There's something I must say out loud You once, twice, three times later And I love you Yes, you once, twice, three times, lady. And I love you. I love you. When we are together The moments I cherish With every beat of my heart To touch you To hold you To feel you, to need you There's nothing to keep us apart 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 Three times a lady looking at you and smiling In her eyes of the sea She's got a secret garden We're everything you want Where everything you need Will always stay A million miles away Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Urban County Planning Commission meeting. It's May the 23rd, 2019, and thank you all for those of you who are in the audience. Thanks again for the staff, for your usual support, and a special thanks to the commission members who have shown up today. Also, in the process of doing all this, I'd like to call attention especially to the fact that one of our commissions is celebrating his 39th birthday, Mr. Frank Penn. He didn't know I knew that. So happy birthday, Frank. and he's only 39 years old but but he is on a holding pattern we've been told that approval of the minutes for April 11th and for April the 25th if you could take that on the consent agenda Plumlee is not here so I need a motion from chairman Wilson yeah I believe the Planning Commission only received the April 11th minute minutes for review so please don't approve the 25th thank you Okay, we'll just do the April 11th. So we'll take a motion on that. Mr. Pohl. I move to approve the minutes of April 11th. Okay, we have Mr. Graham Pohl moves that we approve the minutes of April 11th. And seconded by Ms. Karen Money. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. Postponements and our withdrawals. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, member of the Planning Commission, Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant, Ball Homes Incorporated. This item is item one on your zoning item on page two of the agenda. We'd like to request a postponement until your June 13th meeting. have amended our zone change request and have sent out notice in accordance to basically put it on the June 13th agenda. Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this recommendation for postponement for all homes? Anyone on the Commission? Ready for a motion then. Mr. Chairman. I move for postponement of PLN MJDP 1920 until the June 13th meeting 1920 right here first three it should be well he's got 20 but it should be 19 three he said the first one on the agenda okay then I'll amend my motion to PLNMAR 19-3 You know how those birthday boys are, you know, slow here. All right, it's been moved that we postpone the PLNMAR 19-3 Ball Holmes until June the 13th. The motion was made by Mr. Penn, seconded by Mr. Healy-Bell. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when he comes up on your screens? Thank you. That motion carries. Thank you. Show up on both sides. Anyone else? Mr. Chairman. Yep. Staff has an item to bring to your attention. I do not see anyone in the audience to address this particular item. However, staff did receive a communication on the development plan on the first page of your agenda. This is a major development plan 19-20 for the Webb Properties Unit 1, Block A, Outlot 2, Regency Point amended. This is property located at 150 West Lowry Lane and 2350 Norman Lane. Staff did receive a communication from the applicant's engineer requesting a one-month postponement on this plan. and they are dealing with serious issues on the detention basin on this particular property. Is the date of the one month June the 13th? Yes, actually, no, the 20th, yes. They requested a one month because they requested two weeks last time, which obviously was not adequate time. So it's June 27th? They requested a month. Okay. Okay. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this recommendation for postponement? Anyone on the commission? If not, we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir, Mr. Holmes. I'll move postponement plan MJDP 19-20, Well Properties Unit 1, Block A, Outlaw 2, until June 27th, 2019, I guess is correct. Okay, it's been motion been made by Mr. Mike Horns that we have postponed plan MJDP 19-20 where properties unit 1 block A outlock. And it's been seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy and it's a one month proposal postponed or until June 27th, 2019. Any discussion on the motion? Now would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion carries. Chairman Wilson, the staff also has a request on page 5 of the agenda. For ZODA 2019-2, the alternative regulation for zone map amendments, and then in parentheses it says KRS 100.2111. This is a request that the staff asked the planning commission to initiate a short time ago. At this point, although the staff recommended approval, we have met with the law department and the council clerk to discuss how the records will be maintained in the future. And there's some concern about what the staff report had recommended. So we would ask that the Planning Commission take a month and postpone until the June 27th hearing for our staff to continue to work with the Law Department and the Council Clerk to resolve that ownership of the final records. Okay. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this recommendation for postponement? Anyone on the commission? If not, we're ready for a motion then. Mr. Pohl? I move to postpone ZODA 2019-2, Alternative Regulation for Zoning Map Amendment, KRS 100.2111. Okay. Do I have a second? Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Graham Pohl, seconded by Mr. Larry Forster. We postpone until June the 27th, ZOTA 2019-2, Alternative Regulation for Zoning Map Amendment, KRS 100-2111. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when that comes up on your screens? Okay, that carries. Okay, then we're ready to move. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the planning commission. Mr. Chair, excuse me, if I may. Okay. If I may, one second. Hang on, just one minute. In regards to this zone change request, I would like to declare that I know individuals here today that I consider friends that may be on opposing sides of this request. Any conversations I've had has been about the process only. In any particulars, I've referred those questions to the staff or Ms. Tracy Wade. I have no financial interest in this request or any surrounding properties. I plan to act on this request from the information we hear today. However, if any parties feel that this would be inappropriate, I would disqualify myself now and leave the hearing. Okay. Does anyone in the audience related to this particular Easley and Faust Properties have any problems or challenges with Mr. Owens being a part of this commission? Okay. Hearing none, Mr. Owens, thank you for the statement, and we'll move forward. Go ahead. We are shifting to item B2 on page three of your agenda. This is PLN MAR 19-00007 Easley and Faust Properties LLC. The petitioner has requested a zone change from the single family residential R1B zone to the planned neighborhood residential zone for 12.55 net and 13.83 gross acres. for the properties located at 1500 through 1561 Winner's Circle and 3298 and 3300 Versailles Road. The proposed development includes 44 attached single family dwelling units and the reuse of the existing historic house as a common space or clubhouse for the residents of the development. The proposed development represents a density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The subject property is located on the south side of Versailles Road across the main entrance to the Calmute Horse Farm and between the Wellesley Heights neighborhood and Cardinal Run Park North. The interchange of Versailles Road and New Circle Road is located less than a mile east of the subject property. Right here. You can see the interchange with the clover leaves associated. The subject's western boundary and Versailles Road are the urban slash rural service area boundary line at this location. You can see that in the red depicted on this going across here and down. The subject property is bound to the west and the south by the Wellesley Heights subdivision, which is currently zoned R1A, to the north by Versailles Road and the Kalamut farm zoned AR and to the east by the the LFUCG Park which is currently zoned R1A. Here we can see the aerial photography of this site you can see the proposed area of redevelopment set out with the historic house in the center and the pool out back. We have the park off to the east current neighborhood off to the west and then the farm up to the north moving to the road view of this site looking into the property this is a gated property here looking out towards the earth yes out towards the airport and then or I'm sorry this is out towards the airport here and then into downtown along Versailles Road and then looking across the way here this gives you a view of looking into the property itself you can see that it is a large amount of tailored vegetation on this site in this photo we up on the top right you're able to see the historic house and then down on the bottom right you're able to look out from where that historic house is looking towards for sales road prior to 1996 the subject property was partially in the urban service area and partially in the rural service area because of the the boundary at the time followed the watershed divide which split the subject property during the 1996 comprehensive plan update an urban service boundary adjustment was adopted by the Planning Commission which added the remaining 2.9 nine acres of this property while simultaneously removing the portion of the Wellesley Heights subdivision from the urban service area. The urban service area boundary currently borders the west and south portion here and here in that red line. The 2001 and 2007 comprehensive plans recommended low density residential future land uses for this subject property which at the time was defined as to five dwelling units per net acre. In 2006, a zone change application was approved for this location, shifting from the R1A zone to the R1B zone to allow for the construction of 17 detached single-family residential units on the subject property. This came out to a residential density of 1.35 units per net acre. While the proposed plan and the density were both in compliance with the 2001 comprehensive plan the development's impact on the scenic for sales road corridor led to the use of conditional zoning which included included limiting the density of the site the inclusion of a 70 to 100 foot buffer area from the right of way and the prohibition of residential dwelling units within 200 feet of the right of way as i stated previously the applicant is seeking to develop 44 dwelling attached single family dwelling units and the reuse of the existing historical house as a common space or club the applicant opines that they are in compliance with the adopted goals and objectives of the 2018 comprehensive plan they state that the proposed rezoning encourages the expansion of housing choices while also supporting infill and redevelopment and providing a well-designed neighborhood while the applicant is proposing single-family residential dwelling units which is in a continuation of the current current composition of the area they are seeking to amend it to include attached town an attached townhouse development which provides variability in the housing type and a modest increase in the housing density additionally by utilizing the historic residents and by providing the residents of the community private access to the neighboring Cardinal Run Park North the the applicant is It is providing amenities to the potential residents and opportunities for healthier activities. Staff agrees with these elements of the proposal. In addition to the goals and objectives under the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, the applicant is asked to add context and refinement to their rezoning by choosing a place type and development type that the subject property and proposal fits within. The applicant decided that the subject properties and the proposed use fell under the enhanced neighborhood place type, which is an existing residential area to be enhanced with additional amenities, housing types, and neighborhood serving retail services and employment options. In this case, they are seeking to add a variable type of housing into the area, as well as provide an open and common space. The development type should be also context sensitive to the areas around there and must add to a sense of place, while also trying to incorporate some aspects of multimodal design or the ability for connection to LexTrans services. From the place type, the applicant chose the low-density residential development type. The development type is comprised primarily of attached or detached single and or detached single family homes of varying formats with an efficient multimodal network and open space designed to fit the needs of the area's residents. Staff concurs with the APKIN's assessment of the place type and agrees that low density residential can be appropriate for the subject property within the planned neighborhood residential or R3 zone. Extending from the place type and the development types, there are a set of development criteria that are used to distill the adopted goals and objectives, as well as the policies put forth in the 2018 comprehensive plan. The criteria for the development represents the needs and the desires of the members of the Lexington-Fade Urban County community in hopes of developing a better built environment. While staff agrees with much of the justification provided by the applicant, there were three areas of concern as to how the applicant applied, not applied, or not addressed the criteria. Since the subcommittee meeting, the applicant has addressed one of these concerns, safe access to community facilities and green space, CLI 7-1. They have done so by increasing the delineated space for safe pedestrian movement throughout the site. Mr. Martin can describe this here in a few moments. While the criteria has been addressed, this criteria has been addressed, staff is still looking for greater description as to how the applicant is utilizing green infrastructure through their development, which is BSU 11-1. The comprehensive plan notes several types or forms of green infrastructure, including but not limited to urban agriculture, green walls, urban woodlands, suburban street trees, green roofs, and sensitive urban design. Staff believes that the APKIN can note the future use of green infrastructure at the time of final development. Additionally, staff is interested in the stakeholder involvement, DPL 7-1, specifically what meetings have taken place and who was involved. we know that the apkin has worked with the neighborhood neighboring wellesley heights but we do not we would like to know a few more of the specifics who was involved when did these activities occur how what kind of resolutions were discussed staff is of the opinion that the applicant can provide that information regarding these meetings and the interaction that they've had at today's meeting while the goals and objectives and the criteria are being met The portion of the urban county is along this portion of the urban county is along the Versailles Road corridor which has been an identified it has been identified as one of Lexington's historic turnpikes and is a connection point for one of the gateways into the Bluegrass region the airport which is located down towards this area. As a gateway and historic turnpike Versailles Road provides a glimpse of the of the rural area as it was in the past. One of the primary goals of the Rural Land Management Plan, an adopted element of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, is that the preservation of the existing character of rural roads, which encompasses such physical features as fences, walls, trees, creeks, streams, shrubs, houses, and barns should be maintained. Based upon these goals and recommendations of the RLMP, and in order to protect the unique character of the corridor, Conditional zoning restrictions are recommended for the subject property. These are to protect the historic turnpike. There shall be a 100 foot buffer area from the right of way of Versailles Road. Within the buffer area, there shall be no principal or accessory structures. Additionally, a tree preservation area shall be established within that buffer. Only damaged or diseased trees or those trees necessary for a public or private street may be removed, but shall be replaced in equal number to preserve the existing tree canopy and buffer. Replacement trees may be selected from group A or B of the plant list as referenced by Article 18 of the zoning ordinance. With these elements of the site, staff and the zoning committee recommended approval of the zone change with the following findings which have been discussed prior. So I will not go through these one at a time. You have heard me talk about them. but staff is in agreement with the goals and objectives provided by the applicant as well as the vast majority of all the criteria that they have submitted at this time with the provision that there is a buffer along versailles road to protect that historic turnpike as well as this recommending recommendation being subject to the approval and certification of the major development plan for lexingtonian estates mjdp 1919. if you have any questions i'd be happy to answer them at this time any questions thank you mr martin who's present okay yes Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'd like to direct your attention to page four. Item B, this is a development plan 19-19, Lexington Estates, the Silks Club amended. This is a preliminary development plan that is associated with your zone change today. We have also provided to you this lovely pink handout with revised conditions because what you see before you is a revised plan for this particular proposed development. Again, you can see here is the Versailles road frontage for the subject property, the existing road system. Here's the entrance. This is the existing street system for the current property and the approved development. It is proposed one-way circulation in this fashion. Here, of course, is the historic house, the clubhouse, the pool area. And you can see the townhouses as they're arranged with their orientation and frontage to the street system. They are proposing access easements in various locations. Again, you can see here and here to serve for the parking and access to the garage for these units at the rear of all the townhouses. They are proposing two-car garages, by the way, with a total of 123 spaces. There are some guest spaces in this location, this location, and in the rear you can see where they provided some guest parking for this particular development. The lot coverage for this particular development with these 45 townhouses is only 17% of the property. The FAR, which of course is total square footage, all floors included, is 137,000 square feet, and that too is a relatively low FAR for a property of this size. Again, you can see the tremendous amount of open space in the green area that exists on this property. And as Hal showed you, it's heavily treed. There's been a lot of landscaping and trees on this property. This revised plan has met many of the conditions that you can see. that were of a concern initially on this plan. There is one item that needs to be addressed, and it's a relatively small item, but I believe Unit 16 slightly encroaches into the required setback. And it's a common situation that is overlooked at times, but the more restrictive setback applies from zone to zone. And the R1A has a 25-foot setback. They are at 20 feet. So it's just a very slight encroachment, and an adjustment could be made to address that on the plan prior to certification. Now, staff had originally raised an issue, and you can see it as a question, discussed additional screening adjacent to the R1A. Again, because of the zone change in townhouses and the intensified use, staff raised this issue, and we're aware that the neighborhood has concerns about the buffer as well. So the more staff looked into this and thought about the issues, the principal issue from the staff's perspective is the access easements and the driveways in the rear and the fact that that's a vehicular use area. Well, again, so you're talking about headlights and that sort of thing at night with cars coming and going and parking in this area. So what we want to bring to your attention is that our concerns, we believe, are addressed adequately by Article 18 of the ordinance. Number seven, right through here. R3 to R1A. It's six feet adjacent. Here's the key. You move over. There's one tree per 40 feet of linear boundary. But the key here is plus. This is they have to do this. a continuous six-foot-high planting hedge, fence, wall, or earth mound, six feet tall. And we believe that's adequate to screen the adjoining properties from cars and the movement of cars. And that, we think, is the primary concern that exists in this area, again, being a vehicular use area. So we just wanted to let you know why that was there, that it was a discussion item to begin with, and we wanted to address it, we do believe Article 18 adequately addresses it. And again, as we have stated, it is a concern of the neighbors, and I'm sure they'll be happy to talk with you some more about that particular issue. Now, as to the place builder criteria, You can see on your handout that this has remained as number nine. Discuss the following. Well, if you look on the back, there are no following. Our copier has been a little cantankerous today. And so I'd have to refer you back to your agenda. And we've got them on the screen for you as well. but these are the criteria that Hal, of course, was addressing in his presentation. And as he pointed out, you can take that down because I want to look at the plan. Here we go. Here's the key to the pedestrian, to the vehicular and pedestrian infrastructure areas. That was an important issue for staff and was discussed at length. The applicant has provided a good sidewalk system around the perimeter and serving all the townhouses and serving the development. They're also showing sidewalks into the clubhouse area, across the clubhouse area. They have separate what was originally right here in sharing this access easement is now a clear and well-defined separate pedestrian access into the park. So they have shown that on the plan. They've addressed it, and staff is very comfortable with this system. Now, I would add that when the final development plan comes in, there may be a few tweaks here and there on this system. It's entirely possible. The post office, as you all are now aware, is requiring kiosk locations. And so pedestrian safety to that ultimate location. And they don't know, and we don't know what that will be at this time. But, again, there could be some tweaks to the system, particularly for that reason. The issue with a written or graphical description of green infrastructure, again, on the plan, you can see there's a tremendous amount of green area. So, you know, that's always good. There will be lots of infiltration. There's lots of green. There's existing public improvements gutter along the streets from the previous development. Here's a large sinkhole, by the way, in this location, and there's a pump station over in here, too, for the sanitary sewer service. But, again, these are final development issues primarily. I think staff would like to see some verbiage and a note addressing that they will utilize appropriate green infrastructure. There's a wide range of green infrastructure, and it could vary a little bit depending on their infrastructure plans and what's deemed most appropriate in this particular area. So we're looking for something along those lines, just really a note, as opposed to any solid graphic representation of green infrastructure. A little leery at this time of saying, well, we're going to put a rain garden here or a rain garden there, or pavers, permeable pavers, in any specific location. Again, we're looking for an indication and a commitment that they will utilize green infrastructure. So that's how we would like to see those items addressed and then on the course documentation of public outreach, how to address that. They have reached out to the neighborhood and worked with them in an attempt to address their concerns. So with that, your subdivision committee had originally recommended postponement. That was out of concern of the placemaker criteria. this is our first big shot at this process as you are well aware we have this new plan with revisions and staff is recommending approval of the plan to you this afternoon I'll be happy to answer your questions you may have for staff any questions mr. Martin or mr. Berkeley first and then mr. Penn mr. Berkeley. Mine's a place builder question so I don't know if you or Hal won. I'm just trying to get my hands around a little bit more of the green infrastructure because it it just sounds a little bit loose to me as to what it is but one of the things I noticed was that they get credit for suburban street trees and I think what you said was we don't want to show that on the plan per se but we just need to note it and something like that will take care of that because the aerial photo clearly shows they've got you know those in place right so I'm wondering why that came up as an issue on this one it's a comprehensive plan issue and we're trying to emphasize green infrastructure. The stormwater manuals give a tremendous amount of credit for quality efforts. And those are the trees, Mr. Berkeley, you're correct. The gutters into the ground. They're permeable pavers, as mentioned. They've got so many options. But what we are looking for in terms of complying with the comp plan is a commitment to green infrastructure. And it can be above and beyond just pure quality controls for instance a detention vault or even a basin can be both quality and quantity controls so we're looking now go ahead jump in now i know we also just needed to be noted and discussed so one of the elements of the development criteria are that they should be shown on the development plan with an indication of what they're doing there or described in their written justification at this point we don't have a clear identification of how they are identifying it so that is what we're asking for today and into the future i have a follow-up question to that if i might okay then we'll give you a priority go ahead is the reference to green infrastructure limited to stormwater related issues or is it No, sir. It would not be. So if the applicant said that they were going to spray foam, insulate all of the buildings, would that be interpreted as a green infrastructure effort? I think so, yes, sir. Green buildings and that sort of thing would certainly be something that we would consider along those lines, yes, sir. It's interesting that you bring that up because a plan that was postponed before you today in a meeting with that applicant, And staff asked them if they would do a green building to address some of their stormwater issues on that Regency Road plan. And they were not willing to do that. But that is certainly something that staff would accept as green infrastructure. I would note that the interpretation of a green building could be incredibly broad because there are all kinds of evaluation criteria and methodologies that could be adopted. So the applicant could easily have said yes and then done something very easy. This is true, and I think that is something that will evolve over time, and we'll see what tends to be the more popular approach. Mr. Penn. Tom, before the applicant, I want to ask you, at the subdivision committee, we had quite a big discussion about the stormwater management and the sinkhole. Is the staff comfortable at this time that the sinkhole will be one of the avenues to get rid of the stormwater? Absolutely. Yes, sir. And as you are well aware, Mr. Penn, sinkholes have been with us for a long time. And our engineering manuals and our staff address them in their infrastructure plans and in the math. And what a lot of people may not be aware, and I'm certainly no engineer. I picked this stuff up because I've been working with these people for so long. When it comes to sinkholes, you don't want to put too much water in them, nor do you want to dry them out. So there's a tremendous amount of math and things that go into figuring out how to treat them. So, yes, staff is comfortable. So there's been enough geotech done there to know that that sinkhole will handle it? If necessary, absolutely, yes, sir. They would be required geotech. That whole area, Calumet and all the rest of them have huge sinkholes. Yes, sir. And this one's large, and the adjacent one on the park property is large as well. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Nickel. Yes, thank you. My question is about this application of place builder criteria. So what we've seen is that there are 56 criteria that needed to be addressed by the applicant, and it looks like the applicant addressed all but two. Is that correct? I believe that is correct. At this time, yes. Okay, and that happened during their meetings with you all? So that was a blend of their illustrative document and their written justification. Since the zoning meeting, there were three criteria that were really of concern with staff. With their most recent update of their development plan and the clearing up a lot of the access for pedestrians and removing them from conflicts with vehicular traffic, they took care of one of them. Today, we would just like to hear a little bit more of how they would take care of those other two. okay thank you thank you mr. Martin you know how dearly love revisions which I appreciate very much I'm curious when was the last revision of this plan when did y'all receive May 21st May 21st yes sir okay okay but that's not the one that you've shown on this plan this is a color rendering that should match the one that was submitted on May 21st okay thank you any other questions for mr. Martin okay applicant good afternoon mr. chairman members of the Commission Jacob Walburn on behalf of the applicant easily and faust properties llc with me today i have mr robert easily on behalf of the applicant i have mike warner of color warner construction and my good friend rory kaylee who can help hopefully address some of these green infrastructure questions because you don't want to hear it from me i did do a powerpoint i'm going to skip it for now though i do worry that i'm getting out of practice i think i can address a number of the issues that to come up fairly briefly and then if we need to get into details I'm happy to do so we intend to go 56 for 56 on the place builder criteria I'm gonna ask mr. Easley to come up and share with you the multiple meetings and email communications he's had with the neighborhood here in just a second when I asked mr. Kaley to get up and talk about the green infrastructure other than that we're in complete agreement with staffs recommendations and findings we have reviewed their information about that one unit we will either know that whole building over a little bit or if we have to we'll drop the unit on the end goal obviously being to preserve the density but if we have to lose a unit to comply we understand that that's a standard we have to comply with we're in agreement with staff's position on buffering we think the buffer that staff has proposed is more than ample to protect adjacent properties and are in complete agreement with staff's recommendation on that and we are in agreement with their conditional zoning restriction, which is primarily a hundred foot setback along Versailles Road and for lack of a better way of putting it, not messing with anything that's already there. If there are diseased trees we can take them out and replace them obviously, but basically establishing a setback and tree protection area along Versailles Road, applicant has no objection to that as well. So with that I want to let my partners here address those specific questions on the place builder criteria but I think we are in agreement full agreement with the staff I did want to add one thing about the pedestrian system we did convene a meeting with traffic engineering to discuss the pedestrian system and potential conflicts as we discussed with those of you I believe that were in subdivision committee we when this development was originally proposed notwithstanding that not much got built out there the street trees were installed and so we were looking for a way to implement a pedestrian system that did not require us to remove what are now mature street trees so the pedestrian system we've proposed for now actually hugs a little closer to the buildings and that is in an effort to preserve those trees that have already been planted there may be some tweaks to that as we get to final development plan but I think by and large the system we've come up with everyone should be able to live with so if I can get mr. Easley mr. Kaley to join me here briefly and I will let them address these final two place builder criteria and then we'll be happy to entertain any questions that you may have. Thank You Mr. Chairman, Council. We did have... Excuse me, just for the record would you please identify yourself? Yes, I'm Robert Easley. Thank you. We've had a total of three meetings we've hosted at our clubhouse or the White House you saw in the pictures dating back to May I believe second which was a thursday we had one about every week since then discussing their items of concern going through them trying to work with them with what we can and and the main issue being screening between the properties the last meeting i met with the president of the hoa and another person that lives in the neighborhood we drove along the perimeter took account of trees types of trees I'm working with them as far as the acceptable screening trees having them pick out different ones that they would like to use for that area and then also negotiating with them as far as shrubs along the driveway areas to help with any additional blockage of headlights and so we have agreed to run three foot hedges along the driveways on the rear and then we also have agreed to increase the density of trees from the 40 feet the 40 foot to 30 foot every 30 foot we would have a tree and then we would also plan the hedges and then also provide a fence that we can agree upon at six foot that that meets the requirements along those perimeters. Thank you. Thank you. Rory Caley with EA Partners. Tom's comments and your questions about green infrastructure were really on mark, and that's why I don't have anything on the plan, because we're doing the zoning right now. I didn't even know insulation in the house would count towards this. We can easily do a note, as Tom suggested, but we don't know yet what the individual things will be. Those of you that were at the subdivision committee, Mr. Easley talked about he's working with another firm. They're looking at doing stormwater recirculation through a pond system, which would work as filtration and improvements there. The ones I know the easiest from listening to the engineers in my office is what Tom mentioned, where you're doing the downspouts. once you collect that water and you run it underground through some sort of filter as well. I think the reuse of a lot of the infrastructure that's already in sight would also count towards building green. So I guess I need to apologize for being the first one up with this. I don't have a better answer than we're planning on it, and there's a lot of options. We don't know which one we'll use, but we're certainly agreeable to the note, and as we get into the final development plan and certainly into the construction plans when you start taking and figuring out where your roof drains are going and where the water is running off of your driveways, we'll have a much better idea of what will be used. And I should mention that the plan, as shown, the recent amendment actually had 45 units shown. I think Hal mentioned 44 from the previous layout. okay fine thank you let me ask you any of the Commission members have any questions for the applicant oh you're not through yet okay well okay just one just checking okay then in that case I you know wait a minute mr. Lawrence I think yes sorry mr. Walbur mr. Kaley either one of y'all any renderings as to what you're looking at building over there we did bring those I know that sometimes that can be a dangerous proposition but I can indicate that and would provide these for you these are I would say exemplars they're very close to the style that will be here and to satisfy mr. pole who raised some questions and zoning committee last time we've actually brought layouts to show how those would work as well obviously don't want you to make a zoning decision based on a pretty picture but we do think it is an extremely high-end product that we're bringing forward and actually one thing that i should mention that nobody has neglected to mention so far myself included this is going to be an age restricted development it is a senior living community lest i offend anyone hud defines seniors as those that are over 55. so this will be a senior living community uh we that we anticipate that clientele to come in and as we reflected to you at some of your earlier committee meetings despite very little marketing efforts on our side so far this has proven to be an extremely popular concept and we think we will have no issue filling up this community with those looking to downsize and outsource their maintenance. Thank you. No I didn't offend Mr. Penn because he's 39 again but anybody else. He's been holding for about 50 years. I'm sorry. Anyhow, any other questions for the applicant? I can't let this one go. So when we looked at this image in the zoning committee, we noted that the plan and the elevation were mutually exclusive. You couldn't build the plan given the elevation and vice versa. So has that been resolved? Want to look at the... No, I made no changes to match a porch image in here versus the porch image on my plan. We're at zoning. As far as I know, these are sketches of what they want to do, but they don't actually have an architectural type yet. That's why I don't want these pictures shown. So we're going to take this as being a sort of very loose approximation of what is going to be constructed. For a preliminary development plan, yes. Thank you. Yes, this is a preliminary development plan. Okay any other questions? Okay now it's time for the audience participation. Is it anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this particular development? Is it anyone here that has some concerns still that they'd like to speak? please come on up. And are you representing the community or are you just speaking on behalf of one? I represent Wellesley Heights. My name is Paul Natoff. I'm a resident of Wellesley Heights. I'm the past president of our neighborhood association. My three-year term as president expired this past May. I'm joined today by our current president Leslie Felber, former Vice President Carrie Trapp and several members of our neighborhood. Okay, well we always like to have the representatives speak first, but if other people want to speak, there's no problem. I just want to get the representatives up first, so proceed. Okay. Initially, I'm new to this whole process, so forgive me if I get the name of your commission committee staff. What is your name, sir? Mixed up, Paul Natoff. Okay. Thank you for allowing us to speak here today. Thanks to the members of the staff for kind of answering our questions and walking us through this process. Again, I apologize if I asked the wrong questions or the wrong requests today. I'm new, I'm just putting it all out there. So, Wellesley Heights, you saw on the map before, we're a neighborhood, we have 56 homes, one acre lots. We have no street lights, it's very nice, quiet community. We're bordered to the west by the Baptist College. They have a 13-acre site there. To the south, it's a horse farm owned by Calumet. To the east, it is Cardinal Run Park North, which is currently an undeveloped park. We're hoping to work with the silts and with the parks department to get it developed into a park that we could all enjoy. So if they're listening, parks department, work with us, please. So to the northeast of our property, as you saw on the map, is the proposed silks development. We have obviously a keen interest in what happens there. We've been keeping an eye on it for years. When it was recently sold, we reached out to the new owners to start a dialogue, to see what their plans were. We invited them to our neighborhood picnics. It was a pretty good relationship. So then, fast forward to April 9th of this year, last month, it was the first time we heard anything at all about this SILTS project. One of the owners who's not here now, his nickname is Wick, I don't know his first name, but he texted Carrie Trapp and said, listen, I know we used to have plans for 13 to 17 single family homes there. We sold a few of the lots. It's not going to work out. There aren't enough buyers for whatever reason. So now we have these plans for a bunch of townhouses. So while our neighborhood as a whole, we would have loved to see 13 to 17 single family houses over our fence. This is almost the next best thing, generally with certain conditions. We have, there are seven families in our neighborhood that share a property line with a subject property, and they have, I'm not one of them, but they have the biggest interest, obviously. So we agree that the proposed development, it seems to satisfy a lot of the elements of the comprehensive plan, and to be honest, it could be a lot worse for us. We feared what could go in there, and we actually still fear what could go in there if something happens where for some reason this development, it gets the zone change to an R3, and it doesn't work out. Marking conditions can change. There could be a trade war tomorrow and the cost of building materials skyrocket and they can't afford to build what they want to build. So we are trying to protect our neighborhood for failure, essentially. And the way we want to protect it, it hopefully the applicant, it doesn't affect anything that they're doing, so hopefully they'll agree to what we're asking. I don't see any reason why they would not agree. One request we'd like to make is that on the deed to the property, they limit the number of units to either 45 or 50 or something like that. Again, we fear a ball home's coming in, saying, great, you guys have 13 acres inside the urban services boundary. It's zoned in R3. Maybe we could build 300 units here and it's still low density or whatever the numbers work out to be. Here's 10 million dollars. Whoo! We don't want that to happen. I'm happy Ball Holmes is not here anymore to get any ideas. But we want to protect ourselves from something like that happening. They could do a public-private land transfer with the city to buy Cardinal Run Park North, north turn that in it's 135 acres turn that into a thousand homes and a strip mall and as unlikely as that may be we want to protect ourselves from something like that happening so we think a request to ask the applicant to put in the deed a restriction on the number of units permitted in perpetuity on the land is something that they should consider and in fact I believe they have mentioned that they are willing to put that in the deed. They will confirm, I guess, when I'm finished. Another one of our concerns is that the existing house that's on the land, it's a beautiful, restored, historic house. They've put a lot of work into it. It is a beautiful building, and we want it to be kept there. That is their plan. They plan to keep that as their clubhouse. Again, our fear is that while the clubhouse might be deeded to the homeowners association of the silks, if they go bankrupt in 10 years and they say, oh wow, we own this house, we could demolish it, build another 10 units here, or build a senior center, and it'll save us X million dollars. We don't want that to happen. I don't think they want that to happen. So we are requesting that on the plan, there's appropriate language to maintain and preserve that house in perpetuity. We did reach out to the applicant to ask if that was okay, and they mentioned that they didn't want that on the deed because it might restrict future repairs or restorations. believe they're confusing that with an h1 designation again i'm new to this whole process so i'm not sure exactly um but i believe if there's a note on the final plan saying that the existing house shall be preserved and maintained in perpetuity that will help ease our concerns and it will not detract at all anything from what they're hoping to accomplish so i make that request of the commission they mentioned the park so so so we were generally again in favor of what they're trying to do we were we're afraid of it not happening to be honest we do have concerns about the buffering which was discussed so so the seven adjacent lots in our neighborhood that that back up to the subject property when when they bought their houses or I don't know when they all bought them but what they signed up for they backed up to an R1 they would be backed up there would be adjacent one or two homes, their property line, each home having a two-car garage, perhaps, so it would be a house like theirs. They did not sign up for backing up to four two-car garages, a large amount of pavement with guest parking right over their fence. And the final plans, which you saw a few minutes ago, we have never seen those. They weren't on the city system, they're still not there. So we don't know how far away even the units are from the property line, the driveways are from the property line, one of them looked like it touched the property line. So we were hoping to work with them to resolve some of those issues. So, backing up on April 9th when we found out about their proposal, we decided to meet with them on April 16th. That was our first meeting with them. They were gracious enough to host our neighborhood board meeting at their courtyard. It was beautiful there. They served us wine and the cheese had a little accident, so it was just wine. They seemed legitimately receptive to our concerns. We talked about possibly having an eight foot fence instead of a ten foot fence and And they they seem to be somewhat receptive to that. They said we'll see how it goes We we talked about materials for the fence or the wall should it be masonry or brick or wood again? They seem receptive generally However, in hindsight, that initial meeting turned out to be meaningless because their zone change application had already been filed. And a few weeks later on May 2nd, the various subcommittees recommended approval after looking at the plans, which we had no say in. After the subcommittee recommended approval, on May 9th, we had our second meeting at the silks and in my view it was a much different tone that that we received it seemed that once they got these approvals they weren't too concerned anymore with with what we wanted at all and I was as I'll discuss in a few minutes it seems like the place builder framework is designed to prevent this exact scenario from happening one example regarding the fence we brought up the eight foot fence again saying that's what we wanted and our response as well the city requires a six foot fence and we would need a variance to do an eight foot fence so I said okay that makes sense I understand that are you willing to apply for a variance no let out no again not receptive at all once the subcommittee recommended approval to their credit they did seem willing to to allow us to pick out buffer trees from the city approved list. And as Robert mentioned, there was a follow up meeting. They drove through the neighborhoods, identified trees that they liked and wanted to, they allowed us some input on the tree selection. Since then, we've been trying to learn more about the whole zone change process. The place builder framework, the 2018 comprehensive plan. We met with the planning department, division, whatever their title is, I'm sorry. And I mean, we understand that the place builder is brand new, we understand this is the first time we're all going through it, so we're all in this together, I suppose. I learned that the comprehensive plan, it's designed, one of its main objectives, is designed to allow Lexington to grow and prosper while preserving, protecting, and enhancing existing neighborhoods. That's a nice objective. I think we could all agree with that. The place builder is a framework to help achieve the design of the comprehensive plan. It's a very new process, as we all know. There aren't too many resources that I was able to find to tell us more about it. What I did find, there was a demonstration for the planning commission on February 22nd. It looked like some kind of PowerPoint presentation. Under the guidance for zone change justification, it mentioned engagement. And it said, applicant should detail public input process with adjacent neighborhoods. And then I quote, meaningful public input and engagement prior to initiating the pre-application process with the Division of Planning is strongly encouraged. That didn't happen. I'll review the dates in a minute, but that definitely did not happen. We had no engagement prior to the filing, let alone the pre-application process. And then I found the Place Builder's slideshow on page four of the brief overview number one. And I quote, imagine Lexington strongly encourages meaningful engagement between applicants and stakeholders for design and visioning of a development before the process begins. And they cited an example of, I guess it was a sample application, and it outlined the developer meeting with adjacent neighborhoods, talking about their plans, hearing concerns from the neighborhood, changing the plans based on those concerns, and then they went and submitted their application, and everybody was more or less in agreement based on that example. So again, that did not happen in our case. So it seems like the main objective for the place builder is to, one of the main objectives I gather, is to ensure meaningful engagement between developers and the neighbors before the planning process zone change application begins. And I imagine the purpose of this early and meaningful engagement is to give the neighbors an opportunity to express their concerns and possibly come to an agreement with the developer, including specific types of buffers, before the plan is reviewed by the planning staff. A further purpose of this meaningful engagement appears to be to help preserve, protect, and enhance existing neighborhoods, which is an objective of the comprehensive plan. Unfortunately, we do not have any engagement with the applicant, meaningful or otherwise, at such an early stage of the process, which, as the guideline requires or suggests strongly, strongly before initiating the pre-application process. Their pre-application date is March 13th of this year, and their initial contact with us was April 9th, which was over three weeks later. And again, no chance for meaningful discussion. Perhaps during such an early and meaningful engagement, we could have ironed out details regarding the buffering. We still have these concerns today. Our main concerns regarding buffering are about the proximity of the garages and the associated driveways, parking lots, car lights, noise, fumes, etc. We've never seen a rear elevation of the proposed units. Apparently there is none. I'm not sure if anybody has seen it. But that's what our neighbors will see. They will look out their back door their patio the second floor of their house, and they will see I'm guessing four two car garages parking lot additional parking spaces for guests and Not the beautiful image that I agree is really nice that we all saw before that's for them. That's not for us One of the solutions we thought of was having side or front entry garages instead of rear entry as this would alleviate a lot of our concerns. I mentioned this at the meeting, one of our meetings, and I was told that people buying expensive, fancy houses like this, they don't want front or side-entry garages. That being said, in our neighborhood, we have about 45 side-entry garages, nine front and two rear. So we clearly don't mind front and side-entry garages. and and to quote their builder we go regarding why people are excited to move to the silks without even seeing the architectural plans or the elevation views it's because it's a lifestyle not a floor plan if that's the case then they would not mind if the garages are side entry front entry or a combination of the two I actually did some searching online and I found a beautiful four two stories in the middle, one story on the sides, front entry garages, it was beautiful, I would be happy to share it with you if you'd like. And also while we haven't seen the plans with dimensions, I don't even know if the plans that we saw today had dimensions as far as setbacks and everything, but we would like to ask the commission here for a proper setback for driveways, parking areas, etc. Etc. Keeping with design look and feel of our neighborhood Another option if the garage entry doesn't Take off if that's not agreeable we think an eight-foot wall instead of a six-foot wall would be more appropriate We understand it might Take a variance and I don't believe that would be a difficult process process. We would discuss materials for the fence or the wall. We understand that other neighborhoods, for example, off of Tate's Creek Road and Palomar, they have eight foot walls, masonry walls, I believe, in a similar situation. If they could have the walls, I don't understand why we would not be able to. Such an eight foot wall would also provide benefit to the silks neighborhood it's both aesthetically and it would block off this all the screaming kids that we have in wellesley heights they might not have any kids there but we have a lot of kids and their seniors would not want to back up to all those kids playing basketball and pool parties and stuff so it's a mutual benefit and actually in an email today that I received from one of to the owners, they feel that a taller fence will detract from the landscape on both sides. So their feelings that a taller center will detract from our landscape and theirs. That's clearly not what we believe, which is why we're advocating for an eight-foot wall. And who knows, maybe their residents would also want an eight-foot wall. So we hereby ask the commission to ensure the plan includes an eight foot wall along the entire shared perimeter. To the east of their property, it's adjacent to the park. They could have whatever size wall or garage entry they want there. We were also concerned about lighting. To our west, the Baptist College, a lot of the neighbors who share that property, they're unhappy that the lights are on all the time and they would not like that to happen to the northeast of our property. So we would like to request that all lighting in the entire development shall be at a maximum height of eight feet, pointed down and pointed away from our neighborhood where applicable. I'm almost finished here. Okay. As far as the application process, I reviewed the zone change application and the accompanying letter and noted several occasions where the applicant stated that their proposed development does not negatively impact impact existing neighborhoods. They reached this conclusion unilaterally as we did not provide any input or even have any knowledge of their plan. Again, their pre-application date is March 13th and they initially reached out to us on April 9th. Since they neglected to undergo the engagement portion of the place builder framework which strongly encourages meaningful public input and engagement prior to the pre-application process we were not able to have any say or input regarding whether or not the proposed development negatively impacts our neighborhood in fact the purpose of this meaningful engagement of the place builder framework appears to be to help preserve protect and enhance existing neighborhoods unfortunately we were not given that opportunity and as knowing that were the first ones to go through this process I would like you to think about the precedent that this would set if they are allowed to go forward skipping that step that very important step of meaningful early engagement it's there for a reason it seems to be it was the number one thing on some of the list it seems to be very important and if we could just skip that today then why can't they skip it tomorrow or next month. Additionally and quite importantly I may add, on the fifth page of their application, which is not numbered, but it's the fifth page, the fifth page of their letter accompanying the zone change request, the third item on the page regarding the public outreach, it's DPL71, it reads, the adjacent Wellesley Heights neighborhood has been consulted prior to filing. And again, this was on March 13th, I believe. Again, they wrote, the adjacent Wesley Heights neighborhood has been consulted prior to filing. This never happened. It is objectively false statement. I'm not sure what their intentions were or if it was a simple mistake. Maybe they meant to put they were not consulted. I'm not sure. I would like them to explain that false statement today. I'd also like them to explain why we were not, in fact, consulted prior to filing. Will the planning staff still have recommended approval if they had known about this false statement regarding a material fact? Don't know. Based on this false statement, which I'll assume they'll say was an honest mistake, and maybe it was, and based on the fact that we were not afforded any meaningful engagement, I would like the applicant to show their integrity to us, to you, and to the process, and either voluntarily withdraw their application and restart the process properly, properly or ask to continue this hearing at a later date to give us an opportunity to help ensure their plan is as agreeable as possible if the applicant is unwilling to do this i'd like to ask the planning commission to do this take such take such action to enable us to work with the applicant to help remedy our buffering concerns and to help ensure developing the silks neighborhood will preserve protect and enhance wellesley heights thank you thank you now for the others Those who would like to come forward, if your representative has said everything that needs to be said, if you just want to get your name on record, you can come up and say I agree with him. But anyone else coming up, you're restricted to three minutes if you'd like to speak. Okay, thank you. Well we wanted to make sure that in order for your words to be immortal, they don't have to be eternal. Well, I won't take up too much of your time. I greatly appreciate your time. My name is True Baker. I'm one of the seven households that back up to the proposed new construction. I am one of the seven households that will have the 123 parking spaces, two car garages. I currently enjoy a one acre lot at Wellesley Heights where out of our back kitchen window, We looked to the proposed property, green space, trees, and not much else. That's all we see, trees and green. And now we're looking at 45 townhouses of unknown design. They themselves told us they've not hired an architect, so the unknown is a point of concern. As with anything, tension unknown is a point of fear for us. and they came to us to alleviate our fears as well as ease the process for us and you all, I'm sure, to this and have told us their plans and friendly, in a friendly manner, but yet not heard our personal concerns. In fact, telling us that if we didn't get behind this, much worse could happen. If they can't get this done, they'll just subdivide it into quarter acre lots and sell them out. So we would be wise to support them in this plan and not fight them. Whether that's a thinly veiled threat or an actual fact, we don't know. That is unknown. But we continue to try to work with them through that and were poorly received or not overly listened to. We know that this fits place builder in a lot of different ways and makes sense in a lot of ways. But the one way where it fails us as citizens is it has no concern for our sense of place that is already there. And we have tried to work with them and come up with a way where we could incorporate their needs to building with ours that are already there. We've proposed the changing, I will not reiterate, take your time reiterating too much, changing the concrete pad, the entrance to the garages, increasing the size of the fence to an eight-foot wall, masonry wall, would be helpful. If you look at the design, now we don't know if that's the final design, but the design that they've submitted, they have a single driveway that fans out into the different garages. Each one of those single driveway for 123 cars will have a bump up where a car hits it, goes up the curb and onto the driveway, sprays the headlights up, and all 123 of those, or all the ones that are on the border, will be facing directly into a home at well-seed heights. I really appreciate your concern and hope that you all can consider our concerns as well. Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak? My name is Debbie Miller. I moved into our house 28 years ago when Dr. Hobb owned the large house behind us. We are very unfortunate that we have a very large front yard, not very large backyard. So our property line to the fence may be 15 feet. They're saying a 10-foot buffer. we went out, went to the fence, and the place that they have the electrical units, that is six feet. So it would be on four feet to that. That means that this double, single-story, double-story is going to be hovering over our yard. That is a concern. we're not we do not want to fence wooden fence because the one that is there we have repaired probably five times in 28 years and it's now starting to fall again so we know what's going to happen long term down the road with a wooden fence it's going to deteriorate so anyway we've loved being where we are and we hope to continue to be there it's a very lovely neighborhood we we are scared to death of the unknown thank you thank you good afternoon ladies and y'all I appreciate you giving us this time I'll be very brief my name is My name is Jim Taylor. I obviously live in Wellesley Heights. I have, secondly to Debbie, probably the second longest property line that we share a border with the applicants here. So obviously I have a vested interest on several fronts there. My wife and I have lived in Wellesley for, shall we say, over a quarter of a century. I hate to put it that way, but about 26 years. And for those of you who have been around a while, I'm sure Wellesley Heights is well known down here. We fought, have come down here many times fight the good fight. And I am concerned a little bit that I want to make sure that you all don't go away with it. It's always a nimby. It's not in my backyard. And that's not the case here. We are aware that the property eventually will be developed. We were hopeful for some of the earlier plans there. And actually, all in all, despite some of the comments and approaches today, is that it's not that we're in total opposition to this. We would like to see a good development back there. That will be valuable to us as owners and neighbors and ultimately our property values. But what I think we're trying to share here is that we really feel that we've been left out of the process. We're late to the party, and we didn't get to see some important things that should have been said. So the door is open. We'd like to see a great development there. It's going to be good for everybody, but we'd like to participate in that process. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you all for listening to us. My name is Jessie Finnell. I live in the back corner where that one unit is going to go over the line. I would request that, number one, you don't allow that extra unit, the number 16 or whatever. that we do not want to get into a process of always allowing a change to our nervous so i forget that to the to the line you know what's there in the rules okay we've already had uh two other neighbors over the years i've been there 35 years and we've had two other neighbors that wanted to do something that wasn't in our plans of the rules and they were turned down so we don't want to get into a process of oh it's only five feet so let them have this whole unit they can just do without that unit or they can expand the other one just right to the line don't give them that extra five feet but my concern is if you give them r3 without conditions and it doesn't work they can do anything they want more more units and that will decrease our property values as well as our quality of life there I do not think that we should subsidize their mistake in having paid so much for this land that they have to charge huge amounts for the lots that were that was a change in the first place that we agreed to from an acre lot to these quarter acre three quarter acre lots so now they're asking us to agree to this plan with these multiple units overlooking our properties and that is asking us to subsidize their mistake in paying three million dollars plus for this land that they can't sell at a high cost thank you thank you good afternoon council my council voting my name is carrie trapp i am the former vice president of our homeowners or homeowners neighborhood association and you have heard now from four of the adjacent property owners we had another one here but they had to leave and then the two others who couldn't join us today also are teachers and they're unable to leave school because school's still in session but the thing that i know that they would have wanted to say is again the buffer zone is what's most important most of them are all in agreement that an eight foot above and beyond the six foot minimum variance is really what we're looking for to help not only make things a little bit more taller and more private but also to offer what the silks is proposing to be a very nice high-end senior community area some exclusivity and some some seclusion for their own property as well. So the other three I know would prefer that eight foot variance for a fence and I would ask for you all to take that into consideration. In my last two minutes I do have some quick notes about safety and traffic. And I know that that was kind of passed over as an okay during this process. As you all look to do some more of these zoning changes between R1 and R3, where you're putting a greater population into a smaller space, that just means that you have more cars. And I know that we're on an existing thoroughfare between the Bluecrest Parkway and New Circle Road that is a pass-through, but that pass-through is also six lanes. And for our neighborhood, for the Silks neighborhood, and for Calumet, those three points of intersection are all left-hand turns across three lanes of traffic. And a tractor-trailer in size is one large, massive unit. that's really three more cars and as those tractor trailers keep pushing through from Bluegrass Parkway up to New Circle Road to get out they're going faster I know that we've worked with the state right now since that is a state road and I know that there's some balance between what we do in the state and the city for those intersections and lights we have put up some additional signage to show people to try to slow down to 55 but let me tell you they go through there at 60 and 70. I use that road every day. We've had increased numbers and I know it's not a lot but I'm the daughter of a fire captain. I'm married to a retired fireman and I know that every life really counts. So I ask you to maybe dig a little deeper into safety. I offer my time since this is an important component to me. We are looking at putting 55 plus age people back there and reflexes get slower as we get older. Patients can sometimes be not as long. I have a few suggestions, but they're just possibilities about maybe putting some no U-turns. I know we've had some accidents already go through the fence. I know I stopped at an accident in MICE intersection this week. Safety is paramount. I would ask the commission to look back at safety so that everybody has a little bit smarter window here to make that roadway stretch even safer as we put more people into that space thank you very much thank you okay now we're going to ladies and gentlemen the rebuttal phase as a five minute time limit on each mr wolverine i'll try to be very brief mr chairman um try to address the things in the order that they came up You've been asked about imposing a deed restriction. I know that you all know this, but for the benefit of those in the room, the Planning Commission is not empowered to impose deed restrictions on anybody. That would be beyond the province of this proceeding today. But I think the fear, and I think, again, you all being intimately aware of this, but for the benefit of those in the audience, the fear that this development will fail and that something more objectionable will come in, you all would have to approve that. you all would actually see another plan that showed apartments. It's not that they can just go out and stick a shovel in the dirt. So unequivocally for everybody's benefit, us more than anyone perhaps want this to be a successful development. We don't want it to fail. We don't anticipate it would fail or we wouldn't have spent the money to be here today. But in the unlikely event that that were to happen, this body still has jurisdiction over what would have there. These neighbors would have the opportunity to be heard again. As far as preservation of the house, I actually don't think that's appropriate for a conditional zoning restriction. I'd invite you to speak with your own counsel about that. But our intent is to preserve the house. The objection that was voiced, just so that you all can be clear, is in the event of a property casualty event, let's say the house gets struck by lightning and part of it burns down, but not all of it, where it might be financially more beneficial to just tear down the property because it was damaged beyond repair, a note on a development plan that compels preservation of that property, I think that's why it's not an appropriate conditional zoning restriction. But unequivocally for the record, I want to say there has been an extreme amount of money put into the preservation and remodeling of that house. My clients have absolutely no intention whatsoever to remove it, but I don't think it's an appropriate conditional zoning restriction. You've heard a lot about a variance. Why won't we ask for a variance? It's not that we won't, it's that we can't. As this body is familiar, a variance is something that you have to comply with Kentucky law to achieve. And you can't ask for a blanket variance. In fact, it flies in the face of what a variance is. When a variance is granted, it's a recognition that there is some unique topographical or other feature for a property that qualifies individual properties for variance. What they've asked is for a blanket variance along two long property lines. I can't justify that under Kentucky law. I couldn't get the Board of Adjustment to grant that because we don't meet the legal requirements to get it. I understand where the desire comes from, but our law says that the barrier needs to be six feet tall. Staff has made a recommendation about what they think is an appropriate barrier. We agree with them. That's what we would propose to put in. But it's not a lack of not wanting to. It's a lack of not being able to legally. You can't do a blanket variance across what would amount to 25 lots or so. I was not involved in the meeting process. I do submit the application. So to the extent there was some miscommunication about when the timing of these meetings, I can let those that were involved in the meeting speak to that. I did not attend them. People find lawyers to be somewhat off-putting, so I try to stay out of them when I can. But in all seriousness, we would vehemently dispute that they have not been engaged in this process. They've been met with multiple times. They've been driven around the property. They've been allowed to select locations for trees and tell us the types they want. If that's not a meaningful opportunity to contribute, I don't know what it is that place builders are after. They've told you many times it's not really that they object to what's going on here. They seem to be more concerned about what might go on here if this doesn't work. We're willing to continue working with them even if you approve us today. We have to be neighbors to these people. We're willing to continue working with them. What we're not able to do is defy Kentucky law and local ordinance about variances to give them a fence that we're not legally allowed to construct. Several people voiced concerns about what they'd be seeing. They'd be seeing the landscape buffer that staff has deemed appropriate. They won't be looking into the backyard. They won't be looking into the bottom of our units. They'll see a three-foot trub. they'll see a fence they'll see trees on 40 foot things and they'll see the trees that they've been allowed to select so i think that fear might be a little bit exaggerated they've mentioned 123 parking spaces on a few occasions that is across the entirety of the development half of these units do not face wellesley heights so it's that's a little bit exaggerated unit 16 to address that woman's concern directly if it cannot comply with the setback requirements it will be removed from from the plan. We will either adjust the building to get it over. We're not seeking a variance for that unit. If we can't comply with the law, it'll be removed or the building will be shifted. And finally, with regard to the safety issues that have been met, Mr. Cayley and I convened a meeting with Traffic Engineering. I won't purport to speak for Traffic Engineering other than convey to you that they have expressed no concern to us regarding the traffic safety at this location. So I think that's a brief recap of the points here. If my clients would like to address any of the specific allegations about meetings, I think they should be allowed to do that, but I don't think that merits going into unless you would like to hear it. So with that, I'm happy to entertain questions, but that's all I have. Well, we'll hold you for questions right now. I'm going to go back to the community. If you've got another shot at this, if you'd like, if you want to rebut, not present new information, but rebut some of the issues that you've heard here, you're capable of doing it and you're on a five minute limit too. Sure, thanks for the opportunity to rebut. Regarding the deed restrictions, I understand now that you cannot request that, but in their good faith, if they are willing to put it in the deed as a restriction, that would be greatly appreciated. These are concerns. Sir, talk to the microphone. I'm sorry. Who are we trying to record? We would appreciate, out of your good faith, if you want to put it in the deed restrictions to appease us, It doesn't restrict anything at all you want to do. That's working together in my book. As far as keeping the house there, I understand that your objective and you vow to that is to keep it as an existing house, as a clubhouse. That's great, that's what we want too. But you also plan to deed it to the HOA. That's what we've been told. If the HOA decides that they don't want it to be a house anymore, they're tied with the clubhouse, they don't use it. it's not worth $400 a month, let's sell it to whoever wants to buy it from us for a million dollars and put up whatever they want to put up, especially if the deed restriction doesn't have the 50 unit max. As far as the fence and the variance, I believe Mike Warner was the one who suggested or told us that they needed the variance to put up a taller fence, so I said, go ahead and ask for the variance, and he said no. So that was not our idea, the variance, I'm not sure if you all could put it in the plan that you recommend an eight-foot fence. It seems like but for the state law variance issues, they might be willing. I'm not sure. They didn't really answer. As far as the view that we will have, several of us, not myself, are over six feet tall. They could look over the fence and see the garages. Yeah, there will be three-foot-high shrubs and trees every 30 or 40 feet, but they could easily look into a parking lot with eight garages right there. The view from the second story of their house, they could easily look across, if they're not evergreen trees or if they are, between the branches and see a parking lot. They mentioned that, he just said, half the units don't face Wellesley Heights. We all saw the map. I think two-thirds of them face Wellesley Heights. I could be wrong, but it looked like at least half face Wellesley Heights. And I would love to still hear from them about their false statement on their application that they met with us to discuss it. I would really appreciate if you could have them answer that today. I think it goes to the heart of the whole place builder framework and their early meaningful engagement. Yes, maybe we had some engagement with them. It was not early enough to be meaningful. And again, that's the whole purpose of the place builder in my view. Thank you. Thank you. Staff. Staff just has a few clarifications. Within Article 18-3A1, that is where we're talking about the six foot high fence. That is what is required within the zoning ordinance. article 15-4b they within the rear portion of the yard it allows a fence up to eight feet we also wanted to clarify a little bit about what staff is seeing as meaningful engagement within the process it is a recommended aspect of the place builder however when we're discussing meaningful engagement it's traditionally something that is a little more broad expansive something that includes a greater amount of a neighborhood something that sits down and describes priorities of the neighborhood as well as priorities of the applicant so while discussing certain design features with certain elements of the neighborhood whether that's just one or two people that's not considered a broad expansive engagement what staff is really looking for is a full meeting or some sort of variance or variant of different meetings to get at the broader public opinion for neighboring communities with that any questions i'd be happy to answer okay now what we're going to do is open it up for the applicant for citizens as well as the commission here what we're going to do now ladies and gentlemen is allow our commission members to ask questions on this for anybody that they would like to do so so floor is open for questions for clarification or whatever yes mr pen I guess this is either for the staff or the applicant. Do you know if that clay house is on the historic register? I believe it is. We actually believe it's not. It's not? Okay. It's not presently a historic register property, according to what they've just told us. There is, to Mr. Warner's knowledge, I would say that there was a, and Tracy will double-check my math here, I know that there was a proclamation made by Governor John Y. Brown at one point that this was a historic property. We're aware of that proclamation existing. To my knowledge, it wasn't on the historic register, but I'll defer to Tracy and the National Register on that specifically. Mr. Warner doesn't believe so. So to your body, it's not? To our knowledge, it is not a historic registered property unless Tracy tells me otherwise. Well, I researched it when they originally came in for the zone change, and my recollection is it was. So I'm just going to double check, and we'll get it on the record. It does make a difference. So we need to know the answer to that at some point. We need to know the answer to that because it does make a difference. Okay. Okay. Mr. Owens? thank you mr chair uh i guess a couple of questions to staff first first one would be more learning curve with a place builder in our process nowadays um you know throughout the reading of your staff report and so forth you know one can easily understand where in our comp plan we talk about density we talk about varied housing and so forth we also talk about existing neighborhoods and preserving them in your report there's our wonderful word that Miss Mundy just loves context sensitivity with your your thought on this is this development context sensitivity preservation of the neighborhoods has it been met there with this development from staff's perspective yes they are they are continuing a single family low density household type of development it is not tied into the development when we're talking about enhanced neighborhoods or new development enhancing the context of the area that doesn't mean it has to be exactly the same by adding in these new types of housing which complied for the most part with height and with density of the area it's it's not that much of a change that we're seeing out here okay um because you know what what we've heard a lot is is the fear of the unknown if this doesn't fly what's next um talked about deed restrictions we know we can't go to these restrictions uh we can go to conditional restrictions however i think if we do we've got to come up with reasons for that significant reasons for that am i correct yeah you have to have reasons as they relate to this proposed development and you're also limited in what conditional zoning restrictions can be they can they're limited to use buffering and the architecture if it is an h1 but it's not so basically you're limited to use um and buffering so that would have to come on a voluntary basis from the applicant then well um I'm not sure not all of it would. No, you're over. No, as far as the residential units, limiting the residential units to whatever they're proposing here. Well, density is a proponent of use. So density is often used in conditional zoning restrictions. but in terms of limiting it to a specific type of building or something like that, no. So we have to be careful and we have to have reasons supporting that. All right, thank you. And lastly, still for the staff, how in the six-foot, eight-foot fence discussion, did I, to clarify, an eight-foot fence would be possible? Yes, within the height and yard restrictions which covers fences in Article 15-4B, it allows up to 8 feet for a rear yard fence line in all residential zones. Okay, thank you. But again, it is not required. The 6 feet is required by Article 18. I understand, but 8 feet is possible. Question to that. What do they have to do to go to 8 feet? Do they still have to go ask for a variance? No, they do not. It's available to them at any point. Okay. Thank you. A couple of people have changed their minds, I suppose. Any other questions from the commission? Are we still waiting to find out whether that's on a historical... Subject to Tracy's confirmation, it is not. Okay, Mr. Penn. I want to do a follow-up on that. it and he wants to follow up if if it's not on the historic register then my concern would be and this is a i guess to the developer is that when this green space and house and clubhouse and poo is turned over to the homeowners association it is there is the homeowners association's right that do with those if with those improvements and with the house whatever they deem necessary is that correct come up here yeah please i'm mike warner thank you mike my concern is this i was hoping that house was on a kestucky a historic register because that house is not only had a lot of money put into it but it's a historic house but the answer being no there then my concern is this i know when you get all these units sold when you're through with with the development process uh you're going to turn over the house the pool the all the green space type thing to the hoa for maintenance and perpetuity yes sir is it true to assume that at that point it is the homeowners associations responsibility and privilege to be able to do whatever with that they deem necessary we plan on deeding it to the HOA so the answer there'll be yes sir I just want to get that on the record thank you and yet mr. I'm sorry yes thank you one one more just as a follow-up and mr. Walberg or Mr. Warner back to our wonderful fence you were arguing in the fact of the variant situation with staff reporting now that a eight-foot fence is possible would you all be willing to go to an eight-foot fence I'll let the person whose money it'll be answer that question I owe everyone in this room a great apology. As a builder, for my personal homes and homes I've built, I have always had to ask for some type of go before the VOA for a fence over six feet. Perhaps that's been changed or perhaps I was just wrong in that assumption before. But I have made that comment to the neighborhood as well as to you all that that was my understanding. A six foot fence was as high as you could go without a variance. But I now know that's not. As far as going to an eight-foot fence, I don't think that would be a problem for us. So would you agree to it at this time? Yes. Okay. We need to make that. I've noticed something on the aerial. There's a power line easement that goes all the way along that boundary. Yes, sir. So you're all going to need to deal with that. There may be a height issue there with that. I personally think it's going to look like a prison wall. Three power lines above it. Well, I think from the Chair's position, I think the builders indicated they would do it, but obviously it has to be done in compliance with what you can do. I think that's a fair enough statement, would you think? Yes, sir. And we will work with Wellesley Heights. And to the community, you heard him say that he would like to do that, but please understand he might be restricted to in terms of what he can do. okay all right any other questions for the anyone okay if not i'll close this part of the hearing and bring it back to the commission for additional discussion and our motion Mr. Chair? Mr. Lawrence. If you're ready. Yep. Let me see if I can get this right now. I will move for approval of Plan MAR 19-7, Easley and Fowles Properties, LLC, subject to the staff recommendations and conditions. and conditional restrictions okay now a second okay we'll have a second we have a motion made by mr. Mike Owens and second by mr. Larry Foster that we approve PLN MAR 19-7 easily and Faust properties LLC with the conditions and with the out identification of what did you say mr. Owens I've forgotten put the nine conditions and with the nine conditions provided by staff I think I got that right now any other discussion on the motion okay this is discussion period mr. Penn on the motion that's what the discussion is right right I don't want to labor on the on the house and the pool and stuff but I do want to understand that when you have 44 units and you have that much improvement that are sitting there for the HOA to maintain that they everybody that buys those units needs to understand that that's a pretty good responsibility for an HOA to take on I just want that to be on the record the other thing is is that as we are going through the place builder situation here we're all learning as we go not only the development community but the Planning Commission the staff we're all learning as we go here so we're gonna make some mistakes and they're not they're not sins of commission there's sins of omission and And so I'm not happy with the fact that I don't think there was as much conversation as we had hoped there would be going forward with this. I don't see enough of that to hold it up, to back it up, to continue it, to postpone it. But just want to say that I think in future references we need to understand that this process needs to start prior to application. And so I just want that on the record also. Thank you. Okay. Sorry. Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Mike Owens, a second by Ms. Larry Forrester, that we approve PLN MAR 19-87 Easley and Faust Properties with the conditions provided by staff. I'm going to take away the 9 because I think that appeared to the development plan, I think. So I'll take that off. Any other discussions on that motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion carries. Mr. Owens, would we like to continue? Yeah, Mr. Chair, with this still being a learning curve with some of this, I'd ask for the staff, I believe we're okay now on the revised conditions changing number eight to resolve. Number eight? Or you mean number nine? No, it's eight. Eight. We've got one. currently discuss additional screening adjacent to r1a zone oh mine is struck out okay which is it well we've certainly discussed it today so our understanding was mr warner agreed to an eight foot fence so we can denote that on the development plan eight to denote yeah we do want to add a note about green infrastructure as well which we're in agreement with okay that was part of the place builder discussion that was that was my next question so denote additional screening adjacent to r1a zone well it wasn't additional material but it was a a taller fence than is required you know the additional fence of eight feet in height adjacent to the r1 is that what we're saying adjacent to the wellesley heights neighborhood i'm guessing not it's only going to be in the rear correct because the ordinance only allows the eight foot fence in the rear not anywhere else right and their rear yards about rear yards so that should be okay i'm just trying to get language here so now what we're talking about is i'm trying to get the same what we're going to say denote the additional eight foot fence adjacent uh screening adjacent to the R1A zone in the rear. Is that correct? Okay. Now, is that, what about number nine? Number nine, yes. That should be resolved, should it not be? Number nine, it says discuss the following place building criteria. Should that not be resolved? Or denote the following place builder criteria, and then we're looking for item two under that, B-7U-11-1. would be denoted on the plan is just that one uh item two yes sir just item two would be denoted on the plan okay green infrastructure okay now i'm confused what what is it now that the applicant is agreeing to denote that they intend to utilize green infrastructure okay and that they will address more specifically those um man the manner in which they're going to do that at the final development plan okay but it's only number two that we make that change to okay all right mr owens are you clear now it's still nine conditions but you got to change number eight and number nine right i so your fence thing i just want to make sure they're not going to put an eight foot fence along the park property it's just only adjacent to wellesley only adjacent to the wellesley heights neighborhood though is that correct then don't say r1a say wellesley heights because the park is r1i yes thank you right now i told me that yesterday so it's adjacent to the wellesley heights subdivision yes okay mr chair okay hey miss oldwood you got it i'll move for approval of plan uh mjdp 19-19 with the staff's revised recommendations nine noted conditions change in number eight to read to note the additional eight foot fence for additional screening adjacent to the Wesley Heights subdivision and then number nine to denote the following place builder of criteria number which is shown on the agenda as number two B-SU 11-1 provide written or graphic description green infrastructure as indicated in the applicant justification I believe at the time of final development plan okay now here's what we have here we have a move for approval by mr. Mike Owen second by mr. Larry Foster that we approve PLN and the MJDP 19-19 Lexington Estates with the nine conditions provided by staff, changing number eight to denote the additional screening adjacent to the Wells La Hight subdivision, changing number nine to denote the following place building criteria referencing item number two, B-SU 11-1, provide written or geographical description of green infrastructure as indicated in the applicant's justification. Is there any discussion on this motion? Okay. If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay. The motion has been approved. Thank you. And I'm sorry, ma'am, to have to cut you off. But once we close it out, it's closed out. So Ari, what do you want to say? In all honesty, I was the conduit between the two groups. I know WIC and reached out through Mike and WIC and met Robert through the process and I also know my neighborhood. And I, too, am also learning. And so just to give you all the feedback, I'm kind of a get-along type of person. I like for things to be a win-win. But just sometimes as you're doing this with other neighborhoods, the simple exchange of information. I knew them. They knew me. But when you don't know your neighbors and things are changing, people don't like to avoid conflict. conflict. And we were getting one set of answers coming from you all and then another set of answers from experience coming over here and things weren't jiving. So maybe even being able to schedule a conference room so that you're meeting on common ground and having the email availability just to help this process go better. Things do go quick. I am finishing up fifth grade. I took a field trip. I went on spring break. break by the timing of April, Keeneland and everything else, boom, here we are. Time does matter involving your people because we are going to be living next to one another does matter. And as you go through this, make sure that you do give other groups a little more time so that they can come together so that we can all live in good communities. Thank you, ma'am. And your comments are noted for the record and appreciate you doing it and appreciate all the neighbors who came down from Wesley Heights as well to express your views and opinions today. thank you very very much okay next that was our first place builder that was a good start i think um we are now shifting to item c1 on page five This is Zota 2019-1, amendment to the Article 18 and Article 26, the planting manual to reflect credit given for columnar tree varieties. A request to amend the LFUCG zoning ordinance in the planting manual was made by the Lexington Tree Board and was initiated by the Urban County Planning Commission on September 27th, 2018. In the tree board's initial request of the text amendment, the board expressed a desire to update article 26-5E of the zoning ordinance and related text in the planting manual to designate all columnar tree varieties as small trees and reduce the canopy credit to 100 square feet. In an effort to maintain consistency across the zoning ordinance, amendments to portions of article 18 and 26 are also proposed to address inconsistency related to fence and wall heights which are more specifically related to article 15-4b to update the definition of greenway to reference the adopted greenway master plan and to update all references to oversight of the tree canopy requirements in the planting manual to refer to the division of environmental services the purpose of the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance is to address the small canopy coverage of the calmer tree varieties or improved cultivars in this depiction that you see up on the screen right here the culminar tree does not extend its canopy in any significant way out it's more of a tall tree it grows quickly. Due to the increased frequency that such tree varieties are being proposed in various urban environments with the urban county, calmler tree varieties typically end to deal with those issues of the grow fast, grow tall, but don't grow out issues that we are seeing with these tree species. Currently calmler tree varieties count towards the same canopy credit as common species which are designated as either medium 400 square feet or large 750 square feet canopy trees despite the reduced canopy coverage for example for example the sweet gum tree typically has mature canopy of 40 feet or more but the canopy of a columnar variety which has a slender silhouette only reaches out approximately four four feet in diameter the lexington tree board noted the recent proliferation of the use of columnar tree varieties in new commercial developments. When columnar trees are planted the canopy coverage credit is far greater than the actual canopy coverage provided by the trees on the site even once they reach maturity. The tree board is seeking to explicitly state that the columnar tree varieties shall receive 100 feet of credit to rectify the disparity between the planned and actual tree canopy for commercial developments this is just a nice picture of trees the amendment to the zoning ordinance and to the planning man the planting manual are justified on two separate levels the minimizing of the effects of the urban development within the community and the application of sustainable practices the purpose of article 26 of the lfucg zoning ordinance states that the urban county government recognizes the importance of trees as a vital component in counterbalancing the effects of urban setting by providing cooling shade reducing noise and glare by significant contribution to the urban aesthetics by improving air quality through carbon dioxide reduction and replenishing oxygen in the atmosphere by improving surface drainage and reducing the effects of storm drainage flooding by filtering non-point source pollution through the area streams by stabilizing soil thereby thereby minimizing erosion and providing habitat for wildlife. All in all, very good things. As such, in an effort to counterbalance the effects of the urban setting, it is imperative to update the zoning ordinance and the planting manual when there are clear deficiencies in the categorization of canopy coverage for certain tree varieties. When a species of trees is not satisfying the need for providing cooling shade, reducing noise, and all the other wonderful things that trees do they must be recategorized to appropriately fit its capabilities additionally theme b protecting the environment goal three of goal number three of imagine lexington the 2018 comprehensive plan seeks to apply environmentally sustainable practices to protect conserve and restore landscapes and natural resources lastly lexington completed the urban forestry management plan in 2017 which referenced in which is referenced in imagine lexington theme b the urban forestry management plan establishes a mission for the city to achieve a sustainable urban forest staff believes that by reducing the canopy size of the combler tree variety we are trying to bring this plan into action by promoting other large trees that actually fit the planned environment For all of those reasons, staff is recommending approval of this zoning ordinance text amendment to Article 18 and Article 26, as well as the planting manual. During the zoning committee hearing, they also recommended approval of this ZODA request. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Any questions? I guess not. Thank you. Okay. I'll bring it back here for the commission for additional discussion and a motion. Mr. Polo? You move? Move to approve. Move to approve Zota 2019-1 amendment to article 18 and article 26, the planting manual to reflect credit given for columnar variety trees. Do I have a second? Okay. It's been a move by Mr. Graham Pohl, seconded by Mr. Frank Penn, that we approve Zota 2019-1 Amendment to Article 18 and Article 26 and the planning manual to reflect credit given to culinary variety trees. Any discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Thank you. Commission, Mr. Duncan? We have two items to present, Mr. Chair. One is a waiver and one is a TIF hearing. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'd like to direct your attention to page 5 under Commission items. This is a waiver request. It is under Plan 2005-302F, Denton Farm Incorporated, Unit 3, Section A. And very appropriately, this is a street tree waiver request. So we're going to continue talking about trees for a little bit longer. This is an interesting situation in that you don't have an actual plan before you for any sort of approval or re-approval. This plan is here for you and we're using this plan because it's the original plat for this section of the dental farm. And you can see it here and on your screens. It's in the northeast corner, Richmond Road, and here's the entrance, the boulevard into the development. This is the townhouse area. When you get back over in here, you'll get to the reservoir. There's a detention area in here. But this is the townhouse area as you enter the development, and it's been developed for a period of time. And that's really part of the issue here. This is an area known as Unit 3, again, as I stated, Section 8. and it's in the northwest corner of that intersection. It's roughly 8.6 acres. Now, this is the original plat that you see before you, but subsequently there's been eight plats on this property, several minor plats, which you, of course, as a body did not see, but there's been three final record plats. And during the course of the evolution of this property, the planting of this property, street trees have always been required. Now on two of those plats an easement was established. On one next to the access easement cross-section that was inadvertently missed and so it wasn't on one of the plats. Nevertheless, the street trees have always been on the plats, approved, and agreed upon that they would be installed. Well, again, going back to 2005, as the land developed, townhouses were built, they were sold. That's one of the reasons they got platted after they were built, they were transferred. The street trees were not installed. They weren't done. And that's part of the issue here is that over time, the trees were not planted as required. And, of course, the situation became more complicated. And that's, again, one of the reasons they're here before you today with a waiver. They are requesting under hardship, self-created to a certain degree because the trees weren't planted in a timely manner. However, townhouses got sold. You have property owners. You have an HOA. You have more and more individuals involved now in this situation. So obviously coordinating, working it out, getting the trees planted became a complicated situation. Frankly, some owners go, no, we don't want any trees. We've got what we want. They have landscape packages that you all are aware when you buy these townhouses or a home that get installed. So it became an issue of how to accomplish this. And it was brought to staff's attention close to two years ago. I mean, we've been dealing with this for some time, trying to determine the best way to approach it. And ultimately, we said the trees need to be planted somehow, somewhere. there. So ultimately again, the applicant, the developer, and the HOA got together and they've agreed that the HOA will plant the trees and they will plant them in an HOA area. And you can see attached to your waiver report a letter to that effect. There will be a payment made by the developer to the HOA to do this. Now again, staff has no issue with the private agreement or payment of funds and that sort of thing. Staff's concern is that it get done. I mean, one of the reasons we're here today before you is that the street trees did not get planted. And to put this and explain just how important this is for this development is that this is a large development, as you all are well aware. It has an overall canopy requirement for the entire development. their canopy plan, their tree protection plan, their canopy calculations call for nine acres of street trees. So these street trees comply, are part of the entire development to meet their requirement. So the number of trees has been reduced. and the number of trees, let me double check this because I want to absolutely, yeah, it's a canopy of 400 square feet per tree, medium tree, is what would be planted in the tree protection or the tree planting easement. And this roughly calculates, there were 87 trees originally required. We counted up all the trees that required on the original plants, 87 trees. They are not going to plant that number. They're going to plant approximately 30 trees. So that's 22,800 square feet of canopy that they're losing if they go with medium trees. If they go with large trees, they would make that up almost identical, be just a slight reduction in the canopy if they used large species trees. So that's brought us, again, staff's concern is placement and viability of these trees and the fact that it needs to be done, needs to be planted. In fact, it's past time that these trees were planted. Therefore, staff has made a recommendation on this waiver, and we do appreciate the difficulty that has evolved on this property. And so we're supporting their request for a waiver with the recommendation that they submit a tree planting plan that addresses the location, the species, and the schedule. And it has to be submitted and approved by the Urban Forester as well as the Division of Planning. And again, we want to stress the importance of viability, location, medium versus large. It's an issue. It's an issue in any urban area. But we believe it's very important because, again, we're talking about a component of the overall requirement for their canopy. Street trees are an integral part. And street trees are the easiest things for us to monitor and control because they have to get permission to remove them. Other canopy trees, they can go away. We may never know. We don't have any good mechanism to monitor canopy. So once again, street trees become more important as a component of our required canopy. Along those same lines, staff is looking and going, well, now we have an interesting issue here. We have an HOA. It can be a little more problematic to enforce things with an HOA. As we know, HOAs can come and go. HOAs can make decisions to do other things, as was discussed in your previous plan, what an HOA might do. It makes enforcement a little more difficult. So we did make a recommendation that this body not release any outstanding sureties that would be in place on the Denton farm. And that, frankly, is to hold the developer's feet to the fire to make sure he continues to work with the HOA, even though they're taking on this responsibility, to plant these trees because they impact the entire development's canopy requirement. Now, I know that they're concerned about that. That's understandable. But along those lines, I think staff would add, because, frankly, we haven't had a chance to discuss the issue at length with our urban forester and Tim and John, they're here today. Enforcement is an issue. And I believe your staff would be comfortable if this body was reassured that enforcement won't be a problem here. But frankly, you've heard it many times, staff has heard it many times over the years, the problems with enforcement. Enforcement's difficult, no doubt about it. Enforcement's difficult. We have some very good people out there trying to enforce the regulations. And we have little role in that, as you're all aware. And you all certainly have a difficult role, if any, in enforcement. But we hear about it all the time. So that's the reason we made that recommendation. And I'm just trying to set the table for you because I understand their concern. But our purpose here is to be sure that this gets done. It's very, very simple in that regard. With that, we are recommending approval of the waiver subject to the submittal of a plan, that planting plan being approved by the urban forester, and in insurance, that it will get done. And I'll answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, applicant. Oh, I'm sorry. Commission, my name is John Barlow. I'm the manager of DeLong Development. Along with me is Greg Hamm, who is the director of the townhouse HOA. He signed this agreement with me, and I'm here to answer any questions you have. I got one but one obvious one obvious one but Mr. Barlow you heard the conditions placed by staff on this waiver the conditions of the waiver question is do you agree with those and will comply with those well I met with Tim query two days ago and we gave Greg's plan to him and I'm assuming we're there but you know I haven't really gotten official word yet. Okay what is it? I think we're there but I'm not a landscape architect I can't. What do you have there you're going to submit? Give it to them and they'll put it up on the screen and we'll see what's what. Let's talk our way through this just a little bit. I've got copies here if you all need it. My name is Greg Hamm. I'm the representative for the HOA. As far as doing a diagram or submitting some kind of plan, my question would be is it a formal landscaper's plan is what the request would be. because this is our neighborhood, and the black dots, I don't know if you can see it very well, the black ones are large trees. There's a number of them. There's two green spaces, two big green spaces. You can see there's like five trees there, and there's another big green space down here. So there's several trees down here and up the street. And then where you see the red dots, those are small trees, and those are actually in the front yards of our townhomes and there's only a few of them the small ones and there's only a handful of medium trees too but what we did was is we we knew that our development would not be able to take 77 trees it's just simply not big enough and there's not enough room to put that many trees in there so we talked to all the residents and we said do you want trees and we got all that feedback and then we looked at the plaque and we said okay originally you were allowed to have four trees and this unit two trees and so we went around and we kind of made this map and said you know this is where we would plant the trees but in reality they're called street trees and they have restrictions on where you can plant them you know you You have to be within certain feet of the street. In our view, the HOA's view, those trees can't be called street trees because there's no easements for them, number one. There's only seven easements in the whole development. We couldn't plant those trees in the green spaces because technically that would not be called a street tree. The reason that we're wanting the variance is because we don't want the trees to be referred to as street trees. We just want to be able to plan them where we want to plan them in the development per that plan that you see up there. Let me cut to the chase on the back page of the waiver. It says the staff recommends approval of the requested waiver for the placement and number of street trees. Are we there on that? I mean, are we in agreement with what this is all about? Staff's recommendation is they submit a plan to the urban forester for his approval. Okay. And you're in agreement with that? Okay. What else? Just to clarify, they're showing a combination of small, medium, and large trees. So to the staff's point, Mr. Martin brought up earlier, it's getting to that overall canopy number. So the idea would be, I mean, you're required in a residential zone to have 30% canopy. so if this acreage of its 10 acres you would need 3.33 or 3 acres of trees right 30% so if you're only providing 15% then your other 15% needs to be shown somewhere else so I think from our perspective we would like to know at what other location within the entire Denton farm will you be locating those other trees so that we can count on them later. Does that make sense? Well, if you look up there along Richmond Road, there's a number of trees that have been there for 13, 14 years. The median going up Ellerslie, you know, I'm not sure how that goes into the calculation. I'm not a landscape architect, but I think we more than exceed between Richmond Road and... want that documented the second roundabout i probably spent 600 000 on trees and fountains whatever so you know we we thought we were there and this development or this townhouse section a street tree from for a layman is the tree between the curb and the sidewalk well there is no utility easement in this townhouse section and i think that's where all the confusion right and And then street trees can be five feet behind the sidewalk as well. That's the alternative location. Well, Carol Goes, who passed away in 2010, she was our in-house landscape architect. She put the series of $500 boxwoods along the front, and we did put some magnolias. It had been there forever. and the situation rose about a year and a half, two years ago. I think just to clarify, I don't believe that this plan that's been presented meets what we're asking for. So we can meet with the applicants and the HOA about what we do need to get to that point. But I would, Tom nodded in agreement, this is not quite there. Okay, so the question is now what do we do with the waiver? Do we wait postpone it or do we No, sir. I'm confused. We're recommending approval. We would just like to see a plan submitted for the urban forester in planning to review because we believe, because it's part of the canopy requirement, that we need to look at species and location. Okay. Because large, medium, and small have different calculations and i'm what i'm gathering is they're saying okay we'll do that we'll meet that canopy 30 percent yes okay so we're talking in the you know i'm trying to in the entire development like just the town home section oh here's what here's what part of it mr denton right what we will yes exactly our concern we're trying to make clear is this is a small part of the development but the the loss of trees here impacts the overall canopy requirement so what are you asking us to do you're asking us to pass the waiver on good faith effort that they will plant the trees that need to be planted and mr queer will check on actually we're asking you to approve a waiver that requires them to submit a plan to the urban forester and planning's approval and not approve the release of any sureties until that's done and we know they're going to be planted thank you that's what i was trying to get mr martin that last statement until we're assured that they're going to be planted where is the assurance there well i think they would actually have to be planted ultimately and we're getting into a season where it's not conducive to that either so that's so it's going to be held up for a while it sounds like and well they've already not planted them for 13 years no i understand i understand and i i just wanted to clarify that last part of the statement right okay now should that assurity bond be a part of this motion Is that a surety bond I think you were talking about to withhold the assurance? Is this the tree surety bonds? That's the second part? That's in the waiver. Okay, that's in the second part. We're recommending that as part of the waiver. Oh, that's right. Okay. Can I ask a question? Are we talking about tree surety bonds? Yeah, that's what I was getting ready to ask. Are we talking, I mean, if you're talking about absolutely no sureties being released, I think that's excessive. If we've got one that is for the trees, I get. Well, not all the trees are covered by bonds. Only that came later. One of the reasons that came about was that trees weren't getting planted. That's one reason we changed some things we do with sidewalks as well. Things weren't getting done in a timely manner. These trees were not planted when they should have been. And we now bond street trees. But some of these in this development have not been bonded. Well, and I would suggest the reason we bond them is to separate that, you know, to separate it from the roads and things of that sort so that we can go ahead and release for other items. And I just, I'm not in favor of holding up all sureties. And, again, I set the table for letting you know that we need something to ensure that these trees get planted in a timely manner, in a location where they're going to be viable, where they're going to survive. That's, I think, what we're trying to accomplish. Okay. Okay, any other comments? Any other questions? Okay, then in that case we're ready for additional discussion or a motion. I'd be glad to make a motion whenever you're ready. Oh, go ahead if you'd like. Oh, I didn't make any of this for me, just somebody do something. I'm going to move for approval of the requested waiver. I do want to alter the recommendations of the additional requirements of number B primarily, that those sureties would be restricted to tree sureties that were held for the development. Otherwise, I would go with what the staff has recommended here. Do I have a second on that motion? Okay. Now, having said it, we've got a motion and a second related to the staff's recommendation of approval. Let me go back to staff here a little bit. Are you all comfortable with that revised language? Okay. I got a question. Oh, well, okay. Mr. Penn. So are those trees covered by bond or not covered by bond? Well, this development's different. I believe some are and some aren't. And I don't know the status of all of them at this time. From what I understand, I think only 12 of the trees have bonds. The rest of them do not. That's my understanding. That's correct. All right. That puts it in perspective. Okay. Now I don't know how to rephrase that number B. Mr. Burke, if you can help me. The planning. I think you had the word tree. Yeah. Yeah. I think the tree is sure. Tree sure. Just rather. I'll read the whole sentence. Okay. The planning. The recommendation of approval of the waiver for the two reasons noted by staff. Okay. Sorry. And with the following additional requirements, A would be as it reads per the staff report. B would be amended as such. The Planning Commission will not act to release any outstanding tree sureties currently in place for Denton Farm until such plan has been submitted and approved by the Urban Forester and the Division of Planning. Okay, the motion has been made by Mr. Will Berkley, second by mr bruce nickel that we approve the waiver with the two conditions identified by staff as it relates to the recommendation a stands as is b with the amendment saying the planning commission will not act release any outstanding tree charities currently in place for the denton farm development until such plan has been submitted and approved by the urban forester and division of planning is that it okay any other discussion on the motion All right, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. What's next? We've got a TIF. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon Chairman Wilson, members of the Commission. Our last item on today's agenda is a commission item. As you know, the Planning Commission reviews some applications for conformance or compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Primarily that would be PFRs, or Public Facility Reviews, and then also TIF applications. So for a TIF application that goes to the county council and then the state for approval, part of that application includes a compliance statement from the Planning Commission that their proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. And this particular request is from the Fountains at Palomar, and they are asking that the Planning Commission review their request and find that it is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan. So the TIF area that's been designated, they're called development areas, is generally along Harrodsburg Road at the intersection of Manowar Boulevard. And then it extends along the right-of-way to approximately Bowman's Mill Road. So here's Manowar Boulevard frontage. And then we have the location of the Fountains at Palomar development plan that you've already reviewed. the corner across the street at the Palomar Shopping Center, one single family home, Caddy Corner, the right of way of Harrodsburg Road, down to Bowman's Mill, and then to the rear of the three parcels along Harrodsburg Road, there are a number of parcels on Glade Court that are included as well. So the boundaries of a TIF area, development area, are established by the applicant. And they are generally based on where the improvements are proposed. Not where the development plan that we've already reviewed is located, but generally where other infrastructure improvements are proposed. So in light of that, you can see that the right-of-way is most of the acreage, or a large percentage of the acreage, of this about 42-acre site. area so most of the right-of-way along harrodsburg road and that's because the improvements that they want to fund through the tiff include a lot of infrastructure improvements so eligible improvements for this tiff that there the applicant is looking for forward to doing our land preparation and demolition of the site because it does have some existing structures located there sanitary and storm sewer improvements pedestrian shared use trails and sidewalks both along harrodsburg road and internals with their site roadways including a turn lane in harrodsburg road utility improvements public space improvements and again part of their development plan on the three parcels did show some open space that they intended to make into shared open space for the for people who come to their development parking is included as an eligible tiff improvement as well as other soft costs like their architecture and engineering and insurance costs and so those total improvements for the site again about a 42 acre site or area is estimated to be about 16 million the application itself went into a lot more detail about what their specifics are but the off-site stormwater mitigation is one piece and that we've heard several times now Glade Court gets some stormwater issues as well as one single family home Caddy Corner from their main development site have stormwater issues so some stormwater improvements will be made throughout the development area as well as a new sanitary sewer line so the closest well not the closest but there's a pump station down in the South Elkhorn shopping center area, and this sewer line would connect to it in the most direct manner along Harrodsburg Road, as opposed to connecting through the neighborhood and kind of jumping from pump station to pump station. So this is an improvement along Harrodsburg Road that the applicant would utilize, but also would make for better connections for a vacant tract, mostly vacant tract for the adjoining property as well as other properties that exist along harrodsburg road in addition to that two of the other graphics that the applicant provided had to do with the pedestrian improvements they are asking for one improvement that's a 10-foot shared use trail along harrodsburg road and then sidewalk improvements within their site and a pedestrian, again, connection to Glade Court as part of their overall development. The shared use trail would connect along Harrodsburg Road to the South Elkhorn Villages, which is also a commercial area shopping center, and would provide the opportunity for residential neighborhoods in that area to connect to each other. So in terms of compliance with the comprehensive plan, the staff reviews the goals and objectives of the recently adopted 2018 comprehensive plan, And within the staff report, we listed those that we felt were being met through the applicant's request, and these are sort of the highlights. They're providing pedestrian and bike connections, again, via Glade Court, internals with their site, and along Harrodsburg Road. That meets goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. They're implementing parts of the consent decree through stormwater and sanitary sewer improvements. They're providing shared open space. They're improving or creating an effective transportation system. That would be the improvements along Harrodsburg Road. Providing for employment generation with new businesses and tourism support services with a hotel and restaurant uses. Emphasizing redevelopment of our underutilized corridors. And then lastly, maximizing development on vacant and in this case underutilized property that's inside the urban service area. So that was a condensed, without quoting all the goals and objectives to you all again, summary of the staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission find that this requested TIF development area is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Thank you. Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. members of commission I'm Bruce Simpson I'm here on behalf of the Fountains at Palomar you heard from me before and others in connection with the rezoning of all this as Tracy indicated today's a task in terms of the Planning Commission's responsibility is to determine whether our request for this TIF in terms of our improvements is in compliance with the 2018 comprehensive plan or certainly an agreement with the staff that it is I I do want to emphasize that there's about close to $3 million in improvements that will come about if the TIF is fully funded that will benefit the surrounding neighborhoods that would otherwise not take place if the TIF is not approved. These will be improvements in sanitary sewers, storm water, shared use trail, and the expansion of additional northbound turn lanes. So we believe these are very meaningful kinds of improvements that can come about that benefit the existing neighborhood and the existing motoring traffic that has to go to the Harrisburg Road, Manowar, Interchange, particularly in the morning, eliminating cut-through traffic through the Palomar neighborhood. So this is a very important TIF. It eliminates, if approved and funded, a lot of potential future problems with respect to sanitary sewers in terms of what we're proposing to do, elimination of two lift stations and the notorious breakdown and maintenance of those problems and the public health issues are generated when those lift stations break down. that this TIF is funded, those two lift stations would be eliminated from any future use in this 46-acre TIF development plan. So we very much would ask for your approval of our application as being in conformity with the TIF and then we'll be going to the Urban County Council shortly from today, subject to your approval. I'd be happy to respond to any questions. Any questions? Okay, thank you. Thank you. any discussion any additional discussion from the staff or the not we're set for a motion you want me to use a parliamentary shortcut on this I can help you out if you want but not okay I tell you what I'll do here's the motion it should be that we propose that the fountain at Palomar is in the TIF development area and is in compliance with the 2018 comprehensive plan if you agreed that this is a so moved is there a second ok it's been properly moved in second that we approve this any discussion not please vote when it comes on your screens motion by berkeley second by forester yeah mr all right you got it now just pick one okay thank you go forth and send no more i will sign okay after mr duncan signs i sign any other business to come before this body mr duncan mr chair no other business but do remind you all that we will have a work session a rare fifth thursday work session next thursday the 30th in the phoenix building in our training room the main item on the agenda is to give you an update on the public input process for the adus that is completed now so we'll have a public input report for you as we prepare then to prepare the zota for that thank you anything else if not Without objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.