♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order the meeting, April 24th meeting of the Planning Commission. At this time we will approve the minutes, and we have three sets of minutes to approve. We have February 14th, February 28th, and March 27th, 2008. At this time I will ask the Commission, if there are any comments or corrections, additions to the minutes, please. State so at this time. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of February 14th, February 28th, and March 27th minutes. We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. All those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, at this time we will accept requests for postponement or withdrawal. We'll be considered at this time. If you would come forward. Afternoon. I'm Tom Miller. I represent Miller Samples. They are number three. That's been unanimously recommended for approval, but we would like to withdraw, have a postponement. I've notified the staff, but I notified them after the cutoff date. I would be surprised if there was anyone here either in support or in objection to the request. We would like to postpone it at this time. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Thank you, sir. We have a request for a 30-day postponement. Mr. Salley, what date is the 30 days? That would be your May 22nd meeting. May 22nd. Thank you. We have a request for a 30-day postponement of the Miller Samples Partnership Zoning Map Amendment and Fayette Industrial Park Lot 5C Zoning Development Plan until the May 22nd, 2008 meeting. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement until May 22nd, MAR 2008-8 and ZDP 2008-57. Okay. We have a motion and a second for a postponement. All those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Rena Wiseman. I have another request on page 10. Kevin Krause, MAR 2008-14. We request a two-month postponement. I think that's June 26th. Okay. We have a request for a two-month postponement for Kevin Krause, Premier Villages Zoning Map Amendment and Old Schoolhouse Lane Zoning Development Plan, MAR 2008-14. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of MAR 2008-14 and ZDP 2008-61 until the June 26th meeting. Okay. We have a motion and a second to postpone. All those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Brian Hill. On page 3, item 2, CMW Zoning Map Amendment and Mark Acre Properties. We've made some real good progress with the South Hill Neighborhood Association, but we're not quite there. So we're asking for a one-month postponement until that May 22nd meeting. Okay. We have a request for a 30-day postponement for CMW Inc. Zoning Map Amendment and Mark Acre Properties LLC Zoning Development Plan. That's MAR V 2008-7, CMW Inc., and the Zoning Development Plan, ZDP 2008-34. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of MAR V 2008-7 and ZDP 2008-34 until May 22nd. We have a motion and a second for postponement. All those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Joe Scott. I'm a citizen here objecting to item number four on page five. I've requested by e-mail a continuance of the hearing today. My wife and I were out of the country and didn't get notice of this. The letter that was sent to us was returned undelivered, and we have just had an opportunity to meet with the developer last Friday and have not been able to get fully prepared for this hearing. So we would request that it be backed up one month. You're referring to the Hugh Bennett Zoning Map Amendment? Bennett and Vaughn. Page five and page six. Okay. And it's in regards to a notification that you did not receive? Correct. Okay. What was your address? I checked with the lady on the staff, and she confirmed that the letter that was addressed to me was returned. I think it was subsequently remailed, but I've never gotten one. Okay. For clarification, Mr. Vaughn, Mr. Scott and I did speak on the phone, and his letter to him and his daughter was returned to us for being sent to a different address, but it was addressed by the applicant to the correct PVA listing. When he contacted me, I did put that letter that was returned to us back in the mail to the address he specified. Okay. Thank you. There's more detail I can go into, but I just wanted to bring it before the board at this point. We can get into it on the merits if the continuance is not granted. Okay. All right. Did we get your address today for the record? Did you state your name and address for the record? I think so, yes. Okay. All right. We have a request for a 30-day postponement, I guess, of MARV 2008-9, zoning map amendment, and Bennett-Vaughn residential development zoning development plan on page 5 of our application, and ZDP 2008-59, the zoning development plan. At this time, I'd like to – yes, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'm Dick Murphy. I represent the applicant in that case. And we oppose the motion for a postponement. We'd like to proceed today. We've gotten to a point of our plan seems to be a design review issue between us and the staff on some issues, and it's going to have to be resolved by you all. We did meet with Mr. Scott and Ms. Scott last Friday, and I'm not sure those issues would be able to be resolved either without coming to you in any case. We feel like we've done everything we can at this point, and I don't think any positions are going to change in 30 days if there is a postponement. I think you'd be just hearing the same thing 30 days from now that you would today. So, again, we don't think there's any purpose going to be served by postponing this. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Is there anyone else in the audience, I guess, while we have this application that want to speak to a postponement to this one? Thank you, sir. It's Tom Miller. I represent Jennifer Schnabel, who has the building immediately adjacent to this property on East Main Street. I learned for the first time yesterday that there is going to be a proposed modification to the plans that we had been represented to us was going to be before you today. Apparently, there's going to be a change in the distance from the street to the building on East Main Street. Ms. Schnabel is out of town, but she has not seen the redesign, nor have I, and it seems premature to me, and I agree with Judge Scott, that we would like to see what the design is if there's going to be a variance. And it seems it would be too late to make that design change in the last couple of days. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience? Okay. I'd like to ask the commission at this time if there's a ---- May I address you, Mr. Vaughn? Are you representing the ---- I own the property that is the subject of the discussion. Okay. Yes, please. My name is Bill Justice. I have property at 518 East Main, the subject property in Kentucky Avenue. And we sent out our notice to Mr. Scott, I'm sorry, and Tom, I'm sorry, he did speak with his client, and the variance that was requested to go inside of Main Street was done so because of staff. We're all business people, and the hearing's been noticed, properly noticed, and we'd like to go ahead and be heard today if that's at all possible, sir. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Justice. Okay. Staff, do you have any comments? Mr. Chairman, I would just denote on your agenda, the bottom of page five, you do have until June 12th to hear this request. Also on the agenda, the staff is recommending postponement of these applications for the rezoning and the variance. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sile. Pardon me, the variance. Okay. At this time, I'll turn it over to the commission. You've heard comments from the floor as well as you have the staff's recommendation in our report, so the chair will entertain discussion and or a motion at this time. My question is, the reason this was referred and postponed is to find out if the proposal meets with the downtown frame business and downtown Lexington master plan, and the whole thing was there was insufficient information to determine those factors, and that's why it was postponed. Has anything changed there, or has adequate information been submitted to even review this plan? Your question is to staff, is that correct? To staff, yes. At this point, the staff believes more time would be to the benefit of the applicant, the staff, the planning commission, and the community, and that's why we're recommending postponement at this time. They have not sufficiently provided enough information, we believe, to move forward today. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Holmes, you have a question? Yeah, I just had a question. I guess, has that been communicated with the applicant, the additional information that's needed? I believe it has. Okay. And during the subcommittee, I think it was communicated at that time. Okay. Ms. Phillips? I'm sorry. Ms. Whitman? I'd like to know if there are others here that came for the hearing. Could we get a, I guess, show of hands of those that came for the hearing for this particular application? Okay. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Phillips, you have a question? Okay. Ms. Phillips, commission, would the desired commission to hear this application or? I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman. Please, please do so. At this time, I would like to move that we postpone MARV 2008-9, along with its requested variances, to the May meeting. What's the date of that? The 22nd. To the May 22nd meeting. Due to insufficient information. Okay. We have a motion and a second to postpone Hugh Bennett, Roland Vaughn, MAR 2008-9 and the zoning development plan until the May 22nd meeting. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. No. Can we take a roll call on that? Mr. Holmes? Yes. Ms. Whitman? Yes. Ms. Richardson? Yes. Ms. Godfrey? Yes. Mr. Mahan? Yes. Ms. Rush-Phillips? Yes. Mr. Day? No, I'm just looking. Okay. Mr. Cravens? Mr. Vaughn? Yes. I have five yes and three no. Okay. Motion carries for a postponement. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Murphy? Mr. Chairman, I have another item. Okay. Page two, item one, fortune offices, LLC, zoning and map amendment, and Eastwood unit six, section one, lot six, zoning development plan. We're requesting a one-month postponement. I think all the parties are in agreement with that. I've communicated with all of them. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. We have a request for a one-month postponement for fortune offices, LLC, zoning map amendment and Eastwood unit six, section one, lot six, zoning development plan, MARV 2007-20, fortune offices, LLC. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of MAR 2007-20 and ZDP 2007-113 until the May 22nd meeting. Second. We have a motion and a second for postponement. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Are there any additional postponements or withdrawals at this time? Okay. We will move into our ‑‑ we have one land subdivision item, which I believe is a development plan, and we'll allow staff time to set up. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman. Members of the commission, on page one of your agenda under your land subdivision items, you find DP 2008-36, the reserve at Walnut Grove amended. This is the plan that had to be postponed at your last meeting due to not being posted and signed correctly. The area of the development is out on Walnut Grove Lane, directly across from the Cayman Lane and the Greenbrier development. It is a low‑density development with a 200‑foot setback off Walnut Grove. Here is the street pattern and the building areas of the plan. These are tree protection areas and proposed detention areas. Here we have a pedestrian trail to serve the development. You have adjoining property members here, and I believe a little further out Walnut Grove is the Thomas Communication development. Here we have the urban service boundary and AR land. There are 53 proposed dwelling units. That has not changed. The purpose of this amendment is they've adjusted the road to be further up on the top of the ridge. They've acknowledged the topography of the land and adjusted accordingly. And the effect of this, when they did it, is these building areas were also adjusted in this direction. And so up in here where you originally had a building lot 14, and they continued down here and you had 20 down here, you now have 16 up in this area. So they've adjusted these building areas in the plan. That's the effect, along with the street layout moving in this direction. That's the primary effect of this amendment. You may recall in the previous discussion and approval, the neighbors were very concerned about the environmental quality in the wetlands and the trees in this area. And here you see a tree protection area of approximately 100 feet in width. This plan was reviewed by your subdivision committee and recommended for approval. You can see by your agenda these are our standard approvals. There are 10 of them. And, again, they are your standard sign-offs and your standard corrections to the plan. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions from the commission for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Petitioner. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Rory Cayley with EA Partners. Yes, I posted my sign too late last week or two weeks ago. I now have the sign, photo, and affidavit. We are in agreement with the 10 conditions. Two weeks ago I was on the consent agenda. It would have been nice. But we do request your approval. There's also an EAMP compliance statement that staff handed out at the April 10th meeting that is part of this as well. And I believe there's someone here that would also like to speak to this. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. I want to ask staff about the EAMP compliance statement. Do we have a copy of that? Let Mr. Martin answer that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this plan? Mr. Chairman, I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of Rob Rosenstein and David Svetich. As you may recall, we had some considerable discussion about wetlands and impact of detention basins that impacted the properties back here. These are 10-acre tracks off Briar East. Just by way of refreshing your recollection about the debate, at the original application, these detention basins were 25 feet off the property line and about 15 feet off the property line. These are huge basins, 200-plus feet by 150 feet across approximately. And we were concerned about the point discharge into wetlands. This is a study that established wetlands in this area, plus just the compatibility of such large basins right next to these residents' area. Significant trees stand in here. We wanted to be preserved. Following our hearing that we had on this matter back, oh, about 10, 11 months ago, I guess, this body referred by way of a condition of approval to Jim Merriman and go out with others to meet and discuss the issues associated with the development of this property. Based on our concerns, we had meetings with the Division of Engineering, Hiller Newman, the applicant, and the engineers, the E&A partner, and quite frankly, I thought we'd resolve those. They were going to preserve the trees about 100 feet off of the boundary line between the homes on Briar East and the new proposed development, and they were going to move the detention basins, as you see here, reflected substantially away from the wetlands area and the trees and the rear boundary lines of these residential properties. And we were pleased with that. And as long as they develop it as depicted on the development plan, we're pleased with that. However, I have had some experience recently where we had a development plan that was approved by this body and then construction plans were filed that were different than the approved plan, and that caused us a great deal of anguish in another case. I have prepared additional notes simply to provide, and if Barbara will put those up on the screen. Just put the notes, that's fine. We would like simply additional notes which we believe just basically give some level of emphasis that this plan that's before you today will be the plan that will actually be built off of, and there won't be construction plans that all of a sudden move this basin back to where it was objectionable to us. My clear understanding after the meetings that we had with the applicant, his engineer, and Hiller Newman with the Division of Engineering with the LFUCG, is that this is the way it will be built. And if that's the way it's going to be built, then obviously there should be no problem with these notes. And the first one simply says that the plan should be brought back before the planning commission for further review if the construction plans depict the detention basins to be relocated any closer to the common boundary line with the lights in Briar East than shown on this plan. When we met with the applicant and his engineers, they indicated that this is where they would be built. What I don't want to have happen is you all approve this, and then they do construction plans based upon the language that they have as part of their note right now for these basins, which says the detention area size to be determined with construction documents. I think that's too vague and nebulous and creates the prospect of, you know, moving these basins closer than what everybody agreed that their location should be, which is depicted on this plan. The second suggested note is that the tree protection area, the area depicted in green along the common boundary line, shall remain undisturbed to the maximum extent possible except to minimally accommodate the necessary infrastructure and then only along the northern edge of the tree preservation area, which would be this area in here, because after discussion or during the discussion with the engineer for the applicant and the government, it was said that there may be a sanitary sewer line that would slightly encroach in the tree preservation area. And so we understood that. We just want that to be a minimally invasive construction area and not open it up to a destruction of something that, at least at this point in time, everybody agrees ought to be protected. And then finally, you know, a lot of times we have in these cases that if neighbors want to be notified about a hearing, we'll put a note on the development plan that if there's going to be changes in the plan, notify the neighbor, give them 30 days' notice, et cetera, et cetera. I simply said that, and I think that probably they would accommodate me, but I want to make sure that the developer shall deliver a copy of the proposed construction plans to me as the attorney for Mr. Rosenstein and Dr. Svetich at the same time said documents were filed with the Division of Engineering so that I can review them at the same time they're filed with the Division of Engineering, because sometimes the Division of Engineering will grant a grading permit, and then it's too late for me to complain. So I think these are reasonable and fair considerations. I think they comply with your all's decision in this case, and they comply with the agreements that we reached, I thought, with the applicant and his engineers shortly after we had the contested hearing about whether there were wetlands on this property and whether those basins were too close to the existing residential homes. We would ask that you all approve these notes in addition to the plan that's before you today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. I guess at this time, staff, I take it this is the first time there's been discussion with staff about these notes. Would that be a fair assessment? I'm looking to Mr. Martin. And I guess whether or not staff has any comment to these notes at this time. I have reviewed the notes. I had the opportunity to discuss it briefly with Hillard Newman in engineering, Mr. Query, a version of these notes, and now with the legal department. I don't believe we have any objection to the notes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this plan? Okay. At this time, I'll turn it over to the commission for any questions. I'm sorry. Excuse me. Petitioner, excuse me. Thank you. Thank you. I found out about these just minutes before the meeting. Personally, I would be opposed to all three of them just out of principle alone. My client's much nicer. He's agreed to items one and two. He'll put the notes on the plan. Item three, a little background. I'm the landscape architect at EA, not the engineer, and I couldn't get a hold of Al to ask him this question before I had to stand up here. But I really don't believe we want to provide our construction documents to private citizens, attorneys, whoever. If they want to see the plans, they can contact division of engineering, go through the formal request just like anyone else. With that, we would be agreeable to items one and two, and we would request that three was not put on there. Other than it goes on development plan, I'm not really sure how it's enforced either. It's one of those private agreement stuff. Thank you, Mr. Kaling. Again, I apologize for oversight there. Okay. Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, if they don't want to provide me with a copy of the plans, I would simply request that they notify me when the plans have been filed with the division of engineering. That saves me from having to call Hill or Newman every day until I find out that they're filed. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Okay. Any questions, comments from the commission at this time? Mr. King, you have something? Just a suggestion. I think you could change, then, the language of that third note. The developer shall, instead of deliver a copy, I would say provide written notice of the submittal of the proposed construction plans, too, and then continue on from there. Okay. I think it would be best if it was written notice. It just keeps a paper trail. Thank you. Okay. We have some suggested notes on the overhead, notes one, two, and three, and there's actually been a modification of note three. Petitioner, I believe, has agreed to note one and two, as well as providing, I believe, a written notice upon completion of proposed construction plans. At this time, we'll close this portion of the hearing and we'll turn it over to the commission. If you have any questions or comments. Mr. Cravens? Isn't that a little unusual that we would, I mean, that they have to provide the attorney? It's not unprecedented. We've had other development plans when there have been areas of concern where we have required that be done. So, you know, it's not common, but it's, you know, there are a number of times when that's been required. So this wouldn't be something that could become routine, I guess. No. And you would have the chance to review those on a case-by-case basis as to whether you thought it was necessary and appropriate? Ms. Phillips, you have a question? I was just going to suggest, number one, the first paragraph there, I would hate for the plan to move the detention basins any farther away from the common property line and not come back to us for a revised plan because they understood they only had to move, had to come back to us if it moved closer to the common property line. So I think, number one, that first paragraph is kind of inherent in our policies and procedures when there is a revision to a development plan or a subdivision plan. So I almost see that as redundant and repetitive and unnecessary. The entire note. Oh, that first paragraph. Okay. All right. Mr. Holmes, you had a question? Yeah. I mean, I'm okay with the fact that the staff has accepted the notes, but my concern is on number two, when we talk about to the maximum extent possible and to minimally accommodate, I mean, how do you measure maximum extent and minimally? Then someone, whether it be inspection or someone trying to measure what's the maximum extent and what's minimally accommodated. So, I mean, if staff's okay with that, I can accept it, but I sort of see us getting into trying to split hairs into finding what's maximum and what's minimal. Thank you, sir. Staff, would you feel comfortable responding to Mr. Holmes' comment on note two? Yes. That's okay. On note number two, I would point out that our standard tree protection note does require the urban forester to sign off on a grading permit. So we have that level of protection. So I would also note, however, it needs to say tree protection, and I noticed in the last sentence that that still says tree preservation. It is a tree protection area. So with that, editing, I think, would be. In terms of they are required now under our ordinance to minimize their effect on a tree protection area. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Okay. Can we make that correction, I guess, on the overhead to tree protection? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Mr. Graves. I mean, this plan was approved before, right? I don't believe it was. It came before us, but it was a posting. The notice was not posted. I know, but this plan was approved, and then they came back in, and the reason for this plan is to move all the lots and houses away from this retention area and that sort of thing. Is that right? Is that why you're moving them? Yes. First plan had certified. We went out there. We staked the center lines of the street on the ground so they could see what they were looking at. At that time, they decided that the first cul-de-sac needed to shift, I think, 50, 100 feet. It was more than the 25, which I can do without coming here, but, you know, it just helped. I think they're getting some walkout lots with it. So that was the whole purpose. But you said you had it on the consent agenda last time or something? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Honesty got me, I had to tell you. And do you have a problem with these notes? I mean, I'm having a problem with the fact that the opposing side can come in here and just place these notes on there. I think I just find the whole thing a little unusual that these notes are added at the last minute like this. Yes, I do have a problem with them. But the client's willing to go along with one and two. And, I mean, I was talking with Hillard. I'm not sure. Since we have a certified plan, we were going to check and see if the construction documents have already been turned in. See, I deal with the planning, and I'm not always sure what the construction guys have turned in yet or not. So the construction plans are turned in or they're not? We don't know. You don't know. Mr. Cayla, you did say as far as note three, it's the written notice that was acceptable to you? I would prefer not to have to do that at all. But, I mean, the note revised is much better than me having to provide copies of our construction documents to anybody. I can understand. Okay. Thank you. Can I ask Mr. Simpson? Is this a question? Yeah. All right. No, it's an answer. Is it a question or am I going to get lectured? I'm not sure. We closed the public hearing portion. I'm just asking. No, but I'm asking. Okay. All right. Why do you think this particular developer would not adhere to his plans? Well, I thought a previous developer would adhere to the plans. I'm talking about this particular one. Mr. Cravens, I don't have any personal insight in terms of their intention whether to comply or not to comply. I do this based on experience that I've had recently that I thought development plans would be complied with. They were not. We're in court on that case. I prefer not to be in court on this case. The notes I put up there are simply a reaffirmation of the promises that have been made to this body and to me and to my clients about where these basins were going to be. Nothing more, nothing less. If they live up to their promises, they should have no problem with the notes. Obviously, they have no problem with one and two. They've agreed to have those. The staff is comfortable with the language in those. Roy doesn't want to give me written notice when these plans have been filed. He doesn't know if they even have been filed or not. I think it's only fair for a party who's been tracking this case for over a year to at least be given the courtesy, since none are required by ordinance, to say, you know, I've got plans in the Division of Engineering. Go and look at them if you want to look at them. I think that's the minimum amount of notification that ought to be afforded to any citizen, be it lawyer or not, that comes before this body being involved in a case for over a year. So I think these notes are reasonable. And they only reaffirm what everybody has said they were going to do. I don't understand why they would object. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Any other questions, comments? Well, we have suggested added notes. If there's a chair will entertain a motion at this time, if there's a motion. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move for approval of DP2008-36 with the ten conditions noted and with the added notes from the overhead with the corrections that have been made. And the EAMP compliance statement. Oh, and the EAMP compliance statement. Is there a second? Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve DP2008-36, ten conditions and the noted added notes on the overhead, as well as acceptance of the EAMP compliance statement for this property. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. No. Okay, can we take a count? Mr. Holmes? Yes. Ms. Whitman? No. Ms. Richardson? No. Ms. Godfrey? Yes. Mr. Mayhem? Yes. Mr. Day? Yes. Mr. Cravens? No. Mr. Vaughn? Yes. Four yes, five no. Okay, motion not accepted. Not approved, plan is not approved. Plan is not approved. Mr. Chairman? I'd like to make a motion to move development plan 2008-36 as listed on the agenda. Second. Okay, are you as well as the EAMP compliance statement? EAMP, yes, sir. Okay, we have a motion to approve DP2008-36 with the ten conditions on the agenda, as well as acceptance of the EAMP compliance statement. Motion and a second. Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, we'll come to our zoning items at this time, and I'll ask staff, do we have any that qualify for abbreviated hearing? Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to report that three of the remaining items on your agenda may qualify for abbreviated hearing this afternoon. The first four zone changes have been postponed, so moving to page six, item number five, the first item that may qualify for abbreviated hearing is MAR2008-10, a request by William T. Burke for rezoning to a two-family residential zone, R2, for property at 1136 Providence Lane. Staff is prepared to recommend approval of this application before you this afternoon, but at this time we would like to know if anyone is in the audience present who wishes either to comment or object to this proposed rezoning at 1136 Providence Lane. Thank you. The next item that may qualify is the very next item, item six on page seven, MAR2008-11, Stone Road Realty LLC. This is a proposed rezoning to a P1 professional office zone for property at 160 Pasadena Drive. Again, the staff would ask if anyone is present this afternoon. Excuse me, I'm sorry, I think I misunderstood, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Could you come forward? Could you come forward, please, speaking to the mic? Will you get your name and address, please, sir? Mr. Chairman, my name is Frank Lewis. I live at 1134 Providence Lane, which is contiguous to the subject property. Mr. and Mrs. Butler, who are present in the hearing room, live at 1140 Providence Lane, also contiguous. The reason we are here, there has been a complete failure of communication from the petitioner. We have not seen the preliminary development plan. However, a spokesperson for Kentucky Utilities, as recently as this morning, told us that his knowledge of the preliminary development plan called for the use of our driveway at 1134 Providence Lane, and also a possibility that distribution utilities would either be moved upon the property of Mr. and Mrs. Butler, or they would be underground, and which would mean that the petitioner would remove his driveway and use our driveway at 1134. So with that knowledge, I guess we're here to see if we can't all sing off the same song sheet and get some information. Sure, we'll hear that application then. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll have a full hearing on that. Thank you. We'll hear that application. Again, rezoning proposed at P1 for property at 160 Pasadena Drive. We would ask if anyone is present who wishes to speak or comment to this proposed rezoning on Pasadena Drive. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this can be our first abbreviated item this afternoon. The other item that may qualify, we understand the item 7, there are some citizens here that wish to comment on that proposal. The other item that may qualify for abbreviated hearing appears on page 9, item number 8, MAR 2008-13, Tiverton Way, LLC. This is a proposal to modify existing conditional zoning restrictions in a B3 zone for four acres of property at 128 through 130 West Tiverton Way. Again, we would ask at this time if anyone is present who wishes to comment or object to this proposed rezoning on Tiverton Way. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this can be our second abbreviated item. Thank you. We'll be prepared to begin in just a moment. Thank you, Mr. Salih. Thank you. This one is for the residents of Tiverton Way. This item can be found on page 7 of your agenda and behind tab 6 in your notebooks. It is MAR 2006-11, a request by Stone Road Realty, LLC. The request for this rezoning is from an R1C single-family residential zone to a P1 professional office zone for property at 160 Pasadena Drive. The subject property is located on the south side of Pasadena Drive, adjacent to a larger professional office building and also surrounded by, on two sides and then around this area. There is one property left on this side of Pasadena that is still zoned R1C in the immediate vicinity. And there are a few just to the north of this location that are, I believe, mostly currently vacant. The subject property is still being used for a single-family residence, but the applicant is proposing to remove that structure and use the property as a single-family residence. The applicant is proposing to use the subject property for a parking lot in association with the adjacent professional office building at 166 Pasadena Drive. The 2007 comprehensive plan for this area does recommend professional service, future land use, and as a blow-up I've added or have shown on the overhead, the subject property highlighted in yellow. It is a very small lot, but would be combined or utilized with the property at 166, which does connect from Pasadena to Dennis Drive and it is to the west of the subject property. The applicant's proposal to rezone to P1 is therefore in agreement with the comprehensive plan's recommendation for this location. The staff is recommending approval for that reason. Of course, any rezoning would need to have the approval of the zoning development plan with it. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Any questions or comments from Ms. Wade at this time? Okay, thank you. I'm sorry. I'd say you didn't look like Mr. Martin Walker. I don't think so, either. As Tracy was explaining, she gave you a good description as to where this property is located. And if you look at the development plan, we show that it has the entrance off of Pasadena and they are wanting to create 11 parking spaces. There's two conditions on page 8. On condition number 14, this was discussed at the meeting as far as the need for stormwater detention. Down the street just a little further, there's a larger detention basin where this is all going to be taken down to. And so we want to change number 14 to resolve the need for stormwater at the time of final development plan. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any questions, comments from Ms. Collett? Thank you very much. My name is Mike Robinson. I'm here on behalf of Foster Boland Incorporated. And on behalf of the client, we are in complete agreement with all the conditions and we're ready to comply with those conditions. And I don't see there's anyone opposing this. I'd like to move that we get an approval. Thank you very much. Okay, we will close this portion of the hearing. And if there's any questions or comments at this time from the commission. Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of MAR 2008-11. As noted by staff. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve MAR 2008-11. For the reasons provided by staff. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. We have a motion to approve ZDP 2008-55. With the 14 reasons listed by the staff or conditions. Changing number 14 to resolve. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve ZDP 2008-55. With the 14 conditions. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Sally, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Members of the commission. Good afternoon. Item number eight. This is MAR 2008-13. A zone change request by Tiverton Way LLC. They were requesting rezoning. Not from one zone to another, but to modify existing conditional zoning restrictions. In a B3 highway service business. Subject property has an address of 128 through 130. Subject property is on the west side of Nicholasville Road. North of the major intersection with Man o' War Boulevard. West Tiverton Way is the first cross street north of Man o' War that is signalized. Subject property is on the south side of West Tiverton. It is directly across Tiverton from the Fayette Place Shopping Center. It gets anchored by a department store and some shoe stores and some other retail stores. It's immediately east of a fairly new, small retail development. I think it's anchored by Panel Swim Shop. And there's some other retail uses immediately to the west of this property as well. It's directly north of the Walmart Supercenter at the corner of Nicholasville and Man o' War. Again, this property is B3, as is most of the property surrounding the subject property. The only other zone in any proximity to the subject property is I-1 zoning for a lighting business. And also some industrial uses closer to the intersection of West Tiverton and Mall Road, which is here. Nichols Park Drive is a private street that connects to Man o' War, just to the south of the subject property, extending to the east of West Tiverton. The petitioner has requested that the existing conditional zoning restrictions be modified at the subject property. There is a new type of commercial interest in the property. Currently, there is a prohibition of a number of uses on the property. That appears both in the staff report, in the supplemental staff report, and on your agenda. These conditions were imposed in 1999, and were done so because the subject property was located within a quarter mile of residential uses at the time. These restrictions mirror those very closely that were imposed earlier for the major commercial development immediately to the south, anchored by the Walmart and the Lowe's store. The 1997 comprehensive plan, not the 1996 plan, the 2007 plan, recommends retail, trade, and personal services use for the subject property. Again, we're north of Man o' War and west of Nicholasville Road, east of the major north-south railroad line here as well. In these cases where conditional zoning is proposed to be modified, the standard is what conditions have changed since the original conditions were imposed. The staff has identified two. Firstly, the prohibition on indoor amusements was done so not in anticipation of a use that is being proposed, which is called a kangaroo bobs, that does have some similarities to a restaurant, a child care center, and an indoor athletic facility oriented to youth. That type of use was not common in existence at the time of the restriction. Similarly, at the Lexington Athletic Center, which is one of the industrial uses to the north and west of this site, have expanded since the original conditional zoning restriction was put in place and that it is an unanticipated physical and economic change in this particular area since the original restriction was imposed in 1999. Thus, the staff has found there are two criteria available to warrant the revision in the conditional zoning that is being requested. If you look at the list of restrictions, there are two that are proposed for amendment. Under item E, the staff is recommending that indoor amusements be removed as a prohibition just for clarity and that the ones specifically identified in 1999 remain. Those would be billiard halls, pool halls, dancing halls, skating rinks, and bowling alleys. Secondly, in terms of condition number J that is proposed for amendment, if I could refer you to the supplemental staff report that should be in your notebook. There has been discussion between the applicant and the division of building inspection and the planning staff since your zoning committee meeting, and the staff is proposing a revision to that which appears in our original staff report that you reviewed at your zoning committee meeting and which also appears on the agenda. The staff is proposing a revision to J where that would allow a children's activity center instead of the languages originally requested by the petitioner. This was done in consultation with building inspection and thinking about what a future occupancy permit might be at this location if this conditional zoning restriction modification is ultimately approved. The staff is recommending approval of this modification for the reasons listed on the agenda and in both our supplemental report and our original report with the modification under number 4J that I've described. Before Mr. Taylor presents the development plan to you this afternoon, I'd be glad to answer any questions you have about our recommendation or about our supplemental staff report to you this afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Sali. Any questions for Mr. Sali? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Taylor. Good afternoon. All right. The development plan for this zone change will be found on the next page, page 10, 2008-54, Fayette Industrial Park, lot 3. This is a final development plan, so this will be the only time or the last time that you see this again. Mr. Sali is oriented to the property. I'm just going to point you to the two existing buildings as they exist, associated parking and the existing access points here, here, and there. Otherwise, there is no additional change to the development plan. This is simply a change to the notes for the conditional zoning The staff of the subdivision committee has recommended approval subject to six conditions four of them being standard sign offs as well as well as the fifth and sixth of completing the adjacent property information and the addition of Conditional zoning restrictions as they are approved here today, and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer Okay, thank you very much. Are there any questions for Mr. Taylor? Okay, is petitioner present? Mr. Chairman members of the Commission Bruce Simpson, I'm here on behalf of the applicant and We have worked with the staff and the division of a building inspection with respect to this language We're in perfect agreement with the language the changes and the conditions of approval and we ask your approval Thank You. Mr. Simpson any questions for mr. Simpson Thank you, okay at this time we'll close the portion of the hearing and turn over Commission for any comments Questions and or emotion Mr. Chairman I'd like to move for approval of MAR 2008-13 With the recommended conditional use prohibitions as revised Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve MAR 2008-13 As per the supplemental staff report that was in our notebooks all those in favor of the motion say aye Opposed say no Motion carries. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of CDP 2008-54 With the six five conditions as noted added number six to include the conditional zoning restriction We have a motion and second to approve CDP 2008-54 With the six condition all those in favor of the motion say aye Opposed say no motion carries. Thank you I Believe the next item you're on your agenda is on page six and mr. Murphy stepped out with the objectors So, let me See if they want to join us All right Yeah Miss wait, I was thinking the same thing where what did our objectives go? Okay Applicants attorney was gone, too. Okay. All right miss wait good afternoon again The next item again on your agenda is paid on page six It is item number five and can be found behind that Five tab five in your notebooks and there is a revised staff report in this case So when we get to the end for findings, they are on the revised staff report in your notebook rather than the agenda This is MAR 2008-10 a request by William T Burke This is a zone change request from a single-family Residential r1c zone to a two-family are two residential zone for a fraction of an acre at 1136 Providence Lane the subject property is located on the south side of Providence Lane and Providence Lane and runs between Tate's Creek Road east towards This street is not labeled I don't Here's Garden Road Romney Duke Colony Boulevard and Providence is a residential local street and Christ the King Cathedral in schools on the north side in this location zoning in the area Includes a mixture of uses and zones on the mixed-use block between Providence Duke Cooper Drive and Romney. There's a Kroger a post office Many apartments and other commercial uses and there is also a few single-family residences including the subject Excuse me. No longer there Vacant parcel and several single-family residences on Providence as well as some some townhomes In this block as well as townhomes that continue up Providence towards Tate's Creek Road in this location The subject property as I mentioned is currently vacant because the single-family residence that stood there was removed Fairly recently and this property is located within the larger Chevy Chase neighborhood The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property to our two in order to build What by our ordinance is defined as a duplex, but they're proposing to build something in a townhouse style building the Density they're proposing on the property is eleven point seven six dwelling units per net acre the Let me just Show you a few photos of the area This is the subject property as you can see the structure has been removed and it looks as though it's been staked for future construction this is the Neighboring parcel to the west which has an existing duplex again in that townhouse style development and a little bit further to the west another again duplex With townhouse style and these units have parking in the rear as well as some street parking available in the area These are the two single-family residences that would remain on Providence adjacent to the east of the subject property and then across the street is the Christ the King Cathedral and in school and that's just a photo of their parking and and the entrance on this side of the their building The subject property is again on the south side of Providence and this aerial photograph does show Just the density That's the intensity of uses on that that block as a whole and the single-family residences Are the least dense on this in this area? The subject property again highlighted in purple is It's a little bit difficult to read on this map, but the comprehensive plan recommends single family, I'm sorry low density residential for the subject property and Everything to the east including the property to the east to Romney is recommended for low-density residential To the west of the subject property It's recommended for medium-density residential and then south On this block and then also the face of Duke and Romney That area those areas are recommend recommended for high-density residential Retail trade and then I think there's a public use in there, which would highlight where the post office is Highlight where the post office is Also, the church across the street is recommended for semi public use the The applicant is again requesting an r2 zone and That would allow twice the density of what is currently allowed on the subject property with a single-family zone since the zoning I Should say again the low-density recommendation of the comp plan is defined as zero to five dwelling units per net acre and Since the proposal is for eleven point seven six It cannot be said to be in agreement with the comprehensive plans future land use recommendation that being said The Planning Commission should consider the appropriateness of the applicants proposal and in this case, they're contending that the r2 zone is appropriate as a transition between the r3 to the south for the apartment uses and the r1c for the school and Church use to the north and also that their proposed development is in keeping with What is developed along this portion of Providence Lane? That is the townhouse units in terms of it being it's consistent in terms of bulk density scale and size and The staff after the Zoning Committee did look a little bit further at this request and Found that there were four zone changes in the immediate area that created kind of a new character along Providence Although those zone changes were in the 1980s between 86 and 89 the subsequent comprehensive plans have Always maintained the low density Land use recommendation where the zoning in that area is r1c So without any other change the comp plans continue to recognize the existing zoning in the area Although it's clear that this area is predominantly or more prevalently high density residential and that that has changed somewhat in the 80s and and even before that the Now the staff recognizes that those r1c lots are actually out of character with the rest of Providence Lane The two-story brick facade townhome style structures that I showed you in the photos are now the more dominant development style along colony I'm sorry along Providence between colony and Romney and the applicant is proposing to extend this type of development Thereby making the subject property more compatible and consistent with the immediate area the staff Although the Zoning Committee recommended referral to the full Planning Commission three weeks ago the staff at that point was recommending postponement and now we are prepared to recommend approval of this request and the staff Made findings and those again are in your notebook that the requested r2 zone is Appropriate and the existing single-family r1c zone is inappropriate for the subject property for three reasons The r2 zone allows for redevelopment of the subject property, which is consistent and compatible With the townhouse style construction and also the overall residential character both in in terms of size scale Density and bulk along this portion of Providence and the r1c zone Zoned lots are now out of character within the immediate area The mixed-use block is mostly characterized by either commercial or high-density residential land uses and the 2007 comprehensive plan Recommends this high-density residential land use for a majority of the block the r2 zone will allow for a greater density and bring this property into more agreement or More consistent with the rest of the block than the r1c zone is and the requested r2 zone is an appropriate transition between the apartments which are zoned r3 to the south and the church which is zoned r1c to the north of the property and Our recommendation is made subject to the approval of the zoning development plan Prior to it being forwarded to the council. I'd be happy to answer any questions about this revised report Thank you, miss. Wait, are there any questions for miss wait? Thank you, thank you Mr.. Taylor chairman The development plan for this item is on page 7 Zdp 2008-56 Chevy chase subdivision unit 19 lot 7 this is a preliminary development plan and As you can see here, there's two units proposed roughly 1,400 square foot buildings each Access and driveway to the side with a garage and additional parking at the rear The subdivision committee recommended approval of this development plan subject to 13 conditions Five standard sign off and the rest being of the cleanup nature If there are any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them Thank You mr. Taylor miss Phillips. You have a question Chris can you speak to the shared parking driveway issue that? Related to the easement of the breast yes With 1140 as the plan is shown here the easement information is not included now come time for the final development plan And perhaps even on this one. We will want to get that information on there, but as far as Bill Building on someone else's property that the all utility relocation will have to be done within the easement that they have them Okay, you obviously will have to make that change With the with the neighbors, so it shouldn't be a problem That will take care of itself to a plat if it needs to as well as any easement information will be shown on here And it will be compliant before it's certified Does that answer your question? Well there were two issues as I remember having been addressed that one was the KU easement or that water company easement the other one was Driveway access, but it appears on this plat that the driveway is fully contained from what we see on this plan Yes on 1136 is property correct and that may be just that the folks Concerned may have not seen the plan I'm not sure I think they alluded like they have not seen the preliminary and this may answer some of their questions. Thank you Anything else Thank You miss Phillips Thank You mr. Taylor before I called the Petitioner to the podium. I do want to say that it would be appropriate at this time Given that this is our full public hearing for zone map amendments and related plans The Commission has adopted at his last meeting time limits on Zone map amendments and related plans, and I wanted to review those For the those in attendance and as well as us here that staff reports obviously 30-minute maximum which they came in under that petitioner report 30 minutes maximum Citizen comments if you are in favor We have a 10-minute maximum for those in total or three minutes each Any objectors to plans we have a 30-minute maximum or three minutes each Under rebuttal and closing statements petitioner comments five-minute maximum citizen objectors five-minute maximum and staff comments of five-minute maximum, so I just wanted to remind those in attendance of of our time limit so with that wanted to Ask petitioner to come forward and This is our first one. Mr. Murphy. I didn't do that. Just and I meant to do that before the staff But you're just picking on me. I realize I Realize we have some objectors, so I just wanted to bring that to the forefront. Thank you very much I won't come in on the time limits at this point because we will comply with them in this case the the Thank you very much. I'm dick Murphy. I represent William Burke who's the owner of the property? Chaz hide who's a planner work is working with me is handing out a short three pages of exhibits including the cover page and Mr.. Burke is with me today on the front row along with Doug Walton and Mike Robbins is here on the second row our designer and then Chaz and myself we're requesting a zone change from our 1c to our 2 for this lot and Our proposal is to construct two attached single family homes on the property and you can see what it's going to look like if you look at the Last page of my handout We've got two photographs which pretty well tell the story the top photograph is probably similar to what the staff had showed you that is the lot that is as it appears today, and the bottom photograph is the properties immediately to the Right as you're standing at the property over it would be over the ones over on this side looking at the development plan Those ones are the two that there are two single family attached units on this lot to us on the on the right and That's essentially what Mr.. Burke wants to build on this property He wants to have two attached two-story brick single family attached structures on this property just as these are as you can see we will have a rear Detached garage just as these two we will have our front doors up near the street I can't tell if these two are a little closer than we are or not And I think they'd probably be about the same setback as we have So the logical question is well Why aren't you asking for either our 1t zone because these two you see in the picture are zoned our 1t Why are we asking for our 2 well that is because after these two got approved back a few years ago The our 1t zoning ordinance was amended to say that you have to do at least three Attached units in our 1t so we cannot Do that Which is an r1t in our 1t we have to ask for our to to do to attached units even though? They're going to look Virtually the same as as what's next door to us on there So that's why we're asking for our to instead of our 1t even you even though It's going to look exactly the same way so I wanted to deal with that issue because that that's a little bit of an issue here So we're going to have the same size scale Density bulk as not only these two units, but there are six more that wrap around Providence and Duke Road. I've got a few pictures of If Chaz if you could give the pictures to the overhead operator. I just have a few more pictures of this area the Of course I've heard people cite this Neighborhood so many times as this is the type of neighborhood we want in Lexington And I didn't realize it so I started working on this about all the things you can walk to Without crossing the street in this block we counted up about 89 dwelling units most of them multifamily 89 dwelling units a grocery store Kroger an office building retail shops a pharmacy and the post office You never a bank you never have to leave your block You never have to use your car here, and if you want to cross the street You can go to church directly across the street if you're Catholic if you're Protestant you can go a few more yards across there If you want then there are many restaurants where you just have to cross one Street So it's the ideal neighborhood, and it's the type of place I think where you want to encourage infill as I mentioned I'll just go through these pictures the this picture is is the there the four townhouses Going down as you cross and go down Duke Road on our side the four are attached down there the Providence there two and two and Duke they're attached if you see the next picture I think we're going down Duke Road. This is I think the garden apartments on Duke, which is right behind us Still on the same block keep going down there That's the Arnett Pritchett home, which I think is the next thing on Duke Road, and then if you show the next picture These are this is a multifamily structure in the area and Keep on going there. I don't want to spend too much time since I've only got 30 minutes Going down Duke Road there. I won't hope hopefully won't take 30 minutes But I'll go fast anyway, and that's going down Duke Road. You can see the structures there and then this these are some apartments which are sort of between Romney and Duke also in our block there and And then we have Some of these things on Romney still within our block Wheeler Wheeler pharmacy, I think that's the last photograph isn't it I think I think there's no more on there So I just wanted to you know the you know the neighborhood but I just wanted to refresh that in your mind by going through these pictures, so we feel we're in agreement with the area and And this is an ideal area have this and I think the proofs in the pudding that we have eight Townhomes there which are well accepted in this neighborhood Which work well and have a lot of the design principles that have been advocated? With the front doors near the street and the rear garages and that sort of thing so I think we're doing exactly what it's called For in my handout to you on this on the first page after the cover page. I just went reviewed some of the goals and objectives of our comprehensive plan that Relate to what we're doing here, and I'll just go through these real quickly on goal 7 objective J We want to efficiently use Existing facilities which we are here They're already there the utilities and everything already there goal 8 is to create strategies that enable and encourage appropriate infill and redevelopment established developments and neighborhood next one goal 8 objective H Sure that we're compatible and complementary to existing development, and we're identical to what's there next to us 13 objective I Encourage Infill where compatible and where services and infrastructure problems will not be exacerbated again. It's all existing there and the I'll skip down to the last one. These are sort of similar promote human scale bicycle and pedestrian friendly Neighborhoods, and I don't think there is a more pedestrian friendly neighborhood than this particular block in Lexington and Fayette County, so what we're doing we're doing infill We're adding one unit to what was here one unit which fits within the densities as the staff mentioned we're the identical same density as What's around there, and we're actually I did a measurement of the density of the whole block there? we're probably we're below the density of the rest of block because there's a lot of Multifamily and their structures some of them have been kind of minimized through there, but we're below the densities that they have there the Have a couple development plan issues the Just want to mention on conditions of approval of the development plan I talked with Bob carpenter and division of building inspection and item 12 denote six-foot landscape buffer I Think he agreed can be deleted because that is not required and number 13 if you wish you could change to note vehicular use area Screening to resolve vehicular use area screening It's going to depend upon the size of the paving what we have to do and we can resolve that with mr. Carpenter in the division of building inspection, so that's what I would request on the conditions of approval of the development plan I want to mention size we were we Reason we were all coming in here late is because we were meeting out in the hallway to Go over some items on the plan here And I want to just mention a couple things that because because there are a few Sort of confusing things about this our development plan as you can see shows Everything we have on our lot The driveway with the rear entry garage and that sort of thing I explained to our neighbors in the townhouse over here And they got confused there had been a study done an engineering study of perhaps Sharing this driveway through here So we wouldn't have to have our own driveway on that and that's that's all it was was an engineering study And we emphasized mr. Burke was there when we were talking that obviously that driveway could not be shared without the permission of The people who live there and if mr. Burke wanted to do that he would have to talk to them and make some kind of arrangement for doing that and that is would be Totally within the discretion of the people living over here that is not something that We can force or as a matter of fact you can force they own the property and if they ever wanted to do that's fine So I want to mention there was a study done And but that's all it has been done and our development plan of course shows all of this within our lot The other thing I want to mention with the neighbors on the other side. We're here, too There is an existing power line that goes down this side of the lot up to Providence from behind us Up up our that's our left lot line actually as you're facing the property up to Providence I understand the pole is located in front of the house Next to us. It's not in front of our house and apparently a KU representative was out there perhaps even this morning mentioned that There has been discussion between mr. Burke's engineer Alan Foster and Kentucky utilities about taking those utilities underground through here We think it would be very attractive aesthetically for it to be underground and it would allow us to have the Maybe go under the driveway or whatever there and there was some confusion about that those utility lines going on the neighbors property and Obviously we if that's going to be done. Mr. Burke's gonna have to pay for putting that but K you also said mr. Burke will have to pay for putting those underground at a cost of about $14,000 and if he chooses to do that he will have to work that out with KU in doing that but So that will be something that should be on located on mr. Burke's property there if that in fact is done So those were a couple confusing items that had been brought up they don't really relate to the zoning but they're more just neighbor development plan type issues The Let's see I've got almost 20 minutes left. I can really slow down here. Yeah, you're doing great. Mr. Murphy. Thank you Oh, okay. Okay. I don't need to I don't need to do the long presentation for you on that But we do have a lot more information we can present to you, but that's the picture What you see is what you get we'll be doing something Right right next doors similar virtually identical to what's next door to us right now And I think this really if we're going to do infill this This is infill just one unit and doing it just like what's there and and I think as you all know those townhomes have been extremely well accepted in this neighborhood, they're extremely There's a great demand for them because of what I told you about because of the walking distance and the churches and all that sort of thing the we agree with the staff's reasons. I thought we agree with the Infill goals and guidelines to the staff has chosen to recommend approval based on the fact that the the proposed zoning is the appropriate zoning for this and we agree with that and With that I'll finish up and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have Thank You. Mr. Murphy Any questions for mr. Murphy at this time? I Guess I did have one for staff and I guess mr. Carpenter I think I guess I didn't see an affirmative for condition 12 and 13 Did I see you nod your head on deleting 12 and then I guess changing 13 to resolve the VU a area is that? Okay. Thank you Any other questions for mr. Murphy at this time? Thank you, sir At this time. I'd like to see if there's anyone in the audience that's in favor of this proposal Please come forward. Okay, seeing none as those opposed to this, please please come forward We get your name and address again, thank you. Yes again. Mr. Chairman. I'm Frank Lewis I live at 1134 Providence Lane on the pictures. That would be that adjoining brick townhouse and Yes, we out in the hall We finally did get at arm's length and and settled some matters on the on the preliminary design plan And for Commissioner Phillips that includes that that adjacent driveway so the only response that we have at this time is of course the The admonition that we we look at the final design plan including Particularly the setback because the setback on our lot, which is an r1t is 10 feet Versus the 30 feet that would be on the subject property And now I'm only speaking for Susan and me on on 1134 mr. And mrs. Butler may may want to have some comments on 1140 Providence Lane Thank You. Mr. Chairman. Thank You. Mr. Lewis Yes, thank you good afternoon, my name is Rosalyn Harris Butler. I'm here with my husband Cecil Butler we reside at 1140 Providence Lane, which is the Single family dwelling that you saw in the picture adjacent to the 1136 property I think the plans actually are very lovely for Mr. Burke's Property and we certainly ourselves have considered moving in that direction our concerns today are really around issues of communication and activities that have happened and moving in the direction of developing the property To our two zoning of the unit that will be constructed there the activities have already negatively Impacted the value of our property and these activities were carried out without our permission or without giving us notice so our major concerns in this case is you know not so much in principle an objection to the Rezoning and the construction of the unit. We need more time to really Understand what the impacts will be We had a visit from someone from Kentucky Utilities We're still very confused about what this will mean for our unit I know there have been attempts to clarify this but things have happened in the past Which lead us to believe that we ourselves need to really confirm things in more depth We've had trees cut down on our property without notifying us Before and before the results of the survey to determine legal boundaries have been have been completed and this is documented that this hasn't occurred Enroute to having these changes made also We've had partial removal of our fence during demolition of the 1136 property again without discussion and a plan to replace it By encroaching on our property again Without being any discussion taking place without being notified. So we have concerns about Moving in this direction. The latest development is with Kentucky Utilities where we've had mixed stories about what would be happening One was that an easement would be removed from the 1136 property to our property I know it's been said here that that won't occur but given what's happened in the past to our property as a result of The directions that the 1136 property is going in We really want a way find a way to confirm exactly what these changes are going to mean in terms of their impacts Impacts on our property So that's those are our major major concerns we Are concerned about the continued infringements on our property that will result in irreparable damage when we bought our property we did so because we liked it the way it was and We also have concerns about enhancing the value of our property and we want it to be in the kind of shape That it can be in to do so and Our concern is that these that kinds of activities Where we're not informed or notified or given say when it is clear that our property will be affected Will continue with a change to our to status at least at this point in time because it is clear that these activities Stem from the fact that the 1136 property at least we saw what was happening We felt did not have the adequate square footage for the structure that had been planned Because we saw the encroachments taking place So these are our concerns at this point. We are asking Not so much That the property property ultimately not be rezoned. We know it's to our benefit ultimately that it be rezoned We just want time to consult with counsel ourselves and to really Assess what is going on given the fact that there have been negative impacts in the past from a lack of Communication and being informed of what's going on. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Miss Butler Okay, is there anyone else? Yes, sir 1140 I Want to Just solidify her my wife's Reason for objecting we need more time We need 45 to 60 days to consult with counsel to understand this what impact it would have on us my understanding is that the electrical easement would be Encroaching on our property to give mr. Burke the benefit of The distance and the square footage that he needs to put up a two-family home But I don't see the difference between a townhouse and the two-family homes that he's putting up. It's a matter of zoning Techniques are the The numbers that is put in place because they couldn't put the townhouses there originally There are some concerns about me building anything example a garage in the area Which would be improving my property I Don't have an easement on my property right now If this goes through with the changes on the information that I got which is not very much, but it's very negative this would Would not enhance would not give me the ability to enhance my property. I want to ask for a 45 to 60 days extension on this case until I can have somebody to represent me Thank You mr. Butler Yes, sir. Mr. May and your question Sir were the trees in your yard cut down so that the house could be torn down or who cut the trees down in your yard Mr.. Burke did what he did he He decided he wanted about three feet of my property and my tree was at the the borderline I would assume there are some limbs that over over hang on his driveway Instead of I know he had the rights to cut it He never talked to me about it, but he didn't cut what he was supposed to cut by law He went ahead and cut from the trunk of the tree, which is in my property They've They've been on my property a staked out three about three feet of my property Actually put a stake on it and my wife stopped them about two weeks ago well, I don't know if she stopped them or not, but she indicated that it's not gonna happen until there's a Zone change or not a zone change, but a permit Approval evidently they didn't have a permit approval and so they quit the project or whatever they were planning to do there The information came from the person who was putting the stake down that he's getting ready to do something that was our property evidently the the The survey went through and I guess it's went back to the property original property line So there was something going on with staking out three feet with the electrical wire wires That eventually if that was on my property, it would be my expense to fight it by law or to get it off What we're trying to do is make sure that we don't incur any Expenses on Mr. Burke's I guess maliciousness and he I Some of these things we don't know about until I didn't know about until yesterday and last week He had from October or September sometime last year to do all this they have a beautiful plan all this went through without our knowledge He don't have to by law, but This is what it comes to I don't know and I need to get some Counsel to understand it better and maybe later on everything would be Within the proper rules and Order Thank You. Mr. Butler Okay This time is there anyone else? I'd like to speak to this plan Okay staff. Do you have any? rebuttal at this time Just very quickly we'd like to Make a point of clarification an emphasis here that we think may help the communication issue This is a preliminary development plan. It will be necessary that they file a final development plan So you will see this body will see this plan again And if you so wish we might recommend that this applicant notify the neighbors That they have filed the final development plan So they will be aware because unlike the zoning process as you know, there is no notification requirement for a final development plan We thought we might make that recommendation Thank You. Mr. Martin Okay petitioner rebuttal Just have a few items here the I I Guess there are a couple issues apparently that were brought up by the butlers on this which I need to address on this and We have the utmost respect for all the neighbors and and think this will be a very positive addition to this area as far as the Mr. Burke did the prudent thing and had the property surveyed Before any trees were cut or that sort of thing and we've just been talking Back and forth to each other all the trees that he took down were on his property per survey There's issues I know back Years ago where I know what I can barely remember as a city attorney and we used to get all these calls about People wanting to cut trees that were on Lines and all that stuff and I had to research it back then and the law is that you can cut trees overhanging From your neighbor's property cut them at the property line. I don't know if that was done here or not I was picking up on issues that may be there But any neighbor does have the right to cut overhanging branches on trees and maybe that was done here or not But we can assure you that any trees that were cut down were on Mr. Burke's property per survey. He did what you're supposed to do per serving it by by surveying him the The fence issue there was a I don't there's discussion of the fence. Mr. Burke mentioned that the neighbor's fence Veered into his property and connected to the garage on his property and veered into the property and it was probably removed on the portion That was on. Mr. Burke's property, which he had the right to do These don't really relate to zoning issues the electrical easement issues Will be resolved and would have to be resolved whatever is built on this property and it's a matter of Easement law between the two property owners and KU on that and will be resolved that way But it doesn't really relate to whether the zone change is granted or not. I guess the overall thing is what mr Martin mentioned as you can see on your conditions of approval Number six under the development plan is says to note There shall be no development of the property until the Planning Commission approves a final development plan So we have to come back before you Before any construction can occur on this property Hopefully we will get approval of the zone change and hopefully we will get it approved at the council But after that, we've got to come back to you with the final development plan Shows these things and mr Martin had suggested that we notify the neighbor when that is filed which we will do we will notify the neighbor when that is filed So they can see that and have the input into that process as well And I know there have been discussions back and forth about Rezoning the neighbors property and that sort of thing which the staff had raised about rezoning the whole block Apparently there apparently there've been some discussion between the engineer and the neighbors about doing that But I want to point out that this relates to just this property if anybody down the street wants to get rezoned later on They have the right to come in to you. Just like mr. Burke does but in the initial staff report There was discussion about studying the rest of the block front whether that could be rezoned. We pointed out Well, that might be a good idea But mr Burke only owns this one property and can only apply for this one property and that's what this applies to is just This property and what mr Burke does he'll have to resolve with being able to work within his property under the Appropriate procedures and we will notify the neighbors when that final development plan is Submitted to you all. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Murphy. Is there any rebuttal from our yes Yes, you have an opportunity for to rebut comments What I Know the name Mr. Murphy, mr. Murphy. Yes just said that's not what he told me outside We were discussing the whole for for a single-family home being rezoned and my question there was what's the benefit of you trying to get my property rezoned and When that was going on The case was called this Case was called. So that's I object to that. The second is there's dates when the the trees were cut and the dates that Mr. Burke got the the survey information because at the time it happened I I had been in contact with the surveyor and Nothing had been done For about three weeks later until he told me there was complications and some confusion. He has to work it out So when he cut the trees down there were no Survey done. So those two incidents my my I would ask for a continuation of this because If it goes through Then they would be able to I would have the burden on me To get the information that It is hindering my progress cleared up if this is not good if this is Been handled with an attorney from my from my side. It probably would have been Probably would be better to do that So if I can have that continuation, I'd appreciate it. Thank You. Mr. Butler Okay at this time, we'll close this portion of the public hearing the we have before us in our revised staff recommendation for approval of Of MAR 2008-10 and then you also have ZDP 2008-56 You've heard the testimony and and from petitioner in the audience And at this time we'll close the portion of the hearing and if there's any questions comments from Commission, I'll turn up Commission Um, mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. Yes, miss got number one. I'd like to find out has The adjacent property owners. Do you have a copy of the survey now have the property lines been clarified? Well, there's there's two property I guess 1134 1134 and 1140. Are you are you right? it seems like the issue here has to do with encroachment on other people's property and What what was the other one? 1140 I guess So the question of whose property the trees was on is still not resolved Miss mr. Butler if you could come forward if you come forward, please. Thank you Soon as I can Okay, so you have not seen survey results. So that property line as to where the encroachment is is still cloud Well, well the original Stakes or pens were there after the survey by mr. Burke The line Was approximately an inch from the pin So it maintains its position after the survey the trees were about Two feet into my property or three feet into my the trunk of the trees where he cut was to treat two to three feet in my property And I discussed this with him before and I and I said well we will wait for the survey Before you cut any more trees and The next day he did he went to cut the second tree and that was the end of our communication And that's about all we had the communication before all the communication we had Since he bought the property So I called Mr. Foster his surveyor and I Wanted to have him do some work for me in the meanwhile, I found out that he was working for mr. Burke. I Mentioned this and he told me that he did not have the survey done at that time And that was after the tree was cut. So that would put it in the position of he cut it without the survey and It contradicts what he just said that he had a survey when he cut the tree Mr. Chairman, yes, this is mr Gardner to the extent that There's really been a lot of discussion here about things that really are not relevant at all to the issues that you all are considering and that With I have no idea of where the trees were in relation to a property line But that would strictly be between these two property owners and if there were legal problems with that that could be addressed Between those two property owners. It wouldn't be you all couldn't get involved in it. We can't get involved. Yes. Thank you Thank you for reminding us so that mr. Gardner Miss mr. Bella Public hearing has been closed If you want to if you want to come forward and ask the question of our legal counsel I'll allow you to do that, but public hearing portion has been closed Okay As mr. Gardner said there's there's obviously some issues that that aren't before us relative to Property line and things of that nature. So what we have before us as Commission, of course is the zoning rezoning of this particular parcel You have the stash Recommendation revised recommendation in the in the notebook and then we also have zoning development plan 2008-56. So If there are no other questions Sir a motion We ready for yes, sir, you have a motion. Yes, I do Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of MAR 2008-10 Condition for approval based upon our staff report For the reasons my staff raised by staff for the three reasons provided by staff. Okay, we have a motion a second to approve The Mar 2008-10 for the reasons provided by staff all those in favor of the motion say aye All opposed say no motion carries You want the development plan? Yes, sir I move for approval Z DP 2008-56 Deleting number 12 and And doing number 13 to resolve the vehicular use area for the screening and to note that the applicant said they would notify the the neighbors When the final development plan is approved or is brought before us Okay, we have a motion in the second to approve Z DP 2008-56 with the 11 conditions actually 12 conditions deleting number 12 and then changing number 13 to resolve and then also Having the applicant notify the adjacent landowners when the final development plan is brought before the Commission All those in favor of the motion say aye All opposed say no Motion carries. Thank you. We'll before we go into the next one. We'll take a five ten minute break. Thank you You You You Yeah And I was Well, they say babies change, let's hope so You tell your you tell your husband you tell your husband that I am praying that that genetic thing Great Does she sleep? Oh, well, you can get she's a scientist you sleep. That's that's what you do. It's trained her I I'm ready. Whenever you are Is a beautiful day no doubt about it Okay Good afternoon chairman bond miss Wade if you could continue with us. Thank you Next item on our agendas found on page 8 Item number 7 and is found behind tab 7 in your notebook. And again today. This is a revised staff report So the findings that I'll present Towards the end of my staff report are found on the paper copy in your notebook rather than on the agenda And I do have one letter of correspondence that we received Shortly afternoon today via email just expressing some concern about this zone change and development This case is mar v 2008-12 a request by GCL Properties LLC It's a zone change from a single-family r1e zone to a neighborhood business be one zone for property at 135 through 139 East 3rd Street The subject property is also located within the Constitution Historic District Which gives it an h1 overlay and that portion of the zoning is not proposed to be changed The subject property is located on the north side of East 3rd Street And I have a photo up of the property looking from The opposite side of 3rd Street and you can see that the structure that was there previously has been removed It used to be the Ashley wheel and brake Auto repair shop and they had a large parking lot in the front as well and now it is a Gravel that they've demolished the building the lots been graveled I wouldn't call it necessarily a parking lot, but it's been graveled and they've installed. It looks like a few Pine trees there the again the subject property is currently r1e and they're proposing a b1 zone in This area along East 3rd Street between North Limestone and East. I'm sorry in North Martin Luther King Boulevard the subject property is the only property that's zoned residential The rest of the north side of East 3rd is zoned for b1 for business Although there are there are quite a few residential uses in that area similarly on the south side of East 3rd Street Those properties with the exception of the corner of North Lyme and third are zoned b2a which is the downtown frame business zone. However, there are quite a few residential uses in that block. The B4 zone at the corner down here, I think accommodates some sort of warehouse or sign business. Also in the vicinity are Transylvania's athletic fields, a restaurant, Lexington Traditional Magnet School, just to the northeast of the subject property. The comprehensive plan for this area does identify it as downtown master plan. And again, 3rd Street runs here through the downtown master plan land use. 4th Street is kind of the boundary in that area. And we are between Limestone and Martin Luther King right here. Just a few photos of the subject property. Again, this was the existing condition on the lot. Oops. Now I'm going the wrong way. From the rear of the lot, you can see the structures across the street. And again, mostly they're used in residential nature. Oop. It's jumping. This is just looking from the corner down the street. You can see the street facade in that location of the structures on East 3rd. This is the adjacent Carrick House, which is the former Whitehall Funeral Home. And I think most of you are aware that it's been recently converted to a banquet facility by the applicant. And they are proposing to utilize the subject parcel, which is to the rear of this parcel, as a parking lot. And here's an aerial of the area. Again, the subject parcel is highlighted with the yellow outline. And to the north on this aerial, you can see the structure of the Carrick House with the pull-through parking off North Lyme. And just at the top of the photo would be the Lexington Magnet, traditional magnet school. The applicant, again, is proposing a parking lot for the subject property. And in the B1 zone, that is a permitted principal use for the lot, so it would be allowed on a standalone lot. And the applicant is not proposing to combine the subject parcel with the Carrick House parcel. So they have also requested a variance, which will be addressed in a separate report. Even though the subject parcel is zoned for residential, you can see it's currently vacant and no residential use has been constructed on the property since the rezoning in 2006. The properties, again, in this area are mostly residential. The fact that it's in the Constitution Historic District also means that the proposed landscaping design and materials used with the parking lot have to be approved by the Board of Architectural Review. In terms of the comprehensive plan, the residential use that is currently permitted on the R1E zone is in keeping with the character of the area, and that was, the rezoning in 2006 was done to help maintain the residential character of this area. At that time, though, the 2001 comprehensive plan did recommend a combination of high-density residential and retail trade, and today, the 2007 comprehensive plan, as I mentioned, does recommend the downtown master plan land use. And what that means is that redevelopment should follow the core principles and recommendations of the downtown master plan, and specifically, the master plan places emphasis on human interaction and visual appeal of structures, and also emphasizes maximizing residential densities and creating attractive gateways, and of special interest here in terms of interrelationships with neighborhoods and the interaction of people with the built environment. It's very difficult to say that a proposed parking lot would be, would in any way increase the interaction of people with the built environment. However, parking the property as it is today, vacant, with gravel as a perhaps temporary parking lot, does nothing to increase interaction between the built environment and people either. So the proposed zoning, the staff looked at it a little more carefully in terms of the downtown master plan, and we found that for this site, the B1 zone would be appropriate, in that the surrounding zoning is all commercial, either B1 or B2A zone, and that the B1 zone would allow for mixed use, specifically commercial with residential above on a B1 lot, which would be more in keeping with the 2007 comprehensive plan and downtown master plan for this area. The staff would note that we hope that this does not remain a parking lot forever, that the B1 zone would allow for a higher intensity use of this property should it ever redevelop. The applicant again has requested a variance which will be addressed after the development plan, and the staff would recommend approval of this zone change with the following findings, that the proposed B1 zoning is appropriate for this subject property, and the existing R1E zoning is inappropriate for the following reasons. The property is surrounded on all sides by business zones, including B1 and B2A designations, and the proposed B1 zoning would allow for more substantive development, redevelopment of the site in the future, that is in keeping with the vision of the 2007 comprehensive plan and downtown master plan. And this recommendation is made subject to the approval and certification of the coordinating ZDP, which is the letter of property, prior to the recommendation being forwarded to the Urban County Council. And I would be happy to answer any questions about our staff recommendation at this time. Thank you, Ms. White. Any questions for Ms. White? No. Okay, thank you. Ms. White. Ms. White was not aware, Mr. Taylor and I coordinated that the variance would be presented next. It appears on the middle of page eight of your agenda, this is the variance portion of MARV 2008-12 by GLC Properties, LLC. I do have two photographs that I'd like to show you of the property in describing the requested variance before you this afternoon. Thank you. Is it possible to lighten that just a little bit, please? I have some highlighting on that photo that I'm hoping that will show. This is a view of the subject properties that appeared about a year ago on the north side of East 3rd Street, as Ms. White has described to you. The very thin line is the property line. What we've highlighted in yellow is the requirement of the zoning ordinance, Article 18-3A2, for vehicular use screening along what would be the edge of the property line. Let me orient you to it. 3rd Street, of course, is here. The property line is here. To the alley, again, for those in the audience, we have a property line and the alley here. What's highlighted in yellow is the requirement of the ordinance that a three or five foot landscape screen be established along the edge of the parking lot along the property line. This variance is driven by the fact that the petitioner is requesting and hoping to be able to keep this property as a separate lot from the lot that currently exists where the Carrick House and its associated parking lot is located. So it's the fact that we have two separate properties divided by a property line where the zoning ordinance requires the landscape screening. In fact, the staff believes that the parking lots really will be more integrated and will function as a single type of parking lot regardless of the property line. We have reviewed the variance in that light, and as we reported to you at your zoning committee meeting three weeks ago, the staff viewed this variance favorably. But at the time, the variance had not been reviewed by the Landscape Review Committee, which is authorized under the zoning ordinance to review all applications for landscaping variances and to make recommendations. On April 15th, that body met. I don't believe that they had a quorum that afternoon, but there was some unanimity amongst the members present that the variance would be authorized with one very important condition, and I'll address that in just a moment. Also, the staff, as Ms. Wade has pointed out, would remind the commission this is zoned H1, and as such, regardless of your decision today and or on the variance, the ultimate design of this parking lot will be subject to the review and approval of the Division of Historic Preservation staff, but more importantly, the Board of Architecture review if the property is ultimately rezoned B1. The staff, as we recommended three weeks ago, is recommending approval of the landscape variance from five feet to zero feet for the reasons that appear in your agenda. They are that the variance should not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare. Secondly, the variance will not result in an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance as the design of this parking lot will be unified. Thirdly, the special circumstance that contributes to justifying this request is the fact that this parking lot will be incorporated into the larger lot located at the corner of East Third and North Limestone. Fourth, strict application of this ordinance would result in a less efficient use of the parking lot as it's proposed. And finally, this variance is not a result of any prior action of the applicant or the result of a willful violation of the zoning ordinance. With that recommendation, the staff is recommending five conditions. The fifth condition was important to the review by the Landscape Review Committee. Condition one is provided the property is rezoned, otherwise any approval of this variance would be void. Secondly, should the property be rezoned, it shall be developed in accordance with the development plan approved by this body. Third, a note shall be placed on the plan identifying any approval of this variance. Fourth, all necessary permits shall be required and obtained before development of the property. And then finally, compliance with this section of the ordinance, Article 18.3.8.2, will be expected of this development if the use were to change in the future from a parking lot use in conjunction with the care accounts. This was the condition presented to the Landscape Review Committee that gave them comfort in recommending this variance. Before Mr. Taylor presents to you the preliminary development plan that is on your agenda as well, I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have about our staff recommendation on the variance portion of this request. Thank you, Mr. Salih. Any questions? Yes, sir, Mr. Holmes. Yeah, as I understand, item five, you're saying if the use ceases to be, even though a parking lot, then what does it revert back to at that point? If it is rezoned B1, of course, that allows a number of different uses of the property. What would likely, what the staff would expect, should that occurrence happen in the future, there would first need to be an amended development plan presented to the Planning Commission. At that time, we would review this information as well as the development plan before you and most likely recommend that there be buffering. Okay, but it would be the uses within the B1? Yes. Okay. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Taylor? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the development plan for this item appears on page eight and continues on page nine, ZDP 2008-58, Letterer Property, GCL Properties. As Mr. Salih pointed out, and Tracy, the orientation, there's 35 additional parking spaces integrating this parking lot into the existing one to serve this banquet facility. We'd utilize the two existing accesses, one off of the Lake Alley as well as one down here within the subject property. The subdivision committee recommended approval subject to 10 conditions. However, with the, if the approval of the variance, number 10 could be deleted. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Any questions for Mr. Taylor at this time? Thank you, sir. Petitioner? I have one handout I'm gonna, I didn't make a lot of copies. I'm gonna ask you just to pass these on and share them in deference to Ms. Phillips. I'm gonna minimize my carbon footprint with just one copy. Got you. Thank you, I'm Rena Wiseman. I'm here for GCL Properties, LLC, and that stands for Jerry Lundgren, who is the owner of that entity and is here with us this afternoon along with Roger Ladenberger, who's done the development plan for this property. I will certainly not need 30 minutes to go through this, but I'd like to give a little background at any rate. As you can tell from this, the driving force behind this application is the, Mr. Lundgren's purchase of Carrick House and his conversion of that building from a funeral home to a banquet facility. You all remember a couple of years ago, maybe just last year, a previous owner had processed a text amendment to allow a facility like this to be used as a banquet facility as a principal use in the B1 zone. It was just last fall that Mr. Lundgren purchased that property and, as you know, has been in the catering business for many, many years, is very experienced in doing this, and found this an ideal location to offer receptions, banquets, the type of private meetings that it's difficult to find places in the community, and so it is serving a great need, and it's also bringing a business downtown, which is something that's mentioned in our downtown plan that we want to encourage. But to have this type of business, we do need to have parking. If you remember the aerial photo of the Carrick House itself, it is a large property, but the parking lot there only accommodates something between 30 or 34 spaces, which is not, it would be better to have additional parking to provide, so not to have parking on the street or what have you. And there is room if you wanted to take out the beautiful lawn along North Limestone, which does, you can't really see it in this aerial, but there is a large front yard in front of the Carrick House which is property that arguably is underutilized if you literally take the downtown plan and could be put to better use. But that is not, obviously that would kill the golden goose and the whole point of this is to preserve this beautiful home. So the next solution was the property next door, which you also have some history with, and I put a couple things in the single packet that's working its way around. The property that's before you had been used for many years as the Ashley Wheel and Break and was zoned B1, just like every other property on the north side of 3rd Street. And Mrs. Lederer who is here today had owned that and had come to you in 2006 to zone it R1E in order to construct two single family dwellings. The buildings were removed, a preliminary subdivision plat was approved that would have divided it into two lots. But that didn't happen, Mr. Lundergan came along and they reached an agreement where he would purchase it with the specific idea of utilizing it for the care home for parking. The two lots were never created, it stayed in the single lot configuration that it was. So it's been zoned residential barely two years, but never has been used for residential. So we're here today to ask that we be allowed to rezone it back to the neighborhood business zone. And what we have offered to the staff as a justification is that the B1 zoning is appropriate and that the R1E zoning is inappropriate. Before I get into just that part, I do wanna say a little more about the parking so that you understand the efforts that Mr. Lundergan has taken to make sure that this facility has parking. He has talked with LTMS, which is behind this on 3rd Street. Their hours obviously overlap and they have an arrangement where when they're not in session, they're going to let, subject to a final agreement, Mr. Lundergan's facility use that. And he already lets the school use his parking lot. Again, if you go back to your master plan, that's something that's encouraged is to have this shared parking. By the same token, two of the businesses next door, the offices and the violin shop, we have the same arrangement with them. They can use our parking during the weekday when there's not the demand. And likewise, we can use that. So we have made efforts to do that, but it is important to add these 35 spaces next to the facility so that we have convenient, accessible parking for those people that aren't able to walk any distance to get to the event that they're going to. So back to the legal justification. One of the things that's in the little packet you might get to see in a minute is I've done the same thing the staff did, which is color up, actually Roger colored this notification map up to show you what the zoning is that surrounds this property. Because as you know, the comprehensive plan is only one of the ways to get a zone change. And you are entitled to have a zone change approved if you can demonstrate that the current zoning is not appropriate and what you propose is appropriate. And so the purpose of that drawing was to show you that this property that's before you is surrounded on three sides by business zoning. The linear building in the back there is actually on Carrick House property. So that property does not back up to, this property does not back up to LTMS because it's surrounded on two sides by the Carrick House and it's also got V1 parking on the other side. It's tough to see from that, but the other point that is relevant is that this is not only surrounded by business zoning, but surrounded by parking. And surface parking from the Carrick House from the side and the back. And the business next door to us also has a surface parking lot in the back. Again, the one that we're working out an arrangement with. Across the street, all these properties in the H1, and across the street, we also have commercial zoning. That is the edge of the downtown. That's the downtown B2A business zone, which is similar to B1, but it actually allows more uses than B1 and has less restrictions. In other words, there are no off-street parking requirements in the B2A zone. So were you to convert one of these homes into a banquet facility, as would be permitted, it would not, they would not be required to have only, they could only have to have 25% of the parking that this facility would have. So I think it's clear that given the fact, as the staff said, this is the only residential property, it's never been used for residential since the zoning, that we've made the case that what we're asking for is appropriate. I do have also letters of support from two of our neighbors, the owner of 147 East 3rd Street, Greg Martelli, that's the immediate to the southeast, for 147 East 3rd, and Tim Mellon, who owns the property on which the Atomic Cafe is located, and also property at 245 North Limestone, have written letters in support of this request, and I'll give those to you as well. Thank you. Again, just a couple things about the comp plan, I think we've talked about the other justification. I do want to mention the part of the plan that talks about fostering interaction among the community, and the staff says it's hard to say that a parking lot can do that. And that's true if you view this in a vacuum. Obviously, the parking lot is there for the Carrick House, and the Carrick House is going to be the sort of facility that is going to foster that and make a destination for downtown. It'll be another business that will bring people to the downtown area. So if you look at it in that sense, that this parking lot, as part of the Carrick House, can implement some of the goals of the downtown plan. And when we did the downtown plan, we didn't throw out the things in the comp plan about appropriate land use relationships, and you still have to look at what's appropriate, forgetting whether this is a parking lot or not, but is B1, or is R1E appropriate, surrounded by B1 and across from B2A? And I think the land use relationship criteria would suggest that this is an appropriate land use relationship. The last thing that I'll go through is that we agree with the staff's findings on the variance. I also have additional findings on the zone change that I'll hand out as well that are a little more extensive than the staff's as well. But I do want to tell you that we were out in the hall for several minutes meeting with some of the landowners and neighbors who live across the street on the south side of East 3rd Street, who had concerns about the B1 zone, and they'll certainly come up and talk to you for a moment. We met and we did agree to restrict certain uses through conditional zoning, which is possible under our zoning system here in Lexington. I do want, as you look at these, to remember that, however, that we're surrounded by B1 properties, we're surrounded by parking lots, and the properties across the street are zoned B2A. And we're all subject to the H1, but it is important to remember that the people, landowners across the street, who someday may not be them and someday may not be us, can do what would be allowed in the B2A zone, which are more intense than what can happen in the B1 zone. And there's always, all of us are people of goodwill, there's always a little bit of uncertainty about, I know what you're doing, but I'm not sure, and it works both ways. So I think we've come a great way in agreeing to limit the uses, which we appreciate, because the folks that you're gonna hear from are probably, are the pioneers of this neighborhood and have put a lot of the effort into it that's made it the desirable neighborhood that it is. So that's why Mr. Lundergan wants to work with his neighbors. I have penciled through these, I'll give these to the staff, but if you would bear with me, I want to read through the uses that we've agreed to prohibit in the B1 zone. We would prohibit, through conditional zoning, the retail sale of liquor and wine, and that specifically refers to no freestanding liquor stores where the sale of liquor and or wine is the principal use. Prohibited would be the retail sale of fabrics, yard goods, fixtures, furnishings, appliances, floor covering, furniture, kitchen and laundry equipment, retail sale of hardware and wallpaper, lawn care products, paint and other interior and exterior care products, newspapers and magazines, flowers, music, cameras, jewelry, luggage, business supplies and machines, prescription and non-prescription medicines, and medical supplies. What we've retained are such things as glassware, china, gifts, antiques, to try to keep it more of a neighborhood scale retail facility. Prohibited would be beauty shops, barber shops, shoe repair, self-service laundry, laundry pickup stations, automobile service stations, repair of household appliances, retail sale of plant nursery or other greenhouse products, outdoor miniature golf or putting courses, quick copy services like a Kinko's, the always popular circuses and carnivals. Can't find a place for a circus and carnival in this town. Indoor theaters, rental of equipment whose retail sale would be permitted in B1, arcades, pawn shops, and athletic club facilities. So those are, we would ask that as part of approval that you make those conditional zoning restrictions. Again, it is Mr. Lundergan's intention that this be parking for this facility. He paid a lot of money to make sure that he had parking convenient to the Carrick House to make it a success, but we appreciate their concern. And so we would ask in that spirit that you make these part of your motion should you be so kind as to recommend approval. With that, if you have questions for myself or Mr. Lundergan, we're here to answer them, but appreciate your attention. Thank you, Ms. Wiseman. Any questions for Ms. Wiseman? Okay. At this time, we'll take comments from the audience, and if there are those in favor of this application, please come forward. Okay, if none, those opposed to this application, please come forward. Let us have your name and address, please. Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Sorry, sorry, Rena. My name is John Morgan, and my wife and I, who's also here, live at 343 North Limestone, which is sort of to the top left of wherever's location. We also own three properties on the south side of 3rd Street. We restored what was a seven-unit apartment building at 120 East 3rd Street into a single-family residence. 122 East 3rd Street, we took a dilapidated duplex and turned that into our mining consultancy business, and we also purchased 126 East 3rd Street, and we're planning on a conversion of that into a single-family residence. So we're trying to follow through with that mixed use of downtown between a mix of businesses and residences, hoping to try and augment the whole feeling of 3rd Street. I wasn't sure whether to come up here as in support of the application or opposed to it, because we are really in support of it, and I'm very much in support of what Mr. Lundigan's doing with the Carrick House, and I think it's a great asset to downtown. It's the type of facility which we need. We want to bring people downtown for events such as this, so that's a very positive event. I think the only caveat to our support is the issue of B1, and what I'd really like to do is to turn to your help and see how we can get through what we believe is one small outstanding issue, which is it's a wonderful idea to have this as a parking lot to support the Carrick House. I think the development plan and the landscape screening, except for maybe a couple of issues we can address in a minute, is a positive step forward from having a gravel parking lot or even an ashless, and I think it's part of the evolution of what has been now a more vibrant neighborhood. However, the risk we are concerned about is if we change it back to B1, is what else could happen? And I think we all know that we have wonderful ideas when we try and get a zone change, but how do we make sure that those ideas and inspirations are followed through long-term, and it's what the neighborhood ends up doing? So I appreciate what Ms. Wiseman has done on restricting the B1 conditions, but what I would really ask for you as a group is, what can you do to help us to make sure that it is always going to be the use which Mr. Lundin has said it is, which is a parking lot to support the Carrick House? And the need for parking is obviously, and for any business, is a critical component. I think one of the points I'd like to make is that, if I could hand out some pictures and pass these around for a second. Thank you. These pictures are very similar to the ones which our staff showed you. I think the only difference is that the first picture you can see there's a temporary tent which Mr. Lundin has placed for some special events on the property, and that has taken up some parking spots, and I think possibly precipitates some of the need for this property to enhance the number of parking spaces. I think the only issue going back to, be careful what you ask for in B1, and what also could happen in the future is, I really want it to be a parking lot. I want it to be a well-screened parking lot and built into the overall character of the Carrick House. What I'm concerned about, and I think as the neighbors are concerned about, is nothing precludes another temporary structure, similar to the one you see in these photographs, also being built on that parking lot. Now, if Mr. Lundin in the future wants to come back with a different development plan for something specifically for this lot, which is in keeping with the comprehensive plan, wonderful, that's a different argument for a different day. But I think our discussion here today should be how do we try and get the conditions applied to the zone change, which fulfill Mr. Lundin's stated objective, which is to have a parking lot to support the Carrick House, and not end up with something else which is not following the character of what is still, in a lot of ways, a sensitive area for downtown development. There's been a huge amount of investment. I believe you have a letter in the record which was from one of the neighbors on the south side who's just put probably way over a million dollars into making a single-family residence there. We all feel that we want to make sure we're all going in the same direction forward. And I think what Mr. Lundin has done so far has been wonderful to do that and to build upon the momentum which is succeeding. Just want your help, if possible, to try and make sure that Mr. Lundin's objectives are met and also our concerns are somehow addressed and preserved. So, appreciate your help and thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Morgan. Are there any questions for Mr. Morgan at this time from the commission? Thank you very much, sir. Yes. That's the lady who wanted to build two houses on it. My name is Lorella Lederer. I'm the one that's been being referred to a lot. I live at 138 East 3rd Street, right across the street. I've lived there for 35 years. I think you are familiar with maybe the history, some of it. I'd just like to refresh your memories quickly. I got involved because we are in a B2A zone and the property owner right next to me about four or five years ago now attempted to build a three-unit townhouse in his backyard, which would have been on my lot line. We managed to keep that from happening so far. When the Ashley property became available, it was my concern that someone would try to do the same thing over there, that I had just fought and the neighbors had fought to maintain the residential and the current character, the single family residence on our street. So, I purchased that property and with the help of the planning commission, we got it changed to an R1E. The purpose was that, was to try to continue the residential nature, the single family residence that had been developing over the last year. I hired an architect, spent a lot of time, a lot of money. Unfortunately, then the housing downturn came. I did not have the wherewithal to be able to just hold onto it or to put up that building, knowing that I might have to sit there for several years, not having a tenant, not having it sold. So, when Mr. Lundergan came to me with his offer to purchase, we and our attorneys talked about it for, I believe three or four weeks before we came to agreement. And I'd like to just make it a point of record that there are deed restrictions on this property that are written into the deed. And I don't think anybody has mentioned that so far. Mr. Lundergan has insured me time and time again throughout the process of our talking before it was purchased and even until today, that he just intends to have a parking lot. And I am in agreement with that. And the deed restriction says that as long as I live there at that property, there are to be no buildings of any kind. I have a copy of this if you wanna make a copy and pass it around. I am concerned again that maybe some temporary buildings are gonna sprout up on this. And, you know, she spoke, Ms. Wiseman spoke to the idea that they wanted to preserve the beautiful character of the Carrick House, and it is gorgeous. And now we have gorgeous buildings across the street. I personally do not feel that the current temporary structure is adding to the presence, the streetscape. I do not think it enhances the Carrick property or the houses across the street. My concern is if this is changed to a B1 years down the road or even months down the road, then something else can come up and be put on that property other than a parking lot. That is my concern. I wish Mr. Lundergan the best. I want it to succeed over there. You know, I hope we can all work together. But I have lived there 35 years and it's been a long time seeing this property become, quote, worth living there. And I just don't want it to see it now go the other way. And so again, I'm kind of with Mr. Morgan, just asking for your help. What can you do to make sure that it is nothing other than a parking lot? Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Lederer. Does anyone else? OK. All right. Staff, do you have any rebuttal at this time? No, sir. We're finished. Oh, you're finished? OK. Chairman, I do think we have a finding we can put on the overhead for you if you do wish to consider the conditional zoning restrictions. OK. OK. We could take a look at that. OK. All right. Petitioner has no rebuttal. So at this time, we'll, I'm sorry, did you? I just want to reiterate, I think the conditions that we've imposed are sufficient. And I think if the suggestion is we can only use this as a surfing parking lot forever, I don't think that's reasonable. Things change, as you just heard. Her plans changed because of a turndown in the economy. So I think that this is, that is important to note that we are trying to keep it within the parameters of the neighborhood. We've gone a long way to do it. And I think as we propose it, we have provided ample protection. Thank you. Mr. Weisman, can I ask a question? This just made it to me, so I'm just curious. The ones that have circled, is that? Are prohibited. OK. All right. Thank you. Sorry about that. I just had a question. Yes, sir, Mr. Holmes. You're saying as long as it's used as a parking lot that there can't be any temporary structure. You can always go back and use whatever is within the zone. So are you saying, I'm a little confused on what you're saying, that you don't want to restrict your uses in the B1? Well, I'm saying that it can be used as a parking lot for a banquet facility. Yes. And it can be used for the other B1 uses other than those that we circled. But when it's being used as a parking lot, I think the concern was if it's a temporary structure. I think what we're hearing is that it would be not used for anything else but a surface parking lot for a banquet facility. And we want to be able to, I mean, that's, I would say, that can only be used for one thing. I think that's unreasonable. And again, why I took the trouble to talk about the zoning surrounding it, we don't have any guarantee from any other neighbors as to what they may be doing on their property in 10 years. And I think that we should be equitable in doing these restrictions. Ms. Weisman, was there an extra copy of that prohibited use that we could put on the overhead, I guess, now that's been circulated? OK. I think Mr. Penn had a question. Mr. Chairman, we've identified striking out the prohibited uses on their proposal in red. OK. So the ones not stricken through would still remain possible uses at this location. OK. The way the ordinance is set up, we will probably have to go up and down with it. Got you. OK. Mr. Penn, you had a question? Yeah. The testimony was given that there are deed restrictions on that parking lot, and that no building could be put on that parking lot as long as you live there. Is that the deed restriction I understood you to say? Yes, and if you would like, I'd be glad to read it to you. I have a copy of it here. And I can give it, if you want to make a copy of it, I mean, show it. It says, GLC properties hereby declares in places upon the lot the following restriction as to its current and future use, parenthesis the restrictions. Should GCL properties, its successors, or assigns desired to build a permanent building and or residence on the lot requiring a foundation, GCL properties, its successors, and assigns agree to provide Ms. Lederer with notice of the development and copies of such plans for Ms. Lederer's approval. Ms. Lederer's approval cannot unreasonably be withheld or delayed with respect to any single family residence developed and or built by GCL properties. It says single family residence. I can't object. It doesn't say that I can't object to anything else. And again, the intent was, and we both agreed with it, and our attorneys tried to put this in words, and it's very difficult to do. The intent was that as long as I lived across the street, there would be nothing there other than a parking lot, a garden, or single family residence. It says this restriction shall run with the lot and shall inure as long as Ms. Lederer is alive and is a permanent resident at 138 East 3rd Street. Would you like a copy? Would you like to have this? I just wanted to understand my own mind about that, but it doesn't refer to any temporary structures like that tent. It doesn't. Unfortunately, like Ms. Wiseman says, you know, you try to think as many things as you can, and unfortunately, it never occurred to me that we would have a bunch of tents over there. I understand. I just want to be clear. And my attorney didn't figure it out either. I just wanted to understand what your deed restriction said. Yes. That's fine. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Wiseman. I don't know. Maybe, I guess, our attorney would have to answer, but it doesn't sound like a restriction as much as it is a notification. Well, number one, I don't have to tell you all, you don't deal with deed restrictions. But what it says is that it doesn't, it does not prohibit buildings on this property. It says that if he desires to build a permanent building and or residence on the lot requiring a foundation, they will provide, I'm paraphrasing, provide Ms. Lederer with notice of the development and copies of such plans from Ms. Lederer's approval. And then it does say, it makes a distinction as to single family. Ms. Lederer's approval cannot unreasonably be withheld or delayed with respect to any single family residence developed and or built by GCL Properties, its successors, and assigned. So it's not a total prohibition on buildings. She gets notice, and she has to give her approval before they can do it. He didn't have his own change to do a single family residence. We would in B1, yes. Okay. Are there any other questions this time? Any questions from the commission? Okay. Ms. Wade, did you have something else? I just was gonna make the point that Rena did that you all don't have to deal with the deed restrictions. Thank you. That's an extra layer that's between the property owners. That's between property owners, right. Okay. I just wanted to know what they agreed to and didn't agree to. Okay, so at this time, we'll close this portion of the public hearing and turn it over to the commission for discussion. Would you put the restriction back up on the overhead? Findings. No, I think that was. We have the one that shows the prohibited uses, and then we have the findings. They're on different sheets. You're interested in the list of prohibited uses? Yeah, here it is. What's, I think. It's gotta be. On that one, the circuit moved. It's gotta be. That's the worst. I almost forgot, it has to go up there. Yeah. Do you wanna ask? Well, let's see. Building inspections. Building inspection. Building inspection, they're back there. Ready? I'm ready for, if there's no further discussion. Yeah, I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman. I would like to move for approval of GLC properties, LLC. LLC. GCL, I'm sorry, GCL, along with the requested variance for the reasons provided by staff in the staff report. And also for the variance for the reasons provided by staff. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Call the question. Okay, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Mr. Chairman, if I may. Wait a minute. I'm sorry, Mr. Salih. I was thinking that the, could we back up a minute? That we clarified that that did not include conditional zoning. Right, the conditional zoning, I was gonna, I was mixing up with the development plan, so that's why I wanted to back up. So, can I remake my motion? You want to amend that? Amend my motion, yes. I'd like to amend the motion to include the zone restrictions put forward by the applicant for the reasons based on the findings that's noted on the overhead above because of the proximity of this property to the residential and educational land uses close by. Well, I think we've already taken a vote. We probably, well, what I was gonna say before we get into that is rather than just referring to what's on the overhead, it would be more appropriate when you're talking about conditional zoning to go ahead and read into the record the prohibited uses as well as the finding that those are based on. But back to the chairman's question. You had a motion that got a second and got passed. So, who's your parliamentarian? Mr. Kravitz. No, I think we can work through it, but I think certainly maybe somebody else should make a motion to amend that motion to include the conditional zoning restrictions rather than the same person amending their own motion. Okay, that makes more sense. I so move. Okay. You want me to read them in? Okay. Can I read them in for the person who motioned or do you need to read them in? Well, I think they should be read into the record. Yes, we probably ought to read those in. As part of the new motion. If you could read those in. Okay. Specifically, no freestanding liquor stores for the sale of liquor and or wine is the principal use. A little print. No establishments for the retail sale of merchandise including fabrics, yarn, goods, fixtures, furnishings, appliances, floor coverings, furniture, kitchen, and laundry equipment. Retail sale of hardware and wallpaper, lawn care products, paint and other exterior care products. Newspapers, magazines, flowers, music, cameras, jewelry, luggage, business supplies and machines, prescription and non-prescription medicines, medical supplies. Then do I need to read the numbers of? What's the question? Well, we have circled five. Yeah, any of the. Numbers five, six, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18. That all those uses would be prohibited. And that those uses will be prohibited and the restrictions are appropriate for the subject property due to the close proximity of residential and educational land uses in this neighborhood. Thank you, Ms. Richardson. You've heard the uses, prohibited uses read into the record. We had a motion and a second to amend. I'll call the question at this time. Okay, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. ZDP. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion for approval of ZDP 2008-58 for the nine reasons that are provided by staff and number 10, changing that to granting the requested landscape variances and adding a number 11, which would add the conditional zoning restrictions. Is there a motion? Is there a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. But before we vote on that, I've just got to ask the question. On this picture, I guess we'll ask building inspection. Is this temporary screening that we see here? They're grouping. Looks like a tornado went through and took them every which way. Yeah. Chairman, members of the commission, my name's Bob Carpenter with building inspection. We haven't addressed this parking lot, so I assume that the trees were there when the building was there before. We haven't received an application on this. We haven't addressed it. But will you pass that with a lien in that band? No. They would need to be corrected. Well, I think they have a sign-off. It says item number four is building inspections, approval of landscaping, correct? Is that number four? Yes, and I've been working with Mr. Lundgren about what's proposed there for the parking lot. And I am there at the landscape review committee and discussed all that. Okay. This will be taken care of in the sign-off on number four if this is approved. Yes. I hope. Correct, they would have to present a landscape plan to building inspection for my approval. Okay, thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Any other questions? Call the question, okay. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. I see there's no requirement on that right now at all. I know. So this puts the requirement on it? Right. For those to put that just kind of around, they were temporarily stuck up there a year ago until they got around to doing something when they put the gravel down. I hope they were temporary. What do you want to bet a non-permanent structure on the parking lot? Oh yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. Yes ma'am, we're ready. Jeez. Good afternoon. This is on page 11 of your agenda, item C. How many? 30. Really? I was just told two. Okay. It's tab 10 in your notebook. This is ZOTA 2008-3, and it's a text amendment to article 25, which deals with telecommunication towers. It was initiated by the planning commission several, several months ago at the request of staff. And there was a lot of discussion about this because we had to deal with the law department and finance and all kinds of people to get this resolved. To give you a little bit of history, if you haven't had much experience with article 25 and telecommunication towers, it was created in 2000 in response to House Bill 168, and it gave local governments limited regulation as far as cell towers went. You could act on a cell tower application, but the Public Service Commission could overturn their request and your action. And then it's been revised two times since then, one time in 2003 in response to a change in KRS-100, and that gave planning commissions and other local government entities the power to act on cell tower applications without the Public Service Commission. They don't have the power to intervene anymore. The only action that they do, or the only thing they have to do with it anymore is if a tower is approved, then they get notification so that they can update their database so that they know where the towers are located. And then in 2004, a change was made to make it consistent with the engineering stormwater manuals so that cell towers and their equipment cabinets could be located in the 25-foot buffer area around floodplains, but not in the floodplains themselves. And then this change now is in response to a request from building inspection, and it deals with the issue of sureties to cover demolition and removal costs of towers in the event that they're abandoned. Article 25 right now requires a bond, a letter of credit, or another form of surety to be collected when a permit is issued by building inspection. Building inspection can no longer collect letters of credit, and so they asked us to change this. And there has never been an amount specified in the zoning ordinance as far as how much to collect, and they were not sure how to manage that. And so we contacted industry representatives, and they told us that 25% of the construction cost would cover demolition. So we put that into the zoning ordinance and took out the letters of credit and left bonds and other sureties to be collected by building inspection. It'll be managed internally within the government, and then they will be reviewed and updated annually to allow for inflation or other things that might affect increased cost of removal. Another change is we're providing a definition for rooftop antenna as opposed to rooftop tower construction because there has been confusion in the past about that. Generally, rooftop antenna are staff items. The staff can approve that and get a permit from building inspection. There's no height restriction. And at a request from a member of the mayor's staff, as far as height restrictions, we're recommending that any rooftop antennas can be located on a building, on the edge of a building, if they're up to 15 feet tall. Anywhere from 15 to 20 feet, they would have to have a one-to-one height-to-yard ratio which means vertical to horizontal distance from the edge of the roof. And if it's any greater than 20 feet, then it would have to have plan and commission approval. Another change is a clarification as far as application requirements for temporary towers. Right now, they can go on a property by right if a permanent tower has been approved for a property. And a question has come up in the past as to whether it has to be the same applicant and the same property. We're putting that in there to clarify that, yes, it does. If somebody has gotten an application approved for a permanent tower, then they can put the temporary tower up by right. Somebody else wants to put a temporary tower up, they have to fill out a uniform application and submit that to the planning commission. The amount of time that a temporary tower can stay on a property is, right now, a year. And we're recommending that it be six months and then renewable up to a year. It'll still be the year limit, but they can renew that after a six-month period. And then another change is the landscape requirements for alternative design, which would be like a clock tower, a flagpole, or something like that, like the centenary church tower. They have a cell tower inside there. They have their equipment cabinet inside there. They wouldn't need any landscaping. As it is right now, they would have to have landscaping around there. But if it's totally contained within something like a church tower or whatever, then they wouldn't need to put landscaping up. The rest of the changes are just basic language changes for clarification, and all of them are minor changes. This is gonna make it easier and more efficient for analysis of cell tower applications and implementation of the applications. It'll provide guidance to building inspection as far as how much to collect for sureties and how to handle them. The zoning committee reviewed this and recommended approval for the reasons that the staff had given. And those are that it'll be easier and more efficient analysis of applications. It'll provide parameters for sureties as far as amounts and what kinds will be collected, how it'll be managed within the government. Rooftop antenna, it'll clarify that as opposed to rooftop tower construction and give parameters for the height. And then temporary towers, it'll make the applicant more accountable as far as taking care of taking them away. And it'll give the urban county government building inspection more enforcement capability. And so we're recommending approval of this and ask that you recommend approval also. Thank you, Ms. Rikers. Mr. Penn has a question. Yes, sir. Ms. Rikers, you know this has been a concern of mine for a long time. This just applies to the new towers that we is going forward. Correct. What type of arrangement do we have to take down the old towers that we have scattered all over the city? Is that sure that we do? The people that put them up are required to take them down, but I don't know if we have any enforcement power. That would be, Bob? Do you know if we have any? I'm not sure. I don't think we've had any bonds upon the old. We have on some reasons, but not any prior to that. Yeah, Mr. King has a, I would comment on the ones back in the era when the Public Service Commission was in charge. We asked for, and in most cases, got a requirement attached to their permit that was issued by the PSC for removal if it was abandoned as a tower. So again, that would be enforcement by that agency, but it was part and parcel of many of those earlier approvals. I couldn't say all of them, Frank, or which ones, but many of them are. Well, I mean, it's not gonna be long if these things are gonna be dinosaurs, and I just don't want the city to be hung with these things, or worse yet, have them in a neighborhood where they're not maintained, and they're just there. So this is a good move, and I'm glad we're doing it. I just am concerned about the others. Yeah, I would think you could petition to go back to the Public Service Commission. Yeah, since they had final say, so everyone to begin with, then probably they would be able to do that. Well, we've done, I mean, we've done several since I've been on the Planning Commission that we've just done on our own, and I guess we don't have any surety on them either. No, probably not. Okay, thank you. Okay, any other questions for Ms. Rutgers? All right, you have a staff's report. And they recommend approval with three reasons. Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move that the Planning Commission initiate this text amendment. It's already been initiated. We need to approve it. For the reason provided by staff. Approve it. Approve it. What approval? We need to approve it. Well, then I move we approve it. I second. Thank you. Whenever y'all tell me to move, I'll move. It's been a long day. Too long for me. Motion and approve, motion and a second to approve. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, for record, could we get a second on that motion, please? It was Ms. Richardson here. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Thank you. I wanted to. Each of us, I'll pass my second on. Okay, are there any commission items at this time? Mr. King's shaking his head no, and is there anything from the commission here? Okay. With that, all right, we're adjourned. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh So long, farewell This is goodbye Oh I'll be seeing you In all the old familiar places That my heart embraces All day through In that small cafe, the park Across the way, the children's garrison The chestnut tree, the wishing well I'll be seeing you In every lovely summer's day In everything that's light and gay I'll always think of you that way I'll find you in the morning sun And when the night is through I'll be looking at the moon But I'll be seeing you Oh I'll be seeing you In all the old familiar places That my heart embraces All day through In that small cafe, the park Across the way, the children's garrison The chestnut tree, the wishing well I'll be seeing you In every lovely summer's day In everything that's light and gay I'll always think of you that way You'll be in the morning sun And when the night is through I'll be looking at the moon I'll be looking at the moon But I'll be seeing you Oh I'll be seeing you © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon