So hard to find my way, now that I'm all on my own. I saw you just the other day, my, you have grown. I cast my memory back, my lord. Sometime I've overcome thinking about it. Making love in the green grass. Behind the stadium, a few. My bright-eyed girl You, my bright-eyed girl Do you remember when We used to sing Sha-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la I'm going to go. When I look out over a green field of clover Oh, what's the sunset at the end of the day? I get kind of moody when I see such beauty And everything's beautiful in its own way When I see a fountain flow from a mountain Or see April shower bring flowers to me I can't help but ponder Life is such a wonder And everything's beautiful in its own way Words can't describe what I feel inside When I see the beauty in each coming day What my eyes behold can't be bought or sold And everything's beautiful in its own way When I see the clouds form a black summer windstorm that uproots the harvest February 17th, thank you all for coming, for those of you in the audience, and thank you to all of our commission members for giving up their time for being here today. With that, approval of the minutes for October the 27th. Any additions or corrections? If not, we'll entertain a motion for approval. Mr. Chair, I move approval of October 27th, Commission Minutes. Okay. Second. It's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve the minutes of October the 27th. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, to all those, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitor? Okay, the ayes have it. Motion carries. Postponements and our withdrawals. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Ball Homes. We have on page 7, item number 5, asked to request a postponement for one month until your December, I believe it's 15th meeting. We are still waiting on some traffic count information. The Senate of the 15th. Okay, anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Anyone on the commission? If not, we'll entertain a motion to postpone. Mr. Chair, I'll move recommendation. I'll move postponement of, where did I go, plan. We'll have a second. MAR 16-16 Ball Homes Incorporated in the Associated Development Plan for one month until December 15th. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owen, seconded by Ms. Karen. Monday that we postpone PLN MAR 16-16 Ball Homes, Inc. to December 15. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your monitors. Ayes have it. Thank you. We'll see you December 15. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy on page 8. Item C, the text amendments. So the 2016-5 amendment to Article 23A10 about supportive uses in the economic development zone. I represent the Miller Family Trust and the staff has recommended postponement. The council is having a workshop next month, so we're requesting two-month postponement until, I think it's January 26th. That's correct. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Anyone on the commission? I'm not willing to entertain a motion for a postponement until January 26th. Mr. Chair, I move approval of postponement to January 26th of 2017 for ZODA 2016-5 Amendment to Article 23A10, Supportive Uses as a Special Provision in the Economic Development, or ED Zone. Okay. It's been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Mr. Joseph Smith, that we postpone Zota 2016-5, amendment to Article 23A-10, supportive uses as a special provision in the Economic Development, or ED, zone. Any other discussion on the motion from the Commission members? Hearing none, seeing none. Please vote when it comes up on your monitors. Ayes have it. Motion has it. We'll see you January the 26th, 2017. That seems like a long way off, doesn't it? Probably have a little interest. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. On page 4, item 3, Lexmark International, request a one-month postponement to the December 15th hearing. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Anyone on the Commission would like to speak to this issue? If not, we'll entertain a motion to postpone to December the 15th. Mr. Chair, I'll move for postponement of Plan MAR 16-12 Lexmart International and the associated development plan until December the, what was it, 17th? 15th. December 15th. Have a second? Second. Okay, well, Mr. Smith beat you to it. Mr. Owens has moved, and Mr. Smith has seconded that we postpone Lexmark International Incorporated Zoning Map Amendment and Lexmark International Corporation, that's PLN MAR 16-12, until December the 15th. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, would you please vote when that comes up on your monitors? Okay, you've got that. I'm going to see you December 15th. Any other postponements or withdrawals? The floor is still open. Okay. Okay. I have an unconventional postponement request. The first item on your agenda, it's a carryover from last week's subdivision. The affidavit, you may recall, I got pulled from the consent agenda because there was an issue with the affidavit. Affidavit is en route. It's just not in the room yet. And I was going to ask whether we could maybe call another case in front of it and then circle back because I anticipate it will be here any second. Okay, you're talking about PLN, MJS, SUV 16-4, Barbara, and Mastering Childress? That's correct. Okay, well, without objection, we'll shift that around for you. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Okay, we can do that and come back to it at the next time. That was the only subdivision item we had, so what we'll do is move to the zoning items. And Mr. Sally, I think we have an abbreviated possibility here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Good afternoon. I believe that there are two remaining items on your agenda this afternoon that may qualify for your consideration as abbreviated public hearings. The first, here's on page two of your agenda, item number one. This is MAR16-02, a zone change request by CapK Bluegrass Properties, LLC. This is a zone change request from a P1 professional office zone to a high-rise apartment, R5 zone. for property at 353 Waller Avenue. At this time, the staff would ask if anyone's present today in the audience who would like to discuss this proposed zone change on Waller Avenue. Does anyone here wish to discuss that? Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this can be our first abbreviated zone change this afternoon. The very next zone change on your agenda appears on the bottom of page 3, MAR16-08, a request by Fortune Business Center, LLC. This is a zone change request from a P1 professional office zone to a B4 wholesale and warehouse business zone. This zone change involves property at 2300 Fortune Drive. Again, at this time, the staff would ask if anyone is present to object or wishes to discuss this proposed zone change on Fortune Drive. This can then be our second abbreviated hearing, Mr. Chairman. We'll be glad to take them in order. Okay. Excuse me, sir. Are you objecting? No, sir. Okay. I'm not identifying myself as being here. Oh, okay. We just wanted to clarify it. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. Okay. With that, then we can proceed with the Capkey Bluegrass properties. It's alright. You're in the line of fire. Yes. We're just waiting for Amy. If you give us just a moment, Ms. Chairman, we're waiting on the PowerPoint to load up. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson, members of the Commission. This first item on our agenda for your hearing today is PLN MAR16-2, and it's a request by Kapke Bluegrass Properties, LLC. This is an amended application simply because they added additional variances since the time they first applied. The property is located at 353 Waller Avenue, and the applicant is asking for a zone change from a professional office, which is our P1 zone, to a high-rise apartment R5 zone. The property is approximately three acres, and it's located on the north side of Waller Avenue. Waller Avenue connects between South Broadway and Harrodsburg Road corridor to the west and proceeds to Nicholasville Road or South Limestone on the east. The subject property is located between Harrodsburg Road and South Broadway and the CSX Railroad line. This area of Waller Avenue is characterized mostly by professional office zoning, although there is also multifamily to the west of the subject property, as well as a single-family neighborhood to the north of the subject property, and additionally a small shopping center further to the west at Manowar Place and Waller Avenue. The applicant is asking to rezone the subject property to the R5 zone, but they intend to maintain the existing structure on the property. The structure that is located there was previously the Kenton Health Care Nursing Home Facility, and it closed approximately seven years ago. So the property or the building has been sitting vacant there for at least seven years now. The applicant also is requesting, as I mentioned, dimensional variances associated with the proposal. Here's an aerial view of the subject property. You can see this part of Fayette County is well-developed and fairly dense in terms of residential to the north in single-family and then the multifamily to the west. And the professional office buildings or professional office land adjacent is also all developed in this vicinity. Just a little bit of a closer view of the subject property again. It is one structure, just connected, something you would see frequently with a nursing home in sort of a wing situation. Property was part of a zone change in 1993 from a high-density apartment, our R4 zone, to the existing P1 zone. At that time, it was converted from a conditional use to a principal use. They desired to expand and could not conform to the R4 zone requirements any longer. Last year, the subject property was also part of another zone change request that was recommended for disapproval by the staff as well as the Planning Commission. And the applicant subsequently withdrew their request for rezoning. Anytime there is a recommendation by the Planning Commission for disapproval, a property cannot be brought back before the Planning Commission for at least one year. So the applicant has waited that required one year in order to be back before the Planning Commission. The applicant does believe that their zone change is in compliance with the comprehensive plan, and they cite several goals and objectives related to that opinion. The petitioner contends that the zone change meets theme A, goal one, which deals with expanding housing choices. It is supporting infill and redevelopment. It is encouraging infill that creates jobs where people live, and also it's developing a viable network and effective transportation for residents. The petitioner's project is for efficiency residential units in this existing structure, and they believe that will meet some demand for the University of Kentucky students. In addition, the staff believes it could provide housing for employees or, I guess, employees for the nearby hospitals. St. Joe is located at Mantle War in Waller Avenue, and then the University of Kentucky Hospital is also nearby. Beyond that, the applicant also cited a few other statements within the Comprehensive Plan policy statements. First, that they're providing greater accessibility between neighborhoods and shopping because they are adding a sidewalk along the frontage of Waller Avenue, which will allow the applicants, I guess residents who would live there, a better avenue to get to the shopping center at Manor War Place, but it would also connect to an existing sidewalk that does go towards the University of Kentucky campus along Waller to the east. In addition, the petitioner stating that the property and its large structure are currently underutilized, which the staff agrees since it's been vacant for seven years. This project will take the existing property and put it to a good use at this location. The proposed zone change is also the staff feels compatible with the R4 zoning that's to the west of the subject property where existing multifamily already exists. And the R5 will be a step down between single-family residential at Camden Avenue and the professional office uses along Waller Avenue. In addition, it's only one story tall. It's not your typical high-rise that you would see in an R5 zone, so the scale is not proposed to be an issue adjacent to the single-family residences. The staff and the zoning committee both recommended approval of this zone change because it is in agreement with the comprehensive plan for the goals and objectives that I mentioned. Those are listed on the agenda as well as the staff report for this item for the Planning Commission to review in more detail. And, of course, our recommendation for approval is subject to the Planning Commission's approval of the associated development plan. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Thank you. Who's handling the variances? Mr. Martin will present the development plan, and then Mr. Sally will take care of the variances. Okay. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the development plan associated with this zone change is Plan MJDP 16-9, Story Business Subdivision. We have distributed to you on a lavender sheet of paper revised conditions for the plan today. here of course is the waller street frontage for the property this is the existing structure that you can see outlined for you here it is uh 45,610 square feet you see the parking in these areas that's largely existing there are courthouses courthouses courtyards associated, of course, with the old nursing home function. Staff has several cleanup conditions you can see. Very basic information, just a few cleanup things. Dimension any compact parking spaces if proposed. Dimension the building. Courtyards. Make sure all walkways are dimensioned. Just some cleanup conditions that aren't unusual on plans. They'll need to document compliance with interior landscape and tree canopy requirements as well on the plans prior to certification. As Ms. Wade mentioned, there are variances associated with this property. The open space, they are providing 15%. It is a 20% requirement. And, of course, Mr. Sally is going to go over that with you. And, again, to a large extent, this is, as you have heard, this is an existing building, a developed site. So providing the open space is one of the challenges that they had. In addition to that, they are proposing 100 efficiency units. The parking calculation is such that they are also requesting a variance on that parking. Again, Mr. Sally will go over with you. They are proposing 123 parking spaces on the site, which will be should you grant the variance slightly over the required amount. There is an area through here where there's been an issue with the front setback and the building line, currently platted at 50. There is a plat that has been submitted, which is going through the current review cycle and will be heard at your next hearing to amend the building line in this area. There is a conflict with that building line in some of the parking spaces as well. Ms. Wade mentioned the sidewalk. They are providing the sidewalk in front of the property. You can see in this location. That is an important addition. Staff is aware and has, in fact, talked to our engineering division. There is an active project to provide sidewalks on Waller. And they are currently investigating acquiring any additional right-of-way and that sort of thing if necessary for the construction of the sidewalks. With that, your staff is recommending approval of the plan. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions? Mrs. Saleh? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, this item is on page 2. It's item B as listed on your meeting agenda. This is the variance portion of the application for MAR16-02. As Mr. Martin has introduced to you, there are three requested variances. I'd like to introduce them to you using the development plan exhibit. First is the applicant's asking for variance to the required open space. The minimum open space requirement is 20% of the lot area. The applicant is asking for permission to only have 15%. The staff, when we initially reviewed this, those of you on the committee's meetings may recall, recommended postponement of that because there had been no documentation that they could even meet 15%. All of the areas you see in green on this development plan are currently open space with two very small exceptions. There's additional parking proposed in front of the building, totaling 10 spaces, including two handicapped spaces. The documentation provided to staff since our initial committee meeting is that there's about 17% on the site. So even with the loss of these 10 parking spaces, the staff is now confident that they can meet a 15% minimum open space requirement for the site. I think it's fair to say all three of these variances from the applicant are driven by their hope to use as much of the existing building and facility as they can in this conversion from a nursing home into apartment units. The second variance they're asking for is permission to park closer than 20 feet to Waller Avenue. In the existing P1 zone, that is not an issue because parking is permitted in the required front yard. However, they're asking for a residential zone. And in our residential zones, that is not permitted. They're asking for permission to utilize basically paved areas today for their parking. The staff is not opposed to that since that is already there. And we do think it would be a hardship to the applicant to have to remove that and more importantly take away those spaces because of the third variance that's requested. The third variance is that they're asking to reduce the minimum off-street parking requirement from 150 spaces, which is one and a half per dwelling unit, to 123 if these can be counted in the front. As Mr. Martin mentioned, these are efficiency units, meaning that at most there will be one bedroom per unit, Although in their justification for the variance, they say that once they review the building codes and the existing building, they may ask to do 10 two-bedroom units and reduce the development by 20 efficiencies. In either scenario, there would be no more than 100 bedrooms in the development. Staff is comfortable with allowing the building code to inform their planning on what types of units will ultimately be in the building. The parking variance, the staff is comfortable with a ratio of 1.23 spaces per bedroom for this development. Again, the ordinance requires the greater of 1.5 per unit or .9 per bedroom. This will far exceed the per bedroom rate. And to be honest with you, that rate was put in with housing near the University of Kentucky in mind many years ago into our ordinance. So we think the 1.23 per bedroom will be a very satisfactory ratio of parking per bedroom spaces here. If you'll look at the staff report or the agenda, the staff, along with your zoning committee, is recommending approval of all three variances that are before you this afternoon. To briefly cover the reasons, the first is granting the variances will not affect the public health, safety, or welfare, nor alter the character of the general vicinity and will not cause a hazard or nuisance to the public. Secondly, granting these variances will not result in an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance, primarily because the existing setbacks for the parking are already in place, and all the variances will serve to maintain better the existing character of the area. Third, the existing parking arrangement along the front of the property, in close proximity to the pavement and right-of-way, are a special circumstance that apply to this property that are generally not found in most other R5 properties throughout the county. Fourth, in this instance, a strict application of the normal zoning requirements would pose a hardship to the applicant because it would require either the removal of parking or reduction in residential density at this location. And then finally, the applicant has not started construction on the project and is requesting these variances in advance of any such activities commencing on the property. Our recommendation of these variances is subject to five conditions that are listed. The first three, I would say, are fairly typical. That these are to be null and void should the property not be rezoned by the Urban County Council. Secondly, that should it be rezoned, that the property should develop in accordance with the final development plan that's before you at today's hearing. Thirdly, that a note should be placed on the plan indicating any commission approval of these variances. Fourth, that the parking areas be landscaped from the perimeter of the property in accordance with Article 18 requirements. And then finally, the most unusual condition, the staff would ask that the final landscaping plan be submitted to the planning staff in addition to the building inspector's office so that we can have a copy of that in the file since the variances are involved. With that, I'd be glad to answer any questions about our staff report or recommendation to you on the variances that are before you as part of this application today. Any questions? Okay, thank you. Applicant. My name is Richard Hopgood, H-O-P-G-O-O-D. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Based on the abbreviated public hearing standards, we concur with the staff's recommendations. We waive oral presentation. The only written evidence or documents we want to present is three conditions, zoning conditions we agreed to with the neighbors in working through some of the issues that they had on this plan. So I've got that to put in the record. Otherwise, we agree with the conditions that Mr. Sully has read, and I appreciate your attention. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Hopgood? Yep, Mr. Berkeley. Yes. At the 3? Yeah. Is this done later? Well, I've been ready to say. It's not reflected in that. No, we can reach it. There we go. Mr. Walburn represents the neighbor to the west and then the property across the street that was involved in the other zone chains, and we worked through those issues with him. And there are conditional uses that would be allowed, would be pursued in R5. We've agreed not to pursue those in condition for the zone change. Do you have a copy of this, Mr. Colley? Day shelters, community centers. I was going to say, could you put it on the screen? That way. Thank you, Mr. Owens. I was just about to read it. It was almost through. It's not that long, anyhow. Anyone in the audience would like to speak to this particular? Okay, Mr. Walter. Oh, you're talking about the other one. Is that right? Oh, to this one? Directly related to this. Okay, yes. As Mr. Hopkins mentioned, I represent the adjacent property owner and one across the street. You may remember when this was on for a hearing last time. We opposed that zone change. Did want to express our appreciation to the applicant. They actually kind of went above and beyond to work with us on some of our concerns. I did want to bring two things to the Planning Commission's attention. We would request approval of the variances that they've sought. One of those variances was sought at our request, that being the front yard variance, because we think it's important to maximize parking in this area. We think we would be the properties impacted if there were a lack of parking. So we would ask that you strongly consider granting those variances. And also we would ask you to strongly consider imposing these conditional zoning restrictions. These are three conditional uses. We understand that they're conditional, but we do think that they would be out of character with the Waller Corridor and would ask that you impose those. With that said, we do not oppose the zone change. We would support the variances and the conditional zoning. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Collins. I guess for legal, as much as anything, normally these type of restrictions refer to these being prohibited. Does that matter in this language? Should they be listed as prohibited conditional uses? I'm not sure if they're just trying to limit this particular property owner. If they're going to be, in other words, you know, if there's a different property owner that comes into play and they want to pursue those, they'd still have to go through the conditional use process. but if they're trying to prohibit them as part of the zone change, then the language may need to be changed. Yeah, that would be my thoughts. I think I'd prefer these being listed as prohibited uses. And I would agree. Is the applicant agreeable to that? I think we might have some more direct language that we could use that would reach the same thing. Okay. Mr. Chairman, we'll put something on the overhead here in just a moment for you. Okay. Typically, when the staff recommends conditional zoning restrictions, there's a third finding associated with the zone change that states under the provisions of Article 6-7 of the ordinance, the following uses shall be prohibited on the property. So I just copied what Richard put on the screen there as to which ones they wish to prohibit. But when we prohibit uses, we do have to have a reason why we're doing that. So that's that last sentence. Okay. To the petitioner, are you okay? Just for the record. For the record, yes. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Okay, then I think we're ready for any other additional discussion or motion. I'd like to do this in three parts. First of all, the PLNMAR 16-2, the plan, the zone change, then the development plan, then the variances. Yes, sir. Mr. Clerk, please. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of PLNMAR 16-2 CAP Kentucky Blue Rast Properties. for the reasons noted by staff with the additional zoning restrictions that were just up there and its finding. I have a second. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Will Berkeley and seconded by Mr. Mike Owens that we approve PLN MAR 16-2, Capkey Bluegrass Properties, with the conditions outlined by staff with the additional zoning restrictions and what else is it? Something else. The findings. And its findings. Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of Plan MJDP 16-9 with the 12 conditions noted by staff. Have a second on that? Okay. Mr. Will Berkeley moved. Mr. Joseph Smith seconded that we approve PLN MJDP-16-9 story business subdivisions with the 12 conditions outlined by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors? The motion carries. Do you want the variances separate? No, we'll do all three. All three. All right, let me find where were they here. Okay. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to move for approval. of the requested variances for PLN MAR 16-2, the three requested variances, reducing the required open space from 20% to 15%, reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 8 feet, and reduce the minimum required parking from 150 to 123 spaces. Okay, Mr. Berkley, move that we, okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Mr. Joseph Smith, that we approve the requested variances of which there are three to reduce the required open space from 20% to 15% to reduce the required front property from 20 feet to 8 feet and to reduce the minimum required parking from 150 spaces to either 123 or 127, depending on number two. Any other discussion on that motion? It's 123 or 112. Oh, 112. I'm sorry, what did I say? 122? You said 100. 127? Oh, I just raised it a little bit. It would be to 123, not 112. 123, okay, not to 112. Yes. Secondary agreement with the modification, I assume, and if there's no other discussion, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay, thank you. The motion carries. Thank you. I think that we have another abbreviated. Yes sir, we do. We have one more. Okay. It's on the bottom of page 3. The staff will set up for that. We'll be ready to begin just a moment. Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the commission. Chairman Wilson, our next item is at page 3, item 2A and behind tab 2 in your notebooks. It's for property at 2300 Fortune Drive, and it's a request by Fortune Business Center LLC to rezone this parcel, which is about three and a half acres from a professional office zone, our P1 zone, to wholesale and warehouse business zone, which is our B4 zone. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Fortune Drive and Winchester Road. This is the entrance to Fortune Business Center, which continues both to the west and to the south of the subject property's location. In addition, the zoning in the vicinity includes R1C across Winchester Road, which is part of Patchen-Wilkes subdivision and a little bit of the Eastland subdivision. It also is residential to the east, which is part of Tuscany or the Summerfield neighborhood. And then parts of the Fortune Business Center are both B4, adjacent to the subject property, and then I1 and B3, a little bit further away from the subject property, but within this quadrant of the interchange of New Circle and Winchester Road. I would also note that adjacent across Fortune Drive, that property is zoned professional office. So you have four different zones in this location. The applicant is asking to rezone from the P1 to the B4 zone. The subject property is currently vacant, and they would like to build a warehouse at this location or warehouse wholesale use. They haven't specifically listed anything on the development plan, anything more specific than warehouse. But I would note that on Long Fortune Drive, the uses are primarily warehouse or wholesale sale of building materials, as well as some offices in the general vicinity. The property was rezoned originally in 1981 from an ag zone to, at that time, a B4 zone. But it never developed, obviously. and the applicant rezoned it in 1991 in order to encourage some professional office just right at the entrance there to the Fortune Business Center. A bank and an office building developed, again, across Fortune Drive from this location, but the subject property remained vacant. They are now 35 years with a vacant tract that's been non-agricultural, and they're still looking for the right use at this location. But I think Fortune Business Center is hopeful that they have finally found a proposed user for the subject site. They are contending that the zone change is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. The staff could not come to that same conclusion, mostly because the goals and objectives they cited were supported by both zones. In terms of increasing jobs, well, a P1 and a B4 zone can both increase jobs. So the staff looked to the rest of their justification, which also stated that they felt P1 was inappropriate here and B4 was appropriate, and the staff can agree with that statement. For the reasons we've listed them in the staff report, but obviously, as I mentioned, and the staff cited that the property has remained vacant for 35 years with no development occurring even during the years when it was a B4 zone, but we believe that B4 is compatible in this area, and it's consistent with the rest of the Fortune Business Center's development patterns. Additionally, there's a large detention basin, and these are just a few photos of the site. It's kind of hard to see. It's a very level site where it's prepared for development, but to the east side of the lot, the property does fall off into what is a regional detention basin. And this detention basin is located between their buildable area on the lot and the corner of Fortune and Winchester Road and the Summerfield neighborhood, which is to the east. So it provides a good buffer between the commercial use or the business use and the residential use at this location. In addition, the existing transportation networks are available and adequate at this location. And the applicant also offered some conditional zoning restrictions at this site. And the staff does believe that those are appropriate given the residential that's both across Winchester Road and then on the adjoining parcel along Winchester Road. The staff and the zoning committee both recommended approval of the requested rezoning at the zoning committee a few weeks, two weeks ago, and those reasons are listed on our staff report and on the agenda. They are contingent on the development plan being recommended for approval as well or being approved as well, And part of our recommendation was including the applicant's conditional zoning restrictions, which would prohibit 11 principal uses in the B4 zone. And those uses, again, are listed on the agenda, but include things like an ice plant or tire retreading, things that have some noise probably related to them or might be problematic next to residential. So that concludes my report. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Any questions? Ms. Wade? Thank you. Where's Mr. Martin? Oh, okay. Oh, Ms. Goss, I'm sorry. I know I can't see them when they hide behind me. Apologize for standing back there behind everything. As Tracy explained, they're wanting to zone the property at the corner of Winchester and Fortune Drive. This is a preliminary development plan. This is just a big picture idea of the building layout and parking. As Tracy explained, the regional basin is over here, and this is the residential neighborhood that she was speaking about. So this is where the building is going to be located, so that way that detention basin separates the two. With that, we had just a few conditions. We just had a couple sign-off conditions. And then we had a couple cleanup conditions just to improve legibility, adjacent property information, and denote the location of existing trees. Because there are a few trees located on the property, and we just want to show that on this plan. With that, if there's any other questions. Okay. Any other questions or any questions at all from the scout? Okay, thank you. Petitioner? That's you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Tom Miller, representing Fortune. Steve Baker is here also with Midwest Engineering. He's done all the drawings. We have agreed with all of the restrictions that have been proposed. I'm sorry to say I was the one here in 1991 that got this zoned the wrong direction. So I'd ask you to correct the error that I made. It was believed in 1991 that the property would be more marketable as an office building. It turns out it was not. The owners believe that there is a need for commercial development, and that's the reason we have made this request. I'm sure you're all familiar with the Fortune Business Center. It is an extremely well-maintained, high-quality, locally-owned group, and we're totally compatible with the neighborhood and in conformity with the comprehensive land use plan. So we would request approval. Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Anyone like to talk to this? Okay, on the commission. If not, then what we'll do is we've got two parts to this. So I'll entertain a motion, first of all, for the zone change and then the development plans following. If you all don't want to go home for Thanksgiving, we'll be okay. Thank you. I'll move for approval of Plan MAR 16-8 Fortune Business Center, LLC, with the prohibited uses for the reasons provided by staff. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we approve PLN MAR 16-8 Fortune Business Center with the reasons provided by staff with the 11 prohibitive uses, Use is also indicated for this particular property. Any other discussion on the motion? Okay, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors? The motion carries on that. Now we'd like to go to the plan itself, the development plan. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of Plan MJDP 16-31, Fortune Business Center, Lot 3, with the eight noted requirements. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Michael and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson that we approve PLN-MJDP 16-31, Quartz and Business Center, Lot 3, with the eight conditions outlined by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that particular motion also carries. Thank you. Have we had the affidavit come in yet? Okay, Mr. Walburn, would you like to come in? We've taken something out of order to allot some time. Before we get into our four, we're going to back up to a subdivision thing. I think it was the plan, the MJSUB 16-4. Go ahead. Thank you. I believe this was a consent agenda item last time, and staff can advise whether it can be handled in a similar fashion. Just to tell you what this is, as I explained at the subdivision committee for those of you that were there, this is an old remnant tract that was created by some transfers of land some 25 years ago, at the time when the 40-acre lot minimum size in the AR area was not in place. this plat is simply retracing a lot that's been in existence since the early to mid-90s. The only reason that it's needed is because the property owners are unable to obtain a building permit without a platted lot. There has to be an approved plat in order for a building permit to come in. So while this is treated as a subdivision, we're not subdividing anything. We're just tracing the lines around a lot that's existed for a long time. These are two owners subsequent to this property when it was created this way. A portion of the property was sold to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. They have a facility out there, and a portion was given to the adjoining farm. This property is alienated a couple of times. It's remained vacant. There was some interest in constructing a house on it or perhaps selling it to someone that would like to construct the house. But you can't do that without the plat. So that's the only purpose of this. We're not subdividing anything. I know people get a little nervous when they see a lot under 40 acres in the AR, but I promise you it's been that way for 25 years. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to entertain them at this time. Any questions? You're asking for a postponement? No, I'm asking for approval. Approval, okay. And you just had to wait for the affidavit to get it? Correct. Okay. Okay, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, threw me off slightly there when the applicant got up. I know before you did. Before I did, I'm going, uh-oh. That's the way life is, isn't it? We can handle it. This particular subdivision plat is located out on Briar Hill Road. It is between Bryan Station and Cleveland Pike. This is the property that surrounds it. This is the tract in question. It's just a little over 15 acres. And as you heard from the applicant, it was created by deed. And some of the geometry was impacted by the property around it. Again, as you heard, this was the state facility located here. And those actions resulted in this creation. So it is before you to be platted. That is something that is allowed under KRS and under our regulations for your approval to actually now create this on a plat. And they will be able then to build a single-family home on the property. They have the 300-foot building line. There's a large water feature that is a non-buildable area. That's one of the conditions on our approval. They will need Board of Health approval, of course, of a septic system before they can bill. That's standard with the permit. And we also have a resolve issue on the right-of-way. If we need additional right-of-way, we would like to get it with this plat. So that is one issue that was discussed among staff and the applicant. And so that is a resolve issue, whether or not the prescriptive right-of-way is adequate or whether some additional right-of-way just along this frontage would be necessary. And with that, staff is recommending approval. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. Since I got it out of order, African, do you have any additional anything else you want to add? I don't. We are aware of the right-of-way issue. We'll continue to resolve that with staff. There is right-of-way there now. There is a road. We obviously understand that we don't own the road, but we can clean up that issue to staff satisfaction. Okay. Any other comments from the audience on this item agenda? Okay. Now, can I close? Oh, I'm sorry. That's right, it is. Any questions from the commissioners? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move approval of PLN MJSUB 1614, Barbara M. and Mastin Childers property with the 16 conditions as noted by staff. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Mundy, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we approve PLN MJSUB 16-14, Robert M. and Mastin-Childers, with the 16 conditions noted by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Okay. I believe our next item is the Lex properties. Oh, that's a... Oh, that's a... We'll go back on this fellow. Good afternoon. Chairman Wilson, members of the Commission, our next item is on page 4. It's behind tab 3 in your notebooks. And just item 3A on the agenda, it's PLN MAR 16-15. It's requested by Lex Properties, LLC for 3455 Saybrook Road. This is a 10-acre tract, and it is currently zoned agricultural urban, and they are asking for rezoning to plan neighborhood residential, which is our R3 zone. The staff has an exhibit packet at your seat, not associated with the development plan, but with the zoning request. That includes a few things. and before I fill, let me describe this exhibit, and then Mr. Sally is going to grab all the communication that we received about this zone change. The first few things that are paper-clipped together in the staff exhibit are a zone change staff report from last year, the minutes of that hearing in white, and then a 1994 staff report also for the same property. And then behind that is an environmental report that the applicant submitted again last year, but since it's the same property, I'm assuming that they have not done any more environmental assessment on the subject property. Mine's brown, but you all have a white copy of what was submitted and prepared by Childress Associates LLC at that time. And Mr. Salley handed Ms. Richardson a packet of communication that we've received from citizens in opposition to the request. We've also been submitted a petition, again, in opposition to this zone change request. The subject property is located at the very end of Saybrook Road. And for everybody's orientation, Saybrook Road is in the midst of really two single-family residential neighborhoods. Saybrook is in, I think, the Monticello neighborhood. And it is accessible via Monticello Boulevard, which is to the north and is a collector street. Winthrop and Boston Road run parallel to the subject property to the east. And then you have Clay's Mill Road to the west. And then another collector street, Cromwell Way, runs south of the subject property. So Saybrook is a local street that is accessible from Halifax Drive. and you come down Saybrook and it is a dead end of that street currently. It dead ends into this 10-acre tract. All, well, three directions of the subject property is bounded by R1C zoning. There is a small tract to the south of the subject property that is also in an AU zone but is owned by LFUCG and it is not part of this zone change. The neighborhoods, though, Robinwood and Monticello that surround the subject property, are almost entirely in an R1C zone. And that comes all the way over here to Shillitoe Park, to the north near the NDC property. And there's a school all the way to Clay's Mill Boulevard. Not quite all the way to Manowar, though. There's some R1D zoning as well. There's the name graphic. The subject property has a storied past, I guess I would say. It was a former location of the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant, which was a private sanitary sewer package plant that served the nearby neighborhoods from probably the early 60s until the mid-80s, so a good number of years. The LFUCG condemned the property in 1984 in order to remove the private sanitary sewer treatment plant. And then at that time they mandated that all of the residential in this area be connected to the city sewers. After the sewer treatment plant was no longer there, the 10-acre property was utilized by the adjoining neighborhoods as a private park of sorts, which was allowed by the property owner at that time. This was sort of an informal arrangement between the property owner and LFUCG until about 1993 when the park facilities were removed from the property. And then in 1994, the property was proposed for development. At that time, and again, this is the pink handout the staff provided, At that time, Ball Homes proposed to rezone the property to an R1D zone to develop 22 single-family homes. They made that proposal, I guess, maybe unaware of some of the environmental concerns that were present on the subject property. Ultimately, they withdrew the request after some time because of the combination of environmental concerns and neighborhood concerns in this area. The property then has remained sort of in a bucolic setting for the next 20 years until last year when the applicant purchased the property from the Ted Osborne estate. So in 2015, Lex Properties requested a rezoning at this location, and the Planning Commission may remember, or even if you look at the minutes, it may refresh your memory of a lengthy hearing that the Planning Commission held last year about rezoning at this location. In 2015, the applicant filed an identical zone change request, identical to the existing request. that is from AU to an R3 zone. That also drew concerns from neighbors regarding environmental issues or degradation of the property as well as compatibility questions about the proposed use. In terms of the property itself, I'm going to go back to the aerial view. It does have the South Elkhorn Creek that traverses the subject property, which places a third of the land in the 100-year floodplain. So not all of the property is developable. From the Saybrook stub, really all you can see is large trees and sort of a pasture setting. This is just a view of the subject property adjacent to existing homes to the east and then existing homes to the west. This is South Elkhorn Creek, north of the subject property, near Halifax, so it's been improved with the riprap along this part of the creek a good number of years ago. And then to the south of the subject property, as it approaches Cromwell Way, it's in a bit more of a natural setting. The 2013 comprehensive plan does emphasize the importance of growing successful neighborhoods by supporting infill and redevelopment, which is theme A, goal 2, as well as providing well-designed neighborhoods, which is goal 3 of theme A. The plan also recommends protecting the environment by supporting the community's green infrastructure program and the general adopted environmental policy, which has to do with theme B of the comprehensive plan. And then the goals and objectives also recommend improving a desirable community through preservation and enhancement of our urban neighborhoods. And the plan advocates that infill and redevelopment be compatible, contiguous, and or mixed use to accommodate future growth needs and sustain the urban service area concept. These themes, goals, and objectives and policy statements are certainly relevant to the application at hand today. The petitioner does contend that their rezoning request to an R3 zone is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. This is in addition to their argument that the AU zone is inappropriate here and the R3 zone is appropriate. The applicant and an alternative attorney made a similar justification last year for this request. The comprehensive plan does recommend infill and redevelopment, but it notes that it should be compatible with and context sensitive to its environment, which in this case involves two single-family residential neighborhoods. The plan also states that infill and redevelopment can have a positive impact if it is in scale, massing, and similar in terms of size of adjacent buildings. The plan further recommends that near open space and greenways that single loaded streets be utilized. So that would indicate that only development would occur on the opposite side of the floodplain in this area. in order for additional access to green space. And the staff does not believe many of these policies and statements from the comprehensive plan have been clearly met by the applicant's proposal. Although the petitioner does propose residential land use, which the staff does encourage at this location, the staff continues to believe that an R1D zone would be more appropriate at this location than the proposed R3 zone. primarily because it would be more in character with the existing single-family residential neighborhoods that are adjoining this location. The R1D zone requires a 6,000-square-foot lot, whereas an R1C, which is the adjoining zoning, requires an 8,000-square-foot lot. So the staff's belief is that it is more dense than their surrounding or would permit development that's slightly more dense than the surrounding zones, but it wouldn't go so far as the R3 zone, which allows single-family lots that are 2,500 square feet, which is less than half of what an R1D lot is required to be. In essence, an R3 zone could allow two to, in the case of utilizing townhomes, three times as much development of this site than the R1D-sized lots would allow. While the development plan does depict single-family lots that do meet R1D size, 6,000 square feet, the lots do not meet the frontage requirements of an R1D zone. and a subdivision-wide variance is not something that the Planning Commission or even the Board of Adjustment can approve to allow for that smaller width of lots. The applicant is also introducing with this application a new housing type in terms of townhouses. So they're proposing 15 single-family homes on the west side of the property and 17 townhomes on the east side of the property adjacent to the floodplain. Although they're still proposing low-density development, which is generally compatible, the staff believes that the lot sizes and then locating townhomes interior to this established neighborhood is not compatible, especially where it is a lengthy cul-de-sac to get to the subject property. Second reason that the applicant believes that the zone change could be approved is that the AU zone is no longer appropriate and the R3 zone is appropriate. They cite the fact that public facilities and services are now available for the property and that the property is too small to be utilized for an agricultural use, a viable agricultural use. The staff, well, the applicant further opines that the restricted R3, a restricted R3 zone, would be appropriate at this location because it allows like structures to be placed near like structures in terms of single family being located adjacent to the single family while also providing for additional density in a desirable neighborhood. That's a quote from their justification. and they're claiming that the townhouses provide for a desirable neighborhood. The applicant states the development plan reflects the suitability of the R3 zone, and the staff believes that's a bit of a circular argument. The development plan is meant to show that the applicant can meet the requirements of the R3 zone. It doesn't automatically mean that because you meet the requirements of the zone, it is appropriate or compatible in this instant. The development plan only reflects what's really possible in the R3 zone, not if it's an appropriate zone at this location. The staff doesn't believe that there's anything that's changed in terms of whether R3 is appropriate or in agreement with the comprehensive plan in this location since last year when the Planning Commission recommended disapproval of this request. and the staff recommended disapproval to the zoning committee two weeks ago. The zoning committee did not make a recommendation. They actually had a split vote on this, so there was no recommendation from the zoning committee from two weeks ago. The reasons that the staff has recommended disapproval, we don't believe that it's in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan, and there's four reasons spelled out. it's not context sensitive and compatible with the adjoining single family residential neighborhoods it is does not respect the scale massing and size of the adjoining lots in this area of the neighborhoods although they're proposing residential at this location some of the smaller proposed lots are not compatible nor are the townhomes lining one side of a lengthy cul-de-sac compatible in this area, and they are not proposing single-loaded streets, which are recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. We believe that the AU remains appropriate until appropriate urban development is proposed at this location, and lastly, the R3 is not appropriate at this location. Again, the staff believes R1D is appropriate, and it is compatible with the adjoining neighborhood, which is two single family residential neighborhoods that would also R1D would also prohibit townhouses which the staff also believes are not appropriate in this location because this is not a local through street it ends in a cul-de-sac and it's typically not a good idea to put townhouses at the very end of a lengthy cul-de-sac the staff is recommending disapproval and I'd be happy to answer questions about our recommendation Any questions for Ms. Wade? Yes, Ms. Cravens. What's the, you gave us the square footage of R1D. What's the width at the building line? 60 feet. 60? Same as R1C? It is. Any other questions? Yes, Ms. Lawrence. Tracy, they're proposing 32 units with the townhouses now? Yes. Your suggestion, R1D, how many units could they get in on that? I believe greater than 20 since the previous development plan depicted 22 in this location. That's probably fairly reasonable. They may be able to fit a few more. Okay, thank you. Okay, Mr. Martin. Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan that you see before you with this sudden change is Plan 16-36. We have passed out a green sheet with revised conditions for you, and as a matter of housekeeping, I will state for you what you know, and this is for the audience as well. The development plan is reviewed as if the zoning was in place. As Ms. Wade explained in her presentation, we are looking at this plan to see if it can indeed comply with the R3. Again, you can see Saybrook Road as it dead ends into the property. They are proposing the extension with ending in a cul-de-sac. Here are the single-family homes, lots, that are up against the adjacent single-family lots. The townhouses are proposing. You can see here as they front on the proposed road, and they back up to this is the large floodplain that is associated with the property. We've highlighted for you the 25-foot setback that is off the floodplain as well. And again, you can see all the green areas that remain adjacent to the floodplain and primarily at the rear of the proposed townhouses. Staff reviewed this revised plan, and there are your standard sign-offs. There are some cleanup items, which is, you can see seven, including building height, conceptual drainage controls, and a tree inventory map. Now, they have added a new tree inventory map information in this location. They've examined the existing species, and they've stated that there are no significant trees on the site. Now, again, to be clear, that's under our ordinance. Significant trees are defined. There's trees on the site, and we're aware of that. But, again, that plan addresses the ordinance requirements of significant trees and an enumeration of species. they are to denote that stormwater detention shall be resolved at the final development plan this is a preliminary plan and at the time of the final development plan they will have to submit should should that final development plan happen obviously with the zone change being approved they would have to submit calculations at that time designs and improvement designs to determine whether or not detention was necessary on this site they need to clean up and add a few little items like lot coverage and area ratio just as a percentage in their site statistics on the site, just some cleanup, some numbers. They need to denote that the sanitary conflict, and although we didn't highlight for you there is a sanitary sewer conflict, there is a line that runs through this townhouse. Obviously, when they redevelop this site, they would have to move that sanitary sewer line and get rid of that conflict. That's not necessarily all that uncommon in certain circumstances. They need to denote the maintenance of the common areas on the plan and denote the open space provided on the proposed lot. This is a single lot that they're showing here for townhouses, so it is a group residential project under R3, so it has its own open space requirements. It's got its own statistical requirements. So, again, that needs to be clearly denoted on their site statistics as a number. You can see and look and go, yes, it appears that they've got it, but it's required that we have a number. So, again, we're just requesting that that number be provided. Denote the required and provided parking for the townhouses, again, in the site statistics. And that leads us to the 15, which is they have a detail down here on their townhouses, along with the driveways that you can see. Well, to meet their parking requirement, it can't be in front of this building line. It is dependent upon the garages. So we want to see those garages as part of the detail. So again, it is a preliminary development plan that has been proposed. Your staff did review this plan, and we are recommending approval of the plan to you. And I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have for me. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Owens? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tom, as far as number eight, the note, stormwater detention, this is a revised plan from what we saw in committee? It is, yes, sir. Are there any changes that would change number eight from discussed to denote? Yes, they need to denote it on a preliminary plan. Here's the issue. They don't know, we don't know, and nobody's going to know if it's actually needed until the math is done, until the design is done. And I'll demonstrate something that I think may help. Put this on the overhead, please. That's your existing stormwater system in that area. You see the light green patches. There's one large one to the north. There's a couple of small ones down below. There's one little one associated real next to the site. There's virtually no detention whatsoever in this area. It hasn't been required over time. The two newest townhouse developments that are further downstream, in fact, I think both of them that were done by this applicant, according to engineering, did not require detention. Once the math and the design was done, their proximity to the creek did not dictate that they needed detention. I would add that the Harvey property, 32 plus acres further downstream, has no detention whatsoever on that property. And again, that was determined unnecessary because of its proximity to the creek. So at this time, all we're looking for is if it's needed, they need to show an area where it could work. But how much will be required will be determined, again, when the hard design is done and the math is done on the actual detention. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission. Jacob Walburn on behalf of the applicant, Lex Properties. I can't help myself but with PowerPoint, but I think it will help me kind of stick to the points. This is an application that you all heard just about a year ago. I think this application is markedly different, and I'll explain to you why. But a lot of the issues that were raised last time were addressed last time, and I don't think we need to dwell on them. I'll touch on them briefly. I'll try to get to the point and explain to you why I think this proposal is, in fact, in agreement with the comp plan. Details of the application was covered by staff very well. I did want to point out that there is a very large lot, 4.69 acres, that would be separately platted that contains all of our floodplains. So while this does seem like a large property, 10 acres, over 46% of it will not be touched. There will be no development on almost half of this property, and that is, of course, due to the floodplain. And I'm sure you remember that prior application. If you don't, I believe planning staff has provided minutes from that, but that was a request for 27 single-family lots, R3, which, for the record, we would still be happy to do. But I understand I was not involved in the prior application, but since became involved, have reviewed that hearing. And on account of this body not being amenable to that, I asked the applicant to return to the drawing board, and let's see what we can come up with that might actually be in accord with the comp plan. This is what we've come up with, 15 single-family lots, 17 townhouses. Now, we didn't just ignore what happened last time. There were several concerns raised by staff and raised by this body that we have attempted to address in this application. One staff has already touched on. Every single, single-family lot that we have created is the square footage size. I'm talking gross area, it would meet R1D standards. It does not meet the width requirement. I'm not contending that it does. But in terms of gross square footage, every lot meets or exceeds R1D standards. We've kept single-family residences abutting single-family residences. If you're used to living in a single-family neighborhood, townhouses might seem a little shocking to you. So we've taken great pains to keep single-family uses next to single-family uses. I'd also encourage you to take a look at the development plan, where you'll notice that significant areas of tree preservation are maintained along the property line that separates the existing houses from our proposed houses. So they're not even going to have to look into our backyards. We're going to keep a fairly substantial landscape buffer for them, so they won't have to see what's going on back there. And one prior concern that was raised was that the floodplain was on some of the single-family lots. There was concerns about flood insurance. We've taken that out of the equation. The floodplain will exist on one lot to be maintained by the owner of the lot with the townhouses. That's the way the note on the plan reads. We own the townhouses as a group residential project. We will be obligated to maintain the floodplain lot. I want to take a look at this environment, and I want to zoom out a little bit. A lot of times we get drilled down and focused in on a specific neighborhood or neighborhoods. I want you to look at this area broadly. It's between Nicholasville and Clay's Mill Road, kind of behind the mall, very near Shillito Park, some landmarks to help you orient yourself. You can see that this is an area of town, and I'm sure I don't need to explain it to you, been pretty well built out at this point. Drilling down a little closer, you can see we are in a sea of single-family. Thus, I think why we were inspired to do single-family uses the last time. But we have to make a economically viable project, and we're going to touch on that in a minute, but there is a lot of single family in this area. If you look at how it's been built out, and we know sometimes uses end up in zones non-conforming, this is pretty much single family. We'd concede that out of the gate. Immediately around us, we have R1C zoning. That's 8,000 square foot lots and 60 feet of frontage. There is some R1D in the area generally. It doesn't immediately abut our property, but it's pretty close by. Still a 60-foot width frontage requirement, but only 6,000 square feet lots. So first and foremost, I wanted to look, are there any places where we don't ascribe to those standards? And surprise, surprise, there are. 3449 Wallingford Court, here's a property that does not meet the frontage requirement in the R1C zone. 588 Saybrook Court, here's a property that does not meet the frontage requirement in the R1C zone. 526 Fogo Court, another didn't meet the frontage requirement. And this one I found particularly interesting. Along a fairly substantial portion of Monticello Boulevard, we didn't meet the minimum lot sizes for R1C zones. Now what's my point? They don't meet the minimums? Sometimes that's okay. Variety is okay. Having a little bit different is okay. And I don't think you would be able to tell, as an outside observer, that these lots were just a little off or just a little different. I live in Masterson Station. Masterson Station has three different zones. R1D, R1E, R3. When you drive around the neighborhood, it's difficult to tell where those zoning lines are. The point is, a little variation should be okay, and it's really not noticeable to the outside. And that kind of flexibility aids development. When you have a more flexible standard, you can implement designs that are both economically viable but work for the site. And that's what we've tried to do here. Now, I'm mindful that R3 does allow some heavier, intense uses, and so that's why we've agreed to restrict all of them. We've taken out all of your multifamily uses that aren't duplexes or townhomes. So single-family, duplex, and townhome is all we contend would be appropriate for this site. We're mindful of our neighbors. I'm going to tell you about how we need to increase density, and I do believe that. But we can't just increase density wherever there's a green patch of land. We need to do it in a way that respects context. So we've taken out apartments, dorms, boarding houses, community residences. This is things that we're seeing in modern neighborhoods, single-family uses mixed with townhouses. Staff focused a lot on a comp plan, and I want to as well. In fact, I want to take some direct quotes from the comp plan and ask you whether you think this application is in accord with the comp plan or not. The very first theme, very first goal, is to expand housing choice. This is an area with only single-family houses. The first commandment, if you will, of the comp plan is expand housing choice. I think that's something we're doing here. When we look at goal three, I've italicized some words here I think are important. Enable existing and new neighborhoods to flourish through improved regulation, expanded opportunities for neighborhood character preservation, and public commitment to expanded options for mixed use and mixed type housing. We're supposed to be committed to mixing the types of housing we have in our neighborhoods. I think this proposal meets that goal. I wanted to go into the nuts and bolts a little bit, though, because when we talk about goals and objectives, those are fairly broad policy statements. So let's drill down and see what this body actually said when you adopted these goals and objectives. What are developers to do on their projects to meet these goals? We're to provide varied housing choice. We're told that diverse neighborhoods features townhomes, apartments, and condominiums and duplex housing adjacent and mixed with single-family homes. This is not me editorializing. This is a straight snip from page 40 of the comprehensive plan. We're to encourage diverse neighborhoods, and diverse neighborhoods have diverse housing types. What does the comprehensive plan recommend? the very first recommendation about housing choice. Provide a variety of housing types in all neighborhoods. Not some neighborhoods, not new neighborhoods, all neighborhoods. We've been told that the only appropriate zoning for this is an R1 zoning because it's surrounded by single family. That flies directly in the face of the first recommendation of the comprehensive plan. You also recommended some strategies that could be adopted. This one particularly caught my eye. Collaborate with financial agencies, home builders, affordable housing providers, and others to identify practical incentives that enable the design of great neighborhoods, which include a mix of housing and affordability. Not only are we to encourage it, we're actually to incentivize it. We're supposed to make it easier for mixed housing types to come into neighborhoods. And we have a recommendation of disapproval. I think that flies in the face of what the comprehensive plan tells us to do. And when we look around Lexington's most successful neighborhoods, I think we do see that housing mix. I think it's very important. Take a walk down Fontaine Road. We see different housing types next door to each other. Duplexes next to single family, next to apartments. Varied sizes, varied styles, different heights, different widths. Variety is okay. Variety makes things interesting. We don't want cookie cutter development. We want a little bit of variety. Look at Duke and Romney Road. Same situation. You have some fairly substantial multifamily buildings immediately adjacent to single family. I thought that picture in the corner was particularly striking. You have a three-story building next door to a single family house. But nobody's saying that Duke and Romney Road is not a good place to live. It's one of the most desirable locations in Lexington. We see housing diversity there. Different styles, different sizes, different uses, but it works in harmony. I think it can work here. I think our proposal meets that objective of the Comprehensive Plan. Let's get out of Chevy Chase for a minute. It happens all over town. I mentioned my neighborhood, Masterson Station. Townhouses, immediately adjacent to single-family houses. Heartlink, same thing. In Lakeshore, we see duplexes next to single-family houses. Cardinal Valley. All over town, this is appropriate. All over town, we find this to be an appropriate use, but not here. I don't understand why. Variety is okay. We're to encourage housing variety. This plan does exactly that. Now, one thing that staff has brought up, and I have to concede, is that every application cites maintaining the urban services boundary. Every single one that comes before you probably cites theme E as a justification. because we know how important that issue is to the Planning Commission and to the community as a whole. But in this particular case, I think it's very important because here's underutilized property. It's AU, but it's ready to go. If you read the intent section of the AU zone, it's to provide a holding zone until urban services are ready. Urban services are ready. Sewers are here. Power is here. Electric and utilities, they're here. This property is ready to develop. allowing a reasonable development of this property does provide necessary housing stock that's going to become a big factor in that expansion debate. I know we don't want to get into it already because we're going to hear about it a lot next year, but this is the kind of proposal you have to look at. Did we do everything we could to maximize the space that was within the existing urban services boundary so that we don't have to expand it? The current comprehensive plan says do not expand the urban services boundary. this proposal would help you do that. Encourage that compact, contiguous development to accommodate future growth needs. This is a marginal increase in density to the area generally that will provide 32 places for families to live. That's 32 houses that you don't have to find a space for outside the urban services boundary. I'll skip over this briefly only to underline the importance of strong urban services bound and strong urban areas help the rural areas and vice versa. By encouraging this kind of development, we actually help protect the rural area as well. But in the strategy and approach of that section, again, going to the actual comp plan itself, page 98 and 99, I've starred the ones I think we hit on the nose. We're stimulating economic investment in an established community. We're allowing for flexibility in housing types, densities, and configurations while encouraging quality and variety. We're ensuring compatibility of new construction in a context-sensitive manner. Single family abuts single family. The size of the houses proposed are comparable to the size of the houses that exist in the area. And as you'll see here in a moment, the townhouses don't abut the existing single family. They've been separated from that existing single family. But most importantly, providing a mix of housing types and densities and land uses that allow for diverse neighborhoods. You keep seeing that word. I didn't put it in there. This is your words. This is the comprehensive plans words. We're to encourage diversity. But this one I found particularly interesting. Give developers more options to make development more financially feasible. Staff's position is this. We can have any zone we want as long as it's R1D. That's not providing us with variety. That's providing us with monotony. And as we have explained at the subcommittee, and I would explain to you here again today, we can get to answer a question that was asked before, I believe, 21 lots in an R1D pattern without seeking variances. That does not make this project financially viable. We cannot feasibly develop this property with 21 lots. 27 would have done it, as we asked for last time. this proposal would do it. 21 simply is not a financially viable proposal. We talk about the dwindling urban service area. I'm not going to dwell on this other than to say we were probably running a little low last time. If you think about some of the presentations that you've heard recently, one that you're going to hear next month, the peninsula, big swaths of land are coming in for development. This kind of reserve land that we had is getting used up. We need to encourage that diversity to, again, protect this dwindling urban service area land. Let's look for places where we can have modest increases in density without substantially impacting the neighborhood. I did want to look. Maybe there was another place that we weren't seeing that you could have provided this additional density. So I've gone back to that zoomed out photo where we looked at the area, and I went through and tried to identify larger parcels that maybe were, I don't want to call them underutilized, we'll say less utilized. Where were possibilities to increase our density if you didn't look at our property? Well, you can take out a bunch off of the bat. There's a lot of churches, parks, and schools in this area, and I think it's reasonable to conclude that those properties are not likely to redevelop. Maybe they could, not very likely. So that left me with five potential properties that I saw. Larger properties maybe could be redeveloped in a more dense pattern. So I went through and looked, would any of these work? We look at Winthrop Drive, 3765, fairly large open space there. A lot of floodplain running through that lot. Going to be a little challenging to develop. 3650 Boston Road, fairly open area, but that's the entranceway to a shopping center. That's the Boston Road Kroger. Don't think we're likely to see that develop in any kind of denser residential fashion. Look at 3801 Boston Road. There's 10 acres. This is the one I was really worried about. Turns out it's almost all floodplain. Also, all three of these are outside of Manowar. The property that we're looking at, that we're requesting to rezone, inside Manowar, a little more desirable place to be. Get inside Manowar, the prospects are even slimmer, looking at 1,400 Higby Mill. That property, as best as I can tell from that floodplain map, is entirely floodplain. I don't believe it's likely to redevelop with any more dense housing options. And then these larger lots, they are a combination of R1B and AU that run along Higbee Mill. Eight of the nine of them have single-family houses on them now. There is one vacant lot. It's 1.2 acres. It's owned by the adjacent property, so I think they're treating it as extra yard. Also, substantial floodplain issues on this property. Again, what's my point? My point is very simple. If you want to encourage diversity, if you want to encourage greater housing density, in this part of Lexington broadly. This is a pretty large area we're looking at. You can't really do it anywhere but our property. That's why I think that this proposal is directly in accord with the comp plan. We've also heard that it's inappropriate to rezone this because it's in the middle of the neighborhood. We can't get in the middle of the neighborhood. And I think that is not a reasonable description of the property that we have. It may be surrounded by neighborhood, but this is not the middle of the neighborhood. When I think the middle of the neighborhood, I think the part that everybody has to drive through to get through to their house. This is at the end of the neighborhood. This is at the end of a cul-de-sac. No existing neighbor would ever have to step foot on this property if they didn't want to. There's no cut-through. There's no pass-through. This is a cul-de-sac. This is the back of a neighborhood. And we're abutting, again, as we mentioned, that large floodplain lot. No one's backing up to our townhouses on one side. There is that little swath of land here at the bottom. that's owned by the urban county government. No one's going to be looking at the back of these townhouses. Single family abuts single family. Staffs criticized my argument about economic viability. They said it's really not incumbent on them to determine whether developments would be financially viable. So I first looked, is it a part of the comp plan? Well, yeah, it is. Give developers more options to make development more financially feasible is within the comp plan. And so I do think it is not inappropriate for this body to consider the economic viability of projects when you're making your zoning decisions. But more to the point, even if it wasn't, shouldn't it be? Don't we want financially successful projects? Don't we want developments that work out? It encourages stability in our neighborhoods, promotes investment in our neighborhoods, and most importantly, it gives our growing population somewhere to live. When communities don't grow, bad things happen. Look at what's happened in Detroit. When people leave, the tax base collapse. You need people to move into your neighborhoods. You need space for more people. Here's an opportunity for a very modest increase in density that does not substantially impact the adjacent properties. And for what it's worth, we got a pretty good bargain on this property. Staff has said they didn't need to go into specifics about whether it would be win or loss. Our financial viability, our economic viability, is not based on the fact that we paid too much. In fact, we paid almost $200,000 less than the PVA valued the property at in 2015. So it's not because we're bad dealmakers. It's because this is what's needed in a modern economic environment to make a project financially viable. So what are my points? Well, I think I've beat the horse pretty well until it's dead, but I'll circle back one last time. This proposal is in accord with the comprehensive plan. It's a reasonable increase in residential density. It adds variety, which is a theme that is repeatedly mentioned in the comprehensive plan. And it encourages feasible and economically viable infill. It's a reasonable final piece of the puzzle. This is probably the last zone change you're going to see in this general area. If this builds out, there's really not a whole lot of opportunity to come in with a new and different proposal. There's basically no variety in this area. And as I've shown you, there's really nowhere else to go. and this proposal does consider both the financial viability of the project for the developer and the character of the neighborhood generally. Remember, these lots meet R1D sizing standards. They're 6,000 square foot lots or larger. And we're going to ask you for approval of this proposal, but I'm going to ask you for approval of this proposal for one very specific reason. If you believe in this document, if you believe the comprehensive plan is what we're supposed to be living by, You have to approve this because it is in accord with the comprehensive plan. Telling us the only zone that we can have is R1D is not what this document says to do. It says to encourage variety. This provides a fairly modest increase in density with a little bit of variety. We're talking 32 housing units. It's not a super substantial development. And half of the property is not even going to be touched. I think this is an approvable proposal. I think it's in accord with the comprehensive plan. I think the AU zoning is no longer appropriate. We'd ask you for your approval of this proposal. With that, Mr. Cayley is with me, who prepared the site plan, as is my client, representative of Lex Properties. Should you have any questions that we could answer, or we'll certainly be available later. Thank you, Mr. Wilburn. Any questions from the commissioners? Yes, Mr. Berkeley. The residential lots that are proposed, I know you said that they meet the R1D requirements except for frontage. Correct. Which is 60 foot. What are these? These are all at least 40. Some are a little larger, but they're all at least 40. Okay. Other questions? Okay, thank you. We'll circle back to you. At this time, this is an opportunity for audience participation. Is there anyone here that is for this particular development that would like to speak? Okay, is there anyone here against this development that would like to speak? Okay, now you will all have an opportunity. I guess my first question is, for example, sir, since you're standing, are you representing the body? I represent the Monticello neighborhood on St. Rick Road, and I submit petitions. Okay. Well, we'll hear from you first, and then others, we'll give you an opportunity to come up and express yourself. So come up now. We've got a time limit of about three minutes each, or ten minutes total, so you can divide that up any way you want to. I'll try to respect that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the Commission. I think the— Excuse me, your name again. My name is Evan Belt. I live on Saybrook Road. Okay, thank you. I'm in the neighborhood. I can tell you more about the neighborhood. I can wait. Thank you. So, I think the applicant confuses the word diversity with aesthetic. There is no, everyone that's at work today, that lives in these neighborhoods, I think the word aesthetic means a lot to why we live there. They talk about the different plots that they want to build. But they're sitting here outlining what we could build, and that would be within the confines of R1D or any residential that's a part of that neighborhood, and yet they still want the R3 zone. So that's not really consistent with what they're saying. I don't think that our neighborhood has anything to do with the examples like on Fontaine Road. That's a pretty big thoroughfare. You're talking about the end of a small cul-de-sac, and it's a very small street. So to compare that with all these other neighborhoods and use terms that I don't think he understands is really insulting to the people of that community because that's why we live there. We don't live in the new neighborhoods. It's great for economic development. I'm not one to stop anybody from making a dollar, but I don't think that one man's greed or drive for profit should actually change the fabric of where we live and what we want, the houses that we seek. So I really have a problem with the previous ruling of this commission. the actual advisement from the subdivision committee, you know, that he kind of insults our intelligence in terms of saying, no, we'll just build what we say we're going to build, but we still need the R3 zone. The real problem with that, because we don't want a small dead-end street with that much traffic. It's not feasible. It's not feasible for the bigger home or the bigger lawns. We don't live in the smaller, newer communities. And it's all until good, Because really, half the plot they're not using is floodplains, so they can't build on that. He made an important point about Detroit. Well, look at cities like Flint, Michigan. If you look at the history of this land, it's really troubling to the neighbors that if you build, you're going to kick up all this. We don't know what's there. They did an environmental study, but he's obviously got a conflict of interest. So I would think that an actual body or agency should be able to say, well, this ground is safe. the full soil record, the water table. So the Elkhorn Creek feeds directly to the water table of the city. So if there's any pollution, we don't know that. And I would think cities like Flint, cities like Mount Sterling, where people have dumped on there. And all of a sudden, there's toxic waste. And then the neighbors, the people who live there, have to deal with that. So I really think it's disrespectful to us to say, well, we can add diversity and more economic drive when you don't consider the full history of this plot. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Next. Yes, ma'am. My name is Janet Piosky. My family lives in the house at the very end of Saybrook Road. Two of the slides that were shown are one slide with two views of the lovely pastor that was mentioned. And that pasture is a section of the property on both sides of the old road going into the property that has been mowed and cared for for the last 24 years by my husband and a neighbor across the street. As soon as the plan was rejected last year, then what we saw was that at some point the owner came in, posted signs saying no trespassing, unloaded a number of off-road vehicles and rode around for a couple hours, and then loaded them up and drove off, never to be seen again. In the meantime, those beautiful pastures and open areas have now been filled with weeds and other plants growing above undesirable heights. I have put in a call to Lex 311 about whether or not asking if that needed to be lowered and maintained. Because we're not against all the little critters that have been in those woods and such for years, but because of his neglect now and not wanting any of us on the property to care for it, all those critters are coming much closer to our homes. And I feel that that's a problem. The other thing is that last year, the applicant promised that whatever the zoning would be, he would have single-family homes only. Now he has changed. and the other point was that he also fought very much any obligations that the staff seemed to raise about caring for the property along the floodplain. And now I hear them saying, yes, they will take on that obligation, but they could never come up with any specifics last year of how that might be cared for. So based on the neglect in the fields now and the fact that even with a 3-1-1 call, nothing's been done, I have concerns about the gentleman keeping his word. The other point I'd like to make is that with more streets and driveways there, the people in the Robinwood neighborhood are extremely concerned about flooding. There's already a gentleman who's home on Cromwell right along the creek as it exits the property, has flooding problems regularly. All of the extra concrete is going to take away from the absorption of the field and increase the flooding below. My last point is that as far as variety, one of the things that the gentleman reassured us about last year was that, Oh, yes, these will be lovely homes, much nicer than yours, because they'll be just like the ones up in the Wellington development up across from the Keithshire School. And those houses, that neighborhood is dangerous. The houses have garages that stick out one car length and then the sidewalk and then the street. And because there's only parking for one car in those driveways, everybody parks on the street. So you have one lane going through that neighborhood. And cookie cutter after cookie cutter, all of those houses are the same. You look down the street, you see nothing but garages sticking out, and you cannot tell if cars are ready to pull out or not because they're parked there, and you have no sense of movement. It's like within eight feet, boom, they're on the street. So I feel like that's a danger and the flooding's danger, and I suspect the man's integrity about keeping his word. Thank you. Thank you. I'll be brief and try not to be redundant. I'm Walt Gaffield. I'm the president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. I live at 2001 Bamboo Drive. I'm also speaking on behalf of the Stonewall Community Association. Janet Cabanis was unable to be here today. We fully concur with the staff's recommendation on this particular change. And I thought staff presented themselves very well. basically 1A, B, C, and D of their disapproval recommendation shows where this is not really in line with a comprehensive plan. I think one of the things is being Neighborhood Council President that I find disturbing in a way. This was a very contentious zone change just a year ago, and to the best of my knowledge, I don't think the developer has reached out to any of the surrounding neighborhoods to try to reach an accommodation. And I think that's just the wrong way to go about doing things. The current AU zone is correct unless and until there's appropriate zoning put in place. There's a big disparity between, say, a 2,100 or 2,200-square-foot lot and a 6,000-square-foot lot, which would be the case in R1D. The proposal may or may not be consistent with Ordinance 19-7-G-1, which is a vegetative buffer zone that's supposed to be at least 50 feet away from the stream bank, or at minimum 25 because there's an average. Now, that may be different in the floodplain because I'm not an attorney, and I may not know everything there is to know. The stream being South Alcorn is a blue-lined stream, so it would be from the bank instead of the center of the stream. The Ordinance 26.4.B requires that the stream be shown on the preliminary development plan or some of the documents submitted, and we can't find it on the documents available to the public on the Planning Commission website. It may be there, but the website is not always easy to see or read. Anyway, the FCNC and the Stonewall Community Association are concerned about this as setting a zoning precedent. And in addition, once the zoning is in place, as you know, the final development plan could be different and comply with the R3 but be worse. There's no real way of knowing that and no way to compel it very easily. And we're concerned about precedent because once you get an R3 in some place, then there could be more R3s in other places in the neighborhood, so you have to be very careful of that. I think the argument about the urban services boundary, if you accept that argument, then you would be accepting the general idea that infill and redevelopment is proper anywhere. And it's just not the case. This is kind of a special case, and it's really not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. I know Robin Wood is also here to speak against this zone change. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. Hi, my name is Robin Young, and I'm president of the Robin Wood Neighborhood Association. I've been asked to come and represent Robin Wood. and I'm impressed with the previous presentations of the other developments and the attention to details. And I want to thank every one of you for paying attention to all the details. And I changed my notes after listening to that gentleman about desirable neighborhoods. And I'm thinking, oh, here's the creek. Can you see how far? I don't know how far the water goes past that creek line that's close to Cromwell and St. Brooke. But anyway, I thought, well, yes, we are in a desirable neighborhood. And why are we a desirable neighborhood? What made us desirable? Why do we love it? It's because we care for our neighbors. People know that. We respect our neighbors. And we take care of our properties. And if you'll show that other picture, which, as you can see, the days, this was 2011 when my husband took a walk. No, it goes the other way. It flips over the trees. But anyway, this is a path through that property. We walked it from one end of the property to the other along the creek line. And neighbors that surrounded this area mowed and kept this property really, really nice. They kind of like adopted it because it was abandoned. And so they kind of nurtured this for 20 years. So it's kind of a personal thing, not just, you know, a piece of property that happens to be in our neighborhood. So, and I agree that this is going to be setting a precedence for all these little green dots. And I'm all about infill. I really, really am. but we're at your mercy to make sure this infill is good for the community and for our future people 100 years from now. 100 years from now, if somebody looks back on city management to see how did they decide this, How did they figure that this was going to be the right answer for our future generations? I mean, that's what it's about. That's why we're here, to preserve and to protect and to make life comfortable and safe. And I don't think that we're actually, it's not us against the developers or the developers against us. It's how we're going to work together and make things right and good for everybody and for the future. And that's all I have to say, and thank you again for your time. Thank you. Anyone else like to? My name is Amy Clark, and I live at 628 Castle Road. I'm sharing with you a piece of the zoning ordinance. You maybe don't even need it. I would say that you all recall that 400 people signed a petition last year that presented to you, and that was part of the reason you found the development unsuitable, the proposed development at the time, with 27 dwellings. This proposes 32 dwellings, so it's not an improvement in lessening the density at the end of a dead-end street and the issues with traffic and congestion. It sounds as though some of the houses, the single-family lots, would just about meet an R1E designation, 40-foot frontage, actually R1D lot area. I don't hear too many people objecting to the single-family lots. I'm hearing about a sea of concrete and snout houses parking. And consider that the new proposed single-family lots will be fronting that. That will be what they see. That will be what they see when they go to Perth. just one of these lots. So I think you need to think also about the context between the proposed new single family and the proposed townhouses, the rental townhouses. Those are very dense indeed. Variety already with, say, an R1C-sized group of house lots. And I think it's very important that this is a cherished and different place. It's different from the next place because it has this oasis of green, which used to be a public park until LFUCG abandoned it shortly before the ball home zone change some years back that was requested and withdrawn. I talked to a number of people who can't come during the daytime because they work. I talked to a number of people who said the first they heard about it was that someone put it on the Nextdoor app a few days ago. A neighborhood crowd, whatever, communication. I think you should ask whether the developer has made every effort to meet with the neighbors and develop something, heed their concerns, address their concerns, and develop something everyone can use and enjoy, something compatible. Could I have the first number one? It's called pink. All right, this is what you have in front of you. The other part of what I have to say is I would ask you not to approve the development plan because it's lacking in some elements of the tree inventory map which are required, as you can see, upon application for the preliminary development plan. And if you could go now to slide number three. Okay. In fact, go straight to slide number two. The stream is not noted on the plan submitted Tuesday, the updated plan of the applicants. That's number four in the items that need to be on the tree inventory map. Number one on the tree inventory map items, clusters and stands of trees, perimeter trees. These are not fully noted. In fact, where the single-family homes are, they're not noted. That's existing clusters and stands and perimeter. The existing canopy, number three there, is not mapped on the plan as it's requested to be. Don't want to go deep in the woods with the significant trees, but an ash is noted. It's noted that there is ash on the plan. Is there really no ash that's more than one foot in diameter? If it's one foot or more, it's a significant tree. And finally, the riparian context is terribly important. trees soak up water. We're talking about a floodplain here. If you look right in the center of that map, you see a more white than otherwise patch. That's a sycamore. It's a pretty big sycamore. We need to have an accurate map before the development plan, the preliminary development plan, is deemed correct and complete and approvable. And all these elements are missing as requested in the zoning ordinance for the preliminary development plan. So thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Good afternoon. Thank you for letting us have a chance to speak about this. I'm a relatively newcomer. Excuse me, sir. Paul Crosmer. I live on Saybrook Road. I've only been there for about a year. And so for me, when I first got there, there were no trespassing signs, and I took my dog walking out in there and saw that it is indeed a good, diverse, beautiful green area. The flowers and the butterflies in there are incredible. So, yes, we have valued that neighborhood park apparently for a long time, and I found that out from my neighbors. It's unfortunate that it was condemned and turned into something else. but I agree with Mr. Belt that there's a good chance that when you stir that soil up that you might find something different than what the environmental people have found at this point. I don't know how deep they've gone in and checked. If it is indeed no longer condemnable, that's great. I can see some good in the benefits of doing what the developer has proposed but I also see a lot of lack, as was just pointed out. There's no tree plan, there's no site survey of any of that. it hasn't really gotten any good consideration. I also don't like the idea of zoning something R3 and saying, we promise not to do this. If there's a legal way to bind that in, that might be acceptable to me. But I don't know if there is. So if there's some other zoning that would limit him to doing what he's proposing, perhaps that's possible. The floodplain obviously is not buildable, and so something needs to be done with that. Oddly enough, there are many houses up and downstream from that area that are built into that floodplain. I lived through the floods in Rapid City, South Dakota, in 1972 when 206 people were killed by a creek just that wide. And so I know that there can be damage in a floodplain, and I understand why they build out away from it the way they do. But I think if that area is not buildable as housing, then it ought to be proposed as something else permanently, not just the backyards of a bunch of townhouses. So perhaps there is more to be done by the developer in conjunction with the city, the county, and the people that live there. I filled out a survey for the county that discussed how do we feel about green areas and all those other things. And I wholly agree that Lexington, for me, as a new city, is remarkable with the number of green spaces and parks it has. And we can't complain. We've got Shellito Park within walking distance. So, yeah, there's a lot of green area. But maybe this area is a little gem. I think it's turned into a de facto nature preserve just because it's been abandoned by everybody for a long, long time. And something is growing there that's probably pretty cool. And that needs to be studied and addressed. So maybe there's a good way to put some houses in there and make it economical. Yes, we can't see them the way he's proposed it, but maybe we do need to address the things like drainage and adding to the concrete in the area and adding to the traffic stream going down a little street there. But probably there is a way to develop that area, and I think something needs to be done with the floodplain to make it accessible to the entire neighborhood around there, and maybe there's a way to do that, maybe tying something in from the south. I don't know what that property could be used for, but I see this same discussion coming up about that little piece of land at some point. So thank you for your chance to speak. Thank you. Members of the Urban County Planning Commission and staff, thank you for providing us this opportunity to address some important issues about the property at 345-5-5-5-5-5-5. Say, Brooke Road. My name is Otto Piosky, and I live with my wife, Janet, and our two daughters for the last 23 years on the property immediately adjacent to this property, which Lex Properties LLC and EA Partners wish to call Winding Creek. About 30 years ago, a waste treatment plant existed on this property. Part of the waste treatment used, and this is important, rectangular containers 20 by 16 feet in width and length, which were 6 to 8 feet deep. About 25 years ago, those containers, which were used to pre-treat sewage, were removed, and the holes were left. About 25 years ago, one night in the dark hours between midnight and sunrise, two heavily laden trucks on at least one occasion drove down and dumped their entire contents from their 8 to 10 foot truck beds into the area around these holes. Again, the holes were 6 to 8 feet deep, 2 yards or more. Early this year, residents of Estill County, as you well know, learned that radioactive waste had been dumped in their waste deposit landfill. To date, a fine of $95,000 has been levied, and the Lexington Herald-Leader this past Tuesday told us that the Kentucky Department of Health and Family Services has asked for additional fines of over $8 million against nine businesses and individuals. More recently, residents at Long Lane in Montgomery County learned of their lots having been contaminated by arsenic. This arsenic was deposited in the soil by a company which occupied the land previously. The dumping of the arsenic ended about 20 years ago. Residents of the home stated they were told by the company whose land they had obtained houses on that, quote, everything had been disposed properly. After living years on the property, residents became aware of the arsenic contamination of the soil on which their homes are located. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, determined that hazardous amounts of arsenic were present in the soil. As of today, massive amounts of soil have been removed. Residents have had physical testing to determine their arsenic exposure. A suit has been levied. Should the residents be found to have significant amounts of heavy metals in their bodies, the fees, penalties, and awards will greatly outweigh what happens in Estill County. I went through that because in Estill County and Montgomery County, everything happened during the light of day. The dumping that occurred into those two six- to eight-foot-deep holes occurred in the dark hours between midnight and sunrise. This leads to the possibility that what was done was the dumping of something that was hazardous and perhaps illegal. If it is decided that investigation and testing should occur before this proposal is approved, please, in the name of God Almighty, require that the testing be done at many levels, many yards deep, and many hundreds of yards out from the dumping site because this land is crisscrossed by underground watercourses and dry, wet weather springs. If I might use your diagram, I am going to point to where we suspect the dumping was done, and then I'm going to point to what is downhill from the dumping. Sir, you've used up your allotted three minutes. Can you conclude your statement as quickly as possible? Yes. Okay. And if you move to the podium, take the mic, the portable mic with you. No, I'm going to forego that. Okay. I'm sure you all understand what downhill means. First, I think you need to decide if this property needs to be investigated and tested before the proposal is approved. Second, you need to decide who's going to pay for the proposal for the investigation and testing, the urban county government or Lexington Properties LLC. Third, if hazardous material is found here, you need to decide who's going to pay for the cleanup, the urban county government or Lexington Properties LLC. Fourth, if you should decide that testing and investigation need not be done, the building of the property goes ahead, and then later people are found to be coming ill from hazardous substances, then you will need to decide who will pay those massive fines. The EPA, the Urban County Government, Lexington Properties, LLC. Finally, this possible hazardous dumping is a well-known fact. is a well-known fact. It may already be impacting the tax revenues which can be realized and the revenues which the builder hopes to realize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, if not, what we're going now to do is to move into our rebuttal phase. The petitioner has five minutes. Again, we'll give the community another chance to rebut some of the information that you hear in the rebuttal. And finally, the staff will get the final say. Okay, petitioner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief. I'll try to address briefly the points that have been raised by the neighborhood. First, I want to say for the benefit of this body, but also for the neighbors in the room, that this site was subjected not only to Phase I environmental testing, which is the environmental testing that you all receive on all of your zone changes. So it's actually subjected to a Phase II environmental study. A Phase II environmental study involves an independent agent coming onto the site, sending the samples to an independent lab, and testing those. You were provided with those results in this packet, which found no significant contamination in the area. You heard these concerns last time as well. But the fact of the matter is the data does not support that this land is contaminated. This land has been cleared by a Phase II environmental study, which is more than is required under our zoning ordinance, and we believe it is safe to develop this land. Some of the things that the gentleman who just spoke asked you to do are not within the province of this body. You can't be tasked with who's going to pay for environmental contamination cleanup that all testing indicates does not exist. But I say that not just for your benefit, for the benefit of the folks in the room. We believe it is safe to develop this property. We would not propose it if we did not believe it so. With regard to some of the other issues, just briefly, we do understand that this used to be a community park. We only became owners last year, 2015. Of course, when I say we, I do want to clarify for the folks in the room that I'm merely the attorney that represents the applicant. It's not me that's developing the property. But we have a legal obligation to keep people off of private property. There is a liability concern. It's unfortunate that the urban county government did not purchase that property, but we did because it's developable property and we think this proposal would suit it. But it's not out of vengeance or anything of that nature. We have a legal obligation to protect ourselves from liability. With regard to flooding concerns, we share those flooding concerns. In fact, maybe more than anyone else because we'll own the lot that's closest to the floodplain. We have every incentive not to want to increase flooding in that area. And furthermore, as this body knows, there are development standards with which we must comply as to not exacerbate known flooding issues. We certainly will do that at a final development plan stage. Again, as Mr. Martin mentioned earlier, once some of those designs are fully fleshed out. Single-family residential was our preference, too. We came to this body with a request for 27 single-family lots. This body rejected that. That's why you see this proposal. If it was this body's will that we limit it to single-family residential, provided that we could get the 27 lots, we'll take it. We didn't think it was appropriate to bring forward an identical proposal to one that this body had turned down. That's why you see this proposal. We're more than happy to reconfigure this plan to do single-family only residential. Now, I don't think that necessarily complies with all goals and objectives of the comp plan, and we can't meet those R1D standards, we still have this project be economically viable. Which leads me to another point. R1E zoning was suggested. That option was suggested by us to staff and told that would not be an appropriate zoning request for this location. Staff's recommended approval of the development plan. I trust staff more than I trust myself. My engineer will be happy to answer any particular objections that would be raised, But I can say that staff has recommended approval of this development plan, at least deeming that we have preliminarily complied with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. And I think that should speak to some of the concerns that were raised. The sycamore tree that was referenced, I can address that one specifically. It's in the floodplain. It's in one of those big blue sloths right over here, so it will not be touched. Mr. Cayley walked the property with Tim Query. That's how we got to the tree information. We didn't just pull it out of thin air. We actually walked the property with the urban forester prior to filing this. And one other issue that I would just bring up, one of the complaints that was lodged or concerns that was lodged, was that previously there was no plan to deal with that floodplain lot. What were we going to do with that floodplain space? This plan does that. There's this note on the face of this plan that says maintenance of the floodplain lot will be the responsibility of the townhouse lot. So that is how that will be done. You need a source of monetary income to maintain a lot. That's how we're going to address those. Those two are intertwined, remembering, of course, that these are a group residential development under the Article 9 standards. Other than that, I'd be happy to address any questions. I would say that I do believe that this proposal is in accord with the comp plan. And while we certainly understand the neighbors' concerns, land develops and land needs to develop. And we can't keep it green space forever. So we think this is a reasonable proposal and would ask for your approval. Thank you, Mr. Wilburn. The community has another opportunity. In this case, please remember the issue of the rebuttal is not to restate the case, but just to rebut the issues that you've heard them or to get clarification on them. And for those of you, after the rebuttals are done, then we'll go to the commission. If they have questions for you, they'll address it at that time. Yes, ma'am, Ms. Clark. Thank you. I've spoken with the others, and they seem to ask me to do this rebuttal. The floodplain, it's good that the owner plans to manage it with some responsibility. Why not dedicate the floodplain to the city so it can be a public space? Is that something that has been offered? The owner holding the floodplain and the responsibility for the floodplain renders the townhouse a rental property. That's to say with an absentee owner. I think that's something that the neighbors are not happy about. The density of it is also something they don't care for. Repeat that these concerns about environmental contamination and so on that apparently have been laid to rest with a Phase II environmental study reviewed by the staff, why not meet with the neighbors? Why not talk with them? Why not address their concerns? why not see if there is a compatible, context-sensitive development that can be economically viable. In terms of economic viability, we heard that 21 single-family lots, R1D, what could be done in R1D, wasn't economically viable. We're seeing now not the 27 lots of last year's presentation, but 32 dwellings. That's a steep increase in density at the end of a dead-end street where people are concerned about traffic and congestion. Finally, the sycamore protected by a stream or whatever, we're just saying let's have it all in the tree inventory map exactly as dictated by the zoning ordinance. Finally, last year's project was R3. This year's project is R3. The problem with R3 is it gives more flexibility to the developer than is comfortable for the surrounding neighborhood. Flexibility is a good thing. The kind of flexibility you get with a blanket R3, averaging lot sizes, number of dwellings, parking, paving, over a bunch of floodplain, all in one bag, they could come back with something very, very different to you for approval as a subdivision plan, it would still be R3. R3 doesn't feel like the right zone because it's too flexible to assure the neighborhood of compatibility, context sensitivity. Thank you. I just want to be brief to say that I think it's a worrisome precedent to change a zone based on one person's economic viability versus the staff's concerns in terms of what's consistent with the neighborhood aesthetic. Thank you. Thank you. Lieutenant Colonel Crossmer has lived in this Saybrook Road for a year. Like you know, I've lived there with my wife, 23. Immediately across the street is a Mr. Roy Elkhorn, who is an electrician on U.S. nuclear submarines. He lived there for 49 years and cared for this property for 49 years. He mowed it. He collected trash. He moved dead trees that had fallen. One fell on my house that we just moved on our own, even though it fell from the property in question. One day, as my wife said, someone came down in a big black pickup, parked, unloaded heavy ATVs. There was lots of shouting, lots of loud noises. The ATVs immediately tore up wide swaths of the land that Mr. Elkhorn had mowed for 49 years. In addition to this, that black pickup was parked in such a way that Mr. Alcorn could not get his vehicle into his driveway after coming home from caring for his wife, who has severe Alzheimer's. On a second occasion, the same pickup came and parked in the same way, inconveniencing Mr. Alcorn. I was impressed when Cap Kentucky Bluegrass Properties was up here about 1602, and one of the local residents said, we really appreciated how they came and consulted us. I would suggest that Lexington Properties, LLC, come and consult. myself and my wife Mr. Alcorn who's cared for this property for 49 years Mr. Crosmer and many many others I would suspect if he would take the advantage of finding a place to do it that many dozens of residents would come and be happy to have a friendly conversation a courteous conversation Thank you Time is expired but if there's anybody that just has something to say Let's move to the staff. Thank you. I guess my main point is, besides the staff recommending disapproval of this request, is I don't want the Planning Commission to walk away today thinking that we have to add density anywhere and everywhere. That's not what the comprehensive plan says. It says to do context-sensitive infill development, and that doesn't necessarily mean townhouses and multifamily inside, and we would argue, the middle of the neighborhood. In order to get to this property, you have to drive through two subdivisions, two neighborhoods to get there, and everyone that is there has to drive back through that neighborhood again to give back out to Clay's Mill, Man of War, wherever they need to go. It is important for the Planning Commission to consider the land use compatibility when we look at zone changes and the fact that the R3 zone does allow a larger swath or larger group of land uses than an R1 zone allows. Although the applicant's willing to restrict the uses, they haven't discussed restricting density. In fact, with this application, they've added a new type of land use, which in last year's discussion, I think we would have said the same thing. Townhouses at the end of a cul-de-sac within the middle of the neighborhood really are not compatible. On a local through street, on a collector street, on arterial streets, Some of the other locations that Mr. Walburn showed the Planning Commission, those locations have better access. They have better visibility. Our higher density land uses should be along those more utilized thoroughfares, not deep within the neighborhood. And that's really the staff's main concern. Not that this property remain an agricultural tract. We think it should be developed, obviously not in the floodplain, but just at an appropriate density. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Here's the way we'll proceed from here. I'm going to give the Commission an opportunity to ask any questions, any clarifying questions that you need to help in your deliberation of either the staff or the petitioner or the neighbors at this time. Yes, ma'am. This is for staff, if I could. Okay, this is for the staff. This is concerning Article 9, and we don't get a whole lot of those, so I'm not real familiar with the situation, so it should be Tom. Maybe Tom. But that means that there's one owner for all the townhouses, or how does that work? Yeah, when Article 9 is in play, it means there are multiple structures on the lot. So if it's just one structure per lot, you adhere to the zoning ordinance, in Article 8, where all the zones are laid out. When there's multiple residential units or structures on one lot, as is this case, there would be considered four, I guess, banks of townhomes on one lot, then Article 9 comes into play, and it provides setbacks from the exterior edge of the property. It also provides setbacks between parcels or between buildings. Is that? Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, sir, Mr. Drake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have heard cogent and diverging arguments or interpretations of the comprehensive plan, and I don't propose to wade into that. But I would like a clarification from Mr. Walburn. He used some data referring to the economics of this development regarding the number of units. And I think you had a threshold below which you didn't think it was economically feasible. What was that threshold? There's a break-even point that, without divulging the entirety of the business plan and costs that go into this, that exists somewhere between 21 and 27 lots. My client has indicated to me that the maximum number, well, I should back up and say, Mr. Cayley has indicated to me that the maximum number of R1D lots that can be created on this site that does not put any floodplain on those lots, which was a concern last time, was 21. My client has indicated that that is not a financially feasible project, that that's a losing money proposition. but that 27 lots, which is what can be accommodated using R3 standards, with 6,000 square, I would throw in it's not 2,500 foot square lots, that's using 6,000 or greater lots, is 27. And my client has indicated to me that that would be economically viable. Can I give you a hard dollar figure? No, I cannot. I'm not asking for that. Certainly. But I do believe that that point exists at 27. 27 makes this project a green light for my client. That's 27 single-family? Yes, sir. This obviously has only 15 single-family lots, but with the increased value of that townhome lot, that changes the economic calculation for them. We'd be happy with 27 single-family lots. In a lot of ways, it's easier for us. Group residential does implicate a whole different section of the zoning ordinance, But, and perhaps this was my error, but in an application that this body that has not changed in membership just rejected, I did not think it was appropriate to bring the same application back again. This seemed to address other elements of the comp plan. Thank you. Yes, sir, Mr. Olenso. I don't know, I might be jumping in front of the wheel. But, Mr. Wahlberg, you started off by saying, as far as an economic viability, 21 to 27 lots. So 21 would be economically viable? It would not. So why didn't you say that? I didn't. I said, I'm sorry. Mr. Cayley told me that under R1D standards told me that 21 lots is the most that we can get, to which my client indicated that would not be economically viable. Okay. I think 27 is the fewest we can get away with. Okay. Okay. Yes, sir, Mr. Berkley. Jacob, I think you said that, and it might be helpful to put this back up, the zoning restrictions that you would be willing to put on it, which pretty much limited it to single-family, duplex, and townhouses. That's correct. We've offered conditional zoning restrictions. We would gladly accept them to take out all of the R3 uses that are not single-family, townhouse or duplex. We could probably, frankly, knock out duplex, but to this day I'm not entirely clear on the difference between a duplex and a townhouse. Those were our findings for approval. They did not include those, but yes, we certainly would be willing to accept a conditional zoning restriction to keep out what I would call the more intense are three uses. That was offered as a component of our application. I don't know if in your binders you get a copy of my justification letter. If you do, it was in there. But it was, in fact, I have a copy of that that I would be happy to share with the body. But it is on the second to last page, recognizing beginning conditional zoning restrictions. I'm happy to share that. Yes. Well, I'm going to ask Mr. Duncan. Yeah, that was what was contained in our application and what we offered to restrict. I can't see it, my eyes. Okay, thank you. I have one question. Did you all have a chance to review these findings for approval? I'm talking to the staff. I didn't see Ms. Johnson. David, you reviewed them? Okay. Now, obviously there could be some modifications based on what I've heard here or an additional condition, and we could put that in if, in fact, we wanted to? Yes. Based on the principal prohibited uses and conditional uses you've been presented, you can impose those restrictions. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the Commission to either the neighbors or to the applicant or to the staff at this time? I'm saying that because the next part of our process is to close the hearing and have our own deliberations here. If not, let me do that. But before I do that, let me simply say once again thanks to the neighbors for coming down because this is a part of the democratic process, quite frankly. I think one lady expressed it when she said, you know, you all are the last chain of hope. And in fact, we really are. So we put on our judicial robes at this time and go into deliberation. But we want you to know we appreciate your coming down and taking the time out of your busy day because I'm sure you could have done a lot of other things and worrying about it. But this is an important part for us, which is why I allow you to go a little bit beyond the three minutes in your presentations as well. With that said, I'm going to close the hearing now, and then we will take the deliberations here related to what we want to do. Any additional discussion in our motion? Yes, ma'am, Ms. Blumley? I think in this case we should be grateful for SAGE staff, and for that reason, I move to agree, support the staff for disapproval of Plan MJDP 160036, Warnley Creek at Monticello. That was kind of quick, but I'll second the motion. Okay. It's been properly moved that we support the staff's recommendation for disapproval for PLN MAR 16-15 Lex Properties. It's been seconded by Mr. Owens. Any additional discussion on the motion? Sure. Sure. Let me say this. I'm learning to appreciate Mr. Wahlberg all the time. He presented the plan very nicely, referred to the Com Plan many times, that this was providing choices in varied housing, diversity, infill, and I would agree with every bit of that. I also have to agree with the staff. When we look at the comp plan, we've got to consider infill in context-sensitive ways, character of the land, character of the neighborhood. And, you know, when I look at the map that was provided by the staff, this is right in the middle of an established neighborhood. it's right in the middle small piece of property that is going to be developed I think it should be developed in similar context to the neighborhood as far as economic viability someone said a third of the property I'd guess more than a third of the property is in flood plain that flood plain has always been there it was on the land when it was purchased, everybody knew it and everybody knew that they had to deal with it I'm okay with the single family houses on the west side of the cul-de-sac. I think putting in the townhouses adds too much to it. And I'm sorry to say, I think it could be economically viable. That's in opposition to what Mr. Wahlberg said. But with that, I think that's the reason I second the motion, is the fact that this neighborhood, I'm going to say a 50-year-old neighborhood. It may be more than that. When you're talking about what Mr. Wahlberg was talking about, it's easy to do varied housing and have choices in new development, but it's not always easy to put it right in the middle of an established neighborhood as such. So that's the reason I'll second the motion, and I will be voting for the motion for disapproval on this. Any other commission member would like to speak to the decision? Yes, sir, Mr. Cravens. Yeah, I don't think in this day and time it's reasonable to have a 60-foot width lot unless it's in an estate. I mean, that's an estate-sized lot today. That's a $75,000 lot in most cases. And I said in our meeting I'd like to see on these lots 40 foot. But I guess that's just me. but I think most of our zone changes now for single-family houses are R3. I haven't seen anything come in here that's R1D in years. Even R1E, everybody does the R3, and then we put conditions on the R3 that limits it to something like this. And I'm not particularly moved by the townhouses in this. I mean, there's something about the balance of that that's off. I'm not sure. But I did like the fact that the townhouses, there would be somebody there to take care of the floodplain instead of, you know, 27 single-family people having that burden put on them. This way, at least the townhouses take care of the floodplain. But I could probably be moved to go back to 27 watts on there. I think it would put the rhythm back in the neighborhood, and you wouldn't have a conflict trying to sell the single-family across from the townhouses. I mean, that might not be a conflict. I'm sure the developers thought that out, but that would just be my observation. But I think these houses will be – there's been a talk about context and compatibility. I think they're – today when you infill, you try to just get something that's comparable in price. And that's how you get the value on them is by the comparable of the other houses in the neighborhood. And I think these would probably be higher priced than the ones that surround it because they're brand new. And what that does is you put a smaller house in an existing neighborhood and it costs more than the houses that it's compared to, it brings up the value of the rest of them. I mean, when Frazier goes in there, Mr. Berkeley, they look for what the houses sell for. A new one that's smaller than the existing one at the same price will help with the comparable. So I think there's a good buffer around that neighborhood. the fear of the 32 cars or 32 residents going in and out there, you'll never know that happens. I mean, I go by apartment complexes of 300 cars and you never see anybody going in and out of them. So I'm going to not support the, I would support the zone change, but not this motion. Anyone else? Mr. Drake. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a procedural question. I've detected some sentiment for a plan different from this with 27 single family units. If we reject this, what position does that put the applicant in? How quickly could he come back with a modified request? Does he have to wait a year? Let me ask Mr. Salita. Yes, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Drake, your bylaws require that a property that is recommended for disapproval by the Commission wait at least one year before reapplying for a zone change. You do have an early filing request application that someone can make, but that requires review and approval by the Planning Commission to file sooner than that one year period. That's the automatic. Thank you. Mr. Berkeley. A lot of my concerns were just addressed by the two questions. I do feel like in today's market, an R3-type zoning is probably most appropriate for this property. However, are the townhouses, I don't know. That's a quandary for me. But what I don't want to see, because we have been going over this property now for a year or so, there's been some comments by the neighbors to maybe have some input. But would you guys maybe want to consider doing a, what do we call it, continuation? give you an opportunity to maybe meet with the neighbors again, talk about the types of uses, because I did hear a number of the neighbors say they don't have a problem with the residential, and of course you all have proposed that. It's now a question of getting comfortable with what size lots and how many can go in there. But I would just hate to see this plan go by the wayside for another year if you all might want to consider doing that. If I could speak to that respectfully and briefly, I would say that I think if you check the minutes, a lot of the people that spoke in opposition to us today spoke in opposition to this proposal for only single-family homes a year ago. So I'm not convinced that we would be able to accommodate that request. That having been said, if the body is willing to give us our three single-family restricted, or if it seems that way, we can continue this hearing, submit a new plan that reflects only single-family residential. That is certainly something that we would be happy to do. We're certainly happy to talk with the neighbors, too. It's not for malicious purposes that those conversations were not had. It's, you know, I swear I'm not trying to be rude, but it's, you know, when you know they're against your proposal, what you thought was the gentler of the proposals, it's hard. No, I understand what you're saying. And I know you all had a lot of interaction with the neighborhood, I believe, last time. Previously, yes. And so I can understand why you're saying that. I guess to the, well, did I hear you say, I guess, that you all would be able to or would consider putting basically additional restrictions on that would totally make it single family? Yes. And then we'll have to deal with the plan later? Yeah, we would absolutely agree to a restriction, provided that it was R3 zoning, that only single-family uses could be on the lot. And frankly, for a lot of reasons, that's preferable to us. But it does leave the floodplain issue. And realizing you may not get 27 units even when you come back with your plan. Maybe or maybe not. I don't know. Clarify, if you're going to restrict something to single-family, that is either specifically say detached single-family, if that's your intent. Because single-family, technically townhouse units are technically considered single-family. They're just attached. So if your intent, if the Planning Commission's intent is for detached single-family, which is similar to the adjoining neighborhood, that you make that explicitly stated in any restrictions. Okay. Well, we would be, I mean, R3 lists townhouses specifically, so if we would be restricting that, wouldn't that cover that? I would hope so, but I would be more comfortable if it was explicit to detach single-coupes. What about if a zero lot line or something of that sort? Zero lot line on one side? That wouldn't necessarily be a townhouse, but could you do a zero lot line if it's called single family? If it's single family on one lot and pushes to one side. Usually the R1E zone allows that, right? R1E used to allow that option, but the building code generally showed that most builders did not want to take advantage of that. They prefer to stick with the three-foot setback that the building code requires. Otherwise they have to increase the fire rating of the wall and the windows. And that may not be a feasible alternative. I don't know. Like I said, it sounds like to me they're willing to put some additional restrictions on, you know, should we not consider this. Dr. Drake. Just another clarification, Mr. Chairman. I want to make sure I heard Mr. Walburn right. Did you say you would be agreeable to the R3 zone with the single-family restriction, even though it might mean less than 27 lots? Well, I can represent to the Commission that we have prepared a plan with R3 zoning that does result in 27 single-family lots. That's what we would submit. And, yes, we would be agreeable to a, if it pleases staff, detached single-family restriction, provided that it was with R3 standards. Okay. Now. Is that the question you were asking, Mr. Berkeley? That's it. Yes. Any other, now here's the, yes. Here's where. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, is the hearing closed? Yes, it is. Okay. We're calling people up as we need them, but the hearing is closed. We're in the process of deliberating right now. Okay, it looked like it was open. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. As for our committee members, here's where we are. We've got a motion on the table that has been properly moved and seconded. We had a discussion, but it seems after listening to my colleagues here that there may be some other ways that might be accommodating is what I'm hearing a little bit. Now, having said that, there's one of two ways we can deal with this. One is you can vote down the motion that is on the table and then put a new motion on the table that would address the concerns and issues that we have, that would be the easiest way to deal with it. We can do that? Yes, you can. But there are a couple of things. Once the motion is made, once it's second, it no longer belongs to them. It belongs to us anyhow. They can withdraw the second. So if they wanted to withdraw the motion and put a new motion on the floor, that's one way to deal with it. Or the other way to deal with it is to vote the motion down and then put a new motion on the table. But when you put a new motion on the table, you'd have to put a new motion on the table, and you'd utilize the new findings here with the activities or whatever else you wanted to add. I just assumed if we disapproved that he has to wait a year. Well, I'm... Okay. Yeah. But he's saying vote down if we vote down the disapproval. Well, I'm saying these are the options, period. I'm not saying that they're the best as such, but in terms of what we have is a motion on the floor. And the question is, does the motioner want to amend the motion, or does the motioner wish to take it off the table? That's the motioner's position. As the motioner, I want to leave the motion on the table as stated because I think that there is adequate staff support for disapproval, and we should agree with the staff for multiple reasons that have been mentioned by today already. Chairman, just a point of order. If the commission votes to disapprove this zone change, the development plan is still alive, and so we need some commission action. On the development plan? On the zone change piece. If you vote to disapprove. Well, we're voting right now on the original zone change. And then we'll come back to, if this thing is, I understand it, if the main motion is to disapprove, do we even need to vote on the planning? If the zone change is disapproved, you'll need to postpone the development plan. Okay, we can do that then. All right, I'll go for the previous question myself, which means we vote. The motion on the floor is to support the staff's recommendation for disapproval for PLN MAR 16-15 Lex Properties. That's Lex Properties LLC Zoning Map Amendment and Winding Creek at Monticello. Now, please note, you're voting yes in favor of disapproval. Got that? Or you're voting nay. One of the two. Gotcha. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. You're either voting for the motion for disapproval or you're voting against it. Please vote. Okay. Six to three against. All right. That motion dies. Do I have a new motion, or how do you wish to proceed? I would move for approval of PLN MAR 16-15, the R3 zoning, with the proposed restrictions by the applicant adding or limiting it to single family. Mr. Berkeley, just to be clear. Detached. Single-famil. That's using the applicant's findings of fact. Yes. Thank you. Please, we need that written up in such a way that I can see what it looks like so we can have a... You want me to read? Yes, if you could. That would be good. Some of these may need to be changed. Okay. A is fine. The residential zoning and proposed mix of single-family housing will expand housing choices in the existing neighborhood by providing an un- Well, that really does not apply, I don't think, because we're proposing single-family. So, hang on. Give me just a minute to review these. Okay, while we're doing that, let me ask staff. Because we've got the city council, I think, that's moving in here, and you gave me a drop-dead date of 4-15, I guess we should move? If we thought we could do this in five minutes, I believe the council would oblige us, Mr. Chair. If we need another 20 minutes, then we'll probably need to go ahead and move. Okay, we'll try to hang in there then. Thank you. for R3 zoning, restricting the uses to single-family detached, and the findings as provided by the applicant being items B, D, and E, eliminating items A and C. B, D, and E. Okay, the motion has been made by Mr. Berkley. Do I have a second on that? Second. Okay, it's been seconded by Mr. Cravens that we now approve of, just a minute, let me just mind. Approve PLN MAR 16-15 Lex Properties LLC with, Okay, MAR 2015. Yeah, I had that. Yeah. No, this is not. This is the development plan. No, the development plan is over here, 36. Now, we're right. PLN MAR 16-15 Lex Properties, with the findings provided with the addition of of the deletion of A and C, keeping B, D, and E, and adding R3 zone restricted to single-family detached dwellings. Is that correct? Yes. That is correct. That is correct. Okay. Now, this is on the zone part. Any other discussion on that motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, now we move to the plan. Let's see, what is it? Well, since the plan does not meet the zoning, it's just postponed, right? Yes. So we'll move for a postponement of Plan MJDP 16-36. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Berkeley. and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson that PLN, that we move for postponement for PLN MJDP 16-36, winding creek at Monticello with the conditions identified by postponement. What did I say? A motion to postpone by Mr. Berkeley, seconded by Ms. Richardson. Yeah, I got it. Okay. PLNMJDP 16-361 in Cricut, Moisello. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. That motion carries as well. Okay. We have a couple of other items, quick items, don't we? Mr. Chair, will you ask for the cancellation of the December 22nd work session, please? Yes. So moved. Second. It's been properly moved and second that we cancel the Commission work session on December the 22nd, 2016. All those in favor, please vote on your screen. Okay. It's been properly moved by Mr. Owens, seconded by Ms. Mundy. Okay. Anything else? That's it. Thank you. Okay, then. Without objection, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.