# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - April 25, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 25, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4741 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4741?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-04-25 - **Last revised**: April 25, 2019 - **Length**: 29,130 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on April 25, 2019, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. The commission addressed two major agenda items during the session, both involving zoning map amendments and development plans for significant residential projects in the area. The commission took action on two motions during the meeting, with one item receiving approval and another being tabled for future consideration. The approved item was the Clover Communities (AMD) Zoning Map Amendment paired with the Baptist Church of Andover (Clover Senior Living Center) Zoning Development Plan, which moved forward with the commission's endorsement. However, the Trust Equity, LLC Zoning Map Amendment and James RB Maccoum, Tract 2 & Portion of Tract 1 Zoning Development Plan was tabled, indicating the need for additional review or information before a final decision could be made. Two members of the public provided comments during the meeting, offering community input on the development proposals under consideration. The session focused primarily on residential development projects, with particular attention to senior living facilities and tract development plans that would impact the local community's growth and zoning structure. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on April 25, 2019: • Headley Bell • Mike Owens • Frank Penn • Carolyn Plumlee • Karen Mundy • Larry Forester • Graham Pohl All seven members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included two roll call votes on development-related items, both of which passed by identical 8-1 margins. **PLN-MAR-19-00001: Clover Communities (AMD) Zoning Map Amendment** [timestamp: 03:45] Will Berkeley made a motion for the Clover Communities Zoning Map Amendment, seconded by Bruce Nichol. The motion passed 8-1 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Headley Bell, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Karen Mundy, Larry Forester, Graham Pohl, and Will Berkeley. Voting against: Bruce Nichol. The approval included a condition requiring certification of the development plan within two weeks. **PLN-MJDP-19-00002: Baptist Church of Andover (Clover Senior Living Center) Development Plan** [timestamp: 04:30] Will Berkeley made a motion for the Baptist Church of Andover Development Plan for the Clover Senior Living Center, seconded by Shelly Bell. The motion passed 8-1 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Headley Bell, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Karen Mundy, Larry Forester, Graham Pohl, and Will Berkeley. Voting against: Bruce Nichol. The approval modified the original conditions, with Conditions 8, 9, 11, and 12 changed to be resolved at the final development plan stage rather than at this preliminary approval. Both items received broad support from the commission, with Bruce Nichol casting the sole dissenting vote on each matter. Will Berkeley served as the primary motion maker for both development proposals. ## Public Comment Two residents addressed the board during the public comment period, both expressing opposition to the Clover Communities Development project. **Edwin Gibson** [timestamp: 02:30] spoke first, raising concerns about the development's potential impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Gibson specifically highlighted issues with architectural standards and expressed worry that the project could lead to a reduction in local property values. **Irvin Hearst** [timestamp: 02:45] followed with additional opposition to the Clover Communities Development. Hearst focused his comments on the project's size, arguing that the scale of the development would negatively affect the established character of the neighborhood. Both speakers concentrated their remarks on the same development project, indicating coordinated community concern about the proposal's effects on their area. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one primary contested item that drew significant community opposition. **Clover Communities Development** The Clover Communities Development proposal faced substantial pushback from local residents during the public comment period. Community members voiced multiple concerns about the project's potential impact on their neighborhood. Residents specifically cited three main areas of opposition: • **Neighborhood Character**: Community members expressed worry that the development would alter the existing character and feel of their neighborhood • **Property Values**: Residents raised concerns about potential negative impacts on surrounding property values • **Traffic Impact**: The community highlighted anticipated traffic increases and related congestion issues as a significant concern The opposition appeared to be organized, with multiple residents speaking against the proposal during the public comment portion of the meeting. However, the extracted data does not indicate the specific outcome of this contested item or whether any formal action was taken by the governing body. The nature of the opposition suggests this was a significant community concern that required careful consideration by the decision-making body, though the final resolution of these concerns is not documented in the available information. ## Clover Communities (AMD) Zoning Map Amendment & Baptist Church of Andover (Clover Senior Living Center) Zoning Development Plan [timestamp: 01:00] The council considered an ordinance for a zoning map amendment to change the designation from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to High Density Apartment (R-4) for a proposed senior housing development. The project involves Clover Communities (AMD) and the Baptist Church of Andover for the Clover Senior Living Center. Key speakers during the discussion included Nick Nicholson, Edwin Gibson, and Irvin Hearst, who presented details about the proposed development and zoning change. The zoning amendment was necessary to accommodate the planned senior living facility, which requires higher density residential zoning than the current agricultural designation allows. The change from A-U to R-4 zoning would permit the construction and operation of the senior housing community. Following discussion of the proposal, the council approved the zoning map amendment, allowing the project to move forward with the appropriate zoning classification for the senior living development. ## Trust Equity, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & James RB Maccoum, Tract 2 & Portion of Tract 1 Zoning Development Plan The commission considered Agenda Item 2, a zoning map amendment request from Trust Equity, LLC involving property owned by James RB Maccoum. The proposal sought to rezone Tract 2 and a portion of Tract 1 from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to Expansion Area Residential (EAR-2) designation. The requested zoning change would allow for single-family and townhouse development on the affected parcels. The EAR-2 zoning classification typically permits higher density residential development compared to the existing Agricultural Urban designation. Following consideration of the proposal, the commission voted to table the zoning map amendment and development plan. No specific timeline was provided for when the item would return for further consideration. The extracted data does not include transcript timestamps or detailed discussion points from the meeting, so the specific concerns raised by commissioners or presentations made by applicants or staff are not available in the provided materials. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MAR-19-00001** — passed (8-1): Clover Communities (AMD) Zoning Map Amendment - **PLN-MJDP-19-00002** — passed (8-1): Baptist Church of Andover (Clover Senior Living Center) Development Plan --- ## Full transcript I didn't feel it, it's all coming out of your heart Whatever you're looking for I'm going to take my way I'm going to take my way I'm going to take my way I'm going to take my way I'm going to take my way I'm going to take my way Just the other night at a hometown football game, my wife and I ran into my old high school flame. And as I introduced them, the past came back to me, and I couldn't help but think of the way things used to be. She was the one that I'd wanted for all times And each night I'd spend praying that God would make her mine And if he'd only grant me this wish I wished back then I'd never ask for anything again Sometimes I thank God For unanswered prayers Remember when you're talking To the man who stares And just because he doesn't answer Doesn't mean he don't care The sum of God's greatest skill Our unanswered prayer She wasn't quite the angel That I remembered in my dreams And I could tell the time changed me In her eyes to it seemed We tried to talk about the old days There wasn't much we could recall I guess the Lord knows what he's doing After all And as she walked away Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to call the Urban County Planning Commission to order. This is April the 25th, 2019. I'd like to welcome those of you in the audience. Welcome to the Planning Commission. Thanks, staff, for your presence, and especially thanks to my colleagues here on the Commission. With that, approval of the minutes. And as I understand it, we have the minutes for March the 28th meeting will be considered at this time. Ms. Plumlee? Mr. Chair, move approval of March the 28th Planning Commission meeting. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Plumlee, second by Ms. Mundy, that we approve the minutes of March the 28th. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, please vote. when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Thank you. Postponements and our withdrawals. Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Nick Nicholson. I'm here on behalf of Ball Holmes, the applicant for, let's see, MAR 19-3 on page 4 of your agenda, item 3 under zone change items. We'd ask for a one-month postponement in order to continue to work with the staff on the possible resolutions for the zone change request. I believe that that is May 23rd. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this recommended or suggested postponement? Anyone on the Commission? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLN MAR 19-3 until the May 23rd meeting. Okay. Mr. Penn moves that we postpone PLN MAR 19-3, Ball Homes Incorporated. It's been seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee. Any discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion carries. Any other postponements on our withdrawals? Okay, then. We're ready to set up for the very first one. We'll be on page one, I think. Clover Communities. Good afternoon. This is PLNMAR 19-00001. This is Clover Communities amended. Today we have 76 letters of opposition, 12 letters of support, and one petition that I will pass to the commission right now. The petitioner has requested a zone change from an agricultural urban AU zone to a high-density apartment R4 zone for approximately 8.4 acres of property located on a portion of 3330 Todd's Road. The petitioner proposes to rezone the subject property to develop a three-story senior housing development with 125 dwelling units. This represents a residential density of 15 dwelling units per net acre. The subject property is located on the south side of Todd's Road behind the Baptist Church of Andover. It is situated between a single-family large lot located on the northwest here and the Andover Club Villas located to the southeast of the subject property here. A portion of the former Andover Country Club golf course is located directly across Todd's Road to the north, and the Andover Woods subdivision borders the site to the southeast and west. The Brighton East Autumn Ridge, Andover Hills, and Andover Forest subdivisions are also located within the immediate vicinity of the subject property. It is bound on three sides by residential zoning, R1D, R1E, and R4. but all areas are developed with single-family residential dwelling units, either attached or detached. The church on the northern portion of the property is proposed to remain zoned agricultural urban. The surrounding neighborhoods are mostly low-density residential, zero to five residential units approximately per acre, and were developed in the late 1980s and 1990s. The Andover Green Subdivision, formerly part of the Williams property, was developed and built in 1999 and 2000. The most recent development, the Andover Club Villas, which was also a portion of the Williams property, was rezoned to high-density apartments, R4, in 2014 and constructed at a density of 5.46 dwelling units per net acre. Again, this is represented here in the northeast in the form of single-family attached houses or a pinwheel design. the amended application proposes proposes to zone rezone the property to the r4 zone in order to develop a three-story 125 unit housing development for senior citizens at a residential develop a density of 15.3 15.36 dwelling units per acre the amended application has also shifted the driveway from the southern edge of the property to the church's access point, splitting the church property. So you can see at one point we had the entryway coming along this side of the property, which is the eastern portion. It has now shifted over and is matching that current access point. The corollary development plan filed in conjunction with this zone change depicts another access point located at putter lane right at the midwestern portion of the site the current development plan is showing a hammerhead termination into the property it is important to note that the purpose of stub streets which putter lane and reuben lane you have right here the purpose of these stub streets are to allow for future development of an area they are meant to continue and allow for greater connectivity which reduces impacts on traffic carbon emissions and allows for a greater connectivity for pedestrians while also increasing the availability for public and private services and accessibility moving into the site itself we're moving to todd's road with these photos here This first photo on the top left is a picture looking into the proposed access from Todd's Road. This is the driveway into the current church property. Looking towards Man of War Boulevard down Todd's Road and then out of the area towards the east. And then directly across the street, this is the golf course property, or the former golf course property, right across the church, from the church. Moving to the rear of the church property, this is where the proposed rezoning is, where they're seeking to do the proposed rezoning. Off towards Andover Woods Lane, towards the rear of the property, directly where they will be seeking to do construction. over towards putter lane in this area and then the church itself viewed back in from the rear of the property we're now shifting over to andover woods lane it is important to note that andover woods lane acts as frontage for this property it's actually the greatest frontage for the proposed rezoning it was meant to connect with putter lane initially they are not proposing any connection with andover woods lane at this time looking into the subject property here down out andover woods lane and over loads lane and then these are the properties that are adjacent to the subject property again i put this photo in there just so that you would see some of those delineating factors regarding the tree stands these were meant and put on the property line so that not one property owner could go ahead and take those out they were also put in there so that we could allow for future connectivity of roadways should those be applied now we're shifting over to putter lane this is the roadway that is seen as the secondary access into the site that they will they are proposing to terminate with a hammerhead looking into the the property again you're seeing the same aspect of the tree line here and then looking down and you can see that there are single family households on both sides very similar to some of the houses that you would see around the area while the staff is generally supportive of the proposed use of four senior housing there remain significant concerns with the applicant's proposal and its relationship to adjoining residential neighborhoods the critical concern that staff has for this application is that it does not adequately meet the comprehensive goals plans goals for connectivity for all modes of transportation for creating an effective and comprehensive transportation system or for providing an accessible place to live for older and or disadvantaged residents for the subject property and the surrounding properties connectivity is important but as we add more density especially at the level that we are adding in the back of a property we must raise the bar for the need for greater connectivity this is not just done for the proposed property but for the neighbors for the purpose of this analysis of the site and the brevity of today's meeting staff will focus on four of the goals of connectivity choice which which allows for the multiple route options and continuous convenient facilities without gaps. Environment and energy, efficient street systems that reduce traffic and congestion, therefore they help mitigate noise pollution, energy consumption and carbon emissions. Public health and recreation, connectivity creates an environment that fosters walking and biking, resulting in more daily activity and a healthier lifestyle. And efficient public services. while connectivity allows for the reduction in response times for emergency vehicles and improves an efficient transportation network for transit schools buses and other service vehicles as exemplified within theme a goal 3b members of the community are asking for positive and safe social interactions in neighborhoods including but not limited to neighborhoods that are connected for pedestrians and various modes of transportation the push within this goal is clearly focused on providing both a choice in the way we get around but also safer connections by distributing traffic on roadways we are able to reduce congestion while also limiting the amount that we drive on a daily basis this is also better for the environment in that it reduces our carbon footprint it's also better for our road network in that it allows for different routes for individuals and services to get around and it is better in allowing for more pedestrian movement throughout our area this is further exemplified by my next slide however i just want to point out with this aerial photography here we are showing that yes individuals from the andover lane neighborhood have their access solely out the hunter's green neighborhood but with an access point added onto andover wood lane and through putter they would have greater connection to different services in different areas as well as a shorter route to a arterial roadway the goals and objectives also call for the promotion of our urban forest in lexington nearby the proposed development is maple leaf forest park currently the distance for individuals along Andover Woods Lane is approximately 0.8 miles. If the applicant were to provide proper connection in compliance with the comprehensive plan, the potential distance from Maple Leaf Forest is approximately 0.63 miles. While individuals are welcome to continue to drive to the site or ride a bike, the typical distance an individual is willing to walk to a public amenity is approximately 1 kilometer or 0.62 miles. By providing such an access, the applicant would be promoting public health by providing walkable connections to public amenities. Additionally, connectivity is imperative to the continued promotion of the health, safety, and welfare of our community. Theme A, goal 4C, states that Lexington is seeking to establish and promote road network connections in order to reduce police, EMS, and fire response times. These calls and services can be something routine, but they often involve life and death situations. The leading causes of death in Kentucky and the leading causes for individuals to seek emergency services is heart attacks and strokes. As such, I will focus on these and the need to have proper connectivity to provide the best and fastest service for those having a heart attack or stroke. Within the chain of survival, the importance of early EMS support cannot be understated. In the event of a heart attack or a stroke, every second is important to prevent death or future damage to organs. Quick EMS response time is imperative to both the short and long term of health of those in distress. If we look at the areas that were meant to connect with Putter Lane, specifically Andover Woods Lane, The current distance is approximately .77 miles from our fire station 21 and an approximate travel time of three minutes. If there was a blockage between Eric Court and Hunter's Green Way, station 21 would need to travel out to Todd's Road, back down Forest Hill Drive, and up Hunter's Green Way for a distance of 2.1 miles and an approximate travel time of seven minutes. before i go further andover woods lane andover green hunters green hunters green way and hunters no place comprise of 88 single family households all of which are accessed exclusively from hunters green way if there was a blockage on hunters green way there would be no access to the rear properties if the applicant were to provide proper connectivity with the surrounding neighborhood the distance from station 21 would be dropped to 0.6 miles with an approximate travel time of two minutes when every second of time is important for the continued health of our community especially those that are in need or distress staff thinks that the connectivity between putter lane is imperative for the densification of our region due to this staff recommends disapproval for the following reasons. The proposed rezoning of the subject property does not meet the 2013 comprehensive plan or the adopted goals and objectives of the 2018 comprehensive plan for the following reasons. The proposed development of the site does not respect the character and context of the area, Theme A, Goal 2A, by properly transitioning in massing. And I will point out, we have taken, staff has taken out height here. this is mainly because the applicant has dropped the height from four stories to three stories in their development plan mr martin will go through that following my priest our presentation here furthermore and so they're going to be sorry the lack of a transition or buffering from the single family residences to the proposed multi-family structure leads to the dominating of the landscape by the new use not an enhancement of the existing neighborhood form theme e goal 1d enhancement suggests both the addition of new services or forms of housing and the inclusion of new development that will not change the character of the neighborhood the proposed development also does not adequately meet the comprehensive plans goals for connectivity for all modes of transportation theme a goal 3b by terminating and this goes into some of the aspects of putter lane by turning terminating putter lane and not creating that connection to andover woods lane we greatly reduce our availability of future connections and limited our limit our connectivity additionally the planning commission must not consider the site from the singular perspective of what is being proposed but from the perspective of how the site can be used in the future as the proposed zone permits more intense land uses. The placement of a multifamily apartment complex well off of an arterial roadway serviced primarily by an access easement and allowing for little room for future modification should the proposed use fail does not meet the best practices. Furthermore, the goal of connectivity and location of this site is therefore heavily tied to the appropriateness of the high-density apartment zone. Without the availability of the proper infrastructure, roadways, and connectivity for all uses within the R4 zone, the rezoning is not appropriate for this location. Finally, there have been no major changes of an economic, physical, or social nature within the immediate area which were not anticipated in the comprehensive plan adopted by the Commission which have substantially altered the basic character of such an area. The zoning committee has recommended approval of the zone change, but asked for connectivity to be made between Potter Lane and Andover Woods Lane, a connection that has not been made at this time. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer. Any questions from the commission? Okay, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan that is associated with this zone change is on page two of your agenda. However, we have handed out revised conditions to you on this lovely pink paper. I would add a little bit of housekeeping on behalf of the audience and the public that may not be used to how our system works and you all are well aware of this, your subdivision committee and your development review staff, as you all are aware, review a development plan as if the zoning was already in place. And that explains a lot of times why sometimes you may have a different recommendation and a somewhat different perspective on a plan versus the zone change. As I know you all are very aware, just wanted to make that clear to the citizens here today. We have Todd's Road in this location, as you can see, with the proposed access, the existing church access here. They are proposing a hammerhead cul-de-sac at the end of Putter on this revised plan that they have submitted. with the access coming into the cul-de-sac and then additional access leading to the various parking areas that surround the building with access around, as you can see, in this location. Additional parking at the rear of this building in that location. Now, this is a revised plan. There are 125 units being proposed. They're proposing 138 parking spaces. There are 35 of those are to be garage spaces, and that's a little over the required, about 40-some parking spaces. The FAR is just .38, and the lot coverage is just .13, and those aren't particularly big numbers. and you can see the size of the lot and a lot of the green space that they have is one reason that they fall well within the R4 in terms of floor area ratio and lot coverage. The total square footage of the building is 141,525 square feet. That is a three-story building. They have done that, reduced it to three stories, and they're proposing 39 feet in height on the building. Now, it would be important to point out that the single family zoning that surrounds much of this site would allow a 35-foot building. So again, this isn't really much larger than what could actually be built on the surrounding properties. And in addition, they're well set back from the majority of the houses that surround the development. Now, your subdivision committee recommended approval of this plan subject to issues that were raised at that meeting, and those issues go directly to the heart of what Hal was speaking of, and that is connectivity and street access, including the relationship to Todd's Road. So if you look at your revised conditions, you'll see that staff has recommended that that access not serve this development, that it go away, it be deleted from the plan. This type of geometry does not meet the subdivision regulations that recommend more even proportions and even geometry. This, in essence, is a flag lot, and they are discouraged. I won't tell you that you can't have odd geometry. It is generally under special circumstances that odd geometry would be approved. Now, you may ask, well, what about the existing odd geometry? Well, this is a remnant piece. This piece has never been platted. Everything around it was platted. And, again, it's very common as we platt our subdivisions, particularly residential, that we use nice, even geometry. rectangular lots and that sort of thing. So what we have here is a remnant piece of land, and that accounts for its odd geometry. But again, this does not meet the intent of your subregs and staff's estimation. In addition, although the spacing works here from the entrance into this development, the Williams property, it does not meet the spacing to the collector. Now, staff is recommending this does terminate putter correctly. I mean, that's how street connectivity works. You either extend it and connect it to a public street or you terminate it. And they are terminating this with a cul-de-sac, which is acceptable under your land sub-regulations. Now, that being said, there's another condition, and staff believes a secondary. I want to stress this. A secondary entrance should be provided into Andover Woods Lane, and it would provide a driveway access and two points of access to service development, particularly in terms of emergency access and that sort of thing. Putter Lane is a very short drive down to a collector and as Hal pointed out, that collector provides good access out to this arterial as well as access elsewhere off that collector and to other parts of our community and to other services. And it also allows, again, good, fast, efficient emergency access. This secondary access will provide access primarily for this development. It would discourage cut-through traffic. I have no doubt there will be some residents that will learn they could cut through the parking lot and get on out and cut a few minutes off a trip possibly. The very reason that this is a little bit of an indirect route will also discourage cut-through traffic. In fact, staff believes it will be primarily residents of this development and neighbors that would basically be using this access point with a minimal impact on the street system. So again, your subdivision committee did recommend approval of this. staff has revised conditions for you here. And staff is recommending approval with, again, removal. Oops, wrong button. Oops, another wrong button. There we go. Of the access to Todd's Road. And again, this is an arterial. And it changes the relationship of the church by adding the elderly development to it. It changes the entire relationship on Todd's Road. The spacing is an issue, as well as when you apply the subdivision regulations, this multifamily development adjacent to Todd's Road, we'd be talking about possibility of a service road. All those standards are intended is to govern access and be sure you have good, safe access. That's their intent, good, safe access, particularly along an arterial. So with that, again, that's one recommendation. We are also recommending that they should denote pedestrian connection to the adjoining Williams and property, again, to allow pedestrians to access public street systems and sidewalks. We also are recommending that they denote pedestrian improvements to Andover Woods Lane shall be determined at the time of a final development plan or final record plan. That frontage that they have on Andover Woods Lane, that side has never had pedestrian facilities built on it. It's a full street, curb and gutter, no sidewalk facilities. And then again, should the board of adjustment approval be required on this relationship? Oh, again, wrong buttons. Oops, there we go. where's my laser should this be approved this access then that changes this entire relationship uh per the boa and they will the church will have to go the board of adjustment and have this approved and that needs to be denoted that that will be resolved on a final development plan should the planning commission approve this access point and then one last item again they come in on putter you see a driveway system and parking yet this appears to be the front of the facility it does have frontage here staff is concerned about good access into the building itself and we think that's something that should be resolved at the final development plan as well and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff any questions from Miss Monday. Tom, you're talking about this is a non-platted remnant piece of property. Was this acreage included in the 17,000 acres that was reported to us that was underutilized throughout the city when we talked about the acreage? I have no idea for sure. I don't believe so. I think because the church owned it, it wasn't considered underutilized. I was not part of that team. that's that's a question for long range just for the record is it yes or no no mr. Duncan indicates no that was not part of it all right thank you any other questions from the Commission members yes mr. Berkeley you said you referenced something about the height you said the the surrounding zoning allows 35 but I missed what you said that the subject was 39 they're proposing 39 feet 39 feet yes sir and then you all would like to see them eliminate the todd's road entrance which would require them to use putter lane right yes sir okay thank you oh and and over and an ex in a secondary entrance driveway entrance on to andover wood as well Mr. Neckel? Yes, Tom, I've got a question. It looks like with this revised staff recommendations, you all are recommending approval if the nine conditions are met. How does that affect the staff's... I'm sorry, on the back as well, there's 14. Okay, the 14. How does it affect, if these conditions are met, how would that affect the staff's recommendation for the zoning map amendment? Well, again, we view these things separately. And the key, of course, will be your decision on the zone change. Any other questions? Mr. Martin, just for clarification, I'm cutting to the chase here. This whole thing now rests upon the access points for the staff's perspective. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. That's all I need to know. Okay, thank you. Applicant? Thank you all. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant Clover Communities with me as well as Rob Jack from Clover and Marv Bloomquist with the Bloomquist design group together I think we should be able to answer any questions that you all may have with regards to the application with regards to Clover Communities itself or with regards to the development plan. Clover Communities is while it's not a known entity here in Lexington it is very much an established entity elsewhere specifically for what we are here today to discuss the apartments for a senior population they have 20 different developments kind of throughout kind of where I would say the Eastern seaboard of New York Ohio Pennsylvania Indiana Michigan and are there building some in Louisville right now as we speak and so they are very much a known entity and so what we are here today to discuss is a possible zone change for just under nine acres to allow for something that our comprehensive plan our housing studies that we have done has said that Lexington has a severe need for and that is basically for what the current zoning regulation zoning ordinance calls elderly housing it is a defined term that basically is apartments for individuals that are 62 years and older we kind of just call them senior apartments. There is no assisted living. There is no medical component to this whatsoever. This is just apartments for people that are above 62 years of age. As you have seen, this is basically just under nine acres of land that's currently zoned AU that is kind of open space right now. I call it an underutilized track behind an existing user. This development would not push out the user. This would allow what we think is a very complementary use to go behind an existing user and let those two uses basically play together. Normally, I would go through basically the comprehensive plan compliance at this point. but since this has been before you all in both committees recommended approval for this the zoning committee did recommend approval for this zone change the subdivision committee did recommend approval for this development plan i did want to address kind of some of the conditions that were talked about because these are in my opinion some very severe conditions the first one i want to point out is number eight it is the kind of topic du jour and what has been discussed the most is the connection to Todd's Road it is this connection right here we will ask you to remove condition number eight from the development plan recommendations we think that this access point is critical not only for this development but also it is for to make sure that the surrounding neighborhoods are able not to be impacted by what is a new development coming in on an underutilized infill like project when i first met with the neighborhood it was very clear that there were three major issues of concern building height building materials and access to the neighborhoods we did exactly what you all have been telling us that you want that we set down with the neighbors we've sat down with the planning staff we took views that it sometimes can be diametrically opposed and we've tried to figure out a way that we can make this project work for us for the neighborhood and also for the planning policies that our community has said that they want we believe that this is an incredibly fair compromise however we believe that this access point is absolutely vital we also think that it is required by the subdivision regulations this is a multi-family development and if you only have access off the local route off the local streets that also is a conflict with the subdivision regulations so we did what we think was very natural we're using an existing access point that is there today to service this property that it currently services. Yes, we are adding an additional use, but it exists today, and we are asking that it remains to serve this property. We are not asking in any way, shape, or form for you to say that this is the only design for this street possible. We're asking just that you do not delete the access point, that we are allowed to continue to talk about the design of this access at the time of the final development. plan. The way that condition eight reads right now, that is not a possibility. And so we are asking that you delete number eight. With regards to, I believe it is conditions now nine, eleven, and twelve, where they are denoting an additional access point. specifically I believe into Andover Woods Lane. I'm not sure what the difference is in the pedestrian connection to the Williams property in showing an access point into Andover's Lane. I kind of consider this to be the same issue. But we only ask that instead of denote on 9, 11, and 12, that we simply just say resolve at the time of final development plan. I gave my word when I sat down with the neighborhood that we would not submit a development plan that showed an access point, whether pedestrian or whether vehicular, to Andover Woods Lane unless the Planning Commission specifically required it. I'm not saying that you all can't require it. I'm not saying that you can't require it today. I'm just saying that I lived up to my word. We don't think it's necessary. The neighborhood is adamant that that connection not go into place, and we simply ask that we resolve this at the time of the final development plan because it's not necessary when we're trying to make the decision, should this piece of property be allowed to be R4 so we can move to that next stage? I have my opinions on whether that's necessary, but again, I really think that that can be saved for the time of the final development plan. But I'm happy to get into why we do not believe just adding an access point right there would adequately basically serve connectivity goals without having an adverse impact to the neighborhood, specifically to this development as well. Now, that was kind of the development plan issues. Usually those are the last things I talk about. But now I do want to kind of get into what we have done since you last saw this plan. When both committees approved this plan, recommended approval I should say, It was very different. It was four stories. Because of meeting with the neighborhood, we agreed to take that down to three stories. As Mr. Berkeley kind of was hinting at, it is now much more of a height in line with what is already allowable in the surrounding areas. The 39 feet is to the ridge of the roof, the true ridge point. To the roof midpoint, it's only 33. and to the building eve we are 27 feet that is very much in keeping with what we do see and is allowed in single-family residential neighborhoods it is also what is allowed on the exact parcel right next door now the other issue that we heard was building materials this really put the cart before the horse for us because we're just trying to figure out if a development can move forward here but we went ahead and agreed their issue was with vinyl siding we completely eliminated vinyl siding we will put it on the record do whatever we need to do to stress we are eliminating vinyl siding it is now a mixture of hardy plank stone veneer and masonry work it will be much more in keeping with again what the existing neighborhood is and the final point was the connection to andover woods i don't think we need to get back into it i've laid it out we don't think it serves the purposes for this development we do not think that it benefits the neighborhood to the extent that it also adds an adverse impact to them and i think you will hear from them as well how much they are against that i thought it was interesting that mr bailey also brought up that the trees were specifically planted on the property line in order to ensure that not a single not one property owner could take them down if we are required to do these pedestrian improvements we are required to curb and gutter and overlaying we are required to put an access point that existing buffer on the property line will come down we do not think that's necessary we think it only would have an adverse impact on the development and on the neighborhood now sorry i did have a close-up of the building and also the kind of abundant open space that we heard one of the other points that we heard from planning staff is that we did not have enough pedestrian improvements we have added a significant amount of sidewalks of trails of park benches of open act activity recreational areas we have added pedestrian connections to putter lane to todd's road and also to the church in order to make sure that these uses again will be able to play very nicely together we acknowledge and we have no problems with putting it on a note that the church is going to have to get a revised conditional use permit site plan in order to allow this to move forward. Allowing this access point would change the relationship for the church. We understand that. That needs to be vetted. That needs to be approved. Again, we just think that that is more of a final development plan issue than whether or not this piece of property should be zoned R4. Now very broadly with regards to compliance with the comprehensive plan we think that R4 is in complete compliance with comprehensive plan. We do think that it's an appropriate zone and we think that it allows for a use that is very much demanded by this comprehensive plan by the housing study and also everything we've been hearing throughout the 2018 comprehensive plan update. We're stressing expanding housing choices. We're talking about having housing that addresses the needs for all citizens. It goes into specify that they need safe, affordable, and accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disadvantaged residents. We are trying to introduce a new use that is not in this area, that is very much in demand, and will help complement and close out this kind of connection. We've had single family. We have rental apartments in the area. We have owner-occupied elderly housing. We do not have any multifamily rentals specifically for elderly individuals. The infill and redevelopment, Ms. Mundy, this kind of gets at your point. If this is not an underutilized parcel, I don't know what is. We have nine acres that we are able to chop off without compromising the existing user, and we're able to put much-needed density into the area. I call that very much an underutilized parcel. We think that this is exactly the type of land use that should go in this area and should go on an AU parcel that's simply open space. We talk about having a desirable community, having the type of community facilities that we need throughout Lexington. We think that the senior living with this type of amenities exactly does that. And this kind of gets back at the urban service area. So much with infill and development, what have you often heard? that infill and redevelopment is just for the downtown core or it's just inside New Circle Road. We all know that that's not the case whatsoever. Whenever you have this type of parcel, you have to take advantage of it. You have to give the residential density that we are now requiring in order to maintain the urban service boundary. If you let nine acres just slip by without having any density whatsoever, you are compromising the concept of withholding or holding up the urban service boundary and that actually is specified in the kind of strategies and approach in the comprehensive plan this is backed up by the fayette county housing demand study we knew what the results of this were going to be before they came we did not know how drastic some of it would be it is very clear that fayette county has continued to grow that it's growing probably more rapidly than we expected and that we have a shortage of housing. What I loved about the Fayette County House Demand Study is it broke it into population groups and it even broke it into what types of housing those population groups are looking for. We found out that just from the time period of 2015 to 2025 that we're going to have 16,000 people age like be within the age group of 65 that were not there in 2015. Some of those involve people that just age into that, but not all. It also includes people that are leaving their communities to come to Lexington specifically for senior living. That's a 44% increase in what was the that population number in 2015. A rise of any group by 44% in a 10-year period is something we have to pay attention to and we're already underserving that population and it's growing. When I said that the study basically broke it down even further into the types of kind of multifamily, the types of single family that the age 65 is looking for, the category that we're here today to talk about said that we need 2,200 more units in Lexington just to serve this population, not to serve above age 65 people, to serve specifically above age 65 people that want to rent in a multifamily complex. That is staggering. We're here to only talk about 125 units to get at that 2200 deficit. So bringing that into kind of a bow with regards to how this is in compliance with the conference plan. It is inarguable that this is a need. This exact type of housing type is a need. It is on a type of parcel that has been overlooked, that was a remnant parcel, that was unplatted, that has ample amounts of undeveloped land that we can utilize and take advantage of to basically take a hit at this type of housing demand. and the developer has done so with the development plan in such a ways as to try to compromise between the neighbors, between the planning staff, and between the feedback that we have heard from you all. With regards to kind of other adverse impacts, we often hear with multifamily developments, it comes down to traffic. You couldn't ask for a better user for R4 land than what we are proposing today. AM, PM peaks of 25 and 33. That is absolutely ideal for multifamily on nine acres. There's a reason why we chose R4. Not only does it allow for the specific use that we think we are, that Lexington has indicated there's a need for and we think works on this parcel, we're also following the development trends in this exact area. The most recent zone change for the parcel right next door is for R4. That is for basically multifamily attached, I guess senior population driven units that is for ownership. This now would add the final component of senior population units that are for rental. Right here, we have the neighborhood that is right adjacent to it. You are dealing with R4. You are dealing with multifamily. You are dealing with single family. R4 continues all the way back through here. You have multifamily just down the road, only about 2.2 miles away. And then a majority of the Andover Forest neighborhood itself is R4. So what did we do? We took a look at where the trends were going in this area, where the needs were, what kind of zones can accomplish those needs, and will this really fit in with the area and what's already there. We thought R4 was an absolute no-brainer. and we've also agreed to limit the height in order to make sure that we are staying complementary to the existing uses while still achieving the comprehensive plans to pull density. Now, the very last thing I did want to say, it's something that came up in the zoning committee, is that there was a concern that this might not be close enough to neighborhood services or grocery stores. It kind of took me by surprise, and I didn't have any hard numbers with me at the time, but I can't think of a better lot for proximity to neighborhood services to groceries especially for an aging population you have you know the Todd's Road Center right here the I believe it's Maple Leaf Center right here just in those alone you're under within 0.5 miles you have dry cleaners you have drug stores you have multiple restaurants I think there's 10 restaurants combined right there and just 0.8 miles away this is hamburg we often don't think how close this really is to hamburg you are 1.3 miles from the very heart of hamburg center within two miles there are three grocery stores there's kroger's there's costco and there is meyers all within two miles of this particular site this is a perfect site to allow the exact use that we are asking for today With that, I'm happy to answer any questions, but I do think, like your zoning committee, that you should recommend approval, and I only ask that you change the recommendations of the development plan to delete number eight and change number nine, number 11, and number 12 to resolve at the time of the final development plan instead of denote. you might need to add at the time of final development plan a number 14 but I think everyone understands mr. Martin even said that that is resolved at the time of the final development plan I'm happy to answer any questions if you do happen okay any questions from the Commission to mr. Nichols Plumlee thank you this is for 62 62 and above yes so what other amenities you talked about a walking trail so what makes this place special for senior citizens so to speak if you want to talk more about the actual community Clover developments yeah so within the facility identify yourself yeah identify yourself please Rob Jack with Clover development within the building itself we'll have a community space we have a fitness center beauty salon a library space and in outdoors we have a patio kind of a passive recreation area and then the the trails that mr. Nicholson pointed out and and within the within the community space or the community room we have senior activities geared towards you know that that lifestyle that that segment of the audience Thank you. With the reduction from four stories to three, how many units do you have now? It's 125 units. Okay, thank you. Mr. Nickel. Yes, you mentioned that you met with the neighbors. I understand there's multiple neighbor groups. Can you identify what those groups are and where they are in this map? it was better it was we met at the Andover Country Club kind of the the old clubhouse which is approximately right in here and it was open to all of the kind of Andover neighborhood associations as you all are aware there has been kind of there's multiple different associations now after the purchase of the golf course I believe it was open to everyone I also notified the folks that were in the R4 senior facility or the Jimmy Nash patio homes that are right next door. I've been talking to Edwin Gibson, who I believe is here today. And I think in total there was probably 5,200 people there, I think. Would you say that there are two different groups? There's the Yandiver Woods Lane group, and then there's the Putter Lane group. Are they separate groups that have different concerns? There is not a neighborhood association for this area right in here that we were able to locate or find any of them. We have heard feedback that Putter Lane does not like that connection as well. We also heard that Andover Woods does not like that connection at all. We chose Putter Lane due to the proximity to the collector. Right here is Putter Lane, and just 100 or so feet down the road is Forest Hill Drive. this is the collector that goes down and actually picks up the andover woods folk adding a connection right there does not get them really to any other collector than what they're already using yes as mr bailey said that it does shorten the distance but this is a neighborhood street that they're already using as far as walkability goes to this park by the way it is approximately the same distance if you go across here than down here I just pulled it up on Google Maps it's 0.6 miles from Andover Woods Lane to the park it's an 11 minute walk so we did not think that that access point was necessary and we very much heard an adamant response from the neighborhood that to do everything we could to not connect to Andover Woods and does the Todd's Road access reduce the traffic on putter Lane oh it would yes without a doubt yes and also another reason why the putter Lane was determined as better is as mr. Bailey indicated there is the fire station right here which makes it much closer to use putter Lane to access this facility in working its way through Randover Woods. Mr. Penn passes, so is there anyone else that would like to ask any questions of Mr. Nichols? Okay, well, please stand by. We're going to go to the community now. Who in this audience would like to speak in behalf or for or in favor of this particular project? Is there anyone here that would like to do that? Okay. How many here would like to speak in opposition to this particular? Okay, first of all, do you all have a community representative? Wait a minute, you've got two different... I got you. I understand. Okay, what I'd like to do, anyone who raises their hand and would like to speak, you will be given an ample opportunity, but I'd like to hear from the community representatives first. So, which one of you all would like to come forward? Okay. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Can everyone hear me okay? My name is Edwin Gibson. I live at 713 Broadmoor Place in Andover Hill. I've lived there for 22 years in June. I've seen lots of development in the community. I've seen it grow up. There wasn't really much past Andover Village Drive when I moved there. Andover Hill, the entrance with the fountain was pretty much the last stop on Todd's Road. Andover Neighborhood Association is the community association that governs Andover Hill. I am here today along with many concerned neighbors as the representative of the board of directors of the Andover Neighborhood Association to express our concerns about the Clover development. In addition, the boards of directors of the Gulf Townhomes at Andover Homeowners Association, that would be phase one, and the Reserve at Andover Residential Homeowners Association across the street from this development have asked me to express their concerns about the Clover development. Collectively, these associations represent 803 homes in and around where Clover is proposing to build senior living apartments. In general, we are not here to object to the requested zone change or the need for senior housing. I signed up for Medicare myself this month, so. I'm officially among the ranks of the seniors. We are aware that the zoning for the nearby Andover Club Villas is R4. We are aware and support the zone change requests of Anderson Acquisition, which is scheduled for hearing later today, to higher density residential and business uses. The concern we have is that the Clover Communities Project differs considerably from the Anderson Acquisition Project, and more importantly, from the existing homes in the adjacent communities, homes which you heard described by staff just a few minutes ago. The Clover Project affects many homes in the Andover Neighborhood Association directly. The building would be directly next door to and overshadow the homes on Andover Woods Lane, Hunter's Green Court, and Hunter's Knoll Place. All of these homes are in Andover Hill. While we appreciate Clover Community's concession of reducing the height of the building, and Mr. Nicholson and the representative from Clover meeting with us and hearing our concerns, concerns and reducing the height of the building. The objection to the height remains an issue as does the footprint or magnitude of the structure itself. And I'm not really sure which staff is approving and which staff is disapproving. I'm going to be quoting the staff that's disapproving a couple of the issues here. Staff expresses this concern regarding the magnitude succinctly in point 1A on the agenda of their recommendation of disapproval, and I quote, the proposed development of the site does not respect the character and context of the area by not properly transitioning in height and massing of the proposed structure, end quote. I believe that issue is somewhat moot now, but again, the magnitude of the building remains an issue for us. What this means to us is that the architectural characteristics of the proposed building conflict with the architectural characteristics or standards of the surrounding homes, again, which staff pointed out, which are one and two and a half story single family structures. Staff's objection in point 1B of the agenda that was on the website also addresses our concern about the architectural standards. And I quote, the lack of a transition or buffering from the single family residences to the proposed multifamily structure leads to the dominating of the landscape by the new use, not an enhancement of the existing urban form. And again, Mr. Nicholson addressed the issue with regard to architectural materials, but I didn't have time to revise my script, so I'm just going to read what I wrote. Most of the surrounding homes were constructed with a requirement in their covenants for a percentage of brick and other substantial higher-end construction materials. In the proposed, those percentages range from 25 to up to 100%. The lack of, and again, Mr. Nicholson addressed this, and if they remain true to the concession that they've made, that would be something. But again, what I wrote here is that this lack of substantial higher-end construction materials in the proposed multifamily structure will contrast sharply with the surrounding single-family homes. This contrast could affect resale value of the homes, thus leading to a reduction in taxable value, which translates into less tax revenue for schools and other important public services. Other concerns will be with the increased noise and light pollution. Given the proximity of the multifamily structure to the surrounding homes, no amount of buffering from existing trees or from the addition of new landscape materials or both is going to reduce these sources of pollution. They will become a nuisance and an annoyance to the nearby homes. Again, as stated in the previous paragraph, these conditions could lead to a reduction in home values and tax revenues. In closing, ladies and gentlemen, I would like this Planning Commission to know that the Andover communities spent the last two years navigating through intense litigation, spending countless volunteer hours and six-figure sums on legal fees to control what would happen to the former Andover Gulf and Country Club. Our goal was to preserve and protect property values by preventing development that is contrary to the existing community-wide architectural standards. We succeeded in buying the former club. and are now able to control the use of that property. The Clover Project is exactly the type of development that the Andover communities fought so hard to prevent on the former golf course. I'll pause so that resonates. And there are many here in this room, including myself, who can attest to the Herculean efforts that we put forth to acquire and control what happened on this golf course. For all these reasons, we object to the Clover Communities Project, and we urge this Planning Commission in the strongest possible terms to not approve the proposed development. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns. Thank you. Sir, could I ask you just one clarifying question? Yes, I'm sorry, questions? Yeah, I know my commission members may have some too, but I just wanted to ask one thing. You're okay with the zone change, but you're fighting against the development plan. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay, that's good. We understand that there is higher density zoning in the area. Any other questions? Yeah. Well, we'll get back to you a little bit later. Thank you. Thank you. I kind of interrupted and used the chair's prerogative on that one. There was another gentleman representing, yeah, come on up. You wanted to represent another neighborhood. Good afternoon. Thank you for affording me a little time to discuss this. My name is Irvin Hurst. I live at 3406 Country Club Drive, which is Andover Club Villas, which is directly adjacent to the proposed development. Let me clarify a couple things, if I can, first. One, we are not a senior living community. We have some senior citizens in there. but we have no restrictions on it. We are just basically a patio home, single-family home, attached BIMWheel community. The second thing I would like to clarify is that our board of directors has never been contacted regarding this proposal. We have had a few of our homeowners have found out through grapevines and phone calls and that and attended the meeting, but I'm on the board of directors, and we have never had an official contact regarding this. Okay. Okay, having said that, Andover Club Villas, just as Edwin's group does, strongly opposes this proposal as it's presented. We have some concerns about connectivity and those things, too, but the staff has covered them well, and I'm not going to dwell on them. I'm going to kind of briefly go through what I think is the most important thing. The city goals call for infill development that respects the character and context of an area. We don't believe this proposal does that. We feel very strongly that it doesn't. They had proposed a four-story building, even a three-story building at 40 feet tall. It's too high and too big to compatibly integrate with the community and the single-family housing. The footprint is huge, and I believe while they've taken it down a story to get it to an almost equivalent number of units, I believe the footprint is even larger than what it was proposed initially. And as Edwin said, we don't believe the architectural design and materials as originally proposed meet the standards within the community. Okay. Okay, this is a current aerial view of the property. And they've shown some aerial views before on some of the other slides, but there have been little bitty pictures in groups of six and things like that. You can see the houses. They're planning to build in this triangle in the back corner here. I'm not sure how to work this, but yeah, right in this area. You can see the houses and the size of the houses surrounding it. I don't have their new print because it wasn't available. It's not online with the state website. But I took the print that they had proposed prior to changing it in the last couple days and superimposed it. That's what they're planning on putting in right in the middle of all those houses. I mean, it's just huge. if you compare that to the size of the houses and the footprint even bigger it just doesn't fit in. I mean that's what everybody's going to be staring at. It's practically in their yards. The parking lots are going to be very close to the houses. I'm like the rest of them. In our community too we don't oppose senior living. We think it's a good thing and there's ways it can be done but we think this completely dwarfs and overwhelms the neighborhood. This is another view. It shows the original footprint in there. And it also gives you more context on the size of the houses compared to the facility they're wanting to put in there. But it also what I wanted to point out is a couple other things is that this is on very high ground. If you look at the contour of the land up there, it's on a very high point within the community and within the area. And even at roughly 40 feet tall, you're going to be able to see it all these areas surrounding. We've kind of driven through and looked at all the areas around there. And you're going to be able to see that basically throughout these communities. Very, very large. The other thing I'd like to point out is some of the buffers and some of the things that are already existing. There's apartments over here off of Maple Leaf. They're buffered by a large green space. There's apartments up here at the corner of Manowar and Todd's Road, which are buffered by a big lake. there really is no buffer, no significant buffer at all in there to protect those homes. So that's what they're going to see something that's just ginormous, basically. We went out and took, got some samples. This is a senior resident facility over in Hamburg. That has materials that are similar to what we have in our community. that has different dimensions and angles and things like that that kind of minimize the way that it looks. If it were the right size and appropriate size and the traffic issues were dealt with, that probably would be a welcome addition to the community. Just not what we're seeing right now. We went out, and I know they've talked about changing it, but we went out and acquired some pictures off of Clover's website of recent communities of similar designs. This is one in Strongville, Ohio, which I believe is about two years old. We would be looking at a design, no matter the materials, a design similar to that. And this is one in Buffalo, New York. And we just don't believe that fits the context and character of our community. And it just doesn't mesh. We're very concerned about having this in the neighborhood. So again, going back to the one in Hamburg, if it were a reasonable size and dimensions were right, it could be done, and that land could be utilized, and it could be utilized for senior development. We just don't believe it belongs here in the way it's being proposed. So in summary, we are asking the commission to not approve this proposal as it's presented. We don't believe it meets goals and objectives regarding protecting the communities. And we don't believe the architectural design, at least we didn't, was compatible. So basically we're asking that this be rejected. Questions? Thank you. Well, we'll get back to you a little bit later if we need to. Thank you. Let me now go back to, is there anyone else who would like to speak? Okay. If you would, just come to the microphone. And because of, let me see, is it, how many people do we have? Okay. Usually we try to put you on a three-minute time frame. So if you will be noted on the calendar here and what have you. My name is Julie Lewis, and I live on Hunter's Knoll Place with my sister. And I'm not a public speaker, so bear with me. I wrote some notes, and I'm going to read them to you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today. I speak for myself, my sister, and many of my neighbors who could not be here today because of work obligations. I'll tell you that we are very much in favor of a new development. on or near our neighborhood, but there's a big concern about the type of development that is positive for our neighborhood and for our city. First, we want development that reflects the current character of our neighborhood, where the majority of the homes are brick and not in excess of two and a half stories. In the area for the proposed development, the many of the houses are only one story. There's a new development of patio and townhomes adjacent to our properties, which we spoke of earlier and I don't think anyone has any objection to this type of single-family development which is a much lower density use of the space and even for senior living if the density was lower and the buildings were lower I don't think anyone in the neighborhood would object to the zone change secondly the ingress and egress into this proposed new development seems very problematic. There are traffic issues currently surrounding our neighborhood. Traffic on Todd's Road is busy and dangerous. If you've ever tried to make a left-hand turn from Andover Village without a traffic light onto Todd's Road, you will very soon learn that the best way to go is to go down and even if it's farther to go down to the traffic light. And it's scary there too to make a a left-hand turn. The traffic on Todd's Road, let me regroup here, in large part the current number of entries into Todd Road without traffic lights is minimal. I believe introducing more entries is even more problematic for all of our public safety. The traffic that cuts through our neighborhood from Maple Leaf also currently creates a dangerous situation as there are many streets along the way where the norm is children's playing outside, riding bikes, playing sports. I've personally seen many near accidents already on Forest Hill Drive. Adding Putters Lane as a new proposed means of ingress and egress into this new development only increases the current issues on Forest Hill and Maple Leaf Drive, which would be a big concern for public safety. this proposed development will also bring noise and light pollution my house backs up to this area and there's already a lot of neighborhood noise and adding this and the lighting would certainly be a distraction to people at night who live on andover woods lane and on forest hill court they will directly face this proposed development and at night it would be very difficult for people and children to carry on their normal lives. I'd also like to state that neighbors in Andover Woods, Hunter Green, and Hunter's Knoll area are fine with the ingress and egress that we have now, providing a safe neighborhood for families and children and keeping traffic at a minimum. I might also add we have existing walking trails within our neighborhood that came with our recent purchase of Andover Country Club, which we paid generously for. The hammerhead cul-de-sac at the end of Putter Lane will only increase the traffic on Forest Hill, which I mentioned earlier is at a dangerous level already. The addition of a secondary access into Andover Wood Lanes seems like the most negative way to impact the safety of families and children in that area. Kids ride bikes, people walk dogs, and play sports in these streets all the time. Lastly, we have concern what happens if this development fails as a senior living community. Then it opens up to possibly more traffic, a younger demographic with more drivers. It's also possible, since the Baptist Church has sold this property, that in the future, when the existing Baptist Church fails, that we have another possible new development that fronts Todd's Road. And again, we're not opposed to a rezoning of this property, only the way in which the development goes forward. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. My name is Carrie Lyda, and I live farther out on Todd's Road. I appreciate the last three speakers so much and also who are residents in the area as I am. The reason I wanted to speak in addition was to really emphasize the point that is that is this space is on a hill in that area and so I appreciated the pictures from the first person who spoke I think city staff and he had a lot of nice pictures showing the the area and the drive and I think what they didn't show as as you're driving to that area it is the top of a large hill over the whole area and then this this gentleman as well talked a lot about how it's the top of that hillside so if it's a 39 feet tall building the lights and the the parking areas and all of that sort of thing that is it's up on a hill so the effective height is actually a lot more than the whole area and so I just wanted to reemphasize that it hadn't really been oh there were there were top of graphical lines on mr. Nicholson's maps but I'm not really good at getting that in my head is what that means as far as height and hillsides but those contour lines are very steep on his on his map showing that's you know this this big hill in the area so I hope that you will take that into consideration as well because that's going to have a much bigger impact with say 35 versus 39 feet except all those contour lines put it up a lot higher and I just thank you all for your public service thank you Good afternoon. My name is Thomas Gadda and I live on Andover Woods. I live two houses away from the current tree line, which is one row of trees. I don't know what the measurement is now, but from the first plan, the front of the building would be 80 feet from my house. That's just the building, that doesn't include the parking lot. The light, the noise pollution, the safety concerns I have. Because in the last six months, we've had four new families move into our subdivision. Because of the safety and the close-knit cul-de-sac, if you will, that Andover Woods Lane is, there are 11 children on that street under the age of 10. 10 and under that are constantly riding their bikes, playing out in their yards. If we have to, and I'm sorry, I didn't get the full list of objections. It wasn't attached to your pink sheet that you have. But if you guys open up to Andover Woods or make that requirement, it doesn't serve to Mr. Nichols' point any benefit to the community. It will add risk to my neighborhood and the children in my neighborhood. I'm very concerned with Mr. Nichols asked the question, would that expansion from the church lead to people going out and adding Todd's Road? I don't think so. I think they will go out Putter Lane because the state is refusing to put in additional traffic lights on Todd's Road. It's very difficult. I'd invite all of you to come out and spend. It's my understanding that only Mr. Forrester lives in the Andover area and might possibly know it. Come out at 730 in the morning and see what the traffic is like and what the safety issues are with the state refusing to add additional traffic signals. It's all going to come back out into the Andover neighborhood and increase accidents and decrease our safety. Everybody else has spoken to the aesthetics and they've all made that point well, but nobody really focused on the safety of the people in the neighborhood, of the children in the neighborhood, and what it's gonna do. On top of the light and noise pollution, there's a significant safety issue. And if you are inclined to approve this proposal today, I'd ask you to at least table it and wait. As of this week, the state has started a new traffic survey out there. They've added traffic counters just past where the entrance for Todd's Road will be, in between there and the reserve apartment complex. They've added it at Maple Leaf. They've added it at the entrance of Forest Hills. If you go out and drive there, the state's concerned about the traffic counts too. So if nothing else, table this deal until we get a new traffic count because there's plenty of safety concerns for everybody out there. That's all I have for you today. Do you all have any questions for me? We'll get back with you, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Hello, my name is Jim Sutton. I'm glad you're all here. I didn't come with any notes. I am here for reasons that Mr. Gibson's already addressed, Mr. Hurst has addressed, and the other two people. We bought our house on Hunter's Green Way because it was in a no outlet zone. and our grandson played out there there are kids out there I think he said 10 on Andover Woods Lane yes I'm a street or so back from there but I still got the notice because my backyard is affected by this thing is it high I think my house sits at 1100 feet elevation that's a little bit higher I believe yes the light's going to be all over the back of my house all the time even with the street in between. I don't think there's any way that you can approve this and respect the character and content of the area. 39 feet I think is totally out of line. Anything which would bring traffic onto Andover Woods Lane really is totally unacceptable because and it does destroy the whole character of our community. So you cannot meet letter a up there at all by approving this thing and uh so i just come here to address okay the height issue the material issue and the access and uh i think i've said my guess well thank you thank you no problem If not, we'll give the petitioner a chance to react to some of the thoughts that you all have provided. And after you hear what the petitioner has to say or the applicant, if you have additional thoughts, you can come back at it again. Thank you all. First, I want to address the concern that I did not get in touch with the board of the adjacent property owners. I spoke to who claimed to be the president and was on the website. He was in Florida. They were having a board meeting the next day. He told me he was going to alert the board about this. I spoke to two individuals in this complex. They sent specific development plan-related requests about this development plan. And so if there was some miscommunication, I apologize, but I spoke to the president, spoke to members got actual feedback on on on this from that development so i i have to point that out um second with regards to what we've heard with uh traffic light and noise pollution this is a senior housing development uh as much as they do not want noise pollution and light pollution our residents do not want light pollution or noise pollution in any way shape or form we don't have details exactly on what the lights we use but we try to have very little if any pole lightings on our sites because of the very reasons that they are talking about our residents in a lot of ways are having the exact same concerns we want to cater to our future residents with traffic again it is one of the lowest impacts possible and in order to kind of assuage any other concerns this is for elderly living as defined in the lfucg zoning ordinance if we need to put a note on this development plan that this development r4 is for elderly living and any other change in use to actual apartments or anything would have to come back to this board amended final development plan we're happy to do that we think that anything if there was a change in use it would have to come back here anyways because there would be some type of modification to the property and as you often hear inadequacy of infrastructure in any way that causes an adverse impact is a reason to turn down a final development plan so if this was a suddenly a apartment for all college kids that would have to come here you would have to look at what the traffic impact would be you would have to look at what the noise and light and flood in any type of impact would be and all of that would be fair game and a reason to turn down this development if the access was deemed inadequate at that time architectural design as you all know that is specifically not something that is within this planning commission's purview with that said we have already basically said we're willing to sacrifice on actual materials we're happy to continue talking with these neighborhoods as this process moves along we've already done so happy to keep going with regards to height once again we've been talking with them we voluntarily went ahead and sliced a fourth of our building off that's that's the thing about compromise when you know both people are getting a little bit of pain that's usually tends to be a good deal the kind of last thing i do want to say is that we've heard most of what we heard today was not in opposition to the zoning i believe the andover representative specifically said he was not in opposition to the zone change request i think that's very telling because what we really are talking about what we've spent hours talking about today is design related development plan issues. We are looking to get to that stage where we have the hard conversations about how the roads are designed, how the access is designed, what the setbacks need to be, what the different building characteristics can be. Those are the hard things that we hammer out at the final development plan stage. We're just trying to figure, can we get to that stage? Ms. Wade pointed out that I did not bring findings if you all are inclined to approve it. Since the zoning committee recommended approval, I thought that those would be in the record for you all to use, but that is my mistake entirely. I'm happy to give you all some verbal findings if you all feel the need to, but I also believe that you all are more than capable of yourselves if you are inclined whatsoever to approve this project. I've indicated what the condition changes would be for the development plan but otherwise I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. We'll get back. We may have a chance here at the end to do it but now I'm going to go back to the community representatives. Do you all have any additional react? Okay well just come right on up here sir. Edwin Gibson again. Just one point on the safety issue. I'd like to enlarge upon that point. I think I think everyone in this room understands the crime du jour in our community is car break-ins. And we also, I think many of us understand that seniors are very susceptible to crime more so than other folks. I manage, in addition to living in Andover Hill, I manage Andover Hill, Andover Forest and many of the communities that are in the area. And I can't tell you how often I hear about this car break-in situation. With the addition of 125 units, most of which will probably have at least one car, perhaps more, that's going to be an attractive nuisance to the folks who come through these communities looking for low-hanging fruit. In other words, breaking into these cars. So in addition to the concerns that were expressed about traffic, and we don't disagree with the current plan that they have now, We would object if it does come through, the traffic comes through or is routed through Andover Hill or Andover Woods Lane, because, again, that is going to create more opportunity for these, and I say young criminals because that is the profile, to come through and there's going to be more opportunity for them. So that is a safety issue. It's a criminal issue. It's going to be more taxing on our police force who are already, I'm sure, taxed to the limit. So anyway, I just wanted to make that point. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. And as you come forward, please react to the comments made by the petitioner. The question we have here is that did anything that the petitioner or the applicant indicated that you felt uncomfortable about whatever? Okay. Go ahead. I just wanted to respond to Mr. Nicholson's statement about that they slashed one-third of the building when they went from a four-story to a three-story, as I understood it. It's my understanding that the number of units remained the same and the footprint just got bigger. So the scale, yes, it reduced in height, but it widened out and took on a larger footprint is my understanding. I just wanted to make sure that was stated. Okay, good point. And also, I think they went from four floors down to three, so it's one-fourth as opposed to one-third. But that's a small technical thing. just okay staff you get you wanna thank you as you know lexington does have a need for senior housing uh... you have been adopting new development plans and adding new zone changes for those purposes so since 2017 when the report that mr nicholson referenced was finalized that does not mean that we should add density and senior housing if we don't have the facilities much of staff's concern has been focused on the interconnectivity and providing those facilities that will best enhance a neighborhood with any type of development plan or zone change that is going to add housing add density those facilities should be available and they should be connected into the neighborhood the individuals who will be utilizing that access into andover woods lane will be those living in that area and coming out to putter lane those are the ones that will be cutting through there there won't be much in the ways of traffic if you look at how traffic moves in neighborhoods cutting back into that neighborhood and then back around back to that collector street so it adds an extra access point out for that neighborhood as well as access for services to get to that neighborhood in regards to the the applicant's discussion of this site with services nearby those services if you add that extra point are actually available to the individuals on andoverwood lane so we're shortening distance we're shortening trips We're lessening our carbon footprint. We're increasing services to those individuals. Finally, we wanted to reiterate that the subregs actually do not prohibit or take away the access to Putter Lane or Andover Woods Lane. It says generally they should not be located on local streets. Additionally, it says in the subregulations that access should may be provided to minor arterial roadways. It is not a given for arterial roadways. So there are some issues with portraying this as one is better than the other. We see that this access into the Putter Lane as well as the secondary access point into Andover Woods Lane is actually a better way of cycling traffic through the local and public street systems that we have that lessens a lot of traffic exiting directly onto Todd's Road, focusing them onto those areas that are already established. If you have any questions, staff, this year, D'Anser. Just give us your points. We'll have a question and answer for all the people here in a few minutes, but have you completed your summary? Yes. Okay. Mr. Nickel? How will you confirm that it's the staff's recommendation or the staff's desire to have access via Putter Lane and via Andover Woods Lane? Yes, it is. The staff believes that anytime that you're seeking a development like this, it should be integrated into neighborhoods. Much of the development plan that we're seeing right here is focused on Todd's Road and then needing a second access point on Putter. As you've seen in this process, originally there was only one access point into the site. Staff is concerned with any large-scale development that seeks to hide itself or kind of nestle itself in the back of a property without trying to integrate itself within a neighborhood, trying to make those proper connections not only for the road system and street system and pedestrian system, but those connections for neighborhood interaction. Much of what the comprehensive plan gets at is not just density and use. It is social interaction. It is integrating into neighborhoods, and it is making a context development that will help everyone out, not just a specific spot hidden away. Okay, we're going to close off the interaction here. What I'm going to do now is allow the commission members, if they have questions of anybody, the neighborhood, the applicant, or the staff, to ask those questions at this particular time. so mr. Owens thank you mr. chair maybe I should have asked this earlier but hearing various concerns and various comments in regards to Todd's Road the possible closure of it I'm just wondering if traffic and or fire department has anything that they would okay any comments or any thoughts anyone from the fire department track okay that question Hi, Greg Lingle with the Division of Fire. The meetings that I attended, the technical review and subdivision meeting, we always pushed that access to Todd's Road. We also pushed Putter Lane. So those were the access points that Fire was wanting to see as far as the development plan. Just for clarification, I'm going to slow one up here. You're talking about two access points, right? Yes, sir. Okay. Yes, sir. We push for both of those that we're providing. One. Okay. Got you. Mr. Berkley. Mike, I think you said something that raises a good question. I don't think this entrance is going to go away if we don't approve a plan like this because it's the church's entrance, correct? so it's still going to be there and my question then is okay it's going to be there are people not going to use it sir the difference is there is currently no access to the back of the property the church is being utilized at particular times during the week and it has a particular amount of traffic that is being funneled in and out of that entrance It does not typically also kind of connect with those peak hour drive times in which many of the people from the audience have talked about in which there's lots of traffic going by and you're going to see a lot of the potential hazards. Okay, you brought up another point that I don't quite understand what you said because you were talking about all these folks getting out on the Todd's Road. At some point, they've got to get out to Todd's Road, generally. Or I guess they could go through Locust Till. But, I mean, you're not eliminating traffic from Todd's Road, necessarily. I mean, you may be controlling where it is on that road. You hit it on the head right there. We would want to be controlling it in certain access points that have been deemed appropriate by the state and are wide enough for view sheds. There are certain aspects of the roadways, especially when you're moving from a collector street to an arterial roadway, that are better suited for high volumes of traffic rather than a driveway which is currently located there. Is this section of Todd's state-owned or state right-of-way? Yes, sir. So they would have ultimate approval anyway as to where this entrance would be? and I'm assuming that during their due diligence they have investigated that. I don't know. Can you confirm that? The applicant had to shift from their prior location to this location at the behestas. So it's been approved by the highway? I do not know if that's okay. No, sir, it has not. It has not been approved yet. Okay, where does it stand? The access point has been approved for the church. They will need to amend their permit if this gets approved by the Planning Commission. so it still needs state approval for the additional vehicular usage that that is accurate it's state controlled this would require a change in permit which is standard for any type right right development that's going on a state controlled road that process goes in through the final development plan so it is i think it is a state that really yes we'll have purview over And if the state turns this down, this changes everything when it comes to what the final development plan looks like, what the level of density that could go on there, everything. I think we need to keep that entrance in play at this point. Okay. Ms. Mundy. I think this is for Mr. Nicholson, please. You stated in my notes, I jotted it down, that there would be no vinyl. It would be hardy board, stone, and masonry. Yes. I just wanted to reiterate that because I'm hearing some complaints about the materials. The final design element that would also contain this information would be included on the final development plan, correct? It would, and we haven't done enough due diligence work. to be able to say exactly percentages and things like that of that material because we don't even know if this footprint would be able to be approved. Okay, thank you very much. I've got a, Mr. Bell? Okay. Mr. Nicholson, while you're there, considering it's a senior citizen living center, how much traffic do you anticipate with that? so i showed at the in the main presentation the morning a.m peak period which is one of the periods that was discussed by the neighbors there's only 25 additional trips total in the pm peak that number is only 33 additional trips the the fact of the matter is the clienteles that are here are not driving at am and pm peak mr nickel yes mr nicholson can you please just quickly restate your reason for not using the staff's recommendation and having an access point at Andover Woods Lane and Putter Lane. So the staff's recommendation for which which aspect of their recommendation? To include both access to Putter Lane and Andover Woods Lane. We think that it does a disservice to this development. We think it does a disservice to this neighborhood. We do not think it's necessary we are meeting the kind of requirements by fire in order to make sure that we have adequate access as was just indicated and I gave my word to the neighborhood I'm not going to stand up here and say that we need this entrance it would be a lot easier for me to have gotten this zone change through today had I advocated for that entryway we don't think it serves it you heard time and time again especially at the end that access points a big deal for this neighborhood and I don't want to give into it until it absolutely has to happen anyone else any questions in which well mr. Nicholson hold it I've got got a couple just a couple questions here related to it first of all zone change I haven't heard anything from the community about that per se but the development plan seems to need a lot of work now right now we had a lot of things that you had indicated to resolve at the final development plan stage most of them all related to access that's the case now I guess I don't want to necessarily kick this can down the street here a little bit but if we put you all back in a room didn't feed you anything but tuna fish for a while do you think you'll come out with a kind of a what's gonna happen here is this in other words is this access on your behalf of deal breaker the second at the second access so the access to Todd's Road is absolutely a deal breaker I think that is necessary no matter what if you all decide that you want access into Andover Woods you know we can't do anything about that we'll have to show it we don't think that it's necessary the neighborhood doesn't think it's necessary but that at the end of the day is very much your all's call. We will show it if you all want us to show it. We just don't believe that that has to be decided today, that that can be a final development plan issue. And all of the resolves, I mean, three of them directly deal with the access just to Andover. And so, you know, I don't think that's too much when they're basically the exact same issue. Thank you. Anyone else? take a break no oh you mean after oh let me ask you this mr. Nicholson did you ever revamp your findings or did he give so I did not submit written findings as I thought since the zoning committee recommended approval with findings that those findings would have been presented today that's my fault okay well we have a commission members requested to speak to our attorney here for a minute so We'll take two minutes. Thank you. Okay. So we'll give you a couple of minutes of breaks to stand up, and then we'll get some consultation here. In session here, if you could. We had some discussion, of course, in this little intermission that I think needs a little bit more discussion, clarification. I'd like the staff to come back to us just one more time related to that second access road and the role that the state plays in this, either approving it or disapproving it as such. Mr. Bailey? Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Martin? I did. He said she can write back. Mr. Martin. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we believe there may be some need for clarification about the access question. So I want to be very clear that the condition that says delete proposed access to Todd's Road and comply the lotting with the land subdivision regulations is just talking about the apartments utilizing the existing church access. The church will not lose its access. The point is that the apartments will not use that existing access. Now, that's number one. And number two is something I hope you all recall you've heard me say on numerous occasions. And I'm going to say it again. You have jurisdiction over a development plan. And you can approve an access point, and the state of Kentucky, they can say no on one of their highways. And by the way, they can approve an access point on one of their highways, and if it's on a development plan, you can say no. and it's happened many times. There are aprons all over this town on arterials that don't go anywhere. Why? Because they weren't granted access by the Planning Commission, although the state of Kentucky was okay with the access. And frankly, it's taken us a lot of years of working with the state to get better access controls in our community. Because once upon a time, I can tell you from all my years of experience, the state didn't believe there was such thing as bad access. And you can tell them I said so. I just wanted to be clear about that. You all have primacy on an access point, and you're supposed to. So I just wanted to be sure you understood. We're talking about the apartments utilizing an existing access. The church gets to keep it. They're going to continue using it. I just wanted to be sure you all understood. What you said, Mr. Martin, is very interesting, and the manner in which you said it is very interesting as well. Are there any questions related to the commission related to this clarification? Okay. In that case, that's it. Now, what we'll do then, if there's no other elements of discussion on this, we'll close this commission to the general public and to the questions and things, and we'll bring it back to the commission for a decision and our motion. Now, do we have anything that we need to clarify? I think we were trying to get some things cleared up legally. Mr. Berkley, did you want to? Okay, I mean, we'll have to take this. I'm the one that asked for the break? Yes, you did. Okay. I just want to say, first of all, thank you to the neighbors and the developers for obviously having done a lot of work on this. What I did here today was I didn't hear really any opposition per se to the zone change, which is the use of the property. And I think it is the proposed R4 is appropriate, is an appropriate use. But I'll say this, that I think the development plan, need some more work, but it is a preliminary development plan, and that's important to note. They're not proposing this as being the final deal. So I'm going to move for recommendation of approval of let's see what's my number here first thing for my number it's on the first page right yeah i'm looking for oh here we are plan mar maybe i should put these on the list this is just Plan MAR 19-001 based on the following reasons. First, the proposed rezoning of the subject property meets the 2013 comprehensive plan by A, expanding housing choices to address all residents of Lexington Fayette County. B, plan for safe, affordable, and accessible housing to meet the needs of older and or disadvantaged residents. by providing senior apartments. C. Supports infill and redevelopment throughout the urban service area by developing housing units on a parcel that is currently underutilized. And D. Uphold the urban service area by utilizing area for development that is undeveloped within the urban service area. So moved. Okay. Mr. Berkeley moves approval of the zoning plan PLN MAR 19-1 Clover Communities with the findings that have been new findings that have been written by our legal department and recommended by the commission. This has been seconded by Mr. Bruce Nickel. Is there any other discussion on that particular motion? Chairman Wilson. Yes. I just want to clarify that you still expect that the development plan would be certified within two weeks. that's typically a part of the zoning recommendation the development plan yes okay that and that was not in the findings that we so noted no that's fine okay then we'll add that if we could to the findings as noted seconder is okay with that amendment as such so we have an amendment to the motion that will include another element and that is certification by the state okay mr berkeley still moves mr nichols still seconds the findings are as meant and as amended with the addition of the new finding that we've stated by staff any other discussion on that particular motion hearing none would you please vote when that comes up on your screens when it when it comes up on your screens okay that motion is has been approved now we go to the development plan and from the community's perspective this is the most crucial part let me also remind the community what mr berkeley said is true i'm not sure how the vote will go but the fact is is that this is a preliminary plan we also have the record of the applicant online as indicating that there will be some changes and they're willing to work with the community as well as with the staff on those changes is that a fair statement okay he let let the record show he nodded yes. Okay. And also from the community perspective, I too would like to, well, we'll get into that later, but thank you for your participation today. Now, Mr. Berkley, you want to make another motion related to the development plan? Yeah, I just want to make one more comment about the access. I do think we need to, given the low projected volume, I think we need to keep the Todd's Road access on the table at this point. We can make it a resolve, and I think that benefits everybody rather than just shutting the door on it at this point. So I'm going to move for recommendation of approval of plan MJDP 19-002 with the 14 conditions changing number 8, 9, 11, and 12 to resolve. Before we move on, just to clarify, you intend for that resolution to occur at the final development plan stage or prior to certification of this development plan? Is that your question, too, Mr. Nicholson? This would be resolved before the final development plan. And I would add, normally they denote that on the preliminary, that this will be resolved at the final development. That's fine. Yes, I don't have, yeah. Okay, the motion has been made by Mr. Will Berkley and seconded by Mr. Healy-Bell that we approve PLN MJDP 19-02 Baptist Church of Andover with the, well, no, not yet, with the 14 conditions provided by, the amended conditions provided by staff. I have a motion and a second on it. Now is the discussion. mr mr pen in all fairness to the applicant and to the staff we don't have any problem with the zone change the problems with the development plan and we are now embarking on a new comprehensive plan we are not here to discuss design we're discuss access we're here to discuss neighborhood concerns and the development plan that will come back to us as the final development plan will be the one that we'll look at to make that decision or whether we go forward with it but i want everybody in the audience to understand that it's not our job up here to design the development it's our job up here to say the development plan meets within the comprehensive plan and what our regulations afford us to do so the other choice we would have had today would have been to approve the zone change and postpone the development plan but with the pink sheet it allows us to go forward with that keeping the same things on the table that mr berkeley was talking about and so i wanted to understand where we are because we're going to be doing this over and over until we get used to this new comp plan. Any other discussion on the motion or any other comments? Okay then let me go back and review the motion. The motion is to approve PLN MJDP 19-2 Baptist Church of Andover with the 14 conditions set forth by staff with 8, 9, 11, and 12 changing from denote to resolve. Any other discussions on the motion would you please vote when it comes up on your screens motion moves 8 to 1 thank you we have had a request and I'm gonna ask mr. Murphy and mr. Billings to please come forward you can what they'd like to do is also the agenda mr. chairman dick Murphy here mr. Billings and I were talking during the last case I have the case on page 5 number 4 Anderson acquisition also on and on Todd's Road near your last one mr. Billings has the next one on your agenda we got talking that we know you have to vacate here about five that we can probably fit the The Anderson one in before that time, whereas the other one may take a little bit longer time. So we talked about switching and having Anderson first and then the Russell Cave one. So that's what we had. proposed to you. The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that a number of the people here today are from the Andover neighborhoods, and the hearing you just dealt with was the Andover neighborhood. The Anderson proposal later on is also involving the Andover neighborhoods, so you'll be asking all these people to stay through a middle hearing to come back at the end. I think that a lot of those people actually will support the plan. I don't know if there's objectors or not. You may want to poll the audience on that, but I'm trying to deal with an economy or efficiency for the Planning Commission today and the members of the audience who are here. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, for the record, the chair has no objection to this shifting in the actual agenda items, and I think the attorneys made a good case for doing that. But according to parliamentary law, the chairman cannot change the agenda. It has to be done with the consent of my colleagues. So if you all are in agreement with that shift, what have you, we can move forward. Okay. Okay, so we will move then to Anderson Acquisitions on page 5. What time is it? 3.36, okay. Well, I've got to be out here by 5, too, because I've got to go. Hurry up, get out of here. I am. That doesn't go on. Right. We are now moving to PLNMAR 19-00004, Anderson Acquisitions, LLC. The petitioner has requested a zone change from a single-family R1D zone and agricultural AU zone to a townhouse residential R1T and a neighborhood business B1 zone for approximately 18 acres of property located at 3450 and 3550 Todd's Road, just down the street from the last case we discussed. The petitioner is seeking to rezone the subject property in order to develop a mixed residential and business development comprised of 88 townhomes and a publicly accessible restaurant. The proposed residential development represents a density of 5.64 dwelling units per net acre. the subject property is comprised of two parcels which are located on the south side of todd's road where the former andover country club clubhouse and driving range were located the subject property is situated between the andover club villas located to the northwest of the subject properties we saw them here before here is the previous zone change and a large green space buffer owned by the golf townhomes of Andover Estates located to the southeast of the subject property. You can see it's this AU area. There's also another buffer represented right here. The majority of the southern portion of the site is comprised of a large greenway that was established following the purchase of the former golf course by six neighborhood associations located in the area. A portion of the Andover Hills subdivision borders the site along the southwestern edge across Todd's Road and north of the north and east of the subject properties is the Andover Forest neighborhoods which is comprised of single-family detached housing. There are numerous established neighborhoods surrounding the subject property including the Andover Woods, Brighton East, Autumn Ridge, Andover Hills and Andover Forest subdivisions. While there There are various types of zoning around the subject property, including agricultural urban, high density apartments, planned neighborhood residential, single family residential R1D, and townhouse residential R1T zones. All are comprised of single family residential development. The application proposes to introduce business zoning and include a potential neighborhood amenity into this area through the establishment of a restaurant. The surrounding neighborhoods are mostly low density zero to five dwelling unit per acre developments and were developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. And much of this is associated with the previous zone change as well, so I will not harp on that too much. The most recent development was that Andover Clubs Villa that you can see here. And you should keep this in mind, just this pinwheel shape of townhomes or a garden townhome, because you will be seeing that in their development plan that Mr. Martin will be presenting shortly. There is a single access point into the site from Todd's Road. The southeast bound portion of Todd's Road has a dedicated right turn lane to allow for safe ingress into the site. The northwest bound portion of Todd's Road has also got a dedicated left turn lane to allow for safe ingress into the site. Despite the safe ingress into the site by a Todd's Road, the widening and straightening of the roadway by KYTC has resulted in increased speeds and traffic flow. As future development continues along Todd's Road, a greater focus on connectivity between local and collector streets should be sought. And new access points to arterials, like Todd's Road, should be limited for future collector streets that are appropriately spaced. Across Todd's Road, there are adequate pedestrian facilities and delineated bicycle lanes on the roadway. There is currently a shared pedestrian and golf cart pathway that connects the subject property with surrounding neighborhoods. You can see this here and then along the boundary over in this area. Again, Mr. Martin will go through their expansion of this internal system. There is also a connection between the northern portion of this property right here under Todd's Road that connects it with the other side of the former golf course. So we can just look into the property itself. This is along Todd's Road. Looking into the site, you see the clubhouse in this area right here, looking east down Todd's Road, and then looking west towards that previously rezoned property. You can see this area kind of drops down in this section. That is the northern portion of the site and where the parking is currently located. You can also see a little bit of where that tunnel access is that brings you underneath Todd's Road. and then looking across the street and these are the single-family households that are across from Todd's Road from this development if we go into the site itself you have a better look at the clubhouse itself looking down into the parking lot and then that access point that takes you into the tunnel and connects you with that other portion of the site you can see a bit of it but if look out in this direction that's where the driving range was at one point and that is where they're going to be doing the primary uh residential portion of this site in which they'll have approximately 55 townhouse units i'll get a little bit more into that the petitioner is proposing to rezone this to construct a mix of 88 townhomes and the restaurant the proposed Residential development represents that 5.64 dwelling units per acre, which is moving into the more medium density, but it is still quite low. The corollary development plan filed in conjunction with this zone change depicts the development of townhomes in two separate sections divided by the proposed restaurant. The townhouse development along the northwest portion of the site will connect to and mimic the architectural styling and construction methods of the Andover Club Villas, these pinwheels, as we were discussing here. The current proposal is that they will access the site off of Champions Way through Country Club Drive, and then there will be several pinwheel structures right there. the 18 townhomes will be situated along country club way and loop south the 70 townhomes proposed for the southeastern portion of the site will access the proposed development from the current access point on todd's road and feed into a private access road system the applicant has indicated that they will maintain the current pedestrian and golf cart pathways and add to them where available. The proposed restaurant will reuse and occupy the former clubhouse with associated parking primarily located in the front of the building, with smaller quantities of parking located in the rear, mainly where you're seeing this practice putting green over in this area. The reuse of the structure represents a non-conformity within the zoning ordinance in terms of front yard setback. If or when an expansion of the existing structure is sought, a variance may be necessary to establish a front yard setback that aligns with the structure. The petitioner opines that the zone change to the townhouse residential R1T and neighborhood business B1 zones are consistent with the 2013 comprehensive plan and the adopted goals and objectives of the 2018 comprehensive plan by maintaining the urban service boundary while increasing the density of housing. The petitioner indicates that the rezoning of the site supports infill and redevelopment throughout the urban service area. Additionally, the Apicano pines that the proposal maximizes the development on vacant land within the urban service area and promotes use of underutilized land in a way that enhances existing form. The petitioner states that the proposed development respects the context and design features of the surrounding area and is compatible with the existing urban form. This is particularly important as they're really kind of connecting with what has been constructed in the past and adding a little bit of density as well as amenities that will be available to the neighborhood. The surrounding open space and the continued use and expansion of the pedestrian golf cart system within the proposed development also provides the amenities that I was speaking about and reduces the dependency on vehicular modes of transportation and allows for multimodal connectivity. This also reduces the need for vehicles and reduces the amount of carbon emissions associated with everyday activities nearby. The petitioner also opines that the reuse of the clubhouse as a restaurant can act as a neighborhood focal point, while adding quality of life opportunities that could attract young and culturally diverse professionals to Lexington. Such an amenity can also reduce vehicular trips or reduce the length of some trips. Staff is in agreement with this justification. Furthermore, while not discussed by the applicant, since the availability of services, including water, sanitary, sewer, and electric, are available to these properties, the portions of the properties that are zoned AU are currently inappropriate. The intent of the AU is to manage the growth of the community to avoid premature or improper development until public facilities and services are adequate to serve urban uses. In this case, the infrastructure available to the property results in the AU zoning being inappropriate. The proposed rezoning of the properties to the R1T and B1 zones is appropriate at this time due to the established and suitable ingress and egress points available to the properties and the compatibility with the surrounding land uses. With the introduction of the new business zone into the area and the need to avoid those uses that can adversely impact the health, safety, and welfare of the community, staff is recommending the use of conditional zoning restrictions. The B1 zone allows for a large amount of amenities and services for neighborhood. However, some land uses permitted in the B1 can be high traffic generators and could result in potentially dangerous interactions at the access point on Todd's Road. As such, staff recommends prohibiting drive-through facilities and automobile service stations. Additionally, the location of the proposed rezoning is located in areas surrounded by established residential developments. To best protect these established neighborhoods, staff also recommends prohibiting those uses that typically result in the greatest amount of nuisance claims. Those include establishments with the principal purpose of the sale of beer, liquor, or wine, and outdoor live entertainment. With these recommendations, staff is recommending approval. Your zoning subcommittee has also recommended approval for this zone change. If you have any questions, we're here to answer. Questions? you when you said establishments for principal purposes of sale of beer liquor and wine and then but you said primarily and you also i think you said primarily outdoor live entertainment i know it would just be the principal purpose of the sale of beer liquor or wine and comma and outdoor live entertainment. So like if there's a restaurant and they have entertainment on their patio, is that prohibited? At this point in time, yes. That's what we are recommending because it's typically when it's on the backside facing neighborhoods, that's what code enforcement and other entities get a lot of calls about. Any other questions? Okay. Applicant? Thank you. Mr. Martin has got to do his thing. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan is on page six of your agenda. However, as before, we have provided to you some revised conditions. I'll direct your attention to this yellow sheet that you were given earlier. Oops, other way. Here we go. Here we have Todd's Road providing frontage for this development, proposed development in this location. Here is the existing access point to the clubhouse, which will be repurposed for this development. They are proposing 70 townhouse units in this location. As you can see, these are traditional attached townhouse units. They are proposing to build the access further into this location. You can see a circle, a cul-de-sac, and then they will be accessed with an easement system, which will mimic a street system in this location. We have considerable green space located here as well to provide, again, green space for the townhouses in a centralized location. Here we have the pinwheels, or as always we're termed, the garden style units that are located here. They are proposed access from an existing access, private access easement in this location. This, of course, is a large water feature that exists as part of the golf course. These are areas here and here. These little groupings, these kind of pods are part, obviously, of the golf course that are being redeveloped, again, with a repurposing of the clubhouse into a commercial activities. The applicant has submitted a waiver request as well, and in conjunction with that waiver request is the requirement that the Planning Commission make a finding to approve access easements. And again, this isn't particularly unusual in these types of circumstances. You see it quite a bit with townhouse developments. And specifically, again, by proposing a private access easement circulation system to provide access to these homes and to these homes in this location, that requires a finding that this body accepts that access easement as being adequate in lieu of a public or private street. As part of that waiver review, initially the applicant was intending for this to be part of that private access easement system. Staff recommends in your report that this be public, and we have had a communication with the applicant that they agree to that. So this section will be constructed and dedicated as a public street. Now, in reviewing this and, again, providing frontage, townhouses are required frontage. They are going to subdivide this property eventually. These townhouses are not subject to the waiver because technically they front on Todd's Road. However, they'll just have pedestrian access out there to the right-of-way. Again, principal access for vehicular access, service access will be to the rear of these units on this system that they are proposing. Staff has reviewed this, and we've recommended approval subject to conditions on your report, principally of a concern that you've heard expressed many times before, that this access easement, these private easements, be constructed to the appropriate public standards. And the biggest issue that staff has, and particularly traffic engineering and the Division of Engineering, is that the depth of pavement be constructed in such a way it can handle the traffic over time. That's the single biggest issue generally that the community faces when a community will come to the council and request that they become public. Well, the problem is if they don't meet public standards, there's a huge expense, a huge expense in bringing them up to public standards. And that is one reason, as you all are well aware, private streets have to meet public standards. So you have the authority when you make a finding that you recommend that they meet public standards on an access easement. And in this particular recommendation, staff is saying to the appropriate conditions, appropriate standards of the land subdivision regulations. Principally, the depth is a concern. It doesn't mean they'll necessarily have to get curb and gutter. That would be a decision that would be made through the improvement plan process with their engineer and the government's engineers. When they review those plans, they will address that issue. As you are aware, streets are not just vehicular and pedestrian movement systems. They are part of our stormwater control systems as well and help channel water as necessary. And so, again, staff believes that that design will be worked out by the applicant along with our government engineers to determine what's most appropriate. There have been water issues in this area of the community. We have received communications that neighbors are very much concerned about that. And as you all are well aware, this is a preliminary. And at the time that a final development plan and a preliminary subdivision plan is submitted for review, the applicant will then prepare detailed infrastructure plans that will address those types of very practical but important issues. A couple other items in reviewing the plan that are important to note. The applicant has submitted a color plan. This is a color plan. They did not get a revised plan in on time. So on your revised conditions, there are several conditions that we added, and that is, you may recall, these units right here are duplex units. They're not allowed in the R1T zone. The applicant has indicated their ability to change that and adjust that. And so the plan that they submit for certification, those duplexes will not be there. they will have townhouses in that location. We have seen an exhibit that shows they can meet that requirement. So that's not an issue for the applicant. And another issue is that the AU zoning that exists, the agricultural urban zoning, that has a more restrictive setback. So that's another condition we've added to your development plan that they'll have to revise it. That's condition number nine. And, again, this plan doesn't demonstrate that, but we have seen an exhibit that clearly shows they can meet that. They have ample room to meet that setback. And they intend to do so, and they will have to do so on the plan they submit for staff certification. And then a smaller, less important matter, but still one that we always talk about, cross movement. And pedestrian movement, they have a nice pedestrian system. They're going to utilize the trails that exist for the golf course. Staff is not concerned about good pedestrian movement through the development, but we do have a condition that will resolve any potential vehicular movement between the two pods of townhouses at time of final development plan. And with that, I'll answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions from Mr. Martin? Okay. Just one quick thing I'm sorry. Mr. Martin referenced some documentation of potential flooding or some ponding of water. I will pass around a document that was sent to staff regarding these elements of this site and the subject property. Okay. Applicant. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I'm very pleased today to be representing Anderson Acquisitions, LLC, which is an affiliate of Anderson Communities. Dennis Anderson is here with us over on your left side. John Strom is here, who's in-house counsel for Dennis. I think he's back there. And Tony Barrett of Barrett Partners, our designer, is here as well. this is a as you know dennis has a history of working cooperatively with neighborhood associations two examples that come readily to mind are townley center and mcconnell's trace and we're proud to say this is another example of that and it's a little different permutation of that today because the owner of this property is a company called andover common property nfp NFP stands for not-for-profit, Andover Common Property NFP, and that is the association of six neighborhood associations that bought this property from the bank which owned it about eight months ago. Nathan Billings is here with us on the second row. Nathan represents Andover Common Property NFP, the group of six neighborhood associations which purchased this eight months ago. and they purchased it with the idea of obviously controlling what was going to go on the golf course. Dennis and the owner, the nonprofit, have been negotiating for the last six months and have passed back and forth plans and other proposals and revisions back and forth many times, And what you're seeing today is the result of the collaborative effort between Dennis and between the six neighborhood associations. We're very proud to be presenting that to you. What's going to happen is that the nonprofit bought the golf course and the clubhouse and the driving range and the swimming pool. Dennis is purchasing only the clubhouse, driving range, swimming pool area and the parking area. The nonprofit is keeping the golf course. My understanding is that the golf course will become green space. It will no longer be a golf course. The old golf cart paths will be foot paths and walking paths through the green space. As a matter of fact, as part of this, we're going to be slightly relocating one of those golf cart paths. The people who live in our development will be allowed to use the walking paths through the rest of Andover and vice versa, the people who live in the existing Andover will be able to use the walking paths through the portion of the property that Dennis is purchasing. Now, we do propose 88 townhouse units on this. If we could go to the first slide, well, I've got the clicker here. We can go to the first slide, which shows our development plan. Now, we have, this is slightly different from when one Tom showed you, we have connected up the two duplexes. They are no longer duplexes. They are four connected together, as requested by Tom right there. We have made modifications in some of the setbacks along there, too. But otherwise, it's the same one that Tom had showed you. The clubhouse building, which is right in the middle here, is remaining virtually as it is. It was built about 30 years ago. It's well-constructed, brick structure. the plan however is to allow it to be rezoned to b1 to allow a restaurant to go in which is not limited just to private club members sort of like the lansdowne club did several years ago the we will utilize the same access point as existing on todd's road we will reconfigure the entranceway a little bit as mr martin mentioned that'll be a public road coming in there mr bailey mentioned the pinwheel style garden townhomes which will be built up adjacent to the property off the clubhouse drive and the thing i want to emphasize most about this is the layout of the townhouse uses the townhouses around here all townhouses along tods road which is here except for this unit here which is facing our entry drive these units are facing todd's road the fronts will be along todd's road they'll the driveways are coming in the back now most importantly similarly along what i guess is a fairway i'm not a golfer but i think there's a fairway here these townhouses which will be constructed will be facing out to the green space which was formerly the fairway so the people walking along this trail here will see the fronts of the houses and the people who live down in this area of andover will be looking across the old fairway and they will see the fronts of our townhouses as well similarly back down here on the southwestern portion these groups of townhomes will be facing out so when you're looking into this whether it be from todd's road or from the roads behind us you're going to be seeing the front presentation of our town homes we will have some interior presentation here for these interior units along the greenway and as you can see we're going to be faced the vehicular access will be in the rear of all these townhouse units i think this is one example of the design uh detail which dennis puts into his development and i think that's one reason the andover community chose him to be the developer of this project going on to the next one this is a slide of the and our andover clubhouse which will remain about the way it is it's been vacant for about a year i took these photographs in february when there was a little bit of snow on the ground the property to the north of us the one to the northwest is the andover club villas you've heard some discussion about today this is a photograph of one of the units one of the connected units in the andover club villas now what will what will we be building right next door to it well right next door right now this is a very large parking lot very large impervious surface which was used as the parking lot for the golf course and the swimming pool this is another shot of it i want to emphasize that that truck that says casino parties that's not on dennis's property that's on one of the backyards of one of the houses that backs up to us this is the country club drive connection right there you can see this little white line that's the gate that's an electric gate which now now blocks access, except for, I guess, emergency vehicles between here. We will be using that, hopefully, as an access way between the two units. Now, what kind of units will we build? These are rendering supplied to us by Jimmy Nash Homes. Dennis is working with Jimmy Nash to be the builder of the units which are built here. Dennis would be the developer, and Jimmy Nash would be the builder. And if you remember my first slide of the villas, these are extremely similar to the villas that are already built out there and will be connected with these. Now what will we be doing on the other side, the southeastern part? This is a picture of the existing driving range. It's a large open area. There's another picture of it showing the large open area. and again this is a rendering supplied by Jimmy Nash homes which is a conception of what the townhouses will look like in this area they're very similar to the townhouses which are on the adjoining portion of the existing Andover now we had some question about what the distances will be between the existing Andover development which is back on Andover Village Place which is right here these are two identical slides one is just an aerial superimposed this is a little easier to read because it doesn't have the aerial superimposed I asked Tony to give us the distance from house to house here and the closest house in the rear that's a hundred seventy-one feet from their house to our house and and from property lines it's about 120 feet, 23 feet. This is the old fairway, the buffering, the distance that will still be there between the houses on Andover Village Place and our development here. As you can see down here on the southeastern part, it's wider. It's almost 260 feet between houses, almost 200 feet between property lines. And bear in mind that the people here will be looking out their back door toward the front of our townhouses. Our people will actually be looking in the back. We'll have the view of the backyards here. So it's going to be a very attractive development and extremely well-screened. You could fit another row or two of townhouses in here if the neighborhood had wanted to develop the fairways, which they're not and that's not part of the property which is which dennis is building moving on here i just have a shot of todd's road just wanted to show you here that at our entrance which is right to the left on this picture right here our entrance into the existing clubhouse which will stay the same location there's a continuous left turn lane there's a right turn lane in here there's sidewalks on both sides curb gutter sidewalk and a four plank horse farm fence this is just a shot of the golf cart we i just put it up there so i can mention to you we will continue to have pedestrian trails through this property which will be accessible to all people currently living in andover this is another part of the shot of the clubhouse again it's been vacant for over a year it was about about 30 years ago this is a shot of the patio i was out there on number below freezing day nothing could go on this in this building for a year or two and it's even with all that being vacant for that long nothing happened and it's a very attractive brick patio with a canopy on it and i'm going to ask you to remove conditional zoning restriction number four which prohibits outdoor live entertainment on this property as i was up there looking at it below freezing in no in February my thought was this would be a really nice place to be come April or May in June and I can see a quality restaurant coming in here wanting to use the patio and possibly wanting to have a musician out here every once in a while now if you remove condition number four does that let us put a musician up here if we get a restaurant in here actually No, it doesn't. And that's because regardless of what you do, outdoor live entertainment is a conditional use in the B1 zone. So if you take the condition off, all that will give us is the right to ask the Board of Adjustment to allow us to have outdoor live entertainment. If you leave it on there, you're just shutting the door. You're saying the restaurant that comes in here won't even be able to ask anybody to have line of entertainment. If you take the condition off, that will just say, well, the restaurant can ask the Board of Adjustment for live entertainment approval. If we apply to the Board of Adjustment, obviously we have to go through the same notification procedures. We have to notify everybody within 500-foot radius, which, by the way, is 248 houses. we have to send letters to to notify them and they would be able to come down to the board of adjustment and voice their opinions but i'm sure that there will be discussion between dentists or the restaurant and the neighborhood association prior to doing that all we want to do is have the opportunity to ask and if you take conditional zoning restriction number four off we will have the opportunity to at least ask. That doesn't mean we can do it, but it means we can ask it. My last two photographs sort of sum up the situation of the club here. I've got my signs on here. You can see the sign says Andover Golf and Country Club, private members only. That model worked for about 25 years, but society changes and it's become a much more difficult economic model to pursue in this day and time, to have a private members-only club. The second slide shows some new signs, show the chain over the entrance to the Andover Club, no trespassing private property, but there is a positive aspect of this, and that is that it is owned by the Andover Common Property, NFP. They purchased this property, and they have talked to Dennis about being able to open this up so we can ask for a zone change to be one, so we can put a restaurant back in there, which will revitalize the clubhouse and allow it to be a community focal point, which is what it was designed to be 30 years ago when it opened in 1989. So we're very pleased with the proposal we have for you. I do need to state that we are in agreement with the staff recommendation, that we are in agreement with the comprehensive plan. I'm not going to go through all that with you. Mr. Bailey did, but it does revitalize the neighborhood focal point. It's an underdeveloped parcel. It's compatible with the existing urban form. green space and open space are abundant it revitalizes the neighborhood focal point and it provides a a positive and safe place for social interaction with within the community all of which are mentioned in the comprehensive plan as mr. Martin mentioned to you we do have a waiver request about the requirements for lot frontage and the finding you need to make to allow us to use the access easements as mr martin mentioned also we are proposing we have agreed that the cul-de-sac in off of todd's road would be a public street but we still do need that waiver for the other town homes and for innovative development that is a needed thing we have you have been kind to grant us that on the great house property and recently on the spur road property so we can do townhouse developments such as these. In conclusion, the neighborhood has purchased this land and Dennis has conducted a six-month cooperative process with them which culminates in the plan you have before you today. he's worked with all six and worked with the seventh which is the Andover Villas which is not included in the ownership group here as well but I know Dennis is very proud to be chosen the developer of this and to be able to work with the Andover community and all of us who work with Dennis are proud to be associated with this as well and we again hope you will approve this and adopt the staff recommendation with our one minor change about removing conditional zoning restriction number four but again we're very pleased to culminate this process with our presentation to you today Tony's here and Dennis and John we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have about this any questions mr. Owens thank you mr. chair mr. Murphy as far as the restaurant and your possibility for live outdoor entertainment. Do you have any estimate as to the distance to the nearest resident not in your development at this time? Yes. Right here. That measurement is 171 feet. right there. It's measured building to building. This one, excuse me, those are our townhouses. I need to get back to the development plan. That would be the measurement from here down to approximately this area. I know there's a spacing requirement in the ordinance, and the board of adjustment would have to review that as well. Thank you, sir. Any other questions for Mr. Okay. Anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor or oppose to this particular development? Mr. Billings. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Strom. My name is Nathan Billings with Billings Law Firm, and it's my pleasure today to speak on behalf of Andover Common Property NFP that's the owner of this parcel. As the commission knows, I sometimes represent neighborhood associations or homeowner associations. As the commission knows, I sometimes represent developers. It is rare that I sit or stand before you today where I'm speaking in favor of a plan on behalf of both at the same time. And so I'm pleased to do that. This has been a two-year process that you don't need to be bored with the details of it, but simply put, Andover Common Property is an association of associations that are six members that represent about 1,400 owners in Andover who collectively, through a voting process last summer, decided to purchase the golf course in a specific proposal to preserve about 145 acres as green space park trails and to take about 18 acres and who sell it off for limited development as a trade-off. We are pleased that through a RFP process where over 800 individuals were contacted, through a selection process, Mr. Anderson was selected, and through a six-month process of negotiation, discussion, hearing owners and board's comments, Mr. Anderson and his team were very accommodating to the owners, to the associations, and our desire to have compatible, comparable developments on this space to the adjacent spaces. I can't tell you the number of hours that the nonprofit board spent weekly, often two to four hours every Monday night meeting with this, and Dennis and his team were there on almost every one of them working with us. I don't have some of the, probably the length of land use that many of you do, but I think that this is almost an unheralded process that a developer and associations, not just one, worked hand in hand. It is our pleasure to recommend approval for both reasons staff has submitted and Mr. Murphy. With respect to the outdoor music provision, there is a live music ordinance that the city has that has certain requirements regarding any noise that crosses a residential boundary line, which would be impacted. Because there is a conditional use under subsection 5 of 816D, we also believe that that can be struck in it because there will have to be a process for that to come back and can be addressed by the Board of Adjustments at an appropriate time if that's something sought. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am? Are you asking to speak? Okay, please come down. my name is Clyde Honaker and I live at 3505 Doral place which is just to the south of the property that we're talking about here that's being developed on the driving range I've got a couple of short videos that I would like for you to look at one of them is of June 6 of 2018 we had a meeting several meetings with members of the different associations to discuss the purchase of the golf course property and i've got just a short video to show you of what our attorney, Mr. Billings, represented to all of the property owners in the Andover area. As a result of his presentations, the overwhelming majority of folks voted to purchase the golf course property. and if you could show that just for a moment. So first, what are the servitudes? The clubhouse parcel has the same servitude we've talked about before. It is a golf course and country club clubhouse with pool, recreational amenities, tennis courts, a restaurant, event space. We have had an offer on that. I'll talk about it in a second. Before that, we don't think we'll have a problem listing that for sale. It is our desire that that parcel should become a neighborhood center that is redeveloped, re-envisioned by a private developer who invests money in it and invites you on the company owners. But then we're going to pay for that parcel. You're not going to long-term. You're not going to pay to develop it. You're not going to put the pool in. You're not going to do the maintenance on the clubhouse. You're not fixing the parking lots. We have to buy this for an interim. The driving range. The only way to fund this deal is that the driving range has to have economic value. Everyone has known this as day one. Now, there's a way out of this, which I think is unlikely, and I'll tell you about it in a second. But the driving range would have a servitude on it that allows 36, or up to 36, which of course means 36. And there were club villas, you only know them as the Jimmy Nash style townhomes, which is just to the north of the clubhouse parcel. If that makes sense. So that's what the economic value from that parcel is going to come from very, very controlled development, controlled in the number of units called density, and controlled in the type of units. Now there may be the developer may position in certain ways, but there's some freedom in a development plan. Whoever buys that is going to have to go get a zone change. It's currently zoned AU. so we're okay the one thing that i wanted to just make sure that you knew of when we voted to purchase this property in june of last year of 2018 we were advised that we were going to have 36 pinwheel style townhomes jimmy nash style townhomes like is at the north of the clubhouse on that property going to be as Mr. Billings said very very controlled development you see what we've ended up with they're asking to for you to approve 70 two and a half story townhomes on the driving range property the overwhelming majority of the folks in our neighborhoods and the six associations voted because of the type of presentation that was made and what we thought was going to be developed. We were deceived or even worse possibly lied to. The Andover Common Property Board should never have agreed to go with 70 townhomes on that property when the overwhelming majority of residents in our six communities voted thinking we were going to have the 36 up to 36 pinwheel style town homes i've got one other video i'd like to show you just a moment of storm water issues if you could show that this is at the south end of the driving range This is just showing some of the, from one of the range that we had. All of the runoff from the driving range goes into one storm drain at the back corner of my townhouse. It's a 20-inch drain that runs nearly 800 feet to the back of the townhomes that are on Amick Way. In addition to the stormwater that you see here, we also have stormwater that's coming off of streets that are in the neighborhood that's also draining into that. What I wonder is what's going to happen now if we have 70 townhomes we have no absorption because it's going to be completely developed with the 70 townhomes. Just watch this for a couple more minutes and then... My question is, can a 24-inch storm drain handle all of this? I don't know where you're going to take the water because it don't run uphill. But you have street entrances, drain entrances, and you can see it's running and it goes. And all of this ends up behind the townhomes on Amick Way that's already in a flood plain, as I understand it. I don't know how we're going to handle that. So my recommendation would be before you approve any type of zone change for this property, that you do an environmental impact study as to what this is going to, this development is going to do to the area. And this is not just an occasional occurrence. It happens several times a year because the property won't absorb the moisture that comes off of it. Thank you. Anybody's got any questions, I'll be glad to answer it. i think someone else raised their hand that they anyone yes come on forward uh ladies and gentlemen thank you very much for allowing me to speak today my name is rick towner and i live at 3529 durrell place obviously um there is something obviously We've got two people speaking opposing this from Doral Place. We are the people that actually live adjacent to the driving range. As Clyde indicated, he backs up to those homes. I'm actually down at the corner, so I'm least impacted by this change. I want you to know that I have nothing against the rezoning of this property. In theory, I have nothing against the developer, nothing against the builder. I met with Dennis here a couple of weeks ago, had lunch with him. I have nothing against the ACP board. However, yesterday I was asked when I indicated that I was going to speak today what my end game was by addressing you. Very simply, my end game is to get answers to questions that I and probably a lot of people have. And my end game is to hope that you will vote to at least delay the zoning request until you also have answers to some of these questions. Clyde did indicate some of that information there. Basically, the runoff in those things. I asked for a copy of the sales agreement and this private agreement, and I was told that the buyer had not given his approval to release this information to the public. Well, I'm not the public. I am one of the owners, as has been indicated here. I am one of the homeowners. I am one of those people that purchased this property. And I know that as a licensed realtor, which I am, I am a seller, and therefore I should have rights to see the sales agreement and these private agreements that have been given out here. My numerous requests have fallen on deaf ears with the ACP board, the attorney, the HOA management company, and that's very concerning to me. I asked the president of my HOA for a copy, which I was told by a member of the ACP board that he should have, and I got no copy. My question is why? What is being kept from us at this point? Some of the answers that I'm seeking pertain to traffic studies. We just heard earlier today about the whole situation just immediately almost adjacent to this property and what kind of traffic that's going to impact. We're going to add another 90 townhouses here. These are not senior townhouses. These are not going to have limited people going in and out of them as they propose on the senior side of it. These are 3,000 to 4,000 square feet townhouses. A 3,000 to 4,000 square foot townhouse indicates families to me. that indicates probably a minimum of two cars, probably three cars in many cases, you're going to be adding 200 to 300 more cars up and down Todd's Road. I think before today, I'm sorry, I know that Todd's Road is a state street, but you all as members of the Planning Commission will understand that we're going to add these 200 to 300 cars to this area. Then it's also my understanding, I didn't see it on today, but I was at the subdivision meeting a couple of weeks ago. Crossroads Church down the street is asking to subdivide their property and to rezone it for development. That's going to add more cars there. I can tell you that the other day I left at 7.30 in the morning, and the traffic was backed up to this clubhouse that we're talking about, trying to get out of there. It took three lights to get through the light at Man O' War. This is going to add two or three more cars to that. My next question was with regard to the rainwater runoff that Clyde just addressed. Recently, with all the rain that we had, I did notice that there were a lot of ducks in the pop-up ponds that we had. Where's all this rain going to go when we develop 70 townhouses within permeable streets and rooftops? Clyde and I did not get together on this, so these are two separate presentations that we're making here. I know I don't want it in my backyard. I know Clyde doesn't want his backyard, and I know that the homes that are currently on Andover Village Place have flooded in the past when all that rain goes down through their properties. So I think we've got an issue with rainwater. I think we've got an issue with traffic. I was also told back a while back that there was going to be a reciprocal agreement that was going to allow these 90 townhouses to be able to use our properties and theirs. Again, not having any answers, I got a little more answers today with regard to what maybe that reciprocal agreement is. And maybe it's just the use of the golf cart paths. But what I was told was that they were going to have access to all of our property, property that we just personally purchased so that we'd have this buffer. It's not a park. It's our personal property. And I'm hoping that the ACP board did not somehow give up to this private agreement access to our properties. Again, I can't get copies of this private agreement. It seems to be a little bit strange there. The rezoning application indicated 70 townhouses, which will be 2 1⁄2 stories. I find that very interesting when they talk about 2 1⁄2 stories. I'm not sure what a 4-story or a 5-foot third story is up there. It's going to be 3 stories tall. We just heard about 3 stories over building with senior centers. We're, again, looking at 3 stories. So I guess I just don't understand that same thing. And all of our homes that are adjacent to this property are all brick. I think when you just saw the pictures here a few minutes ago, there's brick, there's some siding, there's various things. To me, they look like very nice apartments. They don't look like $500,000 townhouses. I don't know if you've seen our property that we're talking about. i've brought some pictures of and if i might can i share these yes i didn't bring them i didn't bring them overhead these are the these are our properties there's just a couple different views over here but these are the ones that they tell us that the townhouses are going to see I don't see an incomparable nature between the picture that we just saw to these all brick townhouses that we live in that are in fact going to be adjacent to this property. And it's interesting that they've asked to remove number four. I've had to revise my statement that I wrote because I did not realize that they were going to ask to remove the live entertainment prohibition. Because at the subcommittee meeting, I overheard the attorney say, oh yeah, we're going to get that thing removed anyway. So back four weeks ago, his intent was to remove that live entertainment. Now, I live fair ways from there. I don't know who doesn't enjoy live entertainment, but I can't imagine the people that back up to that are going to enjoy live entertainment. So I would ask you not to approve that with removing that one thing. Something that's also very concerning to me is that we were told that the property was a very valuable property. It's my understanding the property's been sold for $100,000 per acre. While that may seem like a lot, the property of the pinwheels, the Andover villas that we just talked about, were sold for $175,000 an acre four or five years ago. I'm curious, and being a licensed realtor, I'm very curious about how property within Andover and within Fayette County has diminished $75,000 an acre in the last five years. I don't think we're getting what we should be getting for that. And then let me leave one more question for you. And again, this was brought up with the retirement community. We're told 70 townhouses, 3,000 to 4,000 square feet apiece at $500,000 plus. I'm real curious as to who's going to buy these townhouses in this density. as again as a realtor I'm not sure I've got any buyers that are going to want to spend five hundred to six hundred thousand dollars for a three four thousand square foot home my concern is that these are going to end up as investment property and rent it we have a prohibition in our neighborhood on Doral Place that you cannot rent your property we did this for a reason and I'm concerned that we're going to get 70 new townhouses that people are in fact going to convert into glorified apartments. Again, what I really ask you to do and what is my end game, I would ask you to delay your decision until some of these questions are answered with regard to the traffic, the runoff, and exactly what is planned here. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Come on. My fellow residents of the neighborhood have addressed almost all of the things that I wanted to address. Not only am I a resident of this, I'm also the developer of Andover Village Place and the golf villas and townhomes of Andover. I'm the owner of Amick Homes, LLC. We developed these a little over 25 years ago. The intent of the neighborhood was to have lower density, high quality, mostly brick residences. I'm not opposed to this progressing. I mean, the time for the golf course is over. We're all sad about that. I can't fix that. But my concerns and concerns of other neighbors who are most directly affected, because we do back up to number 10 and number 18 and the driving range. So we are affected more than the majority of the members of all the associations because it's in our backyard. So in essence, 25 years ago, we purchased and built these homes, mine own included, at the end of the street. So anybody had a complaint, they could come to my door and knock on it. I didn't run away and just pocket the money. the concern that we have was a quality of life of quiet enjoyment at this point in time I can go on my back patio with a cup of coffee in the morning and I have my privacy I will soon be waving it I don't know how many hundred neighbors but that I'll have to deal with the main thing that I wanted to cover that has not been covered one is the homeowners on Andover Village Place and the the golf course townhomes and villas would like to request that as this process goes along and the development goes along that if any variance for the I think right now 25 foot setback is requested that we would be please give a notice individually and as an association for any variance of that setback. The other thing we already have covered very well is the drainage, flooding, and EPA issues. So those, of course, need to be addressed. And the other thing that our neighbors brought up was right now we have an 80% brick requirement for those structures there. The elevations that were shown, I am in agreement with my neighbor, they don't look like they're 80%. They don't look like they are meeting the standards that we had set previously. We have hip roofs. The rendering shows gable roofs. It's a distinct difference in quality and architectural harmony. So that needs to be considered by planning as it goes along. The other thing is I have a neighbor who is currently undergoing heart problem testing in the hospital. He couldn't be here. He wanted to be here. I don't know if this has anything to do with what's going on. But he asked that I bring and read a letter. I'm not going to read the whole letter because we covered a lot of that. But I would like to mention that he says in his letter that he once spent $40,000 for flooding, prevention, and cleanup on his property. And he told me today he has had two incidents like that. He said, oh, I remember I had another one. He also says he's concerned about the flooding on Todd's Road because we do already have flooding on Todd's Road. You can hydroplane on Todd's Road when we get a lot of rain, so that's a consideration. Also, he brings up the specter that we were told that there would be this number, as they covered before, this number of townhomes, and now it's more because I understand everybody's got to make a nickel. You don't do this for fun. But he says that he says there could be a specter of litigation in the future regarding any of that. I don't know about that, but I told him I'd read it. And the last thing he says is the original intent of this great neighborhood was and still remains to be a community of a majority of single-family homes with low density. Let's try to keep our property values in line with the original vision since this is what we bargained for. Our home is not your home, but hopefully we can all be empathetic to the same values that we share. Also, in regards to the business use, I view this as a Pandora's box. I think all of the homeowners who ponied up their money are envisioning, oh, we get to keep the clubhouse and it will be a nice restaurant and blah, blah, blah. That is a great assumption, and I hope it works out. I have my doubts. so the business designation i don't know my my husband's a city planner he's going to come say one word or two he would know more the technical end of that than i do so thank you for your time thank you thank you so much my name is jess sikhon i'm a retired professional city planner practice for 50 years. I have lived here almost 50 years. I'm not opposing anything which is good for the community. I'm not opposing anything which is good for the planning profession. I'm here to share with you through simple letter which I'll make available to the planning Commission members and the staff and let me read it for you. My name is Justice Sekhan. I'm a retired professional planner having lived in Lexington for almost 50 years. I live at 620 Andover Village Place. My backyard is behind and Andover's clubhouse. This letter is being petitioned here tonight to be zone B1. This zone change request is contrary to any of the principles of sound planning practices. It is being proposed in the middle of a high quality residential neighborhoods known as Andover Village. This is a classic case of a spot zoning, whereby it will adversely affect residential property values. I would ask I ask the planning commission to carefully review this zone change request and not set a bad precedent. This clubhouse used as a restaurant should be considered and approved under the zoning clause of conditional use permitted uses. This would enable it to operate successfully as a restaurant such as Merrick Inn or Signature Club in Lansdowne. I would ask the Planning Commission to deeply think through this spot zoning precedent. Thank you so much. Thank you. That's it. Anyone else? Okay, we'll go back then to the applicant for rebuttal of the points. And Mr. Murphy, please note we got a hard stop at 5. Now we can continue, we will continue, but we'll have to continue at a different venue because the city council will be here. Just a couple remarks. I know everybody has very heartfelt thoughts about the neighborhood. I do want to emphasize, though, that Dennis has worked for six months with six neighborhood associations. I don't know how many people belong to those associations. I can tell you, though, how many letters we sent out. and we sent out 248 letters to people within the 500 foot notification range and we sent 62 more out to people within the supplemental area. So we sent out over 300 letters of notification in this area. I think the fact that we dealt with six associations and such a wide notification letter, I think it actually indicates a wide agreement with and acceptance of the plan that has been presented to you today. If we could just get up the development plan, one of the colored-up development plans on there, I just wanted to show you one thing we hadn't pointed out to you previously, and that there is a 200 foot buffer area from the south eastern property line oops i'm sorry the this line right here which is the limit of what dennis is buying this area which is 200 feet wide against the two-story town homes on dorale place is being kept by the Owners Association, and that's a 200-foot wide buffer area between our townhomes and the new townhomes, excuse me, the old townhomes and our townhomes, all of which, as I understand, were built by Jimmy Nash. Jimmy Nash is building these, similar to the ones he built adjacent to the pinwheel-style townhouses as well. So we've tried to do it in a way which is compatible with townhouses that were built 30 years ago. They're slightly different, but as you can see from the renderings I gave you, they are a 2019 version of essentially the same townhomes that have been built around there. So we do have that setback. I just wanted to point that out to you. We have the green space around us, the old holes going around everybody on the road down here. We will look at stormwater runoff. As you all know, we will be looking at it very diligently, and that is a requirement that we have that before you when we bring in our later plans, which you will see, the preliminary subdivision plan, the final development plan, and in addition plans you don't see, the construction plans that must be submitted to the Division of Engineering, Water Quality, and all the other divisions in the urban county government. So this is just the first part, and we will be dealing with the water issues extensively through the development process. On traffic, we were below the threshold of even required to do a traffic study. That's a threshold of 100 new units. We're below that threshold, and we did not reach the level of even being required to do a traffic study. You did see my pictures. You know that Todd's Road has recently been improved in this area. I wanted to clarify, too, I didn't tell anybody I was going to have that conditional zoning restriction removed. I said at the zoning committee, I would probably be asking you to remove that conditional zoning restriction. I have learned through the years that I may never take for granted any action you do, and I've learned through the years that the worst thing I could do is tell a client that I'm going to do something. I never tell them that. I tell them that I'm going to ask to do something on that, and that's what I did, and I said that at the zoning committee. Last thing I wanted to point out is that this is the same density. I don't have the numbers, but I think Mr. Bailey had them in his main presentation. We are at essentially the same density as the surrounding uses here, and we will be probably at the same price range or higher in values of these houses. These are being developed and designed to be sold for sale, as most all of Jimmy Nash's product are, and as the townhouses on both sides of us have been for sale. And again, to revitalize that clubhouse and to make use of it, we have to have the B1 zone, just like the Lansdowne Club over on Lansdowne Drive, I think, is now zone B1. The other one which was mentioned, another fine example is the Merrick Inn. I don't know a little bit about that. They've been around so long, they're grandfathered in. They're not zone P1. They're back in R3 or something like that, and they had to research that at one point. They got a ruling from the Board of Adjustment many years ago that they were allowed to go in in that zone before the zone was changed on the property. So, again, we're proud to have been worked with the Andover Common Property, not-for-profit corporation. a great deal of work has been done not only on Dennis's side but probably even more on the side of the nonprofit corporation that owns this this is a very unique and very creative and to me very commendable effort that the nonprofit corporation has gone through to control what goes on in this property with the input from Dennis and Jimmy Nash and others about what can and cannot work here on this location. And, again, we'd hope you approve this for the staff reasons and with the one issue on the conditional zoning restriction. Mr. Chairman, one final comment. Several of the comments just sort of discussed the process, and I didn't go into detail, So the commission knows, while the ACP board is represented by six HOAs, each one has a representative on there, each one of those representatives went back to the six individual HOAs boards through this process and got each of the separate HOA boards to approve the zone change in the development plan. So this was not a process where you just had six people in an ivory tower make a decision. You had to go back down into the trenches for the actual people who were literally on the streets and fight for setbacks and where the buildings were going to be and buffers. And all of that came back to the end of the number of units as well. And all the material terms of the contract are disclosed in a public meeting two weeks ago that over 150 people were present at, and only two people spoke against this at that time. Okay, thank you. Does anyone? Yes, sir. You can rebut if you'd like. Again, we have a hard stop in about six minutes. so this i'm clod honaker again i live on the row place um you know one of the things that was mentioned here that dennis anderson and i'm sure he's in the room i've never met dennis i don't i didn't like one of the things that he wanted you know it was said that he wants to work with the neighborhoods um you know what his attorney said and if he wants to work with the neighborhoods he should be thinking about what we voted for originally to have 36 pinwheel style town homes on the driving range property not 70 multi-story town homes that he is proposing to build you got the property at a great price i commend him for it he's a great businessman obviously the Andover Common Property Board didn't do their job and let down the property owners in the Andover communities the six communities that make up the Andover area thank you thank you we got six minutes Come on. Again, Rick Counter, I'd like to at least address a couple of things that were said. I think you saw the pictures of the Doral Place townhouses. I don't believe that those three-story townhouses resemble the Doral Place townhouses that will be adjacent. I find it very ironic that many of the same people that are speaking in favor of this spoke opposed to a three-story senior development just down the street. I'm not sure what the difference is. Well, I do know what the difference is, but I'm not going to go into that. So it's interesting that that's the case, that they spoke against the traffic on Todd's Road, and here they're telling you that traffic off of these 90 houses is not going to be a big deal. So with regard to the restaurant and the concept that this is going to be a neighborhood focal point, as the lady spoke after me, it's a restaurant. We all have experience with restaurants. We know restaurants come and go very quickly. My concern is that if this becomes a B1, what goes in there today, what's going to go in there tomorrow when this particular restaurant goes out of business. It's not a neighborhood focal point. It's a revenue-generating entity as a restaurant. If this was going to be a focal point, a park, a green space, a community center, a public square, that is a neighborhood focal point. This is no more neighborhood focal point than the Cheddar's down the street. It's a restaurant. So we've got to eliminate the concept of this being a neighborhood focal point. I think that was the points that I wanted to talk about. Again, I think removing that restriction for live music is a major mistake. The lady that spoke behind me does live there. That was the people I was thinking about. I didn't even know her. I don't know her, so I didn't even know she was speaking about that. I'm sure I'll be able to hear the music down at my house at the end of the street. So thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to depart here and go over to the Vine Street, and there will be people that will lead us over there. Again, the city council is meeting here at 530, so they need a little set-up time for their presentation. So we will move our proceedings over there and continue. Thank you. Yes, Mr. D'Arc. Mr. Chair, if I could give the audience a little more instruction, please. We'll be moving our meeting to the seventh floor conference room.