wall in Lexington is the one out at Walmart at Richmond Road and Manowar Boulevard, which is huge. it's two to three times taller than this will be at its tallest point. That's a block construction, and that's done very well, extremely well. That'll last forever, but we understand a poured-in-place concrete retaining wall with rebar and all that is, we feel, much stronger, much more durable. We'll require zero maintenance through the years. Steve and Cloyd have talked about putting when it's poured, putting some of those decorative molds on the side that's going to be shown, so it's not going to look like a plain gray wall. It may have a faux brick texture or something like that on it. But it's going to be a very strong wall. We have put it on the HOA lot, but again, we're very confident the HOA is not going to have expenses with this because it's going to be very durable, very long-lasting, very solid, and will stand the test of time. I said Tom Hatfield and Rory are here to answer any questions you all might have about the retaining wall. We do have the waivers that the staff mentioned to you. We're requesting that the sidewalk be deleted along this side. There's no reason for it there because you don't have any access to houses on this side, and it would just interfere with our planning scheme along here. The one is for the right-of-way around the cul-de-sac. That's just so that the retaining wall will not be on public right-of-way because the city said they'd rather have it on the HOA lot. So we're reducing the right-of-way overall with, not necessarily paving with, but the right-of-way with so that that can be on the HOA lot. And the third is the angle of these streets. As Mr. Sully mentioned, we are, we have to work with what we're given here. As you can see, Copperfield wasn't stubbed in at a right angle. We've got to deal with the angle we've got. As Mr. Sully mentioned, there's the grade 2, 6% coming in. We're just maintaining that in and need the waivers to do that. So we appreciate working with all the staff on this. We've agreed to a number of other conditions worth engineering, such as doing geotechnical reports on certain of the lots before the foundations are dug, which will have to be supplied. Those are sort of more between us and the Division of Engineering than you all, but we wanted to tell you about those. There's more to this than we're needing to report to you on that, but we've gone through extensive discussions with Division of Engineering on this, and we're confident that this meets all requirements. Let's see. I think that's basically what we wanted to explain to you on this. We're very pleased to be able to present this to you. We feel we have a plan that meets all of your subdivision regulation requirements for the development. This is probably being developed at a much lower density than was originally planned with the R3 zoning on this property 30 years ago. But we think this is the appropriate way to do it because it maintains single-family detached, which is what's abutting us here in this neighborhood. Thank you very much, and we'd be pleased to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Yes, Mr. Penn. Mr. Murphy, I have two questions for you. The first one, is there any part of Elkhorn Creek that has to be piped? No, I don't think so. No. Engineers are shaking their heads no, so there's no. And the wall that's put in for a tanning wall, do you know what the height of that is at the tallest point? You all correct me if I'm wrong. It starts at zero on both sides and works up at the highest point to 11 feet, I believe, about 11 feet at its very highest point. Thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Murphy, at this point? If not, thank you, Mr. Murphy. Others that would like to speak in favor of this plan? Okay. As far as opposition, let me see if show hands as to who would like to speak in opposition of this. Okay. Very good. Come forward. Give us your name and address, please, ma'am. My name is Linda Kaimakami. I live at 4245 on Canterbury Greenway, so I'm in Wyndham Downs facing the new proposed subdivision. I have been the designated speaker on this since, I think, in the summer, and I'd like to just make a few points basically to get some things on record. We in the community, and I mean we're talking about Wyndham Downs, Clemens, and the surrounding neighborhood as we have met, over the past several months. We have remained in opposition to this, and our primary opposition has been that we don't think that this development will actually protect the floodplain. We have a lot of downstream homes. We have a lot of people who have taken visuals of this creek when it does rise, how fast it is, how heavy it is, how far downstream it moves. And I think our major concern is that if you put this in, regardless of all the changes that you try and do and all the waivers that you create, that Elkhorn Creek itself has been under stress. And we think that this is a critical point in the component of South Elkhorn Creek. And it's conceivable that if you build in this area, the downstream threat will rise and you will have a lot of homeowners in the downstream section who will be very upset by having this development come through. This is a very tenuous area to try and build on, and we think that while we appreciate the effort that the engineers and the firm has put into improving it, we think that basic situation has not really changed. So to add to that, what I would like to say is that we, the homeowners, are just now getting our first look at this final revised plan. We've had, what, 15 minutes plus the speeches that we have heard here. So we don't get the time. We feel a little disadvantaged at this point. We don't get the time to fully evaluate the changes that have come through. And this is our neighborhood, and we would like to be kept better in the loop, and we would have appreciated the firm being more proactive in posting their material online for us to see. I would also like to note that the creek as drawn is probably inaccurate. I don't know if the engineers have been down there recently or not, but the creek has actually split, which makes it a little bit difficult to maneuver around those. And again, I think it's just proof of how much pressure this creek is under at this point. They haven't talked about the Windale subdivision, which is, where is the pointer here? How does the pointer work? Okay, so Windale is... Yeah, did I not do it right? Take the microphone with you if you go over there. Okay, do I have it now? Okay, yeah, just take the microphone with you. There you go. Almost too many things to carry around. Okay, so the new subdivision is up in this area over here, and they are now clearing property up here. We don't really know what the impact of that is going to be downstream. It's another pressure point coming down. This thing is going to, there we go. So, you know, that's just now under clearing. We've talked to people doing the clearing, and they are already telling us that they are ready to clear the adjoining six acres, which means that they're working on the assumption of approval coming down the road to them for that six acres. So somehow or another, the word has gotten out to the workers on the spot that they're ready to move into the six acres that is not even approved yet. Okay. Let's see where we go from here. Secondly, we want to bring to your attention, again, that we think the majority of the problems with this proposal is that you're asking the developer to squeeze in between an existing creek, an existing homes, and an existing drop-off, a subdivision, a building. And we think that that's the critical problem here, is that every time you make a change, you're still making an effort to squeeze things into a limited amount of space. And that squeezing, everything they have done is to make that squeezing work. And again, we just don't think that this is going to be viable once it is done. I would bring to your attention at this point that as far as we know, and like I said, we don't have as much information as everybody else does, that the homes that are proposed for this area, and I will say we do appreciate the fact that this is single-family homes, that the homes proposed for this area are supposed to come in at $400,000 plus and up. And you all can correct me if I'm wrong on this. This is a $200,000 and up neighborhood, and you're going to be asking $400,000 homeowners to come in and buy homes in this very narrow little area. You're going to also be asking them to come in where their front yard is going to face the backyard of Wyndham Downs. So you're going to have a $400,000 home with an untenable situation. And I know that's one of the waivers, but I don't think that's a useful waiver. I think that that means that you have a neighborhood that's just situated awkwardly. I wouldn't want to sink $400,000 into a property where my front yard didn't have a sidewalk and I faced the backyard of somebody else. I think that's not good. And from what I understand, these are going to be three-floor houses with 800 square feet per floor. That's not a $400,000 house. So what I'm saying here, I think the basic argument here, is that this is not necessarily a cost-effective development. You could end up with having this thing start and then not having a developer come in who's willing to put in the money to build a house that would compensate for the money it takes to build it. And then you're going to be left with a mess. And we have been concerned from the very beginning that what we're looking at here is another center point. I think that was the development that went nowhere and was just a big, muddy hole. I think that's been one of our major concerns. is that this would go in that direction. Once the difficulty of the terrain and once the cost-effectiveness argument kicked in, that that would be what would happen. And we had some other arguments, but they were based on other revisions. And like I said, we've had like 15 minutes to look at this revision. All the homeowners in this area urge you all to reject this proposal. There's too many unresolved issues. There's too many waivers. There's too many environmental issues. There's just too much of everything here to say that this is at a spot where it's ready to go forward. We bring to your attention additionally, and I know this is an argument that I'm not supposed to raise, but I'm going to raise it anyway. You have approximately six projects along South Elkhorn Creek right now. And they're not being looked at in unison. This is just one of them. and we think in the neighborhood as we have discussed it that as you build along South Elkhorn Creek and continue to put stress on it that again we don't know what's going to happen to South Elkhorn Creek as a result of all this development and there are six of them I bring to your attention that Ramsey's flooded last year and there was a parking lot done at a church on Old Higby Mill Road and the week after the parking lot was put in it flooded So, you know, the flooding issues in this particular area are ongoing, and we just have concerns all around about how this is going to work out. And we appreciate their effort to turn half of it into park, but notice if you will look on the map, we don't have a big enough map here, but if you were to take all of this and turn it into park, you could attach it to Clemens Park, which is unused, and you would be able then to attach it into the parks on the other side of Man of War and give the south part of the city a really nice big park that could be attached into other parks down the road. So we think there's alternatives to do. And while we understand the density policy and the fact that you guys set aside buildable residential areas 30 years ago, there comes a point where the density argument doesn't match that particular spot. And so in general, if the density policy is good and it's good for the city, this is not one of those moments where the density policy works. And so again, I urge you all to take a closer look at the impact here and to turn down the project. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you, ma'am. Excuse me, your last name again? Who asked me? I did. Okay, Kaimakami. Kaimakami? Okay. Thank you, Ms. Kamakami. Any questions for Ms. Kamakami? Any questions? No. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else that'd like to speak? If not, I'll close as part of the public hearing and open it up for any discussion from commission members. Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. Come forward. In response, rebuttal. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Just had a couple of comments and rebuttal to this. One is that the parks, this what we're proposing here, we were requested by the city to dedicate this as a park. I didn't understand that was a criticism of this, but we're dedicating this probably two-thirds of the land area here as a park. It will be connected with the other ones. As I've mentioned, we're providing a non-building lot to be able to have a pedestrian connection between Waverly Park and this. As I understand, the purpose of this is to have a ribbon park, if you will. So this is going to be part of the South Elkhorn Trail, which goes along South Elkhorn Creek, not just on our property, but on either side, to connect down to. I know there's a trailhead already in existence where Harrodsburg Road has the bridge at South Elkhorn Creek. There's already a trailhead established for this, and this will be a part of that long-sought city-county park system of a trail park along here. As far as this being CenterPoint, obviously CenterPoint, I don't think came through you. All our public improvements are going to be bonded. That was, I think, an issue on CenterPoint about not having bonds for the stuff that was going on. We're going to have bonds on all this. If it's not completed right, there will be funds to call upon. As I mentioned to you too, we have agreed with the Division of Engineering that, for instance, before we start a foundation on these lots through here, we're going to submit a geotechnical report to the Division of Engineering to their satisfaction so that we can build. One reason we're doing the walkout basements on this is because the best way to deal with the slopes is to have a walkout basement. Yes, our houses will face Steamboat Road, but as I mentioned, we're constructing a pretty good screening area. Our folks are going to be looking at the same screening that we're putting up to screen the people behind from us on that. And yes, our houses will be priced maybe a little higher than the existing neighborhood. We anticipate they're going to be priced in the $300,000 to $400,000 range, comparable to many new houses today. We don't think that's a problem. We think it'll be a benefit to the community, perhaps by, at the minimum, raising property values. It sure won't hurt property values to have, if there is a differential in price, to have ours being higher priced on this. The floodplain is the, I wanted to address that too. And as I've said before, we're, what we're doing, what we're constructing is all out of the floodplain. I can't emphasize that enough. If it's out of the flood way, it's out of the flood plain. We also have to observe a setback from the flood plain as well. So nothing we're doing is, our houses are not going to be in the flood plain at all. Unlike what happened 30 to 50 years ago, we now understand that flood plains are there for one reason, so they can flood. We don't do a lot of piping or anything anymore of streams like this. We allow them to flood the natural way that we're doing it. So we're allowing the floodplain to be here, and it's going to flood. And there's still going to be floods upstream and downstream because it's a floodplain and because that's the way we deal with it at this point. The floodplains are there to maintain floodplains and not building them so that they can flood. Now, we're not going to stop flooding at Ramsey's Restaurant down on Harrodsburg Road if there's flooding there now. We're not going to stop that, but we're not going to add to it either. We have to have our plans approved through the Division of Engineering. As you all know, there's very rigorous rules on what we can and cannot do here. We cannot exacerbate flooding situations on this property, and we will not be exacerbating flooding situations on this property. But the mere fact that we have a floodplain, I view that as positive because what I've learned, and I think we've all learned through the process and what we're doing now, is that we're leaving floodplains as floodplains, and they're going to continue to flood. And we want them to continue to flood because that's a better way of dealing with the water on this property. If the creek has split, it's down in the floodplain, which we can't get into anyway. The, as I said, our water will meet all requirements and the, in the last two years, we not only have the Division of Engineering to meet their requirements, as you know, we have Division of Water Quality here in Lexington that has its own set of requirements and they have their own set of inspectors on all these jobs. I know I've had other developers in other areas tell me that the inspection process now is geometrically greater inspection-wise now than it was three or four years ago before we started paying the stormwater fee on our water bills that funds all the inspectors and people making sure that everything is done right. We're going to have full inspection on this property. We're going to be submitting all plans on this property. And I can't emphasize enough, and I appreciate that the neighbors understand this, that we're not building this to the maximum density. We're not coming in asking you to put 100 apartment units on here or 40 townhouses or whatever. We're just asking for this number of single-family homes, and one of the reasons for that is that's what can go best on this property with the slopes that we have, and the other reason is because that's what's more compatible with the existing neighborhoods around us. So thank you very much. We've been zoned R3. It's not a zone change. It's a development plan, or preliminary subdivision plan, and we are confident we meet all the requirements of the city, and we appreciate meeting with all the experts in the city for the last couple months when we've postponed this to make sure that we're all on the same page and make sure that we get this property right. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Penn, do you have a question? Yeah, Mr. Murphy, while you're there, I don't know if you've seen this or not, but this was handed out by a realtor that talked about the cost of development, And I refer to that when I ask you this question. One of the fears that we have developing land, or I have developing land that's this challenging, is that we'll get into it, and then through unexpected consequences, it's a thin enough margin that this thing must have to be abandoned. We've already done the grading. We've already disturbed the vegetation, everything that's on it. Give me some kind of assurance that once we start this project and build the road, that the developer intends to go on through with this project because mitigation would be extremely tough here? Well, as I mentioned to you, there's a couple things. One is that we are going to be bonding all these public improvements so that if they're done wrong, and they're not going to be done wrong, but just if they are, that there's going to be bond monies to do those correctly. The second one is that Cloyd and Steve are very experienced builders. I can give you, I haven't asked Steve for all the lists of subdivisions he's done, but Cloyd, I did ask, and Cloyd has built subdivisions, probably 20 of them, right in this area. And he's built in Harrods Point South, Firebrook, Rabbit Run, Grasmere, right around here, Palomar, Beaumont, Clemens Heights, Hidden Springs, Hertland, and he's built on lots that have slopes like this before. He's built, I know if you've been around, you've heard Floyd's name and you've heard Steve's name. Floyd has built on lots that have greater slopes. They're experienced. They know what they're doing. They know what the return is. Another one is this. They're not going to be able to get financing at a bank until they can prove all this is going to be done. A bank's not going to loan money, and every developer borrows money to do this infrastructure, and banks right now are looking at it more strictly than they ever have in the last 30 years to make sure that exactly what you're saying doesn't happen. A bank's not going to sit around and make a loan for this if there's any concern at all that this isn't going to come through on the property. The, the, we saw that study you had. My first thought was, well, we're not in the business of deciding whether somebody's going to make money or not. I wish you were. I wish you only approved things that are going to make my clients millionaires. But that's not part of your function. But they looked at it, and they said they disagreed. We can get in with you with what the disagreements with that report are if you want. I figured you didn't want to. I don't want that. I thoroughly disagree with that, but it's irrelevant to what you're doing on this. But there's a lot of checks and balances in place, and some of them are public, the bonding. Some of them are private, the banks as well. But there's additional ones as well, which I probably don't, not even aware of. But those are the ones I'm aware of that I think we can assure you that this isn't going to get started and then stopped. Well, I will assure you that I'm not here to make sure people make money. That's not the issue. The issue that the neighbors have raised, the fact that is this a viable project, and it's like anything else, once you start, you know, if you don't finish, you've got a mess. I answered that question to get you on the record for what you said, and I appreciate the education. Thank you very much. Ms. Plumlee, do you have a question? Yes. There will be sidewalks on one side, correct? Oh, yeah. The only place we're removing the sidewalk is here. There's going to be sidewalks on two sides all the way down here, sidewalk on one side. There's going to be the walkway through here. There's going to be the pathway through here. So we're going to have lots of pedestrian and bicycling opportunities here. Other questions? Mr. Craven. Yeah, Mr. Murphy, where does that steamboat road go out that way? Okay. Comes out on Clemens Heights. Clemens Boulevard or something like that? Clemens Heights. Clemens Drive, I think, yeah. Okay. Other questions? I've got one for Hillard Newman, if he'll come down, please. And as he's coming down, does staff have any additional comments? No? Okay. Excuse me? Yes, ma'am. We'll give you just another second here. Mr. Newman, basically it's Elkhorn Creek and possible flooding. There's been several revisions on this one plan here over the past several months. How comfortable are you with this development plan and the protection as far as Elkhorn Creek is concerned? as far as this plan impact in Elkhorn Creek? I'm very comfortable. It's all the work is, or all the proposed work is outside of the floodplain as defined on the flood insurance rate maps. and then the other question would be the concern was raised about other developments six I believe was mentioned and not collectively been looked at I don't know that we've ever looked at various development plans in a collective type manner but I would say that each one's looked at individually as far as the impact to Elkhorn Creek as well. Would that be correct? Right. And, yeah, if it doesn't go forward if there's problems. That's correct. Okay. All right, then. Any other questions? Yes, ma'am? Please come forward. Yeah. And after this, we'll close this. All right. Just a few things. Mr. Murphy had said that I criticized the park, and I did not. I did thank them for setting that aside, although I'd like to see the whole thing turned into a park, so I just wanted to clarify that. In terms of the homeowners association fees, I bring to your attention you have 20 lots here, so you have 20 homes that are going to be their own homeowners association, and you're going to ask 20 people to maintain a retaining wall, to maintain a screening area, and we anticipate that they are going to turn either to Clemens Heights or to Wyndham Downs and try and attach themselves to our homeowners association in order to bear some of the burden of these homeowners fees, which I think are going to be quite substantial. Neither one of these homeowners associations has expressed any interest in adopting these 20 people here. So just request that you keep that in mind, too. In terms of the screening area, again, we appreciate their effort to promote screening, but we don't see why they have to tear down the trees that are already there in existence, which form the best screening there is possible, and then recreate that with other trees that will take 20 years to grow to where they are right now. We've got some fabulous full-grown trees back there. So, again, I thank them for that effort, but question the need to tear down what they're then going to rebuild. In terms of the flood, and I don't know who Mr. Newman is. I missed the introduction to him. We have neighbors who have this creek approach their decks, their back porches. It's already there. It's already that high. We have on-site, on-street, daily information about this creek. When it rains, and it rains heavily, that creek swells, and it comes down. and any hardscape that you put in this area, including the retaining wall, is just a barrier that's going to limit that creek, and when you limit that creek, you're going to make it run faster. And I know that you guys have looked at this, but I want to go on record as saying that if you do this and if you don't look at these areas collectively and you do generate, not you guys but the developers, that if downstream flooding is generated, then I want that to be on record that we have concerns. I think the basements of these houses that they have proposed will flood, and I don't think that there's any problem on that. And I do think it can be exacerbated. I think all the best intentions can go awry, and I think, you know, we still stand by our assessment of the situation, and thank you all very much. Thank you. Patrick, do you have a question? Yes, sir. and to give the proper introduction, Mr. Newman's part of our staff with the City of Lexington in Division of Engineering and looks at these things on a daily basis. I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion as far as commission members and or motions. I would offer that we need to consider waivers in this situation with the development plan itself. So our options would be approval with waivers, always continue, or disapproval of the development plan. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. We also have discussion, and I'm going to make a motion. I think we're ready. With due respect to the neighborhood comments, we appreciate you coming down and talking to us about that. I think the development plan that we have before us is an excellent one. I think they've done their homework and they've documented it perfectly. And our role at this point is not to make a judgment about the business case. It's about the development plan. So I'll make a motion for approval of plan 2015-67P, including the requested waiver. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of plan 2015-67P Copper Creek subdivision with the waiver as recommended by the staff. Any discussion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks, for coming down. Hope everything goes well with this. Next on the agenda is at the bottom of page 1, DP 2015-30, High Point Subdivision. You do have a revision that is before you on a salmon sheet of paper. Thank you. Yes, sir, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is a development plan. Item B, it's DP 2015-30 High Point Subdivision, also known as Monin Incorporated. This is a property located on the north side of Winchester Road, just shortly before you get to Industry Road. I believe there was a gun shop located in the existing building at one time. And that's what you have here, an existing 5,000 square foot retail building. The property is owned B3, as is a lot of the property along Winchester Road. The reason you see a development plan before you is they are proposing to build a second principal structure on this property. So they are required a development plan. They are proposing a 3,500 square foot building in the rear. You can see the parking access that exists off of Winchester Road. And they are proposing 25 parking spaces on the property. The primary issue and the reason for the multiple postponements on this property was initially there was concern about the use of the property in the B-3 zone. The plan seemed to indicate, based on the statistics that were on the original submission, that storage was the dominant use on the property. And, of course, that's a principal use in the B-4, not the B-3. You can have accessory storage to your retail uses and that sort of thing in the B3. So it just took a while to finally get that worked out with the applicant and his designer that these are, in fact, being proposed for retail space. And, again, it doesn't mean they can't have some accessory storage. They can. But initially, staff was concerned that it was to be primarily used for storage. And again, as I stated, that would be a B4 use and not a B3 use. So we do have the revision before you today. We have revised the conditions. We are recommending approval. There are some cleanup conditions, as you can see. They're pretty standard. And there is one issue that they will have to address, and that is back here with this building, there appears to be a small, what some people refer to as bathtub little detention areas. And that, I believe, is still being explored as to why it's there and who it serves. But they will have to deal with that and adjust their development accordingly before they can build. And you can see we have that condition as number 14. They've got to resolve that conflict to the approval of both engineering and the Division of Water Quality. Again, we are recommending approval of this revised plan to you. Any questions for Mr. Martin? If not, thank you, sir. Mr. Robbins, you got anything to add? Thank you for the revisions. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, staff, no, I have nothing to add. Tom has presented it as well as it can be presented, and I've read the conditions for approval, and we're ready, willing, and able to meet those conditions. And I'd like to ask for a motion to go ahead and approve us so we can move on. Thank you, Mr. Robbins. Any questions for Mr. Robbins? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, thank you, Mr. Robbins. Okay, if not, if there's no questions, we'll close it and entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of DP 2015-30, high point subdivision. Motion has been made and seconded by Ms. Mundy for approval of DP 2015-30 with the revised 14 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. The remaining items are zone change requests. And I'll ask Mr. Sally to walk through and sound that part of it. and see if these can be presented as abbreviated hearings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, members of the Commission, good afternoon. The two zone changes that remain on your agenda are both recommended for approval by the staff, but at this time we'll see if any of them are desired to be spoken about by members of the audience that are here today. The first is on page two of your meeting agenda. It is MARV 2015-8. This is an amended zone change request by Dr. Michael Gentry and RML Construction. This seeks a rezoning of a property from R1D, single-family residential, to two zones, high-density apartment, which is R4, and wholesale and warehouse business, which is B4. This involves property with an address of 2833 Liberty Road. At this time, we would ask if anyone's present in the audience who wishes either to speak to this zone change or to oppose this zone change request for property on Liberty Road. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, we can have this item first and present it to you in abbreviated fashion. The other item will follow, and the staff will present them just in the order that they appear on your agenda. Thank you. Okay, thank you. so we'll let the staff set up and move to Dr. Michael Gentry and RML Construction LLP which is a zoning map amendment and Cadentown subdivision zoning development plan MARV 2015-8 and there is requested variance and also the ZDP 2015-49 good afternoon chairman owens members of the commission this is marv 2015-8 and again it's a request by an amended request by dr michael gentry and rml construction llp from a single family residential zone to two zones, both a wholesale warehouse business and then the high-density apartment residential zone. It's approximately a four-acre site. I'm going to move over to the board here. The proposed site is located on the east side of Liberty Road, and it is north of the intersection of Manowar and Liberty, actually a little bit northwest. Also in the vicinity is the Cadentown Historic District across Liberty Road from this location. The immediate vicinity around the subject property is all R1D, single-family residential zoning, with the exception of a few lots here on Campbell Lane that are multifamily and part of the Brighton 3050 development. One lot is R4, and then the rest is R3. And then there's also an access for a utility substation, KU utility substation that's located along Manowar Boulevard, and that property is currently zoned AU. It's the former right-of-way for the railroad that's been abandoned and is the future location of a rails-to-trails shared-use path that will connect a Liberty shared-use path that exists in the Greenway here to the north of the subject property to the existing path the brighton path that exists and terminates at the end of bryant road across manor boulevard so this will be that last piece that connects those two shared use shared use use paths also in the vicinity link belt manufacturing is located just across liberty road but their access is all from palumbo drive in this vicinity um there are a few churches to the northeast and then single-family residential as well as an elementary school. Further to the south, we have two small shopping centers, the Brighton Shops and then I guess a CVS and I think it's called Todd Center, just neighborhood-oriented development there. the applicant modified their zone change in order to continue to ask for a kennel and animal hospital and the front of the property which is where it would be rezoned to b4 and in the rear of the property when they modified their application they changed that portion approximately two acres to the R4 zone in order to construct one multifamily residential building with 28 dwelling units. The petitioner's request to rezone, they believe, is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan and also in agreement with policy statements from the Comprehensive Plan. And they did cite a number of goals and objectives from the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, which they believe they are in compliance with, including providing accessible community facilities which meet the health, safety, and quality of life needs of the community, enabling infill and redevelopment that creates jobs, especially where people live, attracting and retaining high-paying jobs in relation to the vet clinic, supporting infill and redevelopment within the urban service boundary, and then also encouraging and expanding housing choices throughout the community. In terms of policy statements, the applicant contends that they are helping to create the ideal structure of a neighborhood, which is endorsed by the Comprehensive Plan in terms of providing a place to work near our residential developments, and also providing opportunities for workforce improvement and growth by continuing to provide additional jobs. as shabelle would be expanding at this location and then they also believe this is in in compliance or supported by policy statements related to the continual evaluation of zone map amendments that would specifically enable job development opportunities there is a neighborhood node in this vicinity that the staff recognized mostly near man-o-war and the intersection of liberty road and this proposed zone change would expand that neighborhood node down liberty road by providing more business and then an additional residential area the staff was in agreement that this was in agreement with the comprehensive plan and we did recommend approval of this modified or amended zone change we believe the r4 zoning does provide a buffer to the cadent our campbell lane area as well as one of the policy statements in the comprehensive plan was to provide residential development along our greenways and trails and this will provide that rather than the kennel and an animal clinic adjacent to the trail in addition it provides a balance of both the commercial and the residential as suggested in our comprehensive plan so the staff did find that the proposed zone changes in agreement with the comprehensive plan is much more in keeping with the character of the immediate area and is more and the more detailed policy provisions of the comprehensive plan and the findings are on your agenda in the staff report which is in your notebook i would make one change to the conditional zoning restrictions that the staff suggested generally the applicant provided a list of conditional zoning restrictions that they were willing to prohibit uses in the b4 zone we had a typo in our staff report that was copied to the agenda and we listed item b which is cocktail lounges and nightclubs as a prohibited use however that's not a use that's currently listed in the b4 zone so it's not really necessary to be included in our conditional zoning restrictions so the staff would ask you to delete item b and then we would in our report to the council renumber those or letter those excuse me be happy to answer any questions about the staff's recommendation questions from Ms. Wade thank you Mr. Martin oh before I move on there are two letters of opposition to the request and I'll give those to each end Mr. Martin Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, at the bottom of page three is the ZDP, the Preliminary Development Plan 2015-49 Cadentown Subdivision, which is associated with this zone change. the revised plan that you see before you again here's liberty road frontage on liberty here's campbell lane cadentown is a crossover in this direction man o' war would be down here this is the railroad right of way where the trail will be located this revised plan shows the Animal Hospital kennel, 20,000 square feet in this location, with access off of Liberty Road, associated parking. This is a very similar layout to the original layout on the previous plan. There is a connection through into the R4 proposal, the apartment building. They are proposing a three-story apartment building with 24 one-bedroom units and four three-bedroom units. You can see garages on the sides here. And again, fairly typical parking pattern in this layout as well. They are proposing access here to Campbell Lane. Now, there is a gate on Campbell Lane. It's an emergency access gate. What this will do is tie this development over into the existing R4 development with this access point. and it will allow people to access from here through here. Now, again, there is, of course, an access being proposed between these two. That is somewhat of a convoluted route through the property, but it does allow a method for people to at least access Liberty Road and not use Campbell Lane, which obviously is a very, very substandard little old rural street. The plan was recommended for approval, And you can see there were some very standard conditions. A few cleanup conditions are there on the plan about addressing just, again, some basic information. There were three discussion items. And those discussion items are related to the R4 portion of the prop. and it really does come back to how it's going to be tied in and kind of function with this existing r4 primarily and then again the other concern that staff had is tying the residential portion into the trail obviously as you know we're very concerned about that sort of thing that we want folks that are living next to a trail to be able to access it there's been some discussion about this area would be a good location for that we had a very good discussion about these issues the pedestrian connection from this into the existing, the vehicular access on the Campbell Lane again, and the access here, all were discussed at the committee. They did not give your staff a revised plan, so you do not see revised conditions. However, those types of issues are design issues that staff is comfortable with deferring those to your final development plan, because you will see a final development plan on this property as well as this property. And so with that, your subdivision committee has recommended approval of the plan. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Mr. Emmons? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I would like to present to you the variance request that has also been requested. In conjunction with this zone change, the applicants have requested a single variance to reduce the distance requirement for a kennel and animal clinic from a residential zone from 100 feet to 50 feet. They have asked for that on two property boundaries. They have asked for that on the northwest property line near the vacant property that they do not own. and they've asked for it on their northeast property line against the property that is proposed for the R4 zoning. The net result, if the variance is granted, is the, you can see in the red dashed outline, it would be the buildable area for both the indoor and outdoor uses of the proposed kennel and animal clinic should the variances be granted. I would note that they have not requested a variance along the properties along Campbell Lane to the south. I will be very brief. The staff is recommending approval of the requested variances. We have, when they revised the zone change to add the extra residential property, they also needed to revise their variance request. So we have a supplemental report in your notebooks behind tab one. It's the last of the staff reports. And in doing so, the staff is recommending approval. We had to slightly modify the original conditions where we had recommended approval. But some of the major considerations that we have is, first and foremost, that this is a modern kennel. and most of the, in this business, most of the time they're trying to now put, design them so that the animals are indoors rather than outdoors, which is very different than it was whenever the restriction was originally placed in our zoning ordinance. Second, that the northwest property line next to the vacant triangular piece of property is heavily vegetated with a lot of trees. And finally, that this use, even with the variances granted, will be more than 130 feet away from any existing or proposed residences. The staff is recommending approvals subject to four conditions, the first three being very standard conditions, and the final one, a condition that you would protect the trees on the northwest property line. I believe that concludes all of the staff presentations. If you have any questions for me or any members of the staff, we will be available throughout your hearing. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Any questions for Mr. Emmons or others? Well, I just got this letter up here. Where is Link Belt located in relationship to this project? The Link Belt property is shown in the purple here, the light industrial. It is across Liberty Road, essentially Caddy Corner. to the subject property. In terms of miles or feet or whatever. Miles or feet? Oh, Tracy is saying that it's 200 feet across the right-of-way. Okay. Liberty Road. You can also see on the aerial, this is the link belt property, and this is the subject property. They typically just have storage in the back there that would face onto Liberty. And really, when you drive by, it's a very small frontage on Liberty Road. Most of their work is done closer to Palumbo. But they were concerned about noise complaints. Right. Thank you. Any other questions? So I guess Jimmy or Mr. Martin, the only access as far as the residential component right now would be through the veterinary clinic parking lot or across Campbell Lane through the other apartment complex? It would be through the existing apartment complex. This would be an extension of that apartment complex. Yeah. Correct? Correct. Okay. The existing complex has access to this part of Campbell Lane, so they have access this way to the existing. Okay. And we have a photograph up on the board showing that as well. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Applicant, anything to add? We have a little bit to add. Not a lot to add here, but I'm Dick Murphy, representing the applicant. The original applicant was Dr. Michael Gentry, who's here with us in the back. We've added, since the original application was filed, as you know from your subcommittees, RML Construction, which is an affiliate of Ball Homes. Mr. Buddy Goodwin is here, attorney for Ball Homes. He won't be speaking. I won't be speaking long. Matt Carter from Vision Engineering did the development plan, but Rory Cayley from EA Partners gave the data for the residential component on this, so this is sort of a combined effort. And we do agree with the staff recommendation on the zone change, on the development plan, and on the variances. Just a couple things I want to point out. I won't go into Dr. Gentry's search for a new location and trying to replace the outdated Shea Bell Animal Clinic. and kennel. I do want to emphasize there's a veterinary clinic is an important part of this. It's not just a kennel. It's a veterinary clinic and kennel on this property. I won't go to how the pets will be in the lap of luxury here and be able to watch TV and all that stuff while we're on vacation. It's going to be a wonderful facility. We've described that in the subcommittees. But in the subcommittee, there were a couple of questions that prompted this. One was, well what are you going to do with that that big space in the back which at that time we were showing with nothing on it and then the staff is concerned about not having residential in the area so the light bulb flipped here and Ball Homes was interested in this and has worked out an agreement with Dr. Gentry where RML Construction, their affiliate would buy this and they put an apartment building which will be part of the complex that goes back here. Just wanted to emphasize a couple things on access. At the subcommittees, you all suggested, and we'll put, it's not shown on here, but we'll put on here an emergency gate at this point between the two. And Mr. Goodwin mentioned to me, they don't use Campbell Lane for access for the apartment complex. There is an emergency gate there as well. Their access comes a little farther down here. on that. So this is not putting any traffic on Campbell Lane. It's much too substandard for traffic, and it would be too much of an intrusion into that neighborhood to put a lot of traffic into that neighborhood. We will have a small outdoor exercise area, which will show the main exercise area is inside. It's inside the courtyard area. We'll have a small outdoor area in the rear, which will identify either on this plan or on the final development plan. And since this is an abbreviated hearing, I won't go into all the other things I was going to tell you. We understand that there was the two opposition letters. One is from Link Belt over here, which does touch Liberty Road, but there's no access off of Liberty Road. It's all fenced off. and I think I haven't fully read that letter. I was understanding it was an objection to the residential component here and we will be having the animal clinic and the veterinary clinic and the kennel here which is between Link Belt and the residential here. So that would sort of screen it. Plus I'll point out there's already residential right next to Link Belt already on the other side of Liberty Road. The other one was from the owner from New Jersey of this property. At the suggestion of people on the zoning committee, we made a diligent effort to try to purchase that. We were unable to do that. Unfortunately, we made a real hard effort, and I understand they're objecting to it. That's their right. We understand that. On the variance, the only thing I'd mention is that we agree with Mr. Emmons' reasons. the variance here and in here and we have extensive screening here if you I've got pictures of it and aerial pictures of it all that stuff but it's extensive screening which we have shown has staying on our development plan we will keep that it's very extensive our our main activity will be inside on the property and the other thing I'd point out that we're asking for a similar variance along what will be the RML construction line and what strikes me is that RML or Ball Homes is the largest and most experienced residential builder in the state of Kentucky. We're asking for that same variance here. They're aware of it. They obviously don't feel that it's going to be any detriment to building a residential development right next to them. So with that, we do agree with the comprehensive plan. We're supplying residential component. We're allowing expansion of a 60-year-old locally owned and operated business. We're going to be supplying quality jobs. A lot of these jobs at the clinic are professional level jobs, quality jobs here for Lexington. So we feel we're in agreement with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. We want to thank you for your patience. We've postponed this a couple times in order to try to work this out, and it has all worked out. And we appreciate working with Ball Homes or RML Construction on this. We appreciate working with the staff, and we think it's really worked out to the positive for us on it. Thank you very much, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Thank you, sir. I believe there's no one else that wanted to speak on this. If there's no further questions, I'll just close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion and or motions. The motions, we would need three, one for the zone change, one for the variance, and one for the ZDP. Keep in mind, Ms. Wade mentioned one deletion as far as the conditional restrictions, and then also I think Mr. Martin said that the last three items could be changed to resolve at the time of final development plan. Questions? Motion? Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am. I'd like to make a motion to approve MARV 2015-8, Dr. Michael Gentry and RML Construction, with the staff recommendations, and under three of that, deleting number B. Okay. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for the approval of MARV 2015-8, noting the one deletion, which is 3B under the conditional restrictions. If there's no discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Variants? Yes, I move approval, other requested variants, along with the staff recommendations. Motion made and seconded for the associated variants with MARV 2015- I'm sorry, MARFE 2015-8. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. And then the ZDP. Finally, I move approval of ZTP 2015-49, Cadentown Subdivision Animal Hospital and Clinic, with the recommendations sent down by the staff. Okay, that would be change in 10, 11, 12 to resolve a time of vital development plan? Yes. Okay. Motion's been made. Do we have a second? Seconded by Ms. Mundy for approval of ZDP 2015-49, change in 10, 11, and 12 to resolve a time final development plan. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Gentry and Mr. Murphy, for all your work with this. Next, I think final item is Flying Dutchman. It's on page 4. item 2 MARB 2015-15 along with yeah along with variants as well and then the ZDP that follows on page 5 you do have revisions for that ZDP that's on a light purple sheet of paper I'm sorry, you probably have revised findings for the zone change request on a white sheet of paper. Ms. Wade, no? I actually didn't make copies because it was pretty simple. I'm going to put it on the overhead. I'll give it to Bill at the end here. You're going to put it up on the screen. That's right. I will. So this is an amended application from Flying Dutchman Properties, LLC, and again, 509, 513, and 517 Pike Road. They are requesting a rezoning from a single family residential zone to a planned neighborhood residential zone, which is our R3 zone. The subject properties are three parcels on the east side of Pike Road, and Pike is located in the Gulf View Estates subdivision. And this map, it looks very confusing, but South Broadway runs here diagonally through our map. Pike Road connects to South Broadway to the southeast of these subject properties. and i know we've had several zone changes in this area so you're familiar with it but pike road and then gibson avenue are parallel duncan avenue runs cross at a perpendicular to it as well as devonshire avenue and the subject property does include i mentioned the three addresses but it also includes half of the right-of-way of devonshire avenue that was a abandoned or or i guess taken back from the council the government so it's part of the zone change as well it was not utilized it was a right-of-way that had been been in place for some time let's go on to our photos a bit a bit light but the gulf view estates subdivision is primarily single family residential there are a few duplexes closer to south broadway but it is primarily single family on the aerial you'll notice on devonshire avenue also a multi-family residential development and i'm not sure what you push on this for a pointer bill bill what's the pointer i'm sorry the pointer thank you sorry isn't this a pointer yeah the red button there's no red button okay Okay, multifamily residential to the south or west of the subject property, and then along Red Mile Road, which backs to this area, is primarily professional offices. And then South Broadway to the south, again, is mostly commercial development. Zoning, again, reflects those uses, the subdivision single family, professional office to the rear of the site, and then a multifamily on Devonshire. I think I'm doing that. The existing properties, or the three properties today, have one existing single-family residence situated on the middle, the center property. And they're proposing, with this amendment, to maintain or retain that single-family residence. And now, instead of their original proposal for townhouses on these three lots, they're proposing a duplex on either side of the single-family residence. So for a total of five dwelling units. those five dwelling units come to approximately 7.65 dwelling units per acre in terms of density. So this is a view from Devonshire looking to the east with the single-family home that's there. And then same with the single-family but looking towards the north. The applicant, as I mentioned, is proposing the five dwelling units on the subject property now. They believe that this proposal is in agreement with the comprehensive plan in terms of primarily two of our themes, theme A, which is growing successful neighborhoods, and theme E, which has to do with maintaining the balance between the urban and rural development. In particular, goals and objectives from the plan, they believe they're in agreement with the goal related to expanding housing choices, also supporting infill and redevelopment that's context sensitive. providing well-designed neighborhoods with mixed use and mixed housing types by providing a mixture of duplexes in this area. And then also these two lots that have remained vacant, the applicant, I guess, called them found lots, and they believe that allows for use of underutilized property within the urban service boundary. so the petitioner does believe that this revision is actually more context sensitive than the townhouses they were proposing before the building lines match and the parking is still in the rear which is more context sensitive in terms of the street character but and then lastly I would just say the staff does agree with their proposal and believes it's in agreement with the comprehensive plan they have proposed conditional zoning restrictions for the property to eliminate those are three uses that would be detrimental or problematic for the single-family residential neighborhood so those conditional zoning restrictions would limit multifamily dwelling units dormitories boarding and lodging houses assisted living facilities and community residences and those were offered by the applicant but we believe the staff believes they're appropriate in that they'll maintain the character of the existing neighborhood the proposal I guess I'll have Bill put on the overhead the staff report was updated based on their revisions but the findings there were a few sentences that needed to be updated as well so in finding 1a and 1b those findings needed to be updated to reflect the new proposal so in sentence two the staff would just ask you to adopt the staff's revised findings which change the wording to the petitioner proposes to develop two duplexes on either side of the existing single-family residence which creates a variety of housing types in the immediate area that complement the existing neighborhood so we'd strike a townhouse style development of eight dwelling units since that's no longer proposed and then in finding number two the petitioner proposes to moderately increase the density of the subject properties as compared to the surrounding area and rather than their proposed density being 12 units per net acre their proposed density is 7.65 so we want those findings to reflect the proposal and the staff recommends approval any questions miss Wade thank you miss way thank you Mr. Martin next. Oh, Bill. Mr. Sally next. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hunter is out sick today, so it's my pleasure to present the zoning development plan to the commission at your hearing. Just as a reminder for the commission members and members of the audience, the development plan is reviewed by the staff and by your subcommittees as if the requested R3 zoning is already in place at this location. This item appears on page 5 of your meeting agenda, item C. This is ZDP 2015-63, and the name of the development plan is the Gibson Park Subdivision Block B, and it does involve the three properties that are subject to your zone change. Again, to further Ms. Wade's presentation about the location of the property, we are at the northern end of Pike Road, where it turns at a 90-degree angle and becomes Devonshire, Avenue. Some of the commission members may remember a multifamily development plan that's in very close proximity to this on Devonshire that the Planning Commission has reviewed several times, and there have been several amendments, and many years ago, a zone change involving that property. The zone change for this property is for these three lots and for a 25-foot piece of land that for over 80 years was part of a street stub of right-of-way for Devonshire Avenue. There was never, as far as the staff is aware, a pavement constructed, meaning the street never extended to this point. But just in the last year or two, that right-of-way has been abandoned. The lot here, one of the three subject lots, has attained half of that right-of-way, about 25 feet. The other portion being attained by the commercial use on Red Mile Road, that use being zone P1. the existing house that Ms. Wade showed you in the slide is in the center of the development plan and on either side one on each of the remaining lots a two-unit townhouse or duplex is proposed by the development plan there is to be a common and shared access along the side and rear of the development incorporating some 13 parking spaces behind the two duplexes and the one proposed single-family dwelling. We have provided to you on the purple sheet a revised staff recommendation for this development plan. You can see from this recommendation and also from the agenda, your subdivision committee several months ago when you first reviewed this recommended postponement of the development plan. This is not the development plan that was reviewed by the subdivision committee. That plan was for a townhouse development for the entirety of the property, including the one house in the middle that is now shown on this development plan. You also were reviewing an R1T zone at that time. This plan was submitted to the staff on October 14th. Based on this revision and also the revision to the zone change application, the staff is able to recommend approval of this development plan to you today. You'll see the first condition is a typical condition for a zoning development plan that is subject to approval by the council of the requested rezoning. Otherwise, any approval you might give this plan would be null and void. Conditions number two through six are typical standard agency sign-offs, as you see for many of your development plans. Beginning at item seven, you'll see a number of conditions have been struck through. That reflects the fact that this revision has addressed issues about sidewalk width, the 30-foot building line, as all of the units will comply with the platted 30-foot building line on the lots, discussion items regarding notes, and compliance with the ordinance. Beginning with old condition 9, which is shown as new number 7 on this list, the staff is recommending that they denote on the plan how the parking area is to be maintained. This is a preliminary development plan, but a general note about the concept of that we think is in order. Looking at new condition number eight, which is number 13, we would ask that street tree information, again in a general sense, since this is a preliminary development plan, be added to account for the tree plantings on the front of the property. Old conditions number 11 and 12 I have been struck through. Number 11, Article 15.7 of the zoning ordinance deals with general regulations for construction in infill and redevelopment areas, and that subsection D that's referenced is regarding the front setback, which this plan has addressed. The condition number 12 is regarding the lot width requirement of the zoning ordinance, And Mr. Emmons will address that in just a moment as he provides the staff report on the proposed variances. Number 14 is also proposed to be stricken, but there are two additional conditions, new number 9 and 10, the staff is recommending with this revision. On the existing home, there is a carport shown, and you may recall it from the slide, at one corner of the building. However, there is no driveway proposed to that carport. So the staff would ask that that label be changed to whatever the future of that space might be. It makes no sense to have a carport without a driveway, but it may be enclosed. It may be a porch. We would ask that that be changed on the plan to reference what that future might be. And then finally, provided the commission grants the two requested variances, that will be presented to you in just a moment. At this time, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about our revised recommendation on this development plan. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Selle? Bill, being as the zone changed and the development change changed, why didn't it come back to the subdivision committee? That's a good question. I was not in the office that week. I'm not sure if it was just missed or whether the petitioner asked that it not be reviewed. Ordinarily, the staff does try and update the subdivision committee when we have revised plans. I've been struggling to remember this. I know why I can't remember it now because we didn't see it. That's right. You have not seen this revision. The plan the subdivision committee saw, I believe in early August, showed this same property but with a bank of eight townhouses, this building going away and townhouses connecting these two duplexes. And it was an R1T at that time? That's correct. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Salley. Thank you. Mr. Emmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. The applicant has requested two variances with the subject property. They are both very minor in scope, and they are both very circumstantial based off of the R3 zoning that is requested along with the uses. Just one thing, if you'll remember, the R3 zone does allow a variety of uses. It allows apartments and townhomes, single-family homes, and duplexes. Our zoning ordinance, depending on the type of use that you're building, refers to different dimensional requirements. So I wanted to make sure you understood that as we get into the two requested variances. The first one, the one that was originally requested, is to the lot frontage requirement for the southernmost property on Pike Road. this property is currently a 50 foot property and and as you know it's currently vacant the applicants are proposing a duplex in the r3 zone when you're building a duplex the required frontage is 60 feet of frontage and they are asking for a variance from 60 feet to 50 feet in order to build the duplex use on that particular lot the um it's the staff's opinion that the 50 foot lot is existing and it is buildable there is nothing it doesn't require the variance in order to build the duplex but the applicants have expressed a desire that they might need to move this property line through a consolidation plat in such a way to ensure that all of the that both properties can meet the required side yard requirements and that is when the lot frontage would come into play on that existing nonconforming lot. It would have to be done in such a way that it didn't increase or decrease the nonconformity. So the net result of granting the variance request from 60 feet to 50 feet in order to construct a duplex on the subject property, We found that it does not have any sort of harmful effect to the public safety, health, or welfare, and it will not change the character or nature of the lots in the general vicinity. There are several 50-foot lots in this subdivision. So we found that there would be no harmful effects to granting that variance, and it would give the applicants the opportunity to slightly shift that line in the future should they deem it necessary. And even though that variance was fairly innocuous, the review of that variance led to the discovery that they needed a second variance for the proposed development. And that one is based off of the property being inside the infill and redevelopment area. The single-family home that's in the center of the property, the infill and redevelopment area, has a maximum number of parking spaces. And in a single-family home, that maximum would be two spaces. Duplexes are allowed a maximum of six parking spaces on their properties. Because this is a shared parking arrangement, if you were to look at the total number of parking spaces that are provided for the two duplexes and the single-family home, it's compliant as an overall project. They meet the minimum requirements and they do not exceed the maximum requirements. However, since the single family home is in the middle, if you were to review it independently, there would be six parking spaces on its proposed lot lines. And so the applicants in an abundance of caution have, and that the staff's recommendation have requested that or suggested that they request a variance to increase the maximum for the single family lot from two to six. Staff is recommending approval of both variances. Our recommendation for approval and the findings and conditions are on the supplemental staff report, and they are also carried forward correctly on the agenda. That kind of combines everything on that one. Some of the major points that we had on granting the single-family home is primarily that if this were reviewed as an entire project, it would be compliant with the parking requirements, even within the infillum redevelopment area. The other thing is that a simple change of use, if the single-family home were to be duplexed within the home without changing any of the outside characteristics of the home, it would also be compliant overall and it would not require a variance. Those simple changes aren't going to change the physical development of the property. And we found that for those reasons, there would be no change. There would be no reason to, it would not adversely affect public safety, health, or welfare. And it would not adversely affect the general vicinity of the neighborhood. The staff is recommending approval for the reasons that we have provided and subject to three very standard conditions for a variance. That concludes my remarks, and I believe all of the Division of Planning, if you have any questions for me or the staff, we'll be happy to answer them. Questions from the Commission? No? Thank you, sir. Applicant, anything to add? Let me ask real quick, anyone else wish to speak on this plan? Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Jacob Walburn, and it's my honor today to be here on behalf of the applicant Flying Dutchman Properties. I've presented in front of you all a few times now. You know I'm a man who enjoys his PowerPoints, and I have one queued up and ready to go, but I don't know that it's necessary today. So I think staff has done an outstanding job of explaining to you why this is an approvable and appropriate application. I've been very excited to be a part of this project because it's been able to teach me a lot. I'm somewhat new to the development and land use bar, and this has been an education for me in the challenges and opportunities of infill development. But I can tell you, with all of the work that we have done, I think this is a perfect example of context-sensitive infill development. As we've mentioned, as has been mentioned previously, this was originally slated to be a block of townhomes. brought it before the various subcommittees and received feedback on that. And when we were taking that feedback into account, we got to looking at the existing house and frankly came to the conclusion that there was no need to tear down a perfectly good existing single-family home. It's in relatively good shape. It's a very old home. It's approaching 100 years old. But it's in relatively good shape, and frankly, the owners have decided to keep it. So we started to look at what kind of proposal could we bring forward that would give us the most flexibility of development, and that's how we've settled on the current proposal. We're very mindful of the neighborhood. There was some feedback in the zoning committee about scale, about parking, and we tried to take the feedback we received to heart. We have revised this plan to put in some of those. And as far as Mr. Penn's note about subdivision committee, I actually was surprised by that as well. I did stay and show this plan, but it was on a very informal basis. We have tried to make this a very context-sensitive development. Probably the most unique feature of this development is the rear parking, and that's by design. Pike Road has an abundance of on-street parking, and if you're going to modestly increase the density, it's really not fair to the existing residents to ask them to bear the brunt of that parking on their public streets. So that's the impetus behind the rear parking. We're also in agreement and propose those conditional zoning restrictions that Tracy mentioned because we do want this to be a context sensitive development. We don't want to pull a bait and switch on the neighbors. It's not fair to tell them that we're going to do as modest increases in density and then flip around and ask for an apartment later. That's why we've agreed to those conditional zoning restrictions. I have had the opportunity to walk the neighborhood a few times. If I were to show you the PowerPoint, you could see pictures of a lovely fall day when I walked around and took some pictures. This kind of development is present in the neighborhood right now. There are single-family homes adjacent to duplexes with rear parking in the 400 block of Pike Road right now. So I won't take any more time explaining unless you have questions for me specifically, but very excited to be a part of this proposal. We think it is approvable and would appreciate your action as such. Thank you. Any questions, Mr. Walburn? Walburn, how many total parking spaces are there? I believe there's 13. 13, okay. Any other questions? If not, we'll hear from others that would like to speak. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Thanks for letting me speak. My name is Robert Wells. I live at 512 Pike Road, which is right across from 509. I've lived there since 1991, and we've loved single family. I saw the development on Elizabeth Street on Waller Avenue where they went from single family, all of a sudden you've got 30 people living in a house. We don't want that. Of course, when the zone change came up, nobody came and spoke to us. Nobody said anything. We'd like to change your neighborhood. Now, the big change at the end of Gibson, there used to be a trailer park there. They put apartment houses up. And when the gentleman built the apartment houses, he came to us and said, we are going to only advertise for families. Well, as soon as it went up, it was student housing. And we just didn't think that was fair. So, of course, when somebody comes into our neighborhood and starts big, like he said he wanted to tear down the original house and put up a big apartment unit, that wouldn't fly. So he comes back and says, okay, we'll leave the existing house, but we'll put duplexes on each side. Now, to me, a duplex is more than a single family. And if we can't have a multifamily house, what is a duplex? The language I might not understand completely. and where he comes off Devonshire to come around to the back of the property. That was somebody's property, whether it was abandoned or not, whether it was the city's property when they were going to continue Devonshire over. He's got a windfall of getting some free property. And to have a green space is great for us, our air. I mean, if you continue that roadway to the back of the property, there's huge trees there. And in order to get a road through there, you're going to have to take down some huge monster trees. another thing of my concern whether they're not parked on the road or not they're going to be using pike road in devonshire to get somewhere and if you've ever been through the neighborhood there's already parking on both sides of the street so it's you can hardly get down there sometimes so i would i'm just hoping that you can keep it single family because we're like the only single family neighborhood left going into town. And if you start with changing, it would put in duplexing and everything. I think it's putting a big president on all the single family homes around town. I mean, I like living where I'm living. I haven't lived there since 91 because I don't like it. I like it because it's convenient. And And if they have 13 parking spaces right across the street from me, I mean, I'm going to be seeing those all the time. Plus, they're going to be students. So I would just, I'm against it. Like I said, if they just came and talked to us, this is the first I've seen this. I didn't get the other revised things that you all got, so I have no idea what the second sheet was. And you just keep the neighborhood apprised of what's going on. to make the lots smaller roadwise just so they put it in a duplex I don't think that's fair I think if they want to build put two single family houses on each side and we'll go with it I live at 512 and this says the location at 509 513 and 517 I don't even know where 513 and 517 are I know where 507 is 509 and 511 but 513 and 517 that's way off the original Gibson map that I got here that we got when I bought the property and it has six houses on my side of the street and six houses or six lots on their side of the street. But somehow, after 511, 513, 517 got on there, I'm not sure. So they're adding like 100 extra feet somewhere. So, like I said, my name is Bob Wells, and I'll take any questions. Did you say Mr. Wells? Yes. Okay, thank you, Mr. Wells. Any questions for Mr. Wells? Thank you, sir. Tracy, you got up. You want to respond? The single family residence is actually situated in the middle lot, which according to our PVA records is 513. Is that right? Yes. 513. pike road and then the two vacant lots are 509 and 517 so it is well i don't know if the mailing addresses haven't been updated to reflect the pva changes but those are the addresses of record with our pva currently and so those are the addresses that we utilize by state law requirements for any zone change. So the vacant lot has been addressed now, currently at 509. The one across, I guess, from 508 is 509. The one across from 512 is 517. Correct. And we've got that same map in our notebook under tab 2. So I just wanted to clarify that. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walburn, do you have anything in response? Rebuttal? Only very briefly. I certainly understand the concern of the neighbors, but have taken great pains to try to make this as context-sensitive as we can. As the comprehensive plan notes, we're running out of residential land within the urban services boundary. And these kind of very modest increases in density, these found lots, I think developing these are very, very important in maintaining that current boundary. This is, the right-of-way was described as a windfall. I don't know that it is a windfall directly. It did accrue to that property at some expense to the owners of that and was rejected by action of the Urban County Council. Again, as I said, I certainly understand the nature of the concerns, but we have taken very sincere efforts to try to protect the integrity of the neighborhood and think this development does that and would ask your approval. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any questions for anyone from the commission? Yeah, I've got one. Yes, sir. The applicant hasn't said, and the neighbor has referred to it, is this student housing? It is not. It is not intended to be. It is not marketed that way. These are duplexes, solid brick construction. Are they rental property? They are proposed to be rental properties, yes. Okay. And the house in the middle? The house in the middle is currently rented by a professional. He is not a student, and I do believe he intends to stay, which actually reminds me that we had mentioned the carport just to clear up that issue. I believe that carport is to be removed, although I think a port sounds like a lovely idea. But I believe it is to be removed. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Wales, one more thing. We've got to move on. Yeah, he says that 509 is still rented by a professional. Well, they left a couple weeks ago. They moved out. So I think it is just going to be student housing. Okay. Thank you, sir. So at this point, any other questions from commission members? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion among commission members and or motions. Yes, sir. Yeah, I can't support this. they didn't demonstrate any compelling need for this. And I think the best use would be single-family houses up there, one on each side of that house. And we told them that in the zoning committee. And I don't like the rear parking lot. That's not context-sensitive to the other houses on the street and in the neighborhood. That's a massive parking lot in the back. most houses would have a driveway down the sides of them maybe through that porch and you know if you put single family houses there you got plenty of room 50 foot lots so I haven't seen anything change in the neighborhood I mean I don't think it meets the the zoning the zoning ordinance the need for it those two things so I'd rather see it stay single family. Any other discussion, comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, sir? I'm reaching. Well, why not? I'm going to move this thing along a little bit. I think that, first of all, in conjunction to Mr. Wells' position about the housing numbers and things like that, I think that for the record, we have to go with what we have. And one of the things that I would share with Mr. Wells is that issue about the student housing thing. I always get a little nervous about that. But I think that the developers have done a fairly decent job of putting together a proposal. I know that aesthetically there were some questions in our zoning committee. But I, first of all, would propose to approve MARV 2015-15 Flying Dutchman Property Zone Amendment. with the recommendations given by staff with a couple of exceptions, where it says, A, the petitioner proposes a townhouse-style development of eight dwelling units. I think they wanted to substitute a petitioner proposes two duplexes on either side of the single resident home. And then in the second section where it says, B, where the petitioner proposes to increase the density, I think the word that they wanted to substitute there was the petitioner proposes to moderately increase the density to 7.65 instead of the 12.23 units. So my motion includes those two actual adjustments. Thank you. Motion's been made for approval with those two changes. Do we have a second? A second by Ms. Plumlee. Any discussion on the motion? If not, I'll ask for you to vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Variants? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I recommend that the two-dimensional variances that have been given by staff to reduce, related to the frontage, which reduces it from 60 feet to 50 feet, be approved along with the parking spaces variance going from two to six parking spaces. Thank you. Do we have a second? Seconded by Ms. Plumlee again. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And then the ZDP. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to approve the ZDP 2015 Day 63 Gibson Park Subdivision with the conditions provided by staff. Those would be the revised conditions? Yes, with the revised conditions by staff. Motion's been made and again seconded by Ms. Plumlee for approval of ZDP 2015-63. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank everyone. I believe that takes care of don't change requests and development plans on the agenda. Any commission items? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, the one thing that the next meeting is going to be a work session. Yes, sir. Is it possible to add to that work session a discussion related to parking for the commission members? Discussion on what? Parking. Parking. Related to the commission members. Oh, I believe we could always discuss that. Well, I'd like to have some resolution as to whether or not the conditions that have been set forth are permanent or whether these were temporary conditions, and if not, if there are other recommendations that are going to be made related to the parking to accommodate the commission members. I believe Mr. Duncan would allow for that discussion to take place. We certainly want you all to be happy. And try and get answers in the meantime. So with that, any other commission items? If not, Mr. Duncan? Mr. Chair, I do, as Mr. Wilson did say, we do have a work session scheduled next week, and we have a full agenda. This is the last scheduled work session for the year. The first item will likely be the MS4 training from Water Quality, and that will be a presentation to us. We also expect to review the work of the Economic Development Zone Jobs Work Group over the past year, and that will be presented to you all as well. I believe we're going to have some information for you in advance of the meeting so you all can review that beforehand. And then we have several other things related to azota, one of them related to azota, that is a follow-up to Mr. Wilson's environmentally sensitive work group, and a few other discussion items as well. So we do have a full agenda next Thursday at 1.30 in this room. Thanks, Mr. Duncan. I believe everybody's left as far as the audience items. Anything else? Mr. Chairman, there's no parking. I mean, I'd be here. I just thought I'd put it. I understand. I understand. He wants a reserve spot, I believe. Motion to adjourn. Was that Mr. Penn's motion? Yeah. Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Meeting's adjourned. Thank you.