# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - May 24, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 24, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4523 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4523?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-05-24 - **Last revised**: May 24, 2018 - **Length**: 29,014 words - **Speakers**: One Other Thing > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on May 24, 2018, at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Chairman Wilson presiding. The commission addressed four agenda items during the session, all of which were approved, including zoning map amendments for Winchester 836, LLC and Overbrook Farm, LLC, a new tower construction request, and a zone change initiation request for the Chevy Chase neighborhood. The meeting included eight recorded motions and votes, demonstrating active deliberation on the various development proposals before the commission. Two members of the public provided comments during the proceedings, contributing community input to the decision-making process. The session concluded with all four major agenda items receiving approval from the commission. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included eight votes, all of which passed by voice vote with no recorded opposition. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:00] The Chair moved to approve the minutes from the April 26, 2018 meeting, which passed by voice vote. **PLN-MAR-18-00006** [timestamp: 01:30] Mr. Owens moved to approve the zone change for Shoppers Village of Richmond, LLC, seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer. The motion passed with approval contingent on reasons provided by staff. **PLN-MJDP-18-00034** [timestamp: 02:00] Mr. Owens moved to approve the development plan for Brock McVey & Barry Dotson Property, seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer. The motion passed with six noted conditions. **PLN-MAR-18-00002** [timestamp: 03:00] Mr. Brewer moved to approve the zone change for Overbrook Farm, LLC, seconded by Mr. Berkley. The motion passed with conditions provided by staff and a density cap of 319 units. **PLN-MJDP-18-00008** [timestamp: 03:30] Mr. Brewer moved to approve the development plan for Samford & McCracken Farms. The motion passed with 17 conditions, striking condition number 12 and adding a note regarding parking. **PLN-CELL-18-00001** [timestamp: 04:00] Mr. Owens moved to approve the cell tower plan, which passed by voice vote without conditions. **Cell Tower Variances** [timestamp: 04:30] Mr. Owens moved to approve two variances for height requirements related to the cell tower, which passed by voice vote. **Chevy Chase Overlay** [timestamp: 05:00] Mr. Frank Penn moved to initiate an overlay for the 100-200 blocks in the Chevy Chase neighborhood, which passed by voice vote. All motions were approved unanimously through voice votes, with no recorded individual vote tallies or opposition. ## Public Comment Two residents addressed the commission during the public comment period, both raising concerns about a proposed development project. **Alyssa** spoke first [timestamp: 02:30], expressing frustration with the notification system for residents regarding the proposed development. She stated that she did not receive any official notice about the project and only learned about it through social media. Alyssa raised concerns about whether proper notification procedures were being followed to ensure residents were adequately informed about developments that could affect their community. **Eric Lambert** followed [timestamp: 03:00], focusing his comments on infrastructure concerns related to the proposed development. Lambert urged the commission to carefully consider the timing of the development in light of existing sewer capacity issues in the area. He questioned the logic of allowing development to proceed before necessary sewer system upgrades are completed, suggesting that infrastructure improvements should be prioritized before additional development is approved. Both speakers highlighted procedural and infrastructure concerns that they felt needed to be addressed before moving forward with the development proposal. ## Contested Items Two development-related proposals faced significant community opposition during the May 24, 2018 meeting. **Overbrook Farm, LLC Zoning Map Amendment** The proposed zoning map amendment for Overbrook Farm, LLC generated substantial community concern. Several residents attended the meeting to voice objections to the development proposal. Community members raised three primary issues: increased traffic congestion that would result from the development, questions about the adequacy of existing sewer capacity to handle additional development, and concerns that the project would negatively impact surrounding property values. The specific details of the zoning change request and the ultimate decision on this matter were not provided in the available meeting data. **New Tower Construction Request** A cell tower construction proposal also drew opposition from affected residents. Nearby property owners expressed concerns about the proposed placement of the tower, citing potential negative effects on their property values. The community opposition was significant enough that at least one council member also voiced concerns about the tower project. The residents' primary objection centered on the tower's location and its potential impact on the surrounding neighborhood's property values. The final outcome of this tower construction request was not specified in the available meeting information. Both contested items reflected common community concerns about development projects, particularly regarding infrastructure capacity, traffic impacts, and property value effects. The level of community engagement on both issues was notable, with multiple residents taking time to attend the meeting and formally express their objections to the proposed projects. ## Winchester 836, LLC Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 01:00] The commission reviewed agenda item V.B.1.a, a zoning map amendment request submitted by Winchester 836, LLC. Chairman Wilson led the discussion of this ordinance item. The review included examination of the staff report, the formal application submitted by Winchester 836, LLC, and the applicant's written justification for the proposed zoning change. The materials provided the commission with the technical details and rationale supporting the requested amendment to the municipal zoning map. Following their consideration of the presented materials and discussion of the proposal, the commission approved the Winchester 836, LLC zoning map amendment. The specific details of the property location, current and proposed zoning classifications, and the scope of the applicant's justification were not detailed in the available meeting materials, though these elements were part of the formal review process as indicated by the agenda structure. ## Overbrook Farm, LLC Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 03:00] The commission considered agenda item V.B.2.a, a zoning map amendment request submitted by Overbrook Farm, LLC. Chairman Wilson led the discussion of this ordinance item. The commission reviewed materials that included a staff report, the formal application from Overbrook Farm, LLC, and the applicant's written justification for the requested zoning change. The specific details of the proposed zoning amendment, including the current zoning designation, requested new zoning classification, and property location, were not detailed in the available meeting materials. The discussion proceeded through the standard review process for zoning map amendments, with the commission examining the staff's analysis and the applicant's rationale for the zoning change. No specific concerns or objections were noted during the deliberation process. Following their review and discussion, the commission approved the zoning map amendment for Overbrook Farm, LLC. The approval allows the property to proceed under its new zoning classification as requested in the application. This zoning map amendment represents one of several land use decisions made during the meeting, reflecting ongoing development and land use planning activities within the jurisdiction. ## New Tower Construction Request [timestamp: 04:00] The commission reviewed agenda item VI.A.1, a new tower construction request that included both a staff report and variance consideration. Chairman Wilson led the discussion of this matter. The item was presented as a discussion item requiring commission review and action. While the specific details of the tower location, height, or applicant were not detailed in the available materials, the request involved both standard construction approval and a variance component, suggesting the proposal may have required deviation from typical zoning or construction standards. Chairman Wilson guided the commission through the consideration of the staff report and associated variance request. The discussion resulted in approval of the new tower construction request, indicating the commission found the proposal met necessary criteria despite requiring variance consideration. The approval suggests the commission was satisfied with the staff analysis and determined that any variance requirements were justified for this particular tower construction project. ## Chevy Chase Neighborhood Zone Change Initiation Request [timestamp: 05:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item VI.B regarding the initiation of a zone change process for the Chevy Chase neighborhood. Chairman Wilson led the discussion of this item, which included a staff report and presentation on the proposed zoning modifications. The commission reviewed the request to begin the formal zone change process for the Chevy Chase area. Staff presented their analysis and recommendations regarding the proposed zoning adjustments for this neighborhood. Following the presentation and discussion, the commission approved moving forward with the zone change initiation request for the Chevy Chase neighborhood. This approval allows the formal zone change process to proceed to the next phase of review and public input. The specific details of the proposed zoning changes, community input received, and staff recommendations were presented as part of the agenda materials, though the extracted data does not include the specific zoning classifications or boundaries involved in this request. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of minutes from April 26, 2018 meeting - **PLN-MAR-18-00006** — passed (0-0): Zone change for Shoppers Village of Richmond, LLC - **PLN-MJDP-18-00034** — passed (0-0): Development plan for Brock McVey & Barry Dotson Property - **PLN-MAR-18-00002** — passed (0-0): Zone change for Overbrook Farm, LLC - **PLN-MJDP-18-00008** — passed (0-0): Development plan for Samford & McCracken Farms - **PLN-CELL-18-00001** — passed (0-0): Approval of cell tower plan - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of variances for cell tower - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Initiate overlay for 100-200 blocks in Chevy Chase neighborhood --- ## Full transcript No matter which way do I steer Thinking of the fear I've had so long When somebody hears Listen to the fear that's gone Strangled by the wishes I paid her Hoping for the arms of later Get to me the sooner or later I'll keep holding on I'll keep holding on Holding back fear A chance for me to escape from all I've known Holding back the tears Cause nothing here is wrong I've wasted all my tears Wasted all those years Nothing had the chance to be good Nothing ever could, yeah I'll keep holding on I'll keep holding on I'll keep holding on I'll keep holding on It's your time All right Come on out Well I've wasted all my tears Wasted all of those years And nothing had the chance to be good Cause nothing ever could go on I'll keep holding on I'll keep holding on I'll keep holding on I'll keep holding on Holding, holding, holding I said Ooh, that's all I have to say It's all I have to say The End Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We're like at this time to call the Urban County Planning Commission zoning items public hearing of May the 24th, 2018 to order. First of all, I'd like to welcome all of those in the audience. And we were expecting some people because of an overflow crowd possibility if you're in the lobby or in the foyer. I'd like to indicate that there's room here in the center area if you'd like to make your way here. But I'd like to welcome those of you who are here. I'd like to welcome our staff. Thank you very, very much, and also certainly our commission members. With that, let's move forward. The approval of the minutes. Mr. Chair. I move for approval of the minutes for the April 26, 2018 meeting. Okay. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Karen Mundy, seconded by Mr. Mike Owens. We approve the minutes of April 26, 2018. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Postponements and our withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Mr. Rafferty. Okay. 30 day postponement request. If anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular request. Anyone on the commission? If not, we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLN MAR 1741 for 30 days. What day in June is that? June the 28th. June the 28th. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Frank Penn, seconded by Mr. Larry Foster, that we postpone PLN MAR 1741 Winchester 836 LLC for 30 days or until June 28th. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing that, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Wade, do we have anything that qualifies for an abbreviated hearing? Yes, sir, I believe we do. There is one item on our agenda that was recommended for approval by the staff, as well as our zoning committee and the subdivision committee, and that appears on page 5 of the agenda. It's item number 3, the applicant, or item number 3, A and B. The applicant is Shoppers Village of Richmond, LLC, for the zone change. And then the development plan is Brock McVeigh and Barry Dotson property, Unit 2A, Lot 6. I'll ask at this point if there's anyone present who wishes to object to that zone change. and it is located on a portion of 2375 Fortune Drive. Seeing none, this item can proceed with an abbreviated hearing today. Okay. The staff presentation. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson and members of the commission. Hopefully we'll have that PowerPoint up here in a second. Can you all hear in the back? You may want to speak either directly in the mic or take. You got it. Is that a little better? Is that okay? All right. Okay, so this item is on page five of your agendas, and it's behind the third tab in your binders, and of course it's on your Granicus screen. This case is PLN MAR 18-6. It's for Shoppers Village of Richmond, LLC. And the applicant is requesting to change the zone from wholesale and warehouse business, which is B4 zone, to a light industrial I1 zone. It's on approximately five net acres of property on a portion of the site at the address of 2375 Fortune Drive. The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject site in order to reuse the Herald Leader's former printing facility and distribution warehouse, and they're going to change that into a research and development facility with light manufacturing and offices. Here you've got a map of the area along with all of the zones on it. The property itself is located on the northwest corner of Fortune Drive and Trade Center Drive. It's approximately 2,500 feet southeast of the New Circle Road and Winchester Road intersection. And for all of you, that's here. For all of you, that would be here. Fortune Drive runs from Winchester Road at the traffic signal up there all the way curving down to Liberty Road where it terminates so that's the end of Fortune Drive where it's signalized down below Trade Center Drive begins at the New Circle Road traffic signal and it stubs into the Tuscany subdivision which is also called the Summerfield neighborhood where the stub in the future will connect to the residential subdivision that will be developed in that area and that is presently zoned R3 and if we look up here that's right here behind the site now I'll do that in a minute okay so if So if we're looking at East New Circle, most all of East New Circle is in the B3 zone. So that's a heavy commercial zone. There are a variety of uses up and down that area, from fast food to car dealerships to strip shopping centers and other commercial uses. And it is right beyond this industrial B4 and I1 area. So the immediate area does have a number of different land uses. Sam's Club is in that orange area that you're looking at to the west of the site. I1 Light Manufacturing is along Jingle Bell Lane. So here's Jingle Bell Lane. That's I1. And when I talk about this as a portion of the property that's going to be rezoned, when you look up here in the corner, that is part of 2375 Fortune Drive, and it is already an I1 zone. for the audience that's this area right here it's already I won the before uses of warehousing and wholesaling you can see for the audience directly to the north and the east along with the south of the property here so it's across Trade Center to the south continuing the rezoning would allow the applicant to use this former Herald leader site as a research and development facility with some light manufacturing along with professional offices it would also unify the site under the same zone because then that little portion at the top of I1 would continue with the rest of the site to continue the I1 zone the aerial shows the existing position of the building the parking and the two access points so you can see there's access from fortune here and there's access from Trade Center Drive to the south so for the audience those are the access points the exterior of the building will remain unchanged signage will likely be updated for the new use and the inside of the building will be retrofit of course for the research development offices and manufacturing miss Galt will present more about what the site will look like shortly here's Here's a view from the front of the site along Fortune Drive. So it's, you can see the windows, the glass, the chrome. You can see the Herald Leader sign that will obviously be changed out. This is the rear of the site, and that is from the south, from Trade Center Drive. You can see where they have the loading area for the large semis, and there's also a refuse collection area with dumpsters adjacent to it. it so for the audience that's over here this is a picture just larger aerial just to kind of get your bearings so the 2013 comprehensive plan states that more jobs land is needed that means that additional land that's designated just for employment opportunities not for residential development must be considered and established especially for technology, marketing, and industrial uses. The proposed zone change to I-1 and its technology-based use would reactivate a five-acre parcel of prime jobs land and it has been sitting vacant. It's estimated that approximately 110 jobs would be created if the zone change were to go through and this use were allowed to be there. Rezoning the site to I-1 not only fits with the other light industrial zones and uses in the area, but it also complements the B-4 warehousing and wholesaling sites in the area, being that it's research and development and light industrial, because the I-1 allows everything that B-4 allows, plus the manufacturing and also where housing uses usually employ very few people compared to the light industrial which requires a lot more people there to get the jobs done so moving on to the recommendations the zoning committee has recommended approval the staff recommends approval for the following reasons and they are the reasons that you all see up on the screens and they're also on Granicus and in the report on the final page and that is that the requested light industrial I1 zone is in agreement with the 2013 and the 2018 comprehensive plans for the following reasons the 2013 comprehensive plan identifies the need to protect and provide readily available economic development land to meet the need for jobs both the 2013 and 2018 plans encourage supporting and showcasing our local assets to further the creation of a variety of jobs the 2018 comprehensive plan prioritizes the success and growth of strategically targeted employment sectors in this case it would be that high-tech and the advanced manufacturing sectors and it encourages infill and redevelopment that creates jobs the 2018 comprehensive plan promotes the redevelopment of underutilized land within the urban service area in a manner that enhances the existing urban form the 2013 plan promotes the movement of goods and people via efficient transportation and connections so the proposed I one zone along with the use meets the goals and objectives of the above stated items because the rezoning would allow a wider variety of jobs to be created in an area that's designated as jobs land it would also promote the creation of new jobs and increase the likelihood of bringing high-tech jobs to this site in this area thirdly it would reactivate an underutilized parcel that has existing infrastructure fourth it utilizes an existing roadway network that's desirable for truck access and promotes the movement of goods and people second reason for approval would be the predominance of businesses comprised of offices warehouses light manufacturing and technology such as the research and development use that are in this area make the I1 zoning and uses consistent with the development character of the fortune drive area therefore the proposed i1 zoning and land use are compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses and mix of office warehouse and the light industrial zones and of course the recommendation is made subject to the approval and certification of the development plan that coincides with it and that certification of course must be accomplished if it's approved must be accomplished and signed within two weeks of the Planning Commission's approval thank you are there any questions thank you the developer mr. Marko Scott For a copy of the development plan. Good afternoon. We are looking at the development plan for the Brockmcbay and Barry Donson property. located at the intersection of fortune drive and trade center drive the building actually fronts on fortune drive and the entrance for the docks as Lisa pointed out would be coming off of trade center drive the property has parking circulation that goes around the building and meet their minimum parking requirements for the zone for the new use within the i1 zone the with the conditions we only have a couple conditions sign off conditions engineering traffic and just one cleanup condition to list out the height of the building since it's an existing building typically that is just one of our requirements to know what the height of the building to make sure it's within that height requirement they have landscaping the fronts on the vehicle use area and the detention areas to the north of the property so with the existing building there's not much change that needs to be made to the exterior they're just going to fit it up to make the needs for the new proposed use with that there's any questions any questions for miss golf thank you applicant good afternoon I'm here I'm John Talbot I'm here for shoppers village and just available to answer any questions you might have we're in agreement with everything right that's good any questions I like this gentleman any questions okay thank you with that since there were no objectives that indicated so we're we'll bring it back to the Commission for a motion first on the zone change and then the development plan Mr. Chair. Okay. Mr. Owens. I move for approval of plan MAR18-6, Shopper's Village of Richmond, LLC, with the three noted reasons provided by staff. Okay. Mr. Owens moves. Mr. Patrick Brewer seconds that we approve PLN MAR 18-6 Shoppers Village of Richmond, LLC. Any discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, that motion carries. Mr. Owens, you would like to continue? Sure. in reference to plan MJDP 18-34 Brock McVay and Barry Dodson property unit 2A lot 6. I move for approval with the six noted conditions. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved again by Mr. Owens, seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer, that we approve PLN MJDP 18-34 Brock McVay and Barry Dodson property unit 2A lot 6. with the six conditions provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion carries. Thank you. If you would, now move back to page three. Old Brook Farm. Just as a matter of record, the staff requested an additional few minutes to make their presentation, so we kind of extended that opportunity to all the participants. So the staff will start with 40 minutes. The applicant has indicated they could do theirs in 30. I appreciate that. And because there were two major homeowners associations, we split the time between them, so they get 45 minutes collectively. That's on the first round. Then on the rebuttal, everybody's back to five minutes as it was before. So the staff is first up. Okay. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson, members of the Commission. Our next item today on the agenda is Overbrook Farm, LLC. It's a zone change request for property located at 2451 and 2525 Armstrong Mill Road. These two parcels together come to a total of 51.53 acres. And I apologize. I brought a PDF of my PowerPoint, so this may not go as well as I had hoped. It doesn't click forward. You have to scroll up for me. Thank you. The proposal today is to rezone property from an agricultural rural zone to a planned neighborhood residential zone. That's our R3 zone. And the applicant is proposing to rezone to the R3 zone in order to do a mixed residential development that includes single-family homes, townhomes, as well as apartments or multifamily residential. The subject property is located on the north side of Armstrong Mill. It is, as I mentioned, in an AR zone. It is also located at the urban service boundary, so to the east of the subject property, to the southeast. You'll notice on this graphic a red dashed line. That is the urban service boundary. to the southwest of the site the urban service boundary follows DeLong Road at this location it is adjacent to the southeast corner of the property and then follows the Squire Oak neighborhood to the north and most of the properties that are accessible from DeLong as you move north towards the Trin Road are outside of the urban service boundary the subject property is also bound to the north by the Squire Oak neighborhood as well as the Elizabeth Ann Seton church and school. To the west of the subject property there's both R1T and R3 zoning. There's a townhouse development or multifamily development as well as single-family and duplex in this region. There's a small AU zoned property to the south of the south side of Armstrong Mill and that's a Kentucky Utilities substation and that's shown in the brighter green colors as we move it a little bit closer that just shows that the area along Armstrong Mill is primarily residential or is almost completely residential with the exception of a church and the utilities that are in this vicinity looking at the aerial the subject property is currently an agricultural tract so it has tree lined edges boundaries with the subdivision as well as Squire Hill Lane to the west to the northwest and then it also has a tributary that cuts through the subject property and that's the I have a name the Armstrong Mill Road tributary and it runs east-west through the property primarily and then connects to the DeLong Road tributary which also comes through the Squire Oak neighborhood in terms of the area surrounding the subject and looking at the subject property from the ground level this is a view from the corner of Armstrong Mill and Squire Hill Drive which is at the southwest corner of the subject property Squire Hill Drive is a substandard local street that's intended in the future to be closed and utilized for a shared use trail but currently it is open to vehicular traffic the proper are the road on the right side of the photo is is Armstrong Mill and it is still a rural cross section in this area of the urban service boundary urban service area and this is a view looking down Armstrong Mill. It is a collector roadway so improvements will be required on both sides as the adjacent property is developed. So in this photograph the left side of the photo is where the subject property is and we would expect improvements on that side at this point. When the other side of Armstrong Mill is proposed for development we would expect half section improvements on that side. This is a view looking of the subject property, and this front portion of the property is primarily within a floodplain. And so the applicant and the urban county government would like for that area to remain a greenway and open space to protect the natural aspect of the property. Again, looking at the subject property, in the middle here you see larger trees. Those are associated with the greenway and would be protected. along this portion of the greenway, the applicant is proposing single-family homes. Again, a view of the existing mature trees in the center of the property, and then to the background of this particular property, you can see an agricultural barn, as well as a pretty mature tree line that the staff is proposing be maintained, and then just beyond that is the Squire Oak neighborhood. And then the last corner of the subject property from Armstrong Mill, this is an existing pump station for sanitary sewer purposes, and it is at the very edge of the urban service boundary. So when we looked at that map, it's in the southeast corner of the property. And it has some fencing around it. This is a view of Squire Hills Lane. Again, this is a local street that is intended in the future to be closed to vehicular traffic and to be changed into a shared-use trail, specifically called the Squires Trail. And we'll connect over towards Richmond Road. And then last picture here is Squire Oak Drive is the stub street from the Squire Oak neighborhood that does abut the subject property from the north. and the intent is for that collector street to continue through the subject property and then intersect with Armstrong Mill and the applicant is proposing the extension of that collector street the applicant stated in their justification that they believe their request is in agreement with the comprehensive plan and they also mentioned that they believe the R3 zoning is appropriate and the AR zoning is no longer appropriate for this location in terms of the 2013 comprehensive plan they cited five goals objectives the first was to expand housing choices second to support infill and redevelopment as a strategic component of our growth providing for well-designed neighborhoods connecting neighborhoods in terms of transportation for pedestrian and various modes of transportation other modes of transportation and then lastly to uphold the urban service concept by absorbing our vacant currently vacant land inside the urban service area in order to maintain the current boundaries the 2018 comprehensive plan of course we've adopted our goals and objectives so the staff believes that those come into play for any applications as we move forward from last fall and the staff agrees with the applicant and most of the same goals and objectives that they cited we agreed with the additional one that the staff was interested in incorporating into our recommendation was the minimizing disruption of natural features utilizing green infrastructure and providing water resource protection which has to do with chapter 4 of the 2013 comprehensive plan but it's mentioned also in our goals and objectives as the staff reviewed the application generally we were in agreement with the proposal for residential development in this corridor again obviously Armstrong mill is mostly a residential corridor especially outside of manor warnt boulevard the one thing that the staff was most concerned about when we first reviewed the request was chapter three of the 2013 comprehensive plan which has to do with providing well-designed neighborhoods and communities and that section of the comprehensive plan talks about elements to help achieve that particular goal and there are five elements that are mentioned in the comprehensive plan creating and inviting streetscape and walkable neighborhoods, providing varied housing choices, providing abundant open space such as neighborhood parks or shared use trails, incorporating focal points within the neighborhood, and then lastly providing quality connections with park schools and stores. So the comprehensive plan also has text that talks about turning your back to a focal point. The staff believes the greenway that crosses the subject property makes for the best focal point for their neighborhood and we remain a bit concerned about the fact that the houses will be backing to that focal point and so we want to encourage the applicant and or future developer of the property to continue to work with the staff to find ways to make that focal point accessible and part of the neighborhood in terms of it being accessible and invisible for for neighborhood residents the staff just in terms of comparison wanted to bring forward just to the north and Squire Oak and part of our comprehensive plan shows this as well the single loaded streets that are recommended by the comprehensive plan along our greenways provides for that open access to that shared open space or focal point for the neighborhood so just to the north Edgebrook Drive surrounds their greenway and provides an opportunity for those neighbors to interact in that space in terms of we just brought in the importance of design and providing that interaction with a focal point. And then the last one, just as an example of creating that open space for a particular neighborhood. The last thing the staff would mention in terms of the comprehensive plan, it incorporates our other adopted plans, which the 2018 plan for the bicycle and pedestrian master plan was recently updated. and it creates or shows the locations of these bike trails that are recommended. The second slide here does indicate where adjacent to this property that comes into play, and this identifies for the southeast Lexington area what are the recommended network priorities. This shows the Gainesway Trail is the yellow along Armstrong Mill, and then the green is the Squire Oak connection. So they've identified the green portion as a shared-use trail and then the yellow as more of a pedestrian connection for this area. So that's the Gainesway Trail and the Squires Trail, which are both along the subject property's frontages with right-of-way. So the staff has updated our recommendation. When the applicant originally brought their request in, they were asking for an R3 and an R4 zone, and they have amended their application. so we amended our staff recommendation to accommodate that change. We are recommending approval of the R3 zone for this location, and we cited several things within the comprehensive plan that are being met by the applicant. The first one had to do with growing successful neighborhoods and specifically dealing with the mixture of residential proposed for the property. They are incorporating single-family with 81 units townhouses for 22 units and then multifamily for a portion of the site to create a mixture of residential on their site in their 50-acre neighborhood for a density of 6.2 dwelling units per acre. In addition, they are respecting the floodplain and the greenway that is there and protecting it. They're not proposing development within that. So that, again, meets the comprehensive plans, recommendations generally. also in terms of creating a desirable community there's mention of the multimodal aspect of that the applicants recognizing the plans for the app for the adjoining right-of-way to become a mixed-use trail and are providing a connection to that and then the fourth reason the staff cited for agreement with the comprehensive plan oh that's yeah they're utilizing vacant or underutilized land and they're working to make that compatible with the adjoining land uses so the staff recommending approval we are also recommending conditional zoning restrictions to help with buffering and protecting of the existing tree lines that do exist along this property we're recommending three buffering restrictions the first is a 50-foot landscape buffer along the squire oak neighborhood which is the northeast and northwest property lines in addition trees would be able to be removed if they're dying or dead or diseased but for the most part these are mature evergreen trees and the neighbors as well as the church have asked that those be protected as much as possible in addition along the northwestern property line along Squire Hill Lane the staff believes those existing mature trees should also be kept because that creates a very nice benefit for the trail use I believe they're not going to be in that area anyway so that protecting the trees we're hoping is not a big issue and then lastly along the frontage of Armstrong Mill Road if the applicant or the future developer chooses to have the rear of their single-family homes to armstrong mill the staff believes there should be a 20-foot landscape buffer in that area which is similar to the context of the rest or other parts of armstrong mill in terms of providing a buffer for the backyard so that there's not a variation of the backyard fences that we sometimes see along our collector or arterial streets the staff would prefer that those double frontage lots actually front armstrong mill but in the case that they end up not the staff believes that a landscape buffer with a berm will create a better aesthetic along those improvements on armstrong mill and those restrictions are proposed because the staff believes they're appropriate and necessary to protect the established tree lines and the environmental character that's existing on the site and provide a buffer for both the neighborhood as as well as provide a landscape aesthetic along Armstrong Mill Road. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the staff's recommendation. We do have a few other presentations today. Mr. Martin will be presenting the preliminary development plan. Mr. Emmons is here to talk about the traffic study that was submitted. And then Mr. Charlie Martin is also in attendance to answer questions and present some information about sanitary sewer capacity in the area. I will mention we have a number of emails that the staff received in opposition. These are all pretty much form emails. They all say the same thing, so I've clipped them together. And then we also received an email letter from the Fayette County Neighborhood Council that will circulate for the Planning Commission. Thank you. Any questions? Ms. Wade? Okay, good. We'll pick you up later if we need to. Mr. Martin Mr. Chairman members of the Planning Commission the preliminary development plan that is associated with this zone change is on page four I believe of your agenda and as you all are aware we've passed out to you a blue sheet of paper with revised conditions because what you see before you today when we get a chance to see it is a revised plan here we go there's the preliminary development plan and once again I'll comment on how nice it is to have the applicants submit these renderings with the color as opposed to the to the hand coloring that your staff has done over the years we work very hard on those but you can see this is truly much nicer and easier to read and you can see what's interesting about this development this is a little over 50 acres and it is dominated by certain relationships certainly the relationship with the single-family neighborhood to along Farmview Drive the relationship of the thank you apparently I can't work that one work this one there we go this relationship and again with the church and the school in this area this relationship we have a fixed point with Squire Oaks here they're going to have to connect and they'll extend that collector that is a collector Squire Oaks is a collector it will extend about 1,100 feet or so down and and meet with Armstrong Mill they are proposing the single-family homes as you can see on the property being served by a network of local streets that will cul-de-sac to one side of the greenway and to an area next to the urban service boundary this is the urban service boundary another relationship oh I'm sorry i need to i keep forgetting i i do miss the tripods after all you've only been doing this calm but i'm getting better i'm sorry this relationship with the urban service boundary and as i said here's the relationship with existing single family homes with the school the uh here's your fixed point for the collectors to come down and hit with armstrong mill and then again the relationship with armstrong mill and how important that is and all this entire site is dominated you guys can hear me can't you they can't record me is dominated by the flood plain and that to a certain degree is the feature that affects this development so significantly and has been one of the reasons uh staff has worked very diligently and I think very cooperatively with the applicant is to address that flood plane. And that greenway features, and that is identified in the plans as a greenway. It is intended to be dedicated ultimately to the public. It's in the greenway plan and identified as such. This area here is about five acres. It's associated, as you can see, with the multifamily area here, townhouses, in this relationship with the proposed extension of the collector. The applicant is proposing 81 single-family homes, 216 apartment units, totaling 384 bedrooms, along with 22 townhouses. They are proposing 434 parking spaces. That's 55 over the requirement, so they're not terribly over-parked. They're a little over-parked, but not significantly, as we see perhaps in a lot of commercial developments. And again, I think what staff would stress is the discussion of the greenway and the importance of this floodplain as a focal point and as part of the neighborhood. And we have worked tremendously with the applicant to address it. This is a revision. And you can see when you look, we have some standard conditions, as always, sign-offs on this plan. And I will add, very briefly, as you all are aware, this is a preliminary development plan. There will be no construction, no development of this site until a preliminary subdivision plan is brought in and or a final development plan and a final development plan will be necessary for the apartments a preliminary subdivision plan is all that is necessary for the single family homes staff frankly would anticipate we would see a combined plan on this we have for you on the blue sheet as i've stated a series of very basic conditions is to note the 25 foot setback off the floodplain. The original plan, staff was very concerned with the geometry of the lots, which the applicant has addressed and created a lot for the greenway. And these lots, for the most part, are no longer impacted whatsoever by floodplain. They may have a setback on them for 25 feet. Staff believes that's very beneficial to the future property owners because they will not be required to have flood insurance. And that's very important. That's very expensive, and if it's not necessary, staff does not believe it should be something that is encouraged through a development pattern. Again, as was touched on with the greenway, the orientation to the greenway, creating a focal point, staff has offered several resolutions. And you can see, and we do this quite a bit, and as you all are well aware, we understand these are issues, issues that have been worked on over time with the applicant. The orientation of the street system relative to the greenway is something we'd like to continue to refine and work on with the applicant. The home orientation to Armstrong Mill, as stated by Ms. Wade, landscaping is one way to address the relationship with Armstrong Mill. The other way is to address the house orientation to Armstrong mill in addition the townhouse development you can see this is a good relationship from staff perspective we'd like to work a little bit more on perhaps this relationship here it's an over reliance on access easements provide the frontage here and staff believes worked on an orientation through here on the townhouses that is something we can work on at the next stage of review and evaluation with the with plans and again that's the townhouses and the street orientation and and i want to stress again the the relationships on this plan is what is so important here in the relationship to the greenway and staff would like to continue to refine that and work on that with the applicant there's another couple of issues that will have to be addressed in the future along this collector street with the access points that are being proposed they are going to require somewhere in the future waivers on the access as you all are aware waivers to your subdivision regulations are very specific your subdivision regulations are very specific they say this is what it shall be and they're very much rooted in the health and safety aspect of our regulations they're going to have to address that that is somewhat complicated by the fact that multi-family that too has an access standard in your subdivision regs for collector street it's a formula that they need to follow and again if we continue to work with them as we anticipate and we refine the design the exact location of some of these access points may change a little bit But we want to be sure that we address very specific requests with the waiver requests that would be associated with the access points on this particular proposal. One thing that I have saved to last that you can see on your blue sheet. I didn't touch on the trail access. I will add very briefly. There's a trail right here, as you all are well aware. This is going to be closed. This is going to be a trail that someday hopefully will take you to the peninsula development and beyond to parks across Richmond Road. Now, there's also a trail along Armstrong Mill. That's part of the infrastructure. That's part of this plan. And as this property develops, Armstrong Mill will be improved to an urban collector. That's just a requirement of development. Part of that infrastructure will be the trail system as well. that will complement other things that have been done. The last item that I saved for you is a discussion item, and that's the capacity of the existing pump station. And as you all are aware, Charlie Martin is here to talk about the capacity assurance program and that station, pump station. I just wanted to introduce it to you. It's been talked about a lot, and it's located over here. It is a pump station. It kicks the sewage back up this way, pumps it. There's several, three, I believe, in the Heartland subdivision. There's this one. It's well known. There's overflows. And, again, that's due to rainfall. These overflows just don't happen every day into everyday use of the system. It is a situation where we have a lot of rainfall. We have overflows, as you all are aware. And that's one reason we have the capacity assurance program and why we're spending the amount of money that Charlie will be happy to elaborate on for you in addressing these issues in our community. So I just left that on there as a discussion just to introduce that to you. And with that, if you have any questions for me, I'll try to answer them. And staff, again, of course, is recommending approval, as you can see on their plan. You gave a great lead-in to the capacity thing, but we're going to get Mr. Emmett. You're going to get Jimmy first. We thought it'd be nice to get Jimmy up here and then let him sit down. Yeah, he knows how to use the pointer, too, I might add. Well, they brought me the one I know how to use. That's right. Okay, any questions or comments? Okay, very good. Thank you. Mr. Emmons? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm very briefly going to go over the staff summary of the revised traffic impact study. There are very few revisions between this and what was presented to you at your committees. Primarily I corrected some typos and I changed our recommendations at the end to reflect the new plan that the applicant has done. The traffic impact study, first about car traffic. The applicant studied this site from Armstrong Mill from Manowar Boulevard to DeLong Road. We looked at several different intersections along that area. And all of the intersections from a vehicular traffic standpoint are all acceptable. The staff agrees with the applicant that there are no problems that this development would propose with any of these intersections. Also, our traffic impact studies don't just look at cars and trucks. We also look at other modes of transportation. Of note, Lex Tran does not serve this area. Generally, Lex Tran does not serve anything south of Manowar Boulevard, and that just makes pedestrian and bicycling mode share all the more important. And with the proposed development plan and the improvements that the applicant are proposing, we feel like there would be an adequate facilities for pedestrians and bicycles with the proposed development the applicant the consultant's recommendations essentially had three recommendations improve armstrong mill per the land subdivision regulations a left turn lane on armstrong mill will be warranted although there will probably not be room enough to actually get that left turn lane in until the south side of armstrong mill comes in for development and then the 12-foot shared-use trail is recommended along the Armstrong Mill and their proposed development plan does incorporate that recommendation. The staff's recommendation based off of the latest revised development plan is simply to follow the recommendations of the consultants recommendation. We found their study to be thorough and and we did not see any problems with it. If you have any questions for me on the traffic impact study I would be happy to try and answer them otherwise I would like to turn it over and introduce mr. Charlie Martin and Craig Prater with the division of water quality okay any questions for mr. Emmons if not we'll pick him up a little later if we not okay mr. Martin thank you thank you Good afternoon. I wasn't exactly sure what I was here to talk about. I had gotten a lot of questions, so hopefully I'll be able to touch on the things that you're interested in. I think generally was that there was some questions about how the sewer system works out there, how it currently works versus how it's proposed to work as a result of the consent decree. So that's primarily what I'm going to cover, not necessarily about the subject property itself, although it is woven into what I'm going to talk about today. So I want to talk about those existing conditions and the impact of the consent decree and kind of walk through what the solutions are going to be that also impact the long-term sewer ability of the property that we're talking about today. And then Craig, who is the Capacity Assurance Program Manager for the Division of Water Quality, he and I together maybe can tag team as far as answering whatever questions that the commission might have. So for us, basically, is that the, we look at this in a multitude of different ways. Basically, here is Armstrong Mill Road right here. Tates Creek Road is right here. Armstrong Mill, Tates Creek Road. This entire area for us is in part of what we call the East Hickman Sewer Shed. So basically everything drains, typically sewer systems are going to follow the natural pattern of drainage. And so you have a fairly large creek that comes through here and winds its way through here and eventually works its way to roughly Ashgrove Pike and Tate's Creek Road. Now the yellow line is the urban service boundary. And unfortunately in some cases it follows the creek, other cases it does not follow the creek. And so that creates a lot of challenges for us when it comes to sewering properties in the urban service boundary. So this has got three different colors. I want to walk you through this a little bit. What I was guessing in this room would turn out to be gray or green, which in my book it's blue, is land that basically has been in the urban service boundary since the pre-'80s. That's one of the reasons why there's an existing pump station on the subject property is that it's been eligible to be served by sanitary sewers for a long long time and that not only note that that only includes this parcel but the one that's across the street of it basically to the crest of this hill that is considered to be what we call an undeveloped area that's within the urban service boundary you also have a small area which is part of overbrook farm that's here that's also undeveloped again pre-1986 the red shading and this is an error here this is not all over brook farmland and i'll explain that here in a second as a typo on my part but in the 80s there was called the outer perimeter sanitary sewer study and so they planned for sewers in additional areas that were within the urban service boundary so you get a large part of the farm that's here that is in the OPSS area. This is also OPSS, but that is not overbrook. If you think about Tates Creek Road, as you head out towards Jesmond, there's those large estate lots. They're currently, I think, on septic tanks and stuff. And then there's another part of that that is already being served by sanitary sewers. And then the yellow part is the expansion area. And I said 1990. It should be 1990s and mid-90s. I forgot the S on that. but that is the expansion area. So when we've been going through our processes as part of the consent decree to try to figure out how to be able to handle sewer issues that are out in the East Tickman Sewer Shed, we look at it in three different ways because it really ties into whether there are tap-on fees involved versus whether there are exaction fees involved. And those are two different ways that you have sewers. So I've walked through this map here because you see all this over here this is all the existing service area you see green lines and white dots those are manholes and and gravity sewers we have an existing pump station here the armstrong mill pump station on the subject property you also have the heartland one heartland three and heartland two pump stations again remember where i started is it basically the natural flow was from the top of the page to the bottom of the page. So when Heartland was built, basically they had to have these pump stations here in order to be able to be served because everything wants to drain from top to bottom. And so as part of the consent decree, we need to deal with those Heartland pump stations and Armstrong Mill. All four of those pump stations are listed as priority sanitary sewer overflows in our consent decree. So what I'm gonna walk through here is basically how we intend to be able to sewer this area in order to be able to solve those pump station overflows because it's clearly germane to the subject today so this is kind of rotating the map here a little bit this is tates creek road right here let me get turned around right first here is taste creek road right here basically armstrong mill is right there and so here's the farm. So you've turned it just a little bit. Here's the bottom of the hill, so to speak. This is Ashgrove Pike and Tates Creek Road right there, bottom of the hill. So our world, we always start from the bottom of the hill and work our way up. You see a series of red lines that basically are proposed sewers that would extend from that bottom of the hill, a pump station located at that location that would go up and pick up these Heartland pump stations and eliminate them and convert them into gravity and send them to this location. Likewise, over here at Armstrong Mill, the pump station that was mentioned earlier, that it would then also be converted into a gravity system and go to a new pump station located somewhere along the Long Road. The reason why, again, that yellow line there, that's the edge of the urban service boundary, it can't go any further. it can't follow the creek which is right here this u-shape because of the urban service boundary concept but basically we are our plan is is basically is to to trade off for problem pump stations into two state-of-the-art pump stations well let's let's drill down on that a little bit because we're pretty far away as I go how are you going to do that this is drilling bound into the bottom of the hill again. Here we are at Tates Creek Road and Ash Grove Pike. This would be a very, very large pump station, roughly 10 million gallons a day of pump station and then gravity sewers that would extend. And it's really about the priorities is that would we come and go up in this direction and pick up those two Heartland pump stations numbers two and three early on. That's a matter of discussion that we would have with the property owner. The plan that we have with EPA, you see the schedule there that we've got to build the pump station and force main and part of that trunk sewer, the pipeline that leads to it by the end of 2022. Now that's that's the drop dead deadline. We could be faster than that and we have been in some projects that we've done as part of the consent decree but that's the that's the pencils down. We're subject to penalty if we don't have it done by that time. But the pump station and the force main, which would pump the sewage over to the treatment plant over in Jesmond County, that's the critical juncture as far as being able to provide sewers for this entire area. Whether we go with a trunk sewer towards 2 and 3 versus following along with the overbrook trunk is a matter of discussion. So that's the bottom of the hill. That has to come first as far as in our world. If we move over here to the other part, moving further up the hill, you see a drill down of the Overbrook trunk coming up and picking up the Heartland 1 pump station, which is listed in the consent decree, along with another part of a trunk sewer that would come over and pick up what would be a new Armstrong Mill pump station. You see the schedule there. Those are more like 2024 because again you've got to build the downstream part of it and have it in service before you can build the far upstream part of it. So we put together the schedule that was approved by EPA to at least give us some latitude to be able to work with that. We didn't want everything falling right behind in case for some reason we got off schedule. So this is the pump station that we're talking about right now. Right now, it currently pumps up Armstrong Mill Road and joins in with the existing East Hickman Pump Station. Everything goes over on the other side of Manowar. This will be the map that shows that. It pumps up this here and joins in with the East Hickman Force Main. It comes across where the navigation area is there off behind Heartland Park. And then goes on across Manowar and dumps in over here. the heartland one comes in here the other two heartlands come in by gravity at different locations we can't make those pump stations bigger they will not you're just moving flow into other problem areas to do that so this is the the background information as far as the backbone of what would need to be a improved sanitary sewer system in this location again like i said i wasn't sure what you wanted to ask about as far as sewer capacity i mean we basically have gone on record as far as in the cap that there is a finite amount of capacity available for the subject property. It's my understanding that they have a current reservation in order to be able to provide sewer service to the 81 single family residents that's consistent with local ordinance and consistent with our cap program. Anything beyond that, I think that would there obviously there's got to be the long-range plan be able to be implemented in order to be accommodating that yeah thank you mr. Martin any questions okay very good mr. Berkeley touch on the time frames again and it sounds like you're gonna do it in phases is if you do that does that land then become available in phases? I missed the last part. If you talked about building it in three different sections, I think, once that first section is built, it services a certain area. So I guess then it would be developable at that point? That area would be developable at that point. I mean, during our discussions with the Overbrook team, And, you know, the challenge is, again, like I said, we need to start at the top of the hill, and I think that their pressure points are more at the top of the hill. And I don't want to speak for them, but, you know, down here is still very much an operating farm. They have an operating farm out there in multiple parts of what is in the 1,000 acres footprint. One of the things that we've been challenged with is the constructability of this significant of a sanitary sewer improvement on a working farm. And so building it in phases is going to be a necessary thing just from contractor capacity and also cash flow, but it's also being sensitive to the nature of a working farm and trying to be able to accomplish that without creating a different set of problems. So 2025 is the... 2025, December 31st, 2024 is pencils down unless I can get EPA to give us an extension beyond that. I would like to do it sooner than that. And we've met with Overbrook over the last two years. I think they've been very productive discussions about how to be able to move forward with this. Again, everything looks really easy on paper. It's when you get down into the constructability of it. this part here along the creek those are very steep slopes there that is very very very challenging construction and so the when we do it is one discussion how we do it is an entirely different one thank you any other questions mr. Martin I think we'll be wanting to have updates further along the line as we get with this particular project and I do have a question but I'm going to talk with you privately about it, but I'll pose the question, why has my bill quadrupled in the last two or three years? But that's okay. The consent decree, that's my usual standard answer. Thank you very, very much. Okay, applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. My name is Bill Lear. I am here with Nick Nicholson and also with one of our young law student summer associates, Kelly Ball, who's here on behalf of the applicant, Overbrook Farm, LLC. Here representing Overbrook are Bill and Chris Young and Jalad Helaney, who's with Vision Engineers that's done the engineering along with Matt Carter on this. You understand very well the the the proposal you've got. It's for an entirely residential development on this important tract of land. We submit and staff agrees it's in full compliance with the comprehensive plan. Just one small data point overall the density that we propose is six units per hour acre in a mix of single-family detached housing townhouses and a moderate size apartment complex. In looking at the six unit per acre density, what I would say is in today's world in the comprehensive plan, that's vanilla. The reason I say that is when you were going through some of the initial data for the update of the 2018 comprehensive plan you looked at various and sundry growth scenarios one of them that you looked at is what's known as the status quo scenario which would result in vacant land for residential being developed as it has been on average in the last several years and the number that's in that is six dwelling units per acre so this is one that that as a result of working with the staff and with surrounding neighbors and i want to say at this point you'll hear more i think from their council we have reached an agreement with both of the two significant neighborhood associations square oak and and heartland and those those agreements have followed the kind of good faith interchange that you have tried to encourage for a long long time the the property in question has been owned by the current owner since june of 1983. i do have to say this because there was a little bit of a a headline attempted headline grabbing by the newspaper that that seemed to say this this was where stormcat had been the reality is there's never been a thoroughbred horse at least while they've owned it on this particular property it's not suitable for their operation is separated from the rest of it there was there were cattle at one time and that created some conflict with surrounding neighbors so essentially it has been pasture land for many many years in terms of planning and zoning history it was first brought into the urban service area in 1980 38 years ago so it's been slated for development for a long long time throughout the period Since then, it's been shown entirely for residential development, which is what we're proposing today. There are some features of this that I want to point out. First, Mr. Penn, to focus on the zoning, which is proposed as R3. And as you all know, that has been the predominant zoning category to allow the mix of uses that we propose here that's been used in Fayette County now for many, many years and functioned very well. So it's an appropriate, very much the appropriate category. The street system, let me go over here and use my trusty pointer for you. Could you use the mic? Yeah. Take the mic. The street system has the kind of connectivity, particularly when we're talking about collaborative streets, that is encouraged, if not even mandated. that the plan does feature a significant amount of greenway that, if you go back for a second, that is protected in this, and Tracy has articulated some sad issues that they want to continue What I will tell you is, like most properties, you have to take what the property gives you. And as a quick example, if you tried to do single-loaded streets around here, then unless you were just going to have one lot very deep on both sides, you would end up with not one street but two streets on both sides. But same token, if you had a rear-loaded houses fronting on Armstrong there, you would never allow the driveway to go there. Houses fronting on Armstrong and a rear-loaded street, then you would have to have the streets behind looking the other way. You could never do the same thing over here, so these houses would be looking at the rear yards of the houses across the street. The point of all that is, with the greenway, where it is, it does limit your options in terms of how you arrange a single family. Some other things about the single family, you'll notice this is the urban service area boundary. This is 780 feet. There actually is no lot that is planned to abut the boundary. This is the home station. This is the roadway. But even if you want to count all of these as the budget, the urban service area boundary, you've only got five lots on 780 feet, which is about as low as you'll find anywhere where a single family is developing about the urban service area boundary. In terms of the relationship with Squire Oak, I might count. There are 28 blocks backing up to Squire Oak backing up to this family, whereas on... This will sound like the voice of God. All right. or the other end of the spectrum, as the case may be. In any event, 28 houses backing up here versus 25 on this side. So again, the main point of that is it's very close to a one-to-one ratio so that you're not envisioning a situation where the backyards of these existing homes, which are really lovely, this is a beautiful neighborhood over here, as is Heartland on the other side of Armstrong Mill Road, you won't be seeing a bunch of small lots backing up to larger lots over there. The way in which the townhomes are arrayed, This is a fairly steep grade here, and it works really well to have townhomes that don't have to have individually great big foundation sizes so they can step down the hill very nicely, and that's what they do. They serve as a buffer between the multifamily and the single family. And as far as where the apartments are sited, it is the portion of the property which is furthest from the urban service area boundary. One of our planning principles is to try to not put higher density really close to the urban service area boundary. It's behind the floodplain so that when you come in here, the greenway, when you come in here, the real vista is going to be this greenway. These do front on the greenway. In our original plan, we had a row of parking here, which has been eliminated. They're also buffered. This is a non-residential use, the church and school, and this is really an open play. and there's a detention area here. There's a cell tower up here. So they're sited in a place that is the most appropriate, and they've got this huge tree buffer along that. Now you can run through some of the other slides that will sort of show. That's the backs of Heartland. They've done a beautiful job. Their houses do back up to the road, But if you look at the tree line and the way the fences are done and everything else, it is a streetscape that's actually, from our perspective, very appealing. The thing that I mentioned I want to come back to about working with the staff and the neighbors, We have done that throughout this process. We originally had the multifamily acreage zoned R4. That raised some concerns. We moved it back to R3. We originally called for 341 units. In an interim plan, we actually had about 20 more units than that. We've now rolled it back to 319. We have agreed with the two neighborhood associations that we will propose a density cap under conditional zoning at that 319 level so that they will not be concerned that we would come back with the R3 zoning and try to increase that later. Originally, we had 10 apartment buildings. now we're down to nine and as I pointed out a moment ago there's a a better alignment there's a better association of those that allows more sight lines through them back into the area and that that does a better job of orienting them to the greenway on that side so I think the only other thing I would mention in in terms of agreements and like I said they can speak for themselves. The Squire Oak legal counsel has proposed that the issue of whether there's parking on Squire Oak be discussed at final development plan slash preliminary subdivision stage. Our position is that there should not be a prohibition on parking. They want to discuss it. We have no objection to it being noted that that would be an item for discussion at that time. They would have that right in any event, but in order to articulate it, we've agreed that we can say that that would be an item for discussion. With that, I'll turn it over to Nick. thank you bill uh my part in this this presentation is really to talk about the legal justification uh what we have is as kind of bill went over we have we think is a very very reasonable density at kind of six units per acre it's 5.8 gross 6.2 net so six units per acre we think that's a a great blend of the historical land use recommendations for this area and also today's comprehensive plan that calls for a kind of increase in density on residential land in order to maintain the urban service boundary. We also think that R3 is the exact right zone for this property. It enables us to have a mix of housing types at an increased density, which is what the comprehensive plan really gets at. And while Ms. Wade kind of went over a lot of the major points, I don't want to reiterate her. I do want to get into some of the kind of broad, big-picture items on why we think that this is so in compliance with the comprehensive plan. And we start with theme A. This is what we're talking about, is growing successful neighborhoods. That is what has become a focus for this community in these comprehensive plans. Goal one is to expand housing choices. We certainly are doing that with the mix of apartments, townhomes, and single families. But the meat of the plan gets into kind of certain standards on how you create your great neighborhoods with a sense of place. And it talks at the very beginning at the inviting streetscape. And the reason why we wanted Bill to go in kind of in-depth into the development plan before we got into compliance with the comprehensive plan is I have a feeling as we go through these standards, his words are going to come back to the very forefront of your mind when we're talking about inviting streetscape. As soon as we approach this development, whether it's by car, whether it's by bike, whether it's by pedestrian, a majority of people are going to be greeted with that neighborhood park area. It's going to be abundant open space. When you come into the development, we are mirroring that at the very first corner where that Greenway lot starts. So immediately again, you are reminded of how much abundant open space is in this development, is a part of this development. It runs through the entire heart of this development. As a pedestrian would continue walking up the street into the multifamily, kind of the higher density portions, we made sure to flank it with townhouses to make sure that it's more of a human scale as you're coming around. You're not walking in the shadow of a large multifamily structure. you're at more of a human level with the townhomes with the multi-family behind it it's that type of kind of step step down in intensity that makes for really good plans the next standard is buried housing choices the very words in the plan provide for a diverse neighborhood featuring townhomes apartments and mixed with single-family houses that's exactly what we're providing here you're going to get sick of me talking about the abundance open spaces because that's exactly what this plan has in spades we have an interconnected and accessible green infrastructure that helps create plentiful recreation opportunities that makes it create a neighborhood where people want to live these parks this greenway system is what the neighborhood focal point is for this kind of development now the copper into plan provides specific examples of what are these abundant open spaces we have public parks we have trails along armstrong we have future trail connections through here we have plentiful connections to the greenway lot throughout the development and it also talks about natural areas such as the greenways it also says the open space is such as landscape plazas if you look at inside the multi-family development itself there's a substantial amount of green space in between each building we actually created a corridor of green space to tie back into the major neighborhood park so even when you're at the most dense part of this development you are tied back in to that open space the next standard is the neighborhood focal point not a surprise it can be a park that's exactly what we are proposing in this situation this is kind of our neighborhood focal point also on the opposite end of the development kind of where the uh the greenway and the floodplain is that is most you will see even more connections a more widespread open area as well it talks about residential development needs to be developed with easy multi-modal access we have a shared use trail on armstrong we have multiple connection points into the greenway and we are providing a future connection to squires road trail if that trail basically if the public road becomes part of the trail system which is certainly proposed we are recommending that a trail be basically placed in the middle of our kind of neighborhood park area not just at the sidewalk level the quality connections with park schools and stores. That's the kind of last standard that is provided for us to make a great neighborhood. While we don't have any stores, we do have parks and we do have schools. The Squire Oak connection is designed in way to pick up all of the traffic from kind of Elizabeth Ann Seton and also Squires Elementary. Right now, a lot of times they are on local streets. This provides a collector to collector in Armstrong mill, of course, becomes a minor arterial past man of war. So we are creating a more efficient local road system. And again, as I've kind of repeated several times, there's ample connections to trails and greenways throughout this project. Now, the next point that we have to get into is infill and redevelopment. It seems very odd to be talking about infill and redevelopment when in the edge of our property is literally on the boundary, on the urban service boundary line. However, you've heard me say this before when you have these large tracks of residentially zoned land or residentially recommended zoned land we have to take advantage of them if we do not take advantage of these large tracks it pushes the rest of the density the needed housing capacity onto small tracks of land throughout the community the two acre zone changes overloading those the other option is we expand the urban service boundary those are your two options if we don't take advantage of these large tracks and that gets to what the main kind of overarching goal is out of these comprehensive plans that's to maintain the urban service boundary it provides us with strategy and approaches it gets into flexibility in housing types and densities providing a mix of housing types and densities allow higher density to achieve the critical uh but the critical mass of residential that is called for that's exactly what this plan is doing and that's exactly what but we must take advantage of here today. Here are the only tracks of land that are privately owned that are larger than what we are talking about today inside the urban service boundary. I left off the overbooked track across the road because that is still kind of, that's one parcel that's half in the expansion area, half inside the urban service boundary, but these are the seven tracks that are larger. One of which, the White Family Farm, which the courts have told us can't be used for development in the near future, But that's it. If we don't take advantage now, we're going to regret it. We're going to have more contested hearings down here inside the local neighborhoods, inside the urban service boundary, or we're going to have to expand. The next kind of facet of our justification is that R3 is appropriate where AR is inappropriate. Of the five tracks that are already zoned for residential land, you'll see a thing. They're all R3. There's a reason for it. Bill kind of alluded to this earlier. When you have these large tracks of lands, you don't know how this development is going to end up. You do not want to have to keep coming back for additional zone changes when a road slightly changes. If Squires Oak can't cross the floodplain where we're predicting that it will cross, we'd have to come back and change an R1T to an R3. We'd have to move the multifamily. We'd have to shift this and that. R3 simply allows for these large tracts to be developed at the appropriate density levels with the appropriate mix of houses that's called for in the comprehensive plan. Now, while this is kind of tough to read, I did want to point out that we think that the densities individually are also in keeping with a lot of what is already in the area. The single family of Overbrook Farm, the density per acre, it's 32 basically acres at 81 units, so you're looking at a density of about 2.4. Squires Oak is 4.6. Feather Ridge Park is 4.9. Heartland is 3.8. So we are lower than all of those. with the townhouses overbrook farm right now is projected about 6.9. The Frederick the feather Ridge Park, which is right adjacent to us. Number three right here and Harper Woods number four right next to that are at a density of 10.2 and 7.8 again, substantially more than what we're proposing in the townhome area. Finally, the apartment site that is proposed at 13.4 density per acre. The Viridian of Lex, which is right here, and Brandywine Apartments are substantially more at 19.3 and 24.3 units per acre. While I know this feels dense for some of the neighbors, it is not as dense as what is in existence in this area. We think that combined, it is a much very reasonable development. element. The other side of that is AR has to be inappropriate. Bill alluded to this. They certainly got complaints when cattle were on the property about smells and flies. They had to take the cattle off and it's just pasture land now. It's disconnected from the main farm. It's inside the urban service boundary. It has been since 1980. It's just an extremely inefficient use of land that's supposed to be basically zoned for residential and has for almost 40 years. So we certainly think that AR is inappropriate and we would submit that you approve this zone change for those two main reasons. I hate to do it but I have to talk about sanitary sewer capacity. Charlie Martin laid out kind of the long range plan but I also want to talk about the short range plan to assure a lot of people in the area and also to assure you all that we will be dealing with this capacity issue. It's just not today that the capacity issue is dealt with. Luckily for us, our rules are incredibly clear with capacity assurance program. I don't know if there's a provision in the zoning ordinance that is this crystal clear. No development shall commence without a permit. We can't build without capacity. We can't build without LFUCG looking at the plan and agreeing that there is capacity. The subdivision regulations also deal with sanitary sewer capacity and they say that it is to be dealt with at the time of the development agreement that occurs much later than the zone change in the preliminary development plan the code of ordinances governing the capacity assurance program gets into specific detail and it gets into detail because i think some of you all will probably on the committee when we are talking about the capacity assurance program when do we talk about capacity when do we determine capacity should be there it was overwhelmingly decided it's not the preliminary development plan it's not the zone change level there's a reason too much can change in the time of when you get zoning and when you are actually breaking ground the division of water quality actually cannot give us a permit at this stage it very much lays out four times preliminary subdivision plan final subdivision plan final development plan or an amended final development plan none of which we're here for today the only time preliminary development plans are mentioned are with the sanitary sewer capacity reservations we've done that charlie even indicated that that has been received the reason why we went ahead and did that is there is capacity in our bank for single family for the 81 kind of units if we wanted to phase this development we could bring in a final right bring in a preliminary subdivision plan for just a single family and there would be capacity with which we could do that but that plan would have to come back to you all that is the time that capacity comes into play it is not at the zone change it is not at the preliminary development plan that is pretty much all i have to say i'm happy to answer any questions at this time I've submitted findings of fact that are basically the same as the staffs, except we added a fourth conditional zoning restriction that said the total number of dwelling units within the zone change area shall be limited to 319. And that's what the existing development plan shows. And that is what we agreed with the council with Heartland and also Squires Oak. I'm happy to take any questions if you all have them. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you all. Well, it's now time for the citizens to make their comments. Let me kind of cut to the chase. Each community, Squires has a legal representative as well as Heartland. Could both of you gentlemen come down here? Let me just cut to the chase. Do you all agree with the applicant? I mean, I heard that you all have some, because I had given you ample time to express your objections, but if in fact you all have resolved most of these issues, maybe we can cut out a couple things. Yes, sir. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to speak for Mr. Billings, but we did speak with Mr. Nicholson today. We did agree to the landscape restrictions that were offered by the staff and suggested like that, and we agreed to a cap, a density cap of 319 units for the property. The only thing that we add, and I think Mr. Lear addressed this, our homeowners association has a concern about the Squire Oak Road. We're not asking for a zoning restriction or anything like that, but we ask that a note be added to the preliminary plan. I don't believe there's an objection on that. And to be clear, that is not indicating that the applicant is agreeing to restrict that. They're just agreeing that it can be discussed. Okay. Thank you. Okay, any questions from the Commission? Okay. Mr. Billings, can we hear from you? Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, as you know, my name is Nathan Billings with Billings Law Firm. And as always, it's my pleasure to represent Heartland Homeowners Association and its members today. With respect to the hearing, you all have been here when I presented before PowerPoints and other things. We have been through multiple committee hearings and technical review committees, and it is our pleasure to agree with the applicants and staff's recommendations that a zone change is appropriate for this property to R3 based upon the staff's proposed findings with the additional conditions set forth in Mr. Nicholson's proposal at 3D for a density cap of 319 dwelling units as necessary and appropriate to accomplish the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan for this zone change to be approved. Obviously, there's a lot of technical things that go on in this zone change, and we think that balancing all of the factors that the applicant staff have talked about and that we could spend hours discussing, such as traffic, schools, sewer, that that condition mitigates all of those to make the zone change appropriate. And we have a lot of members here today. I've told them that I speak on behalf of the Homeowners Association. They may individually want to get up and ask questions or say comments. What I would invite the chair to do is just to say if they're in agreement, just have them stand up to maybe abbreviate the hearing. And I think there may be one or two have other comments, and we respect those comments, but for the need for abbreviated hearing today, we are in agreement based upon that condition. Okay, very, very good. Before we do that, I want to double-check with staff. They have made recommendations related to the density issue and adding a D and to see if that's okay with the staff. And then the second thing that I heard was, and I added it down here, is to discuss or resolve the parking issue related to the overbrook activities and to the preliminary development plan. Is that agreeable with you all? Mr. Chair, we are in agreement to proceed in that direction, yes. Okay, very good. Then we got everybody on board here for the most part. Now let me go back to the community. Is there anyone here that would like to say anything or express any opinion? The hope is that your community representatives have expressed what you wanted them to express. But if there's someone here, as you indicated, yes, sir. Oh, you wanted to stand? Mr. Chair, I do need to say one additional thing because I wrote it down and I forgot to say it. I want to thank the Young family for their engagement in this process. And I wanted to make sure I did it publicly. From the very beginning, they encouraged their attorneys to meet with the Neighborhood Association. You all know who can get up here and fight about stuff. And to their credit, and we are expressing our gratitude to them, they came to a meeting last week with the Homeowners Board from Heartland. And as a result of that meeting, the discussions proved very productive that allow us to get here today. And I do think it's important that when, in zone changes this critical to the future of Lexington, you have a party that's developing land and neighborhoods like this, that it should be publicly pointed out that the parties came together in good faith and they should be thanked for their participation in that process because absent those parties willing to talk and have discussions and reach an agreement, this is a much different adversarial process. And I think it leads to a better result for Lexington when that can happen. And so I want to make sure that publicly I tell Mr. Bill Young Jr. and Chris Young thank you for their willingness to sit down with us and talk and reach this agreement today. Mr. Billings, I think your statement is on target, and I appreciate it. In fact, I was going to express appreciation on behalf of this commission, notwithstanding the fact that you're going to work out all your issues here today, but the fact that you're willing to continue to work and do the work that you need to both for the applicant as well as for the community as a whole. So I applaud all of you. I think all of us up here in deep appreciation for the work that you all have done. I think it will be for the betterment of the community. Now, let me go back to all those who are in favor of the Mr. Billings and the other attorney for Mr. Clendon. Is it Clendon? OK, would you please stand and let us know that you approve of or. OK. Thank you very, very much. Is there anyone that would like to say anything that you feel that you really need to get off your chest? Yes, ma'am, come forward. Now, are you for or against? Are you against? Okay. That's fine. You have three minutes. Okay, if you give us your name. Go ahead. Alyssa Berchi. I want to thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to talk to you guys. Where do you live? Squire Oak. I live at 1744 Farm View Drive. So my home is one of the houses that's backyard, backs up to the proposed development. I've been a resident of Squire Oak since 2008 when I actually rented a property on a neighboring street. I loved the neighborhood so much that I actually bought a house 10 doors down when it became available. So I've been the sole owner of my home since 2013 when I purchased it. I absolutely love the neighborhood. My big concern with this proposed development is our notification system as residents. By law, residents within 500 feet of the proposed zone change are required to be given notification by mail. I did not hear anything about this until I saw a notice on Facebook. I looked at the addresses that are on the planning board's list of addresses of notification residents. residents my address is not on there anywhere overbrook owns my back fence my concern is that if this is the type of notifications that we are getting as residents to what's going to be going on and affecting our home values and our property line what's going to happen when this gets approved i have a dog it has a doggie door i work in animal health i see animals that get lost and get hurt all the time if something were to happen to my back fence and this is the notification system that's going to be put in place once development goes through what's to say that an animal or a child in a neighboring home is going to be out and is not going to find out because we're not getting notification the way we should be when i was at one of the proposed meetings which we had with the attorneys i asked this question about how we would get notification if this zone hearing goes through and i was told not to worry we would get plenty of notice which is great if we are all getting notice but if we're there's oversights um you know unintentional or not we're still not getting notice and one of my big concerns is just that i'm not finding out until it's too late and we can't change anything so i appreciate your time i really hope that you take that into consideration about our neighborhood. So thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am. I'll try not to be overly loquacious. Hi, my name is Jody Shoup, and I am a resident of Heartland. I specifically chose Heartland because I'm an avid runner and cyclist, and I like the easy access out to Walnut Hill, DeLong, wherever, which as it is now, riding in Lexington, continue basically taking your life in your own hands. And I can only imagine more so with potentially 300 additional cars on Armstrong Mill, a road that is narrow enough, it's barely wide enough for two large vehicles to be passing. And so I just wanted to speak out. I do respect and appreciate the agreement that the homeowners associations have come to for this. But just want to make the city or people aware that as much as Mr. Nicholson said you have to take advantage of these large tracts of land that are available. I would like to think that we would also put the thought into the necessary infrastructure, because I heard Ms. Wade and Mr. Lear, Mr. Nicholson, reference the need for well-designed neighborhoods and communities. We need to be able to get into these neighborhoods and communities. And as a resident of Heartland now, I can tell you if I'm trying to get to work at 8 o'clock in the morning, I have to wait at least through three cycles of the light on Armstrong, Mill, and Man of War, want to get across and get to tates creek to get to new circle or get on to dates creek to go downtown so these are issues that are only going to become more difficult as the number of vehicles increase also the mention of the 2018 bicycle pedestrian master plan that is going to become worse for the people who are walking or biking as was mentioned lextran does not come to that neighborhood but and i appreciate the the mention for the need for the focal points and landscape effects because I imagine we're going to spend more time sitting on Armstrong Mill due to the increased density of traffic. So at least we'll have something nice to look at. But another thing I imagine these people who will be moving into this neighborhood, they'll have a lot of green space, which is great. What about food? I assume that they'll need to go to a grocery store. And I assume that might mean Heartland Kroger because it's the nearest store. Now we have additional traffic on Kennesaw, which people don't even stop at the stop sign as it is. But if anybody has gone to the Heartland Kroger, you'll see that people are randomly parking everywhere because there's not even enough parking spots to accommodate the residents who already live there and need to grocery shop. So some of these things that I think also need to be thought about to go into the well-designed neighborhood and community kind of so it's more all encompassing as opposed to just focusing on which direction the back of the house is going to face or, you know, the streets that are within that community. because that community we we i heard a lot of the word relationship from mr martin but really i saw more segregation as we were looking at these maps of between the neighborhoods and between even the different type of housing units so really thinking about the overall relationship to the overbrook and squires oak and heartland and how it can be a larger well-designed neighborhood and community So that's all. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Hello, I'm Ginny Karolke. I live at 2050 DeLong Road, right at the corner of Armstrong Mill and DeLong. Overbrook is right across the street from my driveway, and I will say they're wonderful neighbors. I've never had any problem with Overbrook Farm. So what I'd like you to think about is the future of DeLong Road. I think when Overbrook Farm was pulled into the urban services area, it was a death knell for DeLong Road. We've already seen it. We were here discussing when the development at Ellerslie went in on Richmond, Old Richmond, DeLong, trying to get that quantity down, and their traffic expert said only three cars would go down DeLong Road from 500 houses. But what they didn't understand is DeLong Road is now a cut through to get to the other side of Man of War because you don't want to follow man of war because of all the traffic lights. So DeLong Road is now cut through. It's a narrow road. It's a beautiful road. But I think with this subdivision going in, I can make a quote from the Prince's Bride. DeLong Road is not dead, but he's mostly dead. So I think you need to consider traffic on DeLong Road. We're going to have to either cut down all those beautiful large trees and enlarge it to make it safe. And I'd rather see that done sooner than later. I love the road as it is, however I take my truck and horse trailer down there. I counted one morning, 830 in the morning, going from DeLong Road-Armstrong Mill intersection down to Old Richmond Road, two miles, 75 cars coming the other way. They were not farm vehicles, they were cars. They get to the three-way stop and they turn right to go past Heartland. So all that traffic from Jacobson Park, from Ellerslie, from the I-75 interchange is funneling through DeLong up Armstrong Mill. So this is just one more pebble in a stream that's going to overflow eventually. So I ask you to consider that traffic impact. Thank you. Thank you. Sir. i'm eric lambert a resident of heartland if this were my property if i owned the farm like the youngs do i and i wasn't using it to necessarily and i wanted had in mind for a long time to develop it then fair enough and that's one thing that our council explained to us is that it's not a question of whether this is going to be kept a horse farm or developed it's just kind of the the natural order of things okay that's not for me to decide but what we want to urge you to consider is the timing of when this is done and how it's done right now we're talking about putting on this on this 50 acre or so plot uh what is it 319 um 319 units and i can't remember the exact division of types of structures and whatnot but there is already and this has been alluded to earlier was mentioned by the staff a pumping station that for some reason or other and can't be upgraded is is regularly overflowing with sewage. When it rains, it pours, literally, and not what you want it to pour. So why would you approve a plan by this applicant to put, to stuff more people, all of whom are going to use water, all of whom are going to flush toilets, onto this land when it's already, when it rains, overflowing? and we don't think it's going to overflow even more when added capacity is put there. Some people might say, well, we're not at our capacity. The consent degree, I think, said something like it can't go over 18,000, whatever that metric is, whatever that unit is, and we're below that. Right now we're at 15,000 or it will be at 15,000 with its development. That's irrelevant. That's fine for the letter of the law. Think about the spirit of the law. Who wants human waste spilling out of this pumping station? Already, there's nobody standing around to smell it or look at it. But when you start having people, you saw how close those houses were, those lots were to that pumping station. Why would you agree to do something like that? So if the development's going to happen, it's not for me to decide. What is for me to urge you as the decision makers is to question why would you do something like that before that capacity has been upgraded, before the whole sewer system is such that this problem, this overflow of sewage is not happening on a regular basis, emphasis on a regular basis. So we urge you to consider that and not just look at that this is a binary black and white issue, but to say, okay, maybe we could do this, we could do X, but we're going to need to add Y to make this not just a compliance decision, but a prudent decision. Thank you. Thank you. Ma'am. Hello, my name is Dawn Hardin, and I am a resident of the Heartland Subdivision. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak. I just want to urge you to please consider the safety of children in this whole big plan that's going on. For example, the school at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, the park at Heartland Park, the traffic that's going to be increasing. Please think about those things as you make these very important decisions. And just think about the way we want our future of our city to be. and the traffic on Armstrong Mill right now where it is a very small two lane, we need to make sure it's safe for parents driving their children and safe for cars going both directions. Thank you so much for your input. Thank you for your comments, sir. Good afternoon. I'm Charles Fultz. I'm a 20-year resident of Heartland Subdivision, and I absolutely love Heartland. We chose it because of being out on the outskirts of Lexington. And what I would challenge you all to consider is in the traffic report that was presented, I noticed that it kind of ended when it got to Man of War and maybe I think even Tate's Creek, but there's a lot of cut-through issues, and I think it was mentioned by another lady earlier. In the traffic reports, I'm not sure that they have considered the cut-through issues because I live at pretty much the intersection of Armstrong Mill and Kennesaw. I live on Camberling, which is the very first street. And I have a 17-year-old daughter, and she drives. And I have challenges getting out of my street right now, especially at peak hours. During non-peak hours, I'm sure that the traffic's just fine. But it's during those peak hours that we see the problems. traffic will turn right off of Armstrong Mill into Kennesaw because everybody's going to the Grover Hartland to shop and so I'm sitting there and then I have to jet out into traffic to get across the road so it's it's already an issue as you go the other way from Armstrong Mill going to Tate's Creek in the morning time it's very interesting because cars will actually go out into the opposing lane into oncoming traffic and zip up until they can get into the turn lane to get onto Tate's Creek. So I guess my challenge is just more one of a consideration for you all to consider the safety issues. And when we do the traffic studies, maybe ask them to be a little bit broader and consider the cut-through issues as well as safety. So I appreciate your time. Appreciate everything. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? according to our process then the petitioners have an opportunity to answer some of the questions and then you have another opportunity of you to once you hear the petitioners comments if you have some other thoughts you can do then and then we'll finish up with the staff side of it and Mr. Lear and this will be this will be very quick the only two things that I want to mention are the notice issue and I suppose it's possible when several hundred neighbors are notified I think the list actually is from GPS comes from planning but the way that under our statutes and under our ordinances we the safety we put in is there's mail notice we as a practice notify the neighborhood associations and we post signs there's a newspaper ad and in this case the developers reached out and had a neighborhood meeting at which this this well-spoken young woman attended so it is a belt and suspenders approach but given given a large large number of people being notified it is it is possible that you're going to miss somebody in the mail but as was happens in this case obviously not missed them all together in terms of traffic I probably should say this Jimmy I love you and that was one of the best traffic studies I ever saw so congratulations on that in all sincerity I would not belittle any any mother or other neighbors concern about about safety What I would say is that there are already several hundred, maybe a few thousand acres of existing development that have access directly or indirectly onto Armstrong Mill Road. Yes, it is one of the older country roads. Yes, it will be as the development goes next to it. It will be improved. But the incremental effect, and you've seen that from the traffic study, the incremental effect of this 50 acres is a small drop in the bucket compared to the amount of acreage that's already developed there. And we do have, we hear concerns about traffic at rush hour at every single part of Lexington. and the places where it's a problem is where you've got side roads getting out onto the main arterials, which, as we all know, get all the green time. So we appreciate those concerns. Obviously, we're dealing with the staff and the government in terms of what we're required to do to address the roads that we're building and we abut, and we're certainly going to follow the rules. That's really it. We appreciate your time. We believe that this development is appropriate. I do want to say one other thing in closing. You've got all sorts of guarantees within the ordinance and within your rules of what this development will be. But in this case, you've got two other incredibly powerful circumstantial guarantees that this is going to be done right, it's going to be done well it's going to be done in an attractive fashion whatever anybody else says the property that will be most affected but what happens on this 50 acres is the property directly across the road owned by the same people overbrook farm and second the second guarantee is this particular family for over a half century has done nothing but the highest quality work in every area in support of this community and in support of the property that they own and have anything to do with. And you don't get that in every zone change. You don't get that in every development. You certainly have it in this one. Thank you. Thank you. If there's any other citizen comments you'd like to have in response to the rebuttal. Okay, then I'll move to the staff. And I would like the staff to at least touch on this notification issue just to clarify that for the record. I'm not really sure exactly what happened in terms of this particular address. it is in the notice area but as you've heard there's a number of street, a number of addresses and people that were notified but it is correct to say we don't only use mail notice, we do publish in the newspaper, we are required to post signs on the property and one of the things we always have to ask is if someone didn't get a mailing or were they somehow denied the opportunity to come and express their opinions and be heard and obviously that wasn't denied in this case. So at best I can say I hope- It was just an inadvertent mistake, but I don't think it created a significant harm in this instance because there was still participation, apparently both at the neighborhood level and here today. Thank you. Ms. Waite. Mr. Wilson, thank you. The two items on the development plan recommendation from the staff that we would suggest changing are condition number 12, where it says discuss capacity of existing pump station. The staff believes that can be deleted today because that did occur. And then adding a condition, I guess if we renumbered, but it would be 18 to denote on-street parking along Squire Oak Drive shall be discussed or resolved at the time of the final development plan slash preliminary subdivision plan. And that was, I believe, a request from Mr. Clenden that the applicant was agreeable to adding as a condition. Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Berkley. I've learned a lot about sewer capacity today, so I'm curious how long, I don't see anybody here from long-range planning, so I don't know who can answer this question, but how long has the planning staff been aware that we don't have really essentially any sewer capacity left out in this area? well just a year ago we still had 23,000 gallons per day and then the Harper Woods development came in and utilized like 40 units and then the applicant just this week reserved 81 units of capacity so until that occurred within the last 12 months that bank was in the green is my understanding is that correct Charlie Martin but today it's in the red well on the on the capacity assurance website it shows up as red so because it is at such a very small fraction of what could be served literally 260 gallons per day is what is left of capacity so that bumps it to a red color on the map in terms of capacity so until the last year it there was sufficient capacity to serve development in that area just wasn't we weren't sure exactly what density was going to happen so sure the consent decree told us that as a community we don't have enough sewer capacity i mean that's really what what caused the consent decree to happen in the first place you know we were sued by US EPA and the Department of Justice in 2006. Through the negotiations of the consent decree, we came up with the capacity assurance program, which was a means to fix our problem over the long haul, because it was going to take a long time to fix what has been a community problem for many years, but at the same time not put us on a moratorium, because that very well could have happened, and that could have happened not just here, but community-wide. could have meant that we couldn't build churches we couldn't build uh we couldn't expand commonwealth stadium we couldn't have done a lot of things and so the capacity assurance uh program is in place to where there's an accounting of available capacity to um to incrementally get things better while not at the same time starving the what what would be the economic engine of the community by being able to do projects and where i'm you know what i'm saying is is that you know we've gone through a pretty extensive comprehensive plan process here and i certainly don't ever remember being presented this information for this area and there's supposedly 900 acres of available land there that's really not available well in terms of all of the expansion areas none of those were sewered prior to them being brought in in 1996 and as development occurred those sewer plans sanitary sewer storm water roadways parks were all part of those plans and they had to occur in order for the residential development or commercial development to occur so that's the same situation that overbrook farm is in as well well but what i'm what i'm hearing is that it's going to be 2025 before anything else will be able to be seward in this watershed and this was a as everyone knows this was talked about a lot this this particular area well that timing is not under the control of the division of planning i believe or the planning commission so that is solely within water quality and up to their agreements with the property owners well all i'm saying is is that i think we should have been presented this kind of information when we were going through the comp plan process. Mr. Duncan, do you have anything to add? And to my knowledge, I mean, I was at most every meeting. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Berkley, I believe these kinds of reports have been given all along in our annual MS4 updates from the Division of Water Quality, not just for this area but for across the urban service area where capacity is being improved. So I suppose that that information has, in our mind, has been part of the common knowledge of the information that's been presented to you over the past 12 years or so. And certainly the timing of new development in this area we expect will likely correspond with the availability of the infrastructure, given the amount of time it takes to produce new development. So we are confident that the Overbrook Farm, the 900 acres that's in the urban service boundary and has been part of it for nearly 40 years, is an important contribution to the development of Lexington, and we continue to recommend that we focus on these areas before we look at expanding the urban service boundary. Okay. At this time, thank you, Ms. Wade. I'm going to give the Commission members if you have any questions related for the applicant, for the attorneys from the community or the staff, if you have any final thoughts, now is the time. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'd like to commend again, as Mr. Billings said, the community and the powers that be, the attorney, staff, and everybody for working so hard on this. As we know, this could have been quite an argument, quite a fight, quite a fuss here. And you all worked it out before you got here, and I appreciate that myself. It's great to see everybody working together as they should. Understanding that this is a zoning change, it's not a development plan, we're not there yet to be able to put pipes in the ground and do all those things. I think this piece of property, it's separated, it's that. It's part of what was called in our 2018 goals and objectives, I think, patient capital. It probably was also included in our underdeveloped land to be used. So we are now doing what we've been charged to do, and that is do infill. We're not expanding the boundaries. That was made very clear. But we are doing infill. And so to see the community working together as it should, I think, is highly commendable. And I thank you for that. So I'm excited to see what you're going to do. Thank you. Okay. Let me ask you this. Are there any other questions for the applicant? Otherwise, I'm going to quote. Okay, yes. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We had passed around two letters, one from the Fayette County Neighborhood Association, and one from Seton Hall School, and I just wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of it. What I think the Neighborhood Association was speaking of was more zone change information. What Seton Hall was talking about was more probably buffering, which is to come later, but I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of that at this time. Okay, thank you. Okay, any questions for the applicant? Anything else? Okay. If not, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to close off this part of the hearing, and I'm going to bring it back to the commission. Now, if commission members would like to have a discussion point or make a comment or anything like that related to this plan, now is the time. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a quick comment. Patrick, Mr. Brewer. This is, I think, again, an exemplary situation we have with the applicant, the owners, the neighborhoods. I've never seen one better. I think that there's a natural tendency when you have development of such beautiful land like this, you tend to deal nimby argument, and this actually used to be my backyard. So I lived at the end of Armstrong Mill and drove those roads and loved the farm. and I can't imagine that this part of the development of this area could be done better. So my congratulations to all involved and I'm ready to make a motion to everybody else. Just a minute before we, okay. Mr. Penn, I'll get back with you though, Mr. Brewer. Yeah, you. I want the neighbors in this room today to understand that I'm old enough to remember what that land looked like before Mr. Young bought it. And I understand all the work that was done on that land through piping, through things to make it a first-class horse operation, which it was for many years. John Gaines said to us years ago that we live in the most privately owned, privately maintained park system in the world. And you all have been the recipient of that, that the Young families done ever since they purchased that property and started putting it together whether it's storm cat or whatever it is that was raised on that farm you've had the ability to look and see and enjoy that farm for that whole time the part of it that's inside the urban service boundary will be will be developed and it's the neat part about this it's being developed while the people that own the property care about it and are going to be part of the development and you're very fortunate to have that. You're very fortunate to have people that care about that land also care about the development. So I want you to understand that what makes this place so unique is because of the ownership of the land of the people that own it and the stewardship of it. And I don't want to make the motion. I'll leave that for Mr. Brewer, but I did want to make that comment. Anyone else want to make a general comment before we get to the motion part of it? Yes, Mr. Owens. Well, one other thing, I'm not going to profess to be, have been around as long as Mr. Penn, but, you know, I know this land very well. The previous job, I used to travel up and down Armstrong Mill Road, and I do remember when Armstrong Mill Road was literally in the country. I think someone said this has been in the urban service boundary since 1980 or 1983. it's been a long time coming what I'm seeing right now I think is something very good nobody ever wants to see development in their backyard but I think what's going to be done is going to be done in a very nice manner and it's going to be something that everybody's proud of once that time comes so with that I do have one question And there's been discussion as far as conditional zoning restriction of density cap. Does that need to be addressed? Well, it has been. And, in fact, I asked the staff, first of all, if they agreed with it and if they were comfortable with it. They also made another recommendation related to the resolve the parking issue as well, but one's on the development plan. Thank you, sir. Mr. Owens, we did add the findings proposed by the applicant to the overhead, and item D addresses the density. Okay. So you've already added that. Great. Okay. Any other comments? Okay. Let me ask one thing for clarification from the staff. Maybe this is my issue here. The D, I can't read that up. I can read it to you. Are you addressing the density cap at 6.2, or are you addressing it by saying the number of units at 3.9? Both? Total number of units is what it says. Okay. It says the total number of dwelling units within the zone change area. shall be limited to 313. Good. 319. 319. Okay. 319 for the record. Everybody's in good shape except me. Mr. Brewer. Didn't mean to take off six units there. We're going to take them in two motions. First of all, the zone change. Yes. Let me make a motion, Mr. Chairman, for approval of MAR 18-2 over Brook Farm. Based on the findings, we have, I think, what would be called combined findings because the staff agreed with the adding of number 10 which we just confirmed was 319 and not 313. so based on this one i moved for approval okay it's been moved by mr brewer second by mr berkeley that we approve uh pln mar 18-2 over rick farm llc with the conditions provided by staff with restrictions also added and adding one other and that is the density capital 6.2 or whatever that was on the thing with a number of units assigned at 319. i think that's close enough any other discussion on the motion hearing none please vote when it comes up on your screens That motion carries. Would you like to carry on? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, move for approval of the Major Development Plan 18-08, Sanford and McCracken Farms, with the two changes deleting note 12 and adding a note, which would, I think, be enumerated 17. And I don't have the language that Tracy put up, but as amended by staff. to resolve on-street parking will be addressed at the final development plan. Okay, I think she's got it there. I think that's 17 now with the renumerable. That's correct. It's still 17. Scratch 12. Scratch 12. We got that. Okay. Do I have a second? Oh, it's been moved by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve PLN MJDP 18-18 Sanford and McCracken Farms Unit 2 at Alfred Property with the 17 conditions provided by staff. Striking number 12, discuss capacity of the existing pump station, but adding in another one which would say to discuss the on-street parking, or resolve that on-street parking will be discussed, resolved that on-street parking will be discussed at the time of the final development plan. Parking on square. Parking. On square. Parking will be. Wait a minute. Is that okay now? It needs to be parking on square drive. No parking on square drive. I'm sorry. All right. We've got the mover and the seconder. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay. That motion also carries. Okay, I think that's it. Thank you ladies and gentlemen for your patience on this. If you all don't mind, I'll declare a five-minute break and we'll come back in together. Thank you. This is the on page six, PLN cell 18-1. Good afternoon, how are you all today? Before we get started, well, this is Plan Cell PLN CELL 18-1, and it's on page six of your agenda, and it's the first cell tower application we've had this year. Before we get started, I have two letters of opposition. One is from Council Member Plowman, District 12, and another is from an adjoining property owner to the church to Mrs. Plowman, and I'd like to give those to you. And then I would also like to enter into the record information that was sent to you all yesterday, the property appraisers report, and the report as far as allowing testimony regarding radio frequency emissions. i thought this was going to be a powerpoint but it's not it didn't work that way anyway um what they're requesting the applicants are central states tower three and selco partnership and selco partnership is doing businesses verizon what they're requesting is a 75 foot steel monopole tower with a five-foot lightning arrestor and it'll be a total of 80 feet high and it'll be located at 2280 hume road which is the north side church of christ property and that is that property right there here is winchester road interstate 75 the on-ramp to interstate 75 from winchester road bluegrass executive park and then here is hamburg walmart and lows over here The property is actually split zoned. EAR1, because part of it is in the expansion area, and then there's a small amount of AR zoning. This is the EAR1 section, and then this little bitty section right there is AR, and that's where the tower is going to be located. It's proposed in that portion of the property, which is about two acres. The entire property is about 12 acres. There will be a 6,400-square-foot and 80-by-80 easement between the pavilion on the church property and the interstate right-of-way. And if you could put that one up, please. Thank you. This is the location right here. Access will be off of Hume Road and then in through here, and this is the side of the tower. And then if you could put the next one up. This shows the layout of the equipment area, the easement area. It'll be surrounded by a fence. and then there will be hedge around there, and then red maple trees planted 15 feet on center. And I know in the staff report it referenced lease area, but actually, according to the language in the contract, it's an easement, and I apologize for any confusion that might have caused. And as I said, this will be screened to comply with Article 25 of the zoning ordinance with the fence, with the hedge, and with the red maples. and then as part of this application they're asking for a variance or a waiver to the one to one height to yard ratio along the north property line they're asking for 60 feet and if you could put that one up please next i'm sorry i apologize for that okay along the north property line it'll be reduced to 60 feet if you approve this and along the western property line from the from the interstate it'd be 65 feet and that's to allow the tower to be in the best location which is the highest point on the property and it's about 150 feet from the i-75 long ram verizon found a gap in its service because of the high traffic in the winchester road and the i-75 corridors and then as you know central baptist is planning on building a new campus out here and so with the increasing growth and projected development in the area it's only going to get worse and then there are three other towers in the area within two miles and those were built can you go back please those were built several years ago and two of them are to the east southeast of the property there's one right here and there's one right here and then there's one to the northwest up here and this area right here is the search area so as you can see they're outside of the search area where they need the service and I've been told in the last couple of days that Verizon may already be on two of those towers anyway. Initially this tower and now if you can pick that one up please will only hold one set of antenna and it's going to be built so that it can be expanded to hold more if need arises and as it's proposed at 75 feet it'll have a minimal profile it only is going to be about three feet in diameter at the top here in about four feet at the base the 2013 comprehensive plan as you know was written as a policy-based document rather than a land-use based document 2018 is being written in the same way but it's going to be more specific with regard to policy and site design issues it's written to allow flexibility in determining land use best land use as far as compatibility goes as it applies to zone changes or conditional uses or cell tower applications or whatever applications come before you. And we're using the 2018 goals and objectives. They've been adopted, and those are the ones that we're currently using. But there are still some from older comprehensive plans that are applicable and that are very relevant, and they are supported by the current goals and objectives as well as the 2013 text of that plan. There's one from 2007 that addresses the need to provide essential services and facilities. notes that it should be made available and accessible to all Fayette County citizens, and that's to meet health, safety, and quality of life needs. And that is supported by the text of the 2013 plan and the goals and objectives. Theme E in the plan is maintaining balance between planning for land uses and safeguarding rural land. And part of that balance is being able to provide services to all Fayette County. And that would be in the least obtrusive and the most practical and the most effective way possible. And the plan also states that although protecting the natural and cultural landscape of Fayette County is a desirable goal, we also need to expand access to the internet and wireless services in both the urban service area and the rural service area. In addition to that, the 2017 update of the Rural Land Management Plan acknowledged that the agricultural community has a dependence on the internet, recommends exploring options to provide high-capacity broadband infrastructure to businesses and homes in the rural service area and that is partly what this tower is intended to do it'll comply with the comp plan's recommendation to co-locate additional carriers as i said it's being built so it can be expanded if necessary and that's to better serve the general public and emergency service providers without having to provide more towers in the area it meets all zoning ordinance criteria except the one-to-one high tiered ratio along the north and west property lines it's being located on the property and it's screened so as to minimize any negative visual impact that might occur and still provide the needed service it's located on the ar portion of a split zone property which has been been developed as a church it used to be totally agricultural the part that was in the in the expansion area was rezoned to ea r1 to allow the church to be built because they wanted something bigger than 10 000 square feet which is the limit in the ar zone so this property is more commercial in nature even though it's a church it is more commercial in nature because the building itself is over 25 000 square feet in size it's on the edge of the rural service area it's not in the heart of the rural area and article 25 does allow cell towers in agricultural and residential zones monopoles not the lattice kind but monopoles and that is if there are no other locations that are feasible and they did try to locate in other places but nobody nobody wanted to let them locate there or else it just didn't work because of topography or whatever reason the church did agree to let them use their property so in considering this relationship of the application to article 25 we have the following findings that there are no fema floodplain areas on the property there's fema floodplain to the east and the west but it's at least 1800 feet away there are no specific areas that are obviously geologic hazard areas and must be avoided the property is gently sloping and it's going to be on the high point of the property for its level it's not within 1200 feet of an historic district or landmark the adjoining streets are not state designated scenic byways and although winchester road is considered a scenic corridor that designation occurs a little bit farther up the road the one-to-one height yard ratio for the 75-foot tower will be met and greatly exceeded on the eastern and southern sides of the property and then the variance has been requested to reduce the height to yard ratio to allow the tower to be located between 60 and 65 feet from the northern and western property lines the requirement that the accessory structures meet the required 25 foot distance from any adjoining residential zone or properties used for residential purposes is being met and the residence on the nearest property the adjoining property is at least 750 feet away from where the tower is proposed it will not be located where it would interfere with traffic circulation, access, storm drainage, or other requirements of the ordinance, and it will be placed behind the pavilion between it and the right-of-way of the interstate. There's adequate space for all the landscaping that's required, and they have agreed to do it according to Article 25. The site is subject to a development plan, and they will amend that development plan within 30 days. It'll be a steel monopole, and it has a relatively low profile it's miniature compared to what most of the ones that we see it's only 75 feet tall and most of them are like 130 150 190 feet tall the property is not going to be subdivided it's just going to be in an easement and it's not and it's not totally zoned agricultural anyway it's not the most of the property is ear1 so it's not subject to the 40 40 acre minimum so that's not going to be violated and then this is for the purpose of providing or augmenting service in the area and its ability to be expanded in the air in the future will comply with the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance requirements there are four conditions for approval we recommended approval there are four conditions that are listed in your staff report if you have any questions about anything i'd be glad to have answered them and mr pike is here with other folks pan to answer technical stuff yeah i don't know whether i don't know where his question is coming from so well it's one i always ask is uh is there enough land with this tower to co-locate more than one other yes applicant on it and is there an access easement to it the access easement is that where i showed you that comes from hume road through the parking lot yes and the church holds the title to that land? Yes. The entire property is there. It's just split zoned. It's not two properties. It's one property. Okay. The part that's the AR1, is that the part where the cell tire is going to be? No, it's going to be in the AR portion. Okay. So it's a 70-foot monopole and the closest residence is 750 feet away. Yes, 75 feet. And I've been told that there is going to be a zero fall radius, meaning that it's going to collapse within itself rather than have the tendency to tip over. Mr. Pike will address that. I hope it doesn't do either. Pardon? I hope it doesn't do either. Same here, right. Okay, thank you. Okay. Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Rackers, as far as a search ring? Yes. Do we have a search area? I showed it to you, yeah. It was where the map. Can you get that back up there? Yeah, can you put it back up? there you go this right here is a search area it's a search rectangle well right it's not a it's not a circle it's not a ring it's an area okay and then these right here right here and right here are the closest towers in the area according to the fcc okay all right thank you Any other questions? Applegant? Thank you. Afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. For the recorded record, my name is David Pike. I'm a principal with Pike Legal Group, PLLC, PO Box 369, Shepherdsville, Kentucky. It's a pleasure to appear before you again, especially on a case that does not involve sewer capacity. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I have some binders I would like to distribute before I begin. And also, I will need some help from someone to not only get my PowerPoint up, but to make sure it's idiot-proof enough for me to cue it. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you. First of all, I'd like to, of course, thank your very able zoning staff. We've worked extremely hard to make sure that we meet your requirements and that we have a well-configured site. And I think the staff recommendation for approval on all counts speaks to that. We're obviously grateful to Ms. Rackers and to the rest of your zoning team. And, of course, we're gratified at their recommendation and obviously think it's a well-reasoned analysis. Also with me here this evening is Gordon Snyder, who's a senior radio frequency design engineer with the company. If you could raise your hand, Gordon, to help answer any questions that I'm unable to address. Of course, a copy of this PowerPoint presentation is included at tab L of the hearing binder that we have just distributed to you. And, of course, as is always the case, without being requested, we waived all confidentiality in connection with this application so that the public would have full access to not only the original application, but to all subsequent filings at their leisure. I think we can begin at tab A, the site plan, of course a copy of which you have, and also which was originally filed in connection with our application. And we meet almost all of the requirements associated with Article 25. The ones we don't, we have a really good reason for not meeting. We're requesting either a variance or waiver, whatever legal style you want to use associated with this, from your one-to-one height-to-yard ratio on two sides. That's important because we think we meet all of the intents associated with that and the policy objectives, as I'll discuss in just a moment. But it also allows us to help shield this facility with an existing storage building that's located on the property, from the front of the property. It allows us to take advantage of the extensive wooded areas at the back and to the side of the property for effective shielding of the structure. And finally, it allows us to deploy a shorter tower since it also makes it possible for us to site this at the highest point on the property. Some kind of key things for you to note in this connection. First of all, it's, of course, we're set back 60 feet from the nearest property line to the north. We're over almost 360 feet from the nearest property line to the east, 1,200 feet from the nearest property line to the south, 67 feet and change from the nearest property line to the west. And here's an important statistic. It's over 550 feet to the nearest residential structure associated with this deployment. So, again, although we are requesting a change in connection with setbacks on two dimensions, there's some good reasons for doing that. I think we are better serving the intent associated with the regulations than trying to meet them strictly in this instance. It's also worth noting in a late-breaking development, we've inserted in the front portion of your binders an additional exhibit that just arrived this morning. In fact, we printed it out at the FedEx offices just a few hours ago. And that's a copy of the zero-foot fall zone certification for this structure, meaning that this tower is over-engineered and exceeds the requirements of all both state and federal standards so that in the event there was a catastrophic event of some sort, instead of it falling like so, it bends about two-thirds of the way up, resulting in a zero-foot fall zone. Now, I would, of course, argue, as you have heard experts that are with me before, that, first of all, structures like this have withstood direct hits by tornadoes. As an example, during Hurricane Katrina, not a single monopole like this was downed. They are extraordinarily strong structures, and that, as one engineer put it before this commission previously, that in the event something did happen that was sufficient to bring it down, there would be nothing left for it to fall onto since everything else would have already long since have been destroyed, since this is built to a higher standard than any other state building codes that are applicable. So, also in our site plan, of course, we talk about, you know, some of these best location criteria, and again, we think the variance or the waiver is fully justified under these circumstances, since arguably the key justification for that setback would be safety, and we've dealt with that by tendering our zero-foot fall zone certification that's stamped and sealed by a Kentucky licensed engineer. And, of course, we've got extraordinary setbacks over 550 feet to the nearest residential structure. Also, it's kind of worth noting, in connection with your site plan, This is a statistic that we did not include in the original application, but I think it's worth noting. Although I would not be so bold as an advocate to indicate that this is a short structure, it is not, but by cell tower standards, it is extraordinarily short. There are light poles that are along interstates that are taller than this in this vicinity. As an example, there are currently 52 FCC registered towers constructed in Fayette County. All 52 of them are taller than this, all of them. The average height of registered towers in this county is 306 feet. That's more than three times taller than this tower is. So, again, I'm not suggesting it's a short structure, but by cell tower standards, it certainly is. Our radio frequency need is documented at tab B. We have a critical capacity issue in this vicinity with extraordinary growths in the demand for our wireless services. And also, of course, this structure will serve, if we are fortunate enough to receive your approval, to dramatically improve the quality of in-building coverage in this vicinity as well. If you have questions about that need, I think if you're a Verizon wireless user, it's pretty clear, based on drop calls and other issues that you may have experienced in the vicinity, but we have Gordon with us to help answer any of those questions. Ultimately, there are no other towers located within this search area. We are already located on two of the other closest towers. And if we could figure out a co-location alternative that would make this work, we would, because, again, it is a pleasure to appear before you, but if we could co-locate, at the end of the day, we would pull an electrical permit, pay a small fee, and be on the air months ago, as opposed to having prepared this application and appearing before you. And, of course, this is kind of our depiction of where we are right now, where what we're looking for is green. You can see that we have some critical deficiencies in the area. This is what we get afterwards. And as you can see, we pick up dramatic improvements for residential areas in this vicinity and also dramatically improve our coverage along the interstates where that safety communications is particularly critical. This is a copy of the search area that Commissioner Owens was asking about a few moments ago that Ms. Rackers superimposed on her drawing. Within that vicinity, of course, we have to have a small and constrained one. Gordon can explain that if you want him to. But ultimately, since we're dealing with a capacity-related issue, cell spacing is critical. And also, since it's a short facility, our tolerances for moving it are smaller. So as a result, that's the area where we need to locate. And as you can see, we've met our objective by locating within it. and there are no other cell towers located within that rectangle, which we now refer to as a search area since there almost never circles anymore. Our site acquisition report is included at tab D, where we talk about some techniques that we went through to locate a suitable tract of ground. If you look at an aerial map of this vicinity, it's clear this is one of the larger tracts that's available, and it also helps us get the significant spacing from a residential structure that we were able to achieve in this area. Even though it's densely populated, we were able to manage to locate this facility over 550 feet from the nearest home. Let's see, our county tower map, which is required under state law and your local ordinances, are included at tab E of the materials that I've distributed to you. Property valuation issues are dealt with at tab F. It is, of course, you should always rely on the advice of your attorney. It is our view, however, that this is not a justification for the disapproval of a cell tower application since we are a licensed utility provider in the state. But this is an issue that often comes up. So we have submitted a report by an eminently qualified real estate appraiser. His name is Glenn Katz. He has over 25 years of appraisal experience. He holds every certification that is offered by the Appraisal Institute for both residential, commercial, and industrial appraisal work in the state. He is also currently the president of the state chapter of the Appraisal Institute and previously has served as their education committee chairman for the past decade. He finds that a facility of this type will have no adverse effect on real estate values in the vicinity. Photo simulations are included at tab G. We thought this was useful because, of course, it would assist you in seeing that ultimately the effect here is not significant. Although, again, it is our view that aesthetic concerns, I'll talk about that in a few minutes, cannot serve as a basis for a disapproval, we thought you might want to see this in particular in connection with our request for a variance or a waiver concerning the setbacks and why that makes perfect sense in this instance. So here you can see it's not visible at that location. There's current and there's proposed. So ultimately, that's our conclusion. Tower and foundation designs are included at tab H. Our geotechnical report has also been tendered for your review. Floodplain information, of course we have our certification, and your staff concurs in that conclusion that it is not located within a floodplain. We've met all the notice requirements and we have filed suitable proof of that notice with your zoning staff subsequently in order to demonstrate that we met all of those state and local requirements. Now, since we had a couple of potential opponents sign up in connection with this, I think it's incumbent upon me to review with you how we see the law that governs this proceeding. You should, of course, always rely on the advice of your expert legal counsel. But because these applications are materially different legally from any other type of application that you will consider at any time based on the unique statutory formulations that govern it at the state level and the fact that, of course, all of this is controlled at the federal level by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as amended, I'd like to take a few minutes to review how we see the law in connection with this. Of course, it's your task to adhere to the advice of your attorney. First of all, of course, all these facilities can only be denied by a local agency such as this based on substantial evidence. Your own zoning requirements are examples of substantial evidence, and I would note in connection with this that your own planning staff has indicated that we meet those requirements. Under case precedents in this Federal circuit that are binding upon us as participants here today, the following items are not substantial evidence and cannot serve as a basis for a cell tower disapproval. First of all, lay opinion cannot. Second, unsupported opinion, the classic example cited in the case being a printout from the Internet. Generalized expression of concerns with aesthetics cannot. Claims that a tower is unsightly or other types of aesthetical concerns of that type are not substantial evidence. Claims that the tower is ugly and not wanted near a residence is not sufficient. Because, of course, ultimately, otherwise, as the courts have noted, we would have no new cell towers, since that objection could be made by anyone based on their personal preference at any location. Of course, also, you can't take actions which have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless service, and if we introduce proof that the gap exists, which is what we have done, we have met our requirements under federal law in terms of justifying the proposal. It is, of course, black-letter law in this proceeding at both the state level and federal that issues involving alleged health or environmental effects associated with radiation cannot be considered by this commission. It is our view that that testimony should not even be received by the commission. But that is, of course, a decision for you to make in consultation with your legal counsel. We have, of course, met our burden here by filing our certification that we will meet all FCC requirements associated with the deployment of this site. And as you can see from this and some following slides, we've worked diligently at meeting all of the requirements of your local regulations. And, of course, finally, we're a utility. And that's one of the other things that makes us different. We're registered with the Kentucky Public Service Commission, and as you'll see in a couple of slides here, we are now the dominant means of communication in this country. If you take a look, and this is a closing that I've used before this commission before, but I think it's worthwhile in case there are new members of the commission or new staff members for me to underscore. This is not just an ordinary application. These applications go squarely to the health, welfare, safety of this community. At tab I, there's a report from the FCC. indicating that approximately 70 percent now of all emergency calls are placed from wireless phones. Now, during my career, I've watched that statistic climb steadily. Then, if you juxtapose that against the materials at tab J, you see why this is not just an ordinary application and why it is so critical to the community. Every year, there is a joint study done by allied health agencies in the federal government. It is the definitive study of how people communicate in this country. Now, you might ask yourself, well, why would health agencies be doing this? Well, groups like the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, public health agencies, and their allied institutions have to know that when they are seeking information from people via surveys, that they are getting a truly random sample, that they're not getting bias built into the selection criteria, that they're going to make public health decisions based on. So they do a comprehensive study nationwide and do it state by state as well. These statistics climb every year. Last year we crossed two critical thresholds for the first time. The first one is now over half of all adults in this country now live in a home that only has a wireless phone, no landline phone. Also, over 60 percent of all children are raised in homes exactly like that. Now, when you take that statistic and you remember the 70 percent of all emergency calls in the previous slide, it becomes vividly clear why it is so essential that that map I showed you earlier be green. It's so we can provide high-quality, in-building, reliable service with adequate capacity that works first time, every time, because it's not just a matter of convenience, it is a matter of life and death. And I understand that this community has had some unfortunate experiences in that regard with emergency response personnel in the past. It's no surprise, but this type of infrastructure is what's needed to help solve that problem. Of course, I've also included a slide here that I won't go through chapter and verse because I know we've all had a long day today. But unlike most industries, we are experiencing increases in demand of 50 percent or more a year in some areas. And we have to keep up with that. And in order to do that, we have to have approvals from planning commissions like this for us to invest in the new infrastructure that's required to provide the high-quality services that are essential. A copy of my presentation is included at tab L. At this juncture, what I would like to do is to take a moment to introduce a copy of this binder, if I could, cumulatively as an additional exhibit since I have been referring to it during the course of this hearing. I would also like to introduce all of our previous filings, including our application and supplemental materials that we have tendered for inclusion in the record as well. This community is a fast-growing community. The case that we heard just a little while ago is testimony to the fact that more people are moving here, more people come here to live out their lives, and all of those people have one thing in common. They all need to be able to communicate. In order for that to happen, we have to be able to deploy the infrastructure that is required for the benefit of our customers. And to go to one of the questions you asked, Mr. Penn, one of the things that makes this unique, is this site, this is the shortest cell tower you have ever considered. First, there is more than adequate ground at the base and pre-configured for multiple providers. Second, it also is unique in that it is pre-configured to be able to be extended to 135 feet in the future. That would require subsequent action by this commission. We did not ask for that full height here today because Verizon doesn't need it. and we only ask for what we need in order to accomplish our objective. But this is carefully considered and carefully thought out to maximize co-location potential at this location. And if we come back for a taller tower, it will be because there is a carrier that wants to co-locate that needs that height. Now, I could talk much longer because, of course, I'm a lawyer. But I also know we've been at this a while today. I am grateful for your attention after a very long day, and it is my hope that at the end of your consideration that we will receive your vote so that we can proceed with construction of this facility. We have all the other approvals that are required. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Pike? Mr. Owens? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pike, thank you. You just touched on one question. Height in 70 feet, you're saying it's not needed to be taller now. Can you explain how that has changed in the recent past? It seemed like the last time that we had one with Verizon it was at 190-foot height. Well, all of these are based on the specific need that we're trying to address. So in this particular instance, that's all the height we need. In other instances where we might be trying to cover a bigger area or trying to provide more expanded service, then certainly we would ask for a taller height. Here what we're doing is we're redressing a specific capacity and a specific coverage problem. And in order to do that, that's the height we need. And in fact, if we went taller, we might well end up interfering with our own system and overlapping with the coverage from existing sites. So the height is a direct function of the objective that we're trying to meet. And it will be different every time. Okay, thank you. One other question. As far as the searchering, you said it's now gone to a rectangle. When did it do that? It changed. Well, first of all, it's been quite a while since I've had one for Verizon that was a circle. I've also had ones recently that are an amoeba with different shapes based on whatever the justifications are. If you want Gordon to say why this particular one is a rectangle, I'm sure he'll be glad to respond. That's okay. Let me ask you this, and I don't want to bring up another issue, but it wasn't too long ago you said the typical search ring was about three-tenths of well a third of a mile is that pretty much still correct it varies with every single site based on the specific goal that you're trying to meet and if you think about it any other answer couldn't possibly be right because if what we're trying to do is to provide service within a specific targeted area that will be unique and different for each site that we're doing, the search areas would have to be configured differently. Okay. Obviously, it's outside the search ring. You know, I'm just looking at from the center of this search ring out. I'm sorry I didn't have this beforehand so I could detail it or look at it with detail, but where I'm going is the fact that there is public land nearby within about 1,200 feet. I was able to do that prior to coming here. Public land within about 1,200 feet. as you well know and we well know you know that's looked at and encouraged whenever possible um you know i'm guessing from the center of this search ring to that site it's it's going to be you know 22 2400 feet i don't know i can't measure it on what i'm seeing but it's outside of our search area yeah obviously it's outside your search ring but But was that even considered? It seems like if you're trying to address these issues for each specific site, then you might be able to adjust the frequency and everything according to where you put it. That's where I'm asking. I understand. That's just not how the physics work. We have an existing network, and we have to try to improve that network so the sites we build can't interfere with our existing sites, and we also never propose one that's any taller than it has to be to meet that specific need. So the physics are the physics. Thank you, sir. Any other questions? Yes. Oh, Mr. Berkeley. We've got a letter here from a nearby property owner, and I can appreciate that the church would like to have the lease. And I realize that it's kind of more of a rural residential area than it is more dense. But the one question that sticks out to me was, why not go to the other side of the interstate where there's commercial and it could be less intensive? Gordon, do you have anything specific that you could say on that? And then I'll respond. Step up. Step up. I think a lot of that comes down to what property owners were willing to do. and if you look at the search area map the center of that search area is pretty much really where we want it so if we could have gotten something in that area we would have preferred it been right dead smack center in the middle of that search area map because for this site for this area our high capacity demand is i-75 and winchester road between i-75 and new circle and the surrounding businesses that's why it's such a small poll and it's why it's such a targeted a targeted search area so if we could have been in there if we had a willing landowner in there we would much prefer to be in there so none none of the people in in Executive Park or Lowe's or Walmart or the Maddens, none of those folks had any interest at all? Site acquisitions? Okay. Well, of course, we filed a site acquisition report detailing what we did. We were unable to locate alternatives in those areas. The one we have chosen is in compliance with your regulations. Of course, also, if we did that, we would have been much closer to other structures than we are at this current location. Admittedly, it would be commercial. You're right. But when you look at how dense that area is, I mean, we're, again, 550 feet from the nearest structures here. We could never have achieved that across the interstate. So I would argue from a planning perspective, this is the superior alternative. Of course, also, this is not, you know, I think we're entitled to be considered based on the site that we have selected, because ultimate, and we're not, I don't think, and again, you can discuss this with your council, we're not required to try to rule out every possible alternative. I think this alternative is a good one on the face of it, but we were not able to locate other willing landowners. I forgot to ask the gentleman to identify himself for the record. Okay, and that was Gordon Snyder, but if you would step up and identify yourself with your title and address. Gordon Snyder, Senior RF Engineer for Verizon Wireless, 2421 Holloway Drive, Louisville, Kentucky. Thank you. Sorry about that. My apologies. Nope, I missed it. Mr. Owens. I'm sorry. I guess one other thing popped in my head. of really and truly something that's popped in my head on several occasions. Listening to this, these, and also traveling up and down the interstate. You mentioned the interstate just a moment ago. You, or there is, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to personalize you, but there is an interstate exchange within this search ring. Has that ever been explored as to putting it on, you know, our federal government's Dictating to us what we can do. I wish they would, Commissioner. But our state government has a very different view than, as an example, Ohio does. And we do, as an example, I do these along state highways in Ohio. Kentucky Department of Transportation, it is a no-go. I appreciate your candor in that and makes me wonder if our federal government's overruling us on these situations quite a bit. Would they overrule the state government? If you try and put one there and we said yes and the state says no, you know, the federal government are going to overrule the state. Well, at the end of the day, we can't do anything unless we have a property owner who will give us a lease we can't come to you without that so nobody's interested in doing that at the state level on the other would do i think that would be just personally a good thing yeah i think it would be but it's not the case here thank you sir any other questions for mr pike Ms. Mundy. Mr. Pike, can you tell me why those other businesses or on the other side of the interstate, do you have a reason for why? Did they give you a reason? I have no idea, ma'am. Okay. Well, my concern is a little bit. I went through pretty strong here. My background, you probably know, is I've been a realtor for 32 years. So I look pretty hard at this because my personal experience in showing property, if someone sees one of those type of things, is a great fear of the public of emissions. And I know you said black and white, we're not supposed to talk about that, but it does affect property values. It does affect opportunity for sale. And so the data that you have here is great data. First of all, in 2008 is when the market crashed. So you all started at 2010, which was smart, and that's when we started coming back up. And now in Fayette County, we're down to less than two months of inventory. So, of course, houses are going. I sold two in the last two weekends in less than 24 hours for more than the asking price. So your data is good for that, but it's still a concern that these, And I know we really can't make a ruling on that, but it does affect property value as far as people wanting to buy them and that. And so that is, you know, maybe a possibility with these commercial developments here not wanting these on their site. So how do we deal with that? How do we work through that? Well, the short answer from my perspective is we don't. They have a right to decide if they want to lease property or not. We are the dominant communications means in the state, but we are a new utility. We are not one of the legacy utilities that has condemnation authority, nor is that going to happen realistically. So we have to have a willing property owner, and if you don't have a willing property owner, that's the end of the issue from our perspective. Even though it's federally mandated? Absolutely. Okay. Okay. But you don't have right of condemnation? Nope. Okay. It would be, the point you're making, I completely understand the point that you're making, but that would require us to have that authority, and we don't. Okay. Thank you. I've learned all kinds of things about cell towers. Anybody else? Yes, Mr. Cravens. There's an electric substation right below that. Yes. Does that not interfere with towers at all? No, sir. The signals? No, sir. Okay. Anyone else? I think, Mr. Pike, you have sufficiently explained. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this issue? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Zach Losey, and I'm the legislative aide for Councilmember Kathy Plowman, who represents the 12th District in the area where this cell tower would be placed. She could not be here today herself, so I believe you have a letter before you expressing some concerns. I would just like to clarify a couple things, the first being that Councilmember Plowman is not necessarily opposed to this cell tower. She just has concerns, as did many of the nearby residents, about the placement of this tower. She is an advocate for public safety and for wireless access, especially in the rural area. So we appreciate the potential positive effects that the sale tower would have on the area, but still remain concerned with the proximity that it would be to both the rural area as well as a number of residences there on Hume Road. So I would really just like to emphasize that I believe our ordinance mandates that every effort should be made to locate these towers away from residential areas. And I cannot speak to the physics of how the tower works and argue with Mr. Gordon, but we would trust that the commission would thoroughly vet that and just ask that you all ensure that every effort was indeed made to locate this in an area where it would not have potentially adverse impacts on the residential areas and the folks living nearby. Thank you. Anyone else? I have one particular question for staff. In a case where a council person is witness, are we going to respond to this with information related so that she can get back with her constituents to at least give them some indication as to what's what or information about it? I mean, I don't think that we normally make that a practice. I think she's just expressing that concern to you on behalf of her constituents. Okay. Just asking. anyone else okay then we're ready I think there are two motions here one is for the approval and then the second of the variances we've got that on there as well so the plan is on the plans on page six So y'all don't want to go home, huh? Yeah, I do. We need a motion for approval for the plan. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Or not. Yes, sir. I'm going to move approval of plan cell 18-1. Okay. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Cravens and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson that we approve PLN cell 18-1. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay, and then I think they requested two variances. The two variances to the one-to-one height to yard ratio, et cetera, and to the 60 feet along the northern property line. Okay. Okay. Move approval of the variances. Okay. Do I have a second? Okay. It's been moved. We get to allow the two variances to the height, one-to-one height, the yard ratio that is required in the AR zone, and also to the 65 feet along western property line and to 60 feet along the northern property line. Those are the variances. Second by Mr. Richardson. All those, any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, the motion carries. Thank you. That's it. We've got one other small item to take care of. If I could, Mr. Chairman, thank you on behalf of my client and our customers. Thank you. Oh, Mr. Pike, I would appreciate it if you go through this again for us right away. I mean, I just can't. Come back on. My father always said if you have succeeded, leave immediately before anyone changes their mind. Okay. We've got one other item under Commission Items. Chevy Chase, yes. Okay. Pay no attention to your granicus, first of all, please. The wrong thing was, I think the wrong thing was uploaded in granicus. Up on the screen here, this is the correct item. So why are we here today, right? Well, what happened is the 100 and 200 block of Romney Road in the Chevy Chase neighborhood design character overlay were accidentally omitted. So what we're looking to do today is to initiate a portion of the Chevy Chase area as an ND1, which is Neighborhood Design Character Overlay, which we just shortened to ND1. And it's just for these two blocks in an existing ND1 area. And unfortunately, the map doesn't give a whole lot of contrast. But if you can see, you really can't see, so we're just not going to pay attention to that map. But if you can see, there's some areas there that are shaded a little darker than the others. It's two blocks, the 100 block and 200 block of Romney Road. But to get an idea of where this is, I think you all know Chevy Chase. At the north, there's Fontaine is here, but it's Chenault right here. That's really the northern boundary of the area. I know it's hard to read up there. Chinoaay is on the east, Cooper's on the south, and Tate's Creek is on the west, and that blocks the whole area in. The schools, the church, and the retail area are not included in the ND1. It's just a residential ND1 that already exists in this area from 2008, ordinance adopted 2009. so what is the issue I'll bet you're asking and that is an excellent question well the issue is that these two blocks were inadvertently omitted from the ND1 ordinance for the Chevy Chase ND1 they were shown on the map that we had sent out and that we had in the ordinance we didn't put these in the ordinance and it's not just a typo because we did not notify these residents of these property owners of these two blocks of property that there was an nd1 going on and that is why we are asking to initiate it here at the Planning Commission so that we can resolve this issue we are not asking for any new design standards at all whatsoever the existing ones will remain so So what is this process? Well, what we needed to do was send out notice to the property owners of these two blocks of property, letting them know about the inadvertent omission of their properties from the ND1. A lot of them were surprised because they thought they were in it. We also had to send out survey cards that looked like this, asking if they support, oppose, or don't really have an opinion about being included in the ND1. And this is in the bylaws of the Planning Commission that we need to do this. Of the 22 properties, only eight people responded. Seven of the eight said thumbs up, yes, put us in here, or we thought we were already included. The one opposition was a question that simply asked, well, what happens if we get ND1 but we have a permit to do something? The answer to that is if you already have a permit to do something, you're approved to do it. It doesn't affect you at all. It's only new permits and new things that would have any effect by the ND1. So in order for these two blocks to be included in what they thought they were included in, we need the Planning Commission to vote today for the staff to begin initiating the application process for this ND1 to move forward. The timelines that you have in your binders under tab 4, it's a blue sheet of paper, pretty much it's led you up to today which says May 24th planning commission hearing to initiate this application what comes after that if you do vote to initiate this application this summer staff will work on putting together the application notifying all of the residents along with the 500 feet away property owners that a hearing will occur to include this in the existing Chevy Chase ND1 and by the end of the summer we hope by then to have this add a hearing before you in order to include these people there's only one more slide and it shows you who decided just to send us cards back you'll see the green those are go those are yes we want to be in the one opposition is the red one everybody notified are in white on the other map Four of these properties are rental properties, and one of the properties is owned by a church. So that kind of gives you the idea of who's probably not going to respond. And unless you have 100 percent of the property owners responding back support, because it's an area-wide, that is why we're asking the Planning Commission to initiate this zoning. The property owners kind of, well, they could if they were 100 percent in agreement, but because they can't and or they're not willing to send back a card we have to ask this of you so that is my presentation if there's any questions please let me know okay any questions I think we're ready for a motion you realize every action has a reaction which means we're gonna have to ever hearing but this moves that we initiate the neighborhood character overlay in D one zone for Chevy Chase areas 100 200 blocks of Robiny Road as of this date. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Frank Penn second Mr. Larry Foster that we initiate the Indy overlay for the 100 200 blocks of Romney Road within the Chevy Chase neighborhood. Any other discussion on the motion? Would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Good motion carries. Thank you. Thank you so much. Mr. Duncan, anything that you'd like to say? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did want everyone to remember Mr. David Pike's face because that's who we've invited to give us an update on training later this fall. So he will be back with us, I believe, October 12th or something to that effect. Yes, October 12th. And we'll be getting you all more information about that, including if there is something you would like some updates on in particular. We'd be glad to get that. But we've got plenty of time for that. We just wanted you all to be able to put a face with a name. David Pike will be providing our training for us. And then to also remind you that next Thursday, a fifth Thursday for the month of May, we will be having our second work session in the Phoenix Building, third floor. We'll get to discuss the theme proper that you all didn't get to last week. We'll also have some updates from Brandy Peacher on the Town Branch Trail and from Scott Thompson on the bike and pedestrian master plan. So I hope you all can be there next Thursday at 1.30 in the Phoenix building. Okay. Anything else from the commission? Anyone else in the audience would like to speak to this? Without objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you for your attendance today. Thank you.