As we stand together, I promise forever till the day that I die. You are the love of my life. I spent a lifetime waiting Always hesitating Until you I was lost so deep inside my shell Till you came and saved me from myself Now all I really know is I need you You are the love of my life You are the reason I'm alive The End Cause it's my generation, baby Why don't you all fade away Don't try to dig what we all say I'm not trying to cause a big sensation I'm just talking about my generation If the world just passed us by Oh, baby, I know I wouldn't have to cry, no, no. The best of times are when I'm alone with you. Some rain, some shine We'll make this a world for two Our memories of yesterday will last a lifetime We'll take the best, forget the rest And someday we'll find These are the best of times These are the best of times The headlines read, These are the worst of times. I do believe it's true I feel so helpless Like a boat against a tide I wish the summer wind Could bring back paradise But I know If the world turned upside down Maybe I know You'd always be around my mind The best of times Oh, when I'm alone with you Sun brings sunshine We'll make this a world for you When I'm alone with you, everything's alright. I will never learn with you. When I'm alone with you, you're brightening up the light. The End Thank you. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the November 9th, 2017 Urban County Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to welcome all those in the audience, all those on the commission, as well as staff. Would ask for one slight moment of personal privilege here. November 11th is Veterans Day. Is anyone out there a veteran? Please stand. All the veterans. Anyone on the commission a veteran? Please stand. Anyone on the staff? Let's give all our veterans thank you for your service and we honor you today and we salute you it's November the 11th but we're not going to be able to meet that day I hope and so we're on our way you had the minutes circulated for August the 31st, September the 7th and October the 12th, any other additions or corrections? Ms. Plumlee? Thank you Mr. Chair Move approval of minutes for August 31st, 2017, September 7th, 2017, and October 12th, 2017. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Promley and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson that we approve the minutes of August 31st, 2017, September 7th, 2017, and October 12th, 2017. Any other discussion on the motion? Here you go, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Postponements and our withdrawals. Yes, sir. Mr Chairman, members playing commission, Rory Kaley with EA partners. Page one, first item. Major subdivision 17-55 NDC property unit 5 request an indefinite postponement Indefinite Okay Why? Well there's this thing about street closure It's going to take a while Okay, got you Mr. Chairman Yes I move indefinite postponement of 17-55. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Cravens. We have an indefinite postponement by Mr. Mike Cravens, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy. Any other discussion on the motion? I forgot to ask, anyone in the audience have any issues with this particular agenda item? Okay, if not, then vote when it please comes up on your screen. Indefinite postponement grant. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, on page four of your agenda, item B, this is Major Development Plan 17-70 Zandale Shopping Center and Greenleaf Motor Lodge property. We have received a request from the applicant for a one-month postponement. Although we did encourage them as well to the wisdom of an indefinite postponement, they were unable to verify that, but they do wish a one-month postponement. That would be what's the date on that? The date would be? December 14th. December 14th, okay. Anyone in the audience like to discuss this particular agenda item? If not, we're ready for a motion from the commission. Ms. Plumlee? Mr. Chair, move postponement of PLNMJDP 1770 Zandale Shopping Center until December 14. Ms. Plumlee has moved. Mr. Patrick has seconded that we postpone for one month until December 14, PLNMJDP 17-70 Zandale Shopping Center and Greenleaf Motor Lodge properties as amended. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Thank you. The motion carries. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Ms. Wade. Thank you, Chairman Wilson, members of the commission. Our next item for your consideration is the consent agenda. There are four subdivision items on the consent agenda today, as well as four development plans for your consideration. and i will read through these and then we can consider if anything needs to be pulled off on the consent agenda the first item under final subdivision plans which are recommended for conditional approval by the subdivision committee is found on page two item b this is a major subdivision plan case number 17-62 for cadentown and also horace and tyrona d nelson property The property is located at 791 Caden Lane in Council District 6. The second item is on page 2, item C. It is also a major subdivision for case number 17-63. This is a subdivision for Henry Clay Boulevard, lots 6 and 7, amended, located at 1586 Delaware Avenue. Next item is found on page 2, item D. again a major subdivision for case number 17-64 for the Sebastian property unit 2b this is located at 2944 Trailwood Lane and then the fourth item is found on page 3 item e also for the Sebastian property case number 17-65 for unit 2c of that property with the same address of 2944 Trailwood Lane moving to the development plans they start on page four first item on your consent agenda is PLN excuse me page four item C PLN MJDP 17-100 for Fountain Plaza also known as Eagle Creek office plaza unit 2 lot 12 this is for medical vision Institute located at 181 prosperous place next is page 5 item E and actually all of all three items on page 5E, F, and G. PLN MJDP 17-102 for the Sharkey property. That's Unit 1, Lot 6A, and this is an application for time to shine car wash located at 1776 Sharkey Way. The next item is also a major development plan, 17-103 for Woodward Lander, Unit 1A, found at Lots 142 and 155 and that is an amended plan located at 3180 sandersville road and 3104 daily place and then last page 5 item g pln mjdp 17-105 and this is an application for the ted r osborne and thomas wood property also known as mill pond unit 1b section 2a and also known as willow oak and that has a property address of 3900 Boston Road. Those are the eight items that the Planning Commission can consider all at the same time in one motion for a conditional approval unless there is a commission member, a member of the audience, or one of the petitioners that would wish to have one item or several pulled from that consent agenda for further discussion. I'll ask the audience if there's anyone present who wishes to have an item or the Commission pulled from the consent agenda. Seeing none, I think the commission can proceed. Okay. We'll entertain a motion to adopt the consent agenda provided by staff. Mr. Brewer? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll move for approval of the consent agenda. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Brewer and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee that we approve the consent agenda provided by staff. Any other discussions on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. That motion carries. Okay, the first thing I guess we'll hear will be on page three. while they're setting up for that one unless there's an objection go to page six performance bonds letters of credit Mr. Cravens Mr. Chairman move approval of the bond release and call of bonds Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Craven, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richens, who had the release of Carla Barnes. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when that comes up on your screens? Thank you. That motion carries. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Mr. Martin. Members of the commission. This doesn't seem to be on. Is it on? Can you hear me? Normally I can. There we go. I know you can hear me without it, but that's the first item on today's agenda is on page three. It is a major development plan, 17-58 for the Henry Clay subdivision. You will find at your seat the handouts we have given you for this particular plan. This is a final development plan that's been proposed for property on Delaware Avenue. You can see the frontage along Delaware at Lagonda Avenue, which is going to back into the Henry Clay subdivision on Delaware next to the railroad tracks. It is an adaptive reuse proposal, proposal. And that's one reason there's been a series of postponements on this plan was the applicant's effort to bring it into compliance with the zoning requirements for an adaptive reuse. And you will find, too, the little memo that we provide to you that specifies those items that they've met to bring it into compliance with the ordinance. In this particular case, we have a microbrewery located here. It's over 6,000 square feet, existing operation. We have a parking lot in this location loading and deliveries on this side of the building. This was, to a certain degree, part of the problem in that they are proposing to do activities in farmer's market and that sort of thing in this area. This building did not, however, comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance for adaptive reuse. It's a relatively new building, and they're not actually proposing any new use here. So the applicant worked with his neighbors, spent a lot of time working with folks, and he brought this building in. So now we have a building here and here, and that's not unusual. As usual, we have other adaptive reuse projects in our community that have buildings on the same street across from each other in proximity to each other. This is an existing building. It does meet the age requirement and they are proposing professional office use as opposed to the existing use at this time and this is an I-1 area. By bringing this building in, it helped them meet the requirements of your zoning ordinance on an adaptive reuse. This building is over 7,000 square feet. The parking, they get a big parking break, as you all are aware, and adaptive reuse for these properties. There's seven spaces here. They are existing. They're not as located as well as we would prefer, but they are existing. And then we have, as I pointed out, parking in this location, 18 spaces being provided. Here's a patio area as well. We have reviewed this. Your staff has. we're making a recommendation subject to conditions you see on the gold page there's a couple of items that staff would like to have clarified on the plan in this area back here is a community garden and we think staff thinks that's a wonderful idea particularly with an adaptive reuse to have a community garden we want that well defined we'd like to know exactly what they mean. This is a final development plan, how large an area for the community garden, because there's a lot of activity back here. There's a drainage easement, there's green area, there's grass, this area, there's trees. We're not, again, we'd just like to know exactly to what extent they are proposing this community garden. In conjunction with that, you'll see a condition that states denote a safe and well-defined pedestrian access to the community garden. Very simply, you have a community garden back here next to the railroad tracks. Here's your public right-of-way. Here's your community, you know, folks, neighborhood folks. We certainly don't want them walking back through the loading and delivery area. This is a very active business. So we would like them to denote a nice clear safe walkway for folks to get back to the community garden along those same lines again this is connected this is the area they're proposing for a festival market activities and that sort of thing but they're proposing a gravel area they'd like to have the purpose of that gravel area clearly resolved with staff because frankly it just looks like additional parking on a gravel lot and we're not absolutely on board with just a gravel lot. Parking needs to be paved, it needs to address stormwater drainage, etc. And this is well over an acre and they'll have water quality issues to address but here we do have a large existing government drainage basin so we're fairly confident that they'll be able to utilize that in terms of their quantity control but the size of this lot there's a lot of green space ought to enable them to meet their water quality requirements with that staff is recommending approval of the development plan and based on the little memo that we've handed out to you we would also recommend that you do approve a finding that this plan does meet your adaptive reuse criteria and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff any questions for mr martin mr martin when you were when you were describing that you said it's a p2 use and an i1 is that what you said as an adaptive reuse that would be the new use in that building, which is allowable under the adaptive reuse. So you can't have an office space in Iowa, standalone? As an adaptive reuse, yes. Otherwise, there are square footage requirements and issues associated with an industrial activity. Any other questions? Yeah, just a minute. Ms. Mundy. So where's the artwork? That's an excellent question. I'm glad you asked. Public art. And we've had a lot of discussions over the years about public art. And they're proposing an area right here, which is, again, close to the right-of-way, close to the area where they're going to have activities and that sort of thing. And the applicant is here, and I'm sure he would be happy to elaborate on the nature of that art because staff doesn't want to impose any certain type of art on anyone, since it's a very subjective thing. But what we like is that it's open to the public. There it is. That kind of was our intent all along. Okay, good question. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Applicant? Please come to the... You haven't been through this procedure before? Okay, then give us your name, address, social security number, your bank account, check-in account, and then we'll take it from there. Okay. But your name and address would be important. It's Kevin Compton, and address is 646 Cooper Drive. Okay, great. Do you have anything to say about the plan, maybe the artwork? Not in particular. Well, there is a local artist in the Kenwick area that I would like to see if I could get something, some work of his. Kiptee over there. He does some wood sculptures that I think would be kind of interesting. Okay. You're going to assure us that it will be in good taste, right, for somebody? It's out in front of my business. For somebody, right. Yeah. Any questions for the applicant? Just as a matter of record, you note the conditions. You're in agreement with all the conditions provided by staff. Okay. Great. That's it. Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay, then if not, I'll close that part of the commission, bring it back to the commission for additional discussion and a motion. Ms. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of PLNMJDP 1758, Henry Clay subdivision with the conditions as presented by staff. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Mr. Larry Forrester, that we approve PLN MJDP 17-58 Henry Clay subdivision, Dolly Land Company, LLC, adaptive reuse with the 13 conditions. Also, could I ask you to add to your motion the findings? note that this particular adaptive reuse meets the adaptive reuse criteria. Could I ask you to add that to it? I have no objection to that. Okay, thank you. So the motion will read the approval of that particular plan with the 13 conditions identified by staff. With the findings, note that the project must meet the objective reuse criteria. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing that, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Martin, Planning Commission, as we move along on page four of your agenda at the bottom of the page and extending over to page 5 is Major Development Plan 17-101, the townhouses at Jefferson Street, Phase 3, also known as the Preston Subdivision. And you will find your lovely light blue handout on revised conditions on this plan as well. What you may recall that's interesting about this plan is it started out as a zoning development plan, And it was discovered that the ordinance that rezoned this area, downzoned it, did not actually include this parcel, which is fortuitous in that regard for the applicant particularly. So it is an R4 zoned piece of property. As you no doubt recall, there are townhouses under construction. And this location right here, B1 property up on the very corner of Jefferson and Maryland Avenue. This is an existing access easement that serves this development as well as you know they come through off of Jefferson as well. It will serve this development. And you can see, again, it's almost a mirror of this townhouse development with the units. The units will be 35 feet maximum in height. Each floor in their two stories is a little over 700 square feet. There's actually two models. One is slightly larger than the other. This is a preliminary subdivision plan as well because they will subdivide. Their intent is to subdivide these properties, and this will become an access easement to serve these units. These are fronted on Maryland. It is in the infill and redevelopment area, and one of the conditions that you see of approval would be they have to meet the design requirements for residential development in your infill and redevelopment area. There's very specific design criteria that they have to choose to meet when they do residential development in that regard. And again, they have a five-foot setback, which is allowable for townhouses in the infill and redevelopment. They have documented their open space per unit. There is a requirement when they subdivide that they have private open space. Balconies play a major role in these developments, but they also have some yard space that helps with that calculation. We do have a cleanup condition, which is to correct their tree preservation or protection plan. They've added the information, but they have a couple of comments here that says their canopy is to be determined. Well, yes, it will be determined, but it needs to be on this plan. That's a number that is required in their plan. So that's just a minor correction, but it's something they will have to provide before this plan could be certified. There are a couple of items that you can see that need to be resolved. and I am going to address number 12 first and that is the stormwater requirements that need to be resolved to the Division of Engineering and Water Quality and and what we have learned and they're very aware of this as you all this is a very old part of town and the stormwater facilities are are small or non-existent in some places this development had to build an off-site stormwater facility a drain to serve this development so it's very very likely that they will follow suit they might possibly tie into that one that was built and by the way it was built in the right of way is where they had to build it so they had to go through that and deal with all that but that that's how they've addressed the problem but we just wanted to bring that to your attention and again they are very much aware of the need to do that and going back to condition number 11 resolve the supplemental landscaping along the western boundary this is r1e down here we have r2 article 18 addresses the required landscaping between r4 and r2 what's interesting is article 18 doesn't address r4 to r1e i won't speak to that oversight it happened many many years ago but again staff is concerned about that they're proposing eight feet in this location and staff would like to resolve that we're not and we've discussed this at length particularly it with among ourselves and to a certain extent with the applicant about their options a wall evergreens and staff would be particularly concerned if they get a tree in there it's going to have some heights to it it's going to maintain some opacity all year round plus it's going to be shady it's another thing we would be concerned about and we've even discussed the possibility they could offset some of it to make it work in there because there is an elevation change this is currently an open area kind of a little park-like area next next to the residents and we are aware that the residents are concerned with the appropriate landscaping in the buffer as they should be relative to their property so with that staff is recommending approval of this plan again with a resolution of the adjoining landscaping being particularly important mr. fan has a question for you mr. Martin that access easement coming off Maryland Avenue that's a two-way I'm sure out and in how wide is it double check 22 feet okay and it currently functions as two-way I understand but the other building is not there yet that is correct yes sir okay I didn't I didn't think it looked that wide thank you Tom in looking at this you know you're one way in one way out in the new development park and has fire looked at this and they're okay with it and there's plenty of room in there turn a big truck around if we need to yes ma'am they reviewed this from day one and along the access i would remind everyone that this is connected to this one and people could actually utilize this access as well which brings you all the way out to jefferson oh but oh yes ma'am they have thank you they're not here today you know they're both on vacation at the same time Our director won't let us do that. Okay, let's move it along. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? If not, thank you. Mr. Applicant. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy, representing the developer, Jeff Morgan. Jeff's here in the second row, and Elizabeth Sen, our landscape architect, is with us as well, and Kevin Phillips, who I don't think is here today, is our surveyor on this. and you may recall we had submitted this as a zone change but it was determined that looking back at the records from 15 years ago this property had been omitted from the down zoning back which happened in 2002 so as a result of that we're withdrawing the zone change but we still have to have the development plan approved obviously to be able to proceed with the project. This is a continuation of Jeff's development, which is right next door. If you've been out Maryland Avenue recently, you've seen the new townhomes coming up where the old YMCA building used to used to be. This will look very much like that, except the two rows of townhomes will be able to actually a little farther apart on this one than they are on the one which has already been constructed. That one's going well. The Jeff has sold seven units of that already, and the first people are moving in this weekend, as I understand. He's attracting people associated with Transylvania. He said there's a lawyer going in there and some tech people and a nurse, and so it's going to be a real good addition. I was talking to one of the neighbors yesterday who lives around this area, and he complemented the project, and he noted that Jeff is providing a lot of additional residential units to the project without displacing a single existing resident of Maryland Avenue, and that's really quite remarkable to do. And we're real excited about this, and it's going well. We have reviewed the development plan matters. We're in agreement with all those conditions. We're aware that before certification we're going to have to have the drainage issue resolved about which way it's going. We had that same issue with the first part of this, whether it goes down Jefferson Street or down the other direction. And Jeff is having the water specialist look at that to determine that as well. and as far as the landscaping we do plan on submitting our plan for additional landscaping along the side yard line over and above what's required i guess i'm hearing not much is required but we're we're going to do extensive landscaping along that side yard line because we're aware of that issue right there we're jeff has met with a number of the neighbors on this project and But that's where we stand. We'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience would like to speak to this particular? Just a minute. Hang on a minute. Excuse me just for one minute. I apologize. Here are e-mails that we received concerning that landscape. And we just wanted to enter those into the record and thought you ought to get them while that discussion was going on. Okay. I think we have a couple of people who would like to speak to this particular issue. If you'd come forward. Ma'am, you have to. Oh. I haven't seen this yet. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the Urban County Government Planning Commission. Thank you very much for letting me speak. What's your name? My name is Twyla Martins. I'm a property owner and resident at 540 Maryland. My husband and I, we have three properties on the street. We moved in there in 1984 when I was working on my masters at the University of Kentucky and we've lived there ever since. More of us wished that we could be here today. We thought we had until the 30th of the month to come and speak with you and to get our people organized. But because of the find that there was no longer a zone change needed on the 530 Maryland, it was moved up within this week to today. So we haven't had a lot of time to prepare. I have a petition and I'd like to read that. I circulated this, Twyla Martins, homeowner and resident, Maryland Avenue. We, the undersigned Maryland Avenue property owners and residents, are requesting that the Lexington Fayette Urban County Planning Commission take into careful consideration the compatibility and impact of the townhouses at Maryland Avenue and Jefferson Street into a residential area of single level one family dwellings with limited parking before more townhouses are built. As Maryland landowners and residents, we are concerned about the transition of the building heights of the proposed building with the red brick, which is a historic vote house. He built the vote real house up at the fire station and his home is on the street. So we are not in the historic overlay, but we are on the National District Historic Area. So we have concerns about this building and what happens next to it. And we're afraid that having a building another story taller than this and that out closer to the street will bury that beautiful home. We're also concerned about the setbacks because of that and the loss of mature trees and green space needed for rainwater runoff and absorption. We would like to see a 25 foot offset from the 534 Maryland Avenue line to preserve a permanent green space. This would keep more of the existing mature trees and would lessen the effect of the height and street setback differences between the proposed townhouses and historic vote house at 534 Maryland. I have one, two, there's a single signature on another page, but should I turn in my petition? Order. Okay. So it's two and a half pages of owners and residents. Yeah, they're signed back. Then Mr. Morgan has stated his view that the townhouses will stabilize Maryland and we'll have more homeowners that live on the street and that Maryland Avenue does not have a parking problem. What I've seen is residents requests for variations to create parking in their front street. I have a copy of the variation that was accepted where people have now parking in their front yard because of the parking problem. Also, as I was doing my petition yesterday, I was speaking with Tommy Allen, who's the minister at the Lighthouse Church and has the house next to the church. And he says that he's afraid that they're going to have to sell the church and they're going to have to move because of the parking, the lack of parking. Also at 544 Maryland, they've put their home on the market because of lack of parking. We have the apiary at the top of the hill, which does valet parking all down Maryland and Second Street and other areas. And 2nd Street and Miller Street have both gone to residential parking only during certain hours. I can't see where Maryland won't have to go that route too. So I have all those concerns about the parking and then I'm not sure which thing we're working on, but I'd like to read from the 2002 Urban County Planning Commission staff report and recommendation regarding the petition for zone change of Maryland Avenue. R4 zoning allows development at a much higher density than currently exists in this neighborhood. As such, it would inadvertently encourage the conversion of one family residences to multi-resident properties, which is often perceived by residents as a degradation of the neighborhood. Although many of the properties in this subject area are rental properties and many others obtain industrial, commercial, and professional uses. More than half the properties in the area proposed for down zoning are single family detached residential uses, which is what the residents wish to preserve and maintain. We still do. The land use element of the 2001 comprehensive plan recommends medium density residential use for the area with selected properties being recommended for high density residential use or retail trade and personal services recognizing the existing uses of those properties. The existing density of the area, which is approximately five units per gross acre, will not be allowed to change dramatically with this industrial properties redevelopment at a later date. It should be noted that the residential density was calculated with the entire acreage proposed to be down zoned 23.3 gross acres, however, properties that are either vacant or nonexistent in nature were not included in the calculation which results in a lower overall density statistic. One more paragraph. In some cases, existing nonconforming uses can be changed to other nonconforming uses. However, they can be no more intense of a use than already exists and must obtain board adjustment approval, which is prior to any change to another nonconforming use. And any nonconforming use may be continued, if not abandoned by the property owner. If redevelopment at medium density residential uses up to eight dwelling units per gross acre would be permitted. But with the R1E and R2 zoning, only single family dwellings or complexes. This would help to ensure the level of density that is recommended by the comprehensive plan for this area and would prevent allowable increases in residential density above eight units per acre. So this is pretty much Greek to me, but my interpretation is that the proposed additional townhouses that, along with those already constructed puts the density on the street much higher than the land use element of the 2001 comprehensive plan recommends. So, is it possible to instead of building units that already, couldn't we build the unit that's already approved, the retail section that's already approved, before we build and see what the impact is on the street before we build these additional townhouses? Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Anyone else would like to speak to this? Yes, sir. Hi, Sean McLaughlin, 535 Maryland Avenue. I'm Twyla's husband. My concern, and I haven't seen the plans yet because things did happen so quickly, is what the elevation changes are going to be. Although we're talking about the townhomes that are 35 feet tall, right now the public health care is going to be. part of the townhomes that have been built are extending down the street is on a hill, it's on a slope. And they're actually on a terrace. And the building that's going to be taken down and where the renovation is going to occur has got an elevation of about eight feet. And if they want to continue that level slope as the slope of the street goes downward, that elevation is going to increase. And as we move towards the vote house, we're going to have a fairly significant height differential on the terraced land versus what the current street level is and what the current level of the land is. So that extension with the 35 feet on top of that terrace could be very significant, and that's part of the street silhouette that Twyla mentioned that's a concern for us. So that's part of why we were asking for an additional extension on that border of those properties that may impact the plans for the number of units they'd like to put onto that property. The open space right now at 530 that we were going to talk about them changing the zoning on was originally the side yard for the vote house and it's never been built on. So it's never had any construction on it and so it has been a long-term piece of green space that we've had in the neighborhood. And when we lose that, I think we will have impact, but obviously there's concerns about rainwater runoff now. We're seeing quite a bit. I'm seeing quite a bit of change because of the construction that's already occurred. The old Y drained its water out towards Jefferson Street as opposed to Maryland Avenue. Right now, while the construction's been going on, the water is running down Maryland Avenue. We don't have any storm sewers there, as was already mentioned. And we have very, very poor curbs. The curbs were never rebuilt on this street, so we have many cases no curb at all or very, very small amount of curb. So this high volume of water is flowing down and into front yards that's moving down the street, so that's a concern as well, how that's going to be addressed. But I think that ties into the elevation concern for the land and how they will ask that water to drain out to Jefferson, which is actually, it will end up at the end of 530 at that edge there, a couple of feet higher at least. So those are my concerns. I wanted to share them and just ask them for some consideration of what those offsets would be and how we'll handle these impacts to the neighborhood. Okay. Thank you. If you're not familiar with our process, what we'll do is allow the petitioner to come up, and this is what we classify as a rebuttal phase, and the petitioner will say it, and then we'll give you another shot at it. In other words, if you don't want to add some additional things later on, you can do so, and then we'll end with our staff making their final pitch. Any questions? Okay. then petitioner we understand the concern since this is a change in the neighborhood this is a photograph of what's on the property right now. This is the building owned by Christian Care Communities, which was an adult day facility. You can see it's a two-story siding building, relatively modern vintage, which they closed that down sometime last year, and Mr. Morgan has purchased that with an existing building, as you can imagine, the purchase price is fairly high, but that's going to be demolished to make room for the new townhomes, the continuation of the development that's already there. There's been discussion of the property next door. If we can show the next slide. This is the property next door to us. I think it's 532 Maryland Avenue. I just brought that in. I've got it a little too dark. But see, it's a two-story with a third-story, what do you call the bend in the roof there, the gable in there. So it's a substantial building as it is. We talked about the relationship of the heights. This is a substantial building with good height on it itself. It's apparently three stories being used. If you go to the next picture, I want to show the side yard relationship here. the uh I could rotate that around the here's the our our project is over here on the left side I just brought that in to show that the side yard of the this is a house I just showed you without the full height on it they have their driveway over on the left side this is there's a substantial space between their building and the side yard and our side yard requirement is five feet in the R4 zone We show this on the development plan as eight feet on our property and just talking to Jeff during the discussion by the neighbors and it's designed so that it will not disrupt the sunlight on this house right here. So we've taken a lot of things into account. We will be submitting a landscape plan for that side yard for the eight feet to the staff prior to certification. And if we can't come to some agreement with the staff about it, it will have to come back to you. I'm sure we will work out an agreement because Mr. Morgan wants to spend enough money on the side yard to make it well, very well landscaped. That is, it is a large side yard now. It's been a private yard for the Christian care communities. It's not a public facility. It's a private yard right now. As I said, there will be 12 townhomes on this property. The question was raised about parking here. Our development plan, which is before you, shows that we have 12 required parking spaces. We go by the R1T requirements even though we're in the R4 zone, and we have 12 required parking spaces for our 12 units. How many spaces do we provide? We provide 36 parking spaces on site. We've got this parking supplied three times more than the requirement of the zoning ordinance is supplied off street on site to this property. So we're not going to be contributing to any on street parking issue on Maryland Avenue. I've been out there. I know people do park on the street on Maryland Avenue. They certainly do. But we are supplying 36 spaces for these 12 units, where only 12 are required off-site. The front units on this are going to have two car garages each. The back units will have one car garages each. And then there's additional parking, as I mentioned to you as well. So we are covering the parking requirements. As far as the density, we are working within the density allowed in the R4 zone. We're not asking for any variances on density and that sort of thing. We're not asking for any variances in front of you today at all. On the drainage, Jeff had to work this out on the first part, which is just over on this side of the property, and he will be working that out again. He's going to engage vision engineering, which, as you all know, is very good in hydrology here to determine how we will serve this. And obviously we have to have that worked out prior to obtaining any building permits on this property. So we are aware of the issues. We are aware of the issues on the property because Jeff has dealt with those on the existing townhomes that he has under construction right now. And we think we're solving those in a very responsible way. We are not requesting variances to put more units on this property than is allowed in the R4 zone. We are over-parked, which is good, I think, because we won't be contributing to the parking issue on Maryland Avenue. We will have the side yard of 8 feet, which is over and above the requirement, and we will be doing additional landscaping on this property. So, as I said, I understand the issues, but I think Mr. Morgan has been very conscientious about addressing the issues on this. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Okay, just a minute. Mr. Murphy. Sorry, I seem to be full of questions today. Do you know how tall that existing building is right now? The one next door that I showed the photograph of? white building the existing building that's on the property it's two stories Jeff is estimating 30 feet 35 35 feet they'll be a little little taller okay thank you any other questions for mr. Murphy okay to the members of the community if you all have additional thoughts you might want to come up and or some or a few if you like what you heard fine if you didn't you can still offense to mr. Murphy we've been here before Sean McLaughlin again but my concern is when we say that that building is 30 feet tall if we if you recall that I don't have the slide before call back from that slide that we just saw that building was built on a hill the ground the street level was built up and that building the back care center or adult it was originally back here center adult daycare center is on an elevation on the side of the daycare center where it goes to the old existing was originally the side yard for 534 there is a seven foot high terrace there is a stone wall there was originally a foundation for a building that existed on the site when it was actually the Preston Inn which is what the neighborhood is named for so there is right now a terrace level of seven feet. I estimate, I haven't measured it, a seven foot drop off from the level of that adult daycare center down to the level of the lot, the 530 lot that they're going to build the townhouses on. And so my concern here is how are they going to continue that grade from the existing grade that the 16 townhomes have been built on down to accommodate these additional 12 how is that grade going to be maintained as it comes down our street so what change is going to happen there because the street slopes downward i would presume that they would continue that relatively level like unless they want to to make it i haven't i haven't had a chance to review the plans to see what that would be i believe that have a much greater impact than just the height of 35 feet that's been mentioned that's what my concern ones. Okay. So just to state that that's what it is. Is there is a terrace now. We would add that additional height. However that works out depending on what level degree of flatness they want to maintain as they continue down the street. And that's not clear to me. Okay. Thank you. Staff rebuttal. Just a minute please. Right now the staff if you are are you all relinquishing your rebuttal you have no more nothing else to do okay now what I'm gonna do is open it up to our Commission members to ask you all any questions that they may have that might go to the applicant it might go to you whatever mr. Penn I'd like for mr. president to come up here and talk about the grade level yeah that's okay I think we did you we have questions this is a question and answer session so So if someone, if you, yes, sir, if you'd like to. My name's Jeff Morgan, and I'm the applicant. This is a partnership with another builder and developer in town, so I'm in the front development as well as this, so the ownership is a little different. I live out in Charlesburg, and I was glad to see Caden Lane get a lot too, by the way. Excuse me, sir. Take the microphone with you. Yeah, because, okay, thank you. I know it's a little odd. I built a few houses in Caden and lived over there for years. So I've built this townhouse layout several times in the city. this is going to be similar down here to a little bit less severe like next to the JDI how we transition the last townhouse on that development down this unit here we don't have handrails on it so we were able to to step out of our front door so we're not far off the sidewalk here if you understand so we're not too too elevated I do need to maintain this elevation here as it relates to the garages this will keep our site up and take all this water to Jefferson Street so we did about a hundred thousand dollar stormwater system here and it's designed to plug this in and we have improved Jefferson Street we put a very large stormwater improvement on Jefferson so if there's any more development on Jefferson they get to tie into the system that we put in but we need to bring this water instead of it getting on to Maryland all the way to Jefferson today we paved this development so all of the water in this development now can get into the structures and go where it's supposed to go so as of today we are paved in so I have to start here because of this existing grade and I have to come up here this is the easement that needs to maintain stay open and I'll transition this grade down and I will have to elevate this unit a little bit but I don't believe it will be very severe I'll have to let my engineer do the grading plan to make sure I hit the parking lot But I would say I will have handrail here, and I'll try to transition the steps down. The building that is there now is terraced, is the word that was used. But if you take the building, it's a two-story building with a gable. It's 30 feet from the top of the platform, the grade where they built it at. So that 30 feet doesn't include the terrace. So if you included the terrace, it might be 37 feet using the number. But on the JDI development, I used the side of the townhouses, and we do a nice masonry gabled end wall. And then this parking lot will have maybe a three-foot retaining wall. So this neighbor here, I've spoke with her and provided her some plans to help her understand what we're doing. Her house is here. She'll look out and she'll see the side of a townhouse. She'll see the side of a townhouse. And she'll see a three-foot-ish retaining wall. And then we'll do a fence on top of it. I have committed to this neighbor that we will dedicate funds because I understand that they're losing trees. We are able to keep all of the larger trees on the back and several of the side trees that are there already, but we do have to take the trees in the middle out. And so I've dedicated to her, committed to her, that we will dedicate some significant funds to really develop this well so that she looks out and she sees a landscape as good as I can buffer it. That's my commitment to her. I hope that answers the question. I'll retain the grade with this unit and this unit in the parking lot, and I'll still hit this street with minimum handrail. So it really works well. It's hard to see it now. I've done it before and I can make this work very well Okay, thank you Any other questions from the commission? Ms. Plumlee Thank you Could we have the forester come forward Address the tree issue Thank you Good afternoon. Could you explain a little bit more about the trees? Is that going to be adequate canopy, and is that arrangement permissible? I have met out on site with the petitioner, and we are probably going to have a net loss of tree canopy just because of the amount of existing trees on this property. He is attempting to preserve the larger trees that are around the rear property line that he just spoke to. One of the things that I was concerned about in meeting with him on site was, will he be able to meet the 30% tree canopy requirement for residential zoning, given the amount of density here? So I don't know if the petitioner was planning on trying to speak to that. I know his landscape architect is here. But, again, there's several trees that are going to be removed, none of which are really significant. There's a few walnuts and hackberry and maybe a few black locusts, but nothing of real significance. Can there be supplemental canopy to replace those in? Yes, and I think he's planning to have a fairly detailed landscape plan, but I have not seen that yet. Thank you. I have a landscape plan if you want to see. I think we can easily meet the 30% canopy. Can I rebut you? To the mic. you want to blow this up maybe here can you do yeah I don't know I'm not a tech one thing that we we learned on and I speak about past projects because you do projects and you learn we have expanded these landscape areas to try to put in trees and landscaping to soften this ends up becoming a really decorated kind of area and we've already done that over here I feel very confident that we can keep I think there's three trees on this side we can keep all of the back one thing that's nice about this building is this rear building here is really really tight onto the existing Jefferson Street place whereas this building here which is good for these neighbors they get between 16 and 19 feet on a backyard which will buffer them so because I get more space back here I can keep the perimeter trees and between our plantings here and our plantings here and our plantings in here I have no doubt that I meet the 30% canopy requirement one quick question if I could you can meet the 30% canopy you had us put something up on the screen there is that what you were yes between this is what you're seeing okay just this this area here okay and then i would have existing back here and then we'll have trees in here this will probably be more bushes and we'll do street trees because we've scooted the building back a little bit because we want to we want a strong streetscape we do nice landscaping and the wrought iron and really try to make it make it look nice okay thank you any other questions from the commission members okay if not then i will close this part of the hearing we'll bring it back to the commission for additional discussion and our emotion mr berkley how you going berkley mr chair i'm going to move for approval of this plan MJDP 17-101 with the 12 noted conditions by staff. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Will Berkeley and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve PLN MJDP 17-101, the townhouses at Jefferson Street Phase 3, Preston Subdivision. Any other discussion on the motion now would you please vote when it comes up on your screens motion carries let me say to the people the citizens that came up today you know I don't know how to express the thank you for coming and and presenting and I hope that you know by the questions that we ask that we are deeply concerned to make sure that developments that go in are the kinds of things that we would like to have in our own community as such so I know you didn't get what you wanted per se but we We do appreciate you being here and thank you very, very much for your comments. To the developers, let me say this too. I don't usually make editorial comments, but I kind of like it in terms of its structure. I think it will add a lot to the community. It fulfills what we are looking for in terms of infill development and it does it in a responsible fashion. I commend you for that as well. Thank you. Okay, we've got a couple of other minor subdivision plans. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, on the rear, page six of your agenda, the back page of your agenda, staff is referring to you, a minor subdivision plan. This is a development plan specifically, 17-38 Melrose Edition. We have handed out the yellow sheet for you with some conditions for approval of this plan. This is an adaptive reuse located at Thompson Road in Manchester with the railroad, and it is across from the distillery district. This is the borough here. And there's one piece of property here across the railroad, and there's Manchester Street. So this is the music venue, the borough has been quite successful. This is an adaptive reuse, and they brought this as a minor plan back to staff because what's actually happening is they've changed a couple of uses. A doggy daycare, and I'll refrain from editorial comments on doggy daycares, but they got a doggy daycare and a workout facility and again so they brought this minor plan in to change these uses they fall within the adaptive reuse and it adjusts their parking requirements as well and that's the reason the staff has brought this back to you today you all are very much aware from your last meeting discussions we had about the parking issue with the distillery district in manchester and pedestrian safety you can see the layout here they're redoing their parking lot they're kind of realigning it a little bit and restriping it and they've moved some parking in this from this area where the athletic facility is going and this outdoor training area had a lot of had some parking in six or seven spaces so they're moving it around and now they're proposing a net loss they're reducing it by 10 parking spaces now they're still meeting their required because as you know they get a big big break in adaptive reuse and they are in fact exceeding their requirements but because of it's a reduction in parking and you all are very aware of staff's concern about the distillery district now they came to the subdivision committee and this plan was presented your subdivision committee wasn't acted wasn't asked to act on this but they did present it and it was discussed about how they're managing their property and the efforts that they are undertaking to make sure that things function safely on their property and i would add that because of the discussion we had in front of you all about the distillery district staff participated in a meeting with that applicant's attorney as well as our commissioner and discussed the parking on the distillery district the timing of that parking as well as a pedestrian facility from that parking lot over the east parking lot into the rest of the distillery district and there is i can report to you there's a plan of action that's now been agreed upon to address that issue and that issue will be addressed over time as well and i wanted to give you that background in that context to let you know that the presentation of that plan discussion in front of this body certainly made an impression on the distillery district folks but again staff was not comfortable with with dealing with this as a minor amendment because it is a reduction in parking and because of that issue however we have reviewed it we've discussed it with traffic engineering and we are comfortable with recommending the approval of this plan it's a slight reduction in and 10 spaces to you. But again, we just wanted to put it in the context and explain to you again, the concerns that exist in the area and how this how this particular development falls in into that that concern. Mr. Penn has a question for you. Mr. Martin, by reducing that 10, that's based on the current use or the projected use for those different buildings? Yes. The dollar daycare and all the rest of the gym. Yes, sir. Do you see if the use of those buildings change, is the overflow parking going to park on Thompson Road? It could change as uses change, and part of the discussion that we had is the management of those uses and the timing of those uses. And that is part of their justification for the reduction in that. The distillery district, again, is a good example of how this one could function as well. That parking has gone up and down on the distillery district based on the changes in the uses. So that's exactly what's happened here. To follow up on this, are we creating a situation where Saturday night the overflow parking talks here and walks down the street? I think the applicant might be best to address that and how they're managing that. That's a question. That entire area is, as you know, that's why staff raised that issue on the distillery district. It is a concern. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Mark McCain with S. Mark McCain RLA. I do have some exhibits I'd like to handle. First of all, I'd say that we are in agreement with the conditions that have been set forth, but as further discussion to what we're talking about, when this plan was filed. You can see the that that what was out here was mechanic shops and junk cars. And if you just keep keep strolling scrolling through Tracy, you can see what we were dealing with at the time. The client did not have any tenants for these areas, so we filed the plan and we put what the use was, which were mechanic shops. Since that time, as you will see, they have gone in, they've they've cleaned this place up and they've gotten some new clients. Uh, as Tom said, a doggy daycare and uh, uh, a uh, uh, athletic facility and of course the borough. So if you just can't see them real well, but it certainly has cleaned it up quite a bit with those change in uses. Obviously it changes the parking requirement. Now, yeah, there was a reduction, but you gotta keep in mind we're still 10 spaces. I think 10 spaces over the required parking. Uh, also they have lighting there on on the premises at night and they have signage that restricts parking to this facility. Uh, so we we we feel like that this plan is in compliance uh as set forth and we would ask that you would uh approve the plan any uh yeah mr pan has this question that i i have no doubt that you're in compliance the problem is we have the history of what's happened on manchester street and all the plans in the world are in compliance are fine until people start walking down manchester street on Saturday night. And I've been out there quite a few times. And if I just had to go to Thompson Road and Park to get to the other part of that venue, I wouldn't think twice about it because it beats the heck out of parking on the side of Manchester Road or pulling up on the curb of Manchester Road. So I guess what I'm asking is, is that as we continue to develop this, I don't think we can do this just on a piece-by-piece basis because we know the parking is not adequate for the other uses there. It takes one Saturday night trip to make you see that. So my question to you is this. Is this going to be open on Saturday night when the doggy daycare might not be the place or when the exercise might not be the place? Is it going to be an overflow parking for the rest of the Manchester Street development? because they're walking down Manchester all the way from Pine Street. Yes, sir, and I have no doubt about that. I haven't been out there, but I'm sure that that does occur. They do have signage that restricts parking. Also, with the uses that they have, it's kind of staggered. If you think about the doggy daycare, the athletic facility, people are getting there very early in the morning for the athletic facility. then they're leaving then people are coming about that time to drop off their dogs they pick them up in the afternoon you've got some of the athletic facility used late afternoon then they go home and then you've got the borough open at night so other than signage and and the lighting for safety I can't attest to what you know anyone else will do. I understand that the lighting is extremely important because we're not lighted well on that whole area down there. So the more lighting you can put in that the better. I just want us to be proactive on what we're doing here rather than have a bad situation have to be reactive to it. And we know there's a problem. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. It matters how you deal with it going forward. And I'm going to read into this unless you tell me differently that that will be overflow parking on the weekends for some of the other businesses that are there. Is that a fair statement? Well, I don't I don't I don't think that it is a fair statement. I don't know that it is overflow parking. As I said, they have signage that restricts it to the uses for that for those facilities. uh same way that you have um parking lots in in other areas certainly down on pine street where some of those uh facilities are you have tow trucks that go around that tow you so you're counting on pulling out of that lot if they're walking to another business i'm sorry you're counting on patrolling that lot and pulling cars out if they're not using I would have to defer to my client and ask him that, but as I said, they do have signage in place. I understand the signage, there's no doubt about that, but there's a lot of people out there on Saturday night, either Kane or won't read. So my question to you is, I would hope that you'd use it as an overflow, but if you're going to pull cars out of there, we kind of need to know that. Mm-hmm. This is Mark Fisher. Mark Fisher, 938 Mason Headley. Yeah, we were very concerned in regards to who the new tenants would be as these buildings became rented out. So we would work with you all as you request in regards to any parking. And as Mr. McKean mentioned, it was our concern of who the new tenants would be. And we're delighted that they don't cross over that much. so it's more of a daytime usage for some of the businesses and a nighttime usage for the other so thank you any other questions mr. Berkeley I just followed you all have not entered any kind of agreements to provide overflow parking spaces on this site correct anything across the We have not. All right. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Please. I would just, again, from the Chair's position, since I've seen another situation similar to this one, and I guess I've had some personal experiences because, quite frankly, overflow parking was into another business lot, and quite frankly, the business did not operate on the weekends. But what it required is for the restaurants nearby to place these little signs in the window saying if you park there, then you could be towed away and what have you. One cold night, I guess I must have missed the sign. I was towed and it cost me about $100 or so. And then I couldn't figure out how to even get out to the grass towing and what have you. So I hope that overflow parking will be accommodated in some way. Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak to this in the audience? Thanks a lot. My colleagues here are not helping me out. Any other questions for the applicant? No other questions from the audience? Okay, thank you all. We'll bring it back. We're ready for additional discussion or motion from the commission. Are you all still talking about parking over here? Are you talking about ready for a motion? Yes, sir. Well, I don't care. Just someone make it. Make something. I'm going to make a comment before I make the motion. I know that there is a parking issue down there. In fact, I was down there last Friday myself. But I don't think it's fair to punish another property because of something that I'm going to say maybe we've allowed to happen or has not gotten put into place as quickly as that area deserves maybe. There is an area down there that is forthcoming that is more parking on the other side of the big five-story building, so I'm looking forward to that and probably won't be back until that's done after my experience Friday night. So with that said, I'm going to move for approval of PLN-MDDP 17-38, Melrose Edition, am I doing the right? Yeah. Melrose Edition, Block F, Lots 10, 11, and 12 with the three items as noted by staff. Okay. has been properly moved by Ms. Mundy, seconded by Mr. Larry Forster, that we approve PLN MNDP 17-38 Melrose Condition Block F, Lots 10, 11, and 12, with the three conditions identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay. Thank you. Motion carries. We've got another one here. Thank you. all right good afternoon this is a minor development plan also we had a little after reviewing we found something that we needed to bring in front of you all this property is md mndp 1739 this is for the ndc property unit 1b lot 19a we are located over off of reynolds road Ruscio, Way, we have the railroad tracks, Myers is up here, we have a bank here in the corner. They had a proposed building here, a two-story building. Now, they came in to do a revision as a minor, and you can reduce your square footage. That's not a problem on your buildings. They did reduce their square footage, but what happened was they increased their lot coverage when they did that. So instead of having the original building said 4,900 square feet on the first floor, and when they reconfigured it, because they were redoing the lot layout, the parking, what happened was this building got larger in the first floor, so it's now 5,100 instead of 49. Therefore, that throws it into making it a major because we've increased our lot coverage. So that is why we're bringing this into you all. otherwise they decrease the square footage for the building on an overall so we just have a couple conditions for them to revise so that we can get this minor development plan signed i'll leave that open to you all if there's any comments questions any questions from ms gall well no you're not going to get away that easy uh one quick question this is uh this Really what we're talking about is 200 square feet. Yes, sir. That's about seven. Yes, sir. So that still fits into what we classify, or at least from the staff's perspective, as a very minor kind of activity. Right. I mean, it's very minor. It was, like I said, it's just increasing the lot coverage because what they took the building as being straight up. They made the upstairs smaller and increased the first floor, and we didn't catch it right away. and after looking at it a little bit more, we figured out the lot coverage increased, and so we thought we'd bring it to you all just to have you review it. Okay, so you're asking for our forgiveness, aren't you? Well, maybe he should be asking for the forgiveness. Okay. Any other questions for Ms. Gallup? Applicant. Good afternoon. I'm Chance Staley representing Midwest Engineering. First, I'd like to ask for your forgiveness. I like the way you're starting off. I apologize. We have agreed to meet all conditions. Okay. Do you understand why I asked for forgiveness from you all this? this did not go I don't believe this went before your subdivision plan did it but usually all these types of things do but that's okay we understand the word minor and the staff is in agreement with that any questions? okay if not thank you any comments from the commission or if not we're ready for a motion Mr. Chairman, move approval of Plan 17-39 with the conditions. Okay, three conditions by staff. Okay. We've got a motion by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Mrs. Karen Mundy to approve PLNMNDP 17-39 NDC Property Unit 1B, Lot 19A as amended with the three conditions identified by staff. Any other questions or discussions on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay, the motion carries. Thank you. You have our forgiveness. Moving down the line here, what we'd like to do next, if it's agreeable with our commission members, is move to the amendment to the 2017 meeting and filing schedule. We'd like to amend that. And the reason why is that if we do it right, we won't have to come back here next week. and what we're going to do is if it's agreeable with you, the item that would have appeared or potentially brought us back next week, we'll cover that after we adjourn the official meeting here. It won't take too long, but we'll get that taken care of and then that way we'll have a good two-week vacation. Does that seem to be agreeable with everyone? Yes, sir. Okay. With that said, I thank you. Then we'll take item B, amendment to the 2017 meeting and filing schedule. It says the Chair will announce that the Commission will consider an amendment to the official meeting and filing schedule for 2017. What we're saying here is a work session schedule for November the 16th, 2017 is requested for cancellation. Do I have a motion on that by Ms. Carolyn Richardson? Mr. Chair, I so move. Okay. Mr. Laris-Forrester seconds. Ms. Carolyn Richardson moves that we adopt this amendment to the 2017 meeting and filing schedule. Any other discussion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, thank you. Now, with that, we've already done that. What we'll do now is, without objection, adjourn this particular portion of the meeting, and then we will have one other item on the work session. So at this time, we're signing off of the TV. We've officially closed the meeting that we had today, and we'll start taking up our work session item as it is. Thank you. Thank you. I'm board certified emergency physician Dr. Ryan Stanton. I'm also the medical director for Lexington Fire and EMS. Today, we want to talk about the worst drug abuse crisis and epidemic in U.S. history. The opioid abuse crisis, starting with prescription pills and now moving on to heroin and other substances that are killing Americans by the thousands. Today we want to talk about how we got here, how opioids act on the body and cause addiction, where we go from here, and more importantly, how do we recover those that are addicted and prevent further addictions down the road. The idea of addiction is one way