# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - July 28, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 28, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4027 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4027?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-07-28 - **Last revised**: July 28, 2016 - **Length**: 14,258 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 convened on July 28, 2016, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with William Wilson presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed three agenda items during the session, including the approval of minutes, postponements and withdrawals, and consideration of the Hillenmeyer & SFH Properties Preliminary Subdivision Plan. All three agenda items were approved by the commission. The meeting included five motions and votes, with commissioners hearing three public comments from attendees regarding the matters under consideration. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on July 28, 2016: • William Wilson • Will Berkley • Patrick Brewer • Mike Cravens • David Drake • Karen Mundy • Mike Owens • Carolyn Plumlee • Joseph Smith Two members were absent from the meeting: • Frank Penn • Carolyn Richardson No members arrived late to the meeting. A total of 9 members were present out of 11 total members. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on five items during the July 28, 2016 meeting, with all votes receiving unanimous support except for one preliminary subdivision plan. **Minutes Approval** Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve the minutes from the June 23, 2016 meeting, seconded by Karen Mundy. The motion passed unanimously with all nine members voting in favor. **DP 2016-65 - Kaluski Property Postponement** [timestamp: 02:00] The commission unanimously voted to postpone the Kaluski Property (Lexave Apartments) development plan. Carolyn Plumlee made the motion, seconded by Carolyn Richardson, with all nine members supporting the postponement. **MAR 2016-10 - Atlas I, LLC Withdrawal** [timestamp: 03:00] Mike Owens motioned to withdraw the zoning map amendment for 2100 and 2104 Harrodsburg Road from Atlas I, LLC, seconded by Mike Cravens. The withdrawal was approved unanimously by all nine commission members. **PLAN 2016-68F - Virginia Subdivision Withdrawal** [timestamp: 04:00] The commission unanimously approved the withdrawal of the Virginia Subdivision, Lot 1 & Half of Lot 2 final subdivision plan. Mike Cravens made the motion, seconded by Patrick Brewer, with all nine members voting in favor. **PLAN 2016-47P - Hillenmeyer & SFH Properties** [timestamp: 05:00] The most contentious vote involved the Hillenmeyer & SFH Properties preliminary subdivision plan. Mike Owens motioned for approval, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion passed 6-3 with 18 conditions, plus additional conditions for tree replacement and compliance with an agreement with Mr. Coffin. Voting in favor: William Wilson, Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, David Drake, and Karen Mundy. Voting against: Mike Owens, Carolyn Plumlee, and Joseph Smith. ## Public Comment Three residents addressed the commission during the public comment period, focusing primarily on development and environmental concerns. **Amy Clark** [timestamp: 02:30] spoke regarding the Kaluski Property postponement, expressing agreement that the postponement was the correct decision. Clark noted that citizens had not yet had adequate opportunity to review the revised development plan. **Walter Gaffield** [timestamp: 06:00] raised concerns about tree removal processes in development projects. Gaffield emphasized the importance of developers submitting accurate plans and expressed worry about the current procedures governing tree removal on development sites. **Ginny Daily** [timestamp: 07:00] addressed tree preservation issues, urging the commission to take action to prevent clear-cutting and the loss of tree canopy coverage. Daily referenced Nashville as an example of a city that has implemented measures to protect urban forestry, encouraging the commission to consider similar approaches to preserve the local tree canopy. The public comments reflected ongoing community concerns about balancing development with environmental preservation, particularly regarding tree protection and the adequacy of public review processes for development proposals. ## Contested Items The Hillenmeyer & SFH Properties Preliminary Subdivision Plan generated significant debate among commission members, resulting in a split 6-3 vote for approval. The primary areas of contention centered on two key issues: tree preservation requirements and the proposed lotting patterns for the development. Commission members engaged in substantial discussion regarding how the subdivision design would impact existing vegetation on the site and whether the layout of individual lots met the community's development standards. While the specific details of individual commissioners' positions were not detailed in the available materials, the close vote margin indicates a meaningful division of opinion on the merits of the proposal. Three commissioners ultimately voted against the plan, suggesting concerns about either the environmental impact related to tree preservation or objections to the subdivision's lot configuration. Despite the opposition, the plan received approval with six commissioners supporting the proposal. The 6-3 outcome allowed the Hillenmeyer & SFH Properties development to move forward in the approval process, though the significant discussion and split vote highlighted ongoing tensions within the commission regarding balancing development interests with environmental preservation and community planning standards. The contested nature of this item demonstrates the commission's careful consideration of subdivision proposals, particularly when they involve environmental concerns such as tree preservation that affect the character and sustainability of new developments. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:30] The board reviewed the minutes from the June 23, 2016 meeting for approval. Key speakers during this agenda item included Carolyn Plumlee and Karen Mundy, who participated in the discussion regarding the accuracy and completeness of the previous meeting's record. The minutes underwent review and discussion, with corrections identified and addressed during the process. The board members examined the document to ensure it accurately reflected the proceedings, decisions, and discussions that took place during the June 23, 2016 session. Following the review and incorporation of necessary corrections, the minutes of the June 23, 2016 meeting were formally approved by the board. This approval confirms the official record of that meeting's proceedings and allows the corrected minutes to serve as the permanent documentation of the board's actions and deliberations from that date. ## Postponements and Withdrawals [timestamp: 01:00] The meeting addressed several agenda items that required postponement or withdrawal from consideration. Key speakers Mike Owens and Carolyn Plumlee presented the status of various development proposals that would not proceed as originally scheduled. The Kaluski Property development plan was among the items postponed during this session. Additionally, portions of the Atlas I, LLC zoning map amendment were also subject to postponement or withdrawal. The postponements and withdrawals were approved by the body, allowing the affected items to be rescheduled for future consideration or removed from the agenda entirely, depending on the specific circumstances of each case. This administrative action cleared the agenda of items that were not ready for full review and decision, enabling the meeting to proceed with matters that were prepared for consideration. ## Hillenmeyer & SFH Properties Preliminary Subdivision Plan [timestamp: 05:00] The commission reviewed agenda item 3, the Hillenmeyer & SFH Properties Preliminary Subdivision Plan. Key speakers during the discussion included Mike Owens and Tom Martin, who presented details about the proposed development. The preliminary subdivision plan underwent review with specific conditions identified for approval. Two primary requirements were established as part of the approval process: mandatory tree replacement provisions and compliance with an existing agreement involving Mr. Coffin. The tree replacement condition addresses environmental considerations within the subdivision development, ensuring adequate vegetation is maintained or restored as part of the project. The second condition requires adherence to a previously established agreement with Mr. Coffin, though the specific details of this agreement were not elaborated upon during the recorded discussion. Following the presentation and review of the plan details, the commission moved forward with their decision. The Hillenmeyer & SFH Properties Preliminary Subdivision Plan was approved, contingent upon meeting the two specified conditions regarding tree replacement and the Coffin agreement compliance. The approval represents a step forward in the development process for the Hillenmeyer & SFH Properties project, with the developers now required to fulfill the stated conditions as they proceed with their subdivision plans. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of minutes from June 23, 2016 meeting - **DP 2016-65** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Kaluski Property (Lexave Apartments) development plan - **MAR 2016-10** — withdrawn (9-0): Withdrawal of 2100 and 2104 Harrodsburg Road from Atlas I, LLC zoning map amendment - **PLAN 2016-68F** — withdrawn (9-0): Withdrawal of Virginia Subdivision, Lot 1 & Half of Lot 2 final subdivision plan - **PLAN 2016-47P** — passed (6-3): Approval of Hillenmeyer & SFH Properties preliminary subdivision plan --- ## Full transcript Lexington Bluegrass Area Minority Business Expo. This is the only place you can come and meet with financial institutions, procurement agents, and other business people wanting to do business with you. Just ask Kathy Stafford with AdVenture Promotions. I would say the greatest thing I've gotten out of every expo has been new business. I've never been to one that I haven't come away with a new and wonderful customer. The Lexington Bluegrass Area Minority Business Expo, August 4th at the Lexington Convention Center. You can't abuse it. I'm sitting around in circles in my mind And it always seems that I'm following you Cause you take me to the places that alone I never find And even as I wander, I'm keeping you in sight You're a candle in the window And a cold night of this night And I'm getting closer Than I ever thought I might And I can't fight this feeling anymore I've forgotten what I started fighting for It's time to bring this ship into the shore Throw away the oars forever We have an abundance of beauty and natural resources here in the bluegrass. More miles of running water than any state in the continental U.S. You may not know it, but all our creeks and streams catch water directly from storm sewers on our streets. That means when someone tosses a cigarette butt on Main or Vine, chances are good it'll end up in Town Branch. Leave some pet waste on a sidewalk near Bersales Road, it goes into Wolf Run Creek. So please, don't trash the bluegrass. Hello, I'm Vice Mayor Steve Kaye and I'm here today with Holly Wiedemann in front of what is going to be the most spectacular downtown building that we've seen in a long time, the Fayette County Courthouse. First of all, thank you so much for being here. It's a pleasure. Holly is the founder and president of AU Associates, which does a lot of, well, I'll let you explain. AU Associates, and then we'll talk a little bit more about the courthouse. Okay, great. AU is, I founded it 26 years ago, and we have done a host of projects around Kentucky and West Virginia, and our primary strong point, our wheelhouse, is taking historic buildings that have outlived their original use and adaptively reusing them and repurposing them. And we do commercial, residential. We also do new urban infill, but again within areas that have already been developed that are underutilized. Okay, so examples that people in the area might be aware of? Sure. Well, one block down on Market Street is the First Presbyterian apartments. And... You got a little dish and you got a little spoon. A little bitty house and a little bitty yard. A little bitty dog and a little bitty car. But it's all right to be a little bitty. A little hometown or a big old city. Might as well share, might as well smile. Life goes on for a little bitty while. A little bitty baby in a little bitty gown It'll grow up in a little bitty town Big yellow bus and little bitty books It all started with a little bitty look But it's alright to be a little bitty A little hometown or a big old city Might as well share, might as well smile Life goes on for a little bitty while You know you got a job and a little bitty check A six-pack of beer and a television set Little bitty world goes around and around Little bit of silence and a little bit of sound A good old boy and a pretty little girl Start all over in a little bitty world A little bitty plan and a little bitty dream It's all part of a little bitty scheme It's alright to be a little bitty In a little hometown or a big old city Might as well share, might as well smile Life goes on for a little bitty while It's alright to be a little bitty A little hometown or a big old city Might as well share, might as well smile Life goes on for a little bitty while I was blown away, what could I say? It all seemed to make sense You've taken away everything And I can't deal without I try to see the good in life But good things in life are hard to find Blow it away, blow it away Can we make this something new? Well, I'll try to do it right this time around And it's not over I'll try to do it right this time around It's not over But all the part of me is dead and in the ground This love is killing me But you're the only one It's not over I'm taking all I can take And I cannot wait Wasting too much time Being strong Holding on Can't let it bring us down My life with you means everything So I won't give up that easily I'll blow it away, blow it away Can we make this something good? Cause it's all misunderstood Well I try to do it right this time around And let's start over I try to do it right this time around It's not over Because a part of me is dead and in the ground This love is killing me But you're the only one It's not over You can't let this get away Let it out, let it out Don't get caught up in yourself Let it out It's not over I've got to do it right this time around It's not over The part of me is getting in the ground This love is killing me But you're the only one It's not over But it's not over It's not over This love is killing me But you're the only one It's not over Well, I've heard those city singers singing about how they can love Deeper than the oceans, higher than the stars above Well, I come from the country and I know I ain't seen it all But I heard that ocean salty and the stars they sometimes fall And that would not do justice to the way I feel for you So I had to sing a song about all the things I knew My love is deeper than the holler Stronger than the river Higher than the pine trees going tall upon the hill My love is purer than the snowflakes that fall in late December And honest as a robin on a springtime windowsill And longer than the song of a whippoorwink From the back roads to the Broadway shows With a million miles between There's at least a million love songs That people love to sing And everyone is different And everyone's the same And this is just another way Of saying the same thing Our love is deeper than the holler Stronger than the river Higher than the pine trees growing tall upon the hill My love is purer than the snowflakes that fall in late December And honest as a robin on a springtime windowsill And longer than the song of a whippoorwill My love is deeper than the holler Stronger than the river Higher than the pine trees growing tall upon the hill My love is purer than the snowflakes That fall in late December And honest as a robin on a springtime windowsill And longer than the song of a whippoorwill A whippoorwill you hi i am paul shark here and you're watching hard to go thanks for tuning in one of the powerhouse organizations. Thank you. ¶¶ The End The End The End Thank you. So we would ask that you remove 20, I'm sorry, it's not on the list here. 2016. It's 2016-10. We're asking to remove 2100 and 2104 Carrodsburg Road. I notice it's not listed in the description, but it was originally part of the application. We would like to withdraw those from the application. Okay. Let me go back to, what's the first one? Because this is attached to, you said you had two. Well, it's two motions on the same case. Ah, okay. Go ahead. We're asking to withdraw, though it's not listed in the description here, 2100 and 2104 Harrodsburg Road from the application. And then we're going to ask to continue the remaining properties to your next meeting. Okay. And that is to go through the subcommittee process again. And we haven't been back in. Right, so we don't need that. Other than if there's any other discussion from the commission, members will take that. But for the most part, we don't necessarily need the audience. Do what? Is anybody in the audience? No, not on this one. Not on the withdrawal. We're in good shape. My colleague was just telling me that on withdrawals, that's a good thing for us. Of course. If not, then we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move for the withdrawal of 2100 Harrodsburg Road and 2104 Harrodsburg Road from the plan of Atlas 1 LLC MAR 2016-10. Okay. Second. It's been properly moved and seconded. We remove withdrawal 2100 and 20, let's see, 20... 2104. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, please vote when it comes up on your monitors. Okay, motion carries. And then we would ask that the remaining items be postponed to your August 11th meeting. The remaining part of the application for MAR. Okay. Now, on that particular piece, is anyone interested from the audience to hear that? Since this is a postponement and not a withdrawal, do we have anyone in the audience that wants to hear this particular item? Yes, ma'am. Please come to the mic. I hope I understood you. Are you asking if someone wants to speak against the postponement? No, no, no, not at this time. He's withdrawing and postponing an item on this case. If someone wanted to delay the postponement, they could do so at this time. But no, we're going to hear it. I mean, we'll hear it when the appropriate time comes. Anyone on the commission have any other discussion related to the postponement? Okay, hearing none, then we'll entertain a motion to postpone MAR 2016-10 Atlas LLC for what, two weeks? Correct, August 11th. August 11th. Mr. Chair, I'll move for postponement of MAR 2016-10 until August the 8th. I second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee that we postpone M. AR 2016-10 until August 11. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, just vote, or I shouldn't say in favor, just vote on your monitors when it comes up on the screen. We got a monitor issue over here, I think. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any other postponements? Withdrawals? Good afternoon. On page 4 of your agenda at the bottom, James Clay Waller Zoning Map Amendment Project, it's MAR 2016-18. We would like to withdraw 101 Rosemary Avenue from our application and continue with the other two parcels listed there. Okay. We can do that. I was thinking about doing it at the same time that we had the actual activity, but we can do it now, and that takes it and clears it off. So you want to withdraw the 101 Rosemary Avenue? Correct. Okay. Since that's a withdrawal, the only people that need to have a conversation would be the commission members. Anyone have any issues connected with the withdrawal? Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move withdrawal of 101 Rosemary Avenue from MAR 2016-18. Okay, Mr. Cravers is moved. Second. Well, Ms. Plumlee has already beat you to it. So the motion was to remove MAR, on MAR 2016-18, to remove the 101 Rosemary Avenue. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, please vote when it comes up on your monitor. Thank you. Thank you. We've got two weeks post-mortem there. Anything else? Anyone else? Okay, then I think we'll proceed. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Staff would like to bring one item to the Commission's attention. On page two of your agenda, under final subdivision plans, Item A, Plan 2016-68F, Virginia Subdivision, Lot 1 and half of Lot 2. Staff has received a written request from the applicant to withdraw this plan. Okay. Again, any comments from the Commission members on the withdrawal? If not, I'll entertain a motion then. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Move withdrawal of Plan 2016-68F. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved and seconded by Mr. Brewer. The motion was made by Mr. Cravens that we withdraw of Plan 2016-68F, the Virginia subdivision. Any other discussion? Discussion on the motion? Hearing none, please vote when it comes up on your monitors. Any other proposals, postponements, withdrawals? Okay, hearing none, then we're ready for the first item, which I think is planned 2016-47. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Commission. The plan that you see before you, of course, is Plan 2016-47P Hillenmeyer and S.F.H. properties. This is a continuation of your last meeting. Apparently operator error. A quick reorientation. As you all no doubt recall, we have Sandersville Road at this location, Greendale Road in this location. This is the preliminary subdivision plan. It is R3 zone with 96 acres and 384 single-family lots being proposed. This particular plan is a combination of three preliminary subdivision plans that had already been approved and in fact re-approved by this body. They brought it back to you to combine these three plans. There was a slight amendment to this plan with the lotting and the street pattern primarily in this area of the development. I'm sure again you recall the continuation had to do with a lot of discussion about how to treat Sandersville Road and that relationship with buffering trees, the stone wall, and how all that would coordinate and be done and accomplished along Sandersville Road. There was, of course, a lot of discussion about the loss of some trees on the property, and we'll get back to that momentarily and address that further. There was an area up in here that was a stormwater management area, and in an area down in here where apparently there was a large loss of those trees, and that was the big discussion items. One other large discussion item that you may recall, and we handed a plan out last time to you. And this concern concerns a lotting pattern in this area of the plan. You can see when you look up at the screen, that what has been proposed by members of the planning staff is somewhat similar to what has been proposed in this location. And you may recall we had that discussion about the number of lots and the impact that this pattern may have. A lot of that concern on the staff's part was how the trail would function and the pedestrian access, and again, out of respect for the stone wall and that situation. The applicant's response has been, as they stated, they would prefer deeper lots in this area to address that concern. So that has not been resolved as of this meeting today with the applicant. The situation on Sandersville Road, they met with Mr. Cawthon, the neighbor. There's been considerable discussion. They have added notes to the plan that address staff's understanding, addresses his concerns, and I'm sure they'll be glad to elaborate on that and how they are going to landscape along Sandersville Road and, to a certain degree, along Greendale Road as well. And again, I would emphasize that that orientation to Sandersville Road is complicated by numerous factors. One is the level of improvements to Sandersville Road. the desire to protect that stone wall, and the pedestrian facility and the trail system. And then, again, the landscaping concerns that have been expressed to you by the neighbors. So all those factors have entered into that situation that brings us here again today. We have also handed out to you a memorandum from Ms. Susan Pflueger, the Director of Environmental Policy. The staff met with the Division of Environmental Policy, and we discussed the issue with the trees and the situation and various circumstances and how it all came about. And as was stated to you by the applicant last week, they stated it was a mistake, and these things happen, and they're gone. So what is being recommended to you today for action by the Division of Environmental Policy is that those significant trees that were removed be replaced with significant trees. And they are recommending a two-to-one. Nine trees were lost. They'd like to see twice that number planted. And it would be important to note these will count towards the 30% tree canopy is the intent. If they had saved those trees, they too would have counted towards canopy. So the real loss here is not canopy per se. We can always plant trees and regain canopy. It was the loss of the significant species. And that's, I think, the gist of their recommendation to you. It's addressing the loss of a significant species. And I'm sure they'd be glad to elaborate on that as well if you would like for them to do so. With that, you can see by your agenda that your subdivision committee recommended approval of this plan subject to the conditions that you see, and those conditions are fairly straightforward. They result from the combination of the three plans, and staff would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. Any questions for Mr. Martin? I guess not now, but we reserve the right to bring you back. Yes, sir. Okay, the applicant. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Al Gross of the A-Partners. I'm here with Nick Nicholson, Stahl, Keenan Ogden, Tom Kimmer, who is our tree expert. I'm sure you'll hear from both of those gentlemen. I'm not going to rehash what all we went through two weeks ago. I'm here for questions, and I'm sure there will be many. With respect to Tom's presentation of the plan, it was accurate, but i want to make the commission clear on one thing we have amended changed altered the plan to provide 10 extra feed of green space along sandersville road to create a corridor for tree preservation tree planting screening and the bike path and while that might not be obvious even though that even though the drawing document has been changed the detail up here in section cc and section DD, which represent Greendale Road as CC and Sandersville Road as DD, show the creation of a 24-foot pathway from the face of the stone walls that exist along Greendale in Sandersville to encompass saving of existing trees, planting of new vegetation that you'll hear from Doug Cawthon and Mr. Cameron, and also the creation of a sidewalk along Greendale and a multi-use path along Sandersville Road. And this area will be between the Wrights-Away or the stone wall of Sandersville and Greendale in the back of the future lots. So there will be no private ownership of this area. It will either be an HOA or an area that we would be more than happy to allow the city to take over if they ever have the desire or compunction to take over those open space areas and maintain them. All the utilities for service for these lots that back up to Greendell and Sandersville will be on the lot proper, not in the green space, open space, tree corridors. so that ought to further ensure an environment for preservation and continued growth and process relative to screening. With that, I'll simply reiterate that we're in agreement with the staff conditions, subdivision committee approval of this plan, and would ask for your consideration. And again, any questions you have now or later, I'm available. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant. Very quickly, I just wanted to say that there was a lot of discussion between Doug Cawthon and ourselves since basically two weeks ago. Mr. Cawthon's attorney, David Royce, is here, and I would like to call him up in order to let him be able to tell you all that Mr. Cawthon's side and that everybody is now in agreement with this plan. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, my name is David Royce. I'm an attorney in Lexington, and I represent Doug Cawthon. As you know, Mr. Cawthon expressed a number of questions and concerns at the meeting a couple of weeks ago. He has been in extensive discussions with Ball Homes and its representatives, as well as Mr. Kemmerer, And we have worked out an agreement to have some commitments by Ball Homes that Mr. Cawthon thinks will not only protect the viewshed and the surrounding properties with appropriate buffering and trees, but also enhance this development and make it a better development for the residents and those neighbors surrounding it. Mr. Goodwin has forwarded a letter to us today, and we've been in discussions about this for several days, but he forwarded us a letter this morning that Mr. Cawthon has reviewed. It summarizes the commitments that Ball Holmes has made to Mr. Cawthon, but also for the benefit of the public. I will submit this to you. I don't have enough copies. I'm sorry. As you consider this matter, we would just like you to be aware of the commitments that Ball Homes has been willing to make to Mr. Cawthon. Know that these are agreeable to Mr. Cawthon. At the end of the day, they are certainly subject to your approval, but Mr. Cawthon can represent to you today that he is in full support of the proposal as it's been presented, subject to the commitments that have been made by Ball Homes. And we would ask you to approve this plan and just make the approval conditional on their compliance with the commitments they've made. Mr. Cawthon is here. We're happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time, but we appreciate that Ball Homes has taken our concerns seriously, and we think they've made some extraordinary efforts to address those concerns and to satisfy Mr. Cawthon's interests in the area, but also those of the surrounding properties. Thank you very much. Any questions from the commission to any of the petitions? Okay, hearing none, then we shall move on. Let me. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Nicholson, I presume your applicant is in agreement with this? Yes, sir. Entirely. Okay. Thank you. What about the Director Susan Pfluger's recommendations? We have no problems with that either. Okay. Very good. I've got one question for Tom Martin. Mr. Martin, as far as the lotting pattern here and what's on their plan and what they're offering, how much difference is there distance-wise? you know, they're offering an additional space, green space. How much difference is there between that and what's there? And then also, I guess, lotting-wise, is there a difference? There is not a tremendous amount of space difference with what they're proposing and with that particular lotting. And you can see there is also a HOA lot proposed along that frontage as well with the ultimate lotting pattern. The key to it is the single-loaded street. That's the key difference in terms of the space that's needed to accommodate what's going to go in that area. Okay, so the key is single-loaded streets, not necessarily the lots or the distance. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you, sir. Mr. Owens, if I could also add. Yes, sir. On the overhead, the main difference is, as Mr. Martin mentioned, the staff's concept, and we showed you this two weeks ago was a single loaded street backing to Sandersville the applicants preferred to have lots backing to Sandersville and that's the main difference in the two there's very little difference in the number of lots okay thank you sir miss Plumlee Yes. Sure. Okay. Thank you. In Article 26, the tree protection standards, there's a definition called diameter at breast height, which is how you measure a tree at four and a half feet. That's correct. And then in the next page, there's a definition of a tree. And it's any upright woody plant with one main stem and a minimum DBH of four inches. Right. Okay. On the recommendation from Environmental, we have three-inch caliper. Okay. How does a three-inch caliper compare to tree size? That's a great question. In inches in diameter. Any tree that's to be protected on a development site is shown at four inches in diameter and above. Any tree that's below four inches in diameter does not have to be protected, or it doesn't even have to be shown. A 3-inch caliper tree at planting is very large for nursery stock. This body could ask for larger diameter trees to be planted, but we were comfortable with going with a 3-inch caliper tree because that's what's readily available in the nurseries. But how many inches is a 3-inch caliper? Probably somewhere like 2.5 inches in diameter. Nursery stock is measured differently than a tree that's standing. So by Article 26, then, it's not even a tree because it says a diameter is 4 inches. For the purpose of, let me try to explain that. So for the purpose of showing a tree on a plan for protection, it has to be at least four inches. That doesn't speak to trees that are being planted. The definition of a tree, by definition, is a woody plant material that's probably 15 feet tall. By definition, given in an ordinance that's to protect trees on development sites, it's going to be a different definition. A tree, by definition, of nursery stock, for example, is measured by caliper, six inches above the root ball. A tree that's standing in the forest is measured at four and a half feet above ground, which is diameter of rest height. So depending on how the tree is being used, that definition could vary. I know that's complicated, but for the four-inch, I think when Article 26 was first drafted, and I wasn't here at that time, But what they recognized was that a tree that's below four inches in diameter, really, even depending on what the species is, is not really significant. However, what Mr. Martin had said earlier, replacing a significant size bur oak with another smaller bur oak, you're using significant species to replace a significant species that's been removed. That's a very complicated question to ask. I understand that. I don't know if I was able to answer it correctly. Thank you. Mr. Query, my turn. Are burroaks readily available at a nursery or somewhere? Are they hard to come by? Oh, they are readily available, yes. They are not an endangered species or threatened. They are very common. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, sir. I'm sorry. I had a conversation with Director Pflueger earlier. You know, considering the seriousness of this with the loss of these trees and so forth, moving forward, she's been working, I think, last couple of weeks on globally how to address this. If it's possible, I'd like to hear from her. Sure. More about that than this at this moment. Okay. Ms. Pflueger. Thank you. Give us your name again. Yes, Susan Pluger. I'm the director of the Division of Environmental Services. And we house the urban forestry program. That includes the urban forestry. It includes the city arborist and other arboricultural staff that we have here at the city. we have met with the divisional planning and there's a couple things we're going to make some improvements that we feel to the internal process i think that the letter written by the tree board was requesting that we review how trees are handled during the planning process so we want to make sure that we're following the zoning ordinance correctly to its full extent providing you the information that you need to make the right decisions so the first step that we're going to take relates to the tree inventory map. It's critical that we know what is there on site in order to apply the ordinance correctly. So we are working on a process to improve that at the time of filing. And I think our coordination there is going to be a large improvement. So we're going to work our way through this process. I think we're going to submit information back to the tree board for their request. And we can also do the same as well, obviously, with the planning commission to let you know where we are in that process moving forward. Thank you. Hopefully we can make progress there. Thank you. Any other questions? Then I have one. But actually I'd like to address it to the staff. This has to do with the second letter that we got from Fayette County Neighborhood Council. If someone would address that first paragraph, it would be appreciated for the record at least. The Fayette County Neighborhood Council believes the destruction of the nine boroughs on the part of the developer for Plan 2016-47P, Sandersville Road, without the approval of the Planning Commission to be a serious violation of Article 26 of the Zoning Audence. Mr. Chairman, I think from looking at that, had the trees been in an identified tree protection area, I think that statement would have a lot more connection. However, from looking at the existing plans that are on file for that area, it was not identified as a tree preservation area. On the original plans, it was shown as canopy, showing a tree line there, but the individual species and sizes of trees were not identified on that portion of the property. Mr. Martins looked extensively into that. So I think that difference, the fact that they were shown on a plan but not designated as a tree preservation area, is the difference in it being a violation of the ordinance or not. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that clarification. The next part is where we allow citizens to speak on behalf of this particular issue, either pros or cons. How many of you would like to say something regarding this particular? Okay. Let me ask you this. How many are speaking on behalf of our pro? Okay. All those remaining are speaking against. Mr. Sally, do we have to swear these people in? Okay, we don't have to do all that. Okay, good enough. then if you would, feel free to come to the microphone one at a time. Give us your name. I'm Walt Gaffield. I'm the president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. Chairman Wilson, congratulations and condolences for being the new chairman of the commission. There's a tremendous amount of work involved in it. I'm not going to oppose this plan per se, but I'm concerned about systemically how this all came forward. Now, technically, it may not be illegal to take down trees listed as canopy on a plan. However, it is incumbent on a developer to submit an accurate plan, and then also staff has to catch and look at it and make sure that it's accurate. If it's not accurate, you know, that's another type of violation. I think this whole situation has caused us to really take a look at the tree ordinance and we probably think that there need to be some changes in it I'm not really prepared to talk about that right now but it's very hard for you all to do your job and represent the community if you're looking at inaccurate plans so there really needs to be something done about that and Ball Homes is a very well known developer and if they make mistakes, what do the small developers do? In my mind, that raises questions, and it makes your job much harder. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. I have a handout for you all, and I'm going to put one in the library. My name is Ginny Daly. I live at 136 Burley Avenue. I travel a lot, and every place I go, I'm always curious about what development issues are going on in the town that I'm in. and I was in Nashville, Tennessee this past weekend, and lo and behold, there's an article in the paper about how Nashville residents are dealing with trees that are being cut down. It chronicles similar frustrations citizens are having with the developers, the city regulation, and the resulting loss of tree canopy. And I'm giving you this because I'm a librarian and I want you to have some information. I have highlighted some areas there that might help in skimming it now, but I encourage you to read the whole article in your own time. A couple things that stand out to me is in Nashville, their ordinance says for borderline trees, you must secure the position, you must secure permission for people, the owners, on both sides. If you don't have both sides of permission, you can't chop the trees down. And then one of the other things that caught my attention on what's happening in Nashville is that citizens are successfully suing for damages. I'm sharing this article with you as a cautionary tale. I don't want our community to become so frustrated with unlawful tree removal or quasi-unlawful tree removal and the city's complicity or negligent that we have to resort to lawsuits over this matter. The Planning Commission sits in a powerful position to mitigate both the positive and negative outcomes of development on Lexington's future. I think I'm right that that's what your charge is and who you are and what you do. So I'm here mainly to encourage you, to beg you to do as much as possible as you can to prevent clear-cutting, valuable trees and wholesale loss of canopy in the development process. I encourage you to double down on the inclusion and review of required tree inventories and tree preservation plans before approving zone changes or development plans, to work with the planning staff to do the same thing, and to recommend new ordinances as needed. And, Ms. Plumlee, the question you asked brought into relief what problems there are with a tree inventory that will not recognize as a real tree the trees that the developers are planting. There's a problem when those two things don't meet up. So I'm encouraging you, do more work like this and really get down, get in line with the other city initiatives on preserving and rebuilding Lexington's tree canopy. Citizen frustration is at a boiling point on this matter. I don't want any of us, I don't want, I don't think any of us want to see litigation around this. So I'm asking you to take this seriously and get out in front of this problem in any way that you can. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Amy Clark. I live on 628 Castle Road, and we are blessed with wonderful old oaks, and they are street trees which have different protections. There's a three-inch caliper solution to Mr. Penn's important question, how do we really make the punishment fit the crime? How do we find something with dissuasive force? So this kind of error or omission or call it fraud, if you will, we don't know. we can't use the kind of tree inventory that was furnished in this case, in this instance. It's not adequate to the commission's need to decide how they should treat the site and how they should treat any proposed development there. So there's a three-inch caliper solution, and as Ms. Daly pointed out, these aren't even trees yet in our Article 26. the 100 year solution would be to say well there's a zoning violation here they didn't put the trees on the inventory and so they weren't in the protection plan and then they cut them down if there's a violation of the zoning ordinance there isn't that a 500 a day fine well what do we find them until we have trees as big as they used to be these things aren't possible My concern is that the Planning Commission get information adequate to the task, and you get it from the developer who makes an application, and you get it from your staff who offer professional advice. I would suggest, I would invite you to consider a different solution to what's needed to help this plan go forward properly. I would invite you to ask for an independent tree inventory, an independently prepared tree inventory and preservation plan for the entire site. We know where some burr oaks came down. I went by today to look at it. You can barely see them from the road. It would be trespassing for me to learn anything more or tell you anything more about that site. I think it should have an engineer's assessment and advice on the environmentally sensitive areas that were mentioned before you at the last hearing on this. There's steep slopes there. There's water. It's a detention basin area. Mr. Query, I believe your urban forester mentioned that there had been discussion in the technical committee of both the environmentally sensitive area and tree protection. It sounded like a fledgling discussion. The third thing I think should be considered to get enough information to do this development right is ask for expert documentation and advice on preserving the stone fences. Our stone wall ordinance says that you have to leave it as is. You can't make it worse. You may make it better, and there are regulations for doing that. What would be an additional requirement, and this is a requirement that would be closely associated with trees and tree preservation, because it is the perimeter where the stone fence goes around both the corner, the whole corner of the property. It is that stone fence area that has some trees and some tree preservation already mentioned and in place. I think you should not remain in such great ignorance of exactly what's there and exactly what would be best to do with it. And while it is not in the city's power and in your power under ordinary circumstances to dictate the condition or the improvement of the stone fences, I think in view of the fact that the inventory you received, the information you received upon application, with the acceptance of this application by planning staff, was deficient enough that this might be a remedy, a sort of indemnification, to make the whole site better according to what the loss was. you have the option of voting this plan up or down trying to make some tweaks I believe the applicant has already agreed to some tweaks some perhaps significant ones the other option you can't continue it the 90 days is up you could certainly invite the applicant to consider requesting a continuance I think there's not enough information yet to make this a good plan and granted approval, and I would suggest that approach. Now, the trees are gone and they can't be saved. It's an important opportunity to look at how this happened, and in fact, it happened again. I can think of two instances that come very readily to mind, and you will probably remember two. At your Kingston Hall hearing last time, there was an elm. It was duly inventoried. It was duly granted a tree protection area. It was said to be 48 inches in thickness, the diameter of the trunk. It got roughly 50 feet of radius for tree protection area. The tree protection ordinance says that for a tree of that size, it recommends a foot and a half per inch. It should have had about 75 feet of tree protection area. That's an example of a missed opportunity. We're not going to belabor it. But my point is, you took the expert advice of the staff, you took the record of what the applicant had duly furnished, and you did your best with it. The other example, you may remember a different bur oak that actually slipped right by you. You voted a zone change with attendant plans approval without any knowledge of the trees on the site. A condition of approval was that the urban forester sign off on the tree inventory, tree protection plan, etc. This is another case where the process failed you. It failed us all. What happened was the applicant furnished the tree inventory before the plan was certified. The staff signed off on it, and no one noticed and no one took account of a bur oak standing in the middle of the area designated as a parking lot. So these are two cases that have to do with trees that are easy to grasp. And what they're pointing to, I believe we have two things that are needed, and I would ask you to consider very strongly appointing a committee in collaboration with environmental services. And the committee has, I think, two jobs. One is to look closely at the process of plan review. It's already been said that really these plans should not be accepted until they're complete. Things are accepted without tree inventory maps. It starts there, but it goes on and on. I will say that I have great concern for the staff when Planning Commission signs off on a plan, and there may be as many as 20 conditions before the plan can be certified. This is a responsibility that belongs to our public officials who may hear the public in a public hearing. When you sign off on a plan with a long list of conditions that are punted over to a staff responsibility, you lose the discretionary power that is necessary to making these plans what they ought to be before they're granted approval. There was an instance where stormwater was signed off on, and we're talking now about public funds to the tune of $5 million to make a stormwater solution there. Huge, huge. Please consider establishing a committee to look at the review process so that you have the information you need and that staff are not burdened beyond what they are permitted. And I have to say sometimes I think staff are constrained not to follow their best professional judgment when they speak before you. You're the ones who need to exercise that discretion. So I would ask that you consider appointing a committee. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Chair, I'm David Royce again, and I thought by way of clarification I should point out. Excuse me, are you speaking on behalf of or? In support of. In support of? Yes, sir. I thought by way of clarification I should point out that the letter that we put into the record and asked that compliance with that be made a condition, it includes the initial report and staging plan for tree preservation and the buffer by Ball Holmes that Mr. Kimmerer has prepared. And Mr. Cawthon and I have thoroughly reviewed that, discussed it with both Mr. Kimmerer and Ball Holmes, and that is a part of that letter. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. We're very comfortable with that. We think it addresses the concerns we had. And I just wanted to get to thinking. You know, I mentioned the letter, but I didn't point out that was attached. So I thought I should do that. Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak to this issue? Okay, seeing none, we'll have a brief rebuttal here. The petitioner. I promise I'll be very quick. I wasn't even going to give a rebuttal. But I need to clarify one thing. There's nothing wrong with this plan. This plan meets every single requirement of the subdivision regulation. A mistake was made in a previous plan that is currently approved. That is it. There is not a tree inventory plan that is required for this. There is a tree protection plan. It is going to be reviewed as part of the sign-off process. Tom Kimmer is going to prepare it, and then it goes to the city to be reviewed as part of this process. I wanted to make sure that that was very clear. What before you today is a vast improvement from what we could pull permits on as soon as we walk out of this room if this plan is turned down. It represents a plan with 96 less lots. It represents far larger lots than what's currently on there. There's significant more open space. It's a full unit per acre, less dense. This is a vast improvement. So while there has been a lot of testimony today about the miscommunication that we have fully, basically been taken to task for, we acknowledge responsibility there. What is before you today is a vast improvement from what is currently allowed. So we would very kindly appreciate your approval because this does meet every single one of your subdivision regulations. Thank you all. Thank you. From the citizens who objected, anyone want to have a final comment? Yes, very briefly, the gentleman who just spoke said he already had an approved plan. and that would be if it were like a minor amendment to a plan. But this is a consolidation of a large area, and I would say it was a violation to do anything on that property without the approval of the Planning Commission. Thank you. Thank you. I won't repeat what Mr. Gaffield says, the consolidation. This is not a minor amendment. It is a new plan. It had a new application. The applicant is welcome to go back to the old plan still in force and use it if they wish. But this is a new one. In my observation, and I would invite you to scrutinize and look yourselves, it looks to me as though the former plan for the area where the Burr Oaks were removed with the detention basin, The former plan had a larger area that was not part of individual private house lots, and that the current plan, the updated plan, actually pinches that area further. Thank you. Staff, any further comments? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I've put on the overhead is the applicable provision of your zoning ordinance regarding the section from Article 26. Again, this is an amended preliminary subdivision plan that you've been asked to review. And at the time of the filing, a tree preservation plan is required for those filings. What I've put on the board is a photocopy from their initial plan filing made early last month. And it does have a tree preservation plan on that document. This is generally the same information that's on the plan that's been changed that's before you today. I wanted to make it clear for the record that the staff did not accept this plan without this information. I feel important that you know that the staff did what the ordinance requires on this plan. We can certainly debate and we respect the differing opinions as to its completeness. The staff did what it's supposed to do. Thank you. Thank you. I'll now close this part of the hearing, and now we'll deliberate here as a part of the commission. Any comments? Ms. Plumlee? Yes, Ms. Plumlee? I just had a question, but now you've closed it. Anyway, what exactly is a 30% canopy? At what stage, how many years from now, are we saying 30%? Ms. Plumlee, I certainly could be corrected by Mr. Query, but generally the ordinance requires canopy to be met at the time of maturity of the growth of the trees, not at the time of the planting of the new trees. So it would be many years down the road before we would have a 30% canopy? Yes, depending on the number of new trees. You could, and I think the Commission does have sites from time to time, that are already at that canopy. But obviously to attain 30% initially, you have to preserve that much. But new plantings, obviously, as Mr. Query explained earlier, can't be done with large caliber trees. You have to do the smaller ones and allow them to grow. My suggestion would be the oaks were there. they had a, I would presume, a rather large canopy, and that we should increase the canopy from 30 to 35 now to compensate for those oaks, because it will be many years before we see a canopy such as might have been there today. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, hearing no further discussion I think there are a couple things Mr. Owens Yes, a couple things One, obviously with all this discussion seriousness of significant trees have been brought to the forefront again the loss of these is serious how exactly it occurred We've got answers. We've got to go with those answers. And at this point, we've got to look forward on being a little bit more proactive. And I think that's what Director Pflueger and Mr. Query and the staff will be doing and has been doing in the past two weeks and will be continuing to do. With that, we've got a couple of recommendations. that everybody seems to be in agreement on uh they may not be in agreement of as the lotting and so forth but that's something that we should hash out and and move forward hopefully rather quickly i've got a motion but whenever everybody's ready i'll reserve that okay any any other comments uh in fact uh ms thawens indicated pretty much what i was going to say we understand the seriousness of what has happened here. And at this stage of the game, what we're trying to figure out is how we can move forward on this. I think that the thing that was enlightening is the fact that Ms. Clark indicated that we somehow missed the boat a couple times before, and that is something we'll have to address as such. But we'll get with the staff and see what we can do. And I think this tree canopy issue is something else that we're probably going to take a look at as well. With that said, anyone else on the panel commission would like to add anything? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Plumlee? Regarding the motion, would that be with the 18 conditions or where are we on that? I was going to add that to the conditions that we have. We've got 18 right now. There may be some additional conditions that we might add plus that one as well. So, Ms. Owens, do you want to go ahead with your motion, and then maybe we can... If everybody's ready. Thank you. But, Ms. Owens, could you add, I guess, the key thing for the motion, could we also add in about the, I think, the 18... Significant trees. Yes. 18 trees. Okay, go ahead. That would be part of it. and I can appreciate what Ms. Clark said as far as the number of conditions on these things. I believe that staff would testify to the fact that that has been something that I've strived for for many years to try and limit these the best possible. With that said, we do have 18 on this right now. With the ones that I'm going to add in my motion, there may be some duplication. However, in the interest of moving on, forgive me if there are duplicated. My motion would be for approval of Plan 2016-47P Hillenauer and SFH properties with the 18 conditions addressing three other concerns. Number 19 would be to comply with the language from Director Pflueger and the staff for the replacement of trees out of 2 to 1 ratio as shown in the memorandum that's dated July 27, 2016. Number 20 would be to comply with the written agreement between the applicant and Mr. Cawthon, as written and has been provided by us July 28, 2015. And then number 21 would be to amend the development plan as the staff has recommended as to the lotting that was shown on the screen. and this would be much similar to the lotting that's on the lower right corner with the single-loaded street. So moved. We have a second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens and seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer that we approve Plan 2016-47 with the 18 conditions provided by staff with adding three additional conditions, one of which is the plan provided by Mrs. or the recommendation provided by Mrs. Susan Fligger related to the 2 to 1 ratio in terms of tree replacement. The second one was related to Mr. Coffin's memo and recommendations on July the 28th, 2015. I don't think I need to read all of that. And then the third one was, what was that, the allotting to? Yes, sir, that would be to amend the development plan as staff has recommended showing what is now on the screen. And to me, that's very similar to what they have in the lower right corner of the development plan to begin with. Gotcha. You all got that? Good. The motion is on the floor. It's been probably seconded. Any other discussion? I'd like to discuss your last one. I mean, that's an amateur plan at best. I mean, this is more professionally done. And you don't want to single those streets if you can help it. And so they went through there and they moved all those lots up, re-massaged the whole thing. And to leave those vacant places on a lot, I mean, to a neighborhood, I mean, you want those all divided up into lots so that somebody's responsible for them. And so I'd like to see you change that to, I'd like to make an amendment to his motion. You can do that. I'll take the, use the engineer's lighting pattern as presented. A couple of ways we can deal with this. Number one, do you wish to revamp and revise your motion to include his statement, or do we want to do it? I mean, while we get, okay. You know, I appreciate that, but not at this time. One, they've got a single loaded street already in the lower right corner, and it's not the fact that there's going to be vacant land sitting there. that's still going to be lotted off. The staff has said that there is significantly no difference, you know, between the two plans. It's just the fact that one's a single-loaded street and the other isn't. Well, but there is. I mean, the lots that they – some of those lots up there are not even buildable. It looks like that 293 – I mean, it's not even a buildable lot that you're making them create. I mean, that's not been done by an engineer or a landscape architect or anything. I don't know who did that, but not practicing out in the field. A staff architect. It was a registered landscape architect. We have a motion on the floor. What we were now discussing is a possible amendment to the motion. The original motioner does not wish to amend his motion. There is an amendment. You can make the amendment. If we get a second, then we'd vote on the amendment, and then we'd have to go back and vote on the original. I already made it. I mean, I moved to amend it. All right. Would you state your motion again? To remove his number, what was it, 21? Yes, it would be number 21. Remove his, Mr. Owens, 21. Okay, the motion, do we have a second for that? In other words, he would like to amend the motion to delete the 21st. Do we have a second? Yes, once we have a second, we don't have a second. Well, yeah, you do need a second. Do you second it? In order to force discussion, yes. Okay, all right. The amendment has been made. It has been seconded. We're ready now for the discussion. My question is, what's the precise lot difference in these two planes? So I understand there's a lot difference. but configurations are different. Can we have any of you guys? No. Yeah, I can ask you the question. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just a minute. Are you through, Mr. Drake? No, I've got one more question. And then what's the difference in responsibility, if any? Are you using your mic? Are you using your... Thank you, Mr. Chairman. what's the responsibility for the maintenance, what's the difference in responsibility for the maintenance of the common areas, if any, between these two plans? Is it larger under one than the other? Mr. Gross, can you answer that? I'm going to answer both questions, right? Yes, go ahead. That's a sketch. It's not dimensioned. If it's to scale, it's not indicated that it's to scale. It shows a loss of one lot. Is it really a loss of three lots? I think that's significant relative to what this community is trying to do within the urban service boundary. If there was a good reason to do it that way, I'd advocate for it. The answer to your second question is probably not. Probably no difference in maintenance issues or responsibilities relative to the two plans. One's a single loaded street. And you're right, Mr. Owens, there's a single-loaded street down there that we simply chose to do in that fashion because it matched or met the overall desires of the plan. And I'm concerned when I look at the four, eight, nine asterisk lots that those are buildable. And look at 293 and tell me what that is. so I think the loss of lots here is much greater than one and if I had something up there that was to scale and dimension that you could actually analyze and come to a sense of understanding that it was accurate then I don't think I'd be as outspoken about the quality of that plan as I am now but that seems to be overly punitive Any other discussion? Mr. Cravens? Al, I don't know where that plan was taken from. Was that taken off this plan or before he's moved all those lots up the hill? Let's ask the staff since they're the ones presented it. Our green space planner, Ms. Cindy Dietz, did an overlay on the existing plan to come up with the alternative. On that plan right there? The previous plan. Okay. So it's not on the amended plan? It was not on this submission. It was on the previous submission. Yes. Okay. So it's not been done on the amended plan where he was going to pull everything 10 feet? It was done as an overlay to scale on the previous plan. Not that plan. Not that particular plan. I guess what I'm pointing out, when you do that, that could trash that whole thing. I mean, you're going to have to read. There are ramifications on the design with that design, yes, and with the lot sizes. I would agree, yes, there are some consequences. Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion? All right, let's go back to the amendment. We've got the amendment. We've got a second on it. Review the amendment. You want to delete the number 21? Yeah, I wanted to delete 21 and leave the designing up to the engineer of record here. Okay. I'll even call for the previous question myself. In that case, we will vote. Yes, go ahead. Last question. So with the amendment, the vote would be for the 20 conditions? No, I'm okay for you. Okay. How do we get some sort of vote on the 21st condition? Well, we're voting on the 21st condition right now. In fact, what his amendment is is to delete the 21st condition. Okay. So if we do not want to delete it. then what happens is you do your amendment first. If that succeeds or fails, if it fails, then we go back to the original motion that you made, and then we vote on that one. Okay. And that would include the 21st. We're voting on whether to be. We're voting on the amendment. What we're really now voting on is whether we want number 21 in there. Okay. Okay. Everybody straight? All right, then. Can we vote on the screen on this? Can we vote on the screen? yes if you're in favor let me be clear about this yes if you're in favor of deleting item 21 and nay if not okay 6 to 3 the yeses have it okay so they're in favor that means that that motion succeeds and that we would delete 21. So now we go back to the original motion with the modification that is now 20 instead of 21. Is that agreeable with the seconder? Yes, sir. Okay. And the primary motion. All right. All those in favor of the motion that was given by Mr. Owens, please vote on your screen when it comes up. It's coming. Let's talk. And all we're doing now, ladies and gentlemen, is voting on the original motion with 20 items instead of 21. You want me to do it viva voca? That's all for my knowledge. Okay. I tell you what, let's just take her. It is. Okay. Okay, the motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Good afternoon. If you all want to turn to page two, at the bottom of page two, we have DP 2016, 65 Kulaski property, Lexington Avenue Apartments. This property is located on Lexington Avenue. It will run parallel with Martin Luther King between High and Maxwell. What we're proposing is an apartment complex with 24 units. We have a driveway that goes around with one-way direction to come out to the other side. There was some concerns when reviewing this plan about whether or not traffic had some concerns, whether or not they would be able to get in with the garbage trucks. for the dumpster and at this time it's understanding that they have an agreement with a private company but with that we have 13 conditions the first nine conditions including number nine that talks about the cap or just general sign-off conditions we would like for them to identify the tree preservation area on the plan to mention the landscaper buffer that goes along the property and then our issue with water quality we had a discussion question to have them explain how they're going to do water quality on this property in this area and if you all have Any other questions? Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Jacob Walbert on behalf of the applicant. I'm going to have to do some clarification here, unfortunately. This is not the plan you all saw at Subdivision Committee, nor the one we thought that staff was evaluating. We have brought copies for you today of the plan that we thought was submitted. To be frank, I'm not sure where that error lied, whether we had submitted it and staff did not note it or we did not submit it appropriately and not. But those of you that will recall from subdivision committee, this is not precisely the plan that was reviewed and is not exactly what we're seeking approval on. It's very, very close. and we have different copies for you, but I would ask your indulgence as we proceed with that and I'll provide you with copies of what we're actually seeking approval for. Okay, Mr. Walden, I think, first of all, the new plan, what I'm hearing you say, has not been presented to your subcommittee. So the new plan actually, in fact, was submitted to the subcommittee. This is the original submission that was subsequently amended. Okay. Maybe Mr. Salee can address it. I'll be honest. Straighten me out on this. I would love to. I'm confused as well. I am confused. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Staff's recollection from your discussion three weeks ago at your subdivision committee was that this plan was in the file that, as you know, Mr. Martin and Ms. Galt, show the subdivision committee members before we've been discussing. Our recollection is that a plan was brought to your meeting and unfurled for those of you at the subdivision committee. And it was mentioned that it was different than this plan. That plan was also reviewed by your committee. However, it was never submitted to the staff. Thank you. Well, that makes it real interesting, doesn't it, Mr. Walden? We would suggest a postponement. You have plenty of time to review it. That will give them time to make the submission. I was getting ready to suggest to Mr. Walton that that might be the best thing in order. If the staff has not had an opportunity to review, how do you feel about that? If I could have just a moment to speak with my client. Okay. We'll take the two weeks. Okay, then you're asking for two weeks postponement? Correct. Okay. We'll file that amendment today. All right. Anyone in the audience want to speak to this? Anyone on the commission? Hang on. Okay, Ms. Clark. Amy Clark, 628 Castle. This is very quick. I just want to thank you. I think postponement is the right thing. Of course, the citizens haven't had an opportunity to review it either. Thank you. Anyone else? Commission members? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion for a two-week postponement on DP 2016-65. Go forward. Thank you. Move postponement of DP 2016-65 Kaluski property for two weeks. Second. Okay, we've had a motion made by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee that we have a two-week postponement on DP 2016-65. We've seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please vote when it comes upon your monitor. I'm going to get this straight yet. Okay. Thank you. I think that's a nice accommodation here. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson, members of the Commission. And our next item today is on page, I don't think it's two, I think it's page five forward of our agenda. It's item two under zone changes, and it should be behind tab two in your notebook today. This is MAR 2016-18, and the applicant is James Clay Waller. The proposal is to rezone property with our amendment just to two addresses, 1500 and 1502 North Limestone, since the applicant removed the Rosemary Avenue address earlier in the hearing. They are requesting rezoning from single-family residential, an R1C zone in this case, to a warehouse and wholesale business zone, which is our B4 zone. The subject properties are located at the intersection of Rosemary Avenue and North Limestone, which is approximately a block and a half from New Circle Road in this area, and I'll use the overhead to orient. New Circle Road is to the northeast of the subject properties. And again, our map doesn't reflect the withdrawal of the one Rosemary Avenue, but the two parcels here at the intersection of Rosemary Avenue and North Limestone. And Broadview Drive is across Limestone from this area. The other road that you may hear us mention during the hearing is Lunetta Avenue, which has properties that border a larger warehouse property to the, I guess, southeast of the subject properties. And that kind of ends further to the southeast of this location. The subject properties are currently single-family residential homes, two of them that are occupied. and generally in the vicinity it's a mixture of business uses and residential mostly off of north limestone. The business in this area is characterized by the warehouses just to the northeast of the subject property, which in this area you can see it's really three buildings, larger buildings, that were built since 2010 when they rezoned that property. There's also daycare, restaurants, CVS Pharmacy at the corner of New Circle and Limestone, as well as car wash, just a mixture of retail and commercial uses in this area. The applicant is asking to rezone the property to the B4 zone for these two lots along North Limestone in order to really expand the warehouse area along this frontage. They have occupied the warehouses to the northeast there with shops of special trade, mostly, and an indoor athletic facility. And they stated in their justification that they, in 2010, wanted to bring 50 jobs to this location. And I believe they also adhere to that today, that they did bring 50 jobs to this location of Fayette County that may have maybe moved or possibly are new jobs in this area. The previous, well, let's see if there's, I can show you a little bit closer view of the subject properties, again, are on North Limestone. And they are two residential structures. and then this is the view from across the street, smaller single-family residential homes with two large pin oak trees in the front yard. One, Tim Query did visit the site, our urban forester, and the one on the left here is not in good condition, but the one on the right is still a fairly healthy tree. Just put that on the record. The warehouses just, again, to the northeast of this site, this is a view of what they look like from North Limestone. They are set back about 50 feet, which was something that the applicant agreed to in the 2010 zone change. They also installed some landscaping, trees, space, as well as shrubs along this frontage, I think partially to make the statement that it was in agreement with the small area plan for this area. So that's the existing warehouses that they sort of want to expand onto. And sorry, that's the Rosemary Avenue site. The comprehensive plan in 2007 made a recommendation for residential at this location, but it also had an asterisk which indicated special consideration. and through the small area plan for the central sector, North Limestone was designated as a focus area as well as a primary corridor, commercial corridor in this area, and New Circle and Limestone were identified as a major entrance into the central sector. Through that small area plan process, several principals were identified for, and primarily there's one that speaks to redevelopment and investment within the area and the applicant believes that their project here will encourage reuse of the property and additional jobs for the area. The 2013 comprehensive plan, of course, doesn't have a land use map anymore and the applicant mentions in their justification that they do believe it's in compliance, mostly in compliance with the comprehensive plan, but they really only cited two goals and objectives, one in terms of encouraging small businesses and the other in terms of complete streets, which for one of the properties on Limestone, there's not a sidewalk. So they're stating that they're filling in the gap, which creates a more complete street. The staff doesn't believe that that, in total, really agrees with our comprehensive plan. The staff did find, though, that the B4 zone would be appropriate along North Limestone, and the R1C would be inappropriate at this location. When the B4 zone was requested in 2010 on the adjacent property, the developer proposed enhancements to North Limestone Corridor. they proposed a 50-foot setback for their frontage and landscape improvements, which you saw in the photograph. They also agreed to, at the Planning Commission hearing, a conditional zoning restriction around the outside, the exterior of the property. So a 50-foot landscape buffer that was next to any property that fronted, residential property that fronted onto Rosemary or Lynetta. So now that we are down to two residential lots that front onto North Limestone, the 50-foot buffer did not impact those. The third thing that they agreed to were facade improvements along this frontage of Limestone, which they did. They are, I guess the staff believes that, although not in agreement with the comprehensive plan, the rezoning is appropriate because it continues the B4 zone to a more appropriate land use transition at Rosemary Avenue rather than mid-block where there's a shared land use, I guess, buffer without a hard stop that is available with Rosemary Avenue. When considering During this zone change, the staff believes that the building facade improvement should be continued along North Limestone, which is supported by the small area plan. We also believe the setbacks, when we did our staff report at the zoning committee, that the 50-foot setbacks should be continued. We had a lengthy discussion at the zoning committee about the Rosemary Avenue property and the staff's recommendation of disapproval for that parcel and the possibility of reworking the two lots on North Limestone to pull away from and not encroach into the residential area that is Rosemary Avenue. The applicant revisited that they withdrew the Rosemary Avenue parcel, but the staff's recommendation for conditional zoning restrictions didn't change. But the staff would, I believe, like to suggest to the Planning Commission a revision. We believe that they've moved their building forward to about 35 feet from North Limestone, whereas the existing structures are at 50 on the adjacent parcel. But they've eliminated this encroachment into the residential neighborhood, and they've also provided an 8-foot fence. the staff originally proposed a 50 foot buffer along the frontage and a 20 foot landscape buffer along any residential boundary at this point the staff is willing to make an adjustment to the conditional zoning restrictions so that there's a 30 foot setback along north limestone and at least a 10 foot landscape buffer along the adjoining residential property at rosemary And those can be seen on your agenda at the bottom of page 5. So the staff is mimicking conditional zoning restrictions that are on the adjoining B4 property. And then for the other restrictions, changing number 3, 3A, so that there's a 10-foot landscape buffer along the boundary that adjoins any residential dwelling unit, and an 8-foot fence. and then a 30-foot setback along North Limestone. So the staff is recommending approval of the two properties along North Limestone, that they be rezoned because the B4 in this instance is more appropriate and the R1C is no longer appropriate at this location. The property already shares a boundary with B4 development to the northeast. These improvements are generally supported by the small area plan and are similar to the adjoining property. And then the development with warehouses and office uses will enhance the land use transition between the unrestricted B3, which is at New Circle, and the residential neighborhoods to the south. I'd be happy to entertain. Any questions about the staff's recommendation? Any questions from the commission members? I believe Mr. Martin has our development plan. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan that you have before you today, associated with this zone change, you can see that here's the area in question on the corner with North Limestone and Rosemary Avenue. This plan is a revision that is based on their withdrawal of the area, the property on Rosemary Avenue. And what you see before you is a revision. This is the building they proposed to build, about 7,200 square feet. The trees to be saved are in this location. And they're showing parking access off of Rosemary into a parking area here. Now, we have handed out to you revised conditions that you can see on your plan. Many of these are very, very straightforward, simple conditions that you're used to seeing on a preliminary plan. There are a couple. One, which is important to note, is they added some verbiage to the conditional zoning. Well, they're going to have to remove that. They can't modify conditional zoning without requesting that as part of the zone change. I think that was just an effort on their part to be clear that they need to take that off the plan. Ms. Wade explained the changes in the conditional zoning that are being recommended, and that is extremely important from a practical aspect to the development of this property. With the 50-foot setback along the existing property here on the original plan, they could meet that, but it pushed all the parking back into here. In order for their parking to work, they needed to adjust a little bit closer to North Limestone. And staff was agreeable to that shift so that the parking would function. That becomes even more important with the conditional zoning restrictions because you see this area we've highlighted for you? That's going to have to be removed. That does not meet the conditional zoning restriction. So this parking area is going to have to function in and of itself and on its own to serve this building. And, of course, that will be something that will be even more carefully reviewed at your final development plan stage. But there's a very practical impact from the conditional zoning on the development of this property. Several other just cleanup items. Again, as you see, the improvements to North Limestone, the alteration of the existing detention in this area. These, of course, are design elements that will be determined through improvement plans at the time of the final development plan. Will be fully vetted and explored and designed at that time. As you all are aware, there have been stormwater problems historically in this area that have been identified. There's a lot of detention provided on the property. They will have to address that and make sure it continues to function at the time of the final development plan. They are claiming a reduction in their parking, and that could be very, very important to them, obviously, with the parking and the constriction of having to remove this and remove some parking. They are claiming the benefit of being within 300 feet of a transit stop. it says shot on your handout. I want to make sure that's clear. It's the transit stop. And we need that located for us on the plan, either through a note because of the 300 feet, they've got to identify that stop for us in order to claim that credit on parking. So, again, that's kind of a cleanup condition. There are several cleanup conditions. As, again, as you can see, extension of a sidewalk, saving the trees these nice big trees in the front and then when this was approved and I you all may recall and and Miss Wade just talked about it the importance of North limestone the small area plan the gateway concept they agreed to architectural details now there's down here there's a building design note and we want to be sure and and have it denoted that they will match the architectural details and pay attention to that on this building as they did on these and that was all arose out of that discussion about that appropriate uh presentation to north limestone so that that last uh would discuss need that yesterday means clearly denoted on the plan that they will meet the architectural details as that were approved on the previous plan i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have so you can take this for now yeah 19 uh or which is 16 16 we can delete 15 Sixteen is to be completely deleted, yes. We've demonstrated, I think, the impacts of the traditional zoning. Can you take fifteen out or what do you want that to say? Fifteen, discuss the need. Well, I think we'd be happy to still keep the note that they will meet the architectural details as previously approved. So that would be left in with the note that it could be deferred to the final development plan? That was when it will be appropriate for them to meet those when they pull a permit, certainly. So we keep it? Okay, keep 15, strike 16. I mean, it'd be simpler if you just wanted to, say, resolve the need. Okay. That's what we're going to do, hopefully, to resolve that need. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, sir, Mr. Drake. clarify for me tom did i understand you to say that the two parking areas cannot be linked yes sir at due to the conditional zoning restrictions that were placed on this adjoining property this connection cannot be made and so this is going to have to function independently, and as does this at this time. What were those conditional zoning restrictions, do you recall? This is a 50-foot buffer, and it was imposed, a landscaping buffer, to protect this residential neighborhood from this development when it was approved. Mr. Chair, if I may. Tom, to do that, I guess, would open up that other lot as far as the conditional restriction on the buffer. To have that connection, you'd have to go back and open up that other one as far as the zone change itself. They would have to request a zone change to modify their conditional zone. Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon. I'm Steve Baker with Midwest Engineering, representing the owners and the client. And I just want to say we concur with all those conditions, especially the revised zone restrictions. I think we can meet those without any issues. Obviously, the client would prefer to be able to connect those two drive aisles and the parking areas, but we feel like we can make the new section work independently if we have to. So thank you for your consideration. Very good. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak with this one? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. And who are you? I'm Clay Waller. Okay, thank you. Do you guys have any questions? I'm actually one of the developers and owners in this property. So if you guys had questions, me and my father are here to clarify if there's any misunderstandings that we can clarify to you guys personally. Well, you're off the hook. Okay. Well, thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this in the audience? Well, it looks like we've lost most of our audience. I'll now close that part of the meeting and come back to the commission. any further discussion on this particular thing. I think what we have here, since one has been removed, we've got the development plan, and we are saying that we've got 15 as opposed to 16, and then we've got the zoning thing. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. I'm ready to make a motion if everyone's ready. I'm going to move approval of the zone change MAR 2016-18 for the reasons provided by staff. And I believe there were some amendments under A, yeah, other restrictions. B, A. From 20 to 10. Yeah, and 3 to 30. B to 30 feet. So moved. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved. Actually, I saw Mr. Smith's second. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Okay, now the development plan. Mr. Chairman, move approval of the ZDP 2016-70, change in 15 to resolve need of the front building restrictions by the revised staff recommendation. Second. Okay, again, there's been motions that have been made by Mr. Cravens and seconded by Mr. Smith that we approve ZDP 2016-70 with the 15 conditions, with the, on the 15th condition substituting word discussed for resolve. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Okay, thank you. The motion carries. Congratulations. What else? What's next? I think we have some staff things. Mr. Chair, we accept your gratitude for providing you a simple meeting for your first chairmanship. Yeah, I have to remind myself I'm on television. I have a response, but perhaps it would not be appropriate at this time. But I feel comforted again and buffeted by the fact that we've got some really great people here, so we'll work through all of it. Thank you. And we will see you all next Thursday at your committee meetings. So you all have nothing more to report, huh? Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Well, without objection. Mr. Chair? Yes. If I may, real quick, most of you all know it, have heard it. Frank Penn's son apparently died yesterday as a result of a son-in-law. Thank you. Son-in-law. Thanks for the correction as a result of a heart attack. So thoughts and prayers go to the Penn family during this time. Indeed. Thank you for that, Ms. Dorns. Appreciate it. Any further business about objection? The chair will adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Thank you.