And that's what I'd encourage the loved ones to do. The people that are going through these struggles, they want a way out, but they don't know how. They don't know how to receive the help that is offered to them. Have compassion. Try not to get so frustrated. And know that there is a solution to the problem. There is hope. And there is light at the end of the tunnel. First, you have to stop using. It's hard, but it is so rewarding. I smile now. You know, the recovery process for me is like a second chance of life. And it's about hope. And if that's what I can get out, it's about hope. And it's about knowing that no matter what I've done, I can move on from it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. downloadable video discussion guide and opiate addiction toolkit are available at safekentucky.org. Thank you. I'm a man. we ever agree. First on our agenda is the approval of minutes. We have some. Mr. Chair, move approval of April 28 minutes, please. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval of the minutes. Everybody vote. Sorry, we did not get the second on that. The second was Bill Wilson. I guess I'm faster than electronics today. Do we have any postponements or withdrawals? All right. Any from the staff? No. Yes, sir. Very well. We'll continue on to our first case. looks like Dennis Anderson amendment Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Cravens, members of the Commission. Our first item today is found on page one of your agenda. It should be towards the bottom. It's also behind tab one in your notebooks for the Commission members. It is MARV 2016-6. This is a request or application made by Dennis R. Anderson. The property is located at 151 Pasadena Drive, and the requested rezoning is from a single-family residential zone, in this case an R1C zone, to a neighborhood business B1 zone. The subject property is located on the north side of Pasadena Drive, and Pasadena connects Harrodsburg Road further west to Nicholasville Road, which is just about 500 feet east of the subject property. At the intersection of Pasadena and Nicholasville Road, Malibu Drive also intersects at that same signalized location. This vicinity, Pasadena Drive, is mostly commercial between Nicholasville Road and where the Norfolk Southern Railroad line is, which is about 1,000 to 1,500 feet to the west of the subject property. Shown by my light there. Generally, on the other side of the Norfolk Southern Railroad line, residential is prominent along Pasadena Drive. The subject property is currently vacant, as is the property directly to the east of the subject property. But you'll notice, based on the aerial photograph I've displayed on these two screens, that although the subject property and the adjacent property are vacant, most of the rest of the property in this general vicinity has been developed. To the north is the Regency Shopping Center, and to the west is Pasadena Plaza. which is also a small B1 zoned property. Further to the east towards Nicholasville Road are two small commercial developments. One, I believe, is a retail establishment that was just recently constructed and replaced a gas station at the very corner. And then there's also a retail store for its PRATs and then a mattress store. Generally across Pasadena Drive is professional office land use in this vicinity. until you get to Nicholasville Road, then it's mostly restaurants in this area. The subject property, again, sits on the north side of Pasadena and is vacant. It falls off a bit from Pasadena Drive, and this photo might show it a little bit better. This is a view towards Pasadena Plaza, but the difference between the sidewalk at this location and the parking lot is about six to eight feet. So the property falls from Pasadena back towards the Regency Shopping Center. And then looking back towards Nicholasville Road, again, this is the frontage along the subject property, and it remains vacant at this time. The applicant is proposing the rezoning to the neighborhood business zone in order to develop a small retail establishment, as shown on their development plan, and associated off-street parking. In addition to the requested rezoning, the applicant is also asking for a variance to the front yard setback requirements. In terms of the 2013 comprehensive plan, since we no longer have a land use map, the Planning Commission relies on policy statements, goals and objectives, and small area plan recommendations to evaluate whether or not something is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. In this case, the applicant contends not that it is in agreement with the plan, but rather the existing zone of R1C is inappropriate and the proposed business zone is appropriate at this location. And the staff agrees with that assessment. In the general vicinity, business and office zoning is much more common, and the B1 zone is consistent with the neighboring B1 zone as well as B6P, which is to the north. It's also compatible with the professional office zoning. we would note that the property directly to the east does remain residentially zoned. However, the likelihood that it will remain residential in use is, in the staff's opinion, fairly slim. And as the applicant put it, the property is awaiting future redevelopment, which we agree with. This portion of Pasadena Drive was reviewed, and the land use is modified starting in 1988 with the Comprehensive Plan then. and then again re-evaluated in 2001. Shortly after the 2001 land use map was adjusted, the Pasadena Plaza property was rezoned and developed in agreement with the comprehensive plan changes. So although the land use map is no longer a part of our comprehensive plan in the past, this property was recommended for retail trade and professional services, which is generally has been considered consistent with our B-1 zone. So the staff, in looking at the requested rezoning, does believe that the request to rezone and the reasons requested for rezoning or justifying the zone change are appropriate, and the staff recommended approval subject to approval and certification of the zoning development plan, which Mr. Martin will present to you today. Our written recommendation is part of the agenda as well as the staff report in the notebooks. I can answer any specific questions about our recommendation at this time. The zoning committee also recommended approval of this request three weeks ago. All right. Do we have any questions? Very well. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan that you have before you today associated with this zone change is at the top of page 3, CDP 2016-56. As you can see, this is Pasadena Drive. Here is the subject property. This is the developed small shopping center. Nicholas Hill Road is in this direction. This is a relatively simple and straightforward plan, as you can see. 2,500-square-foot, one-story retail buildings being proposed with 10 parking spaces and a dumpster in the rear in this location. There are two issues that do face this property. One is subject to the variance request, which will be presented to you shortly. And as you all are aware, B-1 has a Build 2 line of 10 to 20. You can see that this is set back 75 feet. It's considerably beyond that bill, too. There are various reasons for that, which the variance report will go into in a little more detail. Ms. Wade mentioned the drop in the topography. There is quite a change in the topography on the property. This commercial development is also set well back from the road, so it lines up with that. Those are two of the issues affecting that, as well as Pasadena having been a public project and an improvement that affected these properties in this area. It was at Stone Road once upon a time right here, actually. The other issue that we've highlighted with arrows here is we would like to see cross-access available, and that is out of concern for the tremendous amount of traffic that is carried on this road. And as it comes into Nicholasville Road, it backs up during rush hour considerably. And there's strong precedence for that. Over the years, your staff, along with this body, have worked particularly on properties to the west to create internal access in order to minimize access to Pasadena as much as possible and allow the properties to function. That is one of these issues, as you all are aware, that we want on the table that we're willing to resolve at the time of the final development plan. There are seven conditions on the plan, and it was recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. All right, are there any questions? All right, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. I am presenting the staff report for the item on page 2 of your meeting agenda, item B, the variance portion of the request for MARV 2016-16. This request, as has been introduced by both Ms. Wade and Mr. Martin, is to increase the allowable front yard in the B1 zone from 20 feet to 75 feet. The property, as has been mentioned, is a vacant site. We do have another photo to show you from Pasadena Drive, but it is configured in such a way that it could fairly easily be incorporated into the adjacent shopping center. Using the development plan, and as has been mentioned, the site does slope away from Pasadena Drive to the rear, generally across the property from this corner being the high point to this corner being the low point. It is theoretically possible for this property to be developed with a building as close as 20 feet to Pasadena Drive. However, such a configuration would affect either the access to the property as it's proposed or the ability to connect the two parking lots at the two most logical points. So we do see this as a justification to consider the proposed variance request. Also, the staff put in our report, and as we reported to the zoning committee, another zone would also allow a building to be set back farther than 20 feet. The B3 zone in particular. But that zone was requested for this area, and I believe even for this property several years ago, and that zone was rejected for the site. So we don't see that as a viable option either. The 75-foot setback that is proposed is about the least amount of variance that would allow the building to align with the buildings in the existing center. If we can zoom out just a little on that photo, So I think that will give you good orientation to the front wall of the building on the adjacent Pasadena Plaza shopping center. As mentioned, the vehicular stacking in Pasadena Drive is also another reason the staff is interested in preserving the ability for these parking lots to connect at the time that you may see a final development plan for the property. The staff concluded our staff report by saying we do not believe that this variance would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, or would cause any loss or a diminishment of the essential character of the area of the subject property. Based on the location of the Pasadena Plaza buildings on the adjacent property, the variance that's being requested would not result in an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance. The staff and your zoning committee have recommended approval of the requested variances for the reasons that appear on the agenda. To briefly summarize, the first is that the nearby properties have been developed at a similar setback many years before the B-1 zone was more recently amended to require the maximum 20-foot building line. Secondly, the special circumstance associated with the subject property that does not apply, there are, that do not apply to most other B1 zone properties in this vicinity and throughout the community. Thirdly, strict application of the ordinance would have the effect of providing less opportunity for vehicular connection to the adjacent shopping center. Fourth, the requested variance is not an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance because there are many B1 zone properties in our community with a setback that does exceed 20 feet. And finally, the elevation difference between the site and Pasadena Drive is not the result of any action of the applicant or the developer, but rather more result of the government-sponsored widening of that road years ago. We do have three recommended conditions. Should the Commission approve the variants today, that would mainly be that they be denoted on the development plan and that the variance would be voided should the zone change not be approved by the Urban County Council. Prior to hearing from the applicant, I would be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about our staff report on the variance portion of this application. Mr. Penn. Bill, I might have asked this during the development plan stage, but by connecting those two with the other shopping center, is the ingress and egress for all that going to come out on Pasadena at this exit? If these two connections were made at the time of the final development plan, it's possible that there would still be the need for another access to Pasadena. It is also possible, in the staff's view, that this access would not be needed and that the existing access farther to the west could be sufficient for that. Thank you. All right. Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy of the law firm of Murphy & Clendenin, and Tony Barrett and I are here representing Dennis Anderson today. We agree with all staff conditions on this. Appreciate working with the staff on it. Just a couple remarks on it. on it the dentist did develop the pasadena plaza shopping center which is right next door it's this is a separate development plan this is under a little different ownership pasadena plaza is in the condominium form of ownership this is owned by dentists individually so it technically is different so we had to do this as a different development plan as far as the access points we We are in favor of interconnection. This is a generic building. We do not have an end user at this point. It's a preliminary development plan. So once we would get a user in here, we'd come back with a final, and we'd be able to make a more educated decision about where the connection is going to be and the access points and that sort of thing. So we agree with the staff having the condition number seven, which is resolve cross-access to adjacent parking area on adjoining B-1 property. That's at the final development plan stage. So I appreciate you hearing us, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this? All right. Seeing none. I'm going to close this part of the hearing and turn it over to Commission for comments and or motions. Ready to make a motion? Sure. Okay. Chair, I'm going to move for recommendation of approval of MARV 2016-16 for the reasons noted by staff. Very well. We have a motion and Carolyn is seconded. Okay. Carolyn Richardson. All right. Everybody, any discussion? Everybody in my vote. That motion carries and zone change is approved. I'm also going to move for approval of the requested variance. Very well. Second. We have a second by approval and a second by Karen Mundy. Everybody may vote. That motion carries. And move for approval of ZDP 2016-56 for the seven, subject to the seven. Second. reasons. Okay, we have a motion and a second by Joe Smith. Everybody may vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Alright, our next case looks like the by the Urban County Planning Commission. Thank you. Thank you. Next item is MAR 2016-17, and this is a zone change that was initiated by the Planning Commission in February of this year to facilitate an overlay zone, a neighborhood design character overlay zone, to be applied to properties that are located on Clinton Road. Clinton Road has 55 parcels that are part of this requested rezoning, and then one additional parcel that's a local park that was not included in the zone change. I handed out one exhibit that the staff prepared since the zoning committee related to potential nonconformities that would be created by the overlay. And then I also have emails that we received or correspondence from area residents that are in favor of the request, and there are 18. Clinton Road is located within the Shriners Neighborhood Association in Fayette County, but it is also part of Ashland Park and Lakewood Estates subdivisions. and it is west of Richmond Road, east of Chenoway Road, and inside of New Circle. The Clinton Road is approximately four blocks long, and it connects from Cooper and Prather to the south. Cooper here, and then it connects to Prather. It runs north and south and connects to Clay Spring Lane on the north side, which is just one block off of Richmond Road. Again, I mentioned it's in the Shriners Neighborhood Association. Shriners Hospital is just adjacent to several of the lots that are part of the Clinton Road ND1 overlay that's proposed. Obviously, it has some access onto Fontaine Road, but also onto Shriners Lane in this area. It is adjacent to the area proposed for rezoning, though. All of Clinton Road remains residentially zoned in either an R1B or an R1C zone. The overlay zone won't change that. It just simply changes some of the requirements for redevelopment that become part of the zoning for that property. It doesn't change the underlying residential zone and what is permitted by that, though. In the general vicinity, other than the Shriners Hospital property, all of the adjoining areas are single-family residential in zoning and character. As you move down Fontaine, there are some duplexes, and those are located in an R2 zone. But generally, the character of this area is similar to that of the surrounding area. Just an aerial photograph of the area that's outlined in yellow. and does show just generally the area has been built out with mostly a grid system. As you get closer to the subject property, the grid doesn't quite connect in every case. For instance, Hart Road continues, and Fontaine does. I don't even know what's not labeled. Which one is that? Cochran does not connect through. Thank you. And then there are some other connections that are not made all the way through towards Fontaine and Henry Clay High School. Let me see what else. The characteristics in terms of Clinton Road, as I mentioned, this area, specifically Clinton Road, was platted as part of the Ashland Subdivision, and particularly Units 1011, 11A, and 12 in the 1950s. It was originally part of the Henry Clay Estate and Farm. Most of the properties within the area have post-World War II ranch homes and colonial traditional homes with basements, but there are several contemporary and a few Cape Cod-style homes as well, and then one lot is vacant. The area is characterized by large setbacks and mature trees and other landscaping for the most part. And structures are primarily brick and stone materials. The ND1 overlay zone was considered by the Clinton Road residents for a few reasons. But originally, the deed restrictions that were put in place in the 1950s expired in the mid-1980s, so they were in place for 30 years but were not automatically renewed as many are today. In the past year, when a new property owner requested that they have their front setback changed by the Planning Commission to allow an addition on the front of the house, the neighborhood became aware that those deed restrictions were no longer active or in place for their neighborhood or their portion of the neighborhood. So that was one of the precipitating events that had the neighborhood thinking about what changes could happen to their street. And then the other is that some of the character in the surrounding neighborhood has changed. For instance, Culpeper has had several additions, large additions or teardowns and replacements of new residential homes that have changed some of the character on that street. So those two things or events that have been happening in the general area really spurred the neighborhood to look at the ND1 as a possibility for their particular street. So they did a study of the early and present character and how it has changed, and they also did resident participation in surveys about the different standards that they had developed based on their studies. Article 29 of the zoning ordinance is what lays out for these neighbors the option to rezone or propose to the planning commissioner of the council that they rezone or put an overlay on the property. And the intent of the Article 29 is to help neighborhoods to preserve the character of their neighborhoods. Otherwise, there's the fear, the idea that that character could be lost if the ND1 was not put in place. The Clinton Road residents did submit the request to the Planning Commission along with the supporting documentation, and the Planning Commission should have that packet in front of them as well. It described the impetus for the ND1 proposal, which I just mentioned, but it also went into detail about their research and what they proposed in terms of standards. The building block towards those standards, though, was that the neighborhood developed four preservation goals, and those were on the overhead, that these goals directed their work in terms of identifying what standards, design standards, should be put in place for their neighborhood. First, they want to maintain the open appearance of the street, and it is rather uniform. Avoid further subdivision of corner lots, which has happened within the neighborhood already. Preserve the current building sizes and the proportion of open space to building on the lot. And then lastly, maintain the consistency and quality of exterior appearances of the buildings. Clinton Road residents proposed nine ND1 standards for their street. And we'll go through these one by one briefly. First, they proposed building setbacks be established basically so that they would be consistent with what was built and what was originally developed or intended by the developer in the 1950s. In that regard, in the 200 and 300 blocks on both sides of Clinton Road, it's proposed to be a 50-foot setback. And then in the 400 and 500 block, it differs based on which side of the street you're on. But the proposal is consistent with the existing character and setbacks of the buildings along Clinton Road. And I'm going to mention the nonconformities that are created here. You'll notice on the handout that was distributed, there are a number that are identified with orange or the orange and green. These lots, which are mostly corner lots, actually all are corner lots, they don't have a front yard issue. They have a side street, side yard issue. And that's, I hope, going to be fixed. But in each case, the front of the house that faces Clinton Road meets the proposed standards, but the side street does not. So where you establish a 50-foot setback for a front yard, it would be 50 on the side street side yard as well. That would create the structures for these lots. They would become nonconforming. The next standard proposed by the neighbors, it has to do with lot widths. And again, this mimics the original plats for the area. Their hope is to prevent further corner subdivisions with the lot width requirement. Number three is FAR ratio, which they hope to establish at an FAR of 0.33. This would exclude basements. In our calculation or estimation, this would allow approximately 6,000 square feet above grade for each lot to be built, which the staff felt was not too restrictive, in fact, probably fairly generous for the area. And again, that restriction is meant to keep homes in scale with the neighborhood and maintain the appearance of the streetscape. Number four has to do with building heights. Again, this is a scale issue. They want to restrict the height of buildings to a maximum of 30 feet to the highest ridge. Our ordinance actually measures it to mid-gable, so that would be, this is probably a 5 to 8 or 10 foot difference. It would generally restrict three-story buildings. They do have a few two-story structures, but for the most part, and this would continue to allow a two-story home, but it wouldn't allow a three-story home. And again, most of their structures are single story or one and a half with a few two stories. The exterior building materials, they are asking to restrict building materials to brick, stone, finished wood, the cementious fiberboard siding, or the same material as currently exists on 90% of the structure. They were agreeable to excluding windows and doors and their respective frames. Actually, HBAL recommended that that be included as an exclusion or an exception, because most windows and doors and their frames are obviously not made of those materials. And in fact, the framing or the surrounding for those are often either vinyl or aluminum. them, so those would not be part of the restriction. And then the next part of their proposed standard has to do with vinyl only being allowed on eaves and cornices, and again, because windows and doors and their frames are excluded, they could be surrounded in vinyl. But the only other place vinyl would be allowed was around the eaves and cornices of a structure, otherwise it would be prohibited as a material, and then any other material would be proposed to be prohibited. And again, this is to ensure that new construction, including addition, is consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood and the built environment. Number six is for landscaping, but generally it has to do with fences and retaining walls. You want to limit front yard fences to only 36 inches in height, which is three feet. Generally, the ordinance allows them to be four feet, so that's not a huge change. They want to restrict the materials as well and have no chain link fencing in the front yard. This standard, again, would highlight what is existing. There are some short fences, and those could remain, and additional ones could be installed, but nothing that would be taller than three feet. The staff did suggest a few small tweaks to this particular standard, which the zoning committee also recommended and the neighborhood seemed okay with in terms of making sure that freestanding walls also be mentioned. And since the last sentence of their standard talked about a retaining wall, generally freestanding walls are regulated as a fence is. And we just wanted to be clear that if we're regulating a retaining wall, that a freestanding wall is also permitted. And again, the neighborhood seemed agreeable to that change. Number seven has to do with rear yard setbacks. The staff also suggested a change to this, just in terms of the wording, not in terms of changing the intent of the particular standard, but it would increase the rear yard setback from what is currently permitted in the zone, which is 10 feet to 40 feet. And this is to, again, maximize the open space on a lot. It does not apply in any case to accessory structures, just to the principal structure on the lot. There were a few nonconformities for this one, I believe five. Again, that's on your handout. Those are locations generally where the lot splits have occurred and now the rear yard is less than 40 feet. And then the last two standards proposed have to do with accessory structures, limiting those to 800 square feet. and then making sure that building orientation is towards Clinton Road, which is their main corridor. That would prevent another corner split where you would turn back half of the property towards a side road. I believe that's the last of it. The proposed standard for accessory structures was established at 800 square feet, and I believe that's the largest accessory structure that exists in the neighborhood currently. so there would be no nonconformities with that one. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan generally recommends use of the ND1 and H1 overlays as tools to help preserve neighborhoods, and in both cases, they help to meet the goals and objectives for providing well-designed neighborhoods and communities and protecting and enhancing the natural and cultural landscapes of Fayette County. Specifically, Theme A, Goal 3A, recommends enabling existing neighborhoods like Clinton Road to flourish through expanded opportunities for neighborhood character preservation. And implementation of an ND1 by any neighborhood really would be in agreement with a comprehensive plan. Before we wrap up, and I mentioned the staff's recommendation, We did note in our staff report that the staff had one concern about the proposal by Clinton Road, and that is that it is one street of a larger neighborhood association and also larger subdivision. and although they firmly believe that they are a neighborhood in and of themselves, the staff still was concerned because it is also part of a larger neighborhood and bringing in individual streets of neighborhoods for individual ND1s, not just in terms of the process of rezoning, but in terms of the work conducted by the Division of Planning and building inspection on a daily basis. every ND1 that is brought in becomes additional work for our staff to review and make interpretations on. And also for the builders, when they bring those in, they have additional work that they have to do for ND1. The staff does recommend approval with those few slight modifications that I mentioned already to number 6 and number 7. And then I didn't mention it, but number four, we added a comma, too, in the alternative recommendation. The zoning committee also recommended approval of the alternative that the staff presented three weeks ago. I'd be happy to answer any questions. And I know the neighborhood is here and can tell you more about their process and how they selected the particular standards. All right. Thank you very much. Frank has a question. Okay. Mr. Payne? Tracy, on number eight, accessory structures said maximum footprint of 800 square feet. Does that mean it can be two-story? They can. So it could be a 1,600 square foot if you went two stories. Yes. There's still a height limit in the zoning ordinance for accessory structures. Generally, I believe it's 20 feet. It is what it reads, maximum footprint of 800 square feet? Yes. Most accessory structures are not two-story, but they could be. Thank you. Also, Mr. Penn, there is also a general ordinance provision that accessory structures can only total half of the square footage of the principal structure. But still, in this area, they would be allowed to be two-story. What sort of uses could you have in accessory structure? Well, I don't have my ordinance in front of me, but generally an accessory structure can be for like a pool house, a detached garage or shed to store a lawnmower or other equipment. I can't think of really anything else that's common for single family. Playhouse, yeah, play equipment for kids. Could it have two bedrooms? Can it have bedrooms in it? That's a good question. It can have a guest quarters, so it can have a bedroom, but it cannot have kitchen and bathroom facilities. You can't have all three, otherwise it becomes a separate dwelling unit. Following that up, so it can't be a granny flat? No, it cannot. So if you leave the kitchen out? Yes, you can have a guest room above your garage. And a bath. A bath. Just no kitchen. Right. We always understood you couldn't have the three components in a kitchen. You could have kitchen cabinets, but you couldn't have a stove or you couldn't have a sink. Yeah. That's true. And we can dive into definition of a kitchen whenever you all are ready. That's accessory dwelling units. We've talked about those previously. I guess what we were pointing out, and at least I mentioned it in committee, was that those could get pretty big and get, you know, they could be dwelling units for somebody. So the ordinance doesn't permit it to be a full dwelling unit today, but in the future, that may be an option. But a guest house is a dwelling unit. I mean, somehow they get that way. All right. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next, we'll hear from the applicants, Clinton Road applicants. If you'll state your name and address. My name is Monica Kern, and I live on 505 Clinton Road. I have a quick PowerPoint. Yep, that's it. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for listening to our remarks and our proposal today. Tracy's already gone over a lot of this. I'm going to be very brief. Clinton Road is in the Ashland Park area. It's one of the most desirable neighborhoods in town in terms of its location, proximity to UK and downtown and school district. The lots are quite large. They're averaging just under half an acre. And at the most recent PVA assessment that was put out just a couple months ago, the homes range in value from $345,000 to over a million dollars with an average of $526,000. People who come to visit us will often remark that Clinton Road is one of the prettiest streets in Lexington. We completely agree. What makes our streets so attractive are the large lots, the deep front yard setbacks, the ample green space, and the mature landscaping that characterize all the homes. What I've done in the next few slides is just to give you a sense of the homes on the street So if you're not familiar with our street, you can see what gives it its distinctive and beautiful character. The best way to do this really would be to drive up and down our street. And I actually tried to make a video doing exactly that. But I am not the world's best videographer, and it was pretty jerky. So instead of risking giving you all motion sickness, I'm just putting up a bunch of photos. As you can see, the houses vary considerably in architectural style with regard to features such as porches, presence or absence of columns, types of windows, and so on. But the vast majority, over 80%, are constructed of brick or brick and stone combinations. Slightly over half are ranches, with the remaining mostly being one and a half stories. and as you can see, no two homes look exactly alike, and that adds greatly to the appeal of the street. We're an older, established neighborhood. We're not a cookie-cutter subdivision. And what really pulls the street together and gives it a distinctive feel are these uniform and deep setbacks in the front yard and the corresponding large amounts of green space. The residents of Clinton Road became interested in establishing the ND1 overlay about a year and a half ago when we discovered that the deed restrictions originally attached to our homes apparently expired in the 1980s, which was news to us. At the same time, we were alarmed by recent trends in neighboring streets where houses were being either torn down completely or substantially renovated, renovated, resulting in very large houses being built on their lots, leaving almost no green space or distance between the homes. And this tendency was especially noticeable on corner lots that were being subdivided into two or even three building sites. And this slide, I think, is a good example of what we're seeing. Where's my little red thing? Okay. This is an overhead view of a lot on the corner of Culpeper and Hart. Clinton Road is right over here. What used to be a single house lot was subdivided into three lots with three very big houses built on each of the three spots. And this is a straight view of it. You can see that the two houses are very tall, very big, and there's practically no space whatsoever between the houses. And that creates a problem not just aesthetically, but we've seen in recent events in other parts of the city it creates a fire and a safety hazard. I have a couple of other slides showing you some typical construction going on nearby. This is another corner lot that was subdivided on the corner of Culpeper and Prather. You can see that an addition or the house goes well into what used to be the backyard of that lot, and the house is jutting up right next to the property line of the adjacent home. You might recognize this one. This was in the newspaper. This is the house on Tate's Creek Road across from Morton, where the owners decided to build a very large addition, which is supposed to be made out of glass and steel to house a whole bunch of cars. More typical of recent construction in nearby streets is this house, which is on Culpeper Road, that, as you can see, the home is very large. of big additions have been built to the back, making consisting most of the backyard. And it's very, very tall. It towers over the neighboring houses on the street. And then this home is recent construction on the corner of Culpeper and Hart. This house is just simply enormous, and it seems to take up the entire lot. There's very, very little yard space. I want to stress that in other settings on larger lots, these homes would be perfectly okay. But they're out of character for our neighborhood, and the residents of Clinton Road are worried that this kind of construction, which is occurring very close to us, will start happening on our street. So we decided to proceed and apply for an ND1 overlay. I'm just going to go very briefly over our process. We consulted at length with the members of the planning staff, as well as Coleman Bush, who had spearheaded the Metathorpe ND1. We conducted an architectural survey, which allowed us to identify the features that make our street distinctive. We held numerous neighborhood meetings and focus groups, which allowed us first to determine if there was sufficient support for pursuing an ND1, as well as discovering what standards neighbors felt were most important to address in the ND1. With the assistance of planning staff, we also met with representatives of the building and home renovation trades, who were very helpful in refining the phrasing of our standards. We drafted our standards with these four preservation goals. Tracy's already talked about them, so I'm just going to skip over that. And it's important to stress that our goal is not to discourage any kind of renovations or additions or implement restrictive and onerous restrictions on homeowners. Many, if not most, of the homes on Clinton Road, as a matter of fact, have been renovated in the past. We have been fortunate that the renovations that have taken place in the past have largely been in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. So when we phrased our standards, we intentionally specified limits that represented the upper range of what already existed on our street. So we wrote the standards so that they would accommodate the existing character of the street, but would hopefully prevent the kind of overbuilding we were seeing going on nearby. Once we arrived at a final draft of the standards, we mailed out a petition to all property owners on Clinton Road. On that ballot, we asked residents first if they supported the notion of the ND1 overlay in general. Then we asked them to voice agreement or disagreement with each of the nine standards individually. Of the 55 ballots sent out, 42 were returned, and of those, 40 voted in favor of the ND1 overlay. That's a 95% approval rate. Looking at the standards individually, they all also received extremely high rates of approval, ranging from 86% to 95% support in the ballots returned. Several months later, as required by the zoning regulations, the planning staff sent out their own mailing to property owners on Clinton Road, and of the ballots they sent out, 35 were returned, and there were only three negative votes. Over 90% of the ballots in that mailing supported the ND1 overlay for Clinton Road. I've now sat through enough of these meetings, and heaven knows you all have sat through many, many, many more, to know that reaching such strong consensus on the zoning issue is practically unheard of. The neighbors on Clinton Road want this overlay. I hope we've convinced you that Clinton Road is an established neighborhood that's one of the treasures of Lexington. Unfortunately, it is currently facing imminent threats of development, as witnessed by the numerous renovations taking place in surrounding streets. The existing zoning restrictions simply are not adequate to preserve the distinctive character of our large lots, deep setbacks, and houses that are proportionate to the lot size. Years ago, this city and this commission had the wisdom and foresight to create the ND1 overlay mechanism to help neighborhoods preserve their character and to help preserve the special nature and charm that makes Lexington such a beautiful city to live in. The homeowners on Clinton Road need the protection of an ND1 overlay to preserve our unique neighborhood character, and we ask you to approve this proposal. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this? Good afternoon. I'm Linda Allen. I live at 504 Clinton Road. I've lived there for 18 years. My husband, Mike and I, we raised two kids on that road. I noticed that Mr. Murphy was here and he left. I'm sorry he left because I did want to thank him because it was his suggestion early on over a year ago that we take this up as an ND1 overlay, that that was the best option really to make a more permanent change. Otherwise, we would be battling these over and over again and really not even know when these issues were coming before you. It's very difficult for homeowners to even be in that loop. I wanted to thank members of the Planning Commission and the staff for all the work that you do. I, like Monica through this process, have really come to appreciate all the hours, the effort and the commitment that you have, every one of you. Really, thank you for that. I want to state that my husband and I are in full support of the ND1 overlay proposal. We, too, value the distinctive character of the street. It was the reason we moved on the street 18 years ago. And fortunately, it has maintained for the most part, except for some of these issues. So it is a mechanism whereby we can keep that. We're also happy that people have the ability to do additions. If there's an empty lot, someone will be able to go in and build a nice home on that lot. We're not trying to restrict the owners from that. But if you walk around these properties, these new properties that are not on Clinton but are just adjacent to our walk. Just pull your car up, walk around. They've got for sale signs. There are speculators. The yard is gone. I mean, the entire building is on the lot completely. Just walk around and see it. It's amazing, and it's totally out of character. So anyway, I just want to let you know that I support this. Thank you for taking the time, and those pictures tell a thousand words. All right, very well. Thank you. Are there others? They're speaking in opposition. Okay, let's get the... My name is Linda Price, and I live at 501 Clinton Road. My house is on one of the corner lots, and from the beginning of this process, we've been really vitally concerned about preserving the character of Clinton Road. We've lived in three other neighborhoods in Lexington, and we've loved them all, but we've loved Clinton Road the most, and it's not because of the house that we live in. It's because of the street. We just find the street with the beautiful green space and everything very desirable, and we believe that without the protection of the ND1, the street is really in danger. We believe the beauty and the character is at great risk. For example, we believe that without this protection, a lot like ours, developers could come in, buy that property, tear down our house, and conceivably divide it into two or possibly even three lots and build three houses on that lot. And I think that would really change the character of Clinton Road. We respect that other people like large houses on smaller lots and don't want to do a lot of yard maintenance. But those of us who bought property on Clinton Road like that green space and large lots. And so we just ask that you really vote positively for the ND1 and help us protect the character of our street. And like Linda, I do thank you for all the service that you do for our community. Thank you so much. Okay, thank you. Anyone else in favor? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I'm Penny Warren. I live at 208 Clinton Road. And I want to talk about one of the crown jewels on Clinton Road, and that is Clay Spring Park. It used to be named Clinton Road Park, but a year ago it was rededicated as Clay Spring. It was originally deeded to the city in 1954 for use as a park. I need to do that. It is beautifully landscaped. It's historically marked. The residents of Clinton Road have contributed to it, both plannings and toward the cost of the new markers. The original subdivision developers wanted to preserve that green space, and we've been true to that goal. Here's a picture of the front of the park and the new stone marker that's been put in. Another marker in the back shows where Henry Clay watered his livestock in Clay's spring. There are many memorial trees planted in the park. You can see a little bit of the green space. At noon today, I saw a couple of people back in the back, one of them playing with his dog, exercising his dog, another one having lunch at the picnic table. It's well used. There's a picnic, the Clinton Road picnic, every year in the park. There's an Easter egg hunt. I think it's a great example of how important green space was to the original developers and to us as residents. It is the main reason we chose to buy our house there 10 years ago. The character of the street is definitely unique, and we hope you'll help us preserve it. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Hello, I'm Jane Farmer, and I live at 509 Clinton Road. And I moved in the year 2000 to 509 Clinton Road because I just love the street and the neighborhood. I grew up in Atlanta where there were lots of trees back in the 40s and 50s. And, of course, Atlanta has changed a lot. And my street is changing a lot, Clinton. I have a – my house is more modest than some. But I have a little picket fence, a little short picket fence in the back. And since I've moved in, there's been a huge house put right behind me on Culpeper. I mean, it's like three stories high, probably, at least. And they put a big, solid fence up, and it makes my little fence look pretty shabby. I've been trying to keep up the yard and keep it nice and love to take the grandkids for walks up and down the street and I just hate to see these huge houses up there and then the yards getting smaller and it doesn't have the same feel anymore. And the neighbors are really nice and friendly and supportive. It's a great street. It really is. So thank you for listening. All right. Thank you. My name is Catherine Donworth. I live at 512 Clinton Road. And I'm going to be brief. I'm completely in support of this ND1 overlay to preserve the street. I have a daughter and she's nine and then there's families with young kids across the way and we spend a lot of time I think out in the front compared to a lot of streets because of that large setback in green space and it's just a lovely environment for the kids to be able to go out in the front yard and play and I feel that if our street is allowed to if we don't preserve those setbacks then the larger properties come in and I think we lose a lot of that character and safety, too, where we can watch our kids with full view of the street with those large setbacks. So thank you for your time, and thank you. All right. Thank you. I'll tag team there. I'm Anne Dunworth. I am Catherine's sister-in-law, and I live at 405 Clinton Road. The whole reason why we bought that house a year and a half ago was because we had been going to see my brother-in-law and sister-in-law there for years. We loved the street, and when we decided we were moving to town, this is where we wanted to be. The house that we bought had not, it was, you know, essentially had not been renovated since the original owners built it, which they did very lovingly. It was a great house. They raised four kids there. We did a lot of work to our house, But the point of these restrictions is not to say you can't update the house. Everything that we did to our house was what I would have done regardless of whatever was there. Also, none of these restrictions would have changed or impacted what I was able to do. It's all about the taste of the neighborhood. And also, again, you can look at the property values there and see that these existing restrictions and how these houses are built now. I mean, to have a house there, I don't even know which one it is, that's valued at $1.1 million, these lots are valuable as they are now. They don't need to be redeveloped with big three-story homes in order to retain their value. And if people are concerned about being able to do more with their lots or wanting to do a larger space or larger house on their lot, they can very easily sell it and do that elsewhere in one of those neighborhoods that it would be more fitting. So I hope you all will support it. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anyone else that wants to speak for this? Speak now? All right. Is there anyone that wants to? I'm at the office. I'm at 513, and I support that. I'm Lance and Bowden. We live in the 400. Wait a minute. You've got to come to the microphone. We're recording this. I'm Lance and Bowden. We live in the 400 block. We actually live next to the empty lot. So we bought our home. We moved here from Louisville. We lived in St. Matthews and loved the green space. We looked around Lexington before we chose our house. The reason we chose our house is because there's not many homes left in the deputies' neighborhood that actually have yards. We chose our house because Clinton Road has beautiful yards, and we're so grateful that it has maintained that beauty. But we do have a lot next door to us that is vacant. and the thought of someone building a behemoth house next to us would be really, really disappointing. So one that would deter from the value of our home, I think. So that's why I'm here in support of the overlay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Sorry, I hate to take up more of your time. Kathy Arms. We live at 513. We moved here from Tennessee where we had five acres. picked this street just like everyone else has said because it was the largest lots, closest to what we needed to be, good schools and downtown, and we would love to see the ND1 overlay put into place. Thank you. All right. We're recording this, so that's why you have to come so the minutes accurately reflect in case there was a challenge, I guess. All right. Is that all that's for? All right. Anybody opposed? Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, staff. I am Christopher Clendenin. I'm the other half of Murphy and Clendenin, for those of you who don't know me. I'm here today representing one of the property owners on Clinton Road, Wayne and Linda Bussell, who, as Ms. Wade alluded to, this initial impetus for the ND1 overlay got it started because they were interested in trying to have a setback change from 50 feet to 30 feet, which this commission turned down on that application. A subsequent application was turned down 50 to 40, and that case is now pending in court. Let me advance my slides. Here's a slide of 508 Clinton Road where the Bustles owned the property. The reason they wanted to do that, if you can see the next slide here, that narrow driveway. They had a very difficult time navigating in and out, so they wanted to build an addition so that they could have a garage that would be more accessible for their car. I'm going to talk about the intent of Article 29 the purpose of Article 29 and the policies regarding Article 29 I'm not going to go over this verbatim but as you can see, I'll go back here a highlighted portion they talk about residential neighborhoods non-residential areas, residential neighborhoods, non-residential areas, neighborhoods, and non-residential commercial areas. Do you see a consistent pattern? In the law, we refer to that as the Whole Rule Act. And what that means is words that are used consistently should be consistently interpreted in a consistent manner to make sense of the statute. So in this case, they're differentiating in this ordinance between, quote-unquote, what a neighborhood is and what an area is. An area is something that's non-residential or a place. Same thing here with the goals. Neighborhoods, areas, or places. Residential neighborhood. Non-residential area. So what we're talking about here are neighborhoods. Now, these are the current ND1 overlay neighborhoods. And if all of you have lived in Lexington for any period of time, you're familiar with these neighborhoods. If we can take a second, just think about Chevy Chase. All of you have been there and what that's like. It's distinct. It's its own kind of vibe. It's got its own feel. There's walking to and from. There's the older shops and the community. And some new restaurants pop up now and then. Greenbrier, that's totally different than Chevy Chase. We're all familiar with Meadowflorp and what that's like. Montclair, same thing, and the Colony. They all have a distinct feel. What they have in common, here's the maps of the overlay zones. In addition to this, this is an overlay zone, or this is a representation of the neighborhood association for Chevy Chase. Do you notice a similarity between that and the overlay? same thing for Greenbrier Meadowthorpe Mount Claire the Colony these are things they have in common they're unique they have distinct characteristics and they're worth preserving I'm very much in favor of ND1 my clients are too It isn't about ND1. It's just about using it in the right manner. One of the things I have in common of the five that are currently in existence are that they have multiple streets. It's more than one street. And they have neighborhood associations that reflect the actual neighborhood. Now, the difference here is this. This is in contrast to Clinton Road, which is actually just one street in the Shriners neighborhood. And as these residents sincerely and heartfeltly express to you, their neighborhood has changed. They're talking about preserving one street now in that neighborhood. But if you talk about the street on Fontaine or Culpeper or Hart Road, the characteristics of this neighborhood have already changed. I don't think this is in agreement with the comprehensive plan because I don't believe that Clinton Road in and of itself constitutes a neighborhood. Neither do my clients. I want you to consider that. I don't think and don't believe and want you to consider the possibility that despite the heartfelt thoughts and expressions of these residents on Clinton Road, that Clinton Road in and of itself actually constitutes a neighborhood. I also think it could be a gateway to set a bad precedent that Ms. Wade alluded to. this is a shot of Clay Spring Lane. It's next to the park that was spoke about here at the meeting. It's also a street that connects to Clinton Road. There's five lots on that street. Now, this is an extreme example, but it's done to make a point. Are we going to give ND1 designation to this street? And if we set this precedent that A Street is entitled to ND1, in contrast to the types of neighborhoods where it's been given right now, then potentially, in theory, every street in Lexington could come before this commission and say, this is what I love about my street. This is why it needs to be preserved and protected from these people on the street next door because they have a different idea of what they want to do with their property. and protected from those evil developers who are building these monstrosities and dwarfing my house and my fence. Again, two of the lots here aren't built on. The setbacks are dramatically larger than 50 feet. So I guess in theory, Clay Spring Lane also could be entitled to preserving its characteristics and it's unique, and it maybe should be given ND1. Again, it's just an extreme example, but hopefully to make the point. I want to refer to the pending litigation. There is an appeal, as I alluded to earlier. This commission turned down the bustles on their initial application to have a reduction in the front yard setback from 50 to 30. they didn't appeal that decision they came back with a reduction to 41 feet this commission turned them down again that decision is on appeal now if they prevail and i believe that they will no offense then they will remodel their house with a 41 foot setback and it will be a house that's out of character of this proposed ND1. And it sounds to me like this would be a very upsetting thing for these residents. Can we keep it on this ND1 issue? I'm sorry, you're on? Can we keep this on the ND1 issue and not on? I understand. Let's don't talk about appeals. I understand. I understand. What I'm asking you to do is this, instead of making a decision on this today, is that the commission itself has proposed this, and so there's no time limitation on you. Let's find out what the outcome of this is on the litigation before we do the ND1 proposal, give it some thought. Maybe there will be some change in attitudes, some change in thinking. And to conclude, I have no doubt that these people are very sincere in what they've expressed here today, and I understand and I respect and admire them. I'm a little upset with my partner, Mr. Murphy, who supposedly gave him this idea. So I'll have to speak to him after I'm done here. But what I would like you to consider is this. I don't necessarily disagree with what their intent is. I just disagree with their methods, and so do my clients. I don't think that what they want is a bad thing, and I'm not necessarily arguing against it. I just don't believe that ND1 is the appropriate way to accomplish what they're trying to accomplish. ND1 is a valuable zoning tool, and I think it's very worthwhile. And in the five instances that it has been granted, it's more than appropriate. And again, remember about the five neighborhoods we're talking about. In this case, I just think it's an inappropriate use. Also, we do need to consider what Ms. Wade said. You could be inundated with street after street after street after street in here if you set this precedent. And it would potentially burden the commission to some extent and the staff. That's my conclusion of my presentation. If you all have questions, I'll be glad to answer them. You have, as you've referred to, litigation with your clients, and the court's going to make that determination. Yes. What's the injury to your client of the adoption of the ND1? My clients are not here on behalf of themselves in terms of the ND1. If they win their litigation, if they ultimately prevail, they'll be able to do that. Let's don't go there. Okay, I'm sorry. I'm trying to answer your question, Mr. Chairman. Don't ask it. There would be no impact on them. there are residents on Clinton Road who are not in favor of this. You've answered my question. Thank you. Okay. Apologize, Mr. Chairman. I'm just trying to answer his question. All right. I know. You're as bad as he was. I gave you that. Okay. You done? Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. I guess we can have, is there any rebuttal? Can I get my PowerPoint back up? I'm Monica Kern. I live at 505 Clinton. We've heard some of these objections, so I came a little bit prepared. If we can go to slide 23, do I need to just flip through it, or is that the quickest way? Okay. Okay. We heard Mr. Clinton didn't say that Clinton Road should not have an ND1 overlay because it is not a neighborhood. That begs the question, what exactly is a neighborhood? If you look at the zoning ordinance for Lexington, it starts off with 18 pages of definitions of various terms related to property, but it does not include a definition of neighborhood. So we can look at various dictionary definitions of neighborhood. The last one up there shown is from Wikipedia, and it says that neighborhoods are defined spatially as a specific geographic area and functionally as a set of social networks. Neighborhoods, then, are the spatial units in which face-to-face social interactions occur. By that or any definition, Clinton Road is a neighborhood. It possesses a distinct geographical identity. Culpeper to the west has lots that are much smaller in size, and they have numerous multifamily dwellings, which we don't have on Clinton. Adair and Bristol to the east are much shorter. They contain cul-de-sacs. They don't have a 200 block or even a 300 block in some cases, and they don't connect up to either Prather or Clay Spring Roads. Clinton Road also possesses a distinct social identity. We have relatively low turnover on our street, given the desirability of the neighborhood. Some of the residents, in fact, are the original homeowners when the street was developed in the 1950s. We have an annual Clinton Road picnic that has been held for over 20 consecutive years that is well attended by the residents. In short, we are a neighborhood because we feel and we act like a neighborhood. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Clinton Road is not a neighborhood. The reality is that it doesn't matter. We are still eligible for the ND1 overlay. While the zoning ordinance did not include a definition of neighborhood in its 18 pages of definitions, it did include a definition of the ND1 overlay zone, saying that it is a zone whereby key characteristics of a particular neighborhood or area are preserved for either new building or replacement of existing structures. And then further down in Article 29, which is the article that lays out the regulations for the ND1 zone specifically, it says that any area, neighborhood, or place meeting one or more of the following criteria shall be eligible for designation as an ND1 district. Seven criteria are then given, and in our opinion, Clinton Road meets most, if not all, of those criteria. But the most relevant one is the third criterion I've listed there. There is a need to protect the visual characteristics that give a neighborhood or area its distinct identity. Objections were also made that Clinton Road is too small for an ND1 overlay. Again, nowhere in the zoning ordinance does it specify a minimum number of houses or streets that must be included to qualify an area for an ND1. There's also precedents for smaller ND1 overlay zones. The ND1 for the colony consists of about 75 homes on five streets, whereas RND1 would consist of 55 home sites on four blocks. In our opinion, that's not appreciably different. Plus, to respond to some of the concerns of the staff and what Mr. Clenenden just mentioned, I can promise you that if RND1 is approved, you are not going to be deluged with dozens of applications from other streets. This process, as you are aware, is incredibly time-consuming. We've been at this for a year and a half so far, with more to go. We've invested literally hundreds of man hours into this, hundreds of dollars in photocopying and mailing expenses. People will not initiate these proposals unless they are passionately committed to preserving their neighborhoods. Mr. Clinton has also asserted that the ND1 isn't necessary for Clinton Road, as the Planning Commission has shown that it will not support motions to reduce setbacks on the street. To this objection, we would say that just because we were successful in one particular instance, it doesn't mean we'll be successful in the future. More important, though, is that our ND1 overlay is about much more than simply the issue of setbacks. Our standards include other protections, such as the floor area ratio, that aren't addressed in the plat or current zoning restrictions. And we need those standards in order to protect the current character of our street. In sum, the residents of Clinton Road feel strongly that our street is a neighborhood, that we are eligible for an ND1 overlay, and the ND1 is essential for preserving the unique and beautiful character of our street. With all the renovation and rebuilding that's going on very close to Clinton Road, we don't have the time to wait for some undetermined purpose. So we urge you to approve our proposal. All right. Thank you. Stay in bounds. Always back up. with all due respect, as far as the dictionary definition, what's relevant here is the ordinance and the way it's crafted. And we touched on this during my initial presentation. Area is used in connection with non-residential. And the intent area is used in non-residential in connection with the purpose the word area and place separately is used in connection with non-residential in terms of the policies. This is the ordinance that was passed by the Irving County Government Council. Again, goals. Neighborhoods, areas, places. Residential or non-residential area. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Does staff have any... The staff does believe that the Clinton Road does constitute a neighborhood in and of itself, But in other ways, it can constitute a place as well, which the ordinance doesn't make any kind of determination that one should be residential and non-residential places, just use more generically. So if the Planning Commission doesn't feel it's a neighborhood in and of itself, you could determine based on the ordinance that it is in and of itself a place with the geographic boundaries, as Ms. Kern indicated. So the staff doesn't believe the ordinance eliminates the opportunity for Clinton Road to ask for an ND1. We wanted to just express our concern that if every ND1 that comes in is one road, it would be more time-consuming for the staff in reviewing those. So does that help or hurt? All right. Thank you. Is there a question? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I've got a question. Tracy, who owns Clinton Road Park? The city does. Is the 200 lot a part of that, or why is it left out of this overlay request? 200 is the park itself. Okay, thank you. All right, any other questions, Mr. Wilson? This is for simple clarification. I guess it would be to Ms. Kern. Are you representing the neighborhood as such? Are you the official representative or do you? Yes. Okay, then just as a small technicality as such, the staff has made some alternative design. Is your community in favor of the alternative design? Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay, any others? All right, I'm going to close the hearing and turn it over to the commission for their comments, motions, whatever they wish. Mr. Chairman, a couple of thoughts. Number one, we again as a body greatly appreciate the neighborhood's efforts in this. You have to put in the omen's work to get this thing through, so congratulations on getting it this far. I believe that the staff's comment is worth noting about the street by street, but I think the importance of protecting this neighborhood is much more critical than the possibility of that. So I would strongly urge my colleagues to support this effort. I think it's a beautiful street. I drive it nearly every day, and I think we need to preserve it. I'm one of the people that have thought that ND1s ought to have a high threshold, a high bar, a high standard. After what we've been through on the one house situation on Clinton, I've had the opportunity to drive that road a lot just to look at it to see what it is. When you live in the country, you don't get a chance to do that very often. And I will tell you that my reservation is the fact that I think it's a too small an area. I would like for Adair or somebody else to have been involved in this. But seeing what's happening in your neighborhood and seeing the teardowns and the rebuilds, I understand the urgency of what you all are having. So I'm going to let my reservation about the smallest of the area and the one street be overturned by the fact that I think you all need it at this time. First of all, I'd like to thank you all for coming down and all the time you've put in as well for trying to preserve your neighborhood. One thing I want to point out to you, and I go back to, and I use this example all the time, is your bundle of sticks. When you bought your property, you got a bundle of sticks. In that bundle of sticks, you give up rights in owning that property, whether it's you have to pay taxes, you have zoning ordinances, you have things that you lose some of your sticks. In doing this, not only are you preventing other people from doing things, but each of you is giving up another stick or two. So I just want to caution you in thinking about your future when you get ready to sell that property, when you get ready to maybe it will be your estate selling the property and they have to think about this restriction. I might win the lottery tomorrow, and I like Clinton Road. I think it's a nice neighborhood. I might want to come down there and buy two lots and build a house on it. With this restriction, I can't build that $1 million house that you've alluded to. So that's something that I also feel that you all need to think about with regard to this as well. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want again to thank the neighbors for coming down and for this long trail of preserving the character of your neighbor, which is unique. And I certainly intend to support a motion, which could I make now? Does anyone else have anything? I'd push to make a motion, but go ahead. You go ahead. No, no, no. Okay. It doesn't matter who makes it. I move approval of MAR 2016-17. Second. Okay, we have a motion. Who second? I do. Patrick. Ms. Plumlee, was that motion for the staff? Yes. Did you say that? My staff is for the staff alternative, too. Okay. That's all I want. You trying to do my job? You know, I'm making it difficult on this chair today. All right. So we have a motion and a second. Everybody vote. and motion carried you're welcome what's that okay we need to vacate the room I think it's a, Mr. Chair, I believe that's a weather warning, isn't that what Denise is saying over there? Okay. All right. Then we'll make this quick. Mr. Chair, I want to remind you all. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I want to remind you all that we have a meeting next Thursday at 1.30. we have a public hearing to consider the Windburn Small Area Plan. I believe Megan gave you all copies of the draft, and you all are welcome to take that with you. And if you have any comments between now and the hearing, you can let us know. We will consider that at a public hearing. We've already advertised that, so we'll do that at 1.30. And then following the hearing, we will go into work session. We'll turn off the cameras and then have our ordinary work session again in this room where we will present to you the draft of the Economic Development Zoda, the one that we had talked about in the winter. Tracy has put that into a draft format, and we'll bring that to you next week for discussion. All right, very well. Anything else? All right, let's have a motion to adjourn. Second. Meeting adjourned.