# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - February 25, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 25, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3887 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3887?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-02-25 - **Last revised**: February 25, 2016 - **Length**: 42,100 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on February 25, 2016, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting. The Commission considered nine agenda items, heard ten public comments, and took nine votes during the session. The agenda included several zoning map amendments and subdivision development plans. Two items—the Larry Luttrell, Jr. proposal for Lane Allen Park Subdivision and the Anderson Bridgewater, LLC proposal for Anderson 2 Subdivision—were postponed. The Commission approved four items: the Approval of Minutes, the Patchen Place Subdivision Unit 1 Lot 4 Development Plan, the Jake Riordan Zoning Map Amendment and Vallandale Subdivision Development Plan, and the Solar Eclipse, LLC Zoning Map Amendment for the Schroyer Property, Dozier Property, and Unit 2 of Palomar Trace Subdivision. One item was denied: the Turwell, LLC Zoning Map Amendment and Wynndale Subdivision development plan. The Commission also approved two administrative matters: a change to the official 2016 meeting and filing schedule and the initiation of an ND1 overlay zone for Clinton Road. ## Attendance **Present:** - Will Berkley - Patrick Brewer - Mike Cravens - Karen Mundy - Mike Owens - Carolyn Plumlee - Joseph Smith - William Wilson **Absent:** - David Drake - Frank Penn - Carolyn Richardson **Late:** None reported. ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes** [timestamp: 0:13:18] The board unanimously approved minutes from the January 14, 2016, and January 28, 2016 meetings. The motion was made by Patrick Brewer and seconded by William Wilson, with all 8 members voting in favor. **MARC 2015-24: Larry Luttrell, Jr., Zoning Map Amendment & Lane Allen Park Subdivision** [timestamp: 0:15:02] The board unanimously voted to postpone this item to April 28, 2016. Mike Cravens made the motion and Carolyn Plumlee seconded it, with all 8 members in favor. **MAR 2015-27: Anderson Bridgewater, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment & Anderson 2 Subdivision** [timestamp: 0:18:14] This item was unanimously postponed to April 28, 2016. Carolyn Plumlee made the motion and Will Berkley seconded it, with all 8 members voting in favor. **DP 2016-8: Patchen Place Subdivision, Unit 1, Lot 4 Development Plan** [timestamp: 0:35:54] The board unanimously approved this development plan with 16 conditions outlined by staff. Mike Cravens made the motion and Joseph Smith seconded it, with all 8 members in favor. **MAR 2016-1: Turwell, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment & Wynndale Subdivision** [timestamp: 2:28:24] A motion for disapproval failed. Carolyn Plumlee made the motion and William Wilson seconded it. All 8 members voted in favor of the disapproval motion, but the outcome is recorded as failed. **MAR 2016-2: Jake Riordan Zoning Map Amendment & Vallandale Subdivision** [timestamp: 3:32:17] The board approved this item with 10 conditions provided by staff. The vote was 6-2, with Mike Cravens making the motion and Karen Mundy seconding it. Voting in favor were Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Joseph Smith, and William Wilson. Mike Owens and Carolyn Plumlee voted against. **MARV 2016-4: Solar Eclipse, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment & Schroyer Property** [timestamp: 4:47:37] The board approved this item, eliminating conditional restrictions F and H. The vote was 6-2, with Mike Cravens making the motion and William Wilson seconding it. Voting in favor were Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Joseph Smith, and William Wilson. Mike Owens and Carolyn Plumlee voted against. **2016 Meeting and Filing Schedule** [timestamp: 4:49:15] The board unanimously approved changing the official 2016 meeting and filing schedule, with the March work session now scheduled for March 17th. Karen Mundy made the motion and Carolyn Plumlee seconded it, with all 8 members in favor. **ND1 Overlay Zone for Clinton Road** [timestamp: 5:18:00] The board unanimously voted to initiate the ND1 overlay zone for Clinton Road. Mike Cravens made the motion and Carolyn Plumlee seconded it, with all 8 members in favor. ## Public Comment The meeting included ten public comments addressing three proposed zoning changes. **Higbee Mill Road Development (1580 Higbee Mill Road)** Andrew Franklin opened public comment opposing the proposed zone change, citing concerns about neighborhood character, density, and disruption of natural features [timestamp: 1:25:52]. Douglas Starnes discussed the property's constraints, noting the large number of utility lines, easements, and floodplain issues [timestamp: 1:32:46]. Jim Holthouse presented a petition containing over 1,000 signatures opposing the development [timestamp: 1:36:02]. Damon Snyder raised concerns about the proposed apartments' size being out of character with existing homes in the Stonewall neighborhood [timestamp: 1:39:21]. Tracy Starnes expressed similar concerns about the zoning change's impact on the Stonewall neighborhood's character [timestamp: 1:43:36]. Hallie Karen Brinkerhoff argued there is no market need for additional apartments in the area, citing existing vacancies and upcoming developments [timestamp: 1:46:55]. **Versailles Road Development** Lane Boldman opposed the proposed zoning change on Versailles Road, citing concerns about neighborhood conservation and adherence to the small area plan [timestamp: 2:59:17]. Amy Clark emphasized the importance of following the small area plan and maintaining neighborhood conservation on Versailles Road [timestamp: 3:07:35]. Barbara Fajok expressed a desire to maintain the residential character of Versailles Road and opposed the proposed zoning change [timestamp: 3:15:13]. **Solar Eclipse, LLC Zoning Change** Bruce Simpson opposed the zoning change request by Solar Eclipse, LLC, citing concerns about neighborhood character and deed restrictions [timestamp: 4:07:13]. Common themes across all comments included preservation of neighborhood character, concerns about density and development scale, and adherence to existing area plans. ## Contested Items Three zoning change proposals generated community opposition during the meeting: **1580 Higbee Mill Road** Residents expressed strong opposition to the proposed zoning change for this property. The primary concerns centered on the impact to neighborhood character and increased density that would result from the rezoning. **Versailles Road** A zoning change proposal for Versailles Road faced resident opposition. Community members argued that the rezoning would negatively impact the residential character of the area. **Solar Eclipse, LLC** The zoning proposal for Solar Eclipse, LLC drew concerns from residents regarding two main issues: the potential impact on neighborhood character and the existence of existing deed restrictions that would be affected by the rezoning. ## Approval of Minutes The minutes from the January 14, 2016, and January 28, 2016, meetings were reviewed and approved. [timestamp: 00:13:18] Mike Owens presented the minutes for consideration. The body approved the minutes from both previous meetings without noted objections or amendments. **Outcome:** The minutes were approved. ## Larry Luttrell, Jr., Zoning Map Amendment & Lane Allen Park Subdivision, Lot 4 **Agenda Item:** MARC 2015-24 **Request:** A zoning map amendment was requested to change the zoning designation from Single Family Residential (R-1A) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) for a property in Lane Allen Park Subdivision, Lot 4. The request also included a conditional use permit for a rehabilitation home. **Presentation:** Kevin Phillips presented this agenda item [timestamp: 0:15:02]. **Outcome:** The item was postponed and did not proceed to a vote at this meeting. ## Anderson Bridgewater, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment & Anderson 2 Subdivision (AMD.) [timestamp: 0:18:14] This agenda item (MAR 2015-27) addressed a zoning map amendment request from Anderson Bridgewater, LLC for the Anderson 2 Subdivision Zoning Development Plan. The request sought to rezone the property from an Expansion Area Residential-1 (EAR-1) zone to an Expansion Area Residential-3 (EAR-3) zone. Richard Murphy presented on this matter during the meeting. **Outcome:** The item was postponed and did not proceed to a vote or final decision at this meeting. ## Patchen Place Subdivision, Unit 1, Lot 4 Development Plan **Identifier:** DP 2016-8 **Outcome:** Approved Bruce Simpson presented the development plan for Patchen Place Subdivision, Unit 1, Lot 4 [timestamp: 0:35:54]. The proposal required approval subject to conditions addressing access, parking, and compliance with Richmond Road Ordinance requirements. The development plan was approved by the body. ## Turwell, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment & Wynndale Subdivision, Lots 1 & 2, Zoning Development Plan **Agenda Item:** MAR 2016-1 **Request:** Turwell, LLC requested a zone map amendment for the Wynndale Subdivision, Lots 1 & 2, seeking to change the zoning classification from Townhouse Residential (R-1T) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3). **Presenter:** Jihad Halani presented the zoning amendment request [timestamp: 2:28:24]. **Outcome:** The request was denied. ## Jake Riordan Zoning Map Amendment & Vallandale Subdivision (AMD.) Zoning Develop [timestamp: 3:32:17] This agenda item (MAR 2016-2) addressed a request for a zoning map amendment affecting the Jake Riordan property and Vallandale Subdivision. The proposal sought to change the zoning classification from Mixed-Use 2: Neighborhood Corridor (MU-2) to Neighborhood Business (B-1). Mike Cravens presented the zoning development plan to the body. The amendment would allow for a change in the permitted uses and development standards for the affected property under the B-1 zoning designation. The body voted to approve the zoning map amendment and associated zoning development plan. ## Solar Eclipse, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment & Schroyer Property, Dozier Property, Unit 2, Palomar Trace Subdivision This agenda item (MARV 2016-4) addressed a zoning map amendment request for properties in the Palomar Trace Subdivision. The proposal sought to rezone portions of the Schroyer Property and Dozier Property, Unit 2. **Proposed Changes** The amendment included two zoning modifications: - Rezoning from Professional Office (P1) zone to Neighborhood Business (B1) zone - Rezoning from Residential Planned Neighborhood (R3) to Professional Office (P1) **Discussion** Dick Murphy presented on this matter [timestamp: 4:47:37]. **Outcome** The zoning map amendment was approved. ## Change the official 2016 meeting and filing schedule Karen Mundy presented a resolution to change the official 2016 meeting and filing schedule. The resolution proposed moving the work session scheduled for March to March 17th. [timestamp: 4:49:15] The resolution was approved. ## Initiate ND1 overlay zone for Clinton Road The council considered a request to initiate an ND1 overlay zone for 55 properties on Clinton Road. The purpose of the overlay zone was to preserve the neighborhood's character. [timestamp: 5:18:00] Monica Kern presented this agenda item to the council. The council approved the request to initiate the ND1 overlay zone for Clinton Road. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of minutes from January 14, 2016, and January 28, 2016 - **MARC 2015-24** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Larry Luttrell, Jr., Zoning Map Amendment & Lane Allen Park Subdivision, Lot 4, Zoning Development Plan - **MAR 2015-27** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Anderson Bridgewater, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment & Anderson 2 Subdivision (AMD.) Zoning Development Plan - **DP 2016-8** — passed (8-0): Approval of Patchen Place Subdivision, Unit 1, Lot 4 Development Plan - **MAR 2016-1** — failed (8-0): Disapproval of Turwell, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment & Wynndale Subdivision, Lots 1 & 2, Zoning Development Plan - **MAR 2016-2** — passed (6-2): Approval of Jake Riordan Zoning Map Amendment & Vallandale Subdivision (AMD.) Zoning Development Plan - **MARV 2016-4** — passed (6-2): Approval of Solar Eclipse, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment & Schroyer Property, Dozier Property, Unit 2, Palomar Trace Subdivision - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Change the official 2016 meeting and filing schedule - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Initiate ND1 overlay zone for Clinton Road --- ## Full transcript Yes, correct. That's right. This is our gift to the city. Well, let me say on behalf of the city, if I can, thank you so much for being here today and talking about the app and for doing all this work. It's really quite exciting, I think. Before we stop, the app itself is named. Oh, good. We'll put it up on the screen. Yeah, sure. Lexarch, as one word, L-E-X-A-R-C-H, tour, T-O-U-R. Okay. And anybody with a smartphone can come down, download it, walk around, get in front of the building, identify it, hear this nice narrative, look at pictures, and so on. Yes. Great. Or on a cold, snowy January day, you can sit on your sofa at home and do the same thing. Ah, that's a good point. We're heading into winter. Exactly. Thank you both for taking the time to be here and for doing all this work. Thank you all for listening. Welcome to Your Health, starring your hands. On today's show, washing your hands. If people don't wash their hands often, especially when they're sick, they can spread germs directly to other people or onto surfaces that others touch. And before you know it, everyone has come down with something. It's important to wash your hands frequently with good soapy water. Here's some hand washing tips. Wash your hands after using the bathroom. your hands after a- I hear it still I always will Best on the bill Jay guitar solo While from the darkened wings The music box played on and on That little serenade Song of my heart's composing I hear it still Well, I always will. Best of the Bill charade. Get up in your high horse, woman. Get up in your high horse now. Get up in your high horse, woman. I'll make it up to you somehow. Moonlit shadow, she starts a trippin' firelight Jumpin' the trees, line across the right-of-way Silvery morning, it glistens down the valley But she don't stop till we ride the night away Get up on your high horse, woman Get up on your high horse now Get up on your high horse, woman I'll make it up to you somehow Blonde breads tangle at Mr. Craig morning Catching light through a dusty window pane Lost in lust in denial of the warning She takes her heels in the stag's plank again Get up on your high horse, woman Get up on your high horse now Get up on your high horse, woman I'll make it up to you somehow Get up with your high horse, woman You pay the price, you get to play Hey, get up with your high horse, woman You're gonna ride to the break of day To the break of day To the break of day Get up with your high horse, woman Get up with your high horse now Get up with your high horse woman I'll make it up to you somehow Get up with your high horse woman You pay the price, you get to play Hey, get up with your high horse woman You're gonna ride to the break of day To the break of day To the break of day To the break of day Thank you. I'm a girl watcher I'm a girl watcher, here comes one now I was just a boy when I threw away my toys I found a new pastime, well on Whenever I detect members of the other sex I play the game, I do so well on I'm a girl watcher. I'm a girl watcher. Watching girls go by. My, my, my. I'm a girl watcher. I'm a girl watcher. Here comes one now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ It is 1.30. It is February 25th. I will call this meeting to order. First on the agenda would be approval of minutes from January 14th, 2016. and then also January 28, 2016. Those minutes were emailed to the Commission members. I have not heard of any changes or corrections. If there are any, please let it be known now, or I will entertain a motion for approval. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of minutes from January 14 to January 28. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for the approval of those minutes. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. We'll move to postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Good afternoon, Mr. Phillips. Good afternoon, Kevin Phillips with Endress Engineering. On page two of your agenda, middle of the page, it's item number one, Larry Lethro, Jr., Zone Map Amendment and Lane Allen Park Subdivision, Lot 4 Zoning Development Plan. I'm here to request a postponement for two months. That will be until April? Yes. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move postponement of MARC 2015-24 for two months. Motion's been made and seconded for the postponement of MARC 2015-24 Larry Luttrell until the April 22nd meeting. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Does that take care of the zoning development plan as well? And the development plan, yes sir. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, just a brief note, that meeting is in April 28th. I'm sorry. 28th? 28th, yes, sir. I'm sorry. Okay. So that has been postponed until April 28th. Any other requests for postponements with rolls? Good afternoon, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy on page four, item two, Anderson Bridgewater, LLC, MAR 2015-27, property at 425 Charlesburg Road. I represent the applicant. We're asking for a one-month postponement on that as a result of meeting Senate we've had since your last meeting. We're going to submit a revised development plan to you in the interim. I'm sorry, did you say when? How long? One month. One month? Okay. That would be until March. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Nathan Billings from Billings Law Firm, representing Still Meadows HOA and a number of homeowners. We have, it's the second time this will be postponed. Staff has six reasons for denial of the zone change. We've mobilized dozens of people to be here for a second time. We understand the discretion of the commission that it's likely to postpone. We ask that if it would postpone to do it until April instead of March. The 24th of March is the start of spring break for many families in the neighborhood. I'm scheduled to leave that day with my family for spring break to D.C. Considering that the new plan would have to be submitted next week, which we understand the word is significant changes, we think that postponing it until April is a better result if it would be postponed. Additionally, we'll go ahead and submit this to staff today we have a petition with 286 signatures in opposition to this zone change and development plan i'm not sure how it will change in the future and we have approximately 25 people downstairs the security won't let up into the room today because of the large crowd for this and for other things today other than that we understand the discretion of the commission thank you mr billings mr murphy as far as an additional month i think i think we're We're okay with that, Mr. Chair. You'd be okay with that? Yes. Okay. That would be, what did we say, April 28th? Okay. Okay. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. At the present time, it seems like it's agreed to postpone until April the 28th. Yes? Yes? Mr. Chair, move postponement of MAR 2015-27, Anderson Bridgewater, until April 28th. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the postponement of Anderson Bridgewater, MAR 2015-27, and the Associated ZDP until April the 28th. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Let me ask Mr. Salley real quick. In looking at my calendar, it appears that there's five Fridays in April, not Thursdays. Maybe I need to get my glasses changed. Okay, other requests for postponements, withdrawals. Seeing none, I would ask Mr. Saleh to sound the agenda to see if any of these could be heard as an abbreviated hearing. Mr. Saleh? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Looking over the remaining items on your agenda. Item number five has a postponement recommendation on the development plan, so that does not apply. Item number six, which appears on page eight of your agenda, is recommended for approval both of the zone change and for the development plan. We understand there may be objectors here for that, so we would ask, according to item number six, which is MARV 2016-4, a request by Solar Eclipse LLC for rezoning of property with an address of 3600 Palomar Center Drive and 2101 Palomar Trace Drive, if anyone is present today that wishes either to comment or to object to this proposed zone change out in the Harrodsburg Road corridor. Okay. Okay. Thank you, sir. So, Mr. Chairman, none of the items will qualify as an abbreviated hearing, so we take them in the order that you deem fit. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Saleh. So with that, we will start on page one. It's a development plan, DP 2016-8, Patch and Place Subdivision, Unit 1, Lot 4. We do have revised conditions that are before us on a purple sheet, lavender sheet of paper. We'll let the staff sit up and start with this. I guess we started this last meeting asking everyone to be sworn in. Anyone that wishes to testify today or to speak, if you would, please stand and raise your right hand. Anyone that's wishing to speak, yes. Answer after the question. I swear the information I'm about to receive, give today. Let me start all over. I swear all the information that I will give today shall be the truth. Please answer affirmatively. Yes, I do. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, as stated, this is DP 2016-8, Patch and Place Subdivision Unit 1, Lot 4. It is a final development plan for property located at 2800 and 2890 Richmond Road. You can see the subject property is here. We have our service road to the front, Richmond Road. Gribbon Drive to the rear of it. Just out here we have Patchen. And down here, Mount Tabor. The purpose of this was to show the four lots. Three here, one at the bottom. With two retail buildings associated on the bottom lot. Each one having one drive-through lane on it. and with underground detention. We're also showing an entrance off of Gribbon Drive into the property. You may remember this plan came in previously as a preliminary subdivision plan, but that plan has since been withdrawn, and this one has been submitted. Now your subdivision committee on their January 7th meeting recommended it for postponement due to questions about the Richmond Road ordinance and access on to Gribbon Drive. However, since then, the applicant has submitted a new revised plan, met with staff, and has had an opportunity to work out several of the conditions that you can see on your handout. Some of those have been taken care of, and some of them will be. Due to this, we can now recommend an approval recommendation for this plan. Your first ten conditions are your normal sign-offs that you see addressing, building inspection, fire, and, of course, water quality. Now what is remaining, number 11 is resolve the need for reciprocal parking on this site. Originally it would come in as a preliminary plan. It was showing a public street here ending in a cul-de-sac. They have removed that plan and presented this one. Now they can stand alone on their parking here. They have that ability to do that. But staff had a concern with these three upper lots. They really don't need a development plan on them because there would be one building. And we were just concerned that they would kind of be off to themselves and wouldn't have pedestrian access, the ability to go between lots, that they would each be kind of their own and not allow someone to come down here, shop, eat, whatever, and then walk up and visit this one. So we would like to kind of see some sort of reciprocal parking through there. Number 12 is resolve the timing of compliance with Richmond Road ordinance requirements. That can be taken care of with a note on here by stating this is lot one. They are going to be responsible for taking care of the Richmond Road planings for these lots at the time of their construction down here. we have 13 was resolved the proposed access to gribbon drive and timing of required right-of-way closure prior to plan certification when this was originally applied many years ago gribbon drive was shown coming straight through here right down here we still have an access excuse me i'm sorry not an access the right away still goes through here now that process has begun. They will be closing that out in order to be able to get this entrance through here. But we just got to get that taken care of first. Number 14, resolve the vehicular stacking for drive-thru aisles and potential conflicts. We have a drive-thru aisle this way and this way. Now there is a note allowing retail drive-thru would just not fast food. restaurants those tend to back up a little bit more traffic is just concerned staff is concerned that people may be backed out into here and block block the drive aisles through here so but we can have that worked out uh 15 was denote height of proposed retaining walls on plan there is a series of retaining walls or one long wall that runs here around this is a low area we're This is for stormwater. This underground detention is going to be connected to it. It comes up this way. It's different in colors because the height is anywhere between a couple feet upwards to 18. And we would just like to have that denoted on the plan, how high that wall is going to be at a particular location. And then the last thing, number 16, is discuss orientation of proposed buildings to Gribbon Drive and architectural details and features, including landscaping to address the rear building orientations. This is going to be the back of the building. There is a subdivision right across the street. The staff was just concerned about looking out. Great big white wall or block wall, lighting, things shining out. So that was just another concern that we had. And with that, if you have any questions or comments, we'd be happy to take them. Questions? Yes, sir. One quick question about the Chevrolet dealership. Where is that? That is the Chevrolet dealership. On all three of those lots at the beginning? Yeah, the showroom was the front, and the back lot, which is the one you see colored up, was their parking area. Oh, okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Other questions? Let me ask you this. In regards to number 11, you mentioned reciprocal parking and access. Are you in pedestrian access and vehicular access? Like, you could have both. And what are they showing right now? I'm showing right now just the vehicle access through here off of this service road into this lot itself. But not into either one of the other lots? Right. Not yet? Not yet, yes. Okay. And what about from the lot down, from either one of those three lots down? It has been discussed in subdivision committee and in the meeting when the applicant came in. They will probably speak on this. There are some height discrepancies here that may make it a bit of a challenge to get that in there. Okay. All right. Other questions? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Bruce Simpson on behalf of the applicant. I think we've resolved all these things with notes on the latest plan that we filed. We had a meeting with the staff earlier this week and have submitted responses, written responses to all of those things. Is that correct, Tom? I mean, so I think we're good to go on everything. In terms of what we're going to do. I guess my question then is, are you saying that those notes are on this plan? They are, yes. And we've seen, read these, Mr. Martin? Just to clarify very quickly a couple of things. We did meet and have an extensive meeting and a very productive meeting. In regards to reciprocal parking and access, staff is agreeable to a note that will address it with an understanding that there may be some topographic problems with complete vehicular access. They may have to build retaining walls between the parking. We would like to see the ability for pedestrian access and movement between the properties. However, we are aware and we do agree that there may be some practical problems, and I'll demonstrate, to actually constructing perhaps a driveway from these front lots. Our concern is, as Kelly explained, we're not going to see development plans, and we want this development to work together as much as it possibly can. so we're willing to resolve the access and recyclable parking with the applicant and we we had a productive meeting and i think we all recognize that there is a way to get there but that's that's the nature of the concern as for the retaining walls and the orientation we think that too can be resolved there are several ways to accomplish that we've discussed that with the applicant that includes changing the texture along the rear of the building or painting you know changing the the visuals in conjunction with that these retaining walls which are extensive one of them may be as much as 18 feet we have discussed stepping those back and adding landscaping that would greatly enhance the screening here i mean staff accepts and understands this is the service area on the property. And we know that's, but again, with its orientation to the street, we're just looking for something to help mitigate, you know, that impact. And so we've discussed several ways of doing that at that meeting. Mr. Martin, this plan here, is this a final development plan? Yes, sir, it is. Okay. So this is the last chance we get to see it unless? Unless it's amended, yes, sir. Okay. Other questions? Mr. Simpson, do you have anything else? Well, just to reaffirm what I said before, we've placed provisions or notes or cross-sections on this plan to reflect. Tom mentioned about the 18-foot retaining wall. That's been broken up with a cross-section to show it's up and then in for landscaping there to break all of that up. we've provided a reciprocal parking note on there. What about the architectural details as far as the building itself? Yeah, in terms of the, you know, we're willing to talk with Tom about, you know, could be the painting or the texture of the back portion of the building would be such that it wouldn't just be one big, you know, blank white wall. Okay. So we're committed to doing that. Okay, thank you. Mr. Phillips, did you have anything? No? You're good? Okay. Others that would like to speak in regards to this? No? Yes? Well, Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues are ready, I'll make a motion. I was just going to ask if our traffic engineering was okay with all this at this time. Seems like there's some ifs, ands, or buts still in the motion. we have reviewed the notes they put on the plan i think the applicant is aware that traffic's concerns are that just for example if you're on that bottom lot vehicularly, if you want to go to one of the three outlots on top, it'd be nice to not have to go the service road, especially during peak times. That's when the service road is used. So they know that's our desire, and we discussed that topographically. There are constraints on the site, and they have noted that the intent is to provide it if possible. So at this time, traffic's good with that note. Okay. Thank you. So anything else? If not, we can entertain a motion. We do have the number 16 that we've got to take care of. And in that case, Mr. Chair, I recommend approval for DP 2016-8, Passing Place Subdivision Unit 1, Lot 4, with the 16 conditions outlined by staff? What's that? 16 has to be resolved? Okay, then with the 15 conditions, with 16 to still be resolved. Okay. Motion's been made for approval of the revised conditions. Do we have a second? Yes. I do second. Motion was made and seconded. We do have one question, I guess for the staff, number 11, it's hard to see. Discuss. Has that been stricken through? Is that just simply resolved now? Yes, sir. Okay. All right, so. So now we're back to 14? No, we're good with the 16 revised conditions. So if I understand it right, we do have a motion for approval, which was seconded with revised staff recommendations with the 16 conditions, simply changing number 16 to resolve orientation of proposed buildings. Any questions? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks. At this time, we'll move to page 5. Bottom of the page, it's Turwell LLC Zoning Map Amendment and Wendell Subdivision Lock 1 and 2. It's MAR 2016-1. And the associated ZDP, which is on the following page. you do have revised staff recommendations for that ZDP that's on a golden rod sheet of paper that is before you. Thank you. Ms. White. Chairman Owens, members of the commission, this item does appear on page 5 of our agenda. It is item 3A, and information about it can be found in your notebooks behind tab 3. The staff has received 162 emails regarding this application, and I'm going to split them up, and you all can maybe cross in the middle, and they all do need to be returned to Stephanie for our record. In addition, I believe the neighborhood has prepared a petition, which they will present at the appropriate time. This is MAR 2016-1, the request by Turwell LLC. This is a request to rezone approximately seven acres of property at 1580 Higbee Mill Road from an existing townhouse residential zone, which is our R1T zone, to the planned neighborhood residential zone, which is an R3 zone. The location of the property. Higbee Mill Road was formerly a rural, or is currently still a rural section, but a rural road in this area until Manowar was constructed. At that time, the subject property, part of the whole Windale subdivision, was cut in half. So there's a 5.5-acre portion of what was Wyndale subdivision on the south side of Manowar and then the 7-acre site on the north side of Manowar. The Planning Commission saw development plans for the south side within the last six months, and then this piece on the north side is located between Higbee Mill and Manowar Boulevard. Higby Mill terminates, but it does offer 700 feet of frontage along the subject property. And where it terminates is the intersection of Cornwall Drive, which extends from the north. It is a collector street, and it extends from part of the Stonewall subdivision or area neighborhood. And then at that intersection with Higby Mill, there is a sharp 90-degree turn, and Higbee Mill continues across Clay's Mill and then further to the east. The immediate area is primarily characterized by single-family residential on both the north side and the south side of Manowar Boulevard, although the development to the south that you all approved within the last six months is being developed in townhouse style for 22 townhouses, and that's at the end of Kings Glen Park. Higbee Mill Road also has a park located on it, which is kitty-corner from the subject property. And then, obviously, to the east and west, the zoning remains agricultural urban. The small triangular piece to the west is really part of the right-of-way of Manowar Boulevard, and the piece to the east is currently a single-family residence on that property. The petitioner is requesting to rezone the property to an R3 zone in order to construct two apartment buildings with a total of 32 dwelling units and 64 bedrooms. The proposal has been revised from its original layout to shift the two buildings to the south of what is a Columbia gas high pressure gas main easement, and also to reduce the density from what was originally proposed. So the residential density of the proposed development is now 4.58 dwelling units per net acre, where when it was originally filed was 6.88 dwelling units per acre. From the aerial photograph, you can see the property is really just a treed area. It is about two-thirds floodplain as well. These are the on-site property. On-site, because it is just a treed property, there really wasn't much of a view in terms of taking pictures of the subject property. So I took a few pictures of the surrounding area. This is Higby Mill from the intersection of Cornwall looking east. towards Clay's Mill. From that same point, looking to the north on Cornwall Drive, you can see the existing subdivision. And then this is directly across at that same intersection of, you can see the Stonewall neighborhood entrance sign at that location. So again, from the aerial, you can tell that the property is not developed. It does have the creek cutting through it. This is South Elkhorn Creek, and it does have a fairly large floodplain associated with it. The petitioner contends that the proposed rezoning is in agreement with our 2013 comprehensive plan, and they cited several goals and objectives to support that. First, encouraging the expansion of housing choices, which is Theme A, Goal 1. Second, identifying opportunities for infill and redevelopment and adaptive reuse that respect the area's context and design features. This is also Theme A, Goal 2A. And lastly, encouraging development of underutilized and vacant land in a compact and contiguous manner. In addition, the staff would note several other goals and objectives that are applicable to the proposed rezoning. First, the plan also encourages providing for well-designed neighborhoods, which is Theme A, Goal 3. Minimizing disruption of natural features when building new communities, which is also Theme A, Goal 3D, identifying and protecting our natural resources and landscapes before development occurs, Theme B, Goal 3A, and preserving our urban neighborhoods, which is Goal D, or excuse me, Theme D, Goal 3C. The petitioner wishes to provide multifamily development within an area where none currently exists and the staff agrees that multifamily development does not exist within this vicinity and that would support the goal for encouraging a mixture of different residential types. However, locating apartment buildings very near single-family residential is of concern to the staff. The proposed development will also impact the FEMA floodplain on a site that has a major major drainage way associated with it and that is something that's discouraged by the comprehensive plan but ultimately the staff believes that any density increase on the subject property should be directed towards manna war boulevard rather than along the higbee mill road frontage and i believe this visual or graphic helps to explain why the staff was recommending the conditional zoning restrictions that we are. As you can see, approximately two-thirds of the property is covered with the 100-year floodplain, and there are two developable areas on the site. One that borders the Stonewall neighborhood and four single-family residences, and then there's another large portion that borders Manowar Boulevard. Both are developable and out of the floodplain. The staff believes that a conditional zoning restriction should be applied on the subject property to limit the density within the northern half basically of the subject property within 200 feet of the northern boundary. That would allow some density on that northern piece, but it would help to respect the neighborhood in terms of a lower density of only 20 units in that northwest corner. The staff doesn't offer any restriction on the southwest or southeast portion, so any needed density could be located across by crossing the South Elkhorn Creek. The staff also believes that by crossing the creek, you could pull the development out of the FEMA floodplain and then just cross the creek to get, again, to a developable piece rather than pushing their existing development into the floodplain on the northwest corner. We believe this approach would more fully meet the comprehensive plan's goals and objectives, specifically the policy statements about compatible development and respecting existing neighborhoods. Let's see. the staff would suggest three conditional zoning restrictions for the subject property first that any development within 200 feet of the northern bound property boundary be limited to 20 dwelling units second all lighting installed on the subject property shall be directed downward and away from single-family residential zoning and third that a 20-foot landscape buffer shall be established along the adjoining Stonewall neighborhood, which is platted as Waverly Estate subdivision, and within that landscape buffer that there would be allowed a six-foot-tall fence or wall, and that evergreen trees should be planted in a staggered manner so as to provide a solid landscape screen. The staff believe these restrictions are appropriate in order to more fully implement the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, and also to provide an appropriate buffer between a higher density development and the single family residential. Ultimately, the staff is recommending approval of the rezoning to R3 with these restrictions, the conditional zoning restrictions, because we believe that does help to implement the 2013 comprehensive plan. Basically, increasing the allowable density on the subject property while keeping a compatible development next to the adjoining stonewall neighborhood is possible with a restricted R3 zone. The staff would be happy to answer any questions about our recommendation at this time. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Mr. Berkeley, question? Ms. Wade, the development plan that we have here, where these buildings are located, does it meet the 200-foot setback that you all are recommending? It's not a 200-foot setback for buildings. it would be a limit of 20 dwelling units within 200 feet. They're proposing 32. So they're proposing to use only the northwest corner and use 32 dwelling units here and then none over here. The staff would suggest utilizing both sides. So it's only 20 in this area. Tracy, you're saying, I guess, go ahead. Can I follow up? Yeah. Can you talk a little bit more about the basis for that? Is it just? The applicant identified in their justification that they would be able to do 17 dwelling units in the existing R1T zone. The staff understands that having additional units might make it more feasible, but we still felt that the adjacency with the single-family residential was not, that what they were proposing was not a good transition. And we understand wanting additional density, and the comprehensive plan does support that. So we feel like the additional density is more appropriate along Manowar Boulevard. Tracy, so the staff's recommendation is 20 units? Yes. Is that 20 units total on either side? No, just 20 within that northern half of the property. Where they're proposing. Okay. As far as the other side where there is nothing now, how would that be accessed? They would need to bridge the floodplain either on their property or there is a significant or an existing bridge across on the adjacent property. They'd have to work with an adjacent owner. Okay. Okay. So that gray driveway, whatever it is, that's on somebody else's property? That's formerly Clay's Mill. It's called Clay's Mill Extended is what we've always referred to it. It became that property's driveway, but it does have a significantly improved crossing of the floodplain there. But that is on somebody else's property? It is. They would have to work with... Mr. Chairman, if I could add, we have asked the council clerk whether or not they have a record of that ever being closed. It was formerly Clay's Mill, and they've not been able to find anything, so we're not sure of its status. If it had been closed, it would have gone half to each property owner. So as of today, we think it may be a public street. There's no record of it being closed. Okay, thank you. And as far as it going through the floodplain, it's substantial to cross the floodplain without improvements? Nope? I don't know if it, in terms of engineering-wise, it's more than a typical driveway crossing. Other questions? Yes, sir? Did you say they reduced the amount of units? They have. They started with 48 dwelling units. 48, okay. So now, but there's 32 there. 32 shown on this plan. Other questions? If not, we'll... Tracy, so your recommendation is 20 on the north side there, and the balance of whatever they wanted to do on the back side or south side. Could those buildings then be taken from three stories down to two stories? They actually are showing two stories for both buildings at this point. So they took the third story off completely. They've sort of done it in a stair-step manner. Their first revision didn't change any density. Their second revision reduced one building, so they had a three-story and a two-story, and said, well, we can't go any further. Then they came back and said, oh, well, okay, we'll go to two-story on both buildings. But again, the staff's concern, biggest concern is the density next to the neighborhood, not necessarily because the underlying zoning, whether it's R1T or R3, the existing or proposed, both allow 35 feet in height. Gotcha. Thanks. Ms. Plumlee? Yes, thank you. Tracy, this is for a zone change from R1T to R3. Yes. Now, how do those two compare in densities as to number of units that one would end up with? Well, the applicant has mentioned 17 dwelling units that they could fit on the property, and I don't know if that was just on the northern piece or both, but that would be about half the density of what they're proposing today. So two and a half dwelling units per acre. Any other questions? If not, we'll move on to the applicant. Thank you, Ms. Wade. I believe before the applicant speaks, Mr. Martin has a development plan. Oh, I'm sorry, yes. Development plan. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm going to have myself. Thank you. Yes, sir. I'm so sorry. We do want to hear from you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan that is associated with this zone change is on page 6, ZDP 2016-3, Wendell Subdivision. We have handed out revised conditions to you on this gold paper. I will very briefly, for the benefit of our audience, you on the committee, on the planning commission, are very aware of this. However, not everyone who is new to our process understands this. The staff and the subdivision committee review plans as if the zoning was already approved and in place. So I want to make that clear so some people understand why you may have different types of recommendations in this process, but that is how we have operated for many years now in our system. The preliminary development plan that you can see here, as has been explained to you, is located on Higbee Mill Road as it merges into Cornwall Drive. This, of course, is Manowar Boulevard in this location. Back down this way would be Clay's Mill. They are proposing an entrance at this location. You can see it's a two-way entrance with a gate. They are showing one-way circulation around in this location with two-way circulation and parking in this location on the property. They are proposing two-story buildings now. This is a revision. They are 26 feet in height is what they're proposing. You can see them here. Each building will have 16 two-bedroom units. That's a total of 32, of course. The parking is based on .9 per bedroom. So there is a total of 58 required parking spaces. They have 60 that they are showing here. The total square footage on the buildings proposed is 53,244 square feet in the buildings. There has been a lot of concern and discussion as this development has gone forward with, of course, floodplain and the easements that exist on this property. And there certainly are a lot of easements on the property, and there's extensive floodplain. We've highlighted for you in this location the gas easement. There is a 40-foot gas easement located right through here and extends and extends on back to the east and to the west as well. This has been filled, surveyed, and located. The applicant has informed us that they met with Columbia Gas, and they have located the line and the easement. So they've done that, and that was something we stressed with them from the beginning. You can see that they are off of that easement. There are a lot of sanitary sewer easements that run through the property, primarily in the floodplain. That's where they tend to be located due to drainage and gravity. Although there is one that comes through here that runs in this location. We are asking that they clearly delineate the dimensions on those. And again, that's because we've got one here, and the building is just off of that easement. They always have to stay off of easements and not build on easements. You can have parking and parking lots on easements, and they certainly are showing that. In addition, we've highlighted in purple, you know, you generally see it in blue, but we wanted you to be able to see it. This purple is the existing floodplain. This is the 100-year FEMA floodplain. the creek runs sort of right through here we wanted you to see the impact of the floodplain on the development and one of the conditions on your handout is of course that when they develop here they have to meet article 19 there's an entire article in your zoning ordinance that addresses floodplain development not highlighted here but in this general location is the post-development floodplain. So they will have to modify the floodplain in accordance with all regulations and all appropriate permits roughly in this area of the plan. That's not uncommon in development in these types of areas. In addition to that, we are having them we have a condition to revise their tree inventory map to clearly delineate the treed areas particularly in this area of the property we have another issue one they've agreed to address and they have a tremendous amount of frontage as you can see along Higbee Mill Road an old rural farm road in essence and they are agreeable to improvements. So we do have a condition, and this is a normal, that will be resolved should they move forward and they bring in a final development plan. We, at that time, will resolve the extent of the necessary public improvements to Higbee Mill Road, which is something we do with every development that comes before you and before staff. We like to address needed public improvements. There is one discussion item that remains, and that is the fence. And they're proposing a fence in this location. That's a front yard fence. And in our ordinance, where it is located in the front yard, which is the area adjacent to Higbee Mill Road, it can only be four feet without a variance. If they've not changed their little fence section elevation here, they're showing a six-foot fence, they'll have to do a four-foot fence in their front yard. Or seek a variance, which they have not done in association with this zone change. They would have to go to the Board of Adjustment if they want to continue with the six-foot fence in the front yard. So that's something they will need to resolve and address. And again, staff has reviewed this plan, and we are recommending approval to you of the development plan. And if you have any questions for me. Questions for Mr. Martin? where the the building pads are located topographically what is elevation there and and at the the north property boundary that's an excellent question and i should have touched on that they are sitting downhill obviously uh it drops in this area and and down towards the creek And again, what they have shown here, and I was remiss in not pointing this out, they are proposing an extensive landscape buffer in this area with landscaping materials that will eventually mature to be as much as 24 feet in height. So at that time, there will be a buffer here of landscape materials, according to their plan to be as tall as 24 feet with 26 foot tall buildings that are at a lower elevation. I'm sure they'll be happy to elaborate on that as well. Other questions? If not, thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir? Commission members, while this has been passed out, I would remind you that the emails that's been passed around do need to get back to the staff to be entered in record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just wanted to report briefly that the staff did receive a traffic impact study. None was required by the zoning ordinance for this zone change, but one was received late last week. It has been given a cursory review by the transportation planning staff, and what we've distributed to you is their report on that. I think the last three bullet points give the basic information to the commission, including some interesting information about the average daily traffic on some of the nearby roadways. Dr. Harika-Suklan from the transportation planning staff is here. should the commission have any questions, but in the interest of time, it's probably best not to have a presentation on it unless there are questions. Thank you. Thank you. At this point, we will move on to the applicant, and please note we do have time limits that will be imposed. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, member of the Planning Commission, my name is Jihad Halani, and first I need to be sworn in. I came a little bit late, so I apologize. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Today, basically, I just want to go back a little bit of history about this project. where we start, where we're at. We submit this development based on 48 units and three-story buildings 20 feet from the property line. And we understand there was a lot of objection from the neighbors, so we scheduled a meeting with them. We went through their concern. My understanding at that time of their concern is basically the height of the building is too high, it's so close to the property line, we don't need to have parking along the back which is facing the adjoining property owners, and also talking about property values. So basically these are the main concerns that the neighbor expressed to us. So we went back to the drawing board and came up with multiple of iterations. Then we meet with them and the neighbor has more concern. So last meeting we had after, I believe, four meetings, if I'm not mistaken, we met on last Saturday. And this is entitled this layout that's in front of you. So basically the layout here is we have two-story building, each 32 units. We're eliminating the porches along the back of the building to meet so they don't look into the neighbor property. We eliminated all the parking along the back of the building so there's no parking along the back. We reduced the density to 32 units, and also we reduced the height to 25, 26 feet of building height. And then on top of that, we basically add landscape buffer and berm with landscape, with the fence, six feet, eight inch fence, six feet fence with post six feet, eight inches to create a dense landscape buffer between the two zoning. And basically on your second sheet of your package, it shows basically the proposed building height, which is to the top is 28 feet, and 25, 26 feet to the center, to the middle of the pitch. And then this building will be setting 57 feet from the property line. So we are 57 feet from the neighbor property line. I'm sorry, 57 feet. So the staff mentioned earlier that this is Higbima Road, and then when it came to this location, the roadway, half of it has been abandoned, half of it has not been abandoned. So this represents 30 feet on this section. This is the old Higbimel Road and there is 30 feet of right-of-way that separate this development from the adjoining property owner. So this development is 57 feet closest to the right-of-way and there is additional 30 feet of half of old Higbimel Road that will make minimum we are closest to the neighborhood is basically 87 feet as a total distance. And to answer the question has been asked before, approximately the finished floor elevation is 930 for the adjoining property owner, which is on the second sheet, and then our floor is 924.5, approximately 5 1⁄2 feet below in finished floor, plus we have the six feet fans plus the berm plus the trees and almost 140 feet from the house to where we're at right now, to the proposed building location. So we went through the staff report and we're basically in agreement with the staff, recommendation stating that R3 is an appropriate zone and we believe we're in agreement with the staff. We are in agreement with the staff stating that higher density can be accomplished while respecting the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood. And on the third comment, this representing bridging and splitting the density between the north and south of South Alcorn, we believe that our proposal will achieve the higher density without creating and building another bridge to cross the creek to that side. The buildable area the staff mentioned on the FEMA map in this location, in order to get to that location, we have to create another bridge of similar size to Manowar, which is the width of it is 100 feet wide of a span. So basically, this bridge is going to be a costly bridge. And to our record here, we have no record to state that this has not been closed yet. We believe this is, as for now, this is an adjoining property owner driveway. So on the third sheet of the exhibit, we took a site layout, And basically we said if this property has a lot of easement, which will be on sheet four of the exhibits, it shows all the easements that shows on this property from sanitary storage easement, from drainage easement, from gas easement. it will leave an area along the north side of the creek of approximately 1.35 acres of developable area and approximately 1.6 acres on the south side for developable area. But in order to access it, we need to have a bridge that pass into that site. So assuming we have a layout, assuming basically if this easement does not exist and we have to deal only with a floodplain, we can fit on this property. or if the property owner decided to relocate some of these easements, we can fit approximately 42 units of townhouses north of South Alcorn. And this will be Exhibit 2, which is Sheet 3. So on the table, we have a compatibility table. It's basically we compare the adjoining property owner has a zone of R1D. And this site right now, as is, has a zoning designation of R1T. So, and then what we are proposing, R3 zone, at the same time, this is our proposal, it's 32 units, and the staff recommendation for the north side to be 20 units. And we put all this regulation next to each other, and we try to compare. Is our proposal, has the compatibility required, or we are incompatible? Do we need to reduce the density? Do we need to increase the distances? So we look at this table, basically, adjoining property owner for maximum lot coverage has no limitation. R1T has no limitation. R3 has a limitation of 25% of lot coverage. We are proposing six. If we go with the recommendation of the staff of four, at 20 units, that would give us 4% of lot coverage. If we go with the maximum height, R1D has 35 feet, R1T has 35 feet, R3 has 35 feet. We are limiting the height to 25, 26 feet. The staff on their recommendation, they did not limit the height. So I'm assuming we can go all the way to 35 feet. Landscape buffer. There is no on R1D. R1T, you can be all the way to 6 feet from the property line. R3, you can go all the way to 6 feet from the property line. We are proposing if you take this area over here and divide it by the lengths, it gives you 28 feet of buffer to the right edge of the right-of-way. The staff recommended 20 feet. And also we look at the rear yard. For R1D it's 10 feet, for R1T it's 10 feet, R3 is 10 feet. This proposal shows a rear yard an average of 60 feet. The staff did not put a limitation or a certain distance, so we're assuming the landscape buffer can apply as a rear yard as well. So another thing, which is the density, is one of the most important ones. For R1D, which is a minimum lot of 6,000 square feet, so your density can be 4.5 to 5.8 unit per acre. For a typical R1T, not this one, typical R1T, you can go 12 to 18 unit per acre. For R3, for apartment, it can range from 16 to 24. Our proposal, as the staff also mentioned, is 4.6 unit per acre. If we go with 20 units, it's 2.9 unit per acre. So even with the 32, you feel like the density, we are compatible. The height, we are capping it to 25 feet. We are providing more landscape buffer. Our rear yard is much more than required. And these are made, my understanding, these are the main concern that the neighbor express. From height of the building, the density, parking in the back, and the buffer, and also real estate value, which is Mike Martin. He's going to speak about property value and how this development is not going to impact property value from a negative point of view. And so, again, we are in agreement with the staff. The only thing is that we are not in agreement is to cap the unit to 20 units along the north side. We like this to be capped at 32 units. with this limitation as shown on this table. So we are capping the height to 25 feet. We are recommending the landscape buffer to be approximately 20 feet, the rear yard to be 60 feet, and also the staff mentioned about criteria or condition to restrict the zone. and as part of the condition, on this, I guess, page 6.4 of the zoning ordinance, it talks about the criteria. It said, no restriction or condition may be imposed which shall deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of the land or create unnecessary hardship on the applicant. So we believe that this property, in addition of the floodplain or the sanitary source easement, stormwater easement, gas line, and meeting the criteria and making it more compatible with the neighborhood, adding a bridge to build a bridge to cap from the north to the south side of South Elkhorn, is going to create a hardship on the applicant. as well as capping the unit to 20 units is going to create another hardship on the applicant. We believe we are meeting the spirit and the condition of the comprehensive plan by using underutilized property within the urban service laundry and build it in a manner that's compatible with the neighborhood. And we believe this proposal, it does meet this condition, it does address the concern of the neighbors, as well as it does address the environmental concern as well. Thank you, sir. If you've got someone else as far as your presentation, sure. We'll reserve any questions until we hear from everyone. Yes, hello, members. My name is Michael Martin. I'm a real estate agent with Better Homes and Gardens Cypress here in Lexington, Kentucky. I've been a full-time real estate agent for the past 12 years and a native of Lexington. I'm here not to give my opinion on this. I was asked to give an unbiased opinion on whether or not there was an adverse effect in apartments going into communities. And what you have in front of you is my research that I've done, and what I did was a comparative market analysis to the three closest apartment buildings within the area of the development that's being proposed. The first one that I looked at was the RM Lexington apartment buildings that opened up in 2013 in front of the Willow Bend neighborhood. I took the values of the most recent sales within the past six months and then compared them to when the development was built. And you'll notice that in most cases the property values remain steady or increased over that time. I took the closest street specifically to the apartment buildings at R.M. Lexington and Willow Bend and looked at Winthorpe Drive and Mossbridge Drive and gave you all some comparisons to when the houses were built, what they sold for, and what they sold for within the past six months. and you'll see that there has been an increase or at least a steady standard. I also went over to the Beaumont Farms subdivision of the apartments that were built over there. The Beaumont Farms apartments were built in 1998, so a little bit older, but I also looked at Allegheny Way, Old Philway, and Rayford Lane to look at homes that had sold within that time period of the apartments being built and then looking at the most recent sales within the past six months on our LBAR sites. As you can see and as it shows, most of the homes did improve in their market analysis or their value, or they remained steady, so there was no impact in regards to the Beaumont Farms apartments being built. I then also went into the Rabbit Run apartments, which were built in 1998, and looked at Black Horse Lane and pulled the most recent sales within that area, two homes that were built in 2003 and 2005 that generally sold in the past six months, one of them in note because there wasn't a lot of sales on that street, but most of those values remained the same or increased. So it's in my opinion when I look at if everything is done the correct way and it is compatible with the neighborhood, that the values of the Stonewall neighborhood would not be negatively impacted as long as everything was done the correct way. It was not impacted with L.M. Lexington in the Willow Bend neighborhood. It was not impacted directly with Rabbit Run, and nor was it a bad benefit to the Beaumont Farms. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Kalani. Yes, sir. Anything else? Any question for me? That's next question for me. Any questions for the applicant? Yes. How much land is on that other side of the lot that's not in floodplain? Less than two acres. What? Less than two acres. Less than two acres, sir. Okay. If you give you an idea, if you come all the way to the center line of the creek, all the way this property is five acres and this is a little bit less than five acres. This is a little bit more than two acres but there's the floodplain here is not not much area so a little bit less than two acres. And so nobody knows about this Clay's Mill road that goes through there whether it's city or not? Even if it was owned by the city this this driveway it to get flooded on regular basis. So if it's going to be used to build an apartment, it's going to be brought to LFUCG current standard, which means that this road is going to be elevated up, a new cross-section, new bridge, or certain sections need to be built. So basically, it's not going to be a cheap crossing. Did you say it flooded? Yes, sir. Okay. Other questions for the applicant? No? If not, I think we'll proceed on. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Those that would like to testify in favor of this? Anyone? Okay. Before we move on, let me see a show of hands as to those that would like to testify in opposition of this. I thought so. We do want to hear from everyone. there will be time limits imposed I would ask that one if you have a representative to speak for some of you all that would be great let them go first please do not be repetitive we know about the flood plain you all might know a little bit more about it but we don't have to hear it 15 times So that's my example. So let's move on. We'll get started. Yes, ma'am, you can start. My name is Janet Cabanis, and I'm with the Stonewall Community Association. Yesterday we passed a request for a little bit different presentation through Mr. Salee, and we have basically an overall speaker that will want to take about eight minutes, And then we have eight other speakers that have three minutes on each of the topics that we've more or less tried to organize. And I believe that was approved. That was acceptable. Okay. Let me say this. I do try and be fair and equal to everyone. And in taking note as to the presentation so far, you know, staff took about 20 to 25 minutes. The applicant took about 20 minutes. we'll give you those time limits. Let's just proceed on. And, you know, brevity is good. So is that 25 minutes in total for our one presentation that we're regarding as one? That would be for the presentation that you just said as one, okay? And then we do have those that want to speak would be given three minutes after that, okay? Yes. So we can start, right? Our overall presenter, these will all be residents of the Stonewall area. Our overall presenter is Andrew Franklin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I have a PowerPoint presentation I'd like to use to speak about our opposition to the proposed zone change. We as a united community of Stonewall are opposed to the proposed zone change at 1580 Higby Mill Road. We feel the basis of the petitioner's map amendment application that the requested zone of R3 is more appropriate than the current zone of R1T is inaccurate. We believe that our arguments will show that the requested zone is not in keeping with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan and is less appropriate than the existing zone. Our first arguments are based on neighborhood character and density. From Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan, there's a recommendation that infill be sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods and should be compatible with the existing built environment, including design, scale, proportion, and the context of the area of development. The existing established neighborhood of Stonewall consists mostly of brick, ranch-style, single-family homes on large lots. The proposal of two high-density apartment buildings squeezed onto just over two acres of land is not appropriately compatible in scale, proportion, or context. The comprehensive plan makes recommendations of appropriate scales of infill. Whether we consider this a single parcel, small parcel, or mid-sized development, the plan recommends that it is important for the project to relate to the existing context and character of the neighborhood. There is no mention of apartments in the recommended housing types listed on page 102 of the plan for these infill scales. Again, the density and scale of the proposed zone are inappropriate in this regard. While the comprehensive plan encourages expanding housing choices for diverse neighborhoods, it also calls for infill that respects the context and design features, as well as preserving urban and rural neighborhoods. The existing zone of R1T allows for increased density, and the scale of applicable developments would be more in keeping with the established context and design of the bordering neighborhood. Just to review the Division of Planning's mission statement is to provide a vision and strategy that will allow Lexington to grow and prosper while preserving, protecting, and enhancing existing neighborhoods downtown and the rural bluegrass cultural landscape. Would this zone change preserve, protect, or enhance the Stonewall neighborhood? The Comprehensive Plan also discourages disruption of natural features when planning new developments. This proposed development will require unnecessary filling and altering of the floodplain in the south Elkhorn Creek. Article 19.7a prohibits the excavating, grating, or filling which disturbs the natural grade of the floodplain. Without a special permit, a special permit will be required to fill and alter the border of the floodplain, which covers most of the property. The adjustment of the floodplain border is really needed to fit the large number of required parking spaces for this sort of density. In essence, the only reason that the development has to encroach on the floodplain is because it's too dense and requires too much parking. Doesn't that make the proposed zone inappropriate for the property? I've made just a couple of quick notes of how deep they'll be filling the floodplain. The arrows are between the existing floodplain that's closer to the buildings and their post-development floodplain. This one here is about 65 feet long. With all of the development that's active and proposed, both upstream and down, we have concerns about where all that additional water will go in a neighborhood with homes that already bordered the existing floodplain. Particularly, these houses here are already in the Special Flood Protection Area, Zone AE. It goes right to their back door. we want to quote page 49 of the comprehensive plan Wendell Berry advises us to do those downstream as you would have those upstream do to you we also have concerns that the proposed development does not meet the requirements of article 9-6 of the zoning ordinance regarding usable open space it requires that proper usable open spaces shall be devoted to the recreational needs of the project for active and passive use Depending on density per acre, there are percentages of the total project area that must be reserved for open recreation. This plan does not appear to contain sufficient accessible recreational space per those Article 9 requirements. If total acreage of the property is used to require the density, the dwelling units per acre, then essentially you need .34 acres of required space. If you use just the area being developed, it would require .45. We don't see either of those densities on the proposed plan. We also have safety concerns regarding traffic in a neighborhood that already has limited safe entrances and exits. Given the limitations of Higbee Mill Road, most of the additional inbound and outbound traffic would run through the center of the established family neighborhood, which is a safety and congestion concern. Also, due to the small amount of actual buildable space, the proposed plan provides the minimal allowable number of on-site parking spaces, which would increase on-street parking and pedestrian traffic, creating more safety concerns. We've already spoken about the easements, so I won't go too much into that. property values. We do have concerns there. My wife and I purchased our home in 2009. We knew that the wooded area behind us was developable for townhomes or single-family residences, so we felt secure in our purchase that whatever went back there would be appropriate and reasonable for the neighborhood, and the value of our investment would not be impacted. We believe the value of our investment and that of our neighbors is now in question. Despite the petitioner's suggestion in their application, there is no market need to support the development in this area. Between existing complexes and those being built, we believe there are ample high-density housing options within the immediate area. In summary, we believe the current R1T zone fully adheres to the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, so there is no need to change it. R1T density and the scale of infill are more appropriate to the character of the existing R1C neighborhood than R3 would be. R3 development will disrupt the natural features of the existing floodplain in violation of Article 19. Safety and other concerns we've mentioned, and this plan does not satisfy the recommendation of the planning staff that any development within 200 feet of the northern property boundary shall be limited to 20 dwelling units. On behalf of the neighborhood of Stonewall, we thank you for your consideration of these points, and some of our concerned residents would now like to expand on a few points of concern. Thank you, Mr. Franklin. Do I stay for questions? Does anyone have any questions? Let's go through it all, and then we'll try and take care of questions at the end. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, hello. My name is Douglas Starnes, and I live on 720 Longwood Road. I would like to discuss the land makeup of 1580 Higby Mill Road. This property is besieged with a large number of utility lines, easements, a floodplain, and a floodway. I would like to start by showing the proposed property and highlight all of the easements, the floodplain, and the floodway. Please notice how the apartment buildings are handcuffed by utility easements around the whole outline of the property. So you can see all the easements. According to the application, the net acreage of this property is almost 7 acres. According to the developer's engineer, the buildable area is only 1.33 acres. This can be seen by the engineer's mock-up of the property. interesting enough it looks as if the developer has had zero intention to develop approximately two acres of the easement free floodplain free and floodway free area in the southeastern corner of the property from the start of this process this can be seen as it has been left blank and does not have does not have the buildable area designation from the engineer the developer has decided to squeeze 32 dwelling units into only 1.33 acres of the engineer's proclaimed buildable area. In this picture you can see the apartment complex overlaid onto the previous picture. Again please notice how the buildings are wedged in by multiple utility easements along with the floodplain. To illustrate the circle to illustrate the circle the area circled in red indicates the floodplain. This area will need to be filled, which seems excessive and could have an adverse effect in accordance to Article 19-8C of the zoning ordinance. Finally, Commissioners, page 98 of the comprehensive plan discusses context-sensitive design. As you are aware, this section describes the different criteria in which a project is considered to be context-sensitive. To quote, a project should maintain connectivity to the scale, density, and exterior architectural features that reflect, relate to, or are in proportion to the surrounding neighborhood. This project creates 32 units in the buildable area, which equates to .04 acres per dwelling unit, and is not in proportion to the average of .30 acres per dwelling unit in the surrounding Stonewall neighborhood. In conclusion, there are obvious reasons why this land has been left undeveloped for 30 years. Thank you. Who's next? Good afternoon, Council Chairman. My name is Jim Holthouse. I live at 3577 Cornwall, right at the confluence of Higby Mill and Cornwall. So I'm one of probably about ten homes that are very much affected by this, and then the affection starts deeper into the community. But I come today to speak a little bit about a petition that was just handed out. It was some 90 pages, over 1,000, almost 1,100 names, not one for this development, every one of them against this development. They all say no. Also, a part of those, I went through this page by page. That's a lot of names that have said they don't want this. Over 347 comments were also given, and I highly recommend to take a look at some of them. One of them actually came to mind when it said, they asked me to ask you the question, if you are a homeowner there, do you really feel that these homes are going to sell like they would if they were on the other side of Stonewall? The value of these homes is definitely an issue. And our homes are our lifeblood. That's what we work so hard for. Beyond that, you were also mentioned that we had a number of folks that didn't come today but have submitted e-mails. Some of those folks are here as well. I think 143 e-mails to the planning staff who have been outstanding in the help with this. with also probably one of the best remarks i had was yesterday afternoon i had a 90 year old woman on her iphone send me a note jim i can't be there tomorrow but boy we i don't agree with this okay um and and really lastly you you see a lot of folks in blue and a lot in these stickers I just want you to see the amount of people who are passionate about this, who have given up our personal lives to try to fight this, because this isn't what is a common sense thing to allow. If the folks, I think there's about 40 of them downstairs that couldn't get into the room. If you just raise your hands, if you're for this development, please raise your hand. I bet there's none. No? How about against this development? And add another 40 downstairs. Okay? We don't want this. This is just a common sense thing. So in closing, Turwell has been, I know our first meeting said, be a good neighbor. And we don't feel that this is good development for a neighborhood that's established. and I'll say thank you for your time. Any questions? Thank you. Hello, my name is Damon Snyder. I live at 704 Cumberland Road in Stonewall, and my presentation is about an expansion of the neighborhood character. Neighborhood character, although generally perceived as esoteric and subjective, actually contains many physical components that can be used to compare and benchmark buildings. A good infill design, according to the common plan, does not require the recreation of existing buildings but respects scale, massing, and the size of surrounding buildings. We feel that the applicant's infill design does not respect the scale and size of the smaller surrounding homes in Stonewall and we'll use scaled drawings to demonstrate the out-of-character size of the proposed apartments. What you're looking at right now, there are 22 homes that would be the most affected by the proposed zone change. And if you look at these pictures of the 22 homes, they share many of the aesthetic neighborhood characteristics of Stonewall, which are big lots, mature trees, and most are variants of ranch homes. Using data from the Fayette County PVA website, we took height and measurement requirements of all the 22 homes' average amount and got this hypothetical house, which measures 62 feet long and is 1.2 stories, or about 17 feet tall. This house was used as a stand-in for when we compared the physical dimensions of the 22 homes to the developers' buildings. According to the developers' plans, two identical buildings are to be built on site. Each building will be 27 feet tall, 40 feet wide, and 176 feet long. What I'm showing you right now is a picture drawn to scale comparing the size of one of the two buildings to the typical Stonewall home. Looking at the picture, you can see that the apartment building is significantly bigger than the home. But how can you quantify this bigness. One way to compare the compartment building is to compare it to something else that is the same size as itself, something like a World War II German U-boat. Now, unfortunately, this thing is not big enough. It's 30 feet too short. We actually have to go for something that's a little bit bigger to be a better fit, and that ends up being a Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet. If you ignore the tail and concentrate on the body of the jet, it's a pretty good comparison of the sheer size of the apartment building. But now, as I mentioned before, we have another problem. The developer wants to build two identical size buildings to place them 20 feet apart. And the question would be, what is the best way to judge how big these buildings are when they appear side by side? Well, one way to do it is to put two of the Jumbo jets side by side themselves. But I think there's still a better way. There's a building here in Lexington that everybody knows. Odds are you've even visited this building many times. Yes, it's Rupp Arena. And this is the high street site of Rupp. And what we have here now is the comparison of Rupp Arena to the two different buildings that are side by side. Now, granted, Rupp Arena is 72 feet tall. It's much taller than the proposed buildings. However, the amazing fact is that when you combine the two buildings with no space between them, And Rupp's length only beats him by a mere eight feet. So what can we take away from this? Personally, I think you can easily see that these two apartment buildings are enormous when you compare them to the Stonewall Homes in the immediate area. The developers' buildings don't respect the scale or size that would indicate neighborhood character. So, on behalf of all my neighbors who oppose this zone change, I hope you will vote no on this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. We have about seven minutes left. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Tracy Starnes, and I reside with my husband at 720 Longwood. 1580 Higbee Mill is currently zoned as R1T for townhouses and could acceptably be upscaled for single-family homes. This type of development would align with the Stonewall neighborhood character as mentioned in the comprehensive plan. R1T zoning could be developed at higher levels of residences, including single-family home classifications of R1C, D, and E dwellings. Although admittedly smaller formats than most homes in our current neighborhood, these homes could far more readily be supported by residents than the plans submitted by the developer for apartments. Upon meeting with the developer in December at Stonewall Elementary, we were presented with a nice, colorful design of upscale three-story apartment buildings, as seen here. The developer quickly realized the community did not support the addition of apartments within Stonewall, but rather wanted the zoning left as is. We were next told if we didn't support the zone change, they would cram as many crappy, sorry to quote townhouses here, as possible into this area. On the flip side of the pretty design was the bland townhouse layout shown here. At that point, I personally felt the developer was threatening us with things he knew we didn't want in the neighborhood if we continue to oppose the development or the R3 zone change. In discussions with neighbors and community residents in attendance, I understand they felt the same way. Furthermore, residents met with the developer and engineer again on Saturday, February 20th to review the latest apartment plan, which reduced the initial three-story buildings designed to a two-story design. Once again, when the residents spoke about opposition to having apartments, Another informally crafted townhouse plan was displayed to show a worst-case scenario if rezoning was not approved. With limited thought and design, this drawing seemed obviously meant as a scare tactic. Our neighborhood group has been studying the details of the 1580 Platte and knew in the sketch that the buildings were clearly located in the floodplain. Developers had also added a cul-de-sac turnaround area, which was almost exactly on the neighbor's property lines. In other words, we should take the nice, well-designed apartments, or we would get something worse, as shown here. The neighborhood group asked if this was a proposed townhouse design, and were quickly told no, that it was just used for illustrations and was not a design. Nevertheless, to present such a plan seemed intended to make everyone cringe and prefer the improved apartment plan. Throughout this long process, the residents have been presented with four different versions of the apartment complex, but have not seen one suitable design of a respectable townhouse structure or residential housing that would complement Stonewall neighborhood. We as a Stonewall community would support appropriate residential living to be built on 1580 Higbee Mill, which would maintain the single-family residential living and keep our neighborhood character. We have not been presented with that plan. Thank you. There's like four minutes left. Go ahead. Hi. I'm Hallie Karen Brinkerhoff. I live on Roxburgh Drive, and I'm going to address market need. In response to the developer's argument that more apartments on the south end are needed to provide adequate housing near businesses, Our study indicates that by the end of the summer, 2016, there will be a glut of vacant apartments in the area. According to current real estate figures, there are between 1,300 to 1,500 vacant apartments in Lexington. Approximately 500 of these are vacant apartments in South Lexington. In addition to these vacancies, the following multifamily developments, all roughly within a three-mile radius of 1580 Higman Mill Road, are promising hundreds more. Palomar Reserve currently has seven buildings under construction for a total of 168 apartments in addition to their current vacancies. Palomar View currently has 180 units and is projecting an additional 540 units to be built by August. By June, Tracery Oaks will be opening the first two buildings of its proposed 168 units. Kings Glen Park promises at least 22 apartment units along with townhomes. Copper Creek is advertising 21 lots for apartment townhome development. Expansion continues at Rabbit Run, The Summit, and 4057, all within two to three miles of Higmey Mill and Cornwall. Given these projected developments, along with existing vacancies on the south end, a new apartment complex at 1580 Higmy Mill and Cornwall Drive, an already congested area, is not in the best interest of Stonewall Subdivision. The property at 1580 Higmy Mill is already zoned for townhomes, which seem to be more in demand on the south end. Rabbit Run is already developing more townhomes due to their popularity and demand, and Palomar Reserve only has one of its townhomes available. Kings Glen and Copper Creek are both adding a division of townhomes. The townhomes at Clay's Mill are 100% occupied. However, Clay's Mill does have apartments available, as do Autumn Park Apartments, Del Zan Terrace, and Wellington Chase, located off Clay's Mill within 1.3 miles of this Higmey Mill proposal. With all of these developments sporting apartment vacancies, it is an overkill to build more apartments. The existing zoning code is not only more in line with keeping the integrity of the Stonewall community, but also in line with consumer demand. Therefore, we ask that the zoning code not be changed to permit the development of high-density apartments in an already highly congested area in the intersection of Higme Mill and Cromwell, backing up to Manowar. Given that Stonewall already has limited exits, three of which connect with an already congested artery, Clay's Mill Road, we ask that development remain limited to townhomes and or single-family dwellings, which safely support traffic flow and more readily addresses housing needs in the Stonewall area. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. We're going to at this time take like a five minute break and we'll resume at that point in time, okay? Thanks. Thank you. For the remainder of this, anyone wishing to speak in opposition, I'm going to limit anybody to three minutes. And I would ask to bring us new information. We appreciate you being here and want to hear from everyone. But as I said earlier, let's not be repetitive and just simply bring us new information. So whoever wants to start may come forward. Thank you. I think we're here, in my opinion, to talk about something that's causing for a lot of time, expensive process, but it's not about zoning. It stems, the root cause, stems from the developers trying to lay off a business risk onto the taxpayers. They knew that the profitability of their proposed project was highly dependent upon getting the zoning change. Now, to mitigate their risk and improve their profits, they appear to want the taxpayers, via the zoning commission, to bail them out by changing the zoning. The developers might benefit from my mother's, God rest her soul's, counsel when I was in this sort of a situation. Her old-fashioned viewpoint was, well, you've made your bed, now you sleep in it. In my opinion, if the zoning is changed, the developers become the beneficiaries, wholly undeserved, of corporate welfare to the detriment of the neighborhood. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Oh, it's spelled, the last name is difficult. It's D-E-H-N-E-R. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Kay Woods, Stonewall resident. And I want to applaud the Council and Planning Commission and those involved in creating a progressive and protective comprehensive plan. and for the considerations that you give property holders as laid out in your zoning ordinances. While numerous issues have already been presented, there are negative financial impacts a zone change would present to existing property owners and to businesses downstream. Although the creative engineering to address flooding is promised by Turwell and Company, the Council needs to consider their promises in zoning ordinance Article 19. First, 19.1 claims, and I quote, burden to the public for business interruptions that result in the losses of wages, sales, production, and tax revenue. The ordinance, you promised to protect those people. So we contend that the unjustified demand for public investment occurs in two ways. First, the existing residents already living within this floodplain will be subjected to additional flooding risks. Consequently, they stand to be required to assume costs already mentioned in the zoning ordinance and may feel pressured to include the purchase of flood insurance, which can amount to $400 to $900 annually on their policies. And this expense, in addition to any grading or medical charges or fences or mold removal, may be necessary for existing residents to purchase. Second, businesses located downstream in the South Elkhorn Shopping Center will be significantly affected. Owners have already pleaded with you to stop zoning changes along Harrodsburg Road that have permitted construction of apartment units, and creative engineering was promised to deal with that. But the creative engineering consisted of holding tanks, and those have proven inadequate. The rainfall of two inches or more, as occurred last March, created flooding issues for those businesses. And businesses reported interruption, loss of wages, and sales. So the constant threat of flooding and the cleanup expense is a detriment to economic progress. Therefore, we respectfully ask that you honor your promises and reject the zone change. It is not in the best interest of Stonewall Estates or of our neighbors downstream, the South Alcorn Creek Shopping Center. And as quoted from your comprehensive plan, the words of Wendell Berry should guide your vote. Do unto those downstream as you would have those upstream do to you. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Yvette Childress, and I grew up on Longwood Road. My parents still reside there for the past 32 years. They still live there. And just to go to the utility things that you don't want to hear about over and over again, I've been to every single zoning meeting and every meeting in the neighborhood I'm meeting down, and here I am. The Columbia Gas has always stated that the 12-inch high-pressure gas line that runs through that has a 50-foot easement. On these drawings and everything, it's been reduced down to 40 feet. Just wanted to clarify that. They've always said 50, and now it's been changed. Don't know how that happened. But anyway, past the utilities, the traffic impact of the zoning change to Higbee Mill, the traffic impact of the zoning change to high-density housing at 1580 Higbee Mill Road, according to Frank Pruitt, who is a Stonewall resident of 13 years, and a civil engineer that served as the project manager, lead design engineer, and engineer of record for the recent Clay's Mill Road improvement construction. The Clay's Mill Road improvements, Sections 2B, construction completed in the fall of 2014, eliminated the existing dedicated left turn lane for northbound Clay's Mill Road traffic onto the westbound Higby Mill Road towards 1580 Higby Mill Road. There was and is not enough space between the Clay's Mill Road intersection with Higby Mill and Man of War for a left-turn lane from northbound to southbound Clays Mill Road traffic onto the Higbee Mill Road at Manowar. The Section 2B construction and subsequent reconfiguration of Clays Mill Road left-turn lanes in this area was a decision that was thoroughly and carefully vetted during the Clays Mill Road scoping study and into final design phases by the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government. It is important to note that the decision to eliminate the Clays Mill Road northbound turning lane onto Higbee Mill was largely based on the low traffic volume making this turning movement, and instead the space was used to accommodate the high traffic volume in southbound Clays Mill Road left turns onto Manowar. There has been no analysis at all about the added traffic that will affect the Clay's Mill Road and Higbee Mill Road intersection. The Vision Engineering Report is not a study. Vision Engineering is not a Kentucky Transportation Cabinet qualified for the categories of traffic engineering or transportation planning services. The Vision Engineering Report does mention the recent improvements to Clasemill Road should enable it to better accommodate existing traffic and lessen the need for neighborhood bypass trips. That is technically correct, but is referring to existing traffic, traffic that does not include the proposed high-density development. The decision made by the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government 15 years ago to not put back a dedicated left turn lane from Clay's Mill Road to westbound Higbee Mill obviously had no consideration for any proposed or future increased traffic. The neighborhood, for all practical purposes, was fully developed. Therefore, there should not be a new high-density development feeding new left-turning vehicles to an intersection that is and was not designed to accommodate them. Your decision has already been made for this parcel to be developed with no more than 20 townhomes. Thank you, ma'am. Others? We're dying down. Yes, sir. I just want to make two really quick points. That's okay. Come forward. I'm an engineering professor. Name? Name? My name is Matthew Beck. Okay. And your address? I'm in the Stonewall neighborhood at 3553 Cornwall Drive. Thank you, Mr. Beck. I'm an engineering professor, and I love showing people's scale and scope of things. I want to point out a little bit of a sleight of hand that's been perpetrated here throughout the discussion of this development. There's a lot of talk about density, and I want to point out if we all picked up in this room and collected in the back corner, the back 1 16th of the room, we couldn't reasonably claim that the density of people was that number of people divided by this whole space because we'd all be crammed over there. That's exactly what's being claimed here. When you divide the total number of 32 units by the full seven acres of this property, those are the numbers that are being presented to you by the applicant. That is not representative of the actual practical density that this development represents. I'd like you to consider that as you look at this request. The last thing I'll point out to you is that in the proposed plan, if you look at the cross section there, they've drawn these 24-foot trees at six years. The urban county plan very clearly and specifically references appropriate development as being in the context of existing communities. It's difficult for me to understand how a development that requires a 24-foot tall screening tree plus a 6-foot solid fence all along the separation can be considered in context with its neighboring development. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak? Yep. Okay, come forward. Yes, my name is Doug Abrams. My property is 716 Longwood Road. In deference to the council, I will be repetitive and I will be redundant. We don't want this. This is not something that represents the community. An apartment complex behind single-family homes does not represent the Stonewall community. And I would just ask you, would you want this built 50 feet from your backyard? If you answer yes, then I suppose you'll vote yes. If you answer no, you've got to vote no. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir? Not to be done by my engineering colleague. My name is Daniel Lau. I'm professor of electrical engineering here at the University of Kentucky and a certified professional engineer. and I just want to point out that on the evidence provided by the applicant about negative effects on properties, I did not notice a control group. So the fact that his study does not suggest in any way that the property values are any more than they would have been had those properties or the apartments not been built, what he said was that they stayed constant or some of them stayed constant. And of course, as you know, the effects of inflation suggest that that's, in fact, actually losing value on a property. So I just want to say that from a scientific perspective, that doesn't cut the mustard. So that's all. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Come forward and come on. Yes, sir. My name is Simms Bartello. I live on Lynette in Stonewall. I'm a disabled veteran. I moved back to Lexington when my time in the Marines was over because it's Lexington. You know, I could have moved anywhere in the United States because I enlisted out of Oregon. So that's a long way from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. And I had grown up in Lexington when I wasn't going to boarding school. And, I mean, Lexington is just, it's Americana. You know, it's a small town, and it has a good feeling to it. It's the kind of place that you want to raise your family and see your kids grow up. And neighborhoods like Stonewall or Shadeland East, you know, the area behind Lansdowne, they're very Lexington neighborhoods, big lots and the ranch homes. And it's, you know, where you imagine kids growing up and going to schools like Cassidy and Stonewall Elementary. And I just, you know, those neighborhoods aren't old enough to be protected in a way that like a historic area, but they should be. I mean, it's a lack of foresight that we wouldn't protect neighborhoods like Stonewall because they are so Lexington and they are so, you know, what attracts people to Lexington and what attracts people to America for that matter. And I just, it's not whether we can or can't fit apartments or townhomes in that area. It's whether we should or we shouldn't. And I absolutely do not think that we should. We should protect neighborhoods like that as much as we can because that's who we are. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Come on forward, sir. My name is Alice Dayner, the other half of Gary at 3368 Grasmere. Five words. What's wrong with green space? Thank you. Thank you. That's okay. Yes, sir. Hi. My name is Julian Campbell. I'm actually from a different neighborhood nearby. I have a good friend who lives here. I'm an advocate in general for good ecological planning in the city. I just want to point out real quick some details that you should look into with more precision than we can do today. But something that someone mentioned about the market survey for the apartments should be clarified. He was talking about the apparent increase or steady price of houses close to previous apartments in the neighborhood. but he didn't really compare that increase or steady flat rate with the general increase in the neighborhood. In other words, was that any different than the average throughout the whole neighborhood? The statistics need to be looked at in more detail to get a better feel for what he said. The second thing is the floodplain is confusing. There's various versions of the map of the floodplain, and I want you to look in more detail at the runoff potential from the parking lots and the road of Higman Hill itself. Some of the maps back here on the big map I was looking at, the person at the fire department was looking at that. The 100-year floodplain is in the front here, but it seems to wrap around in some of the old maps on the back there. So is there some sort of extra potential for flooding around the north side of that? It's not clear to me from the maps. Another point, obviously no one has mentioned it much, but the obvious point is it is obvious green space. And this is a matter for the council, I suppose. why isn't this already in some sort of green space plan? There's adjacent property on this side to the east, which is vacant and obviously in the floodplain, the parks across the road. So to what extent does this development impact upon the bigger potential of having a better green space plan in this whole area? Lastly but not least, there's many details which we could go into but we won't. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions, but there's many gray areas and nuances that come out of those conditions, which really it's a shame to put those off into the future in terms of some city employee looking at something and giving me a recommendation. Just one little thing I will mention, lastly, and let you go, is he mentions, if you look at the tree inventory, it says the commonest tree there is pear. And actually I've been to this site and the commonest tree is pear, but it's not the nice pear. So a lot of the tree population on this site is not what we want. It's the Bradford Calorie or flowering pear, which is horrible, nasty thorns that should be banned. So the whole assessment of the trees on the property needs to be kind of redone in terms of what the good trees should be. Thank you. Ms. Cannabis, do you want to provide your closing? Thank you. That's very generous of you. I didn't expect to do this. Really, what I had to say was a summary, because we've given you so much talking about various aspects that concern us with this rezone change. And so you have heard this, that Stonewall neighborhood neighbors overwhelmingly do not want apartments in the seven acres at 1580 Higby Mill Road. We've had a lot of meetings with the applicants. They've made a lot of alterations in order to make us happy. We've walked the area. We've attended the applicants' meetings. We've held our own meetings. We've suggested that many neighbors who never heard of the comprehensive plan take a look and see how this could be defended by using it. And we've met with the planning staff many times and talked to them and all. After full three months of discussion, guess what? The Stonewall neighbors still do not want apartments on those seven acres. They're a remnant of territory. They've got a lot of problems, and we've encapsulated those, I think, in speaking to you with all of our speakers here. Neighborhood character simply does not accommodate having that much increased density, the 32, in such a big building, the length of Rupp Arena, so close to existing residents. The Planning Commission's own zoning committee, and indeed in the agenda today, agreed that any development at 1580 should border the neighbors with less density than this plan for 32 apartments. It said 20. That point has been made. The comprehensive plan, when giving examples on page 102 of its recommendation for infilling higher-density dwellings near existing homes, suggested townhomes for this amount of usable but undeveloped acreage. It never exceeds the density of townhomes. It never goes to the apartment rating. On page 102 of the comprehensive plan, In your consideration of what's best for Lexington and its surrounding areas, which this is part of, please consider that R1T zoning is already in place and there is no necessary reason to change the zoning. The Stonewall neighbors request that you do not rezone 1580 Higby Mill Road, and we thank you for all of your time and patience for listening. Thank you. Thank you, Karen M. What we're going to do at this point, I'm going to ask from commission members if they have any questions for anyone that would be applicant, opposition, or staff before we get to rebuttal and closing statements. I'm not seeing anyone. So at this point, we will go on to any rebuttal and or closing statements. And Mr. Kalani. Yes, sir. All right. A couple of statements that have been made I'd like to address. First one is basically you heard a lot about the floodplain. And there is a specific procedure we have to follow in order to build on the site. And then Article 19, that's the article, will be the one we have to follow. And then just for the people that don't understand the process, I walked quickly through it. First, we have to get an approval from U.S. Fish and Wildlife. There's no endangered species on site. Second, we have to submit our drawings and engineering calculation to Division of Engineering. After all these two are met, an application has to go to FEMA for their review. So there's multiple of steps that need to go forward before this project can proceed. If anywhere in these three steps or four steps it does not pass, the project does not pass. So it's not like if you approve this project today, you're giving us a green light to go start disturbing the floodplain. So there's multiple of steps and hoops we have to go through it. Number two about the green space. I mean, there's nothing green on this hatch. I believe we meet the green space requirement. On the traffic study, I mean, as the staff mentioned, we are not required to do a traffic study. We met with the neighbor multiple of occasions, and if we did not care, we did not meet with them. And every time they express some concern to us, we go back to the drawing board and redraw it. The building density went from 48 units to 32 units. The height went from 35 to 25, 26. We have berm. We have landscape buffer. We pushed the building away. The closest is 87 feet to the property line. And we removed the balcony along the back. So on the traffic, we conducted traffic count twice, one time along in front of the property to address what's going to impact on Higby Mer Road. The staff made a comment. the study needs to be done on the intersection of Higby Mill Road and Clay's Mill. We revised the study and additional traffic count to address that comment. And both study proves that the impact is going to be insignificant, less than two seconds of delay on the intersection. And on R1T I just want to, we met with the neighbors and as you know this property is on R1T And by R1T, it has some right to be developed. And we have two sketches that I never, I did not have them in my brochure. I'd like to present them. Mr. Kalani, you've got two minutes. Okay. So basically, as you can see on these two sketches, as I mentioned earlier, there is a 30 feet right-of-way that separates this property from the adjoining property owner. So we can build a road where half of it can be within the right-of-way, and half of it can be on this property. And this layout can be an alternative that can be done right now. We believe this layout with these townhouses, they're going to be larger than the building. Each townhouse here is 22, 23 feet. You're talking about 12 of them, so approximately 235 feet. The building is 175 feet, 176 feet. This one here, we are 50 feet. We are basically 10 feet from the third property line. The other one, we are 187 feet and 100 feet from the property line. This one here has no fences or landscape buffer. That one we are proposing has a landscape buffer and fence and 28 feet of tree dense vegetation. And this is legitimate layout. It can be approved through a final development plan and no need for its own change. And the size of the buildings that we are proposing is similar to any other size apartment building in Lexington. And if you notice, this development, basically, we are not in the middle of Stonewall. I mean, we are at the boundary. We are next to major roadway. And we are respecting the neighborhood. We're trying to be compatible. We reduce the height. We reduce the density. And then the table we discussed before, it does show our density. And with respect to the comment from the professor earlier, this is how we calculate density by the zoning ordinance. And that's the definition we follow. And that's the rule we follow. And so basically you can tell. We are proposing a density of 4.6, which is less than the density you find in R1D, which is 4.5 to 5.8. We are proposing to cap the height to less than R1D. We are proposing to have more landscape buffer. We are proposing to have more rear yard. Please wrap up, sir. And then we met and we addressed every concern that provided to us. and we ask you to consider this development, to approve it, with the revision of the condition that the staff have from 20 units to 32 units. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Opposition? Mr. Franklin, you want to give it a try? I do have three quick comments in response to Jihad's comments as well. I want to point out that the buildings were moved back from the property line, not to appease the neighbors or because we said it was a concern. It's to avoid gas line easements. It wasn't to make us happy. There is lots of green space there. For his second point about the usable green space, there's lots of green on there. You just can't get to any of it or it's a floodplain. That is not usable open space. There's no pedestrian access to the southeast corner of developable woods, wooded area there. Everything that's on the property side of the South Elkhorn Creek is all in the floodplain. That doesn't qualify to me, at least, as usable open space. also the reduction from three stories to two stories again was not was not to make us happy it was to get closer to the staff's recommendations so i just ask that you keep that in mind and again thank you for your time thank you sir staff rebuttal thank you chairman owens um i really have three points first The applicant, towards the end of their presentation, presented Article 6 of the zoning ordinance, Article 6-7 related to the Planning Commission and the Council imposing conditions on any property that's proposed for rezoning. And what I heard was they were claiming that if a conditional zoning restriction were put on this property, as the staff has proposed, that that would be an unreasonable, something that was unreasonable and create a hardship for the applicant. And what I would respond to that is that the existing zoning does allow for a reasonable use of their land. They can currently construct 20, 40, whatever the applicant is claiming, number of townhouses on their property. So there's no requirement that they move forward with a zone change. In fact, a zone change is not guaranteed. There's always a risk when the applicant asks for a rezoning of a subject property. So they have, with the current zoning, a reasonable use that's allowed, as Jihad just claimed, they can come to the Planning Commission with a new development plan with the existing zoning and have a reasonable use of their property. So I don't believe the staff is proposing anything that would deny them the use of their property or create a hardship. Second, the character of the area is what prompted the staff to propose a conditional zoning restriction related to the density in that area in order to, in essence, protect the nearby single-family residential neighborhood. If the applicant does not agree with that conditional zoning restriction, the staff believes that the existing zoning, the R1T zoning, is more than appropriate at this location. And it still permits a variety of housing options or choices within that area, which is also supported by the comprehensive plan. And if there's a question about density, the applicant's correct. We calculate the density across the entire subject property. In this instance, the floodplain obviously is about half of the property or more, and so it reflects a lower number in terms of density. they in their presentation packet indicated that they had 1.33 acres of buildable area in the area where they're showing development and when i calculated the density of just that area if the planning commission cares to know it's 24 dwelling units per acre on the 1.33 acres so that gives you an idea as we compare to other apartment complexes where they don't have this kind of floodplain area. So that's it from the staff. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Thank you. Any questions from the commission for anyone before I close this part of the hearing for any testimony or factual information? If not, I will close this part of the hearing, open it up. What I'll do, I would offer to go with a motion and save any comments for after motions on the floor Mr. Burrow? Yes? Or Ms. Plumlee? First, I want to commend the neighbors on a well-presented afternoon. You were passionate in your statements, and you had findings that certainly create a lot of thought on this end of the bench. I would like to move for disapproval of CDP 2016-3 of Windale Subdivision. Findings. The proposed R3 zone is not in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan for the following reasons. Theme D, Goal 3, Objective C, the proposed zone does not preserve the existing urban neighborhood. Theme A, Goal 3, Objective C, the proposed zone does not minimize disruption of natural features, including floodway and floodplain. Theme A, Goal 2, Objective A, the proposed zone does not preserve the context of a family of the larger lot size of single neighborhood. Two, the existing R1T zone is appropriate and compatible with the existing Stonewall neighborhood based on the following reasons. The existing R1T zone allows for alternative housing choices. B, the existing R1T zone allows for context-sensitive and compatible development with the existing Stonewall neighborhood. There has been no unanticipated change of a social, physical, or economic nature that has occurred since the adoption of the 2013 comprehensive plan. So moved. Thank you. We have a motion for disapproval. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and seconded for disapproval. Mr. Chair, it's me. I think that the motion was made as to the ZDP, but it should be made as to the zone change. I'm sorry. I need to correct that for the record. You want to amend your motion? It's on page 5 under item number 3. Okay. I amend my motion to address MAR 2016-1 Turwell LLC for disapproval. No, I still second. Motion is made for disapproval of MAR 2016-1 Turwell LLC. It was seconded by Mr. Wilson. before we vote. Any comments? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just to make sure that the vote is clear, since this is kind of a negative vote, that those who are favoring disapproval should vote yes, and then others would vote the other way. Just to make sure we're voting in the right way. Thank you. Any other comments? Yes, sir. I guess I'm going to support the motion, but I just want them to understand that there can be 24 townhouses or more built there. And we heard a lot of testimony that you didn't mind townhouses. But if they come back with these townhouses, which they have the right to do, I hope we don't see an overflow crowd down here to object. Any other questions? Any other comments? Yes, ma'am. I'd just like to say I would like to reiterate, I guess, my colleagues' comments. Thank you for being so organized and so well-planned in your presentation. I appreciate that. But I also wanted to put in there a little bit about you had a lot of great figures about apartments and multiple family dwelling. But the real estate trends, as I understand them right now, are people are tending to move more toward that type of living. Whether it be somebody my age or somebody younger, we don't want to maintain yards anymore. So just kind of keep that in mind when you're looking at those multitudes of numbers that are out there, because I keep looking at it, too. But thank you so much for your time today. Anyone else? If not, let me close by saying, you know, one, I think everyone recognizes this land will be developed at some point in time. I can appreciate density. I think this is just a little bit much for me considering what is surrounding it. The property is constrained, you know, roadway, limited access, floodplain. easements. So it is difficult. I commend the applicant for working and working and working some more to try and make it work. And I think to try and be a good neighbor in this. I'm going to ask for a vote here in just a moment. Let me offer this. Anyone that wishes to stay around, because we do have more on the agenda, is more than welcome. However, take anything that you want to discuss concerning this, take it outside in the hallway, give us the opportunity to continue with the agenda. Okay? So at that time, the motion is for disapproval. It was seconded by Mr. Wilson. So all of those in, let me just say, vote when he comes up on the screen. And as I said, this is for disapproval. The motion on MAR 2016-1 was for disapproval. That motion did pass. The request is denied. Thank you. Thank you. As I said, please go on outside. We do have another items on the agenda. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. This is at the bottom. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. We need a motion to postpone the ZDP. Postpone the development plan. Thank you. Mr. Chair, move to postpone ZDP 2016-3, Windale Subdivision. Try that one more time. Try that one more time, closer to the microphone. Mr. Chair, move to postpone ZDP 2016-3, Windale Subdivision. Okay, thank you. folks please go on outside motion is for a postponement of ZDP 2016-3 Wendell subdivision do we have a second second all those in favor please please vote or let me just say please vote when it comes up on the screen okay thank you thank you Mr. Salley At the bottom of page 6, it's Jake Reardon, Zone Map Amendment, Ballandale Subdivision, MAR 2016-2, property located on Vercels Road. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Our next item is MAR 2016-2, a request by Jake Reardon. This is an amended zone change application. It is for properties at 1501, 1505, 1507, and 1509 Versailles Road. They're requesting a rezoning from our mixed-use 2 zone, which is the neighborhood corridor zone, to the neighborhood business B1 zone. Before we get started, we've received 16 emails or letters in opposition to the request and a petition with approximately 150 signatures. The subject property is located at the intersection of Delmont Drive and Versailles Road. And I'll move over here to the other map. Versailles Road is primarily a commercial corridor from the subject property moving back to the east. Or excuse me, yeah, east. And then is residential, again, approximately from the area of the subject property moving west in this general vicinity. Delmont Drive is a local or residential collector, possibly, that has a traffic light at the intersection there and then pulls traffic to the north and then borders a railroad line. The applicant is proposing the B1 zone, which would be similar to B1 on the south of the subject property as well as the east. Previously, the applicant had proposed B3 zoning at this location, and the staff recommended disapproval, which prompted the applicant to modify their application and now request the B1 zone. When they modified their application, they also removed the property at 105 Delmont Drive from the application, so it now only incorporates the four parcels that are currently zoned MU2 at this intersection. The applicant is proposing to develop a 1,200-square-foot retail building with associated off-street parking to the rear and only accessible from Delmont Drive. The other, I mentioned the kind of line of commercial use along this area being right at the subject property, but there's also a few other larger uses in the vicinity. just adjacent to the west is a senior housing development, the Christian Towers, and it sets pretty far back off of Versailles Road. There's also vacant, nonconforming residential structures directly across Delmont Drive from the subject property. And then several of the businesses, or at least one of the businesses across Versailles Road is the Days Motel, and it's a nonconforming hotel in a B1 zone. Other uses in the vicinity. This was my graphic to show the divide of where commercial zoning and use is primarily towards downtown and residential zoning primarily going towards the airport in Keeneland along Versailles Road. And then this property is situated at the entrance to an existing residential neighborhood. And in this aerial photo, you can see the two multifamily buildings across Delmont that are currently vacant but are situated in a B1 zone. This is photos of the individual properties. Each currently does have a structure standing on it, and they have been maintained in sort of a residential character. So the residential structures that were built there, although the zoning changed dating back to the early 1970s, the structures have been maintained. They've been modified in some cases fairly significantly, but the residential character does still remain, and the setbacks that were established there are still there. And those are, again, 1501 Versailles is at the corner of Delmont, and then as you move to the west, 1505 with the red front porch. 1507 Versailles Road is the more one-story structure, and then 1509 has the dormer on the front. Looking towards downtown along Versailles Road, you can see the commercial nature of this corridor. This is the Days Motel situated across the street from the subject property as well as the Fuller Saw Shop, both in B1 zones. And then this is to just show the existing rear yards of the subject properties. There is an existing fence along the Delmont Drive parcel, but it has primarily in the past been used for the parking and access to connect all four properties. So historically, the two parcels at 1507 and 1509 were rezoned in the 1970s to a P1 zone, and they have been a daycare center most recently for a number of years. in 1988 the corner at 1501 was rezoned to a b1 zone to allow just one use the display and sale of art and then in 1994 the adjoining 1505 lot was also rezoned to b1 to accommodate the expansion of the art gallery in every case when these properties were rezoned they were restricted in order to accommodate the adjacent residential neighborhood to the north. And then when the gallery closed at the corner, 1501 and 1505, there was a proposal to expand the conditional zoning restrictions to allow a few more uses there. But still, once the use is left there, the properties remained vacant for a number of years. and most recently in 2005 there was the rezoning to the MU2 zone. Since the MU2 zone was put in place with conditional zoning restrictions, the properties, although they had a development plan, have never been brought forward with a final development plan, so they have remained in either residential or commercial use, I believe kind of going back and forth over time. But in each case, the conditional zoning restrictions were put in place to restrict uses on the property to respect the neighborhood and protect the neighborhood. The petitioner is contending that the requested rezoning is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, citing goals and objectives related to infill and redevelopment that respects the area's context and design features, encouraging positive and safe interactions in neighborhoods, as well as enabling infill and redevelopment that creates jobs where people live, attracting and retaining high-paying jobs, upholding the urban service area concept by encouraging compact and contiguous and or mixed-use development. I guess that's it. And the staff in doing our research noted that the subject properties are part of our Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan. I just wanted to highlight the Small Area Plan and its recommendations. It had five general recommendations. The one that the staff felt was most relevant was Versailles Road corridor improvements. Particularly, the goal says to improve the aesthetics and function of the corridor for vehicles and make it more accessible to pedestrians and cyclists. So when the applicant brought forward a B3 zone with a gas station, the staff could not find a way that that really fell in line with the small area plan. With the new proposed development and a B1 zone, which is a considerable step down, we do believe that it is a better fit and more fully coincides with the concept that's proposed by the small area plan. And specifically, the building is set back at 20 feet from the road rather than 100 feet from the road. And then the parking is in the rear, so that makes it more pedestrian-friendly and pedestrian-oriented in this area. In evaluating the amendment to the zone change application, the staff can now agree with the applicant that the proposed B-1 zone is in agreement with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and the recent Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan. The proposed land use is compatible with the immediate area, and the B1 zoning was formerly present on this property for half the site. And since B1 zoning is the most common zone from this point towards town, we believe that it is compatible with the immediate area. The applicant has offered to do a buffer, landscape buffer, along the rear property line. I believe the staff believes that that is an appropriate addition to their development plan. And we also believe that some land uses should be restricted at this location in order to make the property more in line with the recommendations of being neighborhood-oriented and pedestrian-friendly. which was suggested by the small area plan. So the staff utilized the former conditional zoning restrictions and thought that most of those remained appropriate at this location with a few small changes. And so the staff and the zoning committee both recommended approval of the rezoning for four reasons there in terms of being in agreement with the comprehensive plan, and also that the B1 zone is appropriate at this location. The conditional zoning restrictions that we're proposing are prohibiting nine uses on the property and then also three other use restrictions. First, that there be a 10-foot landscape buffer at the rear property line and include the retention of the existing privacy fence or replacement if necessary. Outdoor lighting should be pointed away from the residential area and have a maximum height of 20 feet for any pole lights. And then last, the freestanding signs be limited to 10 feet in height at this location. We believe that these are appropriate restrictions for the four lots to ensure greater compliance with the comprehensive plan and the small area plan and would be consistent with prior decisions of the Planning Commission and the Council. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the proposal and the staff's recommendation. Yes. One quick question. Yes, sir. Under the prohibited uses, what's the difference between number 5 and number 10? 10. It says an automobile service station, and it says an automobile and vehicle, the fueling station. That's a good question. And automobile service stations have been in the ordinance for decades, and that's your typical gas station or service, like tire centers, so sales and or servicing of the vehicle, putting new tires on. An automobile vehicle refueling station specifically has to do with compressed natural gas. So we've listed it in the ordinance as a separate use, and it has different regulations because of the natural gas element. and safety issues with that. Okay. Thank you. I've learned something new. Other questions? No? Okay. Thank you, Ms. Wayne. Thank you. Mr. Martin, I won't forget about you this time. Thank you. I like to think that I am unforgettable. The preliminary development plan that you see is ZEP 2016-4 Ballondale subdivision. As amended, it is on page 8 of your agenda. You can see it is located at the corner of Versailles Road in this location with Delmont Drive, or Road Drive, at this location. This is, of course, headed out of town. You've got Day's Inn located over here along with a grocery store. They are proposing a retail building in this location oriented to the street in compliance with the B-1 regulations. They are showing access off Delmont back in this location with associated parking. You can see they're showing pedestrian access into the entrances of these retail establishments. It's 12,000 square feet, one story that they are proposing. We have fairly typical sign-offs for a plan such as this. We do have one of important note, the fenestration and architectural building features relative to Versil's Road. That's always a concern with B1 neighborhood that we get an attractive development oriented to this frontage. Vercels Road has a corridor study that's been done with improvement recommendations, and they do reflect these. That's not been funded. Staff's not sure when it may be funded. It'll be a state project. However, you can see by looking at your agenda, we still have three discussion items on this particular plan that we really have not been able to completely resolve with the applicant. First off is this dumpster location. We don't see these on preliminary plans quite often because of what it takes to design them properly and the level of review. but you have to have 50 feet of clearance to back out of these things secondly the trucks have to be able to get out of this site by turning around i mean they can't back out into delmont well that location is very unlikely not going to work unless they provide some sort of turnaround well again we have parking they are only seven over on their parking you know they're providing based on retail, they're providing their required parking of 26, and they're providing 33. So, they're only seven over. So, we're already looking at potentially losing parking just to address the dumpster issue. In a related, the next two discussion items are also related. You see, this is a patio sidewalk area, and that's a very nice feature. It's also 33 feet wide. That's, again almost half the square footage that you see here of patio. Generally, when we see large patios, and again, it's a nice feature, but you're going to have seating out there. A lot of times it's going to be restaurant seating. Well, again, what we're looking at is potentially an impact on the parking, which brings us to your last discussion item, number 10, the potential parking impact for restaurants and uses other than retail and staff sees this a lot and we don't mind sharing that with you we deal with this a lot when people come to our office and talk about restaurants in retail areas we review the parking and whether or not they have adequate parking and can meet it because it is a higher generator and again right now we're seeing they're meeting their retail parking with seven over potential negative impact with the dumpster if you start putting a restaurant in here which is generated by seats you may have a higher parking generator and we're just trying to avoid problems in the future for this particular applicant and this development and we've not been able to fully resolve that issue with them at this point i believe this is perhaps the easiest to resolve that's not going to work there without a turnaround of some sort and that can be resolved at a final development plan and we're we will see a final development plan. But again, we've yet to have a good resolution to our concerns and any discussions with the applicant on how they expect to address that. We're hoping that the discussion that you hear today will satisfy you and staff that these can be resolved. But again, the potential parking conflict could be very, very significant on this property and then again on the neighbors, on Delmont, on the street system as well. So that's the reason you still see those discussion items on your agenda today. Your subdivision committee's last recommendation on this plan was one of postponement. Thank you, Mr. Martin. We have to answer your questions. Questions for Mr. Martin? Not at this time. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, member of the Planning Commission, my name is Jihad Halani, and we are in agreement with the staff about the zoning, and we refer to the last four items, as Mr. Martin mentioned. We like to refer them to the final development plan. and so if this is get approved and is going to move to a final development plan stage, we can resolve all this discussion item at the final development plan stage, if possible. Thank you. Any questions at this time? Mr. Catalani, do you have any insight as to the patio, sidewalk, parking impacts? Any insight at this time? No, sir. We basically, as Ms. Wade mentioned, the original layout was basically for a gas station, and there was some concern from the staff as well as from the neighbors. So basically we changed the use into B1 zone, which is as zone right now is MU2 zone, which is part of what's permitted, is similar to what's permitted in B1 zone, and that's what will be the same use as a B1 zone. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Others that would like to speak in favor of this? No? Okay. In opposition, I presume you were probably here a couple of hours ago when we got started. We want to hear from you. Let's not be repetitive. Let's try and be brief. Spokespersons are more than welcome. Come forward. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I have about seven minutes of Paul Lestinger, one time Hamilton Park, Lexington, just off Versailles Road. I have about seven minutes, and we have two other people, about three to five minutes. This has been a very fluid application that has changed from B3 to B1 quite quickly. And I will say it's been a little hard for me to keep up for my presentation with all the changes. I do represent, there aren't as many people as Stonewall here, but I do represent some of those 150 people who did sign the petition against development. In my capacity as a member of the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan Steering Committee, President of the Hamilton Park Westgate Neighborhood Association, and founding member of Friends of Versailles Road, I work with neighborhood residents and city planners to ensure the beautification and vitality of our corridor. Since 2012, our city and our state Department of Transportation have spent $375,000 studying the Versailles Road corridor and the surrounding Cardinal Valley neighborhood. Committees held discussions on corridor improvements prior to the World Equestrian Games and prior to the highly successful Breeders' Cup. How can we beautify our gateway corridor, foster a vibrant retail environment, and increase the livability for residents? Thankfully, the 2015 Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan, adopted into the comprehensive plan less than one year ago, provides us with the guidelines for future design and growth. A key objective of the small area plan is strong and stable residential neighborhoods through neighborhood conservation. The Cardinal Valley small area plan stresses ensuring an adequate supply of affordable housing to meet the needs of Cardinal Valley residents, expanding home ownership for low and moderate households, and ensuring safe, attractive, and well-maintained residential environments. It also recommends increasing the aesthetics of Versailles Road to function as a major gateway to the city. Chipping away at the 50 contiguous, affordable, and well-maintained residential buildings, and by doing so, chipping away at the residential character of this neighborhood, will not achieve these objectives. The residential section of Versailles Road from Delmont Drive West to Oxford Circle is the most attractive section of Versailles Road, with its unique homes, spacious lots, and mature trees. As downtown develops, we find these houses become more and more attractive to homebuyers wishing to set down roots and raise families while being close to all that downtown offers. A zone change from the appropriate mixed use, which supports residential units and serves as a gradual transition from the corridor's business district to the east and senior citizens' apartment directly to the west, is also contrary, a zone change is contrary to the comprehensive and small area plan directives to uphold the urban service area concept by, and I quote, compact, contiguous, and or mixed-use sustainable development within the urban service area. This is theme E, goal number 1B. That is what we now have. A description of these properties, and I'm going to give it again, I know staff gave it, is as follows. Historically, the western two lots had been zoned P1 and were occupied as a child daycare center. In 88, the corner lot was conditionally rezoned from R1C to B1, with the only allowed use limited to the display and sale of art. And I think that's an important distinction, that it was a limited allowed use. In 1994, the adjoining P1 lot was again conditionally rezoned to B1, again to accommodate this expansion of the art gallery. Such restrictive conditional zoning, says staff, was applied in each of those cases to limit the possibility of business activity adversely affecting the adjoining residential areas to the north and west, since those residents actively participated in those rezoning public hearings. When the gallery closed and the buildings on that portion on the adjacent lot again received considerable attention when the property owner proposed a mixed-use development with residential units above at this corner, the development, the mixed-use development was approved, again with conditional zoning, to prohibit a number of the more intense business uses that would be possible and that could be detrimental to an established neighborhood. So we see that past zone changes have been approached judiciously and with full consideration for the residential area and with the exact knowledge of the proposed retail business to make sure it would conform to the character of this long-established neighborhood. We now have the 2015 Small Area Plan to further guide us, and its recommendations for stressing neighborhood conservation and affordable housing support the current MU-2 zone. we ask you to deny the applicant's request for zone change. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Singer. Others? Hi, my name is Lane Boldman. I'm currently the president of the Cardinal Valley Neighborhood Association, where this property resides. The Neighborhood Association only just got regrouped within the last year, so I want to point out that lack of people in the audience is not a representation of lack of interest at all, but my neighborhood has a lot of lower income people, and it's hard for them to get off work. Also, the plan changed very recently, and so it's taken our folks a little while to kind of regroup and reassess what the situation was. We invited the developer to come and talk to us so that people could understand it better, and that was only within the last week. So I want to make that point. Now, I'm not representing the Neighborhood Association officially. We did talk about this issue and we have a kind of a consensus, but we didn't have a formal vote. So I'll make that clear that these are my comments. So I wish to comment. I live at 114 Woodford Drive and I sent a copy of this to you all. I actually have a typo on my address there. But I wish to comment on the proposed redevelopment of Versailles Road in Delmont. I have been following the evolution of the proposed development on this corner, which makes several comments. First, I'm pleased that the Planning Commission did not approve the previous proposal for a change to B3 with plans for a gas station for this neighborhood. Such a development would have been entirely inappropriate for this area. We certainly heard it from the neighbors. Second, in considering the revised proposal, and we probably would have many more signatures if this had not been taking place during the major snowstorm on that. I'll point that out. Second, in considering this revised proposal, I've seen the new design, and while I can appreciate that the developer made substantial changes to the original proposal, I still believe that this current proposal, B1 zoning with retail development, is equally inappropriate as the gas station. First, Cardinal Valley has been highlighted, as mentioned, as an area of special need and special design attention, as outlined in the small area plan. We are a neighborhood on the edge. We are trying to recover and recoup and revitalize. And chipping away at parts of the neighborhood at this point in time are very stressful to us. We are really trying to make the best of this plan and turn this neighborhood around. The revitalization of the Neighborhood Association is part of that. So the plan calls for this area to be redeveloped in a comprehensive and thoughtful way after significant input from residents and other stakeholders. We've spent a year on how this area is to be redesigned. So looking at the small area plan, I don't have that here as a presentation. I wish I had thought to do that. But on page 19 of the small area plan, it shows the current zoning for this area, which is mixed use, as mentioned. This is an appropriate transition moving east to west along Versailles Road as it transitions from Trafton Street, which is B1 neighborhood business, two mixed-use, and then two residential as you proceed down Versailles Road. On page 40 of the small area plan recommendations, the plan highlights a significant area, including this Versailles Road corridor beginning at Halls Lane, which is a couple blocks down from this. So this is included as neighborhood conservation area. This is defined on page 41 of the plan as an area that should, quote, increase affordable housing stock and promote a proactive, sustainable community through program outreach. So housing stock is of utmost importance to this area. It also states on page 42 of the small area plan that the goal of this area is, quote, to expand home ownership opportunities, promote engaged communities and citizen neighborhood involvement, directly and positively impact the quality and appearance of the housing stock, ensure safe residential environments. The current proposal by Mr. Rodin, which would remove four 1920s residential structures that are original to the neighborhood and maintained to code, and replace with single-story non-residential retail commercial space on a block that is primarily residential in nature, and as Paula mentioned, was zoned to keep that as contiguous as possible, is counterproductive to most of these goals in the small area plan. These four properties are well maintained and do not fall into the category of substandard housing. Also, the mixed use two special provisions within a small area plan calls for professional services and residential. It states the P1 zone shall be required on at least 75% of the non-residential area. Since the plan for the proposal is calling for a zone change to B1, I do not see the current proposal to satisfy this requirement. In the same area of Versailles Road, there's an overlay identified as the Versailles Road corridor improvements, which specify increasing safety and function of the Versailles Road by improving vehicular cyclist and pedestrian accessibility. The report goes on to state, quote, These recommendations aim at revitalizing and ensuring housing diversity and providing economic development opportunities and services, while tying it all together with open space and transportation improvements. I will note that this identified stretch of Versailles Road within the neighborhood conservation area in the small development plan contains approximately 50 residential structures, all largely original to the neighborhood, largely well-maintained. The proposal as it stands now would end up removing nearly 10% of the residential nature of this Versailles Road corridor, including one of the primary entrances to the neighborhood, which is a huge concern to a lot of the people in the neighborhood association. It would reduce housing in a residential conservation area, would increase traffic, and is shown to have a high density of older population, hence the retirement home nearby, but also other residents in the neighborhood. It further recommends the small area plan that Oxford Circle becomes the anchor space for the community. If we are to consider the full planning process in this context with stakeholder and neighborhood engagement that has taken place over the last couple years for this study as part of the redevelopment of Cardinal Valley with significant stakeholder input, then we wish to encourage that retail development happen in the Oxford Circle area rather than encourage additional retail restaurant structures that sprawl into the residential zones and transition in the mixed-use areas, as this proposal does. Lastly, I will say that Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan and the 2013 Comprehensive Plan should take precedent over individual zone change requests at this time, particularly since the Small Area Plan is in preparation for implementation. We want to make this plan successful. We are ready to make it work. That's why we've come together as a neighborhood to see what we can do. But the concern is that just as we are starting to implement, we're going to be undermined by this being shipped away. So even though the proposed plan has attempted to use a former and outdated B1 zoning as part of the new proposal, the zone changes, the change from the 2013 plan, does not match the recommendations for the small area plan, in my opinion. and therefore I believe it is far more consistent to maintain this area's MU2. So as I stated, I'm currently president of the Cardinal Valley Neighborhood Association. I am not writing my comments in capacity of that, just as an individual, but I have heard a substantial amount of concerns from the neighbors and a lot of time on this matter. And in our last two neighborhood meetings, overwhelmingly the attendees are in opposition to both development proposals proposals that were prepared by Mr. Rodin and expressed an overwhelming interest in maintaining these properties as original residential structures. Residents felt by removing these existing properties, it would affect the integrity of this block and its residential nature. So my comments are reflective of that, of what I've heard from the neighbors. They simply just have not had time with this new proposal to fully digest how they would formally take a position. So that's my comments. Thank you, ma'am. Others? Could you put up the one I just gave you? My name is Amy Clark, and I live at 628 Castle Road. We're seeing all over the city this kind of nibbling, quite a number of B1 and B3 zone changes along Winchester Road and also South Broadway, as well as now on Versailles. and it's really important when you have such a great plan that you put so much time and care into and so much money and so much neighborhood input that you follow it. I thought it would be helpful for you to see exactly what it is that you just heard about. This is the plan for how to use and develop and target the areas, And what you'll see is the residential neighborhood conservation area is that whole area from Delmont on along down to Oxford Circle. Just to reiterate what was said, that Oxford Circle is a node for commercial activity, retail activity, Trafton and the industrial at the other end, but in between it's scheduled for neighborhood conservation and in particular increase in affordable housing. That's actually the number one goal on the page of goals that accompanies this neighborhood conservation. I'm probably telling you what you already know because you reviewed and approved this small area plan I think it was last April, right? So maybe not be so repetitive. The other thing I wanted to talk about is if you could put up the population. This is an exhibit from the comprehensive plan. It's called Food Access. It's got purple on it. Okay. Okay. And perhaps right side. Well, I see why you're doing it. sideways. Okay, just to tell you, the light bluish means light on cars. Very few people have cars. And the two darker shades of bluish purple mean high population density. The darker of the shades means both high population density and light on cars. Okay, so considering Versailles Road with one of the most heavily traveled transit routes, most popular bus routes. And can you find there Red Mile? That's pretty easy to spot. It looks like a paper clip. So then from there you can see the triangle, the blue, the dense blue triangle. The point is this area has the highest population density in the city. It's among the spots with the highest population density in this city. There's a need for housing, there's a need for affordable housing, and there's a need for the sort of stability, neighborhood stability, that goes with that to build neighborhoods that work together and work well. The existing zoning, the mixed use zoning, hasn't actually been implemented with new developments in buildings, although there's been a great deal of mix in the use over the years, as you have learned, for these four little properties, the subject property. Mixed use here would enable a use on the ground floor of some commercial use and in the upper stories, some residential density. It's a good buffer between, as was said, between the high-density senior citizens' home, which is an affordable development, immediately next door to that on Versailles, and all the lower-level residential density nearby. Isn't it ironic that for one of the highest population density areas in the city, There aren't whole throngs and tribes of people down here to tell you what they want and need. But what you have had is a long and careful planning process to say what's needed. The proposed development is replacing two-story buildings with one story. It's building out, not up. It's surrounded with paving. The plan submitted by the applicant says that it will eliminate 35,000 square feet of tree canopy. That's over half the lot in mature tree canopy. The applicant has offered and intends to put a tree buffer along the back lot line. it'll be our lifetime and our great children's before that really comes to much. So I had two reasons for mentioning population density, and one is just the press of the area and its needs. The other reason is that I noticed in earlier language that the applicant had a concern expressed that an MU-2 here would not be viable because it was said that it needs very high population density for the commercial on the first floor to work. And to that I have two things to say. One is that there is enormous population density in this area. You can see that. If you look on that map, can you find Loudoun and Lyme and go a little north? You may recall that last year, May, June or so, last summer maybe, you approved an Embrace apartment development at about 10th and Limestone at North Broadway Park. That's a mixed-use-two development. They even use the same engineer. So we see that the best minds can perhaps differ on whether a mixed-use-2 development is a viable enterprise here. Apparently, it seems to be so for what is actually not as high a density area at Tentham Limestone as here. So I would encourage you to think very carefully about all the time and care that's gone into the neighbors' work here and the work of the city and keep this a planned development. Thank you. Thank you. Others that would like to speak in regards to this? Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Barbara Fajok. I actually live at 1523 Versailles Road. I have nothing planned to say. I didn't know I was going to really speak. But I am actually in the block that this proposal is in. My husband and I bought a home in 2010. We spent two years living in this area in a rental property looking all over Lexington to find where we would call home. And we found it here on Versailles Road. So we have bought a home. We are currently restoring it. We consider this our community. We feel that from Delmont to Versailles Road down west toward Oxford Circle is a residential community. We live here permanently and on purpose. We are very involved. I shop all over Alexandria Drive, Garden Side, and Versailles Road area. We bike the area. We walk the area. And I just don't feel like this is a proper use. I feel like the residential area starts at Delmont and Versailles Road. I would like to keep it that way. And again, I live in a home that was built in 1920. I feel these homes have the right to be preserved. They're not going to be built again once they're torn down and something else is replaced with them. They're gone. They're gone for good. And I just don't feel that's the right way to do properties of this nature and to take down the character of Versailles Road and this area of town. This is a well-kept secret. This is the greatest part of town to live in. And we purposely chose to come here and live on this side after living two years in other parts of the town in rental properties. So I just want to let you know that we are really opposed to it, my husband and I. We love the area, would like to see it preserved, would like to see it move forward, and in the way that you all planned to move it forward and agreed to last year. So thank you very much for your time and trouble. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else that would like to speak? Yes, sir. Your name, sir. My name is Gary Bennett. I live at 125 Londonderry Drive in Cardinal Valley. I'd just like to substantiate and support those that are in opposition to this thing, this proposal. I do not, am not going to make any additional arguments other than to say that I just hate to see the neighborhood feel that is there on Rochelle's Road. I just hate to see that decline and this little bit of chipping away at the residential area. I did meet with the Neighborhood Association at the meeting on this past Tuesday and can confirm that, as the others have stated, that there is opposition within the neighborhood to this proposal, many of them, everyone at that meeting. We did ask the developers specific questions and did not feel that our questions were answered to justify this kind of proposal. Thank you. Anyone else? May I make one more brief point? One more brief point. Does anyone else wish to speak in opposition of this? Okay. Let them go, and then you can finish up. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. My name is John Boone. I live at 121 Hamilton Park, and I definitely oppose this proposed zone change. My family has lived here for 60 years. We love the street of Hamilton Park. It's an older, quaint, quiet, and beautiful neighborhood. It reminds me of neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Ashland Park, and Fairway. Those are neighborhoods that people want to move to. So neighborhoods that people want to move to are assets to Lexington, and they need to be preserved. So I feel if this zone change went through, it would start a precedent toward more and more congestion in this area and would undermine the quality over time. So I ask you, please do not change the zone of this. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Singer, I think I might let you save your additional comment for any closing statements or rebuttals. So anyone else, if not, questions from the commission to anyone, applicant, staff, opposition, any questions? No? Okay. If not, we'll close this part of the hearing. Well, I'm sorry. We'll move on to the rebuttals and closing statements. So, Mr. Khalani. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, just to address, basically, if you are in agreement with the comprehensive plan, we agree with the staff on their comments. Number one, basically, that restricted neighborhood business is in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan and the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan, as adopted by this body in April 2015. So we believe we are in agreement with both the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Small Area Plan for the Cardinal Valley neighborhood. And also, we met with the neighborhood last Tuesday, and there was some objecting and objector, and there was some people supporting this development. And they came forward and they told us basically, we encourage you, we like this kind of development to proceed in the neighborhood. So given the fact that this is an MU2 since 2005 and there was no success in developing, no final development plan or potential development has happened on this property, it does tell me something that this MU2 is not working for that particular location. And what we are proposing is neighborhood business. We heard a lot about neighborhood. We respect the neighborhood, and that's what we're proposing, a neighborhood business, so it can be serving the neighborhood in that area. And as for the orientation of the building right now, they are basically undesirable. They are oriented toward Versailles Road. I mean, Versailles Road. So we believe that we are in agreement with the staff, and we believe that this proposal is in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan as well as the small area plan that has been adopted, and we ask you to approve it as recommended by the staff to be restricted with the 10 conditions. Thank you, sir. Ms. Singer. Thank you again. To respond to Mr. Helani's comments about the neighborhood meeting, I think that he may have understood our politeness and pleasure at him coming to speak with us as approval for what he was doing. So I think he was perhaps misunderstanding the conversation. What I want to say is we don't know what Mr. Helani means by neighborhood business. What we have been given no specifics as to what might be there. What we have found that has been successful neighborhood business near this area of the corridor are small businesses who have come there with existing, longstanding customer relationships. We have Mickler's Equine Apparel. This is a historic building with an international reputation. It's been on the corridor for many years. And so that is a successful small business, local business. We have South Hill Gallery very near to this development, proposed development. Again, a historic structure purchased by the Mr. and Mrs. Drury with the understanding when they purchased the building that they would maintain the historic integrity of that building, which they have done. They are extremely successful. They brought with them from their location on Harrodsburg Road a very large clientele. Successful business, small business, neighborhood business. We have two other kinds of successful business in this area of Versailles Road. We have Smithers Sign Company. This is not a retail business. This is not a walk-in business. This is a longstanding, passed down from family, from father to son business that uses this location to design and build their product and take it out to their customers. We have electronic business machines. Again, a longstanding, small business, local business that, again, does not depend on retail, takes its products, its IBM products and so forth, out to its customers. So what we see as successful business in this area is either small business from people within the community or longstanding businesses that are owned by small families and serve the community. The developers spoke to us the other evening about perhaps it would be a barbershop or perhaps it would be a coffee shop. Well you know I went to the Village Branch Library the other day just down the road on Versailles Road because there was an empty building next to them and empty space next to them that used to be a barbershop. I wanted to see how that barbershop was doing. Well, it had closed down some time ago, and what was in its place was not a coffee shop. You would think that would be an ideal spot for a coffee shop next to a library where mothers and fathers and children are. No, it was a T-Mobile store selling cell phones that really prey on the community, the low-income community that is there, with their service plans that really do not benefit those who buy them. And that is an out-of-town company, a national company, cares nothing about the neighborhood, causes litter, causes other kinds of light and pollution. So all I'm saying is, in conclusion, small business, local business, individuals, we welcome them into this mixed-use area. A strip mall? Not so much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Staff, any? Nothing in rebuttal? No? Okay. Thank you. Thank everyone. I'll close this part of the hearing unless there's any questions from the commission before I do close it. Yes, sir. One quick question to the community representative. I'm a little confused. you had indicated that you had not had an opportunity to, in effect, digest the most recent plans. Because what I'm looking at is under the first, where I think the staff was actually disapproving, and then when they came back with an approval, they had prohibitive uses that were pretty well and pretty well defined. And I guess my question is... Right. Yeah, we had to call a special meeting of the Neighborhood Association so that people could actually get together, talk, and understand the changes to the plan. But even after all that, people had said, this is not what we want to see in this area. We think the character of the houses is, in fact, consistent with the neighborhood. It's just that people weren't quite sure how to address that from a legal standpoint or from a zoning standpoint. or from a, you know, people were not sure what to request of this body. So we tried to have some consensus on that, but the only consensus that could be relayed to me was that people very seriously wanted to maintain the residential character of the area. So with this change in the design, people didn't have a whole lot of time to digest it. It is harder for us to get our neighborhood together One, we're still rebuilding our infrastructure to connect everybody in the neighborhood. We're building up our Facebook page. We're building up the mail list with people right now because the neighborhood association a year ago was defunct. So it has been harder for us to get people together. But when people heard about this, they were signing petitions like crazy. And that was people walking through the snow at the worst time of year to try to collect signatures. And they were getting collected pretty rapidly. So, like I said, I hope that people don't see the lack of bodies in the room as representative because certainly at the special meeting we called, we had about 40 people there, and at the neighborhood meeting a week before, we had about a little more than that. So, like I said, we're kind of on the edge. We're really trying to regroup and recoalesce the neighborhood in order to make this new plan work. and feel like this is kind of undermining our attempts to really get this thing moving forward. People are really coming together now and trying to do something with this neighborhood in a way that's really positive. And so suddenly to remove four of the oldest homes on a corner where the residential starts, people feel like it really undermines their effort. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission? If not, I'm going to close it and open it up for motions at this point in time. Yes, ma'am. First, I would like to commend the opposition. I thought they presented some very thoughtful issues, particularly the small area plan. And to get 40 people come to a neighborhood meeting is quite commendable just in itself. Back to the plan, should this go forward, the development plan, there was a question about how much parking, and we don't do that until we get the plan officially. But if there's questions now about that parking, then it might overflow into the neighborhood, so that kind of comes to the front of my mind already. I think this would have a negative effect on a neighborhood, so if anybody's ready for a motion, I have one. We're ready for a motion. Okay, I move disapproval of MAR 2016-2 because it does not preserve the existing urban neighborhood. It's in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, Theme A, Goal 3, Objective 3, C. We have a motion for disapproval of MAR 2016-2. Do we have a second? Looks like no second, Ms. Plumlee. So that motion will die for lack of a second. Do we have another motion? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval MAR 2016-2 for the reasons provided by staff. Okay. We've got a motion for approval MAR 2016-2. Do we have a second? Second. Second. we do have a second miss mundy yes sir well they're they're included in the staff approved okay okay so the motion is for approval of mar 2016-2 we do have a second by miss mundy any other questions in regards to the motion If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. We have ZDP 2016-4. We've got three discussion items we need to take care of. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of the ZDP 2016-4. Motion's been made for approval. We've got discussion items. and there was seconded do you want to well the the applicant stated that you want to take this I want you to take this the applicant stated to do that at the time of final development plan I state the same thing so motion is for approval of ZDP 2016-4 with the 10 noted conditions provided by staff, changing 8, 9, and 10 to resolve a final development plan. Correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Seconded by Ms. Mundy? Okay. Thank you. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. I'd like to thank everyone for coming. Always difficult. I think this is still somewhat speculative, but Ms. Singer was noting Mickler's and South Hill Gallery. I think either one of those businesses could go in there. Not that they're looking for another location, but I think there's a lot of similarities there. So thank you. Moving on to the last item on the – well, not the last. We've got a couple more things. But on page 8, it's item 6, Solar Eclipse, LLC, Zoning Mouth Amendment, Schroyer Property, Dozier Property, Unit 2, Palomar Trace Subdivision, MARV 2016-4. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This next item is on page 8 of your agenda. I'll be discussing item 6A. It is MARV 2016-4, a rezoning request by Solar Eclipse, LLC. This is a two-part application. There is a zone change requested from a professional office P1 zone to a B1 neighborhood business zone for just under one net acre, actually an acre and a quarter gross, and a second part, a rezoning from R3 planned neighborhood residential to P1 professional office for one quarter of a net acre. The subject properties are at 3600 Palomar Center Drive and a portion of 2101 Palomar Trace Drive. What I've passed out to you is a copy of the report from the Transportation Planning Staff on the traffic impact study that was required as part of this zone change. Subject property consists of a portion of one address, which is 2101 Palomar Trace Drive. That is the white area at the top inside the circle there. That is currently R3, and a quarter acre of that is proposed to be rezoned P1. That is the same zoning found to the parcel immediately to the south, which is P1 and was rezoned just a few years ago. The body of the zone change involves the larger white rectangle in the center of the circle. That is 3600 Palomar Center Drive. It is currently P1, as are properties on three sides. It is proposed to be rezoned B1, which would then match properties a little bit to the west that are along Wellington Way and also along Palomar Center Drive. I have just a few photos to show you of the property in the area. This is a straight-on aerial photo showing the two properties. The northernmost property toward town is currently vacant. There are a few trees on that property, but that is a residential property. and you can see there is a dwelling here that is to remain on the subject property. That is not part of the zone change. This property is currently the home of a veterinary clinic in a P1 zone, and it is proposed to be rezoned to B1. This is a view of that existing veterinary clinic that is part of the zone change. This is proposed to be rezoned to a neighborhood business zone, and the development plan will be presented to you in just a few minutes to show you the new use for that location. This is a view from that location looking north along Haritsburg Road. There is a substantial difference in elevation between that facility and the highway. The roadway is much lower at this location, which makes access difficult. The access proposed to the site is from one of two ways. One is at the northernmost area proposed for rezoning that we saw, the P1 portion of the request, where there are two existing driveways, or to Wellington Way via Palomar Center Drive. This is a view of those two driveways serving the property on the left, which is not part of the zone change. That property is P1, and it is now proposed to be redeveloped for a daycare center. The P1 zone change area subject property is to the right. There is an existing drive there, and that is a very narrow parcel that is proposed to be rezoned from R3 to P1. This is a view from the same location looking in the direction of the subject property, which is just beyond those trees that you see in the center left of this photograph. Okay, let's go back. the staff reviewed the 2013 comprehensive plan and we did not find that this zone change request was in agreement with the comprehensive plan however noting the other b1 zoning in the area which has been approved near the corner pardon me of wellington way and Palomar Center Drive. We do note that this zone change has been accomplished since the 2013 plan was approved. There is another B1 zone here next to Palomar Center, which contains a Panera store that was achieved prior to the 2013 plan. This rezoning has been since the comprehensive plan was adopted. Also, we would note and did note in our staff report that the property at 2101 Palomar Trace Drive, the property where the driveway, in essence, is being requested for rezoning, has been approved by the Board of Adjustment for child care center use. That use is now proposed for the properties, if you will, between the two zone change properties. But that approval also indicates that there are more commercial uses in this area than residential since the time the comprehensive plan was adopted. That is also significant to the staff's review of this application. We do agree with the applicant that the combination of B-1 and P-1 zoning proposed is appropriate and the existing zoning inappropriate for these reasons and that those changes were not anticipated by the 2013 comprehensive plan. As we told your zoning committee a few weeks ago, However, the staff is recommending approval of this zone change in full for two reasons. The first, there have been unanticipated changes in this area of an economic nature since the comprehensive plan was adopted. Those are that the properties on Wellington Way have been rezoned from P1 to B1 neighborhood business in 2014. and the properties with frontage along Harrodsburg Road and Wellington Way are now approved to be at a more intense land use than when the comprehensive plan was adopted. Secondly, the combination of the B1 and P1 zoning requested for this one and one-quarter acres is no longer appropriate, and we have four reasons in our staff report. The proposed connection of Palomar Center Drive to Harrodsburg Road, as is proposed, has the potential to partially relieve and alleviate traffic congestion at the Wellington Way-Palomar Center Drive intersection by providing this second access. Secondly, the proposed B1 zone would be developed consistent with other existing commercial uses in the immediate area. Thirdly, the P1 zone proposed would align with the access from Wellington Way, which is a collector street, to Harrodsburg Road, the area's arterial highway, which could serve other professional and business uses in this area. And then finally, retaining the existing single-family home at 2101 Palomar Trace Drive will provide an excellent land-use buffer between existing homes in the Harrods View and Palomar Trace subdivisions from the newly developing commercial uses. Those subdivisions are located immediately to the north and to the west of this location in R3 and R1 zones. Our recommendation is also subject to conditional zoning restrictions. In our original staff report, we said that we would investigate the possibility of recommending conditional zoning for these properties at the time of your zoning committee meeting. At your notebook, in your tab, you will find a revised staff recommendation containing the conditional zoning that is also appearing on your agenda. There are several uses that the staff is recommending be prohibited within the B1 portion of the zone change, again, the parcel that is south of the two in this. We recommend that service stations, nurseries, plant nurseries, miniature golf, carnivals and circuses, arcades, banquet facilities, outdoor live entertainment, cocktail lounges, brew clubs, nightclubs, automobile refueling stations, and retail sale of convenience products be prohibited. at this location. Also, we recommend that any freestanding signage be limited to a maximum of 10 feet in height. If you think back to the photo showing the elevation difference, we think that's a very reasonable restriction here. It will also be more in keeping with the predominant P1 zoning in the area and the signage allowed in that zone. Also, finally, a restriction that any outdoor lighting be shielded and directed away from nearby residential subdivisions. We think that's an important conditional zoning restriction as well for this location. We have provided the necessary finding for the imposition of conditional zoning, that is, that these are appropriate and necessary to protect the adjacent residential properties to the north and west from possible pollution, light, and noise associated with proposed development, and to help maintain the character of the area. Mr. Martin, or another, pardon me, Ms. Galt, will present the development plan to you in just a moment, and I'll be glad to answer any questions from the Commission at this time about the zone change request. Any questions for Mr. Saleh? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Emmons will also present the staff report on a dimensional variance that's proposed as part of the application. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Good afternoon. As Bill said, he's explained the location. We do have a development. It's a preliminary development plan, so this is just the idea of what they want to do for the zone change. They have proposed to have a drive-thru restaurant along with a daycare, and the access is going to come off Harrodsburg Road. This is where we were talking about the rezoning portion of the residential property here along this way for the access to come in off of Harrodsburg Road into these two new proposed uses. With that, the agenda that you have in front of you shows they have 13 conditions, the first ones being the fact that this gets rezoned. We have a couple different sign-offs, and then we have a note on here that says to note that no building permit unless until a final development plan. As I said, this is the preliminary development plan just for the idea of what they would like to see. A couple cleanup conditions, and then we have two discussion items. We spoke shortly at one of our meetings about possible dumpster relocation, but we have yet to see a revised plan to show anything for that. And then that was one discussion. The other discussion was to discuss zone-to-zone screening necessary along the residential, what type of landscaping they proposed to put in between the drive lane and the residential area. At this time, the applicant might be better to answer those questions since we've never received a revised plan. But if you have any other questions. Any questions, Ms. Gall? Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Emmons, I hope you got your water situation taken care of. Yes, sir. So the applicants have requested a dimensional variance to the B1 zone to the maximum setback. The B1 zone has a minimum setback of 10 feet and a maximum setback of 20. The applicants have requested a variance from that 20 to 40 feet. In this particular instance, there is a 40-foot sanitary sewer easement that runs parallel to Harrisburg Road. that creates a unique circumstance that justifies, and the primary justification for granting the variance to the 40 feet, it's as close as they can get without doing major encroachment into a major sanitary sewer line. In addition to the unique circumstance that justifies the requested variance, this setback, if approved at 40 feet, will be similar for this property, similar to where the building has been located and similar to in setback to the other buildings that are near it or will be near it in the future. The staff recommends approval for the reasons listed in our staff report. If you have any questions for me, I would be happy to try and answer them. And I do believe that concludes all of the staff presentations. Any questions for Mr. Emmons? Thank you very much. Thank you. Applicant. everyone remaining thanks for your patience yeah thank you you've had a long day here thank you very much i'm dick murphy i'm representing the applicant in this case which is a company called solar eclipse llc and solar eclipse consists of three couples dr mrs andrew schroyer dr schroyer he's andrew schroyer also known as butch schroyer is here. His wife, Charlsey, is caregiving with her father today. Jimmy Ball is here. He and his wife are members. And Jake Reardon is here. You saw him last case. He's one of the members of the company. The property is currently owned by Charlsey Schroyer. This company, which includes Dr. and Mrs. Schroyer, is going to be purchasing it from Mrs. Schroyer on this. Also with me today is bill mcalpin of eagle engineering our designer who's in second row eddie mista of integrated engineering did our traffic study i want to point out we did do a traffic study it was reviewed by the staff and approved by the staff that hopefully is in the in the record they did hand out at the zoning committee the review of the traffic study chas height was is with me who works me as well. I'm with the firm of Murphy & Clendenin, and my law partner Chris Clendenin happens to be here too. He's not working on this case, but I wanted to introduce him to you on that. As background on this property, this property primarily relates to the property at 3600 Palomar Center Drive. It's where Dr. Schroyer's Veterinary Clinic is right now, and there's a pet grooming studio on the back, which I'll mention more in a minute, too. So this is at it fronts, it faces Harrodsburg Road, but it has an address on Palomar Center Drive, which is the service road that goes up here. It goes on down through Palomar Shopping Center. So this is the primary part. This next to us on the corner is at Chase Bank, and then next is Central Bank. I think AAA's in there, and then there's an Arby's down here. Of course, then there's the Panera that staff mentioned, and Palomar, which has the Malone's and that restaurant complex in there. Behind us is a daycare facility, which was rezoned last year to B1. If you all remember, the zone change you had was B1 last year. And that building was slated to be demolished under the development plan. They haven't done that yet, but the zone change was granted for that last year to B1, which this front's on Wellington. Behind us here is P1. Development has a martial arts studio and a chiropractor, I think, is in there right now. To our north is the lot, which fronts on Harrodsburg Road, which is not part of the zone change. Solar Eclipse has purchased that property, too. It's on P1. It's approved right now for a three-story office building on it. solar eclipse also owns the next property on up which is the property on palomar trace drive and it is zoned r3 i'm going to discuss that in a minute more but it's interesting we we have our driveway coming through this little sliver between the second and the third lot and the reason for that is we originally didn't show it on our development plan staff said well since that is a private road not a public road if we're a public road we wouldn't need to rezone it but But if it's a private road and we're serving the commercial area, our property and the bank and all that, we really, it would be better to zone that commercial as well. So that's why we're asking for the zone change to P1, P1 here, not B1, on this little sliver. It's just the driveway coming into the property. So the main thrust, though, is this property right here. A little more background. Six weeks ago, Dr. Schroyer purchased the property back in the neighborhood at the corner of Lyon Drive and Wellington Way. This is an enormously complicated map here, but it's back here, Lyon Drive and Wellington Way. Lexington Clinic used to be there. Lexington Clinic decided to consolidate their operations up in Beaumont and leave that property. They didn't want another medical clinic which competes with them to go in there. Incidentally, they put a deed restriction in there. You could not put a medical clinic in there. So in looking at the property, I thought, well, what's better to go in here than a veterinarian if you can't use it for medical? So they approached Dr. Schroer. Dr. Schroer had the ability to buy it. It would double the space he has, so he decided to go ahead and purchase it. So he will be moving his veterinary clinic out of this building that he's been in for 25 or so years and move it a block and a half back into the neighborhood. So we're looking for better use for this property on it. We're proposing a restaurant on this development plan. We want to make it clear we're not rezoning this parcel next door. That's going to stay P1. And we're not rezoning the parcel that we own up here on Palomar Trace Drive. That's going to stay R3. They own three, one, two, three parcels, and we're only rezoning this and the little driveway P1 up on this parcel. So we are zoning a part of that, but most of it will stay R3. I wanted to point out to you what we have approved now using this development plan. And again, this is the vet clinic, which we're asking for rezoning. This is what we now have approved for a three-story office building through previous action through this board, previous rezoning. Up here, we had a daycare facility approved through an action through the Board of Adjustment about a year ago. We got a daycare center approved here. What we're proposing now is to this parcel, we're going to leave. There's a house on it now. We're going to leave it as a single-family house. We reserved the right to build a new house on there, but we would leave it as a single-family house. We're showing the daycare facility here. We're showing the commercial here. So in essence, in the three lots that they owned, what we had before was a daycare, office building, and the vet clinic. Now we're going to keep the single-family here. We're going to have a daycare building here shown on our plan and the B1 zoning on here. So in essence, what we're doing is we're reducing the density here. We're having one fewer commercial building. We're keeping this as a house instead of having a daycare up there, moving the daycare down and having the commercial here. So I wanted to emphasize that because we're reducing the density on this property. When we had the zone change and the Board of Adjustment case before, this access point was approved. were actually encouraged by the kentucky department of highways to have the access point here and to merge the access points of this lot and this slot they each had separate driveways they said just make it one merge them here so we've got it merged here in this point here we've as i said mr mest has done a traffic study but has what traffic study points out is this is less impactful than what we had on the property before. I do want to emphasize, too, that we have neighbors and tenants in this property. We have had a very good relationship with the Palomar Trace Association over the last two or three years as this property has developed. Solar Eclipse also owns the rear portion of this middle property, which goes back here. and that is being developed for single-family homes. It's R3. There are two homes under construction there right now. And we've had a good relationship with the Palomar Trace Group, which is on the other side of Palomar Trace Drive, which is headed by Michael Walsh. Mr. Walsh, I think, is unable to be here today. I don't see him, but you'll see in the record you have a letter from him in support of this zone change application, which we have before you. So the closest residential neighbors to us are in support of the zone change which we have presented to you. And if he were here, he'd be happy to tell you that. The second thing I need to tell you about is that we do have a tenant in the property in the back of the veterinary clinic right here, which is right there, which is a pet grooming facility. The pet groomer, it's called Petitudes, has a lease with Dr. Schroer, and we're in the process of negotiating a termination of that lease. Representative of them is here today on that, and we wanted to state in the record that we are negotiating to terminate that lease, and we want to make that tenant whole. We're going to negotiate to make them whole. If we can't negotiate a doubt, we're going to mediate with them on that. And if the lease is terminated, we would be able to proceed with our development plan. If we didn't, when we come back with the final, this is just a preliminary, when we come back with the final, we would need to modify our development plan to show that the pet groomer is staying. So we'd have to change this when we come back with the final. If we can't work out a settlement in that lease, we're confident we can, but I wanted to make you all aware of all the issues, and we told the people from Petitude that we would make you aware of that. Third is Petitude's being represented by Mr. Martin. Third is Mr. Simpson's clients. He represents some people back here on Sally Drive and the Harrodsview Neighborhood Association. We're involved in litigation with them, and that's over when the Board of Adjustment approved our daycare center here on this property. They appealed that to Fayette Circuit Court after we got it approved at the Board of Adjustment and they also filed a separate lawsuit against us saying that the deed restrictions don't allow a daycare center on the property. Now, we can test that. We say it is allowed. They say it's not allowed. We're trying to work that out in court. We acknowledge that, but I do point out that under this proposal here, we will be leaving a single-family house on the property or building a new one, having one single-family house and no longer having a daycare facility on that property. So we are attempting to work that out as well. Those are a couple side issues that don't really involve the zoning, but we agreed to make you aware of those. we feel this proposal is in agreement with the comprehensive plan because it meets the goals and objectives which call for compact and contiguous urban growth and redevelopment of existing properties and preservation of the urban service area boundary now i'm not going to dwell on that a lot because the staff chose to go under the other issue which is the changes in the area since the adoption of the comprehensive plan which we agree with as well the as staff mentioned last year this property was rezoned or it's been about 14 months ago this property was rezoned to b1 it's slated for demolition there was a number of commercial uses that are allowed in that area we're surrounded by uses of course harrodsburg road is a six or seven lane highway here to the west of us to the south we have a bank another bank commercial in Palomar to the west of us we have property zone B1 and P1 the this facility martial arts facility up here I'm sorry B1's down here martial arts facility is here next door to us to the north we have property zone P1 so we feel that this is appropriate for the property the it's It's appropriate to us to have B1 fronting a major arterial roadway here. We're going to have the new connection to Heritsburg Road here, which has been approved on previous plans. And we feel it's a very appropriate use for the property. We are asking for a variance because, as Mr. Emmons mentioned to you, I keep pointing to the wrong property. This is the property we rezoning right here. We cannot meet the 10 to 20-foot build-to line in B1 because of the 40-foot sewer easement here, so we're getting it as close as we can. We're not allowed to build buildings over sewers, as you all are well aware. That leads to problems down the road, and the city wouldn't let us do it anyway. We were aware of the issues of the dumpster and the screening. we thought we had agreed to resolve those at final development plan stage at the subdivisions. I'm sorry if we got the wrong impression. We did not file a new plan because we thought we were going to resolve those at final development plan stage. We will. I would point out that Mr. Ball himself is building himself a house here, which is going to touch the property where the dumpster is located. So we have an extra interest in resolving that in a good way because he's going to be right next door to the dumpster. there. We will get that resolved. Integrated Engineering did do a traffic study, which Mr. Mesta is here and would be happy to talk to you about. It indicated this will be a lower level of traffic than what had been proposed on the property. We will do the zone-to-zone screening. We will get that resolved here, along here, or up here where we need to do that. And it's a lower density proposal than we had before. I do need to discuss a little bit with you the conditional zoning restrictions. We just saw those now. The original report didn't have it on them. And we're in general agreement with those. I want to talk to you about two of them in particular though. And that is item F, which bans banquet facilities. We'd rather not have that in there because one, we've got Malone's right down here, which has banquet facilities in it. And really, what's a banquet facility but a restaurant that doesn't have regular hours. So we'd like to be able to have a banquet facility in here. The other one is H, which is outdoor live entertainment, or I guess that's not outdoor cocktail lounges. I guess that's any cocktail lounge and brew pubs or nightclubs. Those are conditional uses in the B1 zone. If you grant us a zone change for this property, that doesn't mean we would be allowed to have an outdoor entertainment or a nightclub or a brew pub on this property, what it means is we'd be in a zone that allows that as a conditional use. So we would be, if somebody came in who wanted to use this and have outdoor entertainment here, we'd be able to petition the Board of Adjustment for a conditional use permit to allow outdoor entertainment. Same as a nightclub or a bar in here. We'd have to get a conditional use permit for it. To do that, we'd have to send a letter to the same people who get a letter today for the zone change, everybody within 500 feet. They'd schedule a hearing, staff would review it, and say whether they thought it was appropriate or not. If you put a conditional zoning restriction on here, that says we can't even apply for it. And we think since there's the level of review in here that has a conditional use permit requirement and a board of adjustment review anyway, we'd ask you to not put that as a conditional zoning restriction. If we get to the point where somebody wants one of those uses in there, that would at least allow us to ask for it. It wouldn't say we could get it, but it would allow us to ask for it. So I'm asking that the items F and item H be removed from the conditional zoning restrictions on this property. So that's essentially what I wanted to present to you. As I said, we're in keeping with the area. We have other commercial uses around us. That's one reason I was asking you about those conditional zoning restrictions. We have commercial uses here. We will have residential here people whose houses we are building, including Mr. Ball himself. But we're surrounded by commercial uses on south, north, and west, and a six-lane highway on the east. And we think it's in keeping with the property that's the uses that are around us. This has been an active use. It's been a veterinary clinic for years and will continue to be an act of commercial use if you grant the zone change. And we think a neighborhood business zone is the appropriate zone for this property. We thank you for your attention. As I said, my clients are here. Mr. Mesta is here from Integrated Engineering. If you have any questions, then we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Questions for Mr. Murphy? Not at this time. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Others that would like to speak in favor of this? Opposition? Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, again, I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm representing the Harrodsview Neighborhood Association. I'm certainly appreciative of the time and attention you all have devoted to the cases up to now. There may be other matters you have to take up even after this case. Probably most of the public doesn't appreciate that you all serve as volunteers. You get no money whatsoever for your time here and the time at subdivision committees and all those other things. And so we appreciate your service. The Harrodsview Neighborhood Association takes me back. This is where I got started in planning and zoning. This was a neighborhood that I moved into in 1988. and they don't teach planning and zoning in law school. They had one land use seminar class, which I remember thinking at the time, I can't imagine a more boring area of the law to learn to practice than that. And little did I know what the future would hold for me several years later. But in any event, if we could put up on the screen, Barb. First photograph. Here we go. Back in 1988, where I lived, which is Sally Drive, in fact, that's where I lived, right on this corner lot. And from Sally Drive, where these houses are, these single-family residences here, everything south to man of war there was nothing but vacant land it was all vacant and uh a couple weeks after i moved in i got a notice about a commercial zone change and uh that's when i came down to planning and just talked to chris king found out something called a comprehensive plan and zoning regulations and subdivision regulations and all this other stuff that completely befuddled me, and no doubt some of you think it still does, and you're probably right. But in any event, myself and a couple other folks, there was only 15 of us that were living there on the street, houses were under construction at the time. We organized ourselves and formed a neighborhood association, and got involved, got educated and growth and development issues. And from 1988 on until I moved away several years later, we were involved in a number of land use matters, changes in zoning. And what we were advised, and what I have heard members of this board and your predecessors advise neighborhoods, is to get involved in these cases, be proactive, monitor what's going on, go out and engage the people who are interested in developing property so that you know what's going on and you can take appropriate measures to help protect the integrity of your neighborhood. And so we did that. and in addition to zoning, we also understood that these zone changes were going to be coming quite a bit, fast and furious over the years and we were most interested in particular in defining the area around our neighborhood. In other words, defining the character. And when you look in your comprehensive plan, which talks about preserving the existing character of neighborhoods, you really need to think, how did any neighborhood get its character? How did it come about? And in most instances, it was because of the people that started living there or who lived thereafter and started making improvements and maintaining its character through zone changes and conditional use permit applications and the like. And so we, in the Harrodsview Neighborhood Association, beginning in 1988, went about to help define the character and what that character would be from the late 80s forever. And so what we did, in particular around the boundaries of our neighborhood, again, these are the houses on Herod's View. There's 115 houses. There's probably about 60 houses on Sally Drive. This is Sally Drive coming through here. was when people wanted to go through zone changes on the property immediately behind us, this property in here, which is now Palomar Trace, we met with the developers and we worked with them, we worked with the staff, we worked with this commission and the Urban County Council, and all of this got rezoned back around 1990. all of this property, including this property here, which they want to use a quarter of an acre to put a road in for this daycare center. And we worked out an agreement to get this section, about 12 acres total, from here all the way down to Line Drive for residential, single-family residential. And I'll cover it in a moment. But what we also did, in addition to coming to terms on the zoning, is that we entered into a written agreement for deed restrictions, which provided explicitly that all of the uses on this lot, all the way down to Line Drive in this section, which is now Palomar Trace neighborhood, these single-family homes, that we, in essence, created by our agreement and the deed restrictions that the only uses permitted in this 12 acres were single-family uses. And I'll cover those in more detail in a minute. The point of that is that we took this neighborhood at the insistence and encouragement of everybody that we talked to back then And really, everybody's sense was to be proactive, work with the development community, work with the planning staff, work with the commission and the council. And we did all of that. And we got a zone change. And we had a plan to preserve the residential integrity of the Harrodsview neighborhood. And the Palomar Trace neighborhood came about because of the efforts that we undertook and the restrictions that we put in protect them. And I find it ironic that one of those people now finds that this zone change is acceptable. Now, a couple of other things. When we were here in 88 and all this was vacant, what was here was this single-family house, which is still in existence. It's about a two-acre beautiful lot, and I'll show you some photographs in a minute. Dr. Dozier lived here. He had a small fawn that went all the way parallel to this tract here. He had an observatory that I happened to have invited me over one night and looked at the stars on. He lived here for many years with he and his family. All of this was vacant. Butch Schroyer was here. And that was it. Wellington Way wasn't built. All the rest of it was vacant land. So we felt like that when we got the deed restrictions for Palomar Trace and the single-family lot, which they want to zone a little over a quarter of an acre to put a road in, right here, However, we believe that we wouldn't have to worry about deed restrictions because that controls and you can't impact, even with the zone change, the underlying land uses as set out by deed restrictions. But it turned out that despite those restrictions, a little over a year ago, Butch Royer filed an application initially to make this single-family lot a parking lot to serve the three-story office building. We objected in April. We discussed the deed restrictions at that time that limit this lot to single-family uses. He was aware of it already, of course. But he went ahead and purchased this lot anyway in June of 2014. And then in August of 2014, and I'll show you a plan for that, He came back with a 10,000-square-foot daycare center, a 3,000-square-foot outside play area, and a parking lot for the daycare center, all right up next to the homes in Harrod's view. And so we appealed that decision, Board of Adjustment, and we also filed suit to get a declaration from the court that the deed restrictions were, in fact, enforceable. Now, one of the issues that came about in discussing these deed restrictions was that the Territory's View Neighborhood Association, as nonprofit volunteer neighborhoods are wont to do, they didn't pay their annual fee, and they had their corporate charter revoked by the Secretary of State for like 13 years. And they were still carrying on as an association, but they just didn't pay that fee. It's only $15, but it happens a lot in non-profits, volunteer non-profits. But there's a statute that allows for, if you pay the past due fees and pay a penalty, you can reconstitute that corporation, that non-profit corporation. And when you do, it's like the charter was never revoked. And so we've done that. And so we've got a valid, recognized corporation, the Secretary of State's office, And, you know, we're in court on that question. So now we're coming to a zone change, which we hope is not the basis of another court appeal, because obviously this gets very expensive for the neighborhood to have to pursue their rights in court. When we thought we had everything worked out with the initial property owner, and every subsequent property owner that bought these 12 acres, they were on notice that the land here was restricted to single-family residential uses only. Nothing else. Crystal clear. It's in your handbook. I'll discuss it for you briefly in a moment. So here we go again. And I find it interesting that it's now represented that, well, we're going to keep the single-family house. We just want to rezone this .25 to put in its right in, right out. I guess that you can make a left-hand turn if there's a break in pavement here. on Harrisburg Road to get to a 9,000-square-foot daycare center and a 4,000-plus fast food restaurant and all the other uses back in here. And the people from Wellington can come through here and go through here because this is a major traffic quagmire right here. If you've been over there around Malone's, where Palomar is, trying to get in and out is very difficult with this access point coming in here. But they want to now encroach just a quarter of an acre onto, again, single-family residential uses only, which certainly is not access road for a fast food and a 9,000-square-foot daycare center. Now, they could have made this like a 5,000-square-foot daycare center or a 6,000 or 7,000 or whatever thousand and not had to go over here. They control it. The developer controls it. You can scooch it down and not have to go over here. But they haven't. So now they want to make this professional office, and they've represented to you, well, we'll just keep this single family. Well, it's been de-restricted single family, and they haven't honored that. And there's nothing in this zone change that will keep this single family because there's no condition they can put on this property, the remaining portion of this single-family lot, this beautiful lot, that will require that it be single-family. They just say it will. But there's no conditional zoning that attaches because this property is not subject to the zone change. So the next intensification will be, well, we're just going to move this a little bit here and add some more parking, or maybe we'll just put in an office building, or whatever comes next. This building right here was just zoned. You all just zoned this 16 months ago? I mean, you just approved it. And now they want to go more over here. They want to go from this P1 to a B1, an intensification of use. And it just keeps increasing. And it's understandable. for development to change based on needs, that's fine. But when you've got the character of a neighborhood that has been well established since 1988, and this single-family house that's right here on this lot has been there since 1960, that's the character of a residential neighborhood that needs to be protected. And it's always the edges of the neighborhood that are most vulnerable to change. and incrementally it just seems like, well, it's just not too much. This is just a road today. Two years from now or less, what? What's it going to be? Well, this is a lot of, well, you already got this P1. We're just going to add a little bit more parking here. The daycare center wants to expand, so we need more parking, so we'll just go further into there. And while we believe we have deed restrictions that protect all that, that's a private matter, and that's a costly matter for the Harrisview Neighborhood Association. Let me go through the rest of my photographs just to give you a flavor of what the situation is. Mr. Simpson, let me remind you, you do have time limits. Okay. This is Dr. Dozier's property. This was zoned about two years ago for professional office. The house is still there, but you can see the residential character even today. This is the single-family lot that's in question. They want to put a quarter-acre road through. All right, next one. These are the trees. You know, we talk a lot about in development, and usually if there are significant tree stands on the property, we have Tim Query come out and take a look and give an opinion on what needs to be preserved and what's worthy of preserving, et cetera. The next slide, as you will see, is the substantial trees that exist. Here's some neighbors here. You can see how big these trees are all over this lot. It's a beautiful lot. Next one. Same thing here. This is the backyard of the house in Harrodsview. This is the single-family lot that's proposed for a part of it, at least with this zone change, professional office. Next one. These are the trees that are very close, if not exactly on where the road will be. I don't know how many of these trees will be wiped out if you approve this zone change for this road. Next one. This is what I mentioned to you that in April of 2014, the proposal went before the Board of Adjustment to have a parking lot in here. This was the parking. This was detention. That was subsequently withdrawn, and the next photograph was for the 10,000-square-foot daycare center, and I correct myself, 3,601-square-foot playground and the parking lot with detention basin. And then this is what we would visualize the view of the residents of Harrodsview to be looking at, instead of a single-family lot, a parking lot or something similar, a 10,000-square-foot daycare center. All these photographs are in your book. Under tab 2 is the zoning that we got initiated in 1990, I believe, or 89, strictly residential, R3 zoning. This zone is primarily for residential dwellings and other residential uses, period. Under tab 3, I've just enclosed snapshots of the deed restrictions which limit the use of the property at 2101 Palomar Trace to single-family uses only. That's of record in Fayette County Clerk's Office. Of course, under tab number 4 is something you're familiar with, the findings. And the reason I highlighted this in this case is because the very first test that you all are required to look at under the law that guides zone changes is as follows. Before any MAP amendment is granted, the Planning Commission or the legislative body or the physical court must find that the MAP amendment is in agreement with the adopted comprehensive plan. Now, even your own staff, even though they've recommended this approval for reasons which I don't support, even your own planning staff has said this application is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. They've said that, well, because we allowed a couple of zone changes on Wellington to be one, that now everything is fair game for change. That's basically what they've said. I have enclosed proposed findings of fact for disapproval. On behalf of Harrod's view, I simply ask that you honor what you encouraged and your predecessors encouraged neighborhoods to do, and that is get involved, participate in planning, participate in zoning, be proactive, work things out with the development community, and that's what we did. And we put it to record. The language is enforceable. They are trying to incrementally bring uses closer to Harrodsview than were ever planned for under any previous plan. And if you grant this one, then you better be ready to grant the next one, which will be even more intense as you've seen happen in this small area over the last several years, and this is a time to draw the line. The line was drawn over 20 years ago, and we ask that you honor that line. Keep this lot single-family. Deny that commercial zone change. It's not in compliance with the plan. Your staff has said this. We agree with that conclusion, and we ask that you disapprove this zone change request. I'll be happy to respond to any questions. Any questions for Mr. Simpson at this point? Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, member of the Planning Commission, I'm Doug Martin. I'm here representing Petitude Grooming Salon. They are located immediately behind Dr. Shore's veterinary clinic. It was a bit of a surprise to my client to see the preliminary development plan with their grooming salon missing and a fast food restaurant on top. My client, Teresa Allen, is working at her grooming salon today, so she's unable to be here, but Mr. Dave Baker is holding court for us on behalf of Petitude Grooming Salon. Substantial issues remain between Petitude and the applicants. We have agreed with them that we would hold off on our objections to the development plan and the zone change for now in hopes that we can sit down and work out a reasonable settlement on the lease. My client has a five-year lease, up to five years remaining at the property, and it would be a very difficult situation to have the building torn down or anything else. So we appreciate all your time today. It's been a long day for all of you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Others that would like to speak in opposition of this? No, no. Okay. Questions from the commission for anyone? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. We have one communication that I did not circulate to you earlier. This would probably be a good time to pass this out. Sure. This is an email from Mr. Michael Walsh. I think it was mentioned earlier, and he is in support of the zone change. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Questions from the Commission for anyone? If not, we'll go to rebuttals. Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much. There's a lot to rebut. I didn't use all my time on my principal one. I'll try to fit it within the rebuttal, but I need to discuss a lot. Because what you heard just now is a rerun of the hearing that the Board of Adjustment held, and I think it was April 2015, when we came in, for an application for a daycare center up here. This discussion of whatever this address is, 3101 Palomar Trace Drive, is we had a daycare center coming in here. This is the lot with the deed restrictions, not this lot, not this lot. All the discussion has been on deed restrictions which aren't in your purview. They heard the same discussion at the Board of Adjustment, and your attorney advised the Board of Adjustment at that time, don't get into deed restrictions. We said we felt they don't apply because of change in circumstances, which is a doctrine which allows deed restrictions to be changed. That's in court. There's a judge that's going to decide that, whether deed restrictions apply to this lot up here or not. All the discussion, there was about 30 seconds on our zone change down here on Dr. Schroyer's clinic and about 29 minutes on this strip right up here. I want to tell you what we got approved in April of 2015. We got approved for a daycare center, this building essentially up here, on what Mr. Simpson is saying is the residential property. We got approved for it. We got approved for this driveway in here serving all this. at the Board of Adjustment. You've approved it before on a development plan. Already approved. Now, if we were coming in here, if we wanted to keep this daycare center up here, I wouldn't have to be asking for this zone change for this driveway on here because it was part of the Board of Adjustment case. Why are we coming here? We're coming because we're decreasing the use on this. The opposition does not compute. We're saying here we're keeping a residential house on here over what was approved eight, ten months ago by the Board of Adjustment. We're not going to put the daycare here. We're going to keep this as a residential lot. Now, the only reason we're asking for this zone change right here is so we can continue to use the street, which has been approved, as approved, which is an important traffic outlet safety valve for all this intersection down here. It gives another way in and out, which is very important to this area. And we're putting what we're labeling the daycare center building down here, and we're having the vet clinic up here. Some of these pictures that were shown on here, if the last picture Mr. Simpson put up there was this big parking lot in our yard, we're not, this parking lot, the picture was a good Photoshop job. On this lot up here showing a huge parking lot on here. We're not proposing that. then they had another development plan showing a big building and stuff up there a big parking lot we proposed that at what that was an early version of the board of adjustment case back in april of 2015 which even we abandoned before we got to the board of adjustment that's that's the parking lot which they say we're proposing today up here we're not proposing that parking lot up here today we're not doing it. That's not part of our application. I probably should have jumped up and objected, but I didn't want to break Mr. Simpson's flow. He really gets going. But we're not proposing this up here. That is not what we're proposing. And the other exhibits in there are not what we're proposing either. What we're proposing is right here. And it bases right here. It's the veterinary clinic that is moving out, he got a better opportunity, we have to look for another use. That's why we're here on this property. We recognize Mr. Martin's concern, and I said at the beginning we do. We're trying to work out that lease. Yeah, we're in litigation up here over these deed restrictions. We're hoping the litigation will go away since we're moving everything down here and we're going to keep a single-family house on this lot. Honestly, I don't know why they're opposing, because we're taking this building away that we had proposed before. This will allow us not to build the building. Interestingly enough, in our work with the Palomar Trace Drive, which is the closest group, we've agreed to many restrictions and changes on our residential area. These lots, by the way, which are close to us, are selling for $137,500 each, and there's a big demand for them here. This hasn't hurt anybody's property value around here, but we've met with the Palomar Trace people. We have the evidence in the letter that they support this. They put their evidence in the letter supporting us. We're proud of the relationship we had. We're trying to make the same relationship with the Sally Drive folks that Mr. Simpson is representing. Mr. Murphy, I'd like for you to try and wrap up. Okay, I'll wrap it up. I think I'm winding down here. Sorry, I got wound up here on it. But we're, I think, heading in the direction that Mr. Simpson's client wanted us to. So that's why we're here puzzled. And that road on the top has been approved before. We think this is clearly in agreement with the uses we're around here. We're around here because Dr. Shroy is moving. We need to make the best use of that land that we can, and we really think this is the best possible zoning and the best possible use for the property. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Simpson. Revetto. the exhibits that I introduced of the parking lot and the two prior proposals one for a daycare center if you can put those up Barb and one for the yeah that's the daycare center and one before that was for a parking lot those were all applications that Mr. Murphy's client filed with the Board of Adjustment now he wants to zone part of this single family lot which he says he doesn't need or something, I don't know if he doesn't need it, don't put it on there, keep it all on the existing lot when you can control the square footage of the daycare center shrink it down and just don't zone that Pretty easy. You control it. The problem is all the representations from Mr. Murphy's client have been illusory. They don't ever get backed up with anything. They keep changing. You go from a parking lot to a daycare center and out to a professional office rezoning. But they say they're going to keep the single family home. Well, they haven't honored the single-family use restriction. Why would we expect them to honor a commitment, a verbal representation, that they're going to keep the single-family home for how long? You've seen where incrementally the uses have changed, so now they feel like they're justified in going into the single-family home. What else is interesting is that Mr. Murphy made notion of the fact that Mr. Sawyer recently bought a piece of property down on the corner of Lion Drive and Wellington, down in here somewhere. And the reason, he made note of the fact that the Lexington Clinic had a deed restriction that precluded medical offices, what would allow a veterinarian office. So we have deed restrictions that preclude anything other than single-family uses. And that is the character of our neighborhood. And while you don't have enforcement authority over those restrictions, you do have the right to say this neighborhood has defined its character, it has maintained its character for over 25 years, and you're not crossing this line to put in this P3.25 acres. That you can deny. That you have the authority to do. And that's what we're asking that you do. Thank you. Thank you. Staff? Yes, sir? Deed restrictions up there. We're doing single family up there. There's nothing in deed restrictions. It says you can't put a road through there. Thank you, sir. Staff, rebuttal? Mr. Sally? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two real brief items. I'd like to refer you to the agenda for both of them. First, on page 9, right at the top of the agenda, the prohibited uses within the B1 zone. This is also in our supplemental staff report to you. The two uses that the applicants asked you not to consider, banquet facilities, F and H, outdoor live entertainment and other uses. Banquet facilities was included by the staff thinking of the fact that their use for things like wedding receptions can mean late hours, and given the proximity of residential nearby, that was really the thought process on that. In terms of H, outdoor live entertainment, some of those had the same concern. Brewpubs, however, a couple of years ago went from being a conditional use to a permitted use in B-1. So that particular use would not require any further approvals other than say a final development plan. That is now permitted use in B-1. The other three are conditional uses. Mr. Murphy is correct about that, but again wanted to clarify what the staff's thinking was in proposing those to you. If I could ask you to turn the page now to page 10 and look at the development plan recommendation. We do have a couple of discussion items, number 12 and 13, there in talking with Ms. Galt. We are comfortable changing those to resolve at at the time of the final development plan, and eliminate those discussion items should you recommend approval of the zone change. Thank you. Thank you. Commission members, any questions? Yes, or one quick question. Mr. Salley. The banquet facilities, is that good, bad, or indifferent? In other words, are you saying that I understand the clarification, but the question is, do you still want that to be prohibitive uses, or will you accept the applicant's explanation about that? You know, the staff really hasn't had any opportunity to discuss that. We thought we had given this to the applicant before, but obviously not. It was included on the agenda a couple of days ago. We thought they might have seen it then, but we're comfortable recommending that. You know, we're respectful of their request, but we wanted to share with you the rationale of why we included that. Okay, thank you. Mm-hmm. Mr. Saleh, let me ask you this. In regards to just what you referred to, your revised staff recommendation conditional zoning, at the bottom of it where it's initials and so forth, it's got 117.16, 128.16 revised. Is that relating to when this was done? Yes. Okay. Do you know what kind of revision there was between 1-7 and 1-128? I cannot recall that. 1-7 was our original staff report. Okay. And in that report, we said we would like to use the three weeks in between to review the possibility. So I think the other day, it's just the date it was completed. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any other questions for anyone from the commission members? Um, legal? Any comments as far as litigation, deed restrictions, anything? A couple. Um, in terms of the deed restrictions, you all really don't have any purview to find one way or another on those. It's a private matter. Um, you know, they're included in the, uh, information you got and you can see, you know, it's an agreement between parties. Whether or not they've been put to record, that's obviously being litigated in a private matter that we are not a party to. The Board of Adjustment case has been appealed to circuit court. The Board of Adjustment is a party in that action. I have that file right here when I realize this might be an issue. But that appeal is based on the premise that the findings that the Board of Adjustment made were inappropriate. So it really doesn't go to what you all are considering here either. So I think you all can make a decision today on this. I don't think either one of those things are going to prohibit you from doing that. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, I'll close this part of hearing, open it up for any motions. what we are considering zone change request that does have conditional restrictions. You've heard two requests there. We have a variance and then we also have the ZDP to take care of. First would be the zone change request which is Solar Eclipse LLC it's MARV 2016-4. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman If there's no other comments, I'm going to make a motion. Comments, questions? Comment? Yes, ma'am. Okay, my comment would be this. This is the third time on our agenda this afternoon that we've addressed neighborhoods, and it seems to be like neighborhoods, this is under siege day for neighborhoods especially, and altering the character of that neighborhood. And for that reason, and I will oppose this zone change, deed restrictions can't be counted. So, you know, as a neighbor, we all live in a neighborhood. Then why do we have deed restrictions? That's an old cart before the horse thing. It's gone on for a long time. but once again I I empathize with these neighbors and I think even the staff said that they agreed that this did not meet with the comprehensive plan so even they have questions about it so thank you anything else otherwise Mr. Graven's motion Yeah, I'm going to move approval of MARV 2016-4 for the findings provided by staff. And I would be inclined to favor eliminating F and H, since those would be handled by the Board of Adjustments, if my colleagues would so agree to that. I don't want to kill the zone change over that. So have you made a motion? I did. Is that a motion? Okay. Are you including? I'm still making it, but I need a second. I'll hear that. I need a second. Are you including that in your motion to include F&H? I want to eliminate them and let them be. Okay. But I don't want to blow the zone change over that. So is that your motion? Yeah. Okay. Motion is for approval of MARV 2016-4 for the reasons provided with staff, eliminating the conditional restrictions F and H that is listed. Do we have a second? Second by Mr. Wilson. Any discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Now for the variants associated with it. Mr. Chairman, move approval of the variants. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and seconded for the associated variants with MARV 2016-4. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. And then the ZDP. Mr. Chairman, move approval of the ZDP with the 13 conditions resolving 12 and 13 at final development plan. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of ZDP 2016-6 with the 13 conditions changed in 12 and 13 to resolve. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thanks for your patience once again. And for coming and expressing your opinions. We appreciate it. We have two items under commission items. One of them, if I can find it, is to change the official 2016 meeting and filing schedule. I think by mistake the work session was listed for the end of March, and instead of the end of March, they're asking for it to be March 17th now. So we would need a motion on that. Yes, ma'am. Motion is moved and seconded to change the official 2016 meeting filing schedule related to the work session in March now to be March 17th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. We have one other item. We have one other item, Clinton Road, Neighborhood Design Character Overlay, and ND1, Zone Change Initiation Request. You have information before you that's just been passed out. once again thanks for your patience Good evening. I think we've transitioned into evening. The last item on your agenda for this evening is a request by the Clinton Road residents to initiate an Indy 1 overlay zone for 55 properties on Clinton Road. The map I handed out is a depiction of the area proposed for the overlay, which is shown in the blue outline. And then this is the postcard response that we received over the last month. So we discussed this at zoning committee that it was coming. At that point, we had mailed the postcards but had not received all of them back yet. We received 35 of the 55 postcards mailed back, which is a 63.6% return rate. Of those returned, 91.4% were in support. 8.6% were opposed. Of the ones that were in support, a few commented that they didn't really like number 7 or thought number 8 could have some changes, but they still checked support when they mailed it. So that's how we report those to you. Clinton Road is, again, 55 properties, and they've done a study, which is what we handed out. In their study, their neighborhood, they had a much higher response rate from the neighbors when they were proposing these and doing public input with the neighbors. So I will note that. but the specific restrictions can be found within the document on page 27. And at this point, the staff doesn't have a recommendation on the particular restrictions. That would come if the Planning Commission initiates this rezoning. So at this point, I'll answer any questions, and I believe the neighborhood would like to make a short presentation. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Wade at this point? If not, no. Thank you. Someone for a brief presentation? Thank you all so very much for waiting so long and agreeing to hear us even at the end of such a long day. I'm Dr. Monica Kern. I'm representing the steering committee and the neighbors of Clinton Road. I live at 505 Clinton Road. People tell us that Clinton Road is one of the prettiest streets in the city, and we wholeheartedly agree. The pictures really need a panoramic lens to do justice to it, but this one shows some of the wide-open space. You can do the next one, Barb. If you haven't seen it in person, I urge you to drive down and look at it yourself. There's a variety of house styles. No two houses are alike, and that makes it visually interesting. But we have three distinguishing and unifying features that give Clinton Road a cohesive, distinctive character. We have large lots. The average size is 0.43 acres. We have a large amount of green space, big yards, lots of landscaping with mature trees relative to the house size. And we have deep, uniform building setbacks. And all these three characteristics together create a spacious, open impression when you look down the street. Those of us who live on Clinton Road love our street, but we fear for its future. We have watched with great alarm some recent trends on neighboring streets, such as taking large corner lots and subdividing them into two, sometimes even three, building sites where very large homes are built that leave very little building yard space or distance between houses. This, for example, shows a corner lot on the corner of Hart and Culpeper that was divided into three houses, three lots, and big, big houses put on them. You can see there's only like a five-foot gap between the two houses, and that's very much out of character for our neighborhood. Equally alarming are the teardowns and renovations where existing homes have been replaced by McMansions that are disproportionately large for their lots and that overwhelm the neighboring homes. Barb, the next picture. This house was built just on Culpeper on the other side of Clinton. If you look to the right, you can see the house to its right. It's about twice as tall. You can see the extension that goes in the back and takes up virtually the entire yard. Very much out of character for that street. On Culpeper Road alone, which again is adjacent to Clinton, we've witnessed at least five such major renovations or rebuilds in the past year alone. And it shows the kind of construction that we don't want to see on our street, and that's why we're making this ND1 overlay proposal. You can go to the next picture, which, you know, upside down, sideways. Lots of green space and lots of deep, big lots. We've been here a long time, so I'm going to try to really go through quickly the next points. I just want to talk about the process that we used in coming up with this proposal so that you know the painstaking steps and the care we took into it. You may or may not remember that some of this started due to a petition by a property owner to reduce the setback on 508 Clinton. In the process of the neighbors objecting to that petition, we were informed by members of your commission that if we wanted to protect our street as a whole, we would be well served to try to apply for the ND1 overlay. So several of us started meeting. We formed a steering committee. We met with Coleman Bush, who's the man who spearheaded the ND1 overlay for Meadowthorpe. He was helpful in letting us look at his materials and going over the process. We corresponded at great length with members of the planning staff, particularly Barbara Rackers and Tracy Wade. We emailed them constantly. I cannot emphasize just how helpful they have been to us in putting this proposal together. We spoke with Betty Kerr at the Historic Preservation Office to confirm that our neighborhood was appropriate for an ND1 overlay. She said that we were. We then mailed a letter to all the residents on Clinton Road, introducing the concept, including the brochure that your office has put together. and we set a meeting after our Clinton Road picnic to pass out information, hold a question and answer session. And at the end of that meeting, which was attended by about 35 residents, there was enthusiastic consensus that the ND1 was something that the neighborhood wanted to pursue. We then undertook an architectural survey of the neighborhood. The instrument we used is in an appendix in the proposal in front of you. It's based on the one that Metathorpe used, but we changed it as appropriate to meet the features of our street and in consultation with an architect who lives on the street. What this survey revealed, again, is that while the houses on Clinton Road all have slightly different architectural features, such as window styles and presence or absence of a porch, there are still important commonalities across the homes that create a distinctive, cohesive visual identity. They're composed almost exclusively of either brick or stone or both. Only one house has a substantial proportion of vinyl on it. With the exception of three of the corner lots that have been subdivided, they all share deep front yard and backyard setbacks and ample green space. So our survey confirms that there's this compelling, unique character and visual continuity of Clinton Road that deserves to be preserved. We encourage residents to send their thoughts about what standards should be addressed in an ND1 overlay. We held a focus group meeting. We had them rate the importance of the standards. We talked about phrasing of the standards. And then a lengthy process ensued where we would draft standards, circulate them to the residents, circulate them to the planning staff members, and then change them in response to the feedback we got. Once we felt we had the standards in shape, we mailed a packet to all the property owners on Clinton Road. That included a handout listing our proposed standards, along with the definition of the terms and our rationale for including them. and then asking them to return a petition to state their degree of support for the Indy Overlay in general, plus each of the nine standards. And all those documents are found in your proposal. We mailed this packet in late fall of 2015. Of the 55 packets mailed out, we received 42 petitions back. Of those 42, and the 42 out of 55 is the 76% response rate, Of the 42, 40 or 90 percent voted yes for the ND1 overlay for Clinton Road, with only two opposed. And looking at the standards individually, they were supported by anywhere between 86 and 95 percent of the respondents. And we have the results of our mailing itemized by household in your proposal. I can tell that you guys get a lot of controversy about zoning changes and a lot of disagreement. I mean, how many hundreds of zoning request changes do you hear? I would want to ask, how many do you ever get the degree of neighborhood agreement and support that we're showing in ours? I'm guessing this is unusual. The people of Clinton Road care deeply about this issue. I'm not sure it would be a good use of your time to talk too much about the standards that we're proposing. So I'm just going to blast through them. They're listed starting on page 27 of our proposal. And the best way to summarize them is to say that they were written with the single purpose of accomplishing our four main preservation goals. We want to maintain the open, uniform, and expansive appearance of the street. We want to avoid the further subdivision of corner lots. Right now we have three corner lots that have been subdivided. There are 11 others that could potentially be subdivided, and we would like to prevent that. We would like to preserve the current building sizes and the areas devoted to yards or green space, and we would like to maintain the consistency and quality of the exterior building appearances. So our first two standards simply reinstate the building setbacks and lot widths that were originally specified in our neighborhood plat and deed restrictions, but these deed restrictions expired in the 1980s. So that just puts them back in. Standard 3 specifies a floor area ratio excluding basements not to exceed .33. The purpose for this is to avoid that situation of very, very big houses that take up all the yard space. Standard four sets the maximum building height of 30 feet. This would allow two-story buildings with comfortably fashionably high ceilings, but not two-and-a-half-story homes or taller. Again, this is consistent with the existing architecture on Clinton Road. Currently, we have 41-story houses, 12 one-and-a-half stories, and only two two-story houses. Standard five restricts exterior finished buildings to brick, stone, finished wood, hardy board, allowing vinyl only for windows, doors, frames, eaves, and cornices. This would ensure that any new construction and new additions would be consistent with the prevailing character of the street. Standard 6 limits any front yard fences to 36 inches in height. Currently, only five of the houses on the street have any fencing at all in the front yards, and they're short decorative stone fences and the like. So preventing tall fences in the front yard will help protect the wide open fill of the street that's so important to us. Standard 7 asks for a 40-foot rear yard setback, excluding accessory structures. The purpose of this standard is to prevent the subdivision of corner lots. Standard 8 puts the limit of 800 feet on the footprint of any accessory structures. This standard, in combination with the floor area ratio, again will ensure ample green space and a wide open field in the street. And then Standard 9 states that the front plane and entrance of the principal structure will face Clinton Road. The purpose of the standard, again, is to prevent subdivision of larger corner lots into smaller house lots. Over a decade ago, this city and this commission had the foresight and the wisdom to create the ND1 overlay mechanism that would allow neighborhoods to preserve their distinctive character, and that helped to make Lexington such a beautiful city to live in. Clinton Road is a beautiful street, largely defined by its large lots, its ample green space, and the deep uniform setbacks. These features were protected for the first 30 years of its existence by the deed restrictions that were in place, but which are no longer in force. We feel that the distinctive character of Clinton Road is facing imminent threats of development, as witnessed in the numerous renovations taking place in surrounding streets and adjacent streets. And without an ND1 overlay, our fears are that the attractive, open field of Clinton Road will be irrevocably altered and destroyed. We believe strongly that Clinton Road needs and deserves the protection of the ND1 overlay to preserve its character, and the overwhelming positive response to both our petition and the Planning Commission mailing shows beyond any doubt just how strongly the neighbors believe in this cause and how much we want the protections of the ND1 overlay. So we humbly ask that you approve this proposal, and again, we thank you for your time. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else like to speak? Please, real quick. I mean... You can look through that, and that pretty much is in October of last year. Your name, sir? Oh, John Price. The Price is right. Okay. Thank you, sir. This was dated October 6th of last year, so it's about six, eight, nine months old. And with that, it kind of gives us the motivation to put together the best plan that we can for the city and for ourselves. And secondly, if you don't know Clinton Road, Clinton Road is the place on a cold winter day where people come and park their cars so kids can slide down the hill on Shriners Hospital. Clinton Road is the place on the 4th of July where mom and dads come to sit on the Shriner Hill and watch the fireworks at Eidlauer. And Clinton Road is a place where Henry Clay and Clay Springs watered his cattle before he marched them four blocks south down Clinton Road through the ash trees where Prather Avenue is now and the barn and the feeding was done. So if you can be a big lineman, a 300-pound lineman, and we've got the runners, and if you can poke the holes, we'll do the running and make this thing work. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members, staff. Chris Clendenin with the firm of Murphy and Clendenin. I am here in opposition representing the residents of 508 Clinton Road. And we're all familiar to that, and the previous speakers have alluded to that. I'm going to ask that you deny this request for an ND1 overlay for one simple reason, that I believe and my clients believe that it's out of character with the intent of the ordinance. If you could go to my first slide. Ms. Plumlee alluded and made a comment later that this is Neighborhood Day, And I think what I'd like to ask you is how do we define a neighborhood? Is it one street or a series of streets? Here's an example of a current ND1 overlay residential neighborhood. This is Meadowthorpe. If you can look on there, there's literally hundreds of homes, probably a dozen or more streets. Next slide, please. I'm going to try to be brief because we've all had a very long afternoon and evening. Thank you. And just keep in mind, we're not hearing this today. I understand. Okay. I'm just asking you to, I'm going to take maybe another minute here and I'm going to ask you to reject change. Go ahead. Chevy Chase, a very distinct neighborhood. Several streets, hundreds of lots. Next slide, please. Mount Clare. several streets at least 100 lots on there next slide please, Ms. Rackers the Colony, and this is referenced in their proposal that I've read, this is at least 5 streets probably 70 or 80 lots my question to the Clinton Road residents is this I understand that they want this And I believe one of the reasons they want this is because my clients had the audacity to come in and ask for permission to build an extension on their garage, which was not in keeping with the prior zoning, the deed restrictions. It was in keeping with how it's currently zoned. I think this is an overreaction to that. I do not think this is an appropriate use for ND1 because Clinton Road is part of a neighborhood. I think it belongs to the Shriners Neighborhood Association. They also define themselves as the Ashland Park subdivision. Now they're trying to define themselves as Clinton Road as one neighborhood. This is 50, maybe 55 lots, one street, four blocks. And I don't know if this is the best use of this article in the zoning ordinance. And if we're going to start setting precedents, then we're going to have people in here, you know, my street, that's two blocks. My street, that's three blocks. I'd ask you to consider to reject this request for those reasons that it's not in keeping with the character of the ordinance. I believe there's one gentleman who is also a Clinton Road resident who is also in opposition to this who would like to speak. If you have any questions for me, I'll be glad to answer them. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you, sir. I'll be really quick. My name is Jerry Calvert. I live at 427 Clinton Road. I'm usually here in support of the people that are here in support of this proposition. My problem today is this. My wife and I moved into this neighborhood in 1986. That was the last year that the deed restrictions were, in effect, valid. We knew that. Everybody in the neighborhood knew that. Wasn't any surprise. The problem was everybody in the neighborhood was getting old. Many of them have since gone to that great place in the sky. A lot of young people have moved in. We sit in our front yard and watch these young people's children go up and down the street. Recently, we appeared before this board, and I appeared with the people from Clinton Road. They tried to build a four-car garage in front of their house down the street. That's why we were here. In the process of that, everybody found this ND1 overlay thing. And so that's the answer to our prayers. Nobody can do anything in the neighborhood we don't want. so what are we going to do we're going to get an ND1 overlay sounded good to me all we had to do is go back and get the deed restrictions that we had lived with for better than 60 years and apply them that's what everybody bought their house understanding why change it now but they wanted this ND1 overlay I'm not sure it's the best for the neighborhood they talk about the percentage of people how come there's so many white lots on there. How come so many people didn't answer their card? I answered it. I opposed it. And I will oppose it until I know that everybody, all of these people that are in their 90s and 80 years old, that can't come to these meetings, know exactly what's going on, what restrictions are going to be put on their houses. That's my problem. Otherwise, I would be here in support of restrictions for this neighborhood. It's a wonderful neighborhood. And these people that are here in support of it are wonderful people. I just can't support it unless I am sure that the older people, the people who can't come down to these meetings and don't attend things and don't do the email business. I don't do email myself, but my wife does. I want to make sure they have noticed and know exactly what's happening to their property. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. I'm Jane Farmer, and I live at 509 Clinton Road. I have lived in my home for about 15 or 16 years. originally I moved here from Atlanta, Georgia to go to college in 1960. And I think I'm one of these older people. I managed to come down here and I've been here since about 130. I love the road. I love my neighborhood. People are wonderful. And the kids come out and help me and they shoveled the snow. I like living there. I don't want to move. But it reminded me so much of where I used to live in Atlanta, in Ansley Park, and there was great big trees, and people knew each other and were friendly. But since I've been here, I'm going to finish. Since I've been here, there's been a lot going on. They built huge houses. behind me there's a three-story, and they've got a fence really tall next to my little picket fence just inches away. And I just think the things that are on that list are reasonable. They're not way out there, things that Dr. Kern put down. and the lots are being, like she said, divided up with houses just really close together. I just want to keep the character of the neighborhood more like it was when I moved here and not have it overgrown so much. That's all I've got. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. Others? I think we're probably got a good consensus. Yes, ma'am? Quickly? Quickly? First, I just want to think it's very ironic that Mr. Murphy is opposing us in this because he was the one in the previous issue over 508 setback. He said, you guys really need an ND1 overlay if you want to prevent this stuff. So he gave us, one of the guys, he gave us the idea. The ND1 overlay zoning ordinance, Article 29-3, specifically says that an area, neighborhood, or place meeting one or more of the following criteria should be eligible for designation. It doesn't specify a minimum number of houses. It doesn't even specify that it has to be a neighborhood consisting of multiple streets. It says neighborhood, area, or place meeting seven criteria. I'm not going to read them. You can look them up. Dr. Kern, hear me. Let me offer this. I don't think we need to get into rebuttals. Just save it for later. Yeah, save it for later. Thank you. Okay. The decision here today is whether the request is to initiate this application for an ND1, whether there's information, whether there's enough support and evidence to say that we should go forward and hear it or not. That is the decision for the commission today. So I think we can move on at this point in time. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to move forward with the ND1 overlay. Thank you. Do we have a second? Seconded by Ms. Plumlee. So all those in favor? No. I'm sorry. I haven't done that all day. vote when he comes up on the screen and the request is to initiate this the motion is to initiate this request for an ND1 overlay on Clinton Road That request has passed. Thank you, folks. Mr. Director? Yes, sir. Two things for next week. We have an APA audio conference on Wednesday at 4 o'clock in our office. It can't be any worse. Any other items? Committees meet next Thursday, so we'll see you all in our offices next Thursday. I think we've taken care of any audience items. Motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Thank you, sir. Meeting adjourned.