Definitely. Okay. Is there anything else you want to share about your job or your position in the mayor's office and coordinating with these boards and commissions? Coordinating with the boards and commissions has been very rewarding because I get to meet a lot of people in the community who have interest in what the government's doing and really want to participate and put their voice in, you know, represent a neighborhood, represent a particular group. And so it's been really interesting to get all these people together in front of the mayor for appointment. Okay, that's good to hear, and thank you for all you do. We have some other council members that are a part of this council comment, and they will share more information about this new initiative and upcoming events. So thank you. I'm Susan Lamb, council member for the 4th District, and I'm here today with Arthur Lucas, who is our diversity officer for the Urban County Government. And we have been trying to increase the diversity of our boards and commissions, and so I would like to ask Arthur. Arthur, thank you for being here today. Oh, you're welcome. And will you tell us a little bit about why it's so important to have diversity in our boards and commissions? Okay. I started with LFUCG back in 2016, and in 2018, we started having conversations about our boards and commissions and the importance of getting people from within the community involved. And one of the things that we discussed as far as the committee that we have is the importance of having a diverse board and commission. And when we talk about diversity, we're not only talking about race and gender, but we're talking about people with disabilities, people from the LGBTQ community, people from different and various religious faith base. And it's very important because a lot of decisions that the council members have to make during their work sessions as well as the council meetings are dependent upon the work that our boards and commissions do. So I think it's very important that we get our citizens engaged with what's going on within city government and to become a part of our boards and commissions. Well, I appreciate that and it is. I think that's something that we have discussed among my colleagues, the importance of having more diversity and to know how important it is in our community to have all of the areas of our community involved in decision making as it relates to our boards and commissions. Can you talk to us a little bit about this boards and commission fair that we're going to host? On Saturday, April the 13th, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., we're going to have a boards and commission recruiting fair here at the Lexington Senior Center. And the purpose of this is for citizens to come out and actually learn more about the various boards and commissions that we have throughout city government, as well as if they're interested, people can actually complete an application to hopefully become a part of one of our boards and commissions. That's great. That's great. I think that this is going to be a nice step forward in trying to encourage more people to get involved, and I hope that everybody will come out on April 13th to the Senior Center. Again, it's from 9 a.m. to 12, and we look forward to seeing everybody here. So thank you. Thank you, Arthur. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Jennifer Reynolds and I'm the council member for the 11th District. And today we're here to talk about the diversity recruitment fair for our boards and commissions. And I'm here with Craig Kamek from the mayor's office. And he's going to tell us a little bit more about how we can be involved in that. Yeah, thank you, council member. So we do have our boards and recruitment fair that's going on on Saturday, April 13th here at the Senior Center from 9 a.m. till noon. But beyond that, we're also working on some further information gathering to better increase diversity on the boards and commissions for the city. We will be following up later this summer with a survey of all of our current board and commission members, kind of getting a feel of what we have represented on those boards, whether it be religion or all the diverse classifications that we can. And from that information, we can then decide where do we need to really focus information gathering and really focus recruitment on to really diversify and have a full representation of the community on our boards and commissions, which do great work for our community and really provide information to the council members on what policies and what ordinances they may need to change or adjust. So, yeah, it's going to be a great effort. And it's broader than just the Recruitment Fair, but the Recruitment Fair is a very important component so people can really learn a lot more about the 70 different boards and commissions that we have. That's wonderful. Well, now I'm going to kind of give just a little summary about what we've talked about today in Spanish for our Spanish-speaking viewers. There is going to be a festival of diversity because our city wants to expand the cultural diversity in our city's conseils and commissions. These conseils and commissions work together with the municipal council, or rather the municipal council, to take decisions and plan for the city's things. So it is very important that all of the community can participate in these groups. What you can do is come to this contract contract for the conseils and commissions here in the Lexington Senior Center, which is located behind the church of Southland Christian Church in Richmond Road. It will be on April 13, at 9am to 12am. There will be many resources, also will be people who speak Spanish, for all those who speak Spanish, so they can see what advice and commissions there are in the city. There are more of 70 groups and you can have the opportunity to participate. Also, Mr. Craig was talking about taking questions in the committees and conseils that already exist to see what type of diversity we already have and to be able to make decisions to expand the representation we have in the city. So I hope you take the time to participate in these groups because this will make the city more inclusive. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There's not a lot of things to do I wouldn't rather do with you Guess I'm funny that way Lately I just sit and stare I talk to people who aren't there To get through one night a day One night a day One step away From leaving you behind I sit up with the radio Sing along with the ones I know To get through one night a day I'm calling every friend I've had I'll wake them up and make them mad To let them know that I'm okay I used to sit and talk to you But they're all just a substitute To get to one night a day One night a day One step away From leaving you behind Stay up with the late, late show Just another way I'd known To get through one night a day To get through one night a day Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Planning Commission meeting for April 11th, 2019. We'd like to welcome all those of you who are in the audience. I'd like to welcome my staff and, of course, I'd like to welcome my fellow commission members. With that, we'll have the approval of the minutes. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Chair. Move approval of March 14, 2019 minutes. Second. Okay, it's moved by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Ms. Mundy, that we approve the March 14, 2019 minutes. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? That motion carries. Thank you very much. Postponements and our withdrawals. Okay. postponements and our withdrawals. OK, then we shall move along. Anything from the staff? Yeah. Oh, yeah. Mr. Cayley, do you have a postponement today? Yeah. Oh, OK. You know what I'm saying? Well, I'm seem to think so, but you. Well, I was conferencing with an attorney there. I'm sorry. Well, I understand that. I understand that. Go ahead, sir. I'll postpone two of them to make up for it. On page 2, under preliminary subdivision plan, major subdivision 19-06, Tuscany Unit 15, request a one-month postponement to May 9th. Reason being? That is what the subdivision committee recommended. Okay. That'll work. Does anyone in the audience like to speak to this suggested postponement day, date? Anyone on the commission? If not, then entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, with that recommendation, since I'm on the subdivision committee, I'll move postponement plan MJSUB 19-6 Tuscany Unit 15 until May 19, 19, 19. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Michael and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee that we postpone PLN MJSUB 19-6 Tuscany Unit 15. for one month or until May the 9th. Any discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. That motion carries. Also on page 2, up under item B, this is final record plat 1905, Crossroads Christian Church. Request a one-month postponement due to working out condition number 9, the sanitary sewer line. Any one of the audience would like to speak to this particular recommendation for postponement? Anyone on the commission? Now we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLN FRP 19-5 until the May 9th meeting. It's been moved by Mr. Penn, seconded by Mr. Brewer, that we postpone PLN FRP 19-5 Crossroads Christian Church for one month or until May 9th. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? That motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to postpone or withdraw? Yes, sir. Staff would like to bring the item to your attention. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, on page one of your agenda under final subdivision plans, This is final subdivision plan 19-1, Red Mile Square, Track D, Lot 3. Staff has received a request from the applicant for an indefinite postponement. There are open space compliance issues with the property that they have yet to resolve. Anyone in the audience would like to speak to this recommendation for postponement? Anyone on the commission? If not, we'll entertain a motion for indefinite postponement. Ms. Mundy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm loud. At this time, we'd like to request an indefinite postponement for PLN FRP 19-1 Red Mile Square, Inc., Track D, Lot 3, amended. Okay. May the motion have been made by Ms. Karen Mundy and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee that we have an indefinite postponement for PLN FRP 19-1 Red Mile Square Incorporated Track D Lot 3. Any discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when that comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion carries as well. Ms. Waite. Chairman Wilson, we do have a printed consent agenda for the Planning Commission today, although it has come to the staff's attention that for both of the items that appear on the consent agenda, there is someone present in the audience that wishes to have that application heard by the commission. In the case of the first application, PLN MJDP 19-13, Papert Property Amended, it's the applicant's representative who would like to discuss one condition on the list of conditions for approval. In the second case, PLN MJDP 19-14 for Penmoke and Park, it's members of the neighborhood that would like to have some discussion by the commission today. So that being the case, neither of these items qualify under the bylaws of the Planning Commission for consent agenda today. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Wade. What we'll do then is go back to our first agenda item, which is on page two, Hamburg Place Farm, Subartan Way. And while you all are setting up for that, at the very end of your agenda and without objections, we have the performance bonds letters of credit, and we'll accept a motion for that. Mr. Chair? Yes. I'm going to move for release call bonds. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Will Berkley, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we have the release of the call of bonds. Any discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion carries. We'll take care of that. Now we'll go back to you, Ms. Galt, and we'll go for page two, item C. Proceed. Go ahead. Good afternoon. Actually, we have revised conditions for you. They're going to be in the pink sheet for this plan is final record plat 19.7, Hamburg Place Farm, Sir Barton Way Office Park, Phase 2, Lot 18A. This property is located on Surbarton Way and Sanford Private Access Easement. We have I-75 located up here. This is for the Commonwealth Credit Union. They're wanting to subdivide this property into two lots, this back portion here. So we have revised conditions with just our typical sign-offs. We have a provide. The Planning Commission makes a waiver for the finding of the excess easement. We've been in discussion with the applicant. At this time, this kind of works into the second discuss alignment. The Sanford Way is proposed on, okay, you can see better. They have, Sanford Way is proposed to extend, but at this time they also have a proposal in with the federal government to do an underground, under I-75 connection, which will go, the proposal they're looking at is to run it along this property line, so we're not quite sure how Sanford Way will extend. So at this time, what they're proposing to do is create an access easement through this lot, into this lot. We will be looking at all this again at time of final development plan. But at this current time, we're still working with the federal government and the Kentucky Department of Transportation on the best location for this under I-75 connection. So with that, you have a copy of your finding on a white sheet of paper for the access easement. the access sorry the access easement goes to just the edge of this property here and with that it they're going to show the connection to go into the adjacent property through here we would like for them to extend extend it but at this time we're not quite sure which direction we want to have that extended if it should go more straight or curve over to the connection over here along the property boundaries of the lot this is um walmart over here um okay This is the driveway they're looking at sharing. The last access off of Stanford Way and this driveway will connect into this adjacent property. So at this time, with the discussion question, this is still in discussion with them, and we believe that this can be further changed over to resolve the alignment since we're working towards that at this time if there's any other questions okay any questions for ms gallant okay applicant good afternoon my name is stephanie blaine and i'm with palmer engineering and i'm representing the applicant which is the commonwealth credit union as miss galt stated we are here today to try to subdivide this property to sell off the rear portion of the lot to sell off to a potential purchaser to develop the lot this time they have not provided us with a site layout that was something that staff had requested but that we were not provided by the potential purchaser We looked at doing several different options when it came to subdivision. The staff originally had talked about doing a non-build plat, which would, they wouldn't be here today. But that requires at least an acre of subdivision and we only have 0.9 acres, so we're just underneath that cut off. As Ms. Galt indicated, we also have met with staff to address some of their concerns about the access for this parcel. There is an existing access easement already on the plat from the adjacent building that is next to the common, sorry, I can't talk, CCU building. Just abbreviated. We've discussed with staff and traffic engineering, they expressed that that existing access easement was not desirable for the primary access because it cut through the parking lot. We then worked with the applicant and staff and met with also the long range planning folks. At this time, they are not sure how this realignment of Sanford Way is going to occur under I-75. There is talk of it coming straight along the Walmart border, but then also it might tie into the existing Sanford Way location. They expressed a desire to leave some flexibility in that. And our current request is that we are granted access through an access easement on the existing CCU parcel utilizing their existing entrance. As noted, this will come back in front of the commission as part of their final development plan. And at that time, they may try to look at extending Sanford Way based on what's recommended by the Transportation Cabinet as that project moves forward. Okay, any questions from the commission members for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this particular agenda item, either far or against? Okay. Then we'll bring it back for a motion. If you make any motion in favor of the proposal, please note that number eight should be changed from discussed to resolved, and also please include within your motion the issue of the new findings that we also have. With that, the floor is open for our motion. Mr. Spann. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN FRP 19-7 with the eight conditions changing number eight to resolve and also noting that we have a finding that goes with that that's been presented to us. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Penn, seconded by Mr. Brewer, that we approve PLN FRP 19-7, Hamburg Place Farms, Subartan Way Office Park, Phase 2, Lot 18A, with the eight conditions identified by staff, changing number eight, discussed to resolve, along with the findings that are also accompanying this particular agenda item. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? That motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is on page three. It's item A under development plans. This is a development plan 19-13 for the Pepper property. Come on. I was slightly ahead of my tech help, and that's usually the other way around. There we go. This is the Papper property which is located out on Spur Road in this location, the frontage here with Norfolk Southern forming this border of the property. Sandersville Road comes into the property. This location continues over to a boulevard which will intersect with Spur Road and be the primary access into the development. As you can see, this plan is very similar to the original plan that you've seen before with the single family. The rear loaded lots, again, a townhouse area in this location. These single family homes are all rear loaded and again, oriented to spur. Here we have the elderly apartment development that is on this, is being proposed as part of this development with an emergency access in this location into the parking area. You may recall there were a large number of waivers originally associated with this property to address the overall street system and the geometrics of that street system. This is a relatively small amendment, and it was eligible. It was recommended for approval by your subdivision committee, and it would have been on your consent agenda. However, condition 14, which was remove lot 114 label on plan, that turned out, and I can't really see it from here, it was just a graphic mistake in that a lot line got left out. So the applicant wants to bring it forth to you today to have that condition removed. Otherwise, when you all approve a plan and you set conditions on a plan, they have to meet those conditions. Well, they don't want to remove lot 114 because it does exist. So it's just a graphic error. And so the request before you today is simply to remove condition number 14. I'll answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, applicant. Good afternoon. Rory Kay with EA Partners. Tom's correct. We didn't want to lose the lot. We just wanted to have the lot line that was missing. Other than that, we were agreeable to all the other conditions and request approval. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay. If not, then we'll bring it back to the commission for a motion, if you're ready for one. Mr. Chair, I'd like to motion for the approval of PLN-MJDP-19-13 with removing condition number 14, which will make a total of 15 conditions. okay it's been moved by Mr. Larry Forster second by Mr. Healy Bell that we approve PLNM JDP 19-13 Papert property as amended with the 15 conditions identified by staff removing number 14 any discussion on the motion hearing no would you please vote when it comes up on your screens okay that motion carries thank you Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is also on page 3. It is item B under development plans, and this is Major Development Plan 19-14, Penn Moken Park lot P 104 also known as Southern and Jones property as you can see this is the corner lot located at Nicholas Hill Road and Penn Moken Park this is the final development plan establishing four townhouses in this location and in this location the townhouses are 700 square feet each footprint with about a little over 5,500 total square feet because they are three stories in height, 35 feet. You can see the access at the rear into the parking area as well as there will be rear parking into the units. There are decks as well on the backs of these. This plan is virtually identical to the plan approved at the zoning hearing. Access was established in the rear to pull it back off of the intersection and also to provide for any future access should adjoining lots develop. You may recall in this area there's a reservation for a possible widening of Nicholasville Road under our transit plan for some future possibility for dedicated transit lanes. Here's some green area in this area, and of course you can see their orientation to the street system. Now this plan was reviewed. It's a final development plan. You can see that there are numerous conditions that are all applicable by the various governmental divisions to a final development plan. There's one you don't see as often that you're going to see a little more, which is the United States Postal Service approval of kiosk locations. According to our post office representative, they have received notice that that is the future for home delivery, and they have asked to be included on plans where that type of delivery model will be required. So the folks that live here will have a kiosk and not get individual service. They need to clean up the plan a little bit by deleting a couple of notes. These are carryover notes that are just not applicable to a final development plan. And then on page four, you will see that they need to denote their typical lot size. It is their intent. You can look at the plan to subdivide these townhouse lots. They need to denote that the development shall substantially comply with the submitted renderings. And I'll return to that momentarily. The next one is to denote compliance with the private open space requirements per lot by denoting square footages per lot. This is an R1T requirement. When you subdivide an R1T lot, there are very specific dimensional open space requirements. It's a percentage of the lot. And although many lots are very uniform, sometimes these lots are not completely uniform. Their square footage may vary a little bit. Well, it's a 10% of the total square footage is what they have to provide in private open space. Decks, patios are common to how they approach that in a lot of these circumstances with townhouses. In fact, the plat that you postponed indefinitely is a townhouse development that has an open space problem. So, again, this is how they address that. We like to have that denoted on the plan. It will be carried over onto any final record plan that actually creates the lots as well. And then there's note 16, which is resolve the timing of relocation of the residence. Staff has had discussions with the applicant. They have submitted a plan on how they intend to assist in the relocation of the residence. And they have spoken, I believe, to the committee about this as well. And again, that's something that needs to be resolved. There is a lot of concern. Staff is very concerned, and I know the committee shared this concern as well, that the residents in this existing building have time to relocate into appropriate housing. And again, I will return to the 14, which is denote development shall substantially comply with submitted renderings. And again, this is a development plan note that is utilized by your staff frequently when we discuss specific design issues with the developer. And it's a matter of them agreeing to these design issues. And we get it on the plan, and then that's an enforceable condition at the time of building permits when they are actually submitting detailed construction plans. So we always like to have that denoted on the plan. As you all may be aware, there was a lot of discussion about the architecture and the design of these townhouses. There have been several designs submitted. The applicant has one that they prefer. No doubt there may be some differences of opinion on what's preferred by other people, and I believe you'll hear that discussion today. But from your staff's perspective, whatever is settled on, whatever they commit to with the planning commission, it just clearly needs to be denoted on the plan that they will comply with that rendering. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here today on behalf of Southern and Jones. David Jones is the principal in connection with that business. this. As you know, we've been here before and in fact this will be the eighth review of this project. Previously the Technical Review Committee during the zoning phase reviewed this development plan. It was then reviewed by the subdivision committee and the zoning committee and then the full planning Commission. You all unanimously approved the rezoning and the preliminary development plan. It's now gone back on the final development plan, as Tom has indicated, pretty much the same plan that was filtered and vetted initially. Again though, it has gone through the technical review committee, it's gone through the subdivision committee, and it's now before you today for the eighth level of review. It also went to the urban county council was another level of review of course and when they approved the rezoning again unanimously so up to now every reviewing body, technical review committee, subdivision committee, full planning commission, twice up to now and the council once has approved this request without a dissenting vote and that we believe is significant in terms of the critical issue which is before you today is are we in compliance with the objective standards set out in the zoning ordinance in the subdivision regulations and as Tom has indicated to you Tom Martin your staff we are so why am I talking about it anymore with that kind of endorsement well I'm not going to talk very long but we still have some folks that don't like our proposal and and this is the form in which their voices certainly can and should be heard. So I just wanted to review a little bit of the history, other than the process, which I just mentioned, that has had these numerous levels of approval. Prior to filing the zone change back in September, the zone change was heard in December, we had a meeting with the neighbors and shared the proposal. We always do that just so we understand what their concerns are and can we narrow the issues to the controversy, because I know you all don't like having disputes if we can get them resolved, and so we tried to do that. Subsequent to the final approval of the council, David met with several of the neighbors to discuss design options, and David can tell you how long they met in their discussion, but 45 minutes approximately, maybe a little bit longer, discussing design options. And the design that we shared with the Planning Commission in December has been set aside. And we have a new design that I just passed out for everyone. And I'll put it up on the screen so that everybody can see it as soon as I can find my copy. Oh, here it is. Yeah, there it is. You already got it. Way ahead of me. Thank you. So this is the proposal. I expect you'll hear some folks that will want a different design, and certainly that's what this microphone is for. But from the standpoint of your all's governance, there are no design standards. And if this was a historic district, we'd be having a different conversation, and we'd have to put on different proof. We would have also had to get a certificate of appropriateness from the Board of Architectural Review. They do have design standards. We don't. There's no other land use in Lexington other than the Board of Architectural Review that has to have specific design standards. We do have some standards we have to comply with under Article 15, Day 7, which, as Tom will confirm, we're in compliance with. but the developer, the owner, the person that's putting up a substantial amount of money and to market this to the public gets to choose their design. But David has changed his design from what was submitted originally to this proposal that's before you today. And this is the one that we intend to go with. Now, Tom indicated there's a note on the plan that says we have to show substantial compliance with this design. Just a word of clarification. There is nothing in the zoning ordinance of the subdivision regulation that requires an applicant at this level for this use to commit to any design. There is no requirement. If an applicant chooses not to do so, it can't be held against him in terms of you're all threshold determination. Is this application in compliance with the zoning ordinance and is it in compliance with the subdivision regulations? Because that's your limited purview. It's not about design. There is no right to turn a project down because you don't like the design of what's being proposed. Now, despite the fact that there's no requirement that we commit to anything in response to a question raised by Mr. Owens during the zoning, if we would commit to whatever rendering we finally came up with, and that would it be all brick? And I said yes. And I said yes in response to the same question Mr. Owens asked at the subdivision committee. And I said yes. and I'm saying yes here today on behalf of David Jones, that we will commit to this substantially, to this architectural rendering. Now, I will say this too. David has been, in my experience, more than willing to listen and to incorporate changes that people would like to see. Everybody has a different view of what's nice and what fits in their view of this neighborhood. it. He's still willing to do that, even after today. There may be a slight change because we meet with the neighbors and David says, okay, I think I can work with this. He doesn't have to do that. This has been an extraordinarily vetted project for four-tenths of an acre. I've been involved in much, much larger developments that have not had this level of scrutiny, but that's okay. Sometimes we get in these kinds of cases. And I will say this, as we do more and more infill, we're going to have a whole lot more of these kinds of intensive reviews. So what I'm saying is, Mr. Owens, that we're committing to this. We're also committing to listening and changing that wouldn't be substantially different from this. Those changes would be generated from meetings with the neighbors, just so you know of our David's flexibility and entertaining tweaks, if you will. We have Fred Eastridge, our engineers here. We also have Maggie Thacker, who's an architect that will be designing the project. She's here in the event you have any questions about that. One of interesting features, attributes of Maggie is that her sister lives on Penn Moken, lives at the end of Penn Moken. Maggie is very familiar with the context of the neighborhood, the neighborhood itself, but she's here in the event you have any questions again about the design, but you really don't have jurisdiction over the design. But I do want you to know we've changed it in response to the concerns that were raised with the first design and we're willing to commit to this design and as I mentioned this is going to be a high-end property designed primarily for professionals at work in Central Baptist or University of Kentucky Medical Center. You're going to hear some concerns expressed about setbacks and you're going to hear concerns expressed about the design and that's fine. One of the things that came up during the subdivision committee, which surprised me a little bit, is one of the representatives from the neighborhood indicated that some of the tenants that were here were upset. I'm like, well how would they know they were upset because we hadn't heard anything. I just looked on the sign-in sheet and it appears that at least one of the tenants is signed up to speak. Now I'm not going to mention the gentleman's name, but that gentleman has been served with a seven-day letter that he has to pay his rent and the odd thing about the timing of all this is that we had people that had been paying their rent up until the first of April and now 40% of the people haven't paid their rent. Someone has talked to these folks, I don't know who. We notified the tenants back in November of our plans to go through the rezoning and to let them know that we would help and relocate them at such time as we were ready to start construction. And I will tell you quite frankly, it was going to be maybe a year, really. We weren't planning to do this now because we're just going to wait a year and the people would still stay there but as you know there's been an application filed to do historic overlay which would include our property so you know we've had to up the timeline of getting this constructed so we get it built before if the historic district is actually included with respect to our property so we've had to move the timeline up we still don't know we still have to get your all's approval but as I explained and sent to the staff in February of this year in terms of our transitional plan is that David does have other rental property in Lexington and he made put that plan together we're willing to comply with it certainly because we made it submitted it to provide housing in one of his other housing rooms and another one of his homes around Lexington at the same or equal price as what they're paying now and we will assist in moving them at no cost their furniture and so forth to these new houses. We are asking them to sign a six-month lease. When David purchased this property that these tenants were on a week-to-week and they've been on a month-to-month lease since he has owned it but previously it was week to week so it's short-term housing and we're willing to provide 30 days notice from whenever we get approval to get a construction plans as you probably know even after today approval of this plan we have to submit construction plans they have to bed it through engineering and all the other processes that go on after today all of the dotting the I's and the T's to get construction going. So it would be plenty of time, 30 days, and if somebody needs some extra time because of some usual circumstances, we would, but we have houses available, rooms the first of May that can accommodate. So if they need to relocate, we can relocate them within 30 days if need be. So that's our proposal. We'll be prepared to respond to any questions that you may have or objections to the development. We've had, as you know, numerous objections from the neighborhood since we filed it. This is the first of many of these infill projects that the community is going to be hearing. And we have been pleased that after all of these vetting sessions, this being the eighth one by governmental body or a committee that we've received unanimous approval and we would hope to secure unanimous approval again today. I believe David has demonstrated good faith and flexibility and a commitment to complying with the regulations and I believe that merits another voice of approval. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Simpson? Mr. Powell? Just a quick question, Bruce. I'm assuming that this image is incorrect with regard to the access to the site, that this represents the previous access, because that clearly is a view from Penn Moken Park, not from Nicholasville Road. Right. And the access is actually to the right of those units, not between them. Am I correct? Fred? Or Fred? Can you comment on them? That's part of it. Our plan shows the access to the right. That is correct. We moved access away from the intersection, sir. I had to look, the picture behind you is blurry to me, so I had to look at this one. I thought it was showing that the vehicle parking and getting ready to park in the garage there. I do have asphalt back behind that residence. Is there an elevation of the Penn Moken end of the units along Nicholasville Road? I don't have an elevation along there to my knowledge. Has that been studied? I'm looking for somebody to give an answer. I do not know. Okay. My understanding, David, correct me if I'm wrong, this will have the same look on Nicholasville Road as what it has on Pinmoken in terms of architectural features, right? That is correct. Yeah, okay. So in answer to your question, Mr. Pohl, this was part of the original renderings, just the essential footprint. And at the request of traffic, we did move the entrance into the project further down along Penmoken. So that would be to the right of the end unit there. Although you would essentially be looking at, you are looking at the Penmoken side as far as that goes. so uh final as bruce said our architect maggie thacker she will be of course providing full architectural plans to uh building inspection and planning as well once those are complete once we have a you know once we kind of know where we are and what we're building 100 so i'm going to just say this now since uh it's going to be on my mind. To me, the most important elevation is the elevation that's not shown, the one on the end of the units facing the elevation facing Penn Moken. And in my opinion, it's a huge error to leave that essentially undesigned to look like the one that we're seeing to the far right of this particular image, because that is an elevation that is speaking to Penn Moken Park and is important to everyone who passes by on Nicholasville Road facing doing going south and also everyone who lives on Penn Moken will be looking at at that every day as they pull in so it's in my opinion it's a it's it would be a shame to leave that unconsidered and undesigned as it appears at this time it won't be and as Bruce said even through yesterday I'm met with one of the neighbors. This has been a very tough project as you all know. Lots of voices and lots of designs and as we all know, all of us that have done this for many years, design is extremely subjective. What I like you may not, what you like I may not and that's fair enough. That's why we have lots of different house plans. What I originally wanted this plan to be, no one else in the neighborhood seemed to like it so I was willing to scrap that. I met with one of the neighbors yesterday and I explained that within any sort of reasonable boundary with the understanding that we're trying to keep these units within a certain price range when we sell them we're willing to make reasonable design accommodations as Bruce said it will be in substantial compliance one thing we've been extremely adamant about from day one is that this will be an all brick project some of the neighbors have asked for maybe a mix of materials such as some stone or fiber cement siding hardy siding if we can accommodate that and if planning is okay with that and if that's considered to be in substantial compliance then i think we would be able to do that and that's that's one of the reasons as you well know architects don't work for free and you know we we didn't come here today with a full set of construction plans what we started out with both the actual footprint has been revised multiple times at the request of multiple departments, same with the plans, and while what you are seeing is in substantial compliance in terms of the type of materials to be used and the compliance with Article 15-7 such as the the covered front porches, those are not going to change, but I'm open to design elements to change. If, you know, I envision these, I have a specific brick with a white mortar in mind, It's not actually a painted brick. It's a Magnolia Bay. It comes from the factory and the kiln that way. But if everybody says they hate that brick and they wanted a different color brick, I won't say no. I refuse to do that. So we are still willing at this stage, and that's one of the reasons you don't see a final set of plans or renderings, because we are still willing at this stage before it's too late, before I've spent the money on full plans, to try to accommodate any reasonable requests that we feel is able to be done. My comment, I'm sure you understand my comment is not about style, it's not about materials, not about anything other than an acknowledgement that the facade on the end of those units facing Nicholasville Road, that facade facing Penn Moken Park, is very different from the one that we're looking at to the right of the unit here because it is perceived to be a frontage on Penn Moken. And in that regard, my comment is strictly made as an encouragement to think about it in terms of its importance with regard to the street elevation on Penn Moken Park. Certainly appreciated. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this particular agenda item? Yes, ma'am. Come forward. How many of you would like to speak to this agenda item? Well, what we would do is, is she your representative for the community? Okay, then we'll give you a few extra minutes as a representative. but if anyone would like to speak to it even after your representative speaks, you can still come up. Now, a couple of things. We then put you on a three-minute time limit depending upon the number of people that want to speak. The other caution is if your representative has said what you wanted to say, you can just, okay. But like I said, you're still welcome to come up and reiterate, reinforce, do whatever you'd like to do after she gets finished. Well, ma'am, we can't hear you because we need you on the microphone. Okay, wait. Okay. We'll get your presentation and then we'll come back to you, ma'am, and then you can do. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. Thank you. My name is Juliette Simons and I'm a resident of the neighborhood at 136 Suburban Court and I've been asked to speak on behalf of many in the neighborhood. What you see up here is a final plan that is not different in any meaningful way than the plan that was before this commission in December, which is the top image. There's maybe a few roof lines that are different. The exterior is now all white. There's no way to tell what that is. There are promises about it being brick. They stood here and promised this commission in December, and then they, again, just now did promise that it will be brick. But they're saying that the enforcement is to just hold them to the renderings. There's no notes on the plan. There's nothing in writing that it will be brick. And once it leaves this commission, we lose the ability to enforce that. We were told that the enforcement mechanism is, well, the building permit guys will know that it has to substantially comply, and clearly this white building is some kind of brick, and they'll know that it has to be brick, and that's our compliance. But that was something that this commission really cared about in December and that we haven't seen much change on. And this final development plan is submitted to you all with the incorrect entry point. And it doesn't even show what fronts on Nicholasville Road. I realize this has been pointed out, but it just shows you how this is not a final rendering whatsoever. And it was very important, this commission, at the end of the vote last December on the zone change, this commission said, Mr. Wilson, I remember you said something, and same with Mr. Owens, you expect to see a very, very different development plan. And that's not what you see today at all. There's only – oh, okay, I do know how to work it. This is virtually the same plan, exterior and on the plot plan itself. The neighborhood has been very involved in this process. They have met with the developer and they have met with planning staff. I have been present at subcommittee meetings, so have other representatives of the neighborhood. The neighborhood voted, and they really like the craftsman style. preferred design was on the top left, but the problem is the neighborhood doesn't really have any kind of sway to have their voices heard. They have to depend on developer agreeing and they have to depend on staff agreeing, planning staff agreeing with what they want. So you have over 420 homes, and the reason that this has been a tough process for Southern and Jones is because you have 420 property owners, over 420, whose entire fabric of their neighborhood is about to be disrupted by large three-story white buildings set back 10 to 11 feet from Nicholasville Road when this is a neighborhood of one- and two-story homes with craftsman style mostly with large setbacks, particularly on Nicholasville Road. So I don't think the neighborhood can be really be faulted for wanting to have their voices heard and unfortunately the neighborhood knows that their enforcement mechanisms are numbered. But with respect to the BRIC, it's an easy fix. It can be added to the notes of the plan is my understanding and then it's more guaranteed. At least there's more protection for the neighborhood. The other big thing the neighborhood really cares about are the setbacks. You've been warned you would hear about it and here you are hearing about it. This is a view of Nicholasville Road with as it currently stands on the top and on the bottom is with the proposed development. It is the design that was from December but it's not really different so the buildings are just white that's the only real difference but you can see how it changes the setbacks along Nicholasville Road. And on the right here you can see that blue green line denotes how much this will change the setbacks along Nicholasville Road. It will be very very very different. The only enforcement mechanism that the neighborhood really has is Article 15. And Article 15 is the part of the code that's supposed to apply to protect the existing neighborhoods within the infill and redevelopment zone when new structures are replacing existing structures. That's particularly in 15-2. It mentions when there is a destruction or demolition, the new structure should be within 10 feet of the old setback. We don't have that here. I've been told by planning staff that that's because this section of Article 15 is interpreted only to apply to new construction without a zone change. So in all instances like the one before you today where there was a non-conforming use, so this commission voted for a zone change, but then we have new construction, this part of Article 15 under this interpretation is rendered useless. There's no way the neighborhood can use it to try to make the new development not destroy the fabric of the existing neighborhood. Now, this is an interpretation of Article 15, which is not required by the text of Article 15. There's nothing in Article 15 that so limits the article to only new construction without a zone change. and council members have recently been made aware of this is the way article 15 is written and it's the way it's been interpreted and the problems with this interpretation and text and they i've been told they are planning to address that the neighborhood is also very concerned about water mitigation this development is going to substantially change the layout of this lot this is a area of lexington that already has water mitigation issues. That is a condition listed, but that's very important to the neighborhood. They wanted me to make sure you all know that as well, that they really don't want this to add to the water problems of the existing homes. The neighborhood's also very concerned about traffic because this will increase occupancy on Penn Moken Park somewhat, somewhat, but certainly by cars, because I understand most tenants of the current property, it's not a lot of cars. And Penn Moken has an alley out to Rosemont, so this would lead people to cut down Penn Moken instead of going out onto Nicholasville to have to turn against all the lanes of traffic. Planning staff has said that there can be a study at some point, a traffic count, and then some kind of mitigation efforts. The neighborhood is concerned that it's going to fall to them to enforce this and to pay for a traffic count. It's important to them that this be paid for by the developer because they're the ones benefiting from the new construction. The neighborhood also would like Southern Jones to be held to the affordable housing promises that they made back in December because these townhomes will be priced far and above the average price of homes on Penmokin and the rest of the neighborhood. the neighborhood would like to see more greenery around the parking to better shield the parking from view and it's important to the neighborhood that the tenants are properly dealt with this tenant issue arose despite the fact that back in December we were told that the tenants were alerted that this property was going to be demolished and they were given the opportunity to find elsewhere and even that they were going to help them relocate because they own other properties and this was true until one of the tenants reached out to the neighborhood this was not the neighborhood going to them this was a tenant reaching out to the neighborhood and saying they had no idea about it but I appreciate it thank you very much thank you now some who else would like to speak anyone else would like to speak to this thank you Now, ma'am, you're on the clock for three minutes. Absolutely. Okay. That's okay. That's okay because I understand from the community perspective sometimes this is your only opportunity for democracy. So I'm a little lenient on that end of it. So go ahead. Well, thank you. My name is Candace Wallace. I live at 130 Goodrich Avenue. And I just wanted to come up and let you all know I did attend the neighborhood meeting where Mr. Jones met with us. And there was about 10 people out of 426 homes. It wasn't widely advertised and select people were invited to it. It was an accident that I was there. I don't think that anybody wanted me there, but they were kind enough not to throw me out. Anyway, the main thing is the plan that's being shown for what he is developing, that's really not what the neighborhood voted for. That's not what we expressed we were really interested in seeing and what he said he was going to base his designs off of. Obviously, he doesn't have to do anything we want to do, but why bother to meet with somebody, ask us to vote on things, put stickers on things, and say, yeah, this is what we'd like to see. If you're not going to be bothered, why waste our time with that? Let's see. Juliet Simmons already just showed you the image that we received the highest votes. And ultimately, I think the overall guide is we really want this commission to hold them to the goals from the 2018 Comprehensive Plan that were adopted by this commission. and because we're going by the goals, not the actual comprehensive plan. But this development does need to meet the characteristics and the urban form of the neighborhood. I know there's contention whether or not even Nicholsville Road is a part of our neighborhood, but it is, and as is Penn Mocum Park and the parts that go into it. So we would ask that something that is developed on this land, it actually be integrated into the neighborhood, and what is currently proposed right now does not do so. As Juliet pointed out, this commission told the applicant to come back with a better final development plan. He came back with the same one. We would ask that you all hold him and to your convictions that he be required to provide something better than what's being shown. If they've reviewed this eight times and this is all anybody can come up with, Jesus, I feel sorry for this town in terms of development. Thank you very much. I appreciate your help. Thank you. Next. My name is Mereth Birmingham Gillespie. I'm here not to talk but to introduce Jeffrey Hayes, who is one of the residents at 1847 Nicholasville Road, and how this process has affected him, what he has been told, and what has happened in the process. I think he was asking for a little more time is why I'm here, because the other residents, there's i don't know how many left just a few they never had more than three cars there or four when i lived there on the street 30 years but um one gentleman is very elderly he takes his basket up to kroger's the places that were recommended for them to move to the the addresses i saw were not conducive to some of the needs of the residents but jeffrey hayes would like to talk to you and i And I was wondering if he could get a little more minutes for the other residents who two had to work and one was too elderly to come. Okay, where's Mr. Hayes? Come forward, Mr. Hayes. My name is Jeffrey Hayes. I'm representing 1847 Nicholasville Road. I'd like to say something, Mr. Collins. Sir, you have to talk to us. Talk to us and the microphone is important because we're recording this as such. Okay, I would like to say something. I moved over January 1st this year. Not seeing a cockroach, spider or snake. Well, not a real snake. When I moved in January 1st, Mr. Jones has two employees, managed a property, Kavanaugh and Connie. The day me and another man showed up at 645, she was showing us the rooms. And he and I were deciding which room, you know, I said, you go ahead and pick. He took number three. I took number three, he took four. Well, Connie's filling out his paperwork. And I'm like, Connie, it's going to be cold in this room. Oh, he's probably down. Where's the thermostat? I went and looked at it. Turned it up and I heard it kick in. I go back into the room. I'm written two lighters. Put them up to the vent. No flame going out. Both vents. I've had no heat. I got me a little heater. Due to my age and my health issues, very severe ones. At my age, 56 in August. I've asked for an air conditioner. When I moved in on 1st, here's what I asked her. I said, ma'am, is there a year lease you got? No, we do months and months. I said, I'm planning on staying here a year because I'm on SSI. I'm going to stay in here a year so I can save up some money, and I really have some two surgeries I need that are going to be an outcome of me being able to walk. I said, is the owner of this property, this is January 1st before I sign that lease, Is the owner of that property planning on to sell the house or anything? Will I have time because I've got to get these surgeries in? No, no, no. Oh, no, no. This is Ms. Connie. Okay. Well, ma'am, could you have the ventilation worked out and looked at in here? And what about an air conditioner? Pat me on the shoulder. We'll work something out when it comes spring. I signed the lease. I asked for a copy of the lease from Connie three times. I've not yet received one. I called Kavanaugh yesterday. They won't even talk to me due to the fact I'm a loner. I keep to myself. I walked through that neighborhood, a loving neighborhood, and I'm from Lexington, been in every historical side of town you could possibly be in. At a Pensacola Park, I have never been treated with open arms, a warm smile. and when I'm crossing the street, cars will back up, let me go, give them the thumbs up, wave, thank you, and go on about my business. And I've talked to seven neighbors over there. They say we never bother nobody. And since I've been in January, the law's not been there. No EMTs. Everybody's alive and kicking, even Mr. Napier. So I signed that lease, and here I am as of today. I should hope that Mr. David Jones has consulted personally with his staff on a daily basis to find out what's going on. When I asked Mr. Kavanaugh a month ago after one of the neighbors that really talked to me for an hour and a half, her and her husband, said, you need to go to this meeting, I asked Kavanaugh right about a month ago, right when Kentucky won the game and then we lost the other one. Sir, my understanding, has the zone change been approved over here? I haven't heard nothing about it. I don't know what you're talking about. Oh, you don't? Well, I have an email from one of the neighbors here. Here, on my phone, you want to see it? No, no, no, no, no. Okay. Evidently, he talked to Connie. Well, like I said, I'm on SSI. And as it stands, four of us, actually maybe five, four of us have gotten a seven-day eviction notice to pay or vacate the property. My rent has been due. I usually get my check on the first. I ask if I could at least have by the third. Connie says, yes, yes. Okay, fine. in April I loaned some money to a friend don't look like I'm going to be getting it back I called Miss Connie April the 3rd of this year Miss Connie, I'm going to be a little bit late I've got $350 my rent is $450 all utilities included, shared kitchen and bathrooms I said I'm looking at a 7-day eviction notice from 4-3 on the letterhead it's 4-3 but on the date it was delivered, that's 4-2. Really? Clerical error. All right. When I moved in, I was deceived. First she said, I asked her if the owner was going to sell the property. No. I said, I need to be here a year. I've got some real bad health issues at my age, and it's not good. So I got my first seven-day-to-pay notice, which is on third, and delivered on second. Right. I went out and got a receipt. I talked to Connie on the 4th. I said, I got $350 out of my 400. Can we work out maybe where I can pay 500 a month to get it caught up within two months? Yes we will. Yes we will. I said, by the way, I'm looking at the 7-day eviction notice. Will this receipt of $350 out of 450 cash, I mean money for rent, would that get rid of the 7-day eviction notice? Will it not have no bearing on me? No. It's all squashed. I said, ma'am, is it squashed? Yes. So I called Connie Saturday. I said, ma'am, I've got that money receipt. I said, I've been sick. I couldn't get out to get it soon. Okay. He said, Saturday, I'm not working now. You'll have to call Kavanaugh, the other associate that works for Mr. Jones, and have him come and get it. He came and got it. I took my money order, and I showed him this, and I said, me and Connie have already had a discussion that when I give this money receipt, this is going to void out a seven-day eviction notice or vacate premises. I have no friends. So I paid it, gave it to him. He said, everything's fine. If you and her have talked, this has no bearing on you. Okay. January the 8th, oh, and by the way, he wrote the receipt out on a piece of notebook paper that I gave him, and borrowed a pen of mine on April the 8th, guess what? I get another one. Oh, but this one's good. Oh, you're going to love this. I'm $215 back, late fees per day, $20 per day. Are you serious? Are you serious? And I've called an attorney. I've called adult services. That's to cover his back on saying he's helping us. And I overheard the attorney say on Mr. Jones' behalf, he's got other houses. He's going to average out the rent. Well, how is that going to be? Okay, well, good. I won't be there. I'm gone. I'm finally going to get a forcible detainer in my 55 years. I'm going to be homeless on the street. All because of deceiving, misleading people. I got a seven-day notice. Mr. Naperdot, the elder, I'm the second oldest. A younger man got another one, and another man did. Basically all at the same time. Really? Oh, and I hope the beauty of them townhomes, it's not going to make the neighborhood. It's going to depreciate the historic neighborhood. It's going to be historic no more. And I've lived all over Lexington. I'm an honest person. My word is my bond, and I back it up with my actions. I can see what kind of actions by his staff members are doing. Are really doing. Out of the 10 residents there, two other of them wanted to come, but I'll just say this. They said they had nothing good to say about David Jones, but I stand here on the truth of the matter. Here it is. You want to see it? Back it up. When I go to court, I don't know. I should get my disability check on that. hopefully by the first I won't have to leave some stuff behind but I guess I'll get me a storage but I hope him beautiful 250 to 300k townhomes puts money in his pocket and won't be honest snake in the grass you know y'all need to consider that if he's deceiving with us what do you think he's going to do to the neighborhood but think it's going to be an honest, straight-up businessman? You got his attorney here? Oh, yeah. And when I talked to these attorneys, they said everything he's doing is right on the fine line of being legal. But he's doing you dirty. He's doing you in a dirty way. Hmm. Well, I'm going to keep my truth clean and stand forth on the foundation of it. And when I may become homeless, I've already been, I know the area over there pretty good. I have never met you a warm welcome. My neighbors over there with open arms, a warm heart, they have never said a word out of the way. They have said, we don't mind you all there. You all don't bother nobody. I'm worried about an 80-year-old man. And I've talked to Adult Tenant Services, and I'm about done, sir. I've talked to Adult Tenant Services. I asked him, well, what kind of area are you all going to put us in? Ollie Steele? Joe Johnson. You're not going to put me in a high crime rate, druggies, prostitution, panhandlers, criminal activity? No, I won't last a week. They put their hands on me. I'll defend myself to the max if my life is put in fear at all guards. Do you think an 80-year-old man is going to be able to do that? He won't last three days. He'll rob him. He's probably like me, keeps money hit under the mattress. I'm old school. I've got no credit. The day I do come homeless and I'm on the streets, I'm getting me a tent from Walmart, I'm going to find me somewhere to be in a safe secluded area by myself. Mr. Hayes, I thank you very much for your comments. And let me say that I think we got your message. Do you need any copies of this? You're more than welcome. I don't think we do for that. I'd like to ask this committee up here, Would it be possible if I can get a copy of my 30-day lease? I've asked three times and left a message. Can't seem to get one. Well, I think we're going to have to worry about that. We'll have to work that out on the side as it relates to it. It's not really going to make no baron. Okay. But I'm glad to represent Pensacola Park neighborhood in 1847. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else would like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay, I'm going to come back to the petitioner again. you have a chance to maybe respond to some of the issues that have been raised here. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I do have a few remarks to to respond to. I'll respond to Mr. Hayes in general and we certainly don't intend to get into a a full-blown hearing about him paying the rent or not paying the rent and all that sort of thing. There's proceedings to handle when people don't pay their rent and the judge will make a decision and if he makes up the rent that it's owed then there won't be any eviction. This is one of the elements that takes place in rental property that sometimes people don't pay their rent and they They refuse to leave, and sometimes they have to be evicted. We hope it doesn't come to that. The seven-day notice letter is you're behind, you need to make it up. And so he still has the opportunity to make it up. He makes it up. It's fine. He moved in in January. He wasn't there in November when everyone else got a notice. Again, these rooms ran 30 days at a time. Some stay longer, but it's 30 days at a time. So he wasn't there in the initial meeting. And quite frankly, until there was a proposal for the historic overlay, David didn't intend to really develop this property for a year or two. So there wasn't any need to notify anybody until very recently when he thought he was going to be caught under having to comply with architectural guidelines in historic zoning after he'd already kind of had a framework of a budget to build the townhouses that we have shared with the commission today. So that moratorium and that initiative has expedited the proceedings. But even if Mr. Hayes and the other tenants had paid their rent, they're still on a 30-day lease. So you give them a 30-day notice, even if you're paid in full, and you find someplace else to live. The commitment to Mr. Hayes and the other tenants is still the same. As long as you can pay your rent, sign the required lease, we'll move you at no expense to you to another place in Lexington at the same or equal rent. There's not too many landlords that would make that commitment. We've made it. We've put it in writing, and we've submitted to this body for review. That's Mr. Hayes. Of course, representatives for the neighborhood made the same objections during the zoning that she made again today. So there's nothing new there. I find it interesting that she chastises Mr. Jones for not providing affordable housing, but wants all of these requirements, including a specific design that will increase the price to a minimum of $400,000. how we can provide affordable housing at $400,000. In fact, he's been providing affordable housing for as long as he's owned the property for the 10 rooms that he's made available for rent. He chose in a different direction. He's gone through the statutory process of the rezoning, and now we're at the development plan for the eighth review of what we're doing, and he's received approval. And besides those eight reviews, we probably had 10 to 15 meetings with the staff on making sure that we're in compliance with the subregs and the zoning ordinance to make sure when we come before this body we're in compliance so there's no ambiguity about whether we're in compliance or whether we're not. And as we stand here today as the staff is confirming we're in complete compliance with all the law with respect to this development, we've made extraordinary commitments above the law, by committing to architectural renderings and continuing, even in the face of criticism, to work with the neighbors and even tweak it further if they're of a mind to do that. They said we haven't committed in writing about the brick. I have made three statements on the record putting it in writing on the development plan. So, I mean, it's there. It's unequivocal, and it's an affirmative commitment that this will be brick. Some of the neighbors just recently met with one yesterday. She wanted a three-story building. Well, everybody's got a different design, and I understand that. We all have our preference. We pick homes because we like what that one looks like, but somebody else may not like it. That's our individual choice. and David has an architect familiar with the context of the neighborhood that was going to put on a product that will enhance the neighborhood. It will be a high-quality product and a contributory, we believe, to the neighbors. The staff, the other thing we weren't required to do but that we volunteered to do, The staff says, you know, we have a plan if we start being able to develop more intensely on the larger lots on Nicholasville Road. We're going to have a need for more multimodal and have a bus line. Now, it's not required, you understand, but would you be willing to give up 12 feet of your property for a future bus line? You don't have to, but would you? And we said yes. We'll accommodate a future plan to go along with the comp plan's encouragement of increasing density in our community because that's what we have to do. We're not going to expand the boundary anytime soon, and even then it won't be that much. We're going to have to develop more intensely. And so, as I said, this is the first of many such infield battles. But over and above what we were minimally required to do, we're willing to set aside 12 feet of our property for a bus line at some whatever point in the future that takes place. So, my point is this. We've complied with the minimum, but we've gone beyond that voluntarily. We're committing to architectural guidelines that we don't have to. We're reserving a bus area, transit area, that we don't have to. And above all that, even though we haven't been fully embraced by all the neighbors, we're still willing to tweak the design if they would want to continue to talk to us, and we can accommodate it. I think at the end of the day you're going to see a very handsome project, well built, and a good benchmark for this community. Above everything else, in terms of your jurisdiction today, it's not about the design. It's about are we in compliance with the subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance. That legally, that is your guiding post to make a decision. And based upon the evidence, including the staff's endorsement, respectfully, that's what you're required to do, and we ask that you do that. I'll be happy to respond to any further questions that you may have. You may stand by. Who was the community representative? Is she here? Would you like to have any additional comments? You don't have to, but if you want to punctuate something, fine. The only thing I want to punctuate is the inherent problem of asking you all to approve a final development plan while reiterating that it's not final. There's been a lot of lip service to how it's going to change. It's going to keep working with the neighborhood, but it's not. They're asking you to approve a final plan when they're saying it's not final. Anyway, that's my only point. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Staff, do you all have a final comment? In the interest of our time constraints, staff would just say that the staff report and the subdivision committee's recommendation of approval speaks for itself. One thing I would add, we, staff, is aware of many issues that affect rental property, and we would hope there is some room for human compassion in dealing with individual circumstances. Okay, thank you, Mr. Martin. Now, what I'd like to do is to ask our commission members if you all have any questions, either for the applicant, for the staff, or for the neighbors at this time. Mr. Lawrence. Thank you. This is before the staff, just for clarification. In what was just recently brought up, if there's any substantial changes moving forward, I would presume we would see this as an amended plan. You would see an amended plan if there were any substantial changes to the rendering. Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. If not, I'm going to close this part of the hearing for the audience, and we'll bring it back to the commission for additional discussion. and are in motion. Mr. Chairman, sorry, I didn't get to my button quick enough. Just a question to clarify what Mr. Owen just said. We will see another rendering if there's substantial changes. I understand what we're looking at is nothing like what it's going to look like in the future as far as orientation toward Lucasville Road. So will the orientation part of that be considered sufficient to come back? I'll pass that along to Mr. Martin. Mr. Brewer, I believe what you've seen today is a representation of the orientation to both street frontages, and the rendering indicates how both all the townhouses are intended to be constructed and how they should look. Okay, so the rendering, as far as the plan, is sufficient at this point. This was just illustrative of what the buildings are to look like. Yes, sir. Any other comments? Okay, let me just remind the commission members, essentially what in fact what mr. Simpson indicated what our role is here vis-a-vis whatever I mean I understand the issues of design and what have you and I'm very sensitive to the community and especially to the tenants who live in that community but in relates to what we can do here as a Commission ours is connected with the actual zoning and whether this is in compliance with the comprehensive plan Does the commission have a preference? Mr. Beg your pardon? Yes. That's Mr. Berkeley. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of plan MJDP 19-14 with the 16 noted conditions. It's been moved by Mr. Will Berkley and seconded by Mr. Bruce Nickel that we approve PLN-MJDP 19-14, Penn Moken Park, lot P-104, with the 16 conditions as identified by staff. Any questions on the motion? Yes, I do. Mr. Penn has a question on the motion. On number 14, where it says revolving resolve timing of the relocation of the residence. Do we leave that as it stands, or what do we do with that? Mr. Penn was asking about number 16. It says resolve timing of relocation of the residence. Yes, sir. You've heard a discussion, and they have a plan, and I believe staff would like to have some sort of time frame denoted on the plan. We say we give at least 30 days, so that's consistent with the rent. And we can notify everybody if this plan gets approved, notify today that you have at least 30-day notice. They may be there longer, probably will, until the construction plans get. get and those and we'll informally because people turn over in these rooms that if they're interested in taking advantage of our offer for a free move and equal to or less ran they're paying now at another place in Lexington to let us know so that we can work them in and they can move earlier if they like but we'll give at least 30 days for if you want to address mr. Pins concern any Any other questions? Any other discussions on the motion that is presented to us? Do we need to resolve the timing by saying at least 30 days notice before moving or do we need to leave it like it is based on what we've heard? I think staff is comfortable with what it says. Present. What it says. Yes, sir. I just wanted to raise that issue. I'd like to suggest an amendment to the motion. Okay. On the condition 14 regarding denoting that the development shall substantially comply with the submitted renderings, I would like to add to that that the rendering of the Penn Moken Park facade of the units fronting Nicholasville Road be further developed in a way that would be consistent with the development of a facade facing Penn Moken Park, not a throwaway facade such as the one that was indicated in the rendering. I'd also like to suggest an additional requirement that the landscaping adjacent to the parking area closest to Penn Moken Park, which comes out further than the 15-foot setback be carefully delineated so as to properly screen vehicles in that parking area. Okay. Mr. Polis has added an amendment to the main motion, and let me see if I get the gist of it, Mr. Polis, the fact that the rendering on the facade facing the Nicholasville Road would be further developed. The facade facing Penmokin Park, which would be the northmost facade of the units facing Nicholasville Road. So it's the side of the units facing Nicholasville Road. That side of the, those units facing Nicholasville Road have a major side that faces Penmokin Park, which was not in the rendering. It was suggested to us that that would look like the side that we saw to the far right of the rendering, which is what I would describe as being not a designed facade, but rather just something thrown together to throw a few windows where they need to be and not really considered. And so the gravitas of a facade facing Penn Wilkin Park should be applied to that north-facing side elevation of the units fronting Nicholasville Road. Okay, I don't know if I have all that information. You had a second portion to that motion, too, about landscaping. Would you review that for us as well? I was responding to comments from the neighbors on this, and I noticed that the parking area in the zone between the townhouse volumes, that parking area that projects out toward Penn Moken Park actually projects further than the 15-foot setback that the buildings are placed, at which the buildings are placed. And so that suggests that there really needs to be some careful landscape screening so that vehicles that would be parked in that area would not be so prominent on the street frontage. Okay. Does the staff capture these two portions of the recommendation? I mean, this is an amendment to the actual amendment that we have. Yes, sir, I believe so. I would like to add Article 18, our landscaping chapter, addresses vehicular use screening. So staff's question would be, do you want to enhance and add to that required screening? Because VUA screening is required. That area that Graham is referring to will have screening that's required to. Okay, well, yes, nothing was shown in the plan. Right. Well, we only review site plans to be sure there's room to meet Article 18. Okay. So does the second part of that amendment then is satisfactory to you based on the staff? Okay. Now we go back to the first part of it. and that is related to the development plan reflecting the facade on the north side i think you said mr chairman could i excuse me i know you're in the middle of moham i'm trying this is like a substantial change of what we've offered and we're not required to do any i understand that i don't understand what being acquired of this we understand what you what you're doing we understand that at this stage of the game we're here talking among ourselves this is the amendment that our commission member has proposed question is we have to vote on the amendment first and then we have to go back and vote on the main motion but the question i have is do you understand what the amendment is okay and and may i clarify why i bring this up okay for the commission members it's really important to understand the proposal from a three-dimensional standpoint and when when you're looking at a little rendering like we were shown, particularly one that is completely not showing us the north end of that townhouse that faces on Nicholsville Road, you can't see it. It's off to the left. If you look at the rendering that was given to us, you're seeing the backside of those townhouses facing Nicholsville Road. If you look to the far right of your rendering, you see a semblance of what they're saying that the end elevation of those units facing Nicholasville Road will look like. And you can see that one of the changes they made between the earlier submittal and what we're looking at here is they raised the roof pitch in the front of the building so that they could put those dormers on there. And the consequence of that is that the side elevation has an asymmetrical gable, right? It's steep on one side and shallow on the other. It's extremely unattractive as an elevation. And what they're proposing is to make that the major elevation on Penn Moken Park other than this second townhouse. so it's extremely important because as you're driving along nicholasville road facing south going out of town that's what you're going to be seeing on the far side of penmoken park you're going to be looking at a throwaway elevation so what i am asking is it's really quite simple it's it's asking someone to spend a very little amount of time looking at that elevation drawing it and improving it so that it's attractive to the eye and consistent with a neighborhood where people have pride in their properties. Okay, now, we get the motion, but let me refer to the legal. Are we out of our purview? Yes. You can ask for, let me say, they volunteered to provide renderings. You all don't get to design buildings unless there are certain requirements that aren't existing here. You can ask for a more definitive drawing so you can see it since they've volunteered to provide drawings that are going to be made part of the record to refer to, but you can't tell them how to design that drawing at this point. It just has to be compliant with our regulations. To that end, then Mr. Pol's recommendation would be, in effect, to request as an amendment for a more definitive drawing on the development plan. Which we can't do. And when I say more definitive, just something that shows that if they're saying we can't see the side on this rendering and the renderings are what you're filing, if you can provide something that shows that, but they can't tell you how to design it. I have just a moment. Let me ask that. We're going to have to get better development plans because we're going to have this every time. I know that's special with the infill. Oh, goodness. We're going to have to redefine what our development plans look like. The problem we have is there's been so many changes with these designs and, of course, the expense involved. architectural plans have yet to be drafted on this we'll be happy to submit those we don't want to have to come back another time for another hearing on whether this side is acceptable to somebody because we're not required to submit this at all we could withdraw it but when we say substantially complied we're going to come up with something that is substantially in compliance with this. It's going to look handsome, but we want to come back and say, well, you've got to approve now the side no, we're not willing to do that because we've gone way beyond what we're required to do. I'm not suggesting that you have to come back to some other hearing. All I'm saying is if there's going to be something in the record, even if it's a later date that's going to be referred to as the renderings you're submitting, you can do that. Yeah, we'll do that. That's fine. David said we'd submit architectural plans once they're finished that would show the whole everything around the building. That's fine. Okay, to that end, I need a little assistance in terms of formulating the amended motion in order to comply with the legal requirements of what we can do and what we can't do. Well, I think that, let's see, the way it reads right now, it talks about that it shall, I'm not even sure that you have to change it, But you could say that you'll denote development will substantially comply with the submitted renderings, which will be provided at the time of the final architectural drawings. Now, recognizing that those drawings may not be exactly what the commissioner is talking about, but I don't think you can require that. You can't require design at this juncture, at this location. And I think that's what Mr. Simpson has been explaining in his own way, but I want that to come from the commission and from my own legal perspective. Now, with that, Mr. Poe, do you still want an amendment on the table with using the language? You know, I'd be happy to withdraw the amendment if I would hear anyone on the side of the applicant make the assurance that they recognize the validity of my concern. That's all I'm, you know, that would be perfectly fine with me. Okay. go ahead mr jones is my name is maggie thatcher i'm the architect that mr jones has contracted to continue the project up to this point he's been working with another designer to generate the renderings but as we move forward i've heard all of your concerns and we'll be working with mr jones to develop those elevations further give them more detail give them more attention to those specific views um and to the concerns of the neighborhood that we've heard today so does that at all speak to what your concerns are on those the the throwaway elevations those haven't been addressed yet as far as architectural drawings on my my time i guess and so i will make a concerted effort to work with mr jones on those and part of the reason i'm pushing this is because i brought this up in a zoning uh committee meeting and and nothing happened and you know i come here and i expect to see something that showed that someone was listening and something got lost and and many of the neighbors are saying the same thing so you know i'm just concerned that uh maggie i'd like you to get the support that you need to do the job that you can do that that's yes and i i think in talking with mr jones so that's that's the direction he would like to go and i'm going to use every asset that i have to to be able to make those i'll withdraw my my uh my amendment okay so now i'll look at the chair will now call for the previous question on on my own as a prerogative of the chair let me go back to the main motion the main motion was made by mr berkeley and the main motion was to approve uh pln mjdp 19 days 14 pinmolkin park with the 16 elements as defined by staff the second was made by who was the second made by okay mr okay bruce nickel you heard the motion any other discussion on the motion if not yes one other thank you mr sharon sorry to belabor the point but i'm totally in agreement with what mr poe brought up in the fact of the the facade or the look, the visual aspects on the side of that building. Maybe we don't, maybe we do. This is a major corridor and we have spoke of visual effects up and down the major corridor including Nicholasville Road at times. Coming to my memory was Trader Joe's and the rear facade of Trader Joe's at that time wanting something better than just a solid brick wall uh i think the corridor involved here is critical and what mr pro brought up would uh is critical as well and i would i would support what he was saying i just wanted to get that on record for the applicant's point of view and applicant's sake to to hopeful that uh when time comes that we do see a facade there well said mr uh on tonight too. I felt like getting all this on the record is important and I think to the developers credit they seemingly have indicated that they've gone out of their way beyond what was necessary and required of them and what have you. So with that said, any other discussion on the motion? Now would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Right now we've got Harper, I think is it, Harper Woods. And let me forewarn you that I think we have to vacate these premises at 345. Okay, so we'll do what we can here in the open session while we're in front of the cameras and what have you. And then we won't rush the process, but we may have to move a little bit later because the council has a meeting here this evening. Okay, Mr. Martin. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Excuse me. My colleagues are joking with me over here, giving me a hard way to go. Go ahead, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is on page four. It is Development Plan 19-15, Harper Woods, Featherston Property, Lot 2. This is an amended plan. I know you all remember this plan well. It's out on Armstrong Mill, Kennesaw. We have a private street in this location. You have 31 single-family lots with, well, one HOA lot. I know you remember the greenway discussion and the floodplain studies. We have the townhouses in this location and, of course, the cul-de-sac here that originally was intended to extend into the property. So an awful lot of work and design went into this. This plan is virtually similar with two small differences. Well, the townhouses are being slightly increased in size. But then more significantly, and this is the single real issue, which is 14, discuss the guest parking along the private street. That's here, here, and here. Now, there is parking for the townhouses off the access easement, and this is an access easement as well, and there's guest parking located back in there. However, this is a private street, and private streets, when they're allowed, are also subject to the same standards as a public street. And so what we have here is a kind of an odd situation in that they are proposing off-street parking that's not exactly off-street. It's adjacent to the right-of-way, and you have to utilize the right-of-way for this parking to function. So, again, staff considers this a public safety issue. This is not a good layout. This is not a safe layout. Granted, low volume of traffic. Still, the potential for conflict exists. I mean, public safety is an issue regardless of volume. Obviously, there's high-volume streets. There's more of a likelihood that there could be conflict and problems. So to demonstrate our concerns, we can say, again, these areas don't meet the requirements for parking. And this is Article 16-2 of your zoning ordinance. Aisles and access drives shall be designed so to provide adequate vehicular maneuvering wholly upon the property being served. And in no case shall off-street parking areas be permitted that encourage or require the backing onto or maneuvering within the right-of-way of any public or private street. These parking areas clearly do not meet that standard. And so that's staff's concern. We recommend that they be removed. Now, there are some other things that can be done. Parking could be provided in a parking lot, a guest parking lot in the HOA lot. The other thing that could be done, these are 28-foot streets in width with parking restricted to one side. A 30-foot street will give them parking on both sides and would actually give them more parking than these few extra guest parking spaces that they are proposing. Again, Traffic Engineering is here to speak. If you'd like to hear from Casey, that is always a pleasure. but in the interest of time staff is going to just make the statement that we believe that these parking spaces are not compliant and should be removed from the plan and either relocated or redesigned. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Well, I have one. Let me go back to the, I'm a little bit confused. the subdivision committee recommends approval. And I'm confused as to why the subdivision would recommend approval if the staff is still concerned. Are you thinking that these can be worked out? The item says discuss guest parking, and that's what we did. We discussed it in front of the committee. Okay. And it's a discussion item, but, again, staff's position as part of that discussion has always been that these are poorly located and it is a public safety issue, and we felt like they needed to be removed. So the bottom line is that number 14 should be resolved down there. Resolved. There are some other design opportunities for the spaces that traffic engineering and planning have discussed. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. Applicant? Yes, Al Gross, CA Partners. I told Mr. Atchison I'd come down here and try to convince you folks that this is really a good idea to include some street-side parking within this enclave, private enclave, private street. Everything inside this is owned privately. There's no public right away. I can't argue the fact that it's not a private street. it is a private street but it could be just as easily an access easement in the sense of its operation structure with things of that nature i pointed out the subdivision committee several areas around town where these types of things exist for the benefit of the full commission I'll list those again. The Esplanade, the area, Townley Center has parking arranged just like this. Epping's, the new restaurant down at North Ashland, one building back, I think it's a plumbing supply house, has 45-degree parking off the pavement edge. The best example of it, I think, is what has been done in and around Chevy Chase, where Shopper's Village Liquor is, where what I call Cox's Hardware is, in front of Wheeler's Drugstore. All these areas are kind of unique. Situations exist that are not standard, shall we say. It's for the benefit of folks using those facilities. I don't know the safety record at those particular locations. I can find out. I haven't taken the trouble to do that. But I suspect there's no real significant safety experience there that would be negative. I think I made a comment at the subdivision committee meeting that, you know, this is not a blow-and-go type situation. You don't get in your car and you don't start it blast off down the road. You've got to think about what you're doing. There's some judgment required, and it makes you react, I think, in perhaps a safer way. When you're backing into a street, you realize you're backing into a street, and this is no different than every parking lot, commercial, professional parking lot throughout this community. get in your car and you back into an aisle way that is no different really than this private road so i'm i understand i'm probably going to be received in a negative fashion and if that's the case so be it we'll remove the parking but i think it's a good idea for the community i think it's an additive and I beg your indulgence and ask you to understand that this does more good than it does harm. With that, I'll rest. Any questions for the applicant? Let me ask a question. Is this a deal breaker? Are you asking me? Yes, sir. No. Okay. So, in other words, if we went along with this plan with the issue of resolve, you're still willing to work with the staff trying to figure out the best way to deal with this? Yeah, but I don't think I'm going to be able to work it out with the staff. I think I'm just going to have to remove the parking. There's a chance, perhaps, I can convince them to allow it in some other form where it would serve that purpose but not be recognized as parking. Okay. Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? She's good. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. You heard your name called. Is that it? I know. Traffic and staff doesn't have a problem with providing additional parking. We don't necessarily even disagree that it wouldn't be a benefit. The concern is we want to, if that parking is provided, we want to make sure it's safe to maneuver. and backing into a street is different than a parking lot because you're pulling in and just the physics of you're sitting in the front of the car. And if you're trying to back out, you're already in the street before you can see around the car beside you. So, I mean, if the applicant wanted to provide parallel spaces or a different configuration, it's just the backing into the street that is a concern for us. Gotcha. Mr. Berkley. Casey. He had brought up a couple locations where we have this situation. I'm very familiar with several of them in Chevy Chase. Right. The Chevy Chase ones that I can think of are back-end angled parking, and so that's different because you're in the street backing into your parking space, and then essentially you're pulling back out into traffic. You're not backing into traffic. But you're backing into traffic when you're backing into the space. No, you're backing into the parking space, but you're already in the traffic flow. You can't maneuver a car straight into a 45-degree space without backing up. Correct. I agree with you, but you're within the right-of-way, and so you're in the street and you're backing into your parking space. You're not backing into a drive aisle. You're not backing into moving cars. And that's the difference. There is one place where that happens, and that's in front of Chevy Chase Hardware. And all of us have sweated as we try to get out of that parking lot. Exactly. I've said before we do have conditions around town that are existing that, from a traffic standpoint, I can't say I like it. I can't say I enjoy making that maneuver. it does exist but we don't want to repeat it it's still I'm sorry mr. Owens thank you mr. chair Casey as far as this and I'm not one to go with any sort of precedent setting situations because to me and I've been told this before every situation is totally different but two questions one there's only going to be parking on one side of the street do we know which side correct we do not know which side i think that's usually dictated by the we try to do fire hydrants just if we can put the parking on the opposite side of the fire hydrants then we're maximizing parking um i mean it in this situation from a traffic engineering standpoint we looked at it in the office and if you're providing these parking spaces on the parking side of the street well now you're eliminating one or two potential on street spaces and you're creating i'm kind of playing a numbers game here but you're creating four spaces and losing two so we're not we're not really gaining that many in the end of this uh my second question would be considering this is a private street to I'm not going to say nowhere, but with limited residential units being 40 some odd, how much of a deal breaker is this with you? I think we have the option to do it right in this situation. I don't think there's a geometric or a grade issue that prevents us from doing a, there's many resolutions and design ideas that the engineer is more than capable of coming up with that could still serve the parking need that they're saying they need it's just do it as a parallel space or create a parking lot that you pull into maneuver your car and pull straight back onto the street so i think it can be we can design it in a without having that safety concern okay thank you mr bell Casey, I guess my question is, considering, and again, I guess Mr. Owen maybe asked this, but my feeling is that this is a private street, and this isn't Tate's Creek Road that we're speaking of. We're talking about a street that's not going to have that kind of traffic. Correct. And am I misunderstanding to think that the developer is looking for the amenities, which are going to make this more attractive, for more of a private situation as compared to a public situation? And such, should I not regard that opinion? I think that I definitely acknowledge and agree with the concept that this is a dead-end street. So it's not the traffic volume that we're going to see on Tates Creek. But I think we have townhomes in the rear. I think there will be – there's enough traffic on that private street that we should be concerned with setting the cars up in a situation where they're going to back into it. As far as providing that amenity, I think that's, you know, if that's what is needed out there, I think that's great. Well, and again, when they invest in that community, they're going to be aware of those concerns as compared to something where y'all are suggesting on behalf of the public, protecting the public. personally I just feel this is a bit different and that's threes now no I understand I think you know you could we've I've looked at it in our office and you know it is a lower volume street but it's still going to function as a street it's not going to function as a parking lot or an access easement it's private and that's really just who owns it but we still want the safety to be the same. And, you know, it's not just the residents that will be driving in there, whether it's service vehicles, you know, deliveries. Ms. Mundy. Yes, Casey, you seemed pretty pleased, or so it appeared, with the look on your face when you were talking about the back-end angular parking. Correct. Would you be happy with that here? Here's my concern with that. I've looked at that option, too. So if you did the back-end angled parking, then you're pulling back out onto the street, and at that time we're forcing all the vehicles into the end of that neighborhood where they're then going to have to turn around. And since it's a private street, we don't have a full cul-de-sac back there. Wouldn't that depend on the angle? I don't follow that, but maybe I'm just missing it. Okay. Al said no, too. Right. Okay. Well, I just know, having lived in Heartland on a private street, what a nightmare it was. And I see this as a really nice enhancement, having that experience. It was a nightmare for us. We have parking on one side, and I do disagree. Sorry, Greg. But I do disagree with having parking on the opposite side from hydrants. Fire trucks, if there were cars parked there and there were some fires on our street a few times, lightning strikes and that, fire trucks, because of cars on the other side of the street and nobody home, couldn't get to the hydrants. So, yeah, you may keep a space because you don't. But anyway, that's a whole other issue. But again, having lived on a private street, and it probably was about as long as this street, I see this as a real enhancement. So I guess I'm just, in my mind, trying to resolve it, and it's not my place to do that, I guess. Right. For traffic, we don't disagree with that it's probably an enhancement. That's kind of out of my, you know, the developer knows what's best. That's his expertise. So as far as an enhancement and providing the parking, that I'm in favor of or definitely not raising any concerns about. It's just how we orient them. Thank you. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. Sometimes private streets become public streets, and so I think maybe that's what you're getting at, that we should have the highest standards here. Yes, ma'am. okay anyone else now Casey I think we're we've done sure I think mr. Owens raised an interesting and valid point about the precedential setting nature of this I think I think that starts and stops with the limited number of residences or units that are served by this by this private street and it's interesting to note on this on this plan and the plan's not up there but on the plan you have a private street and then have you have adjacent to these private streets at two locations uh private access easements they're going to be built the same you're not going to be able to distinguish between that one's different than the other, and the access easements have parking off of them. I mean, it just seems like we've got a very marginal situation here relative to safety. We're worried about a precedent that really doesn't exist. this situation it may it may exist and at some point in the future how many lots do we have units we have up there 43 38 48 i'm not sure how many but that's a that's a very small number that'll generate less than uh 38 trips in the peak hour so you're not going to have a lot of potential conflicts most of the time those streets are going to be empty no cars so i just i just I ask for your indulgence and consideration that this is unique, different. It's as safe as it can be. There's no danger in what we're trying to do here. Okay. Anyone else have any comments? Let me go back and review it very quickly. The activity, the possible motion could be with this 14 to resolve. In other words, they can continue the discussion on and seeing if there's any accommodation that can be made. With that, it means that the staff and the applicant have to get together and try to figure out some alternative ways to work this out. Or maybe the staff can be convinced that what he said is true or maybe it's the other way around. But in effect, what we're saying is that has to be resolved. We're kind of acting here today as though we're the designers of this. That was my fault. I kind of let that get away from us. the bottom line is that's not our job yeah yeah Frank at the subdivision committee that's the reason we didn't that's why we did an approval because we wanted a full commission to hear it resolve will work they'll just have to go back to two sides together and make it work but we didn't feel like in subdivision we couldn't come to a decision so we want the full commission to hear it so mr berkeley okay have at it i'm sorry before before we take a motion i just want to remind the commission that the requirement of the ordinance for backing into the street that that is a requirement of the zoning ordinance so we don't want to set up a situation where we're violating the ordinance on the development plans so we would approve of a resolution with traffic engineering to work those out okay this requirement in the zoning ordinance 16-2 the plan is in violation of that and so there is a what casey miss calquer said from traffic engineering is there's a potential resolution out there that would not violate the ordinance. I think it's important to know what the rules are and that we're following. There's not really a variance to this portion of the ordinance because it's not a dimensional requirement. It just says you have to maneuver on the property, not in the street. Well, that's an interesting comment that you made because quite frankly, you all need to work it out. yes just don't ask yeah one question in regards to that tracy is that public street or private street with the ordinance the ordinance right at the end says encourage or require the backing onto or maneuvering within the right-of-way of any public or private street encourage well in no case shall permit off-street parking areas that back into maneuvering it it has to do with backing into the right-of-way whether it's a private street or a public street okay yeah well thank you okay I think for the most part again we're gonna have to leave that with the professionals to deal with that as such Mr. Berkeley I've got one other question. I thought you were. I need to understand this. You, Tom, I think you mentioned that by the streets, for some reason, that that would eliminate this issue. They could then have parking on both sides of the street at 30 feet. Not what's proposed. Not what's proposed. I just wanted to clarify. All right. Well, I don't think we're going to decide this today, does it? No. I'm going to move for approval of Plan MJDP 19-15 with the 14 conditions changing number 14 to resolve. Okay. The motion has been made by Mr. Will Berkley, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve PLN, MJDP, 19 days, 15 Harper Woods, with the 14 conditions provided by staff, removing the word discuss to resolve guest parking along private street. Any other discussion on the motion? Mr. Chair, if I may, just my personal opinion, I'm not one to go against the ordinance. however I do live in a development that has this sort of off-street parking and I much prefer it simply put it is a private street and very similar to this with with you know limited residential units however I do you know it is better I much prefer it to any on-street parking so just comment okay that's fair enough mr if i may make a comment sure you know it appears and again patrick you share with me i don't know all the rules um you know it appears to me that both sides have declared here essentially and so you know we're going with resolve which is suggesting that it's going to go back to them which i know that's the way we do things but um it just seems like there's already been the discussion and i don't know there's going to be any different that's all it'd be okay uh the motion of course was on the table put forth by mr berkeley second by miss bundy that we approve the plan and the 14 conditions resolving this chair yes i'm going to make an amendment to what I originally proposed. All right. I'm gonna eliminate number 14. I'd like us to vote on it. Oh, that changes the whole motion. Well, that does change everything. I'd like us to vote on that. Let me put it this way. We got a legal requirement sitting up here on this board And I don't know how we can get around that. Well, Mr. Owens raised a good point. Oh, so. . You know, how did that happen out there? Well, a lot of people have some preferences. I don't think we need to get into. Ordinances are ordinances. Right. I've just asked us to vote on it. Well, I hear what you're saying, but what I'm asking you to do is to make sure that we don't vote on something which is out of legal requirement. That's my point. I've asked, and I think the way I've proposed this is that we do it as an amendment to eliminate number 14, and we'll vote on that. And then we'll see where that goes, and then we can come back and vote on it. Let me be clear about it, because what I'm trying to find out is by eliminating number 14, are we in any legal peril because of that requirement sitting up there? They'll have to meet the ordinance, period. It says that on the agenda, when they file a plan, everything, they have to meet the ordinance. So eliminating the condition doesn't help you. Which govern private streets virtually identically to public streets. That's right. So from the chair's perspective, we can't allow one another to vote on an amendment of any kind which is out of compliance legally. So I'm sorry, Mr. Berkley, I won't entertain that. We'll have to go back to the... I know that. You did try. All right. The motion. You've heard the motion. You've heard the second has been made by Ms. Mundy. Would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay. The motion carries. Thank you. Now, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to have to move, unfortunately, because the council will be meeting here. So if you would, Cheryl and Lauren, where are they in the hallway already? If you go to the hallway, they will direct you to the.