# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - March 23, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 23, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4211 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4211?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-03-23 - **Last revised**: March 23, 2017 - **Length**: 22,645 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** The transcript on this page is the Granicus stenographer's live closed-captioning track, captured at the time of broadcast (typos and broken sentences common). Speaker labels come from the same track. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Verbatim wording and speaker attribution may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on March 23, 2017, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with William Wilson presiding as the presiding officer. The commission addressed four agenda items during the session, taking five votes throughout the meeting and hearing one public comment. The commission's work resulted in mixed outcomes for the development proposals under consideration. Two items were postponed for future consideration: the TAYLORMADE REAL ESTATE, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Wynndale Subdivision Zoning Development Plan and the Amendment to Article 23A-10 regarding Supportive Uses as a Special Provision in the Economic Development (ED) Zone. Of the items that received final action, the commission approved the David M. Harl and Josophia D. Harl Zoning Map Amendment & Uhlan Court Subdivision Zoning Development Plan, while denying the Atchison Heller Construction, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Harper Woods Development Plan. The meeting demonstrated the commission's ongoing role in reviewing zoning amendments and development plans that shape Lexington's growth and land use patterns, with commissioners carefully considering each proposal's merits before rendering their decisions. ## Attendance All members were present at the March 23, 2017 meeting. **Present:** • William Wilson • Will Berkley • Patrick Brewer • Mike Cravens • David Drake • Karen Mundy • Mike Owens • Frank Penn • Carolyn Plumlee • Carolyn Richardson • Joseph Smith **Absent:** None **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The commission conducted five votes during the March 23, 2017 meeting, with all 11 members present and participating. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve the minutes from the February 23, 2017 and March 9, 2017 meetings, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The motion passed unanimously with all 11 members voting in favor. **PLN-MAR-17-00006 Postponement** [timestamp: 03:00] Karen Mundy motioned to postpone the TAYLORMADE REAL ESTATE, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Wynndale Subdivision Zoning Development Plan, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The postponement passed unanimously (11-0) and was rescheduled to the April 13, 2017 meeting. **ZOTA 2016-5 Postponement** [timestamp: 03:30] Frank Penn motioned to postpone the Amendment to Article 23A-10: Supportive Uses as a Special Provision in the Economic Development (ED) Zone, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The postponement passed unanimously (11-0) and was rescheduled to the April 27, 2017 meeting. **PLN-MAR-17-00005 Approval** [timestamp: 04:00] Carolyn Richardson motioned to approve the David M. Harl and Josophia D. Harl Zoning Map Amendment & Uhlan Court Subdivision Zoning Development Plan, seconded by Patrick Brewer. The motion passed unanimously (11-0), subject to approval and certification of the associated development plan. **PLN-MAR-17-00002 Disapproval** [timestamp: 05:00] Mike Owens motioned to disapprove the Atchison Heller Construction, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Harper Woods Development Plan, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion failed by a vote of 6-4, with William Wilson, Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, and Carolyn Plumlee voting in favor of disapproval, while Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, and Joseph Smith voted against the motion to disapprove. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the meeting during the public comment period. Janet Cabiness spoke regarding concerns about meeting postponement procedures [timestamp: 02:30]. She expressed dissatisfaction with the short notice provided for the postponement of the Taylormade Real Estate zoning item. Cabiness requested that the city provide more advance notice to the public in future situations when agenda items are postponed, emphasizing the importance of adequate notification for community members who plan to attend meetings to address specific issues. ## Contested Items The commission addressed one contested item during the March 23, 2017 meeting that resulted in a split decision among members. **Atchison Heller Construction, LLC Zoning Map Amendment** The commission considered a zoning map amendment proposal submitted by Atchison Heller Construction, LLC. The request generated significant division among commission members, ultimately resulting in a 6-4 vote to deny the proposal. The split vote indicates that four commission members supported the zoning amendment while six members opposed it. This close margin suggests the proposal raised substantive concerns that divided the commission on key issues related to the requested zoning change. The denial of the Atchison Heller Construction zoning map amendment represents the only contested item that came to a vote during this meeting, highlighting the level of disagreement among commissioners regarding this particular development proposal. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and detailed discussion points were not available in the provided meeting data.* ## TAYLORMADE REAL ESTATE, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Wynndale Subdivision Zoning D [timestamp: 03:00] The planning commission considered petition PLN-MAR-17-00006 submitted by TaylorMade Real Estate, LLC for a zoning map amendment and development plan for the Wynndale Subdivision. The petition requested changing the zoning designation from Townhouse Residential (R-1T) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) for a 3.77 net acre property. Additionally, the applicant sought a conditional use permit as part of the proposal. Key speakers during the discussion included Nick Nicholson and Janet Cabiness, who presented information regarding the zoning amendment request and development plans for the subdivision. The proposed zoning change would allow for different residential development options under the R-3 classification compared to the current R-1T townhouse residential designation. The conditional use permit component suggests the development may include uses that require special approval under the proposed zoning category. Following discussion of the petition, the planning commission decided to postpone consideration of the TaylorMade Real Estate zoning map amendment and Wynndale Subdivision development plan. The postponement indicates that additional information, review time, or modifications may be needed before the commission can make a final determination on the zoning change and conditional use permit request. The 3.77-acre property represents a relatively modest residential development proposal that would require careful consideration of how the zoning change aligns with surrounding land uses and community planning objectives. ## Amendment to Article 23A-10: Supportive Uses as a Special Provision in the Economic Development Zone [timestamp: 03:30] The meeting addressed agenda item ZOTA 2016-5, a petition for a zoning ordinance text amendment to Article 23A-10 regarding supportive uses as a special provision within the Economic Development (ED) Zone. The proposed amendment specifically focused on supportive uses within the Expansion Area. Dick Murphy served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the details of the proposed zoning text amendment. The petition sought to modify the existing regulations governing supportive uses that would be permitted as special provisions in the Economic Development Zone. The amendment proposal centered on establishing clearer guidelines for supportive uses within the designated Expansion Area of the ED Zone. These supportive uses would operate under special provision status, requiring specific approval processes and compliance measures. Following the presentation and discussion, the meeting participants determined that additional time was needed to properly review and consider the implications of the proposed zoning text amendment. The complexity of the zoning regulations and the potential impact on the Economic Development Zone's Expansion Area contributed to the decision to delay action. The agenda item was ultimately postponed, allowing for further review and consideration of the proposed changes to Article 23A-10. This postponement ensures that all stakeholders have adequate time to examine the amendment's provisions and their potential effects on supportive uses within the Economic Development Zone before making a final determination. The postponement indicates that the matter will be revisited at a future meeting once additional review and preparation have been completed. ## David M. Harl and Josophia D. Harl Zoning Map Amendment & Uhlan Court Subdivision [timestamp: 04:00] The commission reviewed petition PLN-MAR-17-00005, a request by David M. Harl and Josophia D. Harl for a zoning map amendment from Wholesale and Warehouse Business (B-4) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) for 0.34 net acres. The petition also included requests for a conditional use permit and dimensional variances as part of the Uhlan Court Subdivision Zoning Development Plan. Key speakers during the discussion included: • Traci Wade • Dick Murphy The proposal involved converting the small commercial property to residential zoning to accommodate the planned subdivision development. The petitioners sought the R-3 zoning classification, which would allow for planned neighborhood residential development on the site. As part of the comprehensive development plan, the applicants also requested conditional use permits and dimensional variances to facilitate the subdivision layout and ensure compliance with residential development standards under the proposed zoning classification. The commission considered the merits of converting the B-4 zoned property to residential use, evaluating factors such as compatibility with surrounding land uses, infrastructure capacity, and adherence to comprehensive planning goals for the area. Following discussion and review of the petition materials, the commission approved the zoning map amendment request. This approval allows the property to be rezoned from B-4 to R-3, enabling the petitioners to proceed with their planned residential subdivision development on Uhlan Court. The approval of PLN-MAR-17-00005 represents a transition from commercial/warehouse use to residential development for this 0.34-acre parcel, supporting neighborhood residential growth in the area. ## Atchison Heller Construction, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Harper Woods Development [timestamp: 05:00] The planning commission considered petition PLN-MAR-17-00002 submitted by Atchison Heller Construction, LLC for a zoning map amendment affecting the Harper Woods Development. The petition requested rezoning 11.37 net acres from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3), and an additional 0.13 net acres from Townhouse Residential (R-1T) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3). Key speakers during the discussion included Traci Wade and Jacob Wahlburn, who presented details about the proposed zoning changes and development plans for the Harper Woods project. The petition sought to consolidate the property under a single Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zoning designation, which would allow for higher-density residential development than the current Agricultural Urban zoning permits. The R-3 zoning classification typically accommodates planned residential communities with specific design standards and density requirements. Following discussion and consideration of the proposal, the planning commission ultimately denied the zoning map amendment request. The specific reasons for the denial and any conditions or concerns raised by commissioners during deliberation were part of the meeting record, though the detailed rationale would require review of the full meeting transcript for complete context. This denial means the property will retain its current zoning designations of Agricultural Urban (A-U) for the majority of the acreage and Townhouse Residential (R-1T) for the smaller portion, preventing the proposed Harper Woods development from proceeding under the requested R-3 planned neighborhood residential framework. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of minutes from February 23, 2017 and March 9, 2017 meetings - **PLN-MAR-17-00006** — postponed (11-0): Postponement of TAYLORMADE REAL ESTATE, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Wynndale Subdivision Zoning Development Plan - **ZOTA 2016-5** — postponed (11-0): Postponement of Amendment to Article 23A-10: Supportive Uses as a Special Provision in the Economic Development (ED) Zone - **PLN-MAR-17-00005** — passed (11-0): Approval of David M. Harl and Josophia D. Harl Zoning Map Amendment & Uhlan Court Subdivision Zoning Development Plan - **PLN-MAR-17-00002** — failed (6-4): Disapproval of Atchison Heller Construction, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Harper Woods Development Plan --- ## Full transcript test I would like to call the March 23, 2017 urban planning commission to order. The first order of business I would like to have a few moments of silence for the ucla bruins because they're going down. [Laughter] On to serious matters. Approval of the minutes. We have two sets. >> Mr. Chair. >> yes ma'am. In lieu of approval of February 23, 2017 minutes and March 9, 2017 minutes as corrected. >> properly moved secondly Miss Carolyn richardson that we approve the minutes of February 23, 2017 and March 9, 2017. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on the monitors. >> postponements and withdrawals. >> good afternoon. Nick nichol son on behalf of taylor made real estate page 4 of the agenda item number 3. We would ask for a postponement to the April 13 planning commission meeting. We feel the only real issue is you all hard in the committees is the traffic movements for the left hand turns and we wanted to do a traffic stud toe -- study to make sure it gets reviewed. We thought it would be helpful information to you all and the neighbors as well. I have been told we can get it done in time and since that's the only issue we only request a postponement. >> I live in stonewall, a neighborhood of the windale subdivision. I represent the neighborhood association and we do accept the postponement request. But I would request to make a few comments if you don't mind. >> okay. >> number one, we were informed of this at 4:30 P.M. Yesterday. >> informed of what? >> of the postponement at a meeting that we were using as kind of a rehearsal for what we wanted to say and get our points across. Is this right? Can you hear me? >> yes. >> I would just remind you that it's hard for neighborhoods to get here with the kind of representatives that they want and we all take time off from our jobs, we have to rearrange things and make child care arrangements. It would be very helpful if we had more than 16 hours of notice for the postponement. It really puts a burden on us. And I did notice that the request for postponement is the time to conduct traffic study regarding the two left turn movements the neighborhood brought up in committee. That committee meeting was March 2 and this is March 23rd. We just think we could have a little more advance notice and we respectfully request that. >> your comments are so noted. Thank you, ma'am. >> could I also ask a clarification for when we will reconvene for this? >> they asked for April 13. >> at what time and where? >> 1:30 right here. >> okay, good. can I say one more thing? >> you're pushing your luck but go ahead. I'm feeling benevolent because I know the cats are going to take this thing. >> the comprehensive plan is important to all of us. I respectfully hope that we can somehow write a need for advance notice to neighborhoods neighborhoods when postponements and other issues come up rather than 16 hours. Thank you for listening. >> thank you, ma'am. Okay. Now back anyone else? Good. I'll turn it back to the commission for a motion. For postponement until April 13. >> Mr. Chair, thank you. I move for postponement of pln mar-0006-taylor made real estate llc to April 13 of 2017. >> it has been properly moved and seconded that we postpone pln-mar-0006 taylor made real estate until April 13. Any discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Postponements or withdrawals? We have an abbreviated hearing. The abbreviated one is going to be on page 2 david m carl and joseph zoning map amendment. Will you prepare for that unless the staff has anything else? >> staff has no objection but we ask if anyone is here in the audience for this particular item. Again we are looking at imagination 2 of today's agenda. Mar 17-0005, zone change request for property with an address of 1251 red mile, zone change is from b-4 to r-3. Is there anyone present today who wishes to speak to this change or object to this proposed zone change on red mile road? Seeing none we can do an abbreviated hearing. >> staff ready for this? >> we'll set up the development plan and be ready in a moment. >> good afternoon. Our item is pln-mar-175 request by david m.Harl and josophiad.Harl, to rezone from r-4 to r-3 zone. The subject property is located on red mile road. It's on the southwest side of red mile and ulin court stubs into the property from south broadway. It's primarily in a b-4 zone. One property that fronts on to red mile and south broadway that's b-1 in that location red mile is a mixture of commercial, residential office and on the north side of red mile road we have the red mile track and event center and they propose in their mixed use zone future development of residential, retail and other entertainment uses. The petitioner is proposing, I guess we'll run through an aerial view of the subject property there. You can see most of the properties around are developed with the exception of across red mile where the red mile property plans do some of their mixed use and the adjacent property to the northwest is also vacant. The subject property has a building located on it and the applicant proposes to reuse that building. It was built in a b-4 zone for a contractor to use as their office which is permitted use in the b-4 zone. But it does have a very residential character to it with dormers and kind of a front windows and doors. So this is how the subject property looks currently. They're requesting the rezoning from b-4 to r-3 in order to occupy the structure with a fraternity house for 25 beds for the fraternity house and that is a conditional use in the r-3 zone as well as r-4 and r-5. Of course that will be addressed in a separate report. This is looking to the northwest. The open vacant lot and beyond that headquarters of phi gamma delta another fraternity. This is where the landscaping is not as full as in other locations and we identified it as missing in that location. So from the rear of the property looking back to the existing structure and red mile road, you can see the entire rear yard of this property is paved and then these are the two side property lines, the southeast property line where uhlan court stubs in and the property line that is shared with the vacant lot. So the 2013 comprehensive plan of course doesn't make a land use recommendation anymore but we do utilize the goals and objectives and policy statements from the plan to evaluate whether something is in agreement with the comprehensive plan or not. The applicant actually made three justifications they feel is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, they feel is appropriate this location and they also felt it was compliant with a 1990 south broadway corridor plan. The staff did note in our report we don't believe the 1990 corridor plan is in play any longer since it is quite dated. The proposed residential zoning for the fraternity house is in close proximity, especially within walking distance of the university of kentucky and it would reduce vehicle miles traveled to for individuals who would live here because they would be able to walk, bike or use public transit to campus there is mixed use development plan across red mile road and the staff opined that a residential use would be compatible with nearby uses, specifically the mixed use across the street and there is a single family residential lot adjacent to to the property although it is in a b-4 zone and lastly there are several, we believe there are redevelopment opportunities along south broadway near the intersection of red mile and a pobilityd that residential would be a good fit in this location as opposed to the existing b-4 uses in that vicinity. The staff did come to the conclusion that the proposed r-3 zone is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, specifically the goals and objectives mentioned by the applicant which include expanding housing choices housing objections that address market needs for all citizens. Adaptive reuse of existing structures and calling for compact contiguous mixed use development inside of urban service bound requirement the proposed zoning will allow adaptive reuse of a structure that has distinctive residential character and allow for additional housing options near the university. Multifamily residential is common along red mile road and also parts of the south broadway corridor and this would be consistent with that. The proposed redevelopment is within the urban service boundary and would allow for compact and contiguous development. The residential development for is within walking distance and the opportunities at this major intersection, the residential lapped use redevelopment has historically been land use in this area and we recommend approval contingent on the acceptance and approval of the associated development plan by the planning commission and its certification within two weeks. The zoning committee recommended approval of this request. Happy to answer any questions. >> any questions for Miss Wade? Thank you. >> the development plan will be next. >> you all should have a copy of the blue sheet that says major development plan 17-10 uhlan court subdivision. This is an existing building so this is a final development plan for the property because the building is existing and we are just going to have a few sign-offs. When we had it at the subdivision committee there were concerns and issues over the parking that was along this drive aisle here and they had a larger area in the back that was open since the committee meeting they changed the layout so you have two way traffic in and out because that was a concern with the fire and traffic engineering and they created the parking to the rear. They also have an area that's kind of left open for basketball court or outdoor activities in this area. With this revision, there was a gate that was already on the property so they're trying to work with the gate that is located on the property so they have the entrance going into the drive aisle this entrance here is only 16 feet wide and typically we like to see 18 to 20. There is a sign-off for engineering. So we are working with them to get the sign-off for that point. We have a few variances for the distances and we'll go over those with you. Any other questions? >> Miss Gault on the development plan, you have a business that is at the corner, however you pronounce that street, u lan uhlan court. My understanding you can check with the Jr., we discussed this with the engineer but eye understanding a grade change so there is no way really for anyone to come in off uhlan court to the property when you. >> when you get stuff from the rental place you go in and out that way. What is on the corner of uhlan and broadway? >> I think it's a sign company now. >> I'm on the other side of the street. I understand. >> and this is the property line where uhlan court stubs in with the fence. So there is not... There is a solid barrier there where they would need to jump it or go around. >> I understand. Thank you. >> any other questions for Miss Gault? >> thank you. >> presenting the staff report associated with items b and c on page 3 of your agenda this is mar 17-05, and they have requested your approval and consideration of a conditional use permit for the property to operate a fraternity house at this location in the proposed r-3 zone and they're also asking for and providing you two staff reports. The good news is I'm mindful that we are in an abbreviated hearing today. We've also handed out to you a legal size sheet with findings for your consideration of these requests two variances they requested are to allow this existing building to remain four feet from the right of way along red mile road and four feet from the stub in addition, the elimination of the perimeter landscaping requirement. But I can tell you and you can see from some of the photographs the perimeter of this property is almost entirely compliant with the article 18 requirement. That staff has noted nat our report. As Miss Gault mentioned to you, the applicant has revised significantly off street parking and that has changed the staff's opinion of this proposed conditional use. With the parking now functional in a way that can be safely done on the property while still ensuring there will be an open space area for the residents of this fraternity should it be approved, the staff can now say that all of the required facilities are available and adequate for the proposed conditional use. As you can tell from the agenda three weeks ago, we had not reached that conclusion. But this revision makes that possible in the staff's view. There are no structural changes proposed about to the building thus the provisions of article 3 of the ordinance allow that structure to be rezoned and not have to comply with the ordinary 20-foot set back of the r-3 zone. The only exterior changes proposed to the property are the addition of a handicap ramp and the staff understands in the photo you are looking at here, the addition of a fire escape on this end of the building from the second floor. As I mentioned, the landscaping is nearly compliant with the ordinance requirements. There are two areas where it's just shy. One is in the photograph in this area. You can see there is a fence and a few trees. We don't think it's missing two or three trees the northern property line, there is no double row of hedge material. There is on the property a retaining wall where about two-thirds of its lot depth to this point right here, which begins the off street parking area including the addition of one handicapped parking space. The landscape variance portion of this request was called for review by your landscape review committee on February 14. However they did not have a quorum. The discussion at that meeting with the members present was that with that particular use planting from the end of that wall to the rear of the parking area so that is part of the staff's recommendation as a condition that that's the only landscape material that is recommended to be plant. If I request refer you quickly to the legal size sheet titled findings for conditional use, these are compiled from the two staff reports, the one that was done primarily for the landscaping three weeks ago and the one that was sent to you late yesterday revising the staff's recommendation on the conditional uses. To summarize the staff is recommending approval of the requested conditional use permit for two reasons. First the use of the property for fraternity house will not harm the public health safety or welfare and will not impair the integrity or character of the existing neighborhood with the redesign of the off street parking area associated with the use, all necessary public facilities and services are now available and adequate for the proposed conditional use you can see the staff is recommending five conditions associated with that. Of the five, the very last one on number 5, the requirement for curbing and/or wheel stops, the applicant is not in agreement with that and certainly the staff would have no objection to remove that to where that condition would require the separation without those particular improvements to the site. The staff is recommending withdrawal of the requested front yard setback for the reasons I mentioned article 3-2 does not require the building to meet the ordinary 20-food because there are no structural chaingsz proposed to that building. Staff is recommending approval for the reasons on the sheet. First there will be no adverse health, safety or welfare impacts to the adjoining neighborhood or neighboring properties. Second unusual circumstances surrounding the r-3 property or other land in the vicinity is that the height of the existing fence and landscape material will almost completely comply with article 18 requirements thirdly strict application of the ordinance requirements would constitute an unnecessary hardship to the applicant approval of the variances would not result in an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements as the applicant has committed to retain the existing landscaping that is in place on the property. Finally there is no willful violation of any existing zoning regulation by the applicant. at this point I would be glad to answer any questions from the commission before you hear from the applicant on this zone change request with the variances and conditional uses requested as well. >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Sahly, with the cm use I -- conditional use, with the staff recommendation, you mention there are no windows on the side of the building that faces closest to the residential neighborhood. If they choose to cut windows in there, what is the process? Do they have to come back to us, get a building permit? Is it possible? >> it May be possible and they would not have to come back to the planning commission for that. They could go to the division of building inspection and have it reviewed under the building code and any permits necessary for that would be issued through that office, not through planning. How critical is that. You used it in the approval reasons. How critical do you think that is? >> I'm not sure the planning commission needs to include that as a finding but we have had no information given to us that they're participating that. It is possible that converting it to a residential use for egress May require additional openings in that wall. What was most important to the staff was that there only appeared to be one dwelling unit within about 250 feet of the property. >> okay, thank you. >> any other questions for Mr. Sahly? >> thank you. >> Mr. Chairman I'm dick murphy representing the owners of the property Mr. And Mrs. Hard. David harl is with me in the audience and matt carter, our designer is here along with chazz height who works with me. We are in general agreement with the staff recommendations on the property and we do withdraw our request for a front yard variance on that. We do withdraw that so it only leaves the landscape variance. We appreciate working with the staff. We have totally reconfigured the parking and recreation arrangement from what you saw at your subcommittees in the way suggested by the staff and so we have made that major revision to it and we thank them for working with us. I do have two very minor items I wanted to present to you. One is a note which we have worked out about the gate. If I can give it here. Should red mile be widened in the future, my note which we agreed to says that in the event that red mile road is widened in the future, the gate shown on the plan May be relocated or eliminated, as determined by the division of traffic engineering and that would be a note on the development plan. We would put on the development plan. The other issue that Mr. Sahly mentioned was the note 5 on the conditional use conditions for approval about the separation between the basketball court which is going to be our recreational area and the parking which is rate along this line. You can see the parking spaces there and the basketball court right there. He had suggested curbing or wheel stops. We would request for safety purposes something higher that people can see. We are suggesting concrete planters because they would be more in the field of vision of people playing basketball. So I'm suggesting on that number 5 be worded exactly as you have it but add the words, it says with curbingor wheel stops. I suggest adding or concrete planters or similar material on that just to allow us to do something we feel is a little more safe since you are going to have people playing basketball next door. We are in agreement with the staff recommendation. >> I have a question for Mr. Pen. >> Mr. Murphy, would this fraternity house be owned by housing corporation or is that the same way? I have been through the fraternity situations. Is this a housing corporation buying this property? >> no, Mr. And Mrs. Harl will retain ownership. They'll do a long-term lease to the housing corporation. >> let me ask one quick question Mr. Sahly and staff. Are you all comfortable with that modification given to you from Mr. Murphy about the gate? >> that's fine. >> all right, any other questions for Mr. Murphy? Thank you. During this abbreviated period we can go right into the discussion and motions. We have three things to work with, actually four. Four items and we'll take them in this order. First of all the zone change, secondly the plan itself, then we'll go back to the requested conditional uses and the requested variances. And we'll have to make some notifications going through here. Normally we would combine the conditional uses with the requesting variances but because it's making some changes here I'm just exercising prerogative here to make it three, four separate motions as opposed to one. We'll entertain a motion on the very first one, the plan itself. Don't all speak at one time. >> Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of pln-mar-17-5 the david m. Harl and josophiad. Harl subdivision. >> properly moved that we approve pln-mar-17-5. Any discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on the screens. Motion carries. Could we move to the development plan that's on page 4. >> I move approval of pln-mgdp-10, uhlan court subdivision. >> second. >> properly moved and seconded we approve pln-mjdp-17-10 uhlan court subdivision. Any other discussion on the motion? If not please vote when it comes up on the screen. Let me back up just one minute because we had a revision to the conditions provided by staff related to plan, so if it's agreeable with you, you are the original maker of the motion that you would approve the plan with the revised conditions made by staff. That's okay? >> yes. And Mr. Patrick brewer, that's okay with you as a second? >> yes. Let's revote on that for safety sake. We are going to vote on the revised conditions as presented. So please vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you motion still carries 11-0. Now we'll move back to the conditional uses as the requested variance. Let's take the conditional uses. >> I move approval of the requested conditional use permit with the findings presented by staff with the exception of adding to the number 5 condition and adding planter or similar materials. >> what about the other amendment, they had another section that they wanted adding to that. Move in the event the red mile road, I don't have it up on... Yes. >> development plan note that it will be part of the sign-off. >> so the original motion is approval, properly moved by Miss Carolyn richardson and seconded by patrick brewer approve the conditional uses with conditions outlined by staff and the findings by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none would you please vote on that? Motion carries. Requested variances. >> I move for withdrawal of the requested front yard variance. >> second. You want to move approval of the other one. Staff recommendations are to take one, eliminate, reduce the minimum front yard. We only have one there. So in other words you want to, I think approve the staff recommendations related to the requested variances with the landscaping and then withdraw the front yard... >> don't need two separate motions for that. >> just take one will be fine. >> all right. I move for approval of the requested landscape variances with the findings that have been recommended by the staff and including the withdrawal of the requested front yard variance. >> very nicely done. It has been properly moved and seconded that we accept the approve the requested variance with the elimination of 15-foot perimeter landscape buffer, withdrawing the requested front yard variance with the conditions and findings presented by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, would you please vote when it comes up on the screens? Motion carries. Thank you. okay. Ladies and gentlemen oh one other thing Mr. Murphy, I understand that you would like to have another postponement. I don't want you to forget a second time. >> I'm about ready to forget this the second time. On page 6, item c-1 zota, supportive uses as a special provision in the economic development zone, this is technically your alls amendment but for a property for a client I was working with. We request another one-month postponement because the city council has not yet had its hearing on what I call the big economic development text amendment. I call this the little economic development text amendment so we request a one-month postponement on that. >> anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? For purposes I don't have my calendar, what is the date on that? >> zoning hearing in April is on the 27th. >> April 27.. >> I move for postponement of zota 2016-5 to the April 27 meeting. >> it has been properly moved and seconded that we postpone zoda 2016-5 until April 27. Any other discussion on the motion? Motion carries. Thank you. Now we go back to page 1 ach son heller. >> our next item is pln manufacture mar-17-2 ach atchisoner construction property located at 2011 armstrong mill road and 3539 ken eds drive to rezone 11 and a half acres from an auguster urban and townhouse residential to a planned residential zone. I have one letter from the adjoining victory baptist church related to extension of fairinger drive. The staff handed out a packet of information rlier before the full meeting started. It includes some historical information and planning commission decisions and an aerial photograph and then a revised staff report that is not in your notebook today. Hill both of these road ways in this location are collector streets and that intersection is actually a four-way stop on armstrong mill. We look a little closer at the zoning in this area, the subject property is primarily a-u with a very small slice of r-1 t zoning. Adjacent to the subject property is victory baptist church at 2261 armstrong mill. They remain in an auguster urban zone. There are a few other agricultural zones in the community. To the southwest there are some a-u and then just to the east, less than a mile is the urban service boundary. I believe. But there remains some agricultural rural zoning in the vicinity and then there is a utility substation also on armstrong mill in an ag zone. The rest of the property vicinity is zoned currently for residential and developed as residential. It's a mixture of r-1, r-2, r-3 and r-4 as well as I guess r-1t adjacent to the subject property, r-1-e, r-4 for the heartland neighborhood across armstrong mill and anticipate complex just across ken saw kenesaw. And if you look closer at an aerial photo, the subject property is primarily just agricultural in nature as it currently stands. There is a single family residence and a barn on the subject property but it does also have a repairian area that crosses the subject property. I'm going to point that out. This trade area that crosses the subject property and crosses just very near the intersection of armstrong mill what is we would consider a repairian area. There is a creek that runs through that part of the property and our fema flood plain doesn't pick up until right at kenesaw and that is generally because the property is in an agricultural zone and so detailed study of the fema flood plain was not completed for property unless it was developed already. It is presumed that will happen when a property comes in for development, the developer does the flood plain analysis and fema provides the fema information. Another view of the subject property, you can see the church in the foreground on this and where berringer drive stubs into the subject property here, in this situation berringer drive actually stubs into both the church property and the subject property, their shared property line at the rear of the church is basically the center line of berringer drive. Another view of the barn in the foreground on this photo, the subject property single family residence proposed to remain and victory baptist church and the surrounding summer field... That's not summer field. Surrounding subdivision. The applicant is requesting this rezoning to r-3 in order to develop a mixture of single family dwelling units, 32, and then townhouse residential units 8 of those total density of 3.74 units per acre. The application, I'm just going to actually go over the development plan slightly berringer drive stubs in on the west side of the subject property and that's an issue. Here is the flood repairian area that crosses the property and they show that eight townhouses on the springfield drive side of the property and then the rest of the property is shown with single family residential. They are keeping the existing house and utilizing easements around the banks of single family homes. The applicant contends the 2013 comprehensive plan is being met with this application and they do cite several goals and objectives related to a mixed type housing development, which they are showing. Expanding housing choices, supporting infill redevelopment, providing well designed neighborhoods and communities which includes neighborhoods that are connected for pedestrian and various modes of transportation and upholding the urban service boundary. The staff would also encourage the planning commission to consider several other goals and objectives specifically related to the existing drainage easement or drainage way that crosses the property that the creek that is in it as well as the existence of a stub street. Theme b goal a says to identify and protect natural resources before development occurs and then theme d goal 1 says to work to achieve an effective and comprehensive transportation system. The staff report report inned February to the zoning committee and at that point recommended postponement. The requested zone change and associated development plan and the development plan is a tool that the applicant uses and that the staff and planning commission evaluate to determine if something is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. So while there are different decision the comprehensive planning commission makes, they are, we know very well connected to each other. But the staff felt at the beginning of February that there were some pieces not being met by the applicant in terms of the comprehensive plan and I think outside of those goals and objectives just in terms of protecting and identifying the natural resources and then the comprehensive transportation network were cited. The development plan we believe doesn't meet parts of the zoning ordinance and land subdivision regulations. At this point there is a lack of determination starting neant 90 excuse me in 1991, to establish at that point two lots, one for the church and one for the featherston park farm and at that time a cul-de-sac designation was made for the extension of berringer drive so those documents are what the staff has provided. A year prior emanuel church came in and they were doing a church plant and made aware a cul-de-sac would be required at the end of berringer drive so those documents from 1990 on did document the extension of berringer drive. At some point, some minor changes came to the board of adjustment in 1997, basically asking for allowances to, instead of building a permanent building using a mobile home on the site for an education wing, and those were granted without the extension of berringer shown, but in no way did those undo the work the planning commission and the board of adjustment did earlier in the 19 neants that plat -- 1990s, in 2001 the church signed another plat acknowledging that there was still a reservation for berringer drive to continue. And that's all in the packet we've provided. In addition to the proposed use of access easements, detached single family residences, this is the applicant's planning to do those or asking to do those but without any evidence as required by the subdivision regulations and the subdivision regulations specifically say there has to be evidence of a rare and extreme circumstance or other just cause in order for the planning commission to approve those access easements. 's access easements proposed by the petitioner actually create numerous lots where pavement is located on three sides of the single family residences. In February the staff recommended postponement and we made the statement at that time that these issues needed to be resolved before we could make a substantial recommendation. The applicant did meet with the staff in mid February and they submitted this revised plan, which really does not address the issues, the two major issues that or three issues that remained and the staff believes are in conflict of interest with -- conflict with goals with the zoning regulations. One of the specific issues was berringer drive. The staff of the division of planning, division of engineering and the division of traffic engineering all agree that a cul-de-sac, as proposed in the early 90s at the end of berringer drive would provide an appropriate termination to that street and yet the applicant continues to propose basically a parking lot at the end of that existing stub street. This puts... Well, I'll kind of move on to the next thing. The creek and the greenway and repairian area, these need to be identified and the applicant is proposing as it appears to be taking the residential units away from that greenway creek area. However, the stream is not specifically delineated on the plan. I think Mr. Martin sketched in it with a blue parker to help the planning commission but when you look at the aerial photographs it's actually a winding creek that goes through there. It's not a straight line. And the applicant hasn't provided any information about the repairian area in that location, any indication as to where the flood plain might be, and it's difficult for the planning commission and the staff to assess whether something is protecting an environmental resource if those environmental resources can't be identified on the development plan. Next the lfucg, I'm going to buzz through those because we've already talked about them. Greenway master plan also identifies the man o'war greenway trail along the frontage both along kenesaw and armstrong mill for the subject property. Subject property is here with the creek shown crossing it and then some drainage ways along the frontage as well and the trail is proposed to be along armstrong mill and kenesaw drive. Again the applicant hasn't indicated on their development plan any indication that they're acknowledging, you know trail needs to come along the frontage of their plan. The staff, after looking at these issues and acknowledging our finding out that the applicant has account adequately addressed them, we believe that these circumstances don't foster well designed neighborhoods as recommended by the comprehensive plan. The staff finds that the proposal doesn't respect the existing character of the immediate area, doesn't create an effective comprehensive transportation network since berringer drive is not going to be completed and does not do enough to protect the natural resources as they exist in the property today. The 2013 comprehensive plan is more than a land use plan. It is, it now incorporates design into the goals and objectives so while we want to maybe not look at some design issues when we determine whether something is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, those two things are really intertwined now. Completion of streets, protecting the streams and creeks if that's thought known on the development plan, not sure how the staff can say it's in agreement with comprehensive plan. So in this case, the petitioner has not provided enough information to meet the design specifications of the comprehensive plan. The land subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance so the staff is recommending disapproval of the requested rezoning for two, actually three reasons. The proposed r-3 zone is not in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan. It runs contrary to several of the goals and objectives as established in the plan; specifically theme b which is protection of the environment and specifically within that goal 3 a which calls for the identification and protection of our natural resources before development occurs. Also it is contrary to theme d which is improving desirable community and specifically goal 1 and its objectives calls for achieving and effective and comprehensive transportation system and it runs contrary to previous planning commission decisions. Also the petitioner doesn't recognize the man o' war trail on their plan and lastly, the plan calls for growing successful neighborhoods and specific within that, that the staff has the most concern about is the well designed neighborhood part. Of all the applicant is offering a mixture of residential types at this location, the staff doesn't believe that this respects the character of the cear and doesn't provide for the well designed neighborhoods and of most concern from the very beginning has been the use of access easements and again several, I think eight lots have access easements or public street on three sides and that creates a situation where really it's just an undesirable location to live. The second reason the staff is recommending disapproval is we don't believe there are any unanticipated change in the immediate area that can be documented in order to approve an r-3 zone at this location and then lastly we believe that because of this, really inappropriate plan that is proposed that a-u remains appropriate at this location until an appropriate development plan that meets the comprehensive plan zoning ordinance which are requirements and land subdivision regulations for the community. I would be happy to answer any questions about this recommendation. >> any questions for Miss Wade. Mr. Drake, I'll go with you first since you haven't had a chance. >> yes, I have a question, tracey. I remember discussing this in zoning committee. I don't remember all of the details. Is there a dedicated easement for the cul-de-sac? If we don't approve this, then the cul-de-sac issue is postponed. But if we do, it's on the table. And if there is a dedicated easement for the cul-de-sac does part of the... >> there is no dedicated easement. There is a reservation of land acknowledged when the property was subdivided. So that expresses the intent to build a cul-de-sac at this location. >> does that have the same legal binding as an easement? >> I would ask our counsel that question. >> does it have the same legal finding? Glits another plan, right? So I think they're obligated to comply with that unless it's released. >> the second part of the question is any of the, does any of the existing structure encroach upon that? >> I'll refer you to sort of the last couple of pages of the exhibit the staff handed out. Probably the 1991 plan that was brought in or approved in December 1990 and signed in January 1991 shows the cul-de-sac with dash lines. The right of way is, I believe 40 feet. Is that right, tom? And then there is the required set back of 20 feet from that right of way line. Their board of adjustment approval indicated that they would be locating the building 45 feet from their property line. So that should accommodate both the extension of the cul-de-sac and the 20-foot set back. The applicant's development plan shows the building setback at 40 feet instead of 45. But when I checked our aerial photograph in gis, it appeared to be 45 feet. So I would argue that the church located in the right location and the subject development plan was drafted incorrectly. But they should be able to accommodate a cul-de-sac at that location. >> thank you. The only reason I raise that is I wanted them to flow -- to know that if there was a potential conflict in the future they should be prepared to deal with it but apparently there will be no conflict. >> the conflict would come where they've included the playground and that was not on the site plan for any of the board of adjustment cases. So they've added that of their own acard and not -- accord and not been granted any specific permission to do so. So an extension of the cul-de-sac as planned could impact their playground but again that was not an approved location for a playground. >> that's not as serious as having to dismantle a structure. >> right. >> thank you. >> tracey. In regards to this termination, we've got a letter here from victory saying they don't want the cul-de-sac. They're the adjoining owner. The other end of berringer does not end in a cul-de-sac. The two streets that run off of berringer do not end in cul-de-sacs. The plan that we were going to be looking at today, which got postponed there on mill does not end in a cul-de-sac. It's a hammer head. This is the plan they that got postponed earlier. So I guess my question is is if we don't do this cul-de-sac, who is harmed here? Who is damaged if that is not done? >> I would say the public is damaged. >> how? >> well, public access into and safety for safety reasons for the fire trucks to circulate there for the trash trucks. >> we've got the same situation on berringer at the other end of it and the two streets that come off of it. >> I'm not sure what you mean by saying they don't end in a cul-de-sac. I'm assuming you are saying they're through streets? >> they're not but they do not end in cul-de-sacs. You can see it partially on this , but the other end of berringer does not end in a cul-de-sac. >> that's a hammer head approved by the subdivision regulations. >> so... >> the parking lot... >> I still don't understand how the public is going to be harmed by this when we've got that situation out there. We were getting ready to create the same situation on this plan. >> that plan is for a daycare center. >> what? >> that plan is for a daycare. >> I understand but it's still public access. >> it's basically a driveway to their building. >> okay. Well that was my question. >> tracey, a couple things. One, you know, from what you laid out, there are several concerns here. The committee subdivision committee when we last met first of March, we primarily focused on just what the discussion is right now, the cul-de-sac or berringer. We really did not hear much as far as the even the possibility of a flood plain that I think should be researched and so forth. But my concern, I'm addressing right at the moment, you indicated that the staff hasn't met with baptist since February. >> we offered to meet with them again and had no response. >> you know, when we left out of subdivision committee, and i think, I know it was recommended for postponement, I May have done it myself, but it was the fact that this thing maybe is going forward but it's not ready yet and discussions should be had and these discussion items should be hammered out, you know, prior to coming here this week and obviously nothing, it doesn't sound like anything has been done. >> nothing has been done. >> that concerns me greatly with that. You know, I think this thing needs more work and quite frankly I make a motion to postpone it right now but I'm going to let the discussion go. >> have you to let the discussion go. >> tracey, this is a preliminary development plan, right? >> it is. >> it's preliminary enough, has enough information on it for the soap change. >> I think the staff doesn't believe it does. The division of engineering asked for additional information about the flood plain and we are not contacted either. >> well, there is no flood plain marked on it. Your map here doesn't show. >> right, the designated fema flood plain ends, the extent of detailed study ends as shown on the aerial. So the applicant is responsible for doing that additional engineering work. >> well, I mean, you wouldn't do it if it wasn't flood plain or wasn't marked on there. Flood plains are marked through the whole county. >> no. >> whether developmented or not you got it going on down the other way but I guess my point is, the development plan and you don't do a whole lot of work until you know you've got the zoning done. >> if the staff asked for additional information or to evaluate whether it means the zoning ordinance, I think you do. >> I got that. But you don't do a whole lot of flood plain studies and all that until you know as a developer that you've got the zoning in place and then you work that out on the development plan as you've got your zoning. That's the way it works. >> they didn't even locate the stream or the creek on their plan or the basic setback from the creek or repairian area which, even if you choose or ask not to do the flood plain, detailed study showing that basic information so that the staff can assess whether the rear of those lots is in the reparrian area. >> I was going to ask and it pertains to the berringer and access and the right of way. Let me hear from the development plan and discussion. >> any other questions for Miss Wade? Okay. Thank you. >> who is presenting the development plan. Mr. Martin is. Okay. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. The preliminary development plan that you see before you today is on page 2 of your agenda. plan major development plan 17-4 harper woods. We have passed out for you on this lovely spring yellow paper, revised conditions. As Miss Wade explained to you we have armstrong mill at this location with kenesaw drive intersection here. They are proposing their access road, public street into here, the cul-de-sac at this location. Here we have berringer drive. Springfield drive comes up through here and comes and intersects at kenesaw. They are proposing 32 single family dwelling units and normally this is not information as you are aware that would you see but they're indicating the single family homes on the lotting pattern. Here we have the eight townhouses that they're proposing off of berringer drive in this general area is the environmentally sensitive area, the drainage area, the area with a lot of trees and yes, we just tried to give you a general indication that there was drainage here, not exactly how it meanders through that. The point is this property is impacted strongly by this environmentally sensitive area which is a drainage area. Whether or not it will be actual flood plain is yet to be determined on additional studies. Flood plain does begin here and flow down this location. The pink shows you to demonstrate impacts on the property along with the environmental impact with the drainage area, we have easement here. you can see where it extends off site and then back across the front of the property there is a 15-foot easement in this location long this side of the property. It transitions to a five foot easement through here, utilities on this boundary of the property. There are a lot of trees, a lot of significant trees on this property. Very large ones sprinkled throughout the property lot here and there. The layout is respecting for the most part these large trees. There are some through here that will have to go. Here is the existing house. You can see two very large trees one of the conditions you will see on your sheet is more detailed information. They've given us a breakdown of the type that is here and they've identified the sizes that we want to tie those together, both species and size because article 26 defines significant trees both by size and species. It's just a cleanup item that they can provide us for additional information. Beringer drive, on that plat, it shows a reservation and it states it is to be built when these properties are to be developed on the recorded plat. It shows a cul-de-sac with the street coming through here, curls for this way, the cul-de-sac is more up on this part of the property. If it was extended as shown on that plat. This is a revised plan and we do have revised conditions. , however, staff wants to make again a couple of points about our concern on this property. One, a very significant is the berringer extension and the proper compliant extension of the street. And I can tell you who can be harmed if we don't extend our streets correctly and design them correctly which we have been doing since 1965 with our land subdivision regulations and that is because there are health and safety issue and we want to be sure that we provide the appropriate public services on public streets and we want to provide a properly constructed and designed street to make sure that happens safely. And as I'm sure you are aware, over the years there has been a lot of conflicts between public and private, damage and who is responsible and many divisions in our government, like traffic, solid waste and those people are dealing with these sorts of conflicts frequently on who is maintaining, this who is taking care of this? My parking lot is torn up. So, yes, staff has very strong concerns about compliant street terminations. And we have cul-de-sac, a cul-de-sac and hammer head. The y ones are not in the subregs. They're out there. They were never very popular. I want to make that point that we are very concerned about the legal well designed termination of berringer and you can see when you look at the conditions that we've handed out to you that we want that recognized because look at the impact, the potential design impact on the plan May be significant. Once the study is done on this drainage through here, it could have a significant impact on the design as well. That is why staff has a heightened concern about the need for additional information and additional work on this plan at this time. Because you could see a very, very different plan based on the results of that study and based on building a compliant cul-de-sac. They haven't asked for a waiver. They can do that. They have to do justify it as you know. And it is reviewed by all the appropriate entities at that time the access easements that Miss Wade explained to you again, you can see as you come up the street, here is an access easement circulating through here for these houses that have frontage on a public street and again there is frontages on the public street through here, not with this one. It has an access easement. These are served by an access easement although they have frontage on a public street. I highlighted in orange these homes. None of those are compliant with the subdivision regulations unless they have this body makes a finding on access easements. And that's necessary for these to be compliant. So these are all some of the impacts that staff is concerned about and why we are still recommending postponement of the plan at this time. I would add that should you approve this zone change or approve this development plan, that we have revised conditions that state the addition of the reserved right of way per the recorded plat or to shorten the cul-de-sac, which again we think could remove and alleviate many of the conflicts on the plan. We do believe that we can resolve the use of the access easements at the time of a final development plan and because this is primarily a single family development, we anticipate what you will see is a preliminary subdivision plan for the single home portion of this property. In addition, we are asking for a conceptual storm water detention proposed for this development prior to certification. Staff would be perfectly happy with a note that would outline the approach towards storm water management because we are aware that that itself going to take a study. That's going to take some work. We have a storm water system in that area and a considerable amount of this area, this neighborhood does drain through this property. So certainly a study is very necessary for this. We are also recommending that should you approve this, the townhouse conflict be removed from that reserved right of way or the cul-de-sac prior to certification because again it exists on a recorded record plat. The intent was clearly there to build it so we would like to have that addressed. Then a lighter matter that I think could be addressed very easily is to identify the landscaping to article 18. We are talking about right up in here, adjacent to these single family homes. There is a five-foot utility strip. They need to indicate compliance with article 18 that could be a fence, a five-foot strip but that's this boundary in here. That's, I think a relatively modest change to the plan. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you May have. >> any questions for Mr. Mart snin. >> a clarification. You did say that you felt like the access easement issues were resolvable? >> I think so. Staff is concerned and we've been concerned for sometime for an overreliance on access easements. We are not opposed to them but again needs to bring to this body a justification. >> Mr. Cravens. >> tom, is that main street, is that a city street? >> pardon me. >> is that a city street, the main street going up? >> I think they're intending for that to be a public street, yes, sir. >> tom,. >> last time I saw the recommendations on the development plan coming out of committee and the agenda, it had nine, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, items. Tracey said y'all have not met with the applicant since committee? >> that's correct. >> so what you've got here is your best guess? >> based on the revision they did submit. They submitted that revision. Staff reviewed it. >> when was that revision submitted? >> the 23rd. February. >> so, but since committee, you haven't met with them? >> no, sir. >> so, okay. And so this, you know, you don't know what they're thinking and as I said, this is your best guess at the moment. >> Mr. Owens again recommending postponement. And again should you all see fit to move this forward... >> thank you. Thank you Mr. Martin. Applicant? >> good afternoon Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission, jacob wahlburn on behalf of the applicant. We are excited by how this is going so far, I can tell. When I was a child, I grew up in the cincinnati intushesz, my dad was a big fan for reasons I'll never understand of A.M. Radio. We listened to a lot of A.M. Radio in the car. In the immortal words of paul harvey, it's time for the rest of the story. But before I get into my presentation, I think it's important that you hear from the partners and before I let them get up, I should mention my clients ach son are here today. But there is some information I hesitate to say the words untrue but maybe misleading that has been presented to you. i want to give al and rory a chance to address some of the issues before you before I begin my remarks. >> gl there have been two subdivision committee meetings. We met with staff after the first one. Topic of discussion after the first meeting were the reparian way, flood plain, the berringer cul-de-sac and the overall plan. In that meeting with staff tracey, vaughn with traffic engineering, kristin curry which I think is in the environmental section, bill sahly was not there nor was casey. We had about an hour's meeting and it became obvious that the two primary concerns were the reparian way, the flood plain and the fact that berringer was not shown being connected on our plan. The primarily we started with berringer first, the primary concern expressed by tracey was the redevelopment of the church property and how the church was going to redevelop if it didn't have good direct access to berringer because it certainly didn't want the church in a redeveloped sense to have access to armstrong mill road, which is a collector street and you should obviously be able to have access to a collector street. But that was the concern relative to berringer. So we submitted a revised concept of how, in essence, berringer could be turned and extended through the church property for redevelopment, remain a public street, have that cul-de-sac extend and approach armstrong mill serving the needs of the public from a safety and health perspective and also serving the needs of the church if and when it were ever to redevelop. Let's assume it never redeveloped, that stub street would continue to act in the same form and fashion it has acted since it was built, some 15 years ago I guess. I'm guessing at that. Some period of time. It is one lot depth away from an intersection. There is ample ability to turn around and to have access up, back and sideways for five, police, solid waste, and that's the way it has been used, I suppose, all these years, without incident. The next topic we discussed was the stream that runs through the property, and we had a pretty lively debate about that, and we know what our requirements are relative to that stream. It's an intermittent stream. We have a 50-foot buffer to provide around the center line of that stream. You have the ability also to modify that 100-foot width. You can reduce it on one side up to 25 feet. That would increase it on the other side to 75 feet. You also have the opportunity to get in and evaluate the stream, the reparian way in a very significant and particular fashion to do the best thing for the development and the best thing for the reparian way. Discussed in that meeting were the fact that one side of the reparian way is steep, one side is kind of flat and plateaued, certainly those two treatments relative to buffering conditioning the reparian way would probably be different approaches. We left that meeting with the understanding that those details could be worked out with the preliminary subdivision plan or the final development plan. We did not resolve the situation relative to berringer. But we did resolve and volunteer, I'm sure, that we know we have to abide by the storm water manual. Storm water manual was just revised in October of 2016. Very strenuous test relative to developing close to flood plains and reparian ways. Very strenuous. Division of water looks at it, kentucky division of water looks at it, the corps looks at it and certainly the division of engineering new development staff takes a hard and elaborate look at that. The planning staff does not get involved. And I guess maybe they want to be involved. But that was not presented to us in that meeting, nor has it been presented since that February 16 meeting other than by conjecture. And it takes time and effort and money to adequately do the type of work that is necessary to construct around this particular stream, this particular reparian way and it is not a regulatory flood plain. It has a flood plain, obviously every stream does. Every street has a flood plain if you want to look at it that way. When it rains you have ponding in the street. but it takes effort, time and money to accurately portray the extents of the flood plain and it takes design ability and time and money to figure out how to make compatible with that stream a development of this type. Do we think it can be done? Certain will I we think it can be done or we would not have submitted that plan. We have knowledge of that reparian way wand we think we can easily justify what we have shown on that plan. However, if we can't, we also know we are in front of this body again with a much more detailed plan where we have to have specific plans and specific answers about subjective matters in some instances. So we are prepared and I would submit to you to take the risk that this plan is the one to use. >> and never heard the term. I think that layout of our plan would be sufficient to accommodate any trail. It is my understanding that armstrong mill has 80 feet of right of way but only 41 feet of pavement. It had been brought to our attention at any point since January when we filed this, we certainly would have addressed it but we never have been informed of any potential conflict prior to today. And I feel confident that we can handle it. I'm going to cut to the chase. I have a tendency to try to tee these up and give you a lot of details. You've heard a lot of details and let's get to what we're talking about. The property that's outlined in red and this little triangle here are the subject of this application. I like to look at a little wider view, this is kind of what's going on in the area generally. And you see a lot of r-1, c, d and e, a couple of patches r1t and interestingly the navigational beacon for lexington air travel, is located right there. Learned a lot about that recently. But we have the church that's immediately adjacent to us and a whole lot of residential. Have handful of au parcels and ar parcels within the U.S. I me should it and it is just shiva mile to the urban services boundary so we're out on the fridges of the county. I call mid-mother on this application. My mother and father's first home in lexington was at the corner, -- near the corner of armstrong mill and man of war. She advised me in the '80s, early '80s that that was the sticks, nothing out there and the last time she had driven through there, she was pleased to see how much it had grown up. Our contention is very simple and I'll provide you proposed finding of fact and conclusions of law. We think we're in accord with the comprehensive plan. As a matter of fact, I don't think it can be reasonably argued that r3 is an appropriate use of this location. It is -- the r1t area is more duplex oriented, two units attached to each other than what I would consider true town houses butness a sea of single family and r1t. It is appropriate. R3 is appropriate. We're not proposing anen apartment complex or a commercial development. We're proposing single family style residential and a handful of town houses in an area where there is single family residential and handful of town houses. We also contend the au zone is inappropriate and r3 is appropriate. Based on the reasons that I have mentioned. The au zone is intended to be a holding zone until public facilities are available. We have sewer, we have utilities. The site is ready for development. A-u is no longer appropriate as a holding zone. So what's our problem? Well, as I expressed you to walking in, I knew beringer drive was going to be a problem. Beringer was an 1100 foot street that has 12 houses on it. There are more houses that touch beringer than that but they don't front on it. Beringer is in some places likes an alley. It sees the side of buildings, but there are 12 single family houses that have beringer addresses. I'll correct one thing that al said. I believe it has been a sub street for 30 years. The houses that are immediately surround the stub were constructed in?1_} 1987. 30 years ago. I'll guess the street was stabbed about the time the houses were constructed. Zooming in as al mentioned, the stub served exactly two properties. We'll get into something curious about the second property. But that is the only house that is directly served by the stub. This has actually been consolidated with the church property there is a walking trail that goes back to the church parking lot. I thought that it was because it was a parsonage. But it is not as we go through the documents that you have been provided by staff and that al referenced. It was included as a proposal before the board of adjustment to do classroom space for the church, and conditional use was approved back in the mid to late 90sfor that purpose. So we'll go through some of those real quickly. This is actually a better example. You can see through the pva mapping software that lot has actually been consolidated. So it is a part of an armstrong mill address victory baptist church. And we're here talking about the plan. We knew about the plan. We're very familiar with the platt note. You have seen the letter from victory baptist church. They don't really want this. But, this is what the genesis of this dispute was this note on a plat. A little history about how we got there. Immanual baptist church petitioned for the conditional use back in 1990. It was a consent agenda item before the board of adjustment. In fact, that May not have been fair. I don't know that the board of adjustment has a consent agenda but they have extremely abbreviated hearings where folks stand up and say yes, I agree to abide by the conditions and they give approval. This is one of those items. The note on the plan that dealt with the only thing that's ever been mentioned in any of these board of adjustment proceedings about beringer drive was access from the church to beringer drive needed to be reviewed and approved by the urban county traffic engineer. And this was the fairly, I called it ambitious plan that immanual brought forward at that time. Four-phase development an abut dance of parking. Looks to be fairly impressive development. And let's fast forward two and a half years later and this is an aerial photograph from April 17 of 1993 nothing was built on the site. Not with standing approved computerral use. Nothing constructed there. We compare it to the 1990 plan and those two things do not resemble each other whatsoever. What was contemplated when the cul-de-sac was proposed was not constructed them go back and here is a plan that shows what they were trying to do at that time. the 1997 hearing the actually dealt with consolidation of that house on beringer. Beringer drive was not mentioned. The cul-de-sac was not mentioned and as you can see very clearly, it was not even depicted on the plan that the board of adjustment approved. We compare what's on the ground in 1997 to what the 1997 plan is. They look pretty similar. They were living up to what their obligation had been. But they are pretty wildly different from the time when we were contemplating a connection from the church to beringer drive and from the cul-de-sac. We move along further construction, and we see the parking areas extending and them build this new facility here. Our plan and I'll jump top the chase, Mr. Drake, you asked, is that building conflict? We think it is razor thin close to the area. I have dropped it on gis and I get about 42 feet so I must be splitting the difference between staff and ourer. >> 's plan. The building is razor close to they would be prohibited. My point is, we have seen a lot of evolving plans in compliance with the plans over time. It has been a moving target. Now, I don't represent victory baptist church and I'm not here to give victory baptist church in any trouble. As you're well aware, if you're church attenders, the makeup of church congregations and leadership evolve over time. Commitments made in 1990 May not even be flown to some of the parishioners in 2017. Victory baptist church as it stand today does not want this cul-de-sac. Why? Because it conflict with what they have built on the ground. And we're fine with that. We don't want it either. We would love to -- devise a solution, bring forward a final -- for for the preliminary subdivision plan that can accommodate all of the needs that we think were raised by staff in that February meeting. This was our original plan and we did not want to connect it awful we wanted to leave the neighborhood alone, and leave the church alone. Moving into a new neighborhood, you don't want to be the noisy neighbor. You don't want to upset the church by saying, we really want to reconfigure the way that you all access, this actually shows you very well, there is a circular drive right there that does conflict with the right of way easement that we simply have to be redone. They could not continue to use it. In the manner in which it was constructed which we don't want to dump our traffic on the neighborhood. You have her me up against neighborhood groups that are concerned about traffic. What a better way to prevent traffic than to leave them alone. Traffic engineering said they would not require a full connection of beringer drive through that would not be necessary in the estimation of traffic engineering. Staff hated it. Staff did not like it whatsoever so, these are things that I have already covered. I would mention that it does create a sense of community in our neighborhood. The existing homes in the area are 30 years old it would allow our neighborhood to create its own sense of community separate and apart from the existing neighborhood. Church told you they didn't wasn't. I wanted to point that out we have the meeting February 16 where we go in and talk about that I didn't have a chance to update the presentation from when I got the report. You'll notice that I said I thought the environmental issues were addressed and we had resolve those to the satisfaction. Perhaps we have not but we were not in formed of such and the majority of that meeting centered top beringer issue. Just to show that you we were not uncooperative, we did submit this amended plan that we think does an effective termination of beringer and suggested several hours. We suggested a true hammer head intersection. Think the third option is the one that works the best for everybody involved. If the concern was about future access to potential -- should it ever redevelop which was a topic that was discussed at some length in that February meeting, I think this third option actually covers it very well. we would simply adjust our development to get out of the their way. The cul-de-sac could be extended into the property. So that they would be able to utilize that if necessary at that time. If street was never completed though, we're really only affecting one house that's functioned effectively for 30 years without any extension. I frankly don't see what the fuss is about. I don't think that there there is a public health or safety issue or certainly one has no manifested itself in the last 30 years. Bottom line here is I don't think that staff likes this plan. And that's okay. But that's not a standard with which we evaluate zone changes. Zone changes are about appropriateness of the use in the location. I don't think anyone could argue that r3 would wantiate a this site. 41 units and a handful of single family houses and town houses. I just can't fathom why that would not be an acceptable use at this location. Now, I hate to go into a he said and she said type thing but I have to put a few things in the record to rebut some of some of the point thes that have been made. Mr. Gross following your all subdivision committee, the one in March, sent tracy an e-mail asking if there was going to be an alteration or ed it to the staff report. Tracy identified the three that are on the screen here. They wanted a full connection or a cul-de-sac of beringer, they did not like our mix of units, and that they don't like private access easements. Not withstanding the fact that private access easements would be a waiver that we would seek at the time of preliminary subdivision plan. So I'll introduce her e-mail into the record about what objections we were notified and I would encourage you all to read this. Again it was not that we were not communicating or asking, we thought many of these issues had been resolved, simply were not aware that they existed. Let me respond to those concerns. Nobody wants the cul-de-sac. We don't want the cul-de-sac. It is an ini efficient use of our land. The neighborhood doesn't want it. We don't want any of out traffic, it doesn't effectively serve them. We think that we provided alternatives that could accommodate any concerns about the future development. But none of those compromised solutions that we offered were deemed acceptable by the staff. Staff said they did not care for the mix of unit ands we've done internal market studies that reflect our units mix would be effective and that the product we're offering is a desirable product in lexington you May know the construction they do quality work and have many successful developments around kentucky. they are not willing to bring in a speculative plan. They know the plan they propose candidate work from a market perspective. And the reason for the private access easements which again we deal with at the time of preliminary subdivision plan, was to provide for a little bit of architectural variety. If you take a look at this plan, you're going to see a lot of different arrangements. There has been repeated concern in lexington about front loaded garages. This plan provides for detached rear garages. Attached rear garages and front loaded garages. Provide some architectural variety that was the only point of the access easements. And we thought it would be something more appropriately addressed at the time of the preliminary subdivision plan. So we think that the issues that have been brought to tower attention are really good. I want to tell you what we like about this plan. The comprehensive plan as you hired me talk about many, many, many times, calls for a mix of housing units in new and existing neighborhoods. Our plan provides a mix of housing units. We get to preserve a lot of the significant trees on the property. I have heard this commission get very, very upset when people got rid of significant trees. This plan has a lot of open space that iser. >>ed to present seven the significant trees. develops a parcel and desirable area of town. This as popular area of town to live. Heartland neighborhood is very popular destination and very successful development. We think that we would be a valuable he addition. It doesn't impact the adjacent uses we don't have to cut through neighborhoods, we don't have to mess with the church. That's why we submitted the plan the way that we did. But I think most importantly, we're able to provide three and a half acres of open space. It is an 11 and a half acre site and taking three and a half acres off the top and leaving it green space. I think that's a fantastic April butte of this plan. And I remind that you we're talking about a preliminary development plan. So I put the definition of the preliminary development plan on the board. We're supposed to be able to provide you with a plan that does not require an undue amount of final design work. I guess except for a flood plain study. That's just not a requirement here. We understand that we cannot build -- there is no regulatory flood plain here. Access points, these are all issues that we can have a little bit of wiggle on, on a preliminary development plan. We think that this plan does provide for a little bit of wiggle. We know we May not be able to build exactly that to be frank, we don't want to build exactly that. We present ifer if not to have that beringer connection at all but that was an effort to try to accommodate staff's concerns. We know we're going to be back in front of you on a preliminary subdivision plan in a final development plan. You're going to get to take another bite at this an. We don't think the plan that is before you today is not approvable. We think it is perfectly approvable and we understand that it May have to change once we do that final design work, but, that's not what is called for as part of a parallel preliminary development plan. So I want to wrap up my remarks and I'm sure that you'll have a numb questions but I don't think it could be reasonably argued that r3 is inappropriate use of this site. R-3 is a perfectly almost use. Mix of units we're calling for are entirely appropriate. This area has been contemplated for a medium density housing development for at least 27 years. My guess it has been a lot longer than that. That's the earliest reference that I have looked at. Medium density mentioned in the 1990 board of adjustment report. Future development of the church can be accommodated with a compromise. And we from posed several that we thought might work. Stub has been there for 30 years. It is not harming anybody. Traffic engineering has said that we do not have to carry beringer all the way through. We have never contemplated a full connection. The only thing that's ever been contemplated was a cul-de-sac and frankly it is a cul-de-sac we don't think is necessary it is essentially serving one or two houses and we think our proposal is in accord with many goals and objectives of the 2013 comprehensive plan. Have any stated, just because staff is not wild about our design, doesn't mean it is not well designed. I think that the design professionals, the experience of atchison helder, this design while maybe not the preferred mode of staff is certainly approvable under your regulations. So I'll distribute to you some proposed findings of fact and conclusions of thank you would permit you to approve this development today if you were so inclined. And I think frankly that's the correct decision. There are issues that need to be worked out on this development and we're mindful of those but there are issues to be worked out at the time preliminary subdivision plan and final development plan, not as part to the zone change. The use here is appropriate. And we would ask for your approval of it and I thank you. >> I'm distribute these but in the interim I would be happy to entertain my questions or my clients. >> we'll give you a minute and see our commissioners have any questions for either one of you. >> tracy said that was reserve for this cul-de-sac. >> there is a note on a 1990 and a 2001 plat. >> is that a legal easement? >> it is not an easement. I do think that it is reflective of the intent to construct that at the time of future development. In fact I can read to you, because I -- >> but. >> this commission, if we were to okay these plan, does that -- >> I think it could be resolved as part of the preliminary subdivision plan. Obviously we'll have to bring in a plan, a plat to you to make these lots. I think that that's how it would be appropriately. >> it doesn't take an action by council. >> certainly not. >> >> jacob, I'm very aware of what great builders these guys are and they do a quality product and I don't necessarily have an issue with the layout or what is going on with all of that, and, we can tweak all of that. The thing that bothers me is, both sides are saying they don't want the cul-de-sac. There say loft of things in life that I don't want. But, there is a commitment made and it says, clearly on this plan, right of way reserved and I have new contacts and I can't read it but it is very small print. But my point is, this was agreed to and I'm looking at the final record plat, that is signed in January of 191. So I have a little bit of heart burn in the fact that there are aa lot of things in life that I don't want, and the can church doesn't want this and maybe atchicson-hell doesn't want but it was agreed to in 1991. The fact that there is a play ground built on it, someone made a boo-boo and that's not your client's fault and I understand that. But, there still is a reservation for this cull dea -- cul-de-sac. If that's worked out and it can be resolved, I don't have a problem with that either. But I do have a problem with the fact that it is stated clearly on this 1991 plan, and yet everybody is saying I don't want. >> I can certainly understand that certain. I can say two things in response to that because we don't want it doesn't mean that we understand we May not be required to do it and that's why you see the revised plan in front of you that has the extension off. And why we floated the other alternatives on the screen earlier that reflected emergency the ability to terminate or to do a more hammer head, we think efficient type cul-de-sac. They were explicitly rejected by staff. We're trying to final a reasonable compromise here. Returning to something I said in the presentation, we're trying to be a accident neighbor to people that have been there for 30 years. >> that's part I move hat burn, I don't think that it is fair that your client is trying to carry the whole burden on this. >> because -- but, that's my opinion. And I'll stick with it and that's that's my comment. >> >> I have minor concern and that can wait but there are two sets of professionals coming really close to calling each other liars, and this is something that I look for within the development process is good communication between the applicant and staff and neighborhoods. You get that, you get a plan that moves through very smoothly. When you don't have that, you get a plan that hits road bumps and this is one where I hate to even bring it up but it sound a lot like washington, somebody claiming alternative fangs. It is or it isn't. Did you communicate with staff or didn't. The staff is saying you didn't. We now have legal finings that need to be considered by the legal counsel. What's -- what's the harm in postponement of this, and, get these things ironed out. Get the lines of communication put together and take some of the heat off of it? >> we think this plan is approvable and the cul-de-sac alternative that's been given to you is approvable and to be frank, and I sat in that February 16 meeting, I knew that we would be having a discussion about beringer and I was hoping to be able to persuade you. The rest of the stuff, I've been completely blind sided by. I was handed the report seven minutes so I had no idea. while I agree that I think communication is important, think communication is a two-way street. We were open to proposing alternatives as I showed you. We brought if sketches and switched them out on the development plan to try to find a reasonable compromise. Now, you all know sometimes applicants are able to reach a come propiece with staff and sometimes we have to ask the planning commission to make a determination. We knew that was going to happen. With beringer, I thought they had been resolved at the time. We sent several e-mails asking for a revised staff recommendation. We never said, oh, by the way, we're concerned about man of war or by the way, we're expecting a flood plain study. We did attempt to move this process forward. We did not receive any response either. We were told here are the objections. The tracy e-mail that I gave you to or the objections brought to our attend -- attention. We did not know about these other things. >> >> the harm to answer your question, is continued delay. We knew that we had issues to work out. We frankly thought they had been resolved. In fact, if you notice the timing of that meeting was on February 16, we were hoping they would be resolved in time for your February meeting. but they were not so we voluntarily postponed. We did not receive any indication these were still issues. >> >> okay, anyone else? We'll have time later on for discussion as such. Thank you. At this time, we'll go to the citizens. Is nip here would like to speak? Okay. Are you speaking on behalf of or for or against? >> >> at this time it would be against. >> how many here are speaking for. Is anyone speaking for? Okay, how many would like to speak against? Just one. Okay. Well, let go, sir. >> we'll usually allow three minutes for comments. >> considering what all has been mentioned here today Mr. Chairman, and the council, I have a list of items that have not been addressed. If they have been addressed the public has not been made aware of it and I -- if you could pull up that first one, please. This is 1549 springfield drive. North side. >> your name is address. >> lane moore. 1549 springfield drive. >> thank you. >> >>this is the backside of my property. Okay. This right here, is a storm sewer inlet. which has been stocked up on occasion, and I ended up with a foot and a half of water in my outbuilding and a foot of water on my house. Show the staff side, please. This is the south side. My point hear run out of batteries. That creek, right at the very beginning there, of that creek, is a storm sewer outlet. Which actually feeds -- all right. That creek. My concern at this point is, how are we going to address that. If that gets the least bit of backup, guess whose house gets flooded? Mine. Now, there are several other issues that have not been -- I'm through with that that have not been addressed as far as I'm concerned. I've not seen any traffic reports at all. If you come out of springfield drive, sir, take the mic. It is on I think. >> is it on? >> springfield drive comes out here. I don't know how many times that I have been t boned because you cannot see around this curve. People leave this four way stop here, it is up the mid- @a >> this is difficult, hearing from the applicant and the staff, and quite frankly, I don't think in ten years of being down here that I have seen the staff united to the degree that they are, and -- with their recommendation, simply put. It appear these did provide e-mails that showed that march 2, Mr. Gross, this was just after the subdivision and zoning committee met that day, just after asked and they got a response, and, you know, as far as I'm concerned, it got dropped there, and I'm sorry to say, but I feel like it got dropped by the applicant. If there was a concern, they should have followed up and asked for a meeting. And that didn't happen. They keep referring to February but February was a long time ago. We all met in subdivision and zoning, and we recommended postponement. At this time I can not see this thing going forward. I'm willing to hear from the commission members but I'm willing to make the motion as soon as they are ready. >> >> I've been here longer than mike. And, my problem with this thing is the 5,000 foot thing. I've never seen the staff as strong on a zone change disapproval as I have seen today. Never have I seen this. We did away with the map amendments to give more flexibility but we said we were going to use the goals and objectives as the plan as a road map and our guide. We traded off. We did away with the map amendments and the maps and went to this form of zoning. I have never seen a situation where we have gone almost a month with no communication, and we have come in with this strong of a staff report. i have to look at that and think that's a place holder. And if that is a place holder and it didn't meet our fundament 58 requirements of our regulations, how can you bring it before us today, and ask us to grant the zone change, based on what you put out against what the staff recommended and ask us to go ahead and postpone or pass the development plan? I don't understand why you're doing this. I don't understand why we have heard this for two and half hours or whatever we've been here doing this. What you're asking us is what you two should have done together and this is not the way the planning commission works. Whether it is on the staff side or the applicant side. >> two more comments and after that we'll move it along. >> >> I'm not going repeat everything that has been said. I don't think this is fully baked. I think there is sufficient doubt amongst the members this would pass if it is going have an up or down vote today which legally we have to do. So I would make a suggestion that you give the an my can't five minutes to talk and give them the opportunity to postpone it. >> >> okay, that's a possibility if you want to consider that postponement. >> I would go along the the same lines. Maybe they want to -- we can continue to April 6 as a commission. >> you can continue until -- if they are agreeable you can continue to a date that you all agree on. I don't think that you have a meeting on April 6. >> so we don't have another meeting. >> no. >> okay so we can't do it. They have to agree to do it. >> I was going to address the client meeting situation and we've talked this issue to death already. The staff made their voice very clear, how they should go. It does not meet the process, that's why we're here. To follow the process. So, I'm in favor of the motion. >> let me simply say as part of the chair's position here, I too have been very disturbed about the possibility of -- I mean, there has been no communications here connected. There are several things that are not completed and yet, at the same time, we're asked to move forward on these different issues and the reason that I wouldn't say that you can confer your client because you've had almost several weeks to confer with your client. That is what should have been done all along. So at this stage of the game, I think that, I'm somewhat frustrated by that portion of the process. Mr. Drake, you have the last word. >> thank I, Mr. Chairman. My question is procedural. Do we have the option to postpone or disapprove? >> no. We do not have the option to postpone. >> we do if he'll agree. >> that's right. But I'm not even giving him that option at this stage of the game. I'm denying him that option. >> and we don't have any alternative. >> that's exactly right. You vote it up or down at this time. >> thank you. >> Mr. Chairman. >> yes. >> >> excuse me? >> I asked to make a motion. >> go ahead. >> wait. >> I'll tell you what, we'll still have a discussion after the motion. What's your motion? >> my motion for plan mar-1-2atchison heller is to support the staff's recommendation for disapproval. >> properly moved and seconded by Ms. Plumley that we disapprove of -- support the staff's recommendation of disapproval of pln-mar-17-2. Discussion. >> >> I'll ask the applicant if he wants to continue it? >> we're willing to do so. We'd be willing to do so. We're happy to. >> >> all right. >> any other discussion on the floor? >> wait a minute. >> he asked the applicant is whether or not he would be willing to make -- to postpone on his own. >> to continue. >> >> that's the point. In effect what he has -- we can't do it. But he could according to Ms. Jones, right? >> he has to be agreeable to a continuance or postponement because of the statutorily imposed time limit which expires on April 6 for action on this plan. So, if he is agreeable to that, which we need to definitely note, we just heard on the record, then you would have to continue -- I would recommend continuing it so you don't have to go back through the entire hearing if you're so inclined. And then, it will be continued to a date certain for the rest of the hearing which would then include some kind of discussion with the staff and a revision of some sort. >> I got it. >> unequivocally for the record, we'd be willing to so waive that requirement. >> okay. >> now, we have a motion on the floor. It has been properly seconded. So, we will vote on that motion and then, depending pong how that works out, we'll go back. Unless the motioner would like to take it off the table and make a new motion. >> I was going to ask, is that an option is. >> it is an option. >> if the motioner would like to take it off the table and the second agrees, yes, you can take it off the table. >> May I ask a question? >> yes,. >> I before I many motion was made, you denied the option for him to confer and give that response. Is this appropriate now? >> it is appropriate. The point that I was making here is that I was disappointed in the fact that they had not resolved this issue prior to coming to this date. In other words, it seemed to me that after all of the time that had elapsed they have had plenty of time in effect I would argue they knew this particular program was not ready to go forward when they brought it here. So, I felt like if they knew that, and that it was still pushing it, I kept feel that I had no obligation to do either up or down so it depends. >> it depends on the body. If you would like to tint, fine. But I was expressing my concern with the fact of this lack of communication. And, in addition to that, let me simply say this for the record: none of us here on the panel have frees behind our names that suggest that we're planners. So, when the staff makes a strong recommendation regarding anything, I'm inclined to go along with that recommendation. And for someone to come in and somewhat in a way, even in a nice way accuse our staff of not following through, I don't take lightly to that. I don't particularly care for that particular kind of attitude so that's a personal inflection. Now, having said that, if the bodying because this is the body, would like to remove the motion, it can be done. If not, we vote on the motion as it is, then we go from there. >> Mr. Their. >> yes, sir. >> procedural question. >> procedural, yes, sir. >> I want to make sure that I understand counsel correctly. I think counsel suggested that there was an efficiency and time advantage to postponement versus disapproval. >> >> tippians is the way. If you want to hear it -- >> that's my question. >> if mike takes his motion off the table -- I don't know who he could ised it, they are in agreement he would can make a motion to continue it and, which I would be. >> supportive of right now. >> because, now we have on the record the representative, the applicant saying that he agrees to that. >> okay. So, now, Mr. Owens what do you -- >> Mr. Chair, in accordance with what I'll say as your personal statement, a moment ago, I'm in title agreement that the applicant has not communicated with the staff in the way they should have. I'll let my motion stand. >> okay. >> Ms. Plumley second stand so now we vote on the motion and the motion primarily is for the review is that the motion is to approve the staff's recommendation for disapproval for pln-mar-17-2, atchison heller construction. We're voting for or against approval or recommending, you're voting either to support the staff's recommendation, or not. please vote when it comes up on your screen. 6-4 to disapprove, passes and the matter is concluded. >> Mr. Chair. >> go ahead. >> the development plan I move for postponement of 17-4 harper woods. ,. >> second. >> okay, it has been properly moved and seconded related to the development plan pln-mjdp-17-4. Harper woods. That we postpone the development plan. It has been properly move by Mr. Mike owens and seconded by Ms. Plumley. Any discussion on that motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion is approved by 8-2. 8-2 vote. Thank you. >> okay, we'll take about a five-minute re s and then come back in and finish our business. >> take a five-minute recess and then come back in and finish our business. It has been part part of the zone since the 1990 first writeup of it to make it a supportive use area, and a mixed use area. That includes adding residential to the mix on their property. And then, also, modifying the lot yard and height requirements of the zone. That leads to the greater U.T. Throughization of land, increasing the allowance and reducing the yard sizes from what is currently 50, 100 and 200 feet in terms of the front yard down to five feet on the local streets and then 15 feet for side yards. Increasing the floor area ratio, to a.75, and then, a eliminating the minimum size which is currently half ago,. And the last changes, the ordinance as drafted for revision today, would include now a report to the planning commission, so when a new building is proposed, at scold stream, it would go to their design review board, they would make recommendations and then that report or summary of the decision and recommendations would be forwarded to the planning commission when they came to the planning commission with the development plan for that particular new development. University park at M.I.T. Also has a mixed use development in combination with their office and laboratory building and in St. Louis there is the cortex innovation district which is a combination of work with washington university, st. Louis, university and the university of missouri and st. Louis. And this one is a little more research driven and not as residential. But, they do have space for rent for office use. These are things that are kind of on the cutting and end the university is asking the planning commission to consider allowing them to really be part of that paradigm shift. So, in terms of the rise of innovation districts, is sake take away was that neighborhood councils, would be wise to unleash the innovation district with the result of a step towarded bying a stronger, more sustainable, more inclusive economy in the early decades of the young century,. These authors followed up a year later, the first article in 2015 and second in 2016. And the follow-up was the more important message to convey now a year later is the imperative to combine and activate physical assets in ways that create vibrant places. Whatever your research part will be, we don't want it to be a stale environment for the university to feel confident about activating the space,er to asking for the text amendment so that's sort of the outside of just our fayette county lexington stance. The staff is recommending approval of the text that is in your notebooks and discussed last week at the work session, and, there are two reasons. Two reasons on the agenda about the -- three reasons. The staff is recommending approval of the staff alternative tax, united statestive of kentucky has a proven track record of economic development with over 1.3 million square feet of space. And over 2,000 employees at cold stream research campus and this text amendment will allow the university to more effectively use the land and compete with other research park across the country. The proposed text amendment will allow for higher intensity of use and still provide significant areas for open space, and for a mixed use village or residential dwelling units and then last, the text amendment will rename the zone to university research campus, to support the university and implementing their master plan for the cold stream research campus after 25 years, theirs is the only property zoned p-2 in lexington fayette county. >> questions. Are you ready? >> tracy, I don't know if this is to be directed to you or the counselor but I understood you had a work session to say that the only other p-2 we had was the south farm? >> >> the university, the only thing they would have to qualify is the south farm? >> they could probably expand the p-2 zoning here. They own property still inside of the interstate that continues over to georgetown. So, if the university -- >> I think that he's asking about the corner of man of war and nicholasville road. The farm there. >> thought that you meant other than that l^4\ JJy so this south farm location at man of war and nicholasville road is currently has an agricultural zone? >> right. >> so they could request a p-2 zone. >> yes. >> at that location. >> and. >> and the same apply to this because they own it. They own a lot of the land there. >> right. >> and jim duncan. >> >> this was a question that came to mind earlier. Does the south farm property have a land use recommendation with the south nicholasville small area plan? >> yes. It does the planning commission approved the south nicholasville, it approved a land use for south farm similar to what was approved for the farm. >> okay, so, the p-2 would not apply there or just a part of it? >> of course U.K. Could ask for a p-2 zoning but that's not what is recommended by the small area plan. >> okay. Thank you. >> >> tracy, you said that 40% is open space and 15 supportive uses. That's supportive uses or are there any required open space within that? >> they required buffering but one of the changes to the zone was to -- and I'm trying to find which section that was in. Special provision too, we were changing so no more than 60% of the pt project shall be covered with buildings and parking which leaves 40% for the open space, but I think that the open space can be grouped together. >> okay, so, it necessarily wouldn't require open space. >> true. >> okay. Thank you. >> >> any other questions or are you still trying to answer the other one? >> I did hand out a letter of support as well from the alliance. And I you one of those at each of your seats. >> I have one quick question. And it is getting out of the weeds. I appreciate the idea that there are research centers and parks doing this longer than we have but I was curious, do they use the -- did they get into some discussion or do we have any idea about how they handle their supportive uses along with their -- >> I did not dig into those zoning ordinances to find out how they regulated the supportive uses. >> no problem. Any other thoughts, questions? Okay, applicant. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, together we can answer any questions at the conclusion of my presentation. I'll apologize in advance. Usually when I'm fully in agreement with the staff and there not opposition in the room, I shut my mouth. But, today is not that day because I do want to make sure that we point out a lot of things getting lost in the weeds. Not necessarily of this but of past ZONTAs. The driver behind this is not supportive uses. The driver behind this text amendment is making a more efficient land use and a better designed research park. This is not about cold stream. This is about a better p-2 zone. I am not surprised that all of the p-2 but cold stream has gone away from it because of how restrictive the design requirements are in the p-2 as it exists today. What we're here to do, what does that lead. Al whole lot of space that is around the building that is not really useable open space. You're having huge front yards off of local streets, and you are having 50 foot side yards automatically, 50% open space requirement that as Ms. Wade pointed out is the most extreme in the entire zoninged or naps. And here is the big one. For employment driven principle uses, you have a.4 floor area ratio. P-1, is 1.3. You have for the supportive uses today, because again, supportive uses are allowed in this zone today. That's not time pactful here pause we already have 50 foot side lots but you want a 70 foot building building that is not unusual in a verge campus, you are then limited to a huge tract of land that based on how the raimondo ratios, you are isolating the entire use and there is no connectivity between two parcels of land as it is today. So that is what we have. Exactly what we talked about. Separation. Large lots, significant setback setbacks, green space just around buildings that is not truly useable. You have no pedestrian connectivity, all in all, you have a disconnected campus. That is not because of cold stream's design. That's not because of the property owner choice. that is because of the exact text of the ordinance. So, in the ten years that we have been looking at this ordinance, we have been trying to figure out what other places are doing. Ms. Wade did did an excellent job talking about the other research innovation areas. You go to work and you leave and you go back home. What these facilities are really designed for, is basically interconnected working with the other companies, where employees from all different companies are meeting together in the spaces, in the middle of these development centers. So, these benefits, what we have here, is increasing building density. Significantly. We're adding actual acreage of employment land. We are more than doubling floor area ratio of employment-focused principle uses and not support uses. We're doubling employment square footage. That is significant. Again the interior street design is a much better layout in order to create an urban kind of village. This type of end novation campus. The green space allows us to create destination green spaces. These social infrastructure is what I was just talking about that's what employers are really driving for is the ability for their employees to intermingle and to come work at a place they want to work at and they want to spend time at. So, with those benefits, what is lexington get? That's what the p-2 zone gets. What they get is more building density, and they want more employment land, higher density in a more efficient manner. And that's going lead to more jobs because that's where the driver is. You're creating more of the campus that is desirable and it is very clearly shown by the market studies that Ms. Wade was kind of pointing to. Makes it more affordable. They are not in the business of selling this land, smaller par simples and makes it more affordable now, again the green space. You're reducing the kind of just unuseable green space that just counts, and you're creating destination green spaces, that helps us to assess the entire community in our environmental sustainability goals. , this is the big drive driver when it comes to what the employer is looking for when they are trying to locate. I'm not going to get much more into it exempt to say that, remember this picture right here. As far as what the residential looks above the retail because that's going to come back here in just a minute. Normally I would stop talking now because that's what this is about. Up fortunately, I don't feel that I can stop right now. Because of how intermingles this text amendment has come when this was before you in August which is now still before the council. Folks, these are really different zones. Many of you were on the planning commission when the master plan came in to focus. You all know very well how different the expansion area is from the kind of what's inside the traditional urban service boundary as far as the zoning categories go. The amount of land that was focused on employment and the expansion area, versus residential that was discussed heavily, negotiated, that was the result of a community widen deafer. At this point while it is not some cement, how many zone changes have you seen in the expansion area? The implication to adding ed would wreck the program a little more than it already is. But, it doesn't happen. This employment land is fixed there is a finite amount in the expansion area. And that's not true inside the true urban service boundary. There are lots of different employment-driven zones. Now, I'm not saying that that means that you shouldn't restrict p-2. But what I am saying is that, there is a reason why you put additional restrictions on the zone that you do not need to put inside at the p-2 zone. One of the main reasons is that p-2 is heavily restricted much more so than the ed. Open space alone. Ed has 25% of open space requirement. That's it. We're at 40. Even in our wildest dream, we're at 40 because it is crucial that open space plays a vital role in a park-like setting. It is a campus-like setting. That is in the text for the zone goals now, and it remains in the text moving forward. Floor area ratio. Ed is at 1 and we're only asking for.75 expansion area, employment land, is finite. You want to use as much of that as uses. And also as Miss Wade pointed out again, this is internal to the site. We are not allowing them to be off any type of arterials. They are to basically access the collectors and local streets internal to the site so again it is employee driven I don't want to spend too much time on this. This is the last slide. The reason we think the restriction on the supportive uses is appropriate and the one that is proposed for the E.D. Is not appropriate for the p-2 site. I'm not criticizing it for the ed. Even at the work session it was mentioned well why aren't these two, why aren't the restrictions the same? I've gone over the kind of the point of why the land is so much more valuable, why you have to restrict certain uses when it is a brand new classification. I got to point out though, we are doubling employment land. We are not taking any away. The exact same percentage of the supportive uses is moving forward we are not gobbling up any extra employment acreage. We are not gobbling up any employment square footage. we are actually decreasing the ratio of supportive use to principle employment use because of that.4,.5 difference in floor ratio. So today authorized of employment driven uses. Under this proposal, that will jump to 10.8. That is a significant jump that should not be lost. This zoda is about increasing the employment land and opportunities the difference in acreage resfrixes, floor area restrictions, if you only limit something to floor area, you are encouraging a sprawl of uses and isolated uses. I say this because of mixed use building I pointed out to you earlier. You've seen it throughout lexington. When you have a mixed use building you have one story of retail, you got three stories of residential above it. Very typical mixed use building. Under the restriction placed in the E.D. Zone implemented in the p-2. You would need to put 16 times the amount of that size of retail of additional supportive uses to meet that restriction. What do you gain by doing that. It's sprawling out supportive uses and for what evil? To prevent the third story, to prevent a second story of residential? There is no true goal, no true evil that is being essentially eliminated by focusing only on floor area restrictions. If you do this on acreage, you are locked in so what are you encouraging, efficiency of that land. if you are doing this, make sure it is as efficient as possible. That makes sense to me. That's wise utilization of land. And we are not adding true supportive uses. We are adding types. We are saying that town homes could go in whereas before university dorms could go in, a brew pub could go in in addition to a restaurant. Restaurants are already allowed. Like the supportive use is not what is driving this text amendment. So in summary I got to point out what is going on in this room and what is not going on in this room. In this room right now the applicant and staff have the same opinion on what the text should be approved. There has been nine years in the making, gaps in that nine years but it's nine years in the making and we are on one page. You have a letter from the preservationists supporting a land owner. You don't have controversy swirling. You don't have a packed room. You have essentially all parties singing kumbaya right now. Lexington is gaining we are gaining employment land, gaining efficiency, better development standards, meeting the competition. You've seen the pictures of what this can become when we focus on innovation campuses, this is where lexington gains. What are we giving up? Absolutely nothing. The acreage percentage we are asking for is approved for supportive uses today. we are not giving up anything except some bad design standards that have led to, what I would call inefficient use of vital land. I'm happy to take any questions. >> on the 250,000 square foot ratio. You've met that, haven't you? >> yes. >> does that include the peace palace? >> what? >> the peace palace. Are you familiar with the peace palace? I knew you would... >> oh yes, we are still okay there. But why the phasing is important is when the next p-2 comes online, the tail is not wag the dog. >> I had to throw that in for a little fun. >> yes, sir, Mr. Cravens. >> you pointed out a lot, the buildings out there on real large lots. Do you see those lots some new uses being put on those lots. I don't know if that has been specifically studied because that's getting this cart way out in front of the horse when we don't even know if those design standards could pass. >> Mr. Owens? >> thank you. You mentioned dormitories, university dormatories. What is the thought there? >> there are none right now. They're approved in the p-2 zone, have been since 1990. >> any plans? >> there aren't right now but I just want to point that out from the very beginning it was always contemplated that these types of supportive uses, the exact ones we are asking for were always contemplated for this zone. That's another kind of just difference between us and E.D. >> thank you. >> any other questions for the applicant? Thank you, sir. >> appreciate it. Anyone else want to speak to this particular issue? Okay then we are back to the commission and we are ready for our additional discussion or a motion. >> Mr. Mick olson covered it really well in the committee meetings or work session and I asked and spoke of residential component here in correlation with the E.D. What he presented in his slide in the p-2 to E.D. Kind of showed in very clearly clarified the differences when you are talking about open space 40 to 25 and ff.A.R..75 to one, you know. This is still very restrictive. So I'm in favor of this. Willing to make a motion whenever anybody is ready. >> we're ready. >> Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of zoda 2016-7, the amendment to article 824 for the office industrial research park p-2 zone as recommended by the staff. We have a motion and second for the zota 2016 amendments. Any other discussion. If not please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion as proved. Mr. Nichols, I might say it is a personal privilege. I like this project. I can say that now that the vote is over. Okay. Next our next item is zota 2017-2 request by joel brown to add banquet facilities as a use in the community center which is our cz zone. The cc zone is permitted only in the expansion area. It's basically the equivalent of the neighborhood business zone, but geared towards our expansion area. Banquet facilities are not permitted currently in the zone or any other of the expansion area zones and the applicant believes that it would be an appropriate use to add to that zone. Banquet facilities were originally defined and started being regulated in 2007 with a text amendment to the shopping center zone and the mixed use zones. But it did not come into any of the expansion area zones. So the applicant is asking that that use be added and the definition is included on the staff report for what that is. And it does include indoor live entertainment by definition the applicant is not interested next panning the use to include outdoor live entertainment because the cc zone also has a requirement for residential. We felt there could be an inherent conflict if there were outdoor live entertainment where residential is required to be located. The staff is recommending approval of this very small addition to the zoning ordinance in article 23 a and the zoning committee also recommended approval two weeks ago for the following reasons. In the community center zone as long as outdoor live entertainment is not included the use will complement the other uses of that zone. Happy to answer any questions about this text amendment. >> any comments or questions for Mr. Wade. >> the new town pike has a 200 view shed setback. >> it does. >> if you include that in his plan, where will they park? >> at this point since it's just a text amendment we have not made assessments. >> it's in my backyard and we have property on new town pike. We know it's a setback thing. We know what is there. So just as a situation, that is my major concern because that is the only cc zone that... Well I know of another one. I wish they were more productive than they are. Other than that I don't have any problem. Are you allowed to park in the view shed, build a parking lot in the view shed? >> I don't believe they are. Bill, did you have a... >> I think that was an issue when the expansion area plan was done, there were a few renderings that indicated parking would be allowed in that new town pike view shed but my recollection is the way the ordinance is drafted, a paved parking area is not permitted. >> Mr. Owens has a question. >> as a follow-up. This goes forward. Will they have to bring anything to us as far as parking or any development plans or anything? if they're making changes like a parking lot, it would require a development plan change and you would see it through the development plan review. If what they are proposing does not require any fizz al changes, chit sounds like your assessment is that it would at some level, they could get a permit. >> very good. As frank mentioned, living and working in the neighborhood for a long time, you know, in general I don't have a problem with this. It just seems like there is a lot going on on that property and, you know, parking would be a concern as far as I'm concerned. Thank you. >> Miss Wade, we'll resolve that very quickly. We'll park on their property. That's all. >> Mr. Penn's property. >> you would have a hell of a walk. >> if the applicant... >> Mr. Chairman, dick murphy on ber half of joel brown the applicant and his sister jamie foxx. They're both here with me today. We are in agreement with the staff recommendation. Answer that question, the parking or the scenic area out there is in the E.D. Zone. This is in the cc zone. So that, you know, our parking is going to have to be in the zone we are in. I think that takes care of that issue out there. But anyway, I could go on about this but it's 5 clinton 16 so we agree with the staff report and we would be happy to answer any further questions. >> any questions for Mr. Murphy? Anyone in the audience have any thoughts about it. Okay, fine. Then we are ready for a motion here on this end. >> Mr. Chairman, I move approval of zota 2017-2 banquet facilities in the community care cc zone. This petition, I recommend approval. >> it has been properly moved and seconded that we approve zota 2017-2 banquet facilities in the community center cc zone with the reason provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on the monitors. Motion carries. Thank you. Commission items. Okay. >> just one more. We'll try to go as quickly as possible. Pfr for the bluegrass airport car rental agencies. Should be on a blue sheet. Y'all should have a copy of that. >> tab 7. >> I'm sorry. Tab 7. This is the bluegrass airport car rental area. Currently they have several car rental agencies in this area and they're wanting to remove the car agencies, the parking and everything that's there. They want to redevelop the property, redevelop it, put in new swails, new detention ponds, they're also proposing to take air freight drive, which you see on the aerial there and they're going to extend that more and create a cul-de-sac at the end for a turn around currently that they don't have. After they do the grating and the redevelopment of the land they're going to come back in with three new rental car agencies, office space, they propose one-story buildings, 23 feet in height and then they have, since they have three different agencies, the smallest agency is looking at and 00 square feet to I believe 7200 square feet. And they're also going to add buildings for maintenance and car washing. Each of the rental agencies will also have their own gas pumps, and they'll have above ground tanks in their areas. They will have parking for customers and for their employees and then they'll have parking for the freight cars and they will all be in fenced in areas. And after reviewing this with the comprehensive plan, it met several of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. The lexington bluegrass airport is one of our rural activity centers and this does meet with the rural land management plan. In summary, we believe this will meet the redevelopment will meet the lexington -- the bluegrass airport, this will be a benefit to the city of lexington for the community, for the services there and then for our visiting people that come to our community. With that I'll leave that to you all. If you have any other comments or questions. >> cheryl, is that why they're building the entrance in front of keenland to bring the rental cars in? >> I don't know. I've been asked that question since I got the report. I have no clue what is going on. >> this gentleman here is from the airport. He can answer it. It wasn't part of the plan that they showed I didn't know I was going to be up here. Apologize for my casual dress. The entrance is in fact only temporary as a construction staging area for some airfield work that we are doing. Once that work is done, the left turn lane from U.S. 60 will be restored back to a median so it will not be an entrance but it will be a permanent exit for development, everything from some horse traffic which is our only cargo primaryily here at electricsingtons and some of the tenants so it will be a safe exit on to U.S. 60 at the light. >> and the parking garage where the rental cars are now is it going or staying or... >> the entrance or exit at U.S. 60 has nothing to do with the rental car. Very different part of the property. These are the service centers. This is the back operations that most people never see. So when you leave your dirty car half filled with fuel, the rental car agencies take from it the terminal area to these existing facilities, fuel, vac, wash them and simply we are replacing like with like. A little further south on air freight drive and adding a little more capacity for storage. We are having a great times in this community. We are experiencing record passenger traffic and expect that for the next few years so these sites are being developed for the next 20 years of growth. >> but when do you that, what will you do with the parking garage where the rental cars are now? >> that is the rental car ready return lot that you would get in your vehicles. That is staying as is at this time. >> that's what I was trying to figure out. >> any other questions? Thank you, sir. >> thank you. Anyone in the audience have any discussion about this item? If not we are ready for a motion on this one and of course the motion should go with findings, I'm assuming. >> Mr. Chair, I move for approval of or recommend approval of pfr 2016-2 the staff report for bluegrass air rental car facilities, recognizing the summary findings. >> you said 2016. You mean 2017. >> well, I'm sorry. I guess I do mean 2017. I was reading off the blue sheet though. >> the blue one? >> that's... The blue sheet says 2016. I think it is 2017 to be correct. >> okay. We got a motion on the floor from Mr. Mike owens second by carolyn plumlee that we approve pfr 2017-2 lexington bluegrass airport. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion carries. Okay. >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next and I believe the last item on your agenda is on page 8, item b, initiation of the text amendment for transfer of commercial landscape administration and enforcement. This is an item that we did discuss with you at your work session last week and we have provided to you the memorandum and copy of the proposed text. The memorandum from susan pflueger, the director of the division of environmental services. This is the same text we looked at last week. If you'll recall most of the proposed changes article 18 or just in the naming of the staff members and the divisions responsible for that going from building inspection to the division of environmental services. There are a couple of other slight changes to the text including one provision of the sub. If the commission were to initiate this text amendment today, the staff would need to notify all the registered neighborhood associations before would you have a public hearing on it so that would be several weeks if not a couple of months or more from today's date. i would be glad to answer any questions if you have any before you consider whether or not to initiate these changes. >> any questions? >> Mr. Cravens? >> are you ready for a motion? >> oh well, if you don't have any other questions for him, yes. >> if I May, one thing, since susan pflueger has been here probably most of the day, I think we need to recognize her and let everyone know she was here and didn't slip off and go elsewhere this afternoon. >> and she May even have some comments for you. >> well, any comments? >> I haven't gotten to make a motion all day. >> we'll let you in a minute. >> reserve the motion. >> I will. I've done that for others. [Laughter] >> I'm just glad to have survived until 5:26. It's really cold back there. Just to summarize what I mentioned at the last meeting. This transfers responsibility for insuring faithful implementation of the zoning ordinance as it relates to commercial landscaping from building inspection to environmental services. Years ago there was specified commercial land scape examer position in building inspection but that position was lost at some point years ago due to downsizing and so the staff had to make up the difference. They still had to implement this portion of the ordinance but they lost a staff member in doing that. when council reestablished the position, they established it in environmental services and so we filled it and now we are going through the process of moving all of the responsibilities from one division to the other. Okay. Mr. Cravens. >> I don't know if I want to make it now. >> oh okay. >> I'll make it for you. >> Mr. Chairman, move initiation of the text amendment for the transfer commercial landscape administration and enforcement. >> okay moved by Mr. Cravens second by Mr. Plumb leigh we initiate the text amendments for transfer of commercial landscape administration and enforcement. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Anything from Mr. Duncan? Do you have anything else from the staff. >> I'm sorry Mr. Chair we are just too engrossed over here. We have another work session next week. The second one for the month. And at that time we will be talking to you about the vacant land inventory and some updates on the table for the comprehensive plan and I believe we have another discussion about changes to the zoning ordinance related to the board of adjustment. And we will be in the phoenix building. We will not be in this room and we will be on the third floor. at 1:30 on thursday. >> thank you. >> any other business. Without objection the meeting is adjourned.