...beer than before, yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone All I want is to see you smile If it takes just a little while I know you don't believe that it's true I've never made any harm to you Don't stop thinking about tomorrow Don't stop, it'll soon be here It'll be better than before Yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone Don't stop thinking about tomorrow Don't stop, it'll soon be here It'll be better than before Yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone Ooh, don't you really care Don't you look bad Don't you look bad Thank you. Running high, running cold I was running into overload It was extreme I took it so high, so low So low, there was nowhere to go Like a bad dream Somehow the wire gun crawled The tables were turned Never knew I had such a lesson to learn I'm feeling good from my head to my shoes Know where I'm going and I know what to do I tidied up my point of view I've got a two attitude I'm in control, my worries are few Cause I can look like a mama do Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh I got a new attitude I'm wearing a new dress, new hat Brand new ideas, doesn't matter A pack of shades for good Hey, there must have been the cool night, new moon, might change. Oh, then look at your arm, but I feel like I should. Hey, somehow the wire gun crawled, the tables were turned. Never knew I had such a lesson to learn. I'm feeling good from my head to my shoes. Know where I'm going and I know what to do I've tidied up my point of view I've got a new attitude I'm in control, my worries are few I've got my love like I'm overdo Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh I've got a new attitude Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh The tables were turned Never knew I had such a lesson to know I'm feeling good from my head to my shoes Know where I'm going and I know what to do I tidied up my point of view I've got a new attitude I'm in control, my worries are few Or something wrong, I'm fine I love it. Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh. I've got a new attitude. Feel it. Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh. Feel it. Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh. My head took my shoe. Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh. I've got a new attitude. I've got a new. Ooh, ooh, ooh. New attitude. Ooh, ooh, ooh. Everything about me that same. Ooh, ooh, ooh. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Urban County Planning Commission Zoning Item Public Hearing for June the 28th, 2018. I'd like to welcome all those of you who are with us today. thanks to the staff for being here and thanks to certainly for our commissioners for taking their time for being here with that in line the next would be the approval of the minutes miss plumley thank you move approval may 24th minutes second okay it's been moved that we approve the may 24th meetings by miss plumley second by miss monday any other discussion on the question not please vote when it comes up on your screens motion carries thank you postponements and our withdrawals good afternoon nick nicholson here on behalf of mash enterprises llc this item is on page six of your agenda item number four we would request a one month postponement to the july meeting. I know there are a lot of people in attendance here today that do not want to see this plan postponed. We would request that you do postpone it because we are still working on the actual development plan itself. During this process, as I've said from the very beginning, that this would get postponed at your committee meetings because Traffic Engineering wanted us to include an adjacent parcel on our development plan. That required us to redo these surveys to try to bring in a different parcel on the development plan and so we just are asking for one month and to basically hear it at that time we can guarantee it will be heard at that time i will not be asking for another postman thank you anyway yes mr murphy mr chairman i'm dick murphy i represent the owners of the shopping center immediately to the north at 1719 mr mrs forrey we're opposing the postponement today and the reason is there's a situation out there where the there's been a zoning violation determined by the staff that is on is in abatement while this is being heard so every time this is postponed the underlying issue is not getting resolved um that we're continuing to have conflicts over parking on this one and really this the the matter on your agenda relates more to the conditional zoning restriction about whether there can be used car sales on the lot you're going to have to hear a development plan regardless of what happens because as you all know from your subcommittees there was additional paving and work done without permits so whether or not you make a determination that used car sales ought to be allowed and change the conditional zoning restriction whichever way you vote on that they're going to have to come back with a development plan before any any way to bring the property up to where it is so and also we have a number of people here from the neighborhood i don't represent the people in the neighborhood but there's about 15 people here who have taken off to come down here as well to be heard on this as well they one of them may may want to comment on it but we're opposed we don't think a postponement is going to accomplish anything on this Meanwhile, there's a situation on the ground that is not getting resolved. Anyone else likes to speak to this possibility of postponement? I'm Missy Rogers. I live in Elkhorn Park. I cannot begin to tell you the grief that they have caused for our neighborhood. You go in Dover Road from North Broadway, and you can go out on Cane Run. Their cars are every place. Every place. They are so close together parked, truly. It's like this. I don't know how they do it, and I don't know if I went down there to look at a car that I could get in and see. I went down there right when they opened their business and introduced myself, said I lived in Elkhorn Park, and I said, what are you going to do here? And he told me it was none of my business. Get lost. So I did. And so I've seen from this time what they have done. It's really dangerous. They parked the cars so close to North Broadway that they will park it on the line that the people have to get in to make a right turn to go on New Circle Road. They park cars so close to the very, very front. They're every place, and they're not. There's no, I mean, you can't talk to them. You can't say anything about it because it's their business. We're very, very disappointed. I am very disappointed that we have something. We've got to remember someplace that the North End is a big avenue into Lexington. We've got to remember it comes from Bourbon County on end, and I think that's pretty important. And people say, what's going on down there? What is it? So we're very, very disappointed. Thank you for listening to me. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to the postponement? And when you make, let me try to channel your comments. Come on to the microphone. Come to the microphone. But we're really looking at now not the proposal itself of the development plan, but just why you feel that this plan should not be postponed today is what we're trying to get at. Yes, sir. My name is Chris Bowen. I'm the managing owner of Penn Station. I'm at 1719 North Broadway. I agree with what the resident said. Our shopping center shares a two-lane entrance off of North Broadway into the left-hand side would be 6K Auto Sales, and the right-hand side would be our center. They crowd whenever they receive deliveries on flatbed trucks. They'll block one side of the entranceway, making it a one-lane entrance. And it's very busy egress coming in of North Broadway. So people get backed up onto North Broadway as they're trying to get into our parking lot. And when people are coming out, it really creates a traffic jam and an unsafe environment right there as you're trying to come in and out of North Broadway. In addition to that, they do take up their employees and customers, both take up our parking spaces and our center. And just like the resident said, we've attempted to discuss with them, and they will not discuss with us or make accommodations. They tell us to my own business, and they've been pretty aggressive. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. well if it's in everyone the people that live in elcom park the people that run the businesses if it's in their best interest to postpone it then by all means postpone it but i don't believe it is well there are many times i've tried to go to penn station i can't make a tarrant in there so they lose my business they're losing money and businesses actually have left that their center and they've had plenty of time to resolve this issue so don't postpone it make a ruling today and and the people that are suffering because of of the other car lot the way that they they they operate it right now it looks really nice but that's up until april okay from april on they've cleaned up their act but believe me don't don't postpone this because there's a lot of us that are having some difficulties. Sir, did you? Yes, sir. Good afternoon. I'm Dan Forre. My wife, Dawn, and I, we're the owners of the shopping center at 1719 North Broadway. I think it's been pretty well described that we share a common entrance with the 6K and under lot. The problems that we have have been pretty well explained. I understand that it's probably customary to grant at least a one-month postponement to applicants who are applying for a change or a new plan or something like that. That's not the case with these folks. These folks have been doing business in violation of the conditional ordinance for almost two years now. Let me see what else I had. Oh, they are a prime example, I think, of the kind of business that the 1988 commission had in mind when they disallowed this sort of business on the property. I think that, you know, we have probably suffered long enough. We think something should be done now. one thing i'd like to have you all think about before you postpone that is if anybody here on the commission or anybody on the staff can you think of a plan either operating plan or site plan that for a used car lot would prompt you to want to lift this restriction and if you can't imagine that plan which i can't but you know i don't have the experience you folks do i don't see why we're going to continue it um you know certainly from my position i'd like to stop fighting and paying to fight for for our rights uh i'd appreciate it if if the gentleman before me said if you would consider the proposal right now and in my mind i think it should be disapproved thank you thank you anyone else yes sir my name is larry gillespie i live on hawthorne lane in elkhorn park been a resident there for almost 40 years the reason i oppose putting this off is because the The cars that are driven from this car lot go down Cane Run, Hawthorne Lane connects Cane Run and Dover Road. They use my street to drive the cars out, and that's got to stop. There are many other things that I wanted to say, but since we're addressing a postponement, that is my reason for that. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Here's what I'll do. Mr. Nichols, I'll give you a couple of minutes to rebuttal, and Mr. Murphy, I'll give you an opportunity also if you're indeed needed as such. All right. Yes, sir. First of all, a lot of the concerns you heard were development plan concerns. They are the exact type of concerns I think we can address in the next 30 days. But this all stemmed from a zoning compliance permit was issued by LFPCG prior to this lot being open, prior to construction occurring on that. That was an error. We're not disputing that at all. However, my clients were under the impression for two years they were operating this lot in complete compliance with the zoning ordinance. LFPCG even told them that they were. 30 days before we filed, they get a notice and letter alerting them to this situation. They contact me. We immediately file a zone change to address this. As soon as traffic engineering indicated that they wanted the adjacent lot to be included in this development plan so they can get the full picture of what the consequences this operation, this use has on the area. I told you all at subdivision committee. I told you all at zoning committee. I told Mr. Murphy. I indicated to the neighbors that did show up to those committee meetings, we're going to need 30 more days. I've been as upfront as possible. And there is simply is not enough time when you've been running the business for two years to get a letter in the mail saying that you never were allowed to. And then to come in to go through the right process, be told that you need to bring in additional properties that's not in violation of the zoning ordinance. in order to give the full picture to get that done in this narrow window of time. And so we are only asking for 30 days. I'm willing to go ahead and put on the record that we will either be heard or withdraw this case next at the end of July. All I'm asking for is 30 days to give LFUCG planning staff exactly what they are asking for to properly evaluate this case. Thank you all. Thank you. Mr. Murphy. I will. Well, Mr. Bowen from Penn State and Subs is the manager from Cincinnati, which is one reason we want to go ahead and be heard, because he's here today and a lot of the neighbors are here today. A lot of these are development plan concerns. As I mentioned to you, you're going to see a development plan anyway. Even if they weren't asking for a zone change, they have to come in and get their development plan amended to show the additional paving and the additional work that they've done here without permits. And I know there is a zoning compliance letter. This is more the merits, but all this work was done without permits, too, as well. So we don't see any reason to postpone this. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to call the staff. Do you all have a comment related to this? Mr. Nichols has inferred that you all needed some time. Do you want to have any comments? Mr. Chair, the staff is prepared to present certainly the zoning issue on this case today. I would let Tracy speak about the development plan, what we need to do about that. The staff is currently recommending postponement of the development plan, and so we did encourage the applicant to make revisions to their development plan so that it could be in a position where if the commission and the council approved the zone change, it was something that they could realistically work from. So that is true. And typically the staff, while we are prepared to go forward today, wouldn't object to a postponement. Okay, thank you. With that, we're going to close this part of the hearing, and we'll bring it back to the commission. Do you commission members? Yes, ma'am, Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. It seems there's somewhat an egregious situation here, which actually began in the last century in either 1988 or 1998. And at the subdivision committee, I was in favor of postponement. But at this point, with the neighbors here and with what was said today, I think we should move forward that this needs to be solved today. Thank you. Anyone else on the commission? Oh, Ms. Mundy? I think this is for staff, probably Tracy. Mr. Nicholson mentioned that traffic needed to look at this further. Is that the reason for your request for postponement? I believe the recommendation appears on your agenda, but it had several facets. not only the connectivity of the two lots but the fact that the development plan did not adequately represent all of the improvements that had been made in fact when it was originally filed it didn't even show the proposed use so there were a lot of issues that had to be addressed minor adjustments have been made but not all of the ones that would be necessary to recommend approval this mr. Penn I like this plumbing was at the subdivision committee and I did hear Mr. Nicholson say that he needed more time those of you that were there and obviously all of you weren't there but those of you that were at the subdivision committee we heard from you we heard from your your issues and we heard from Penn Station but the question to me is is that it's awful hard for us to make a real good decision here if we don't see what the development plan is we're flying blind and my concern is that we will address your concerns but we won't fix the development plan as much as i'd like to hear this today and as much as i know you all need relief it's kind of like the guy in the tree shoot one of us you know get get us out of our misery but it's awful hard for us to make a good decision when we don't have a development plan in front of us and it doesn't help the staff to make that decision today either and that's my concern Anyone else on the commission would have any comments? Oh, Mr. Cravens? Yeah, I don't know why the, if there's things going on out there that are against the zoning ordinance or, you know, where they ought to be enforced, I don't know why we're not getting some enforcement of the codes that we have and the zoning we have until this, whether this, I mean, you could, we could hear this today. and say it got approved, you're still where you are now. But if we're not getting any compliance from the zoning people where they're making them comply, I think that needs to happen first. And there's a number of discussion items on here that, I mean, I guess I got to sign in favor of postponement. Any other comments? If not, then we'll have a motion. Yes, Mr. Owens. One other question, maybe for the staff. In what Mr. Cravens was just referring to, zoning compliance, it seems like that's where everything started. Is there anything that can be done at the present? Mr. Owens, the staff issued the notice of violation for this site, and the applicant was responsive immediately to that notice, and this is the course of action that they have chosen to pursue, and so therefore we are not in a position to pursue other remedies until we have resolved this. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Any other questions, comments? Okay, then we'll entertain a motion either to postpone or not to postpone, whatever. Yes, Mr. Plumlee. Thank you. I move to hear MASH Enterprises LLC map amendment today. Okay. It's been moved by Ms. Plumlee to move forward on the MASH Enterprises LLC. Is there a second? I'll second motion. Just allow for a vote. Okay. Motion has been seconded by Mr. Owens. For those of you who are moving forward on this particular proposal today, would you vote yes? If you're against it, vote no. Okay. vote when it comes up on your screens. the motion loses six to seven to two uh for the record uh for the legal perspective do we have to now vote in the positive on that or do we just can we assume that the postponement would be granted i think you're okay assuming that the postponement would be granted in this case okay and in that case let me remind the people in the community i understand that this is a very compassionate view from many of you and I understand why we've been on that side of the fence but you're going to have an ample opportunity to come back to us as a you know as members of the community to voice and for those of you who are inconvenienced today we apologize because this seems to be all brought about by cause of a mistake and and that's not something the community should resolve nor should the development be penalized on that case it was a mistake but the postponement has been granted for one month and what's the date on that month 26 of yes July 26 July the 26th so we apologize for the inconvenience and we thank you for showing up and we would encourage you if you want to come back and present your case more fully the next time to please do so thank you One question. No, according to what we've got on record, Mr. Nichols has indicated that 30 days is it, and they will either do one or two things. They'll either pull it or we'll go forward. Okay. Okay. Is that there? Okay, thank you. Okay, next. Ms. Wade, we've got some possible abbreviated things. Yes, sir, we do. If you could take us through that, please. Oh, are there any other postponements? Withdrawals? I think that's it. I think. Ladies and gentlemen, we're still in session, so if you'd like to please continue your discussion in the hallway, and then we'll thank you very, very much. Ms. Waite. Thank you. There are a number of items today that qualify for an abbreviated hearing. That is, they're recommended for approval both on the zone change and the associated development, and the petitioner is concurring with the recommendation of the planning staff, and they're willing to waive their oral presentation. The one question that remains is if any of these items have objectors today. So we'll ask. I'll read through the cases that do qualify for an abbreviated hearing and see if there's anyone present today that wishes to have a full hearing on one of the cases that remains on the agenda. The first item is on page one at the bottom of the agenda. It is an application for Winchester 836 LLC and its associated development plan, Arlington Weekly Payment Lot and Investment Company addition, and that development and zone change is for property located at 1104, 1106, 1186, and 1190 through 1194 North Limestone. Is anyone here present to have a full public hearing on that item? Okay, thank you. The next item that qualifies for an abbreviated hearing appears on page 3 of the agenda. Also at the bottom of that page, the applicant is Song M. Kim and Sue Auk Kim for property on the Schroyer property, and it's an amended final development plan, excuse me, preliminary development plan, for property located at 3601 Palomar Center Drive. Is there anyone present who wishes to have a full public hearing and discussion on that property? Seeing none, that will be the first item that qualifies for an abbreviated hearing today. On page four, item number three, Dr. Michael Gentry and the associated Cadentown Subdivision Zoning Development Plan also qualifies for an abbreviated hearing. That property is located at 2853 Liberty Road. They're asking for an R1D zone change to a B4 zone change. Is anyone present that would like to have that case heard? None. That qualifies as our second abbreviated hearing today. Moving on to page 6 of the agenda. Applicant Ball Homes Incorporated and the associated development plan for a portion of the peninsula. It's an amended preliminary development plan for a request to remove conditional zoning restrictions for 20 acres of land for property located at 478 Squires Road. Is there anyone present who would like to have the Ball Homes and Peninsula case heard? Seeing none, that qualifies as our third abbreviated hearing this afternoon. Moving on to page 7 of the agenda. The next applicant is North Lexington Holdings 2 LLC and their associated development plan for the Avondale subdivision. That property is located at 912, 914, 916, and 918 North Limestone. There's also a dimensional variance associated with that request. Is anyone present who would like to have the North Limestone 900 block zone change heard? Seeing none, that qualifies for our fourth abbreviated hearing. And then the last case on our agenda today, page 9, is a request by Allison Dixon Brumfield and Brian Brumfield for a change to an ND1 restriction within the Montclair neighborhood for property at 640 Cooper Drive. Is there anyone present who would like to have... Thank you, sir. So that one will have a full public hearing as well this second. Let's give the staff a moment and we'll be prepared to start presentations with case number two on page three of the agenda. I guess I'll take another sugar fit. Thanks, Ms. Plumlee. I guess you did this. Today's your birthday. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson, members of the commission. Our first item for a public hearing today does appear on page 3 of the agenda, and it is PLN MAR 18-7, and this is a request by Song M. Kim and Soo Auk Kim for property located... My battery might be dead. Nope. It's the zone change one. For property located at 3601 Palomar Center Drive. That's the wrong development plan, too. He's going to switch back to the zone change. You were just checking that. I believe you all have access to the PowerPoint presentations from the Granica system, too. I think we'll need new training on that. Excuse me, I've been told and corrected. Some of us might need more training. Absolutely. The property, again, is located at 3601 Palomar Center Drive, and it's for approximately half an acre. The request is to rezone this parcel from a professional office P1 zone to a neighborhood business, which is our B1 zone. The site is currently occupied, and it is located on the west side of Harrodsburg Road and also north of Manowar Boulevard. This larger zone map isn't super helpful, so we'll zoom in. The subject property is located in the center there and is shown with white, but it is bordered by both professional office, just on a very small corner, existing B1, which is, again, the neighborhood business, and then planned neighborhood residential to the north. So the subject site is occupied by an athletic facility as well as a small medical office, and the applicant does run his business from there, and it's a taekwondo studio. and then the small medical business that's located within the structure has historically been or most recently been a chiropractor. You can see that the site is developed and is pretty much completely developed all around as well. And those are some recent changes to the subject property. The site is shown here, and I didn't bring my pointer, so we'll use the... shown here in the center of the subject property just to the south is a former daycare center and this is a photo from 2016 to the east was a former veterinary clinic and when this photo was taken there were exist there were some single-family residential houses being built but the professional office that has been approved was not yet under construction if we move forward to earlier this year in 2018, you can see this site or the area surrounding the subject property has had quite a bit of construction activity since, if we go backwards from 2000, well, since the comprehensive plan was adopted in 2013, the applicant contends that there's been a number of changes in the immediate area that constitute a significant change and meet the finding within article 6-4 of the zoning ordinance that supports a change to the zone based on economic physical and social changes in the area that were not anticipated by our comprehensive plan so since 2013 there been two zone changes 2014 the la petite academy and again that's just to the south as well as the property that wraps around the subject property there were rezoned to b1 to allow mixed use development although that has not occurred there have been further zone changes the veterinary clinic to the east as well as the what was a single family home to the northeast were rezoned in 2016 to allow for the what's under construction here a restaurant and a three-story medical office building so those changes both of those zone changes occurred within the last five years and they've intensified the zoning in this immediate area as well as the proposed uses that have been approved so the applicant again cited not the comprehensive plan for their justification for the zone change but rather that there's been in a change in the immediate area that allows for a further change on this subject property again the applicant occupies most of their existing structure but there's a small corner of the site that they anticipate this particular user leaving and would like to have more flexibility to utilize the space for things other than offices and perhaps restaurants or retail space in this location the again i'll mention that the surrounding zoning is consistent with what the applicant is proposing for the site and the one last thing is that they're asking well with their zone change to p1 there was a conditional zoning restriction that was approved for outdoor lighting to be directed away from the adjoining at that time agricultural and residential uses the staff felt it was still appropriate due to the proximity of the residential single-family homes that any lighting still be directed away from those structures going forward and so that or very similar conditional zoning restrictions should remain associated with the subject property the staff and the zoning committee both recommend approval of the requested rezoning and the finding is that there's been a economic physical and or social change in the immediate area since the adoption of the comprehensive plan and the change is to the prior rezoning of several adjacent parcels to the B1 zone and this site is now surrounded on three sides by B1 zone and land uses. Happy to answer any questions about the Any questions, Ms. Wade? Okay, the development plan. Oh, okay. Mr. Bailey will be presenting your development plan today. The new Mr. Tom Martin. For those of you that I haven't met, my name is Hal Bailey. I will be presenting the staff review of MJDP 18-00046, the final development plan for the Schroyer property. located at 3601 Palomar Center Drive the site is located in the southwest portion of town near the corner of Harrodsburg Road and Wellington Way the purpose of this plan is to depict the area that will be utilized as a small restaurant or retail space associated with the zone change currently the building is being utilized as a taekwondo studio in this portion and the area that is guiding the zone change would be the former chiropractic office located here it only occupies a very small portion of the building there are currently 10 standard sign offs three cleanup conditions and for conditions to resolve prior to certification of this plan if approved many of the staff concerns with the development plan are focused on the use of the site in connection with the surrounding areas while the layout of the structure is not changing the modifications and use of the structure are and we are concerned with how that may that use may impact or be impacted by those changes that have occurred in the neighborhood and the neighboring properties staff is most concerned with the movement of both vehicles and pedestrians in and out of the site specifically with the increase of vehicular traffic due to the connection of the access easement on herodsburg road through a right in right out located on the property northeast of the development so in this area right up here there is a right in right out that will bring more traffic off herodsburg and through this property in conversations with traffic engineering there have been indications that some of the issues specifically with the parking along the access easement can be resolved regarding pedestrians staff would like to see more safe and walkability access between the various properties specifically between this area here with the growth of the tap house there is the sedona tap house that is going in in the neighboring property to this furthermore there is a access drive on the eastern portion of the site that was previously stated to to be temporary right here we're concerned that this is no longer temporary and it is just being used as an access drive we would like to know how this is going to change over time as you can see from this slide the cleaning the cleanup conditions are marginal and focused on providing the most up-to-date information about the site we believe that the applicant will work with staff to resolve the other conditions so that the safety and welfare of the users both pedestrian and vehicular are maintained and that the residents of the surrounding neighborhood are not adversely affected staff is recommending approval with these conditions above and i'm here to answer any questions if you have any questions for mr bale yes mr owens thank you mr chair now um go back to the color rendering uh would you like the closer bigger bigger version the i'm sorry no the more detailed version the other slide it it appears that there's a sidewalk going all the way around the building what's on the back side right now it's just a uh entryway there isn't anything that has been developed in that back side there though it looks like there's a connecting sidewalk or something it's just a access point for those who are going to be coming in through the back of the building i think it is currently used by the taekwondo studio one of the conditions is the end it was mentioned by miss wade that there will be lighting restrictions on not shooting light out into this area into the residential okay all right thank you you any other questions i have just one small thing here my more experienced commission members might be able to help me but we've got four resolved this is a final development plan and yet we still got four items that have not been resolved and i assume you think that these things can be taken care of but we won't be able to see this anymore until that's it and we've talked with traffic engineering their primary area of concern really is the parking and the dumpsters right here with the shift of the dumpsters here solid waste has less of a problem where it was located before prior to this it was over in this area and there was issues of access right in there so at this point there is indication from staff that these will be resolved by the time the the plan is finalized. Okay, what about 17 then? Resolve the pedestrian access and interior circulation. That will be solved with striping and some sort of slowdown that might occur with the traffic that's going through. Okay. Well, usually when I see a final development plan, I like to see final, but that's okay. Any other comments? Any other comments? Okay, thank you. Applicant? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy representing the applicants. Mr. and Mrs. Kim. Dr. Kim, Mr. Kim is here with me in the second row. Matt Carter of Vision Engineering and I are representing Dr. Kim on this. We do agree with the staff recommendation on this and reasons for approval. This is a 6,000 square foot building. The only change is that the chiropractor is leaving. He has 1,000 square feet of the 6,000 square feet building. The zone change will allow the Kims to rent this to a store or perhaps a small restaurant. There will be no change to the building whatsoever. The building will look exactly like it does today after you grant the zone change, but it just gives us a little more flexibility in who we rent to. Ten years ago, we were surrounded by P1 on three sides. Today, we're surrounded by B1 on three sides. So we felt that it's probably appropriate to allow this thousand square feet to be rented to a store or an office on there. That sidewalk behind the building, Mr. Owens, is an accessible sidewalk. It just gives access to the backs of the space. It's not used as the main access or anything like that. to the to the property on there and we did request that this be a final development plan because it's a existing building and there'll be no change to the building we felt we could do a final development plan within the two weeks allotted and i talked to mr parker in the division of traffic engineering earlier today and he agreed that we probably could get that done within the two-week period on that and want to point out to you also the access easement to Harrodsburg Road was actually approved on some other development plans you had for the st. Joseph primary care center the three-story medical building to the north and the development plan you saw for the Sedona taproom on there so we agree with the staff recommendation and wanted to make sure we it is classified as a final development plan. Okay, Mr. Pint has a question for you. Mr. Murphy on number 17 result pedestrian access and interior circulation. From changing from a chiropractic office to a restaurant, when you anticipate more pedestrian traffic. Perhaps, but we don't know if it's going to be a restaurant or not. Uh, the, uh, I'm not sure there's going to be a lot of pedestrian traffic between one restaurant and another restaurant across the street because you're either going to be eating in one or the other. There will not be a lot of pedestrian traffic from the Taekwondo studio, which caters to children mainly, to the brew house across the street. So we don't think that's going to be a big pedestrian draw between the two of them. We do want to plan for that, and we understand that. We understand that the condition is on there. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Oh, Miss Mundy has a question for you. Yeah. Mr. Murphy, this dumpster situation has bothered me all along. Is this dumpster just to serve Mr. Kim's property, or is this dumpster going to serve the restaurant as well? My understanding, it's going to serve the restaurant as well. I'm looking at Matt, and Matt Carter is nodding yes. So they're going to be crossing that access easement to put their garbage in it from a restaurant that's several several feet away that is on another property yes and that was if you want to change that that's fine but that that was done on the development plan for the other yeah i know it bothered me before and i questioned it before so i'm rebuffing it i guess because i don't like it and i'm just going on record saying i don't like that dumpster serving that restaurant that's several hundred feet away across a parking lot and it's i don't like the looks of it but i'm going on record thanks miss mundy just for the record when that was approved the professional office access through had not been approved yet so having them cross a drive aisle was not as dangerous as now a through traffic so i think that was the staff's concern as well in terms of making it a condition we want to make sure that gets resolved okay thank you any other questions for mr murphy thank you anyone else like to speak to this particular plan if not we'll entertain a motion first of all for the zone change then next for the development plan. All right. Mr. Chair. I'll be back. Mr. Berkman. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of plan MAR18-7 for the reasons noted by staff. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Berkley, second by Mr. Brewer, that we approve PLN MAR 18-7 with the reasons provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Mr. Chair, I'm going to make a motion. Move for approval of plan MJDP 18-46 Schroeder property with the 17 conditions. Second. Okay. It's again been moved by Mr. Will Berkley and seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer that we approve PLN-MJDP 18-46-Square property with the 17 conditions provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? That motion carries also. Thank you. Okay, the next abbreviated, which one will it be? Is that Dr. Michael Gentry? Okay. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson. Our next item is PLN MAR18-8, and it is a request by Dr. Michael Gentry. This subject property is located at 2853 Liberty Road, and it is only a fraction of an acre, less than a quarter of an acre. and its request is to rezone from an R1D zone, which is one of our single-family residential zones, to the wholesale and warehouse business zone in order to incorporate this small tract into a larger, almost two-and-a-half-acre property that was rezoned several years ago. So the subject property is located on the east side of Liberty Road. We have Liberty Road coming through the center of this graphic of the zoning map, zoning map and then man of war boulevard is to the south and it does kind of a curve through this area and cadentown our historic district is located across liberty road from the subject property and then campbell lane is a small rural section of just a few residential structures that are left in this area and that is to just to the east sorry to the south of the subject property Just a little bit of a zoom in here. The subject property is adjacent to the previously rezoned in 2014, 2015 Liberty Road address of 2833. So you can see there's a light purple color on our zoning map on this colored up version of the zoning map with the purple color indicating a B4 zone. The light yellow is an indication of single-family residential zoning, and the brown to the east and southeast indicate R3 and R4, which are higher-density residential zones. Across Liberty Road, again, and there's another light purple shade, that's the back of Lexmark, the back of Link Belt. So Link Belt fronts over onto Palumbo, and this is their sort of back fence, which faces Liberty Road. Again, the previously rezoned areas in that light purple. So the subject property does have access to Liberty Road, and it previously had a single-family residence located there. But with the realignment of Liberty Road and its intersection with Manowar, that changed. So I'm just going to show you where the former Liberty Road, Tulane Road, followed the Cadentown, what's now Cadentown Road, that corridor, and was the border of the Cadentown Historic District. And then when Liberty Road was widened and realigned, it cuts through the Kennedy Landing townhouse development, and with that realignment, it prompted the state to purchase several homes that fronted either Liberty Road or Campbell Lane, and they were removed. So that left the property, again, a very small parcel, which appears to sort of be out on its own along Liberty Road here. The applicant opined in their justification that this was in agreement with the comprehensive plan, but the staff couldn't come to that same conclusion just because the comprehensive plan doesn't really give much detail on making improvements, such as those proposed for this particular part of the property in relation to meeting the comprehensive plan. So the staff does agree with the other half of their justification, which is that the R1D zone is not appropriate at this location and that the B4 zone is. So the reasons that they put forward and the staff agrees with related to the R1D zone not being appropriate have to do with the fact that it is really an isolated tract on Liberty Road in terms of single-family residential. It has no connectivity to Campbell Lane. In addition, it is a small tract, and having access to Liberty Road on this four-lane portion, the staff felt would be problematic. In addition, these are just some views of Liberty Road. In addition, the B4, the staff believes, is appropriate for this location. The property that surrounds the subject property on two sides was rezoned again approximately three years ago to the B4 zone to allow an animal hospital in kennel to be located there. And rezoning this small piece allows for the size of the kennel to be enlarged somewhat. just a setback requirement in our B4 zone for an animal hospital in Kennel requires you to be a hundred feet from a residential zone so the fact that there was a in essence a notch in the property allowed or required a not similar notch in the building to meet the setback so by allowing by rezoning this property incorporating it into their development that allows for a more regular shaped building and actually a in a better access point on the liberty road as well they'll be able to have an in and an out versus a shared point with better visibility now the staff is recommending approval of the rezoning and the zoning committee as well recommended approval three weeks ago the staff does recommend conditional zoning restrictions and those same restrictions were put in place three years ago for the larger b4 zone i will note there was an error in terms of the conditional zoning restrictions and mr murphy reminded me about that today the restrictions that appear on page four of the staff report and on our agenda list um a through o as the staff recommendation we believe b should be stricken because cocktail lounges nightclubs and alcoholic beverage service is not a principal permitted use in the b4 zone and so that is we don't need to restrict it since it's not allowed in that zone currently happy to answer any questions about the staff's recommendations any questions for ms wade Yes, Mr. Lawrence. Thank you. Tracy, as far as Animal Hospital Kennel and Associated Officer of Parking, you're saying that the reason for this is just to provide better access. My question would be Animal Hospital Kennel. That was already approved or previously? Yeah, the V4 zone allows an Animal Hospital and Kennel as a principal use. I'm just thinking inside kennel or outside kennel? In this situation, Mr. Gentry is proposing to relocate his existing business from Richmond Road to this location. And so their intention three years ago when they were here was to have a completely enclosed kennel. And the only time the animals were outside was for walks and bathroom breaks. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for Ms. Wade? Okay, the development plan. Mr. Martin has our development plan today. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the development plan, it is associated with this zone change. you can see on the screen. And I would just add that we didn't ask Hal to present this one because of the complexities involved in the vacant piece of property that they're incorporating into their development. We want to break him in gently. But with that... I hit the wrong... I'm going to go back to paper or not. There we go. You can see the area at the bottom of the plan that is being incorporated into this with the zone change. It is open space. They're not proposing any use on this particular property. The important aspect is what Ms. Wade mentioned to you. You can see the access point. That is being moved to that location from its previous approved location in roughly the center of the property. It's allowed them to modify their parking lot and circulation a little bit. They have squared up the existing building or proposed building. The access drive to the north is a one-way exit access point. The access point associated with the area that's being rezoned is a full access point. It is in a better location for site distance on Liberty Road, and so it will make travel and exits and entries much safer in your staff and the applicant's estimation. You can see that there are three sign-off conditions associated with this plan, and your subdivision committee did recommend approval. Any questions for Mr. Martin? You said there were three sign-off conditions. See how masterfully that was handled to reduce the conditions? Well, I noticed that, but I see four. Oh, I'm sorry. That's right. On the other page, here's four. Urban Forester. That's what I thought. I just want to keep up with you. You're right. It will. Yeah. And I was headed that way. There's your area of rezoning. Oh, that's nice. I like the color, too. And there we go. There's the four of them. Okay. Well, I'm going to get the hang of this. I thought you were just checking us all. We're here. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this? The applicant. I suppose we want to call on you. Thank you. Again, Dick Murphy here. Matt Carter and I are here on behalf of Dr. Michael Gentry. and you all know you granted the zone change for the bigger lot a couple years ago and this small lot was a notch into it and because it's a notch we had to notch the building because of that 100 foot setback rule with the residential this allows us to take the notch out of the building and have a better access in and out this property wasn't available one when it was rezoned a couple years ago the property is now in an estate and contact was made to Dr. Gentry and they discussed it and this will be incorporated into the campus of the veterinary clinic in kennel so we do agree with staff recommendations and ask for your approval thank you thank you any questions for Mr. Murphy anyone else in the audience like to speak to this okay fine thank you then we're ready for a motion and when you make your motion on the first well it depends upon which way your motion goes but but you'll have to strike B if it's in favor. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move approval for PLN-MAR-18-08, and with all of the staff recommendations, with exception of removing B under prohibitive uses. Okay. Do I have a second? Okay. Ms. Mundy, we have a— Ms. Richardson moves approval, and Ms. Mundy seconds that we approve PLN MAR 18-8, Dr. Michael Gentry, with the conditions provided by staff but under the prohibitive uses, removing B, cocktail lounges and nightclubs, or the serving of alcoholic beverages. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Okay, that motion carries. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of PLN-MJDP-18-44, Cadentown Subdivision, with the recommendations as approved by the staff and presented by the staff. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Richardson, seconded by Ms. Mundy, that we approve PLN-MJDP-18-44, Cadentown Subdivision, with the four conditions provided by staff. any other discussion on the motion please vote when it comes up on your screens okay that motion carries as well thank you okay Chairman Wilson and members of the commission, our next item is a request by Ball Homes Incorporated, and it is for PLN MAR18-10, and this appears on page 10 of your agenda. The applicant is requesting not really a standard zone change today. So they are asking to remove conditional zoning restrictions from an existing R3 and R4 zoned piece of property. I'll go over what those restrictions are in a minute. The subject property of today's zone change request is 20 acres in size, and it has an address of 478 Squires Road. and they intend to, rather than have the subject property available to be used as a middle school by the Fayette County Public Schools, instead to utilize the land for single-family residential homes. So the subject property is located in the center of the development that's been called the Peninsula for about two years now. And the peninsula is located on the north side of Reservoir Number 4, which is visible from Richmond Road just across from Jacobson Park. To get to the subject property, it is accessible by Squires Road. And Squires Road is a collector street that connects both to Richmond Road as well as Alumni Drive. It's also accessible from several other streets that come from Manowar Boulevard, like Beaver Creek, and access towards the subject property. Squire Circles is one of the circles that were planned many years ago to be completed with a mixture of zoning and uses within the center. And so this will allow the completion of that circle in not quite a circular fashion, but still a connection in a round sense, much like Beaumont. and there's another one on the inside of Manowar in this area. So the site was rezoned to a combination of R3 and R4 in April. It was finalized in April of 2017, and at that time the Planning Commission held a lengthy public hearing, as did the Council. So in both instances, the Planning Commission recommended conditional zoning restrictions that had to do with buffering. If you remember, that buffering applied to the edge of the zoning in its nearest location to the water. So there was a 50-foot, Planning Commission recommended 25 feet, but ultimately a 50-foot landscape buffer that was adopted around the edge of the 90-acre site as it abutted Kentucky American Water, either their land or the reservoir itself. The second conditional zoning restriction that came into place was not something the planning commission recommended, but rather the council adopted in their public hearing, and that was to restrict the property in total, all 90 acres, to 450 dwelling units. And the applicant made adjustments to their final development plan to accommodate that density restriction, and they moved forward, and the commission has seen a portion of that final development plan for the apartments. And so they've kind of claimed some of that density. Now that, well, since April of 2017, there have been a few things that have changed. First, Fayette County Public Schools at that time, early last year, was planning to locate a middle school on the site. That was considered by the Planning Commission and the Council as part of their public hearings. And part of the traffic study that was presented to both bodies included the counts for morning and afternoon that related to activities for the school. So it was definitely a part of their application, and it was a known quantity that the middle school would be a central focus of their development here. Earlier this year, the school decided not to purchase the property. and so that left this 20 acres in the middle of their development available for further development in a number of manners. The R3 and the R4 zone allow other uses besides just single-family residential churches, other conditional uses, as well as duplexes, townhomes, and multifamily. The applicant, in trying to think about the rest of the development that was being proposed for the peninsula, made plans to purchase the property from the water company since the school was not interested in purchasing it, and to incorporate the land in with the rest of their development for single-family residential. So that didn't really change their plans to move forward on the apartments. And again, we've seen a final development plan on that portion. but this site still had the conditional zoning restrictions, and so that prompted them to file a zone change to remove conditional zoning restrictions from this, what is sort of considered the hole in the donut. They need to remove the density restriction. Otherwise, they have used up all the density that was permitted by the council on the other 70 acres. acres. And when you saw it originally for a preliminary development plan, it actually had more units. It had about 500 units. So they had already reduced 50 units through the zone change. And so there's really not, there's a few, there's I think maybe 16 units that are available that you could put here, but not enough to make it a reasonable development. So they're asking to remove the density restriction, not for the entire site, but just for this 20 acres, and then the staff recommended that we also at the same time remove the buffering restriction since it doesn't apply to this part of the peninsula site. It just applies, again, along the water's edge. So the staff is recommending approval of removing these two conditional zoning restrictions for the site, and the zoning committee also recommended approval three weeks ago of that change. The, just for the record, the condition or the finding required to remove or modify conditional zoning restrictions is different than a typical zone change. So instead of is something in agreement with the comprehensive plan, the question is what has changed in the immediate area or to the site that would prompt a change to the conditional zoning restriction. So it's more about the site and about what's changed for the property or around the property since the restriction was put in place and not related to the comprehensive plan per se. So the findings that the staff made had to do with the decision by Fayette County Public Schools to terminate their contract with Kentucky American Water and then choose not to locate there, which impacts the traffic that the restrictions were recommended for approval based on. And then also the property isn't located at the water's edge. And again, I mentioned that. So those were the two findings the staff made in terms of it being appropriate to remove this conditional zoning restriction. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Okay. Mr. Martin has our development plan associated with the zone change. They play again. Isn't that lovely? We were just talking about whether or not that had been loaded up in the correct place, the color version, because as you know, it's new. This is new for us. We're having them submit these into the system. So with that, that is the preliminary development plan that you see before you. It is on page 7 of your agenda, 18-45 Peninsula. It's, of course, a portion. This is a preliminary development plan, and it is for the 20 acres where the school site was going to be. And you can see that they are proposing 77 single-family lots on an interior street section that will connect to the approved circular street section that now exists on the previous plan. The applicant has brought this preliminary development plan to you for the zone change. They are going to combine this area into one preliminary subdivision plan and bring it back for approval. And, of course, at that time, when that's approved, that's when they can begin their public infrastructure on the property with that preliminary subdivision plan. The apartments that you saw recently where there was a small amendment, that will be governed by final development plan. So that's how the development of this property is going to move forward. With that, again, you can see they have the 77 single-family lots. They're quite uniform in size. Along Squire's Circle, you see an HOA area. That's where the trail area is going to be. You remember the discussion about the trail. And then one interesting thing that was discovered on the property, you see the large green area. It has road frontage. That's a cemetery that was discovered on the property. And apparently, if you're interested in this sort of thing, some of the names associated were very historic, older names in Fayette County. They submitted the study. There's a study required to staff. There's potential for at least 29 graves in the area, and that is large for what we find in these family cemeteries. They're going to have to do some additional detail. The site inhibited some of the detailed work they need to do, but they did manage to locate the extent and what they think are graves. Again, they look for depressions and things like that, and they use ground sonar. So they did get their study done. They turned it around fairly quickly, as a matter of fact. There will have to be a fence around that cemetery. and again it's got good access which is required under your ordinance for the family cemetery with that you can see the conditions on your agenda there are several cleanup conditions along with your regular sign-offs final record plat information needs to be denoted for the property dimensions of the cemetery fence and of course denoting the cemetery lot as an hoa lot the The residents will have to maintain that property in that area. And then they did submit the study, as you can see, by condition number 10. Condition number 11 is a discussion item and it of course is the much discussed asbestos construction debris that has been identified on the site. And as you're all very much aware, yes, there was some construction debris from Kentucky American Water Activities on the site. It has not been disturbed according to media reports. And the staff would like to say very clearly that the applicant will have to remove this construction debris in accordance with all applicable regulations and dispose of it in an acceptable landfill. I mean, that's how it works. That's what the system requires. And as a matter of fact, locally, we require those permits to be in place before we issue our local permits. I mean, that's how we do that work, whether it's floodplain work or land disturbance. So the procedures are in place to see that this asbestos construction debris will be removed. And, again, it's when you disturb it is when it is most hazardous. And they will have certified contractors and companies that know exactly how to deal with that sort of thing. And they'll be happy to elaborate for you on that point, I am sure. With that, your subdivision committee at their meeting did recommend approval of this preliminary development plan, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions, Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. Tom, other than the trail, there's not a park area in this whole development? There is a clubhouse area, you may recall, on the other part of the plan adjacent to the reservoir. Yes, ma'am. It has a pool and a clubhouse, and certainly the cemetery, it can function as a park. So you said it would have a fence around it, but people could go in there if you had benches or something? The requirements of the ordinance is that the cemetery itself be fenced, but not the entire area. That area that you see is not the entire cemetery. oh that's so it is a nice hoa lot which will provide passive recreation for the for the residents of the neighborhood picnic walk the dog let the kids play but the cemetery itself has to be fenced and protected i think citizens have indicated in the past that they kind of like passive areas so that's why i was in yeah and again there's a nice sidewalk system it'll take them to the trail and they can utilize the trail. Okay. Any other comments? Just one. I can I suppose that we can change discuss to resolve on number 11. Well it's a discussion item and if you're satisfied with the discussion that you hear today at this meeting you can strike that condition. Strike it all together. I believe so it's a discussion item because, again, staff believed it very important that this body hear this discussion. So it will be removed as part of the infrastructure plan process and development of the site. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Applicant? Thank you all. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of all homes. It is my understanding, this is an abbreviated hearing, I've kind of waived my right to talk, which I know makes you all very happy. But I am happy to elaborate on any of the topics that came up. I'm happy to talk about asbestos remediation if you all would like. I'm happy to talk about additional park area that didn't get mentioned. It's at your leisure, but I do believe I've waived my rights. Ms. Plumlee, did you have any? Hold on, Ms. Plumlee, I think, has a comment or a question. I have a question for you. Thank you. Tracy alluded to some of the restrictions that the council put on this area. And so could you review those, please? There was a 50-foot buffer. Certainly. There was a 50-foot buffer. You all implemented basically a tree protection, for lack of a better term, for any caliper tree that was three inches in diameter. The council then took that down to one and a half inches in diameter. So any tree that is not diseased, dying, or a danger that is above one and a half inches of caliper, we have to work with the Urban Forestry Office for any type of removal for there. So essentially what you all originally implemented, the council doubled. They basically doubled the area of protection, and then they decreased the size of the caliper by half. I don't know if that answers your question. answered it. Okay. So and you were you are at 79 units now for this. This is a this represents an increase of 77 over what was approved. So you're going to add 77 to 450 to what would total yes but only 77 single-family detached units on the 450 includes all of the apartments the townhomes and the single-family. So 77 to 450 is the total single-family increase it kind of breaks out to just under four units per acre, which is certainly a low development rate when you're talking about 20 acres. Should this go forward? I would like that to be a condition. You want to specify that it's 477, is that what you're... Yeah, should it go forward? I'm just more discussion on it. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Anything else? Okay. Mr. Ms. Plumlee, can you, I'm sorry, can you clarify? they were permitted 450 before and then adding 77 is 527. okay i thought i just heard you say 477. if i guess i i feel like i do need to clarify something here um what is being requested today is the removal of the density cap on just the 20 acres okay it is not touching what the council originally intended putting a density restriction on so when the council acted it was under the very very reasonable uh impression that there was going to be a middle school on this 20 acres and that that was going to represent a major traffic generating use and so because of the whole picture looked like 70 acres of residential around a 20 acre site they deemed that the kind of the surrounding residential needed to be capped at 450 we are not touching that in any way shape or form we are simply ensuring that this 20 acres is not basically developed at 18 units over 20 acres it will allow for this 20 acres to go back to basically move forward and be developed at a very reasonable rate of four units per acre and ensure that the council's original intent to restrict that surrounding residential at 450 is not touched in any way shape or form so we believe we're preserving what council tried to do what they intended to do they just never considered the situation of what would possibly happen if that school did not exist um we would ask you not to because as you can see, there are a lot of partial lots here. And so what it does is it represents an increase on 77 on the total peninsula. Technically, there are, you know, when you look at partial lots, you're looking at kind of 81 that are touching this property. So we would ask that you just not put a density restriction on this 20 acres. The original density restriction of 450 is still being retained on the outside. We just don't put one here. This is our three property. It's not our four. We're not touching the apartment sites. We're not asking to increase whatsoever. We're only asking for this to be developed at single-family detached houses. My one point is the density of the whole area. Yes, ma'am. How does your call on this? Yes, ma'am. Sure. And if I could say one thing to that, the reason why the neighbors were so concerned about the density had a lot to do with the school. If you remember the traffic study that was presented at that time and presented to council showed what the demand was just for the school in the morning peak time 55 of the entire traffic for this development was just the middle school so when the council decided to put in the 450 density restriction since that time 55 of all the traffic is gone and so that's why we do not think that a density cap is really necessary because the specific reason was traffic impact on the area and we just took out 55 of the total traffic any other questions anyone in the audience i'm sorry thank you mr chair considering the fact one i've got to apologize i'm playing a little bit of ketchup since i missed the subdivision committee meeting but uh one in doing so and considering the fact that we there is a discussion item here i think we should hear just a little bit as to what's going on there before we just change arbitrarily? I'm happy to talk about the asbestos situation. It should not be any surprise to you all that there are some old water pipes that were stored on this site. They are concrete water pipes, and in that original concrete mix, which was very common back then, they use asbestos materials. The reason why I say it should not be a surprise to you all is because throughout this entire development plan process, we have talked about this exact possibility. We have talked about it at TRC meetings. We've talked about it at countless numbers of subdivision committees that this thing went through during the year that it was kind of going through the development process. We've talked about it at zoning committees. In the final development plan public hearing, we had an extensive conversation. This Monday asked a very specific question about how exactly are we going to be dealing with the water pipes that are out on this site. We said then, we said every step of the way, we are going to remediate this process, the area. We are going to cooperate with any official, state, local, federal, whomever it is, to make sure that all rules and regulations are followed through with regards to how we need to remediate the concrete pipes that are there. We met with the cabinet this week, with the energy and environmental cabinet officials this week, and we're going to continue to work with them. I'm not sure if you all saw the headline in the paper, but the government officials that we met with had actually investigated the site and inspected it the week prior, and they determined that there's not a health concern. We are going to make sure, moving forward, nothing in that view changes. We're going to develop a plan, work with them, continue to keep them up to date in order to do that. Bill Tucker is here. He's an engineer with SME. They are kind of a nationwide engineering firm. He's out of their Nashville office. We've kind of hired them to specifically handle the remediation efforts to make sure that we are in complete compliance. I'm happy to have him come up if you all want to hear more on how remediation works and what we're looking at on this site, it is kind of at your discretion. But I said it all along. It exists. We've got to deal with it. Anyone want to hear any more? And we will. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Nichols was very complete. Anyone want to address this from the audience? Okay, then we'll pull it back for a motion. Ready, Mr. Cravens. Yes, sir. I want to move approval of Plan 18-10 Ball Homes with findings provided by staff. Second. Question? Just a minute. Okay, we've got a motion from Mr. Craven, a second from Ms. Mundy, that we approve PLN MAR 18-10 Ball Homes with the findings and conditions provided by staff. Any discussion? Yes, sir. Thank you. um with that motion really have no trouble except for the fact that as mr craven said you know oh wait a second this is don't change right right excuse me oh you wait no what's wrong okay okay any other discussion on the zone change uh if not would you please vote when it comes up on your screens okay that motion passes now for the next part okay yeah I'm gonna make a motion for the development plan to move approval and I'm going to delete 11 and I think we can delete 10 also Tom says yes we can do that okay leaving the the nine conditions okay okay hang on just one minute the motion has been made by mr cravens and seconded by mr monday that we approve pln mjdp 18-44 peninsula portion of as amended with the nine conditions provided by staff now ready for discussion mr owens thank you yes Yes, and this goes to item number 11 in the discussion of resolution asbestos. Considering the nature of this, I would like to see a condition that just simply, with some help from staff or someone that would state, denote the remediation, continued remediation of this per approval of whatever environmental study. You know, they're doing it, but the seriousness of it, I would just like to have something that... Are you asking for the documentation about the removal to be submitted to LFUCG? I mean, I think they're going to have to do that anyway to the Division of Engineering. Yeah, something like that, just to make sure it does. To me, this is a serious concern. It was brought up many times, and I think they're doing it. I think it will be done, but I think we should just have a notation that denotes that. We can denote. Is there a timing restriction? I mean, are you just asking for them to submit a piece of paper to the government? If I may. Is that? I would point out, you're going to see a preliminary subdivision plan that they'll be able to build off of. So we could denote on this plan that at the time of your preliminary subdivision plan and or final development plan, the asbestos issue will be addressed per relevant regulations. Okay. Because, I mean, that's when they will have to actually get out there and start doing it when they pull the permit. it so we we could denote on this plan that that will be the timing does that make okay mr chairman mr chairman okay hang on yes sir that's not my motion i know it isn't i understand that the question is do you want an amendment to the motion i i would like to try and amend it okay then way we do this is we vote on the amendment first and then we come back to the main motion so the amendment is to add a tenth uh 11th uh well it's actually 10 because okay okay a 10th saying that we resolve that it would be a special notation to dissolve to denote remediation of an asbestos issue at the final development plan that's the way i wrote it is that okay that sounds good to me okay that's the motion that's your amended motion so any other discussion all right you made the motion do i have a second on that i'll say okay it's been properly moved to second that we have an amendment to the main motion to denote remediation of a best decision at the final development plan would you please vote on the amendment when it comes up on your screens mr mr chair preliminary subdivision plan and or final development oh okay i'm sorry preliminary you can build off those okay you say that preliminary preliminary subdivision plan and or a final development plan okay subdivision plan and r and or development and or development okay we're on the second motion you're you're speaking to the amendment yes sir okay let's speak um i mean this this has been completely documented out here by the attorneys and and by the application and by the staff, you know, they're all in agreement with this, and I don't see any reason to put more documents on here. Okay. That's a fair statement. But the motion is still on the floor. It has been properly moved in a second. We still vote on that amendment, and that's what we are voting on right now. So we're voting on the amendment. Those in favor of the amendment, please vote when it comes up on your screen, whether you favor the amendment or not. it's five to four against okay so that amendment fails now we go back to the main motion the main motion is would you want to restate it you want to approve i can restate that moving approval of uh plan 18-45 uh the nine conditions okay that's your main motion and we Do we have a second on that one? Okay, it's in second by Ms. Mundy. So now we're voting on the main motion, and the main motion is to approve the PLN-MJDP-18-45 Peninsula portion as amended with the nine conditions as provided by staff. Any other discussion on this main motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. next y'all getting me getting feisty up here i think this next one that we will look at it's an abbreviated uh it's uh north lexington i think it is y'all gonna make me i'm gonna get gray hairs before this thing is all over with i'll be looking like Mike Chairman Wilson members of the Commission our next item appears on page eight of the I'm sorry seven of the agenda And I think it's again. We still have notebooks today, but it's our last month with notebooks So I hope if you need help with the monitors, let me know before we leave today. This is PLN MAR18-11, and the applicant is North Lexington Holdings 2, LLC. So everything in your notebook is also on Granicus, including the PowerPoint presentation. So hopefully you have more there. This is a request by North Lexington Holdings, LLC, to rezone four parcels along North Limestone from a single-family residential zone, our R1C zone, to a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone. And that site is half an acre and then gross three-fourths of an acre. So it's 912, 914, 916, and 918 North Limestone. and there's also a dimensional variance associated with this request. The subject properties are located on the southeast side of North Limestone between Avon Avenue and Burnett Avenue. And the four parcels have four existing structures, one on each lot. And the four existing structures, although they're located in a single-family residential zone, are actually occupied by duplexes, two duplexes, and two triplexes. So there is an existing nonconformity on this subject property. The four lots then house 10 dwelling units, and at half of an acre, it's about 20 units per acre. pretty good pretty good density the the subject property has single-family residential to the north zoning wise the south the east and the west and a little bit of mixed-use zoning just to the direct north so if we look at the aerial it's probably not that great actually the single family zoning across north limestone from here doesn't really have very many single-family homes It's actually utilized by no lie for a community garden. But just within this vicinity, Loudon Avenue is to the south. And as you go out north limestone, you'll eventually hit New Circle Road. But in the general vicinity, we have a mixed-use project that's being developed across north limestone from the subject property. and then Arlington Elementary School is just across Avon Avenue from the subject properties. So the parcels have been renovated, the four structures that are there, and they have a very cohesive look. They are all sort of a dark gray with yellow doors. The two closest to the elementary school are 416 and 418 North Limestone. The one in the mid-block is 914 North Limestone. And then the one at the corner of Burnett is 912 North Limestone. The subject properties in the rear had just gravel parking. And then between two of the structures was an existing driveway to get to the back of the gravel parking. And then you could leave the four lots out to either of the side streets. So that's the existing condition. The reason the applicant is asking to rezone the properties really doesn't have to do anything with the use. They're not proposing to intensify the development on the parcel. They're not proposing to increase dwelling units. They want to apply for a grant for stormwater improvements. and the only way to qualify for this particular grant is for them to be in a R3 and a group residential project, so an apartment structure since they are multifamily. So they are hoping for rezoning today in order to make further improvements to the site for stormwater and parking in the back. This is located in the Central Sector Small Area Plan, and generally limestone is recommended for retail corridor. However, this has always been residential in this location, and they're continuing to use the site in the same manner. And one of the, or a few of the principles with the small area plan and then the specific recommendations are being met by the application. They have worked already to enhance the urban fabric with the improvements they've made on site. They are working towards redevelopment and reinvestment in the area, providing housing opportunities, doing preservation of the existing structures, utilizing best management practices for stormwater. So you can see they're kind of ticking off a lot of the recommendations from the small area plan. The applicant also mentions that they're in agreement with the comprehensive plan in terms of the 2018 goals and objectives. And again, they're referencing green infrastructure, expanded housing choices, upholding the urban service boundaries. I won't get into all those. The staff also believes, in addition to meeting the small area plan recommendations in terms of the principles and the recommendations about stormwater, that the R1C zone is not appropriate, but the R3 zone is appropriate at this location, given the extended use in the area for multifamily at the site. So the staff recommended approval of the requested rezoning, and again cited the small area plan, as well as the comprehensive plan goals and objectives, and also that the R3 zone is appropriate for this location. So obviously nobody can read those findings. But this recommendation is made subject to the approval of their development plan. And I will mention again, there is a variance request associated with this. So, Mr. Martin, are you presenting this development plan? Oh. Development plan? No, don't. I thought you said the department. You got that. That's what I thought. Mr. Martin will present the development plan, and then I'll mention the variances to you after that. Okay. Any question for Ms. Wade? The zoning committee also recommended approval of this request. Hang on, Ms. Mundy has a question for you. Tracy, this property is surrounded by R1C, and you're recommending what I consider spot zoning to bring this in at R3. Well, the comprehensive plan recommends intensification of our corridors. So North Limestone is a minor collector street or minor arterial street. So this allows for the intensification of that corridor, similar to another zone change we have this afternoon. And it's in keeping with the existing uses of the property, too. So those were the ideas the staff had in terms of recommending R3. I think there'll be more intensification along North Limestone, similar to many of our corridors in the community. Okay. Didn't satisfy me, but good answer. okay well this is an interesting day we have here today you all want you all had to work harder to get miss money's approval here you know she's she's on record but uh graciously so okay mr martin you got the development plan this is a preliminary development plan it is on page nine of your agenda it is 18-48 avondale subdivision block b lots one two and then 44 and 45 also known as North Lexington Holdings. As has been explained to you, this is a proposed preliminary development plan for a zone change with no physical changes to the existing structures. There are 10 one-bedroom units, a mix of, I believe, duplex and triplex properties at this location. They are going to provide parking in the rear. you can see the excess drive they're proposing that is a one-way access drive there's a considerable amount of green space associated with this property it is all of that is one aspect that makes the water grant storm water grant and the attractive to this particular applicant they've got room to work and add the features and that sort of thing to address water quality issues in particular Now, again, you have the frontage on North Limestone Street with the access to the rear off of Avon and Burnett will be the parking access. They are asking, as Ms. Wade mentioned, for a waiver from 15 to 10 parking spaces. Again, all, as you can see, located in the rear. There are several conditions on the plan. This is a revision. However, we did not revise the staff report. There are a couple of items there that will need your attention. Number nine, particularly, where it says discuss compliance with the central sector plan recommendations, that will need to state that compliance with center sector plan recommendations shall be resolved at final development plan. As you all are aware, because I know you've heard this, the Central Sector Plan addresses limestone with a lot of streetscape and pedestrian facility recommendations. It even goes further than that. It addresses changes to the street and that sort of thing that are beyond the scope of most private developments. These are items we've discussed with the applicant. You can see the plan. They've got a nice, large front yard. There's room for various pedestrian and landscape improvements to help address the redevelopment of Limestone Street, which has, as you know, been identified as a major corridor and entrance into this area of our community. So, again, that is something that will have to be addressed at the final development plan, which you will see. And that I would also direct you to 10, where it says resolve plan status. This APA clinic was at one time considering making this a final development plan because they weren't doing a lot of physical changes. It's our understanding that they would like for this to be maintained as a preliminary development plan. So that's been resolved and that can be removed. I mentioned the number of units that exist on the property and that they are requesting a parking variance. The square footage of all four of these dwelling units is only 5,700 square feet total on the property, as, again, due to the history and how they were developed, there's quite a bit of open space. There is a slight conflict, and it creates a nonconformity with the setbacks that the group residential setback creates. So two of these structures actually encroach over the setback required under group residential. and that could impact anything they might want to do in the future if they wanted to make changes. But again, that would be subject to a final development plan, subject to review by this body, and could be addressed at that time should they wish to make changes. Your staff recommended approval of this plan to your subdivision committee, and they have recommended approval to this body as well. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. The requested variance is next. The requested variance associated with the zone change and development plan today is to reduce the required parking from 15 spaces to 10 spaces. And I just added the development plan back up there for a graphic. The parking is located in the rear of the site, and they are proposing a reduction of the parking from 15 spaces required to 10, which is a 33% reduction. That equates one parking space per dwelling unit. In terms of the staff's evaluation, We just noted that it was not a major reduction. They could have asked for a 50% reduction for the site, but they only asked for 33%. And in this particular location, there is available on-street parking on all three frontages of the site. So that is quite a bit more frontage than a normal property would have. In addition, the neighborhood has a fairly high walk score and it's considered very walkable, as well as has a good score in terms of bikeability, and then it is located along a transit line as well. So those aspects make reduced parking something that the staff would consider acceptable at this level for the site. The staff did recommend approval of the variants for the parking from 15 to 10 spaces, and they will need to show that those improvements on the development plan and denote the variants, as well as have all permits from planning, traffic engineering, engineering, and building inspection prior to final construction of the improvements in the back. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the variants. any questions about the variant okay thank you good afternoon Nick Nicholson here on behalf of North Lexington again this is an abbreviated hearing so I will not give a full presentation I'm here to answer any questions miss Monday I'm happy to elaborate on why this is not spot zoning if you would like me to it is oddly enough this is a stormwater zone change i have never had a stormwater zone change in my life but this is the very first stormwater zone change and what we have found we uh basically the the owners had made it through basically uh the entire grant process and were the number one top basically qualifier to receive a substantial stormwater grant and what the plan was to do i did not prepare a powerpoint presentation but is to put significant rain swells rain gardens and the type of plants up front with educational material along north limestone and kind of the corner right by 912. also in back there is basically pervious pavement going in where there's gravel right now there are rain gardens or the rain catching baskets we are turning existing driveways that act as a funnel to basically grab all the rain water and take it straight to north limestone and basically catching that turning it into garden space and actually pedestrian walkways as opposed to the broken down driveways right now i will pass All in all, you have property owners that took four houses that looked like this, already have turned them in to substantially improve product right now, and what we are trying to do is make sure we can take it the next step to make sure that this is a true gateway right here to the North Limestone area. The reason why I get into all this is because this is what the Central Sector Plan is talking about. These are the types of improvements that were envisioned by it. these are the type of improvements that will not impact the area negatively because we're not increasing density we are only adding amenities and better street features to encourage the walkability of South line or of North Limestone excuse me these buildings have been existence we dated them back to around 3540 and simply put they were have been duplexes triplex as well before R1C zoning went into effect. So these are non-compliance properties right now. We are bringing them into compliance and we're doing it in such a way to make it a group residential project to make sure that this is a class A development. That is why we do not consider this spot zoning at all because this is much more in compliance with what the 2018 plan talked about and what the central sector small area plan specifically governing this area was trying to do. We're just trying to get it there. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Nichols? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience like to speak to this? Okay, fine. We'll bring it back to, we've got three things. We've got the zone change, the requested variance, and the development plan. We're going to take them a little bit. The order presentation was one way. We're going to take them in a different order. We're going to take the zone change first, then go to the variance, and then go to the development plan. Okay? Mr. Owens? You're ready for a motion? Yes. Yes. I feel like I've been hassling Mr. Nicholson all day, so happy to make this motion. And secondly, you all heard me say many times in regards to one, parking, but then two, stormwater said we should find a way to provide incentives for some of the things that I think these folks are trying to do. We may not be providing incentives, but we're providing an avenue for them to get the grant, it seems like to me. So I'm happy to make a motion. My motion would be for approval of Plan M.J. MAR 18-11, North Lexington Holdings, No. 2, LLC, for the four reasons provided by staff. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Owens. I thought I saw a second from Mr. Cravens that we approve PLN MAR 18-11, North Lexington Holdings, No. 2, LLC, with the four conditions identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? May I please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion carries. Thank you. Now the next would be the variance. As to the variance, I would move for approval of the requested variance in relation to Plan MAR18-11 North Lexington Holdings No. 2 LLC for the three reasons that the staff has provided. subject to the four conditions offered. Okay. We got a motion by Mr. Owens, a second by Mr. Mike Cravens, that we approve the variance to reduce the required parking spaces from 15 to 10 as in relationship to PLN MAR 18-11, the zone change. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, the motion carries. Now for the development plan. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of Plan MJDP 18-48 Avon Subdivision Block B, Lots 1, 2, 44, and 45. For the now 10 reasons, 10 conditions, deleting number 9. Also, number 9 should read, you keep number 9, but it should read. Okay, excuse me. Yeah, compliance. Okay. Number nine should read compliance with central sector plan. Recommendation shall be resolved at final development plan. Thank you, sir. Resolve number nine and delete number 10. Okay. Do I get a second? Okay, Mr. Mike Cravers, a second that Mr. Owens has moved. Mr. Cravers, a second that we approve PLNMJDP 18-48 Avondale Subdivision, blocks 1 and 2, 44 and 45, Lexington Holdings, located at 912-918 North Limestone, Lexington, Kentucky, with the 10 conditions provided by staff striking number 10 and adding in number 9, compliance with central sector plan recommendations shall be resolved at final development plan. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing that, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion also carries. Thank you. We've got two other items, but I will declare a five-minute recess if that's agreeable with you all, and then we'll come back at it. Thank you. And then we've got the ending. Where is that? this item appears on page one of the agenda today it is pln mar 17-41 winchester 836 llc is the applicant and they are asking to rezone properties at 1104 1106 1186 and then 1190 through 1194 north limestone and they're asking to rezone it's actually a what we would consider a down zoning from a neighborhood business zone which is our first business zone in the ordinance to a highway that's not right high density not a highway density high density apartment r4 zones sorry about that typo and the proposal for the subject properties for parcels collectively is to put one multi-family structure on the property with 36 dwelling units the application also includes two variances which we'll adjust separately. I do have one email that came to the staff earlier today that I'll enter into the record and pass around. The subject property is located on the southeast side of North Limestone and it is again located between, similar to the last case we had, between Loudoun Avenue and New Circle. So on the overhead, Loudoun Avenue is to the south of the subject property. Here's Limestone. And then New Circle is approximately there. And the subject property is located within a stretch of North Limestone. That is B1. And so it's B1 to the north and to the south. Across limestone is single-family residential. And then there is a sliver of B1 zoning that is located on the adjacent single-family lots. And that zoning won't be affected. So there will be a slight piece of B1 zoning off of the subject properties that will remain between R1C zoning and then the proposed R4 zoning for the subject property. And also within their notice area was that mixed-use zone that we referenced in the previous case. So in the aerial photograph, there are existing structures located on the site, and they are a mixture of residential and commercial uses. So if we'll look a little bit closer, this is the existing residential structure located at 1104 North Limestone, and it is an all-brick structure. It's at the corner of Limestone and Devonia Avenue. It is probably the most prominent structure on the block, and it does have some code enforcement issues associated with it. The two smaller residential structures, originally built as residential structures in the middle of the block, one has been used as a residence most recently, 1106, but 1186 North Limestone, the white structure in the photo, has been used for a, I believe it's a salon of some sort as well. It appears to have still some residential use on the site as well. And then the corner at Carlisle in North Limestone is a much more commercial building, and it is pulled all the way up to the zero foot, the right-of-way commercial building, and it has a range of addresses according to PVA. but it is much more of a commercial building and has had business uses in that corner this site is located within the central sector small area plan that was approved in 2009 that followed the 2007 comprehensive plan so in 2009 this plan was adopted and the subject properties are located within sub area D of that plan and that is from Loudon Avenue out to new almost new circle and goes pretty far past Broadway to the Northeast and then a butt ends up abutting the East End smaller a plan more towards the south and east north limestone was designated in that small area plan for the most part as a neighborhood connector corridor with designated improvements streetscape improvements The small area plan also designated Loudon and Limestone, that intersection, as a focus area for redevelopment. And then one of the priorities for the small area plan said that this area should retain its unique character as a traditional neighborhood retail corridor. So since the subject properties are existing as B1, they have in the past supported, I guess, that unique retail character of North Limestone. So when the applicant stated in their justification that they felt it was in agreement with the small area plan and the comprehensive plan, the caveat there is that the small area plan recommends that the retail be improved on North Limestone, not be eliminated. So the staff came to the conclusion that the zone change from B1 to a residential zone was not in agreement with the small area plan's land use recommendation, although the small area plan does have other principles that it recommends in terms of enhancing the urban fabric, promoting redevelopment and investment, providing adequate housing, and then preserving cultural and historic heritage within the area. And then more specific plan recommendations in terms of encouraging affordable housing, utilizing best management practices for stormwater, because stormwater was a significant issue mentioned in the small area plan. Again, preserving structures with historic and cultural value, and then offering goods and services for local residents. So the staff came to the conclusion that an R3 or a residential zone could improve the character of North Limestone. their original application was for an R5 zone which the staff felt was too intense and and too much of a jump in terms of residential density when it was adjacent to single-family residential homes this would the proposed justification stated that redevelopment along North line will help improve the neighborhood as the existing structures along the block have a lack of of continuity and from the pictures you probably could tell they were of different scales different setbacks different materials and generally have had some deferred maintenance and they also mentioned in their request that it was in agreement with the comprehensive plan which the staff mentioned the small area plan we feel it wasn't in agreement with the future land use recommendation which was point three there but they also mentioned the 2018 goals and objectives and the staff does feel that the R4 zone their amended application to R4 can meet a number of those goals and objectives from the 2018 comprehensive plan including expanding housing choices along the corridor accommodating the demand for housing with a prioritization on higher density and mixed-use housing types planning for affordable safe and accessible housing the applicant has mentioned in their application and provided some information that they intend to make these units affordable and they've applied to the lexington affordable housing trust fund for funding so they are following through with that commitment with their justification supporting infill and redevelopment that is respectful of the area's context and incorporates open space into the development there are some aspects of the development plan which i hope mr martin will point out that meet that providing well-designed neighborhoods incorporating green infrastructure in terms of their green space and also underground detention they hope to utilize for the project and supporting complete streets by having the pedestrian first they're proposing improvements along north limestone again the small area plan recommends streetscape improvements the applicant was willing to provide an eight foot sidewalk as well as benches and bike racks along the frontage and agreed to continue to work with the staff towards implementing the small area plan for streetscape improvements and then the one we see most often is upholding the urban service boundary so they did amend their zone change i mentioned from an originally they filed for an r5 zone and the staff recommended postponement of that they did revisit the density that they needed and the the far they needed for the site and i believe we came to an agreement when mr martin and i met with the applicant's representative that they could meet the the density and the desired outcome on the site and still do it within an r4 zone so they did amend their application to reduce the intensity of the use or at least kind of cap the intensity of the use on the site I mentioned the applicant did state they intend to provide affordable housing and have made their application to the affordable housing trust fund in fact they've met with the affordable housing trust fund and they during the meeting in May all Right, end of May, the trust fund board indicated they would like to have the property in the correct zone first before they approved funding. So the applicant had been waiting for the funding to move forward with the zone change, and the board said, actually, we'd prefer you have your zone in place before we fund it. So it was a little bit more of a chicken and an egg situation there. So this led the staff to determine that an R4 zone for this location was in substantial agreement with the comprehensive plan, both the small area plan in terms of the principles of the small area plan and the specific recommendations for best management practices for stormwater, improving the urban fabric. And part of that had to do with the variances they're requesting and the streetscape improvements that they were proposing to make. So the staff did recommend approval of an R4 zone for the site. And Ms. Mundy may have the same exact question with me about why we would recommend approval of that. The subject or the staff made recommendation related to that for, was that an astute observation? A through G on our staff report, so on pages 4 and 5, in terms of how they are meeting the comprehensive plans, goals and objectives, as well as the smaller plans recommendations. We did also find that the R4 zone is appropriate for the subject property because the high density residential is appropriate along the community's collector and arterial roadways where adequate urban service and infrastructure is available. And then also the proposed R4 zone is compatible with the character of North Limestone, which has a mixture of residential and business zones, as well as a mixture of different buildings and setbacks. I mentioned earlier there's also a mixed-use project within the 500-foot notice area that is of similar height and massing as the property is proposing, or the applicant is proposing for the subject property. Happy to answer any questions that the Planning Commission has about the zone change. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Thank you. Mr. Martin has your development plan and then I'll tell you about the variances. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan before you today that is associated with this zone change is on page 3 of your agenda, item C. It's Major Development Plan 17-121, and I know you all know how I love these names. Arlington Weekly Payment Lot and Investment Companies Edition. It speaks wonders in many ways to our history and development in our community. And we have also distributed to you on this lovely pink paper. I know Mr. Penn likes that. some revised conditions on this particular plan and this plan has been through several permutations and has evolved to what you see before you today. They are proposing a single structure on the lot. It will be a three-story apartment building, 35 feet in height. They are proposing 36 two-bedroom units. The issues that speak to part of their problem, the challenges of this site, is interesting. The R4 will work for them, but they are at .7 with their FAR, 27% block coverage, which is pushing right up against the 30% limit. And, of course, they're requesting a reduction in their parking from 55 to 50 spaces. You can see the parking layout is similar to the previous plan. They're proposing access off Devonia and Carlisle with parallel, or not parallel, but angled parking, a large parking lot across the property. It is two-way, and you can also see they're proposing underground detention should it be required. In addition, the plan has just over the 20 percent open space requirement. You all may recall that discussion about the rooftop open space and concern about how that would function. With this revised plan, you can see a very nice open space area on Devonia and North Limestone. That goes a long way towards addressing their open space needs on this property. In conjunction with that, you can see there's a lot of trees along the back property line, and one of the conditions was that they resolve or denote their ability to meet the tree canopy at the time of the final development plan. They are maximizing quite a bit of this site, and the challenge for them has been significant. One of the interesting aspects that I think will help you put both this development, its request, and even its variance into perspective is, again, and I love the name, but the old plat, the old plat of this property was very geometric. They were 25 or 30-foot lots and very deep. And what happened here, and we made the applicant prove it to us, there's a gap in this property. And when it was originally laid out from limestone, these lots were parallel to Devonia and Carlisle. And as they were sold by deed, they were shorted across the back. And there's a gap between what was originally platted with the limestone lots and then when the lotting pattern changed and fronted on Carlisle and Devonia. And we asked them, we said, explain this gap. And their surveyor went out there on more than one occasion and found pens and found documentation that instead of following the plat they followed deeds so in essence this property has less land than what was originally platted and that's one reason it's a smaller piece of property and developing it at this sort of density has been a challenge for them so i wanted to explain that's that's very important impact on on their proposal so with that again you can see the orientation that they have they're going to have to adjust the building to meet the setback on the side street side yard that's a requirement they'll have to adjust that they did not request that variance they requested only a front yard and your side street side yard on a corner is the same as your front yard so they're going to have to adjust their building to meet that requirement for this plan to be certified and again depending on your variance on the front yard setback that would also have an impact on the plan that's one reason i wanted to explain the lotting pattern and what happened historically on this property to you with that if you have any it is a preliminary development plan you will see a final development plan on this property where they will address the central sector streetscape and pedestrian requirements the building that they build will also have to address the architectural features that are required in your infill and redevelopment uh standards so that will all be addressed at the time of your final development plan uh be happy to answer your questions you may have for staff any questions for mr mark mr owens thank you uh begin with i like your time shirt today thank you i like yours too um that's to number six addressing the b4 front back front yard oh pardon me i'm glad you saw that that should say r4 okay instead of b4 that's a typo clarify that that condition for me uh it's very uh simple that they have a front yard setback that they're requesting a variance to from you today to move it up towards north limestone they have a setback on the side street carlisle that they're not meeting they'll have to adjust it so that is dependent on the variance yes sir thank you any other questions for mr martin okay thank you the variance miss wade i guess the applicant is also asking for two variances associated with their zone change the first is to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 55 spaces to 50 and the second is to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 10 feet. Switch back to the zoning presentation. So the R4 zone requires both a front and a and a side street side yard to be 20 feet from the setback and as Mr. Martin mentioned the applicant asked for a variance along the front yard so that would be just along according to their plan north limestone the existing setbacks in the area do vary quite a bit the red lines you can see those shown along the adjacent or nearby blocks vary between 15 feet and 35 feet The closest are 15, which is to the southwest of the subject property. And then the furthest are the single-family residential across North Limestone. Those are fairly consistently 30 feet. And there's a structure, part of a structure, with the church here that's at back about 35, or next to the church that's at back about 35 feet. Within the block proposed for redevelopment, again, the front yard setbacks vary quite a bit. The existing commercial building is right at the right-of-way line, so it has a zero-foot setback, whereas the more significant two-story or two-and-a-half-story brick structure has a setback of about 47 feet. So there is a variety of setbacks within this area. the subject or the applicant is asking to reduce the setback to 10 feet and that would be from the right-of-way line and they're at they're proposing to do improvements in the right-of-way as well with the an increased sidewalk along north limestone when you look at the existing setbacks compared to what they're proposing today it does fairly closely average out to about 10 feet And they are proposing to maintain an open space at the corner of, I think it's Devonia and North Limestone. So that helps to keep it open as well. One of the staff's main concerns about the setback was what was the structure going to look like. And so we spoke with the Affordable Housing Trust Fund director, Mr. McQuady, and he provided us with a graphic that they submitted to them to show the character, general character of the structure, as well as that there will be some relief along the structure. There will be entrances from North Limestone to the structure, and again, it's required, but there's some gable roofing that provides more character, and they are indicating the architectural details of inside the building in this particular graphic. So that gave the staff some comfort in terms of a variance to the setback because it does provide an engaging facade along North Limestone where pedestrian access and activity can be directly with the building. And in addition to that, the applicant cited the dimension of the lot, which Mr. Martin talked a little bit about, being not deep enough to accommodate both parking, the required walkways, and the size of the building within the space allowed on the site. So it's 125 feet from the front property line to the narrowest location here. and that is enough space for their six-foot sidewalk, their parking, a buffer in the back, and then just they've even narrowed down their building more than they had preferred to to make that work. So they really can't get any wider from their perspective than the existing structure showing here. That's pretty much as tight as it can get on the side. In terms of the parking required, the number of dwelling units proposed will designate how many parking spaces are required. So by needing or by proposing 36 dwelling units at .9 per bedroom, that equates to 65 parking spaces that are required on the site. the applicant is allowed to utilize parking reductions for transit locations as well as providing bike racks. And so they've utilized a 15% reduction associated with the closeness of those facilities as well as the bike racks on site. And with the reduction, they are still required to provide 55 spaces on site. the applicant is asking to reduce that by five spaces and they cite the access to transit facilities as part of the reason why that would be appropriate the staff also recognizes again that this site has three frontages of two local streets and then north limestone all of which have front have parking available none of them are restricted in this area so that provides some additional parking and on-street parking is permitted along Carlisle and Devonia as well and again this area is more walkable the streets are connected in a grid pattern the sidewalks are existing and they're proposing to expand those so that gives the staff some comfort in terms of less parking the applicant also mentioned the fact that it would be affordable housing and that could reduce the demand for parking the staff's not completely sold on that avenue of of their justification mainly because the affordable housing that they're proposing is not the very low it's not addressing the very low income piece of affordable housing and so most people that are closer to the 80 to 100 percent affordable housing realm do still have vehicles and need a place to park so that's not really in our mind and adequate justification for reducing parking in this case so the staff did recommend approval of the two variances and there are six conditions associated with those variances first that the urban county council does approve the zone change otherwise they would be null and void the development plan has to or the development has to be constructed in accordance with a final development plan that meets the requirements of engineering and traffic engineering and building inspection and all their permits need to be issued associated with those agencies the approval of the planning commission has to be denoted on the plan and then these last two conditions are a little bit more specific to this particular variance the first is that the nearest transit stop should be converted to a transit shelter to the specifications and approval of lextran that then bolsters their argument that the transit connection is there and the staff believes that the more usable a transit stop is i.e if it has a shelter the more likely people won't need a vehicle they'll use the transit the second can or the number six condition which is special for this particular case is that the residential building should meet the requirements of article 15-7 that's required all the time for the architectural and facade articulation but the staff also believes that it should their building should reflect the graphic that the applicant provided to the affordable housing trust fund in april of 2018 which includes a masonry facade as well as pedestrian entrances multiple pedestrian entrances along north limestone and open balconies for individual dwelling units. Those were the characteristics the staff was interested in seeing originally and why we recommended postponement of the variance request. We weren't sure that the facade improvements, the urban fabric that they were creating along North Limestone would be consistent with other improvements that were occurring in the area. So we felt more comfortable when we saw this rendering. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the two variances. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Thank you, applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the commission, my name's Matt Carter. I'm with Vision Engineering. I've got with me today the applicants, Jake Reardon and Mark Jeter. I guess I'll be brief. We're in agreement with the conditions. As far as the variances go, I do have one thing to clarify on it. The generators for the parking, there's two ways to calculate parking requirements. One is based on the number of units times 1.5. That would be three parking spaces for every two units. The other method is .9 times the number of bedrooms. So in our case, if you go by the number of bedrooms, it would require 65 parking spaces. If you go by units, it would require 54. You have to go with the larger of the two. So we have 50 spaces. So we're allowed to take some reductions for transit, for bike racks. If one of the bus stops is covered, we can add an additional 5%. So we're allowed to have up to 15% reduction. And so we chose to add the bike racks, the bus stops, and that made our parking requirements 55. So that's how we arrived at the variance for five spaces. So I just wanted to clarify how that was calculated. But, again, like I say, we are in agreement with the conditions of the zone change, the development plan, and the variance, and would be glad to answer any questions. Any questions for Mr. Carter? Okay, thank you. We might call you back a little bit later. At this time, if there are people here who would like to, yes, ma'am, you may come forward. Are you speaking for or against? I usually ask for those speaking for first and then those speaking against, and I assume there's no one here for, so we'll. To be clear, I'm not exactly against. I'm for with some qualifications. I live in the neighborhood. I'm a homeowner at 1107 North. I'm sorry. My name is Reva Russell English. Thank you all for hearing me. I live at 1107 North Limestone, which is directly across from this proposed development. And I'm for high density housing. I'm especially for high density affordable housing, not just in my neighborhood, but all over Lexington. One thing I would like to have clarified though is what does affordable mean? The annual median income is used through federal standards and also our affordable housing trust fund to determine what qualifies as affordable. The annual median income that is calculated here in Lexington is roughly $47,000 a year. So somebody making below that would qualify for affordable housing. In our neighborhood, we generally make around $25,000 a year. So annual median income where this development is going in is quite different from Lexington proper. So I think that we have to take those sorts of things into consideration. And so I would like the applicant to be more clear about what affordable means before this zoning change is approved. I'm also concerned because it does seem to me that the development meets the comprehensive plan right now. But I'm wondering if we can make sure that it continues to meet the comprehensive plan down the road. The need for affordable housing is going to go nowhere in our city. And lower income folks are already being displaced in my neighborhood at kind of shocking rates. Our house's taxes went up 30% this past year and not because we improved our property. It's because so much other property is being improved and the pressure that that's putting on homeowners who have already been in our neighborhood, let alone landlords who are not improving their property, who are going to be paying higher taxes, who are probably going to be selling to other people who will then improve their property, who will then raise rents. You see where I'm going with this. A lot of displacement is possible in our neighborhood and is already happening. I fear that this development, if it doesn't actually meet the affordable housing needs of my neighborhood, will further that problem. The stated mission of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which I know you all do not administer, is to protect, preserve, and provide affordable housing. So one of the things I would like as someone who lives in this neighborhood is that the affordability period, that a deed restriction on the housing project, if they do get the Affordable Housing Trust Fund money be placed. I know that sometimes what the Affordable Housing Trust Fund says is that in five years you no longer have to offer affordable housing through these units that they got money for. Sometimes it's 15. I think that if the Affordable Housing Fund's mission statement is to be met, especially in my vulnerable neighborhood, it should be 20 years before these apartments can go to market rate so that people are protected for a longer period of time. And it would keep 36 units affordable, which would do a lot to continue to address the housing and security needs in our city. We've made a really great dent in our homelessness problem here in Lexington. But without protecting the affordable housing that we already have and that we're building, it's going to increase again because as you all know, it's a major problem that we have getting housing here. The home is the foundation of healthy people. And healthy people are the foundation of a healthy society and a healthy city. And again, we're stoked. My family and also our neighbors who are friends of ours who could not be here today, are very excited about the high density. We're excited about the affordable housing going in across the street from us. But we ask that it lasts long enough for, say, a resource strapped young mother with an infant to raise that child to adulthood to shift the generational poverty that so many of our neighbors face. And so some kind of deed restriction of about 20 years on the affordable housing moving up to market rate would protect people getting into these units. And so we ask for approval only pending that this development be guaranteed affordable, and that affordable be well defined and meet the needs of actually the neighborhood that it's going into. Another thing is that given something that the staff member said regarding the parking is if they lowered some of the AMI requirements, annual median income from 80 and 100 to around 30, perhaps that would reduce some of the parking needs as well, because they would be meeting the needs of some of the lower income folks. And that's all I have for now. Thank you for hearing me. Thank you. Hi. My name is Andrew Russell English. I live with Reva at 1107 North Limestone. And I feel very similarly to her on all matters. I promised her that I would come up and say something and that's what I'd like to say. As I listened to her, she said, you know, please take notes and write down and speak on everything I missed. And I don't think she missed anything. So thank you. That's all I've got. Thank you very, very much. We have the petition. I have an opportunity to address any of the issues that have been raised. Yes. else, I'm sorry, did anyone else want to speak? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut anybody off. Those were the only two hands I saw. So, Mr. Carty, if you would address some of that. I think one of the questions was, what does affordable mean to you? Yeah, I will say this. I'm not an expert on affordable housing, but the way the process works is the applicants, they apply for it. They've asked for a certain amount of money. based on the amount of money the affordable housing committee sets the rate that the rents will be discounted and I believe this also will cover the term limit of how long they're obligated to match those rates. None of this has happened because it's all pending on whether this will get zoned or not. And once it's zoned, then it'll be the final process to close out the grant, and that's when it'll be determined what the rates are and the duration of it. Okay. That's fine. Is that it? That's it. Okay. From the citizens perspective, do you all have any other comments? You have to come to the microphone so we can keep you on. I don't understand all the processes of how this works and how this relates to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, so I apologize if what I'm saying is ignorant. Is there a way to have an amendment on this zoning plan that if it's approved that it must be guaranteed affordable housing? Because of course as it stands now, if you approve it and they don't get the affordable housing, then they just get to put up high density apartments. That may be luxury apartments, which are going to drive property values through the roof, which are going to put my neighbors possibly out of homes sooner rather than later, which is going to be a problem for all of us, not just my neighborhood. So is there a way to have that be part of the amendment that guaranteed that this has to be affordable? Yes, R4, so long as it's affordable. Is that something that can happen? The staff has got an opportunity to respond. Great. I think perhaps the law department might want to weigh in on that, but from the planning perspective, when a land use is granted, it often doesn't have a limit on the cost that you can charge someone rent. So that would be a unique request at this point. I think from planning's perspective, we can certainly assist the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, provide minutes to them and any other information they need to help make their decision. Frankly, I'm excited that Mr. and Mrs. Russell English came down today to support and to speak in support of an affordable housing project i think that speaks volumes about their character and mr duncan do you have mr chair uh council and i were talking when tracy started so tracy may have already covered this but we believe the applicant can of course volunteer to place restrictions on on their use of this property uh the i don't believe from a zoning standpoint that we can mandate that from this standpoint but affordable housing once they do seek those funds uh those are they have more latitude and and how those funds are distributed and what restrictions they would apply on those so i believe miss wade is right that we would certainly communicate these concerns to the affordable housing trust fund and let them have have that available to them when they're making their decision as well. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. It seems to me that the reason, please correct me if I'm wrong, that one of the reasons that the staff did recommend this approval though was because it does meet the comprehensive plans need for affordable housing. So if they actually don't do that because they don't get the funding, I'm confused about how that then meets the comprehensive plan. So does it not make sense to make a unique amendment because if that if the reason this is being approved is because of affordable housing shouldn't that be then necessitated does that make sense okay go ahead so the staff when reviewing a zone change and a development plan evaluates the entire comprehensive plan and they did put forward their intention to provide affordable housing and that does meet one aspect of the comprehensive plan the staff i think didn't recommend approval until we felt comfortable that there were other elements of their project that also met the comprehensive plan not just the affordable aspect so we have to evaluate the entire project against the entire comprehensive plan and even if it's not affordable the higher density improvements along north limestone the staff came to the conclusion that those improvements would improve make for a significant change in a positive way along north limestone in my mind the affordable housing is is very important to this project and to this neighborhood but i think the multi-family could work there even if it wasn't affordable does that make sense Okay, I'm going to let the commissioners ask any. Ms. Owens, did you have a question? One, I agree with Tracy in the fact that I definitely appreciate the English is coming down and speaking, not only in favor but bringing up some good questions. In reference to their question, and it would go to Matt at this point, and I don't know if this is covered in subdivision, which I missed a week ago or not, or three weeks ago. But anyway, square footage of these units, do you have any idea about those? Because sometimes that can be a little bit indicative as to who might be going in there. Square footage of the units. They're all roughly 800. Some are smaller, but they're all two-bedroom units, so roughly around 800 square feet. And then help me as well, you were kind of saying the zone change needed to come before you all go back to apply for funding or grants. Right. Will you do that before you bring back a final development plan? um will we i'm not sure the question will we go before the board and and yes and secure the grant that's correct when you come back before us my question then would be when you come back before us you'll know whether you've got the funding or not and have definite answers that's at that time yes okay all right okay anyone else i i have a comment too uh first of all this affordable housing activity is a particular concern to mine one of the things that councilman brown has put together is an affordable housing task force of which i'm going to be serving on by the way one of the things that we will be addressing is gentrification and displacement And that first task force meeting, as I understand, is on July the 10th. I think it, I've forgotten what time. I think it's at 530 or something like that, but you may want to keep alert to the announcements. But one of the things we are concerned about is essentially, ma'am, what you all just got through talking about, how to address that particular issue. Some of the things I think you've addressed is a little bit beyond the scope of this body here. But believe me, the body here, I think I speak collectively, are all concerned about that. And so we're appreciative of the developer working with us on that as best we can. But there will be some additional discussions because this has been not only just a, well, it's a citywide, it's also a nationwide issue about how we work with this. And there are some really good ideas and things. I'm not sure that all of them will work. But there are some ideas about how we might address this and yet at the same time make sure that affordable housing is a part of our total community activities. So I offer that just as a piece of information to let you know that we're indeed very much concerned about that. And I've got colleagues up here that punch me all the time. Wilson, what are you going to do about this? Well, I can't do anything by myself, but as a group and working with other people, I think we will. And Councilman Brown, again, July the 10th is our first meeting, and that will be our first organizational meeting. And you might want to keep up with us as we move along on that. Councilman Brown is our department. Oh, he is? I'm sorry. Okay, well, you might want to talk with him and see what's what, because I think he's been, well, we've been talking about this issue in many cases. Mr. Bundy has been one of our chief champions on gentrification and what have you. And like I said, all of us have been involved with that, and especially with affordable housing. So we'll see how this works out, and we'll keep you informed. Anything else from the commission? Yes, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. I'm just wondering if the applicant could offer a little more light on this, the length of time, whether it's perpetuity or an X number of years as to renting to affordable housing. That is dictated by the committee that grants the money. And I'm sure the developer is going to want to adhere to whatever their wishes are. Mr. Picard, one quick thing just for my purposes. How many dwelling units are you proposing? 36 units, all two-bedroom. It says the petitioner proposes the density of 42 dwelling units. per acre per acre okay that's the key okay that's all I need just clarification on it thank you any other questions for yes Mr. Penn I think we there's one point here that's brought up that we've kind of split slide by anytime you improve a neighborhood when you talked about your assessment had gone up because of what's happened in the neighborhood it's a catch-22 there's not much way to say i want to improve my neighborhood but it's not going to increase the value of my property so i hear you on the affordable housing issue very much but just know when things start improving in your neighborhood that's the ultimate sacrifice you make for living in that neighborhood as it improves the value your property goes up and it's going to be assessed that way so we can't do both we we can't improve the neighborhood and keep your property values low well and let me if I could jump in here on that and what I understand what mr. Penn is saying and you're absolutely correct there are some creative ways that we can address this now some of them may not fit properly but we've talked about some different things that mr. Brown I spent an an afternoon talking about what's happening in other communities so i understand both your positions on that from the standpoint of neighborhood improvement we definitely want to do that but we want to protect those people so that we don't displace people gentrification may not be a major issue it may be displacement may be the key issue and especially with renters as such so uh... i understand both positions on this but uh... give us a shot at this and then we'll come back at you Anything else from the committee? Any other questions or comments? Yes, ma'am. Before you close the hearing, I would just offer that if the Planning Commission wants to make a recommendation to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund in terms of the 20-year deed restriction, if that's part of the record and we transmit it to them, I feel they would at least consider that. So you wouldn't have to make it a part of a conditional zoning restriction or the zoning per se, just that you ask that they consider a longer than typical term or something. Then we'll address that. In fact, we'll address it right off the top if you all don't mind. Mr. Penn, you'd like to make that recommendation? Good. Second? I'm just kidding. Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah, I would like to make that recommendation. I don't know how we tie that to a zone change. We don't. And we don't, so I don't want to, anything I say, I don't want to say we're tying this to the zone change. What we can do is recommend, when we recommend the zone change, that the intent of the zone change is to be used for affordable housing. And then go from there. I'm not going to try to define affordable housing. Okay. So the motion is? a recommendation I'm sorry a recommendation okay and do we all agree with that a recommendation by consensus okay then let that be reflected in the record as a consensus for the group I'm sorry okay it's not well we're not we're just making a recommendation We're not putting it as a part of the zone change. Why are you stopping it? Well, we're just letting people know that we're reflective of the fact that affordable housing is important and that the intent is to provide affordable housing. That's the intent. Can you put that recommendation on this building? Mr. Carter, would that in any way impede what you all are trying to do as it relates to this recommendation? I would prefer we not do that. I would rather let the affordable housing dictate what that time period is. And, I mean, the people that do these type developments put a lot on the line to do them, and budgets are tight. And I think it's, personally, I think it's asking too much to obligate them to 20 years when the lending, the grant people may say five. i don't know what they're going to say but you know i'd rather let them determine that well we're not talking about of course tying in this that's one of the key things not tying this to the zone change but simply saying the reflective most of most of the people here on this panel is that affordable housing be defined and that it would be center point in terms of the recommendations related to you all's development so i guess my question is does that recommendation in a very general sense are you saying that that harms you all in such a way that you can't do that that you would not prefer that i would prefer not okay mr chairman where are you going to put this recommendation i mean it's just in the records it's not it's not it's not going in i don't think it needs to be said i mean i've dealt with some of this stuff and it we only had five year limits on that were staggered in other words we built 20 houses over here i got you and the first year you had to pay some of it back second year less third year and it went to five years and then whoever lived there could reap the whole thing and most of those things are five years i got you i hear what you're saying and what he's saying about going to the uh the trust fund they're going to put the recommendations on it okay well i mean we're out of bounds on this well i don't think we're out of balance we are we're i just think that what we're having a new zoning or plan i understand that mr cravers i understand it clearly this has nothing to do with the zoning and that's the reason we wanted to make sure that it was not tied to the zoning well i disagree with you on that having said that how does the body feel do you wish to have any type of recommendation okay then okay so how many people would like to have a recommendation just raise your hand how many people would not like to have a recommendation okay okay well it fails in him it fails as a part thank you we've taken care of that now with that said we're ready to move back to the... Are you ready for a motion? Yes, we are. We're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of MAR 1741 for the reasons provided by staff. Okay, I have a motion to approve. We get a second? Second. Okay, it's been seconded by Mr. Karen Mundy, moved by Mr. Frank Penn that we approve Winchester 836 LLC zoning map amendment and Arlington Weekly Payment Lot of Investment Companies Addition Zoning Development Plan or PLN MAR 17-41 Winchester 836 with the conditions provided by staff. Any other discussion on that motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, the motion carries. Next, the development plan, if you could. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MJDP 17-121. with the 15 conditions? Second. Oh, no, I'm sorry. With the pink sheet, the nine conditions on the pink sheet. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Frank Penn, second by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve PLN MJDP 17-121 Arlington Weekly Payment. No. Yeah. Payment, lot, and investment with the nine conditions provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing that, would you please vote when that comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion also carries. And now for the variance. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of variance requested for the zone change. Let me see if I can get that number. PLN MAR 17-41 with the requested variance approved or recommended by staff. Okay. Okay, we've got a motion by Mr. Frank Penn, a second by Ms. Mundy, that we approve the requested variance with the conditions provided by staff as it relates to PLN MAR 17-41 Winchester 836. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, that motion also covers. Thank you very, very much. Okay, I think we've got. We've got one more, I think. Oh, yeah, that's what we're going to work on now. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson. Our last item today is PLN MAR 18-12, and this is an application by Allison Dixon Brumfield and Brian Brumfield for property located at 640 Cooper Drive. Thank you. This is, again, sort of a special type of zone change request to make a change or modification to an existing ND1 restriction in the Montclair neighborhood. The property is located on the southeast corner of Schofield Road and Cooper Drive in the Montclair neighborhood. It's located very near KET's campus, which I know several of you are familiar with. So KET is here on Cooper Drive in the agricultural zone near campus or UK's property. and I think the tennis center and recreation center for UK is to the northwest of the subject property. This is in its entirety the Montclair neighborhood, and it is covered with an existing neighborhood character design overlay zone that was established in 2010. The property in question today would like to make improvements to their existing home at this location, and there is one restriction that they would like to have revised for their property in order to meet their desired roof line. and also for health safety. The building code has changed since the structure was originally built, and to provide the same space requirements in terms of accessible and livable space on the top floor, it requires a taller ceiling. The subject property is governed by the Montclair Neighborhood Association's ND1 standards, and they have 11 standards. This one is standard number eight, and it deals with building height. So the way it currently reads, there's a portion of the neighborhood that is allowed to have a 30-foot tall structure and another section of the neighborhood that's allowed to have a 35-foot tall structure. The subject property falls within the area generally, which includes Schofield and Castle, and parts of Cooper and Montclair that are in the 30-foot restricted area. And then Summit and the streets closer to Tates Creek Road are allowed the higher, taller height. So the applicant is requesting that they be permitted to have, instead of a 30-foot limit, to be allowed a 33 and a half foot height limit for their structure so there's a lot of strikethroughs and a few underlines on there since the restriction change is just for the subject property there's no reason for their restriction again just for their property to have the language about all the other streets in there so those would be stricken out and it would just for 640 Cooper Drive read as follows. That's their proposal. That the maximum of 33 1⁄2 feet to the highest ridge line be their maximum height and new additions may not exceed the building height limit in order to match, or sorry, may exceed the height limit in order to match an existing ridge line provided they don't exceed 33 1⁄2 feet at the mid-gable. Under no restriction or no conditions self-provisions listed in eight conflict with number two that's from the previous slide no change there and additions may not exceed the height of the principal structure again no change there the applicant is required to provide a site plan with their application to modify the ND1 and so this depicts their existing home and it's a little bit hard to tell because the structure is not moving but eventually they're proposing a circle drive off of scoville scoville road and improvements to the existing structure but not changing the footprint per se and these are in your powerpoint slides on your screen the bottom two elevations show the existing elevations for the house and it has a pretty standard i think it's a 712 roof line and then from the front for the existing side elevation and then from the front there's a dormer oh sorry that's the rear elevation and then this would be the side elevation and rear elevation when finished it gives a better idea of the improvements to the roof that they're asking for so you'll notice again the At grade, it's not changing, nor is the first floor really changing. It's the improved height and the change in the roof that's changing there. So the Montclair neighborhood does have preservation goals, and I'm not going to belabor those. But generally, it's to preserve the existing neighborhood and protect it as a single-family residential neighborhood, encourage new construction and additions that are compatible in terms of scale and massing and height and architectural character. Utilize site planning standards that are reflective of our existing patterns in the area for yard setbacks and garages. And then lastly, encourage community interaction for safety with pedestrians and bicyclists. Their architectural survey they provided in 2010 for the neighborhood depicted a number of different types. or styles of houses, and this particular structure was categorized as a traditional minimalist style of house. It's probably not visible on the overhead, but there are only six structures in the entire neighborhood that have that style, whereas their proposed style is much more of a either colonial revival or similar to Cape Cod, which is a much more prominent style in the neighborhood. In terms of building height, their restriction that was put in place, I think I mentioned, the western half of the neighborhood had the restriction to 30 feet, and then the eastern part of the neighborhood that corresponded to existing taller buildings with the pink and the blue is where the structures were allowed to be taller. So, again, this was their survey, and then they developed their standard for the height restrictions based on the existing character along cooper drive there are a number of taller structures so the pink and the blue indicate the taller structures along cooper drive including two structures that are directly across the street from the subject property so this is the existing house from its front view onto cooper and it does have a little bit of an untraditional roof line the front of the house is a single story but the back of the house is actually has a two-story edition and maybe it's a little bit more visible here so the first story here and then on the back it bumps up and there's a second story the issue that the applicant has run into is the second story roof is rotting and it is to the point where the previous owner just stopped living upstairs completely and it only occupied the first floor and so the damage that has occurred to the to the second story needs to be replaced so as they are replacing and improving this home they would like to improve it to the point where it meets the building code and so when you have to meet the building code you need different stair heights tread heights to get to the second story then were allowed or required when the property was built on in addition the headway when you're upstairs has changed since the original structure was built as well and so to meet those requirements and make the second story livable they need a slightly taller roof to make that happen so the existing conditions in montclair i mentioned colonial revival and cape cod are the more common styles and this particular house was categorized as traditional minimalist which i've never heard of but um so the improvements they're proposing are are much more in keeping with the colonial revival style, which is more prominent in the neighborhood. And in addition, there are taller homes that are right across from the subject property, and this is what they look like. And this is very similar to what the applicant wishes to do on their property in terms of making it, again, more of a colonial revival rather than the traditional minimalist approach. The applicant did provide the information for this request, and the staff finds that it will not adversely, by raising the height, it will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare of the neighborhood. It won't alter the essential character of the overlay district, nor will it cause a hazard or a nuisance to the public, and it also won't allow an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the ND1 overlay restriction. They are still in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, as you can see from their drawings, as well as the existing character across the street. The staff is recommending approval of this slight change in the ND1 restriction for the subject property. And again, it would only apply to this one parcel, not to the entire neighborhood. The zoning committee also recommended approval. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Ms. Mundy? Sorry, Tracy. You're on a roll today. I am on a roll today, and I'm sorry. Okay, so we approve these neighborhoods. The neighborhoods come in and petition. We approve these overlays for these neighborhoods because the neighbors want them. Then somebody buys a property, and they want to change it. Do they have to meet with the neighborhood and get the neighborhood's approval to do that as well? To make a request? No, but to make the changes. They do not have to meet with the neighborhood association in order to file this request. Our staff recommends that they speak with the neighborhood association and their president before they make their application. and we do that on a number of zone changes where we think there'll be opposition or concern from neighborhoods. Having done this so many years, you kind of have a gut feeling on what neighborhoods will react and which ones might not. So for the Indy ones, we do recommend that they speak with the Neighborhood Association before they file because if there's, I mean, they're asking for special permission in doing this, And so if there's a whole host of your neighbors that are going to be in the audience to say, no, don't do it, you might want to reconsider your plans. And we tell people that ahead of time. So there's not a requirement. There's a strong suggestion from the staff. Okay. Because I know, like, when we've done the ND1s or the H1 overlays in the past for other neighborhoods, the entire neighborhood seems to all agree to do it. Right. And then now we have someone moving in, and yay for you, it's a great neighborhood. But we have someone moving in, and now they're saying, but we want to change our house. And yet when they moved in, hopefully they knew they were under an Indy 1 overlay, and that's another concern that I have as a realtor. But then the issue that, you know, I'm concerned that, okay, the neighborhood's made this decision, now someone is changing this decision. And so I'll wait to see what. Mr. Craven's expressed that same concern at the zoning committee. Well, we're in the same industry, I guess. So, yeah. So for the ND1 restrictions, those are noted on PVA. And I know not everyone reviews PVA before they purchase a home, but we communicate with the PVA to make sure that they list those. I see that. I was just going to say, there's a notification, right? you mail yes like any zone change I believe it is it did we do 500 yes 500 feet so they got notified that way I'll go look in the file yes and the neighborhood again neighborhoods individual neighbors individually for individual property owners and then the neighborhood association gets a notice mr. Lawrence has a question thank you and mr. Murphy might may have the information but let me ask you tracy okay um first i know we're asking to change on this one house or i guess it would change the nd for any future requests from 30 to 33 and a half feet or or somebody else down the road that wants to do something two years from now will they have to come and ask yes okay it doesn't change it for the entire neighborhood it's just this one okay Do you have any information as to what the current height is? I believe they told us it was 28 feet. Okay. And then the second question is, I appreciate them providing elevations, side and rear elevations. Yeah, I noticed that. I'm curious as to why there isn't a front and rear elevation. Sorry. Okay. I hope it's in Acela, but that was what I was able to download. Okay. Okay. Both of them are. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Wade? Okay, applicant. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. Representing Allison Dixon Brumfield and Brian Brumfield, they're our husband and wife, and they're with me on the second row here. They're the owners of the property. and uh chris howard from and anderson rogers construction is on the third row with us and chas height who did some research for me on this case is on the fourth row here we're pleased before you to be before you i do want to emphasize though from from the discussion that you've just been having one that that's our house that's the pva photograph of our house but this is a we're going through sort of a zone change procedure but it only applies to this property it's not going to open the door for anybody else to do this when when you all put on the nd1 overlay back in or back in 2010 and when the nd1 zone was created there was a recognition that there are going to be some cases where you need some particular relief for a particular house normally you go to the board of adjustment for that if you want to change the height or change the setback anybody in lexington can go to the board of adjustment the normal height in this zone is 35. so if we didn't have this and somebody wanted to go 37 or if they wanted to have a closer set back to the road they would go to the board of adjustment when you did the nd1 though you took that ability away from the property owners the brumfields cannot go to the board of adjustment to get a case-by-case variance and that's because in the ordinance itself there was built in a procedure that a person could come in and get a case-by-case review but it comes to you all not to the board of adjustment i think the assumption is you all are more familiar with the ndo and the one overlays so the appeals went to you but this is an established procedure this is not something we're having to make up to do this it's set forth in the ordinance because there is a recognition that as with any ordinance there's going to be cases where there needs to be an adjustment lot by lot and everybody can do that through the board of adjustment it just happens that here in this zone we have to go through you we're asking for an adjustment from 30 to 33 and a half our feet in height and it's interesting because as i said the underlying zone is 35 feet in the r1c zone that's that's measured to the midpoint of the gable or eve so really the height the house could be what 39 something to the top of the ridge line in the nd1 it's measured to the top so our 30 foot height limitation is to the very top of the house not to the ridge line so we're asking for 33 and a half but it's a little different from it's still less than a 35 foot height requirement which is normal in the r1c zone there's a question too about going to the neighborhood on this and want to give you a little history on this um allison and brian purchased this property less than a year ago and they they're committed to this neighborhood because right now they're living in the house at 601 cooper which is on the other side of the cooper it's it's the one right next to what used to be the uk practice field where i was told all the scouts from the other sec schools used to want to come in and go up to the second floor and look over the practice field but they they lived there and there was the reason they're living there so they could become familiar with the neighborhood because they thought this would be a nice neighborhood for them they're living in allison's parents house now right now they found this house and purchased it and it's a fixer-upper house as miss wade was alluding to you the current owner of the property sort of retreated to the first floor and i know when chris howard told me about the eaves you know the the rotting rafters i said oh i gotta see this so i went in and believe me i i could chip all the way through the rafter using this pen it was it was in that condition with all the rafters on the second floor so everything above the first floor is going to have to be taken off regardless of what happens regardless if they're any making any change at all to this property but allison and brian want to have their family here they have one child here may want to grow grow their family and are committed to using the same footprint that is there now. They want to use the same footprint. So they need a little extra space on it and we could almost fit the space they wanted to. But the model was the buildings across the road. If you could go to the second picture there, it's the same houses that Ms. Wade had in Ursuline. This is taken out of the second floor window of the existing house, looking right across the street at 631 and 635 Cooper Drive. And as you can't really see it in the photograph, but they both have third floor windows in them right up in there. You can see it right there. This house does too. So this is sort of the model of what they'd like to do directly across the street. So it's definitely in keeping with what's there. If you go to the third slide, this is actually, we do have a front elevation, and we did submit that. That's part of our filing here, but if you can, hopefully we can get this. It's a little light with the lines. We can show you what we're doing here with this. The existing building, you know, Ms. Wade came up with an architectural style. It was extremely very hard to characterize. This is the existing sketch of the existing building. One of the neighbors we talked to said it's the dog of the neighborhood, and they were very pleased that this would no longer be the dog after the remodel has taken place because it's got such a steep roof. This is the existing front. If you look out the front windows, your predominant view on one field of your vision is your own roof. It's a real steep roof. You're looking at your roof on one side. You only get to look out to the other side. This is what we're proposing. This is the front elevation. The roof is coming up here. It's a little light here, hard to see. Here's the top roof line. Here's what it's going to be looking like. This is how it will present itself from Cooper Drive, almost exactly like the ones across the street. This is the side elevation with the roof going back in the back. Now, to have habitable space is different today than it was in 1940 when this house was built. This was built in 1940, 78 years ago. And we have different codes, and I'm glad we do, regarding height of stairways, the ceiling height you have to have to have habitable space and the size of the knee walls and all that sort of thing. So Anderson Rogers has designed this and come up with the plan, and we do need three additional feet above the 30. And I strongly advocated that we ask for 33 1⁄2 feet because I've been around the block long enough to know that during construction, sometimes you need another inch or two, and I didn't want somebody to come in and say, well, you're a half inch too high, and a result of something you encountered during construction. So we are asking for 33 and a half feet in height to the top of the ridgeline in order to accommodate the plan that we showed you up there. I wanted to talk to you, too, about contacting the neighbors, because Mr. and Mrs. Brumfield have been very diligent about this. Allison, in particular, has been working on this for nine months since they purchased the house. They contacted the president of the Montclair Neighborhood Association, Mr. Halfley. Mr. Halfley notified the association members about this. He reported back to Allison that he had no negative feedback about our proposal after he communicated it to the members of the Montclair Association. We're very pleased about that. In addition, Allison has talked to all her surrounding neighbors, and her surrounding neighbors are not only not unhappy, they're very happy, very happy that this house is going to be built on this lot. and I know they've been very careful to maintain, as I said, the footprint and all that sort of thing. It's going to be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. We took some other pictures, just went around the neighborhood, mostly within a block. I want to emphasize, too, I don't think we had any negative feedback from people within the 500-foot notification area as well after we sent out the letters. We hadn't sent out the letters as if this is a zone change, and we sent out 40. There were 40 or more houses we had to notify. We didn't get any negative feedback from that. Just want to show you, I'll go through. We have a few pictures of other houses of this type in the neighborhood. If we could go to the next photograph there. There we go. This one, now I may be off on the addresses a little bit. It was raining. I asked Chaz to go out in the rain and take pictures of these, and he couldn't always get the house number he was doing it. So if it's 1248, it might actually be 1250 or whatever on this. This one is at 1219 Summit. All of these have the window up on the eaves on this. That's Summit 1219. The next one is at 1223 Summit. You can see, again, there's the window up there. house this is maybe a little larger than what we're planning next one is that we think 1234 summit and there's the upstairs third floor next one is at 1245 summit and you can see the third floor there next one is at on scoville 1262 scoville that's a new construction this isn't the type of house we have but it has the third floor on it there next one is at castle 1250 castle this is new construction we don't exactly know how high that's going to be but it's going up right now next one is at 1227 castle see the third story there that's new construction also and next one is 1220 castle and a new one there so there's a lot of the we're I bring those up only to show you that what we're proposing is totally in keeping architectural of the neighborhood and from all the feedback we've gotten it's going to be a much better addition to the architecturally to the neighborhood than what we have right now it's going to be a positive addition to the neighborhood and i think that's mainly what we needed to report on i learned a lot about building code issues on this one that i didn't know before that is always very interesting on it but we've allison especially has worked extremely hard on this one anderson rogers has come up with a good set of plans and worked very hard we have a I think this is the most detailed set of plans I've ever been able to bring in front of you for a case that you all have had. Their plans have progressed very far on this. And we think we have an addition, as I said, which is going to be a very pleasing addition to the Montclair area and one which will continue to improve the architecture in that neighborhood. So we'd be happy to answer any questions you all have about it. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Thank you. Is anyone in the audience like to speak to this? Yes, sir. Please come forward. Make the best for last, right? Absolutely. My name is Jerry Price, and I live at 1262 Castle Road, and right down the street from this house, I guess, is here. And there are two other houses on Castle Road, in my same block that somehow have been approved, I guess they must meet all the requirements for the ND1 overlay. They don't appear that way to me, but I'm not an expert. I appreciate the video presentation of all the houses on Summit, all the houses on Cooper. all of these properties were considered when we did the ND1 overlay. And I was part of that process. And the houses along Cooper Drive on one side of the street were given the ND1 overlay of 40 feet or 35 feet or whatever the roof line was. The ones on the south side of the street where this property is, they said let's keep it at 30 because that fits the rest of the neighborhood. And in the proposal here, I see all these words, character. Keep with the character. Character of the neighborhood. Character is good. Preservation. That's really good. But some of the new housing does not reflect what the neighborhood is. There is some houses on Summit and Eldemere that are very large houses. There are some houses on Castle, Montclair, Scoville, and on parts of Cooper that are not huge houses. and I think that a beautiful house is a good thing however I think that in this particular case that extending the height is disregarding the work that went into and I applaud Miss Murphy for this or Monday for you know the question that she asked because everyone in the neighborhood was very active on this nd1 overlay because we could see what was occurring and all of the incremental changes that have been occurring start small the an example of that is what the neighborhood refers to as the ket house which is a big giant house it started off there's a wonderful house small house designed by an architect beautiful house but the guy that bought it built an addition well first he built a garage in the back that was bigger than the house then he did an addition on the back which was a brick addition big tall structure on the back then he did the front of the house these were three separate uh permits that were issued and i see the same thing occurring over and over again with okay yeah this is just a small change just just this one little change it won't make a lot of difference but it does make a difference because it's these incremental things that add up to big things and it is not in the character of the neighborhood it's not preserving the neighborhood and you know it's not within the nd1 overlay that everyone in the area worked on diligently to set up these guidelines and I just oppose this and the footprint that they talk about is probably going to be in the first phase because the if you notice the pictures the garage now goes into the house it goes right into the side of the house I did not see a garage door on the new plans where's the garage going to be that'll be some other change the circular driveway I'm not sure that that fits into the ND1 overlay so there's a lot of things that are up in the air here that are not being specified so I would encourage you to at least think about reexamining this stand within the ND1 overlay it's there for a reason we all voted on it we all worked on it very hard and we don't need to change it Thank you. And thank you, sir, for your patience. Mr. Murphy, do you have any response? Is there anyone else who wants to? I don't think there's a soul out there. There's not a soul here. We appreciate it. I understand the concerns. Anytime there's a change in the neighborhood, we're going to have a concern about it. I did, I think I was accurate when I said that there's nobody within the 500-foot notification objecting. i think mr price is here he may be just be outside the 500 foot area i would on in hindsight we should have brought in a couple of our neighbors who are extremely enthusiastic about what allison and brian are doing on the property and have had very positive feedback all the feedback that allison and brian have received has been very positive from their neighbors from the immediate neighbors who are going to be seeing this every day If there are other, you saw in my pictures that there were other houses, construction was going on in the neighborhood, and all of those were within the guidelines. I mean, not everybody may agree that those should be there, but they are allowed within the guidelines. I don't think we're any taller scale or bigger scale than those are. and really when we're looking at across the street at a very similar house we're doing a the same house but meeting modern building codes as occurs to us twice directly across the street from us i strongly feel that we are appropriate for where we're going here and the The Brumfields have been extremely careful with this. I'm aware of the KET house. I think everybody out there is aware of that KET house. I don't know if they added on to the house so they could keep their garage, which was built out of proportion to the house and didn't meet the proportion square footage code or what's going on there. But this is the polar opposite of the KET house. This is carefully designed. It is designed to match the architecture of the colonial revival houses in the neighborhood. They've been very careful with this, and all this is doing is letting us have the usable space up there that everybody else has. It's probably not usable space under today's codes in the other houses. It probably doesn't meet totally the height or the stair step height is the big thing we have here and those type of things. So, again, we do agree with the staff recommendation. We met with the staff early on before we applied for this to get their feedback and thoughts about this as well. And we appreciate that. And we'd obviously appreciate your vote of approval of this. Thank you. Sir, do you have anything else that you'd like to say? If you could do, come back to the mic. I support improvement, but I also support rules and regulations. So you say three and a half feet. That's not very much. But it's not very much the other direction either to revise the plan to fit within the ND1 regulations. It just doesn't seem that it would be, sure, I like improvement. I walk by that house all the time. I straighten up the sign up that was laying on the ground that was announcing this meeting. I didn't know anything about the meeting until I drove by it. And, you know, I just think that it is – I don't think there's anything sinister going on. I don't want to sound that away. But I think that if the ND1 overlay is to have any validity, it needs to be enforced. And that's what we have done all along is we made the rules. We looked at the houses on the north side of Cooper Drive. They measured the properties. We considered all that, and we said, okay, this is what we've got. Let's keep it the way it is. And now then, it is changing before our eyes. And I don't know if everything is within code, within the ND1 overlay. I don't get out with a tape measure, measuring other people's houses, but it seems like there would be an awful large house is being built or that their once was small house they're tearing them down and they're building big houses so that is not the character of the neighborhood thank you sir staff you get the final if you have a the staff did ask the applicant before they made their application if there were any other design standards that would need to be changed as they thought about their future improvements for their property and they said no and we asked this question specifically about the garage because also the photos indicate there's a garage that's accessible inside the structure now and they indicated they they had plans to build a detached garage and that is shown I believe on the site plan is that what that yes so uh the detached garage would be close to the single family home and accessible from the circle driveway which would allow them to maintain a large backyard and so they had thought through the the garage question that mr price had the other thing that i would mention staffs always i mean we're generally our job is to adhere to the rules and we're here to make sure everybody else is adhering to the rules as well so when there's a special request to go beyond the rules we express to the applicants that they provide the best justification they can as to why the rules and this isn't really the right way to put it so so I won't say that, but why going a little bit beyond the rules or some sort of variance is appropriate for their property and how it doesn't violate the neighborhood's preservation goals. So we try to emphasize the importance of that to applicants. There have been a number of other property owners who have come to talk to the staff who have changed their mind after talking to us about the process and about the requirements associated with coming back to the commission and asking for some special treatment when in fact there wasn't a special circumstance associated with their property. So I want to reassure the commission that we don't take this process lightly or that we don't try to assist an applicant to find a way to meet the ND1 restrictions that are in place because the neighborhood has gone to a lot of trouble, an effort to establish those. So I guess that's all I have to say. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I just want to clarify on the garage. We do show a garage here. That garage is not going to be built immediately because the Brumfields want to keep the backyard for their son and any other potential children there. There may be a garage in the future. We wanted to make sure it would meet all the guidelines, so we do show it there, but you're not going to be seeing a garage. which I would point out we're following the procedure. Everybody recognizes there may be exceptions need to be done, and the ordinance sets forth a way to do this, which is what we're doing. Thank you. Now for the commission, do you all have any questions of either the applicant, the citizen, or staff? Okay. If I don't hear anything, I'm going to close this part of the hearing then and bring it back to the commission for discussion in our motion. okay thank you one let me say um i do appreciate the front of elevation it was as i kind of thought it was going to be and you know to me it's very much in character with what's across the street in looking you know you've got you we the nd1's got a 30 or 35 foot height depending on the location this area is predominantly 30 feet however there are a couple right across the street that's two and a half stories uh there's another one then there's a few two stories on as well this is a corner lot and I would applaud what you're trying to do because that house needs some loving I believe. So with that said I'll move for approval to plan MAR18-12 Allison Dixon Brumfield and Brian Brumfield for the reasons provided by staff. I have a second. Mr. Berkley seconds. Okay we have a motion made by Mr. Owens, seconded by Mr. Berkley that we approve PLN Mar 18-12, Allison Dixon, Brumfield, and Bryant Brumfield with the conditions provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? The motion is approved unanimously. Thank you very, very much. Thank you. Good luck. Okay, Mr. Duncan, I know we've got a couple of things, but do you have any final things from the commission on this? Mr. Chair, I do want to remind you all that even though next week has a holiday in the middle of it, we will be meeting with you all in committee on Thursday, Thursday, July 5th, so we look forward to seeing you all. And, Mr. Chair, not to steal the thunder that you may say, but on behalf of the staff, May I say how much we have enjoyed working with Planning Commissioners Mike Cravens and Carolyn Richardson over these past years. As this is their last official meeting with us. I believe Mr. Cravens is the first person. Now, Mr. Penn and Ms. Richardson may have served longer, but I believe Mr. Cravens is the first person to serve three consecutive terms under the new rules that allowed the Planning Commissioners to serve three terms. so it has been a delight and a great learning experience for me to work with both of you both of you when you served as chair Mike and I sat together for over a year with the Fayette County Public Schools as they redistricted their students a couple of years ago and that was that was a good process for us to go through so the staff appreciates all the work that you have given to this community all the free labor you have provided this community and your interpretation and your contributions to the comprehensive plan and and to further in the comprehensive plan. We will honor you all formally with some certificates later on, but as this is the last time you will be official members of the Planning Commission, we do honor you. Thank you. I would like to... Mr. Duncan spoke on behalf of the staff. I'll speak on behalf of our collective board here, and thank you also for you all's untiring efforts. This has been a real journey. I'd like to also thank you personally for the advice that you both have given me in this position, and we appreciate that. But he said it well. You've done well. You served well. And I might say that you've done all that even though you've had your parking spaces taken away from you. I just thought I'd put that in there. But thanks so much, again, for your efforts and for the energy that you've placed. I mean, we're losing with sadness because we're losing two very highly experienced people off this commission, and you can't replace it even under the best of circumstances. So thank you all very, very much, and, again, we look forward to making a presentation to you of another form of appreciation. And I still owe the two of you lunch, and I'm still wanting to get together with you. Thank you all very, very much. Yeah, I get it. You going to borrow a little money? Is that what the problem is? No. Any other, oh, one other thing. I know that we do have a holiday coming up on July the 4th, but we have a special day on July the 3rd. Ms. Karen Mundy celebrates her birthday. And so we wish her a happy birthday and many returns. And I hope you drive safely and have a great holiday season. Any other business to come before this body? If not, without objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you so much. I'm sorry.