# URBAN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-SUBDIVISION ITEMS - June 12, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · June 12, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/522 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/522?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-06-12 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: March 2, 2026 - **Length**: 19,464 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on June 12, 2008, at 1:32 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Linda Godfrey presiding as the meeting chair. The Commission addressed three main agenda items during the session, including the approval of meeting minutes and two items related to the Southend Park, Section 1 development project involving both a zone map amendment and zoning development plan. Throughout the meeting, the Commission conducted 16 motions and votes on various matters before them. The session included significant public participation, with 11 public comments heard from community members regarding the items under consideration. All three primary agenda items were approved by the Commission, including the routine approval of minutes from a previous meeting and both components of the Southend Park development proposal - the zone map amendment and the associated zoning development plan for Section 1 of the project. The meeting demonstrated active civic engagement with substantial public input on the development matters, reflecting community interest in the planning decisions affecting the Southend Park area. The Commission's approval of both the zoning amendment and development plan indicates the project met the necessary regulatory requirements and planning standards for moving forward in the development process. ## Attendance The Commission meeting on June 12, 2008 had strong attendance with 10 members present and 1 absent. **Present:** • Linda Godfrey • Carolyn Richardson • Joan Whitman (arrived late) • Lynn Roche-Phillips • Lyle Aten • Mike Cravens • James Mahan • Neill Day (arrived late) • Ed Holmes • Frank Penn **Absent:** • Randall Vaughn **Late Arrivals:** • Joan Whitman • Neill Day The meeting proceeded with a quorum of members in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission conducted 16 votes during the June 12, 2008 meeting, with all motions passing unanimously by voice vote. **Administrative Actions** The meeting began with approval of the April 10, 2008 minutes, motioned by James Mahan and seconded by Frank Penn, passing 8-0. **Postponements to July 10, 2008** The Commission postponed nine development items to the July 10, 2008 meeting, all passing 8-0: • DP 2008-77 (Michael Gentry Property) - motioned by Frank Penn, seconded by James Mahan • DP 2008-79 (Cardinal Hill Hospital) - motioned by Frank Penn, seconded by Lyle Aten • DP 2008-80 (Chevy Chase Subdivision) - motioned by James Mahan, seconded by Frank Penn • PLAN 2008-71P (Hampton Springs) - motioned by Frank Penn, seconded by Lyle Aten • PLAN 2008-24F and PLAN 2008-25F (Thomas Communications, Inc.) - motioned by Lyle Aten, seconded by James Mahan • PLAN 2008-9P (Hillenmeyer Property) - motioned by Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Lyle Aten • PLAN 2008-44F (High Mount Subdivision) - motioned by Lyle Aten, seconded by Ed Holmes • DP 2008-51 (Palumbo Property) - motioned by Frank Penn, seconded by Lyle Aten • DP 2008-60 (Blackford Town Center) - motioned by Ed Holmes, seconded by Frank Penn **Approvals** The Commission approved several items with 9-0 votes: • Consent agenda items and findings for DP 2008-66 - motioned by Frank Penn, seconded by Joan Whitman • Reapproval of PLAN 2006-236F (Coons Property, Unit 11) with a 9th condition to correct P-1 zoning information - motioned by Mike Cravens, seconded by James Mahan • Reapproval of PLAN 2004-310F (Montmullin Street Subdivision) with a 10th condition for Article 4-5(a) compliance documentation - motioned by Joan Whitman, seconded by Carolyn Richardson • Release and call of bonds, excluding 2429 (2417) Georgetown Road (postponed to June 24, 2008) - motioned by Frank Penn, seconded by Carolyn Richardson **Zone Map Amendment** MAR 2008-16 and ZDP 2008-71 for Southend Park, Section 1 both passed 7-0, with Neill Day making the motions and Frank Penn providing seconds. The Commission approved phase one from Versailles Road to McKinley Street while postponing phase two indefinitely. ## Public Comment The Commission heard from eleven community members during the public comment period, with speakers divided on a proposed zone change. [timestamp: 02:00:00] **Supporters of the Zone Change:** Five speakers expressed support for the zoning proposal. Regina Cowan opened the public comment period by advocating for the zone change, emphasizing the need for community improvement and a return to a family-friendly environment. [timestamp: 02:00:00] Cynthia Reynolds followed, highlighting community excitement for the project and the necessity for change. [timestamp: 02:05:00] Paul Headley offered qualified support but raised specific concerns about park ownership and R3 zoning designations for single-family areas. [timestamp: 02:10:00] Marian Perkins supported the change, focusing on creating a better environment for future generations. [timestamp: 02:15:00] Kenneth Davis concluded the supporters' comments by stating it was time for improvement in the area. [timestamp: 02:20:00] **Opposition to the Zone Change:** Six speakers voiced opposition to the proposed zoning change, primarily citing business and property value concerns. Lawson King opposed the change due to the area's unsuitability for residential use, specifically mentioning noise and flooding issues. [timestamp: 02:25:00] James Caton argued the zone change would make his property non-conforming and reduce its value. [timestamp: 02:30:00] Gerald Ray expressed concerns about losing industrial zoning that supports his construction business. [timestamp: 02:35:00] Bill Bausch spoke on behalf of Harry Gordon Scrap Materials, citing potential devaluation of industrial property. [timestamp: 02:40:00] William Hagan worried about impacts on his manufacturing business and property value. [timestamp: 02:45:00] Kevin McCormick concluded the opposition comments by expressing concerns about limitations on expanding his auto repair business. [timestamp: 02:50:00] The public comments revealed a clear divide between community members seeking residential improvements and business owners concerned about operational and financial impacts. ## Contested Items The Commission meeting on June 12, 2008, featured one primary contested item that generated significant community opposition. **Zone Map Amendment for Southend Park** The most contentious issue of the meeting involved a proposed zone map amendment for the Southend Park area. Several property owners in the affected area voiced strong opposition to the proposed zone change during the public comment period. The opposition centered on two main concerns: • **Property devaluation concerns** - Property owners expressed worry that the zone change would negatively impact the value of their industrial properties in the area • **Business expansion limitations** - Existing business owners raised concerns that the new zoning designation would restrict their ability to expand their operations in the future Multiple property owners spoke against the amendment, though the specific number of speakers and the exact outcome of the vote were not detailed in the available meeting materials. The opposition appeared to be organized, with property owners presenting similar concerns about the economic impact of the proposed zoning changes on the industrial character of the Southend Park area. The debate highlighted the ongoing tension between development planning initiatives and existing property owner interests, particularly in areas where industrial uses may conflict with other proposed land use designations. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and the final vote outcome were not available in the provided meeting materials.* ## Approval of Minutes The Commission reviewed and approved the minutes from their April 10, 2008 meeting during this agenda item. The discussion was led by key speakers James Mahan and Frank Penn, who addressed the accuracy and completeness of the previously recorded meeting minutes. The Commission members had the opportunity to review the documentation from the April meeting and discuss any necessary corrections or clarifications. Following their review and discussion, the Commission voted to approve the minutes from the April 10, 2008 meeting as presented. The approval ensures that the official record of the previous meeting's proceedings, decisions, and discussions has been formally accepted by the Commission. This routine but important procedural step maintains the Commission's official documentation and provides a verified record of their prior meeting activities and decisions. ## Zone Map Amendment & Southend Park, Section 1 Zoning Development Plan [timestamp: 02:55:00] The Commission considered ordinance MAR 2008-16, a zone map amendment for Southend Park, Section 1, proposing to rezone the area from Light Industrial to a combination of Planned Neighborhood Residential, Mixed Use, and Highway Service Business zones. Tracy Wade and Andrew Grunwald served as key speakers during the discussion of this zoning development plan. The proposed amendment would facilitate the development of Southend Park, Section 1, by allowing for a mixed-use development that combines residential, commercial, and service business uses in place of the current industrial zoning designation. The rezoning request represents a significant change in the intended use of the property, transitioning from industrial activities to a more diverse development pattern that would include neighborhood residential components alongside mixed-use and highway service business areas. This type of zoning amendment typically requires careful consideration of compatibility with surrounding land uses, infrastructure capacity, and community development goals. Following discussion and consideration of the proposal, the Commission approved the zone map amendment for Southend Park, Section 1. The approval allows the development to proceed under the new zoning classifications, enabling the planned mix of residential, commercial, and service business uses as outlined in the zoning development plan. ## Southend Park, Section 1 Zoning Development Plan [timestamp: 03:00:00] The Commission reviewed agenda item ZDP 2008-71, the Zoning Development Plan for Southend Park, Section 1. This ordinance was presented in conjunction with the associated zone map amendment for the development project. Tom Martin served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the zoning development plan to the Commission. The plan outlined the proposed development framework for Section 1 of the Southend Park project, establishing the zoning parameters and development standards that would govern future construction in this area. The zoning development plan was designed to work in coordination with the previously considered zone map amendment, providing the detailed regulatory framework needed to implement the rezoning. The plan would establish specific development criteria, including permitted uses, building standards, and other zoning requirements for the Southend Park development. Following the presentation and Commission discussion, the Southend Park, Section 1 Zoning Development Plan was approved. This approval, combined with the zone map amendment, provided the necessary regulatory foundation for the development to proceed according to the established zoning framework. The approval of ZDP 2008-71 represents a significant step forward in the Southend Park development process, establishing the zoning structure that will guide future development activities in Section 1 of the project. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of minutes from April 10, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone DP 2008-77: Michael Gentry Property to July 10, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone DP 2008-79: Cardinal Hill Hospital to July 10, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone DP 2008-80: Chevy Chase Subdivision to July 10, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone PLAN 2008-71P: Hampton Springs to July 10, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone PLAN 2008-24F and PLAN 2008-25F: Thomas Communications, Inc. to July 10, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone PLAN 2008-9P: Hillenmeyer Property to July 10, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone PLAN 2008-44F: High Mount Subdivision to July 10, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone DP 2008-51: Palumbo Property to July 10, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone DP 2008-60: Blackford Town Center to July 10, 2008 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approve consent agenda items and adopt findings for DP 2008-66 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Reapprove PLAN 2006-236F: Coons Property, Unit 11 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Reapprove PLAN 2004-310F: Montmullin Street Subdivision - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approve release and call of bonds, excluding 2429 (2417) Georgetown Road - **MAR 2008-16** — passed (7-0): Zone map amendment for Southend Park, Section 1 - **ZDP 2008-71** — passed (7-0): Approve applicable portion of zoning development plan for Southend Park, Section 1 --- ## Full transcript a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a We still have a quorum. Ms. Whitman and Mr. Holmes are recused themselves from the commission. Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the commission. The next item on today's agenda is again found on page nine and continues on to page ten and it is item one. You have a packet at your seat with what is normally in your notebook. That is the staff report, the application page and then also the zoning plat. As a matter of record, I would like to submit a letter sent to you prior to the last hearing dated May 19th, a more recent letter from June 3rd from the same individual which I believe you have a copy addressed to each of you at your place and then the Division of Engineering's response to that and I'll send that around and we'll include it as part of the record. This is MAR 2008-16 which is a case that was initiated by the Planning Commission. It is a zone change from a light industrial zone, I-1, to restricted highway service business, the B-3 zone and mixed use to neighborhood corridor which is the MU-2 zone and third, a planned neighborhood residential R-3 zone. The subject property is approximately 26 acres of property with many parcels located within that but generally bound to the north by West High Street, to the east by Combs and Pine Streets, to the south by Patterson Street and then to the west by the Norfolk Southern Railroad and this is generally known as the South End Park area and this rezoning is proposed in association with the proposed Newtown Pike extension project. The area is a mixture of uses currently with the I-1 zoning and some uses in this area including like residential would be non-conforming as they are today. This is just an aerial of this area and shows you that it's generally west of downtown. You can see how the parcels lay in that area. There's also a very large park in the center of this area. And as proposed, the zone change has the three zones and the northern portion, grab my microphone, northeast corner of the area, there's B-3 or excuse me, a restricted B-3 area along Versailles or West High Street and generally where Pine Street intersects with High Street, there's that northeast corner. Currently it's a PDQ or was formerly a PDQ market and is a convenience store now. The rest of, most of the rest of the area is proposed for R-3 zoning and that would include property south of Versailles all the way to Patterson Street and then between the railroad and the Combs Street, Pine Street area. And then lastly, the MU-2 zoning that's proposed is in the southeast corner of the subject area and shown on the aerial here. Here's a few aerial photographs of the subject properties. This is the northern end of the south end park area. Here you have Versailles or West High Street. This is the intersection of Pine Street. Here's where the B-3 is proposed. And then this would be DeRody Street and the railroad tracks. Again the northern portion of the area proposed for rezoning with High Street or Versailles To the left of the photograph, the railroad at the bottom, this is looking east. Convenience store proposed for B-3, DeRody cutting through the south end park area and then this I believe is McKinley. Next photograph again shows the railroad. This represents a little bit more of the southern end of the proposed rezoning area and includes DeRody coming south from north to south through the area with several businesses on the southern end currently there. The park is shown and also the residential uses along DeRody. And then last again, this represents part of the southern portion of the area with Merino coming in. The right-of-way for Newtown Pike generally along the railroad, abandoned railroad here. The Norfolk Southern Railroad along the bottom of the photograph here and then Patterson shown along the right side of the photograph. Existing zoning again is I-1. There are two small parcels in the middle along DeRody that were not included in this zone change because they are already zoned R-3 and you can see by the graphic here where those are located. The comprehensive plan for this area recommends several land uses. First, high-density residential along the western portion of the subject property along the railroad tracks. You can see on the graphic the HD reference and then the tan color here represents the area recommended for high-density residential which is defined as 10 to 25 dwelling units per net acre. The area of the zone change that would encompass this area is 7.2 acres and the proposal for that high-density area on the comprehensive plan is R-3. The R-3 or the corollary development plan for that area shows 85 dwelling units of a mixture of residential types and that would be a density of 11.81 units which would fall within the density range recommended by the comprehensive plan. Zone changing to R-3 for that area would be in agreement with the comprehensive plan. The second two areas recommended for different land use on the comprehensive plan are for mixed use and that mixed use land use is shown both in the northeast corner as well as the southeast corner of the subject area for rezoning and for the audience there. The northern site at the future intersection of Newtown Pike and West High Street is proposed for B-3 zoning restricted with conditional zoning restrictions and although it's recommended for mixed use at this location, it is the opinion that the B-3 zone would help to implement the south end park urban village plan and those conditional zoning restrictions that are suggested for that site would help to ensure greater protection of a redevelopment area and help to implement the proposed vision prohibiting the most appropriate uses at this location are necessary in order for the new roadway to help become more of an entrance or a gateway location for the neighborhood and it will be a significant intersection for the future Newtown Pike corridor. Although the B-3 zone doesn't allow residential as would be suggested with a mixed use land use, it is felt that it is more appropriate than the existing I-1 zone so while not in agreement with the comprehensive plan, the staff report suggests that I-1 is inappropriate and in this case B-3 with restrictions is appropriate at that location. The second mixed use area to the south, southeast corner here is actually proposed for rezoning to a mixed use 2 zone and that is again for about 3.8 acres of property and that would be in agreement with the mixed use designation on the comprehensive plan. The other two land use designations from the comprehensive plan are other public use and public recreation. Public recreation is shown in the green on the comprehensive plan map and that's the area suggested for an expanded park and also kind of a square, a central green space near the townhouses and mixed use area. The corollary development plan identified about 10.8 acres for that use and it is proposed that all of the green space be rezoned for R-3 and lastly the other public uses, area land use suggested for this would be for the Nathaniel United Methodist Mission which has a desire to remain as a prominent part of the south end park redevelopment area. The R-3 zone is suggested or proposed for this area because the R-3 zone has a conditional use for community center and or church which would then require the approval of the Board of Adjustment and so the R-3 is also felt to be in agreement with the comprehensive plan. And I clicked to the next slide there but hopefully this shows the comprehensive plan underneath with the proposed zone lines over the top so you can see how the high density public recreation and other public uses generally correspond to the R-3 zone and the MU on the southeast corner corresponds with an MU-2 and the mixed use land use at the northeast corner corresponds with a B-3 zone. The approval of this zone change will begin to implement the vision of the comprehensive plan as well as the Newtown Pike corridor extension plan and specifically the south end park urban village plan. The zoning committee did not make a recommendation on this proposal for lack of a quorum that day but the staff is recommending approval and those reasons are listed on the staff report and on the agenda but in general they are that the planned neighborhood residential R-3 zone and that the mixed use neighborhood corridor MU-2 zone are in agreement with the comprehensive plan and that the B-3 proposed zone is more appropriate for a significant gateway and prominent intersection along the corridor than the existing light industrial zone which is inappropriate at this location. The staff again as usual recommends that the associated development plan be certified within two weeks prior to this zone change being sent to the urban county council and lastly on your staff report and on the agenda the list of suggested conditional zoning restrictions. There are 14 uses that the staff is proposing be prohibited and these restrictions are appropriate and necessary for the land at the southwest corner of the intersection of Newtown and Pine Street in order to protect the gateway entrance to the south end park neighborhood from the most intrusive and intensive commercial land uses and to help implement the comprehensive plan's vision for this area. Be happy to answer any questions at this time. Does anyone have any questions of staff at this time? Do we have any more staff input? Mr. Martin will present the associated development plan for you. Right. Madam Chairman, members of the commission, on page 10 of your agenda you will find the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change 2008-71 south end park section 1. Ms. Wade of course has done an excellent job in orienting you to the property so I will not go over that other than to orient the plan to you so you can see again the Versailles Road end of the project area is here on the development plan, the Scott Street extension here and the Newtown Pike extension. The plan that you see before you does reflect the proposed street system for the south end redevelopment. In this area you have a series of single family homes with these larger squares representing multifamily structures. There are in fact 22 single family lots on this plan or structures I should say and four multifamily lots. Through this area these are townhouses and here by the Scott Street extension are they are proposing apartment units. The system here is a two-way system to function with the two-way system of the street which does the Rudy comes all the way through the development. Here we have a one-way alley system that's being proposed to serve this area through here. The connection is one, this connection is two. It is, here's a green area here, here is your mixed-use area proposed as well as your proposed R3 recreational areas and your B3. This plan is only slightly unusual as you know that generally we would see the entire development but our understanding is that due to the funding and the structure of the funding they will be bringing these areas in for your approval at a later date. And I would again stress this is a preliminary development plan. You will see final development plans on the property. The subdivision committee reviewed this plan, recommended approval subject to eight very standard conditions that you can see including as I said before number seven that there'll be no development of this property until the planning commission approves a final development plan. And with that, if there are any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Any questions of Mr. Martin, staff? Thank you. At this time, we will hear arguments from those from the audience. I think Mr. King is it, I don't have a sign-up sheet, do we have a sign-up sheet for? I'm sorry. Hmm. I would just say also the Division of Engineering, Andrew Grunwald, project managers here to answer any questions you might have either now or after the objectors and supporters speak and I think the rest of the project team for the Newtown Pike is also present. All righty, thank you. Okay. At this time, I'm sorry, I got the map in my way. We need to hear from those people who are in favor, I suppose, first of this project and then we will listen to arguments from those who have questions or in opposition to this project being approved at this time. So the first person on the sign-up list I think is Mr. Lawson King. I'm sorry, you are opposed. I need to look at my list more carefully. I think we have Kevin, I can't quite read this name, McDermott. Would those people who are for this project please stand? Would that help? Okay. And I have a Mr. Talbert, I believe you're a supporter, or John Talbert. Okay, he's not here. What about a Regina Cowan? Would you like to speak, please? Hi, my name is Regina Cowan, and I'm with the Newtown Pike Extension. I am the president of the South End Neighborhood Association, and I am glad to be here with you guys. I see you on TV all the time. Could you pull the speaker down a little bit so we can hear you a little better? Thank you. All right. I am a supporter of the zone change. I've been in the area all my life, and my dad would have liked to have been here, but he was unable to come because he's sick right now. But I am for this because we've been waiting on this for a long time, and I've been in the area, I hate to give my age in front of everybody, but I'm 53 years old. And I've been down there all my life, and I would like to see a change in the community and bring the people who have left to come back to a nice community the way that it used to be years ago, where we'd sit on our porch and enjoy one another and was not afraid of anything or anybody. But it's been like that all our lives. The whites, the blacks, we all got along. We all grew up together, and that's just the way it's been. It's been a family community. And I would like to see the zone change so that we can go ahead with the project. I mean, it's been years, years, years, years overdue. So it's time. It's time for the change, and we're ready for the change. If you would like to ask me any questions, I'm here. I'll be here for a little while. I have to get home to my granddaughter. So any questions? And if not, I'll have a seat. But I am a supporter for the zone change, and I'm looking for it to happen, hoping. Does anyone have any questions they want to ask Ms. Cownie? All right, thank you very much. We have Cynthia Reynolds. Hi. I'm Cynthia Reynolds, and like Jeannie, I've been down there all my life. My parents were from there. My mother still lives there. We're ready for this change to take place. It really needs to happen. Everybody is excited about it happening in the neighborhood, most of us that are from there and do live there. My grandchild, I still take down there a couple times a week with my child. And like Jeannie said, whites, black, we're all just a big family. Everybody knows everybody. You can see somebody's child out doing something. You know who to go tell. You know what their parent's name is. You know their grandparents. And we just enjoy each other tremendously. And thank you all for your time. Thank you. I think we have a D, and I believe this is Hundy or Howdy. Come forward, sir. Could you mention your name? Pardon? Your name and address for the record. My name is Paul Headley. I live over on Mount Mullin Street over in Peraltown. Okay. I've been affiliated with this project for quite some time. And to reiterate, I think the two issues that have been addressed by Regina and Cynthia about family and community are two things that we definitely hold dear on this project. I'm in support of this project and have committed a lot of time to it. I have two questions that I'd like to address, and I've already begun to address one with Brian here earlier, and I think we can get it worked out. I just want to make sure it's on the record and that everybody is aware where we're going on this. The first one is the issue of I heard 10.8 acres a second ago. I heard 7.1 on this park. And I was told that the ownership is going to be retained by the city. We would like to have, to keep control of that in the long term, if there would be something in writing stating that if this thing is ever not the park for the city, it goes back to the trust and to nobody else. And I think the understanding I got from Brian was that that's possible, but I want to make sure it's on the record and that it will be done and it's in writing. The second one is kind of a fuzzy thing, and I've addressed this for the past several years, and I still haven't gotten quite a great answer, and I'm trying to understand. They're asking for R3 zoning on the far end, and I heard earlier that 22 of those properties out of the 26 would be R1 single-family detached, and yet you're asking for R3 zoning. If you're asking the people in this room to give up their property to become part of this trust, I still don't understand. You're going to put back single-family residents and you want them to live there. I still have yet to understand why we don't have R1 for that section of the project instead of R3. It seems like it would make these people that are going to live there and put their mind at ease much greater to say that if we're building you a single-family detached residence, we're going to give you R1. And if the board that will control this trust at some point, say 20 years down the road, says, we would like to make it at that point R3 and it's a decision of the trust and the board of that trust, then that can be done. But it makes me very uneasy, and I want to go on the record right here and now to say that it makes me uneasy, to say we're putting in R3 zoning when you're building R1 residential. And I would like to have an answer on the record for that question. Thank you. Sir, we've got your question down, and we'd like to hear everybody's point and then ask the team to answer some of the questions. That's fine. Like I said, I'm going to talk with Brian, and I think we can get that worked out. I'm not worried about it. I just want to make sure we're on the record and everything. All right, then. Thank you. Do you need anything else, or do you need a question from me? No, I think that's it. I just wanted to let people know that the project team is here to answer those questions, and we'd like to do it after we hear everybody's questions. I think the last person, I think, who signed up is Marana Perkins. That was a supporter. Marana. And I don't have her address down here. We also have one more person. Kenneth Demas would like to speak after I do. Hi. My name is Marian Perkins, and I am 45 years old, and I've been down there all my life. I am a member of Nathanael United Methodist Church, been on every board thing that we've done down there. Excuse me, Ms. Perkins, we don't have your address. Oh, 743 Dorotey. Okay. On Dorotey Street. I am a process assistant. We are a second generation of the Perkins and Rowe family. We brought 15 of us with us to agree to the zoning. And we are, it's been like, it basically says it's been a long time coming, and it's time for our grandchildren to have a better place to stay and the roads and everything. So if you oppose it, I mean not oppose it, but if you agree to it, sign it over and let us get on. Thank you. Thank you. There's one other person. Is there anyone else who is in favor of this project would like to speak? Okay. State your name and address, sir. Good evening. My name is Kenneth Davis. I live at 711 Briars Alley. And I'm here in support of this to be done. I'm also in here to speak on behalf of my mother and my father that lives at 728 Derody Street. My father's been living there for over 65 years now. And I just feel like it's time for a change. You know, I mean, all the other neighbors around us have got a little change done to them, so it's time for us. And we need that change done as soon as possible whenever we get it okay. That's practically all I would like to say right now. Could you just state your last name for me again? Kenneth Davis. He must think. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in support of this project? I've got about three minutes. Hello. My name is Vernell Anro. I've been down there 44 1⁄2 years. I am not going to say yay or nay about project work, but don't destroy what we have down there for something else. Just for the sake of a few dollars, it's not going to help at all, folks, in the end. Thank you, ma'am. You need to get an address. Okay. If that's all of the ‑‑ Oh, is there anyone else who wishes to speak in support of this project? Okay. Are you in support of the project, sir? I'm for it. Okay. All right, then. We had everyone who was here that was in support of this project to stand. Now I'd like to see how many people are here in opposition to this project or who have major questions. Let's put it that way. Right, opposed to the zone change but not the project total. Okay. All right. At this point in time, we'd like to hear from those people who are opposed to the zone change. I stand corrected. I think Mr. King was signed up first. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, I am opposed to the project. I am not opposed to helping these people. The people that have been here and the people who live in that area need help worse than anybody in Lexington. But if you have ever been on Dorote Street when the train goes through there, it shakes the whole bottom. It is no place to live. It should not be put back into use for residential use. There's a railroad on one side. There's a highway coming through, a four-lane highway on the other side. You can hit a nine-iron from one side of the project to the other, even if you can't play very well, Frank. You can roll it that far. And you can hit a driver almost from one end to the other, from Broadway over to High Street. You've got the High Street overpass, and that rattles all the time with traffic. And then you've got the four-lane highway coming up on the north side and the railroad on the other side. It is no place to put housing projects. Help these people, but you're not doing them a favor by building that area. It is a swamp. There's a culvert that runs from Broadway all the way down under the underpass, and it stops up about once a month in wet weather. And it transfers the water out of the Broadway area down to Town Branch, and it goes underground under Versailles Road. Something needs to be done about that. I don't know whether the engineers can do anything other than build a dam on the other end. It is a mess. Look at it closely. Help these people. Well, now, sir, you'd be happy to come down to this, but we'll be happy. Okay. Excuse me. The next person who signed up is Edward Yancey. And we have an Edward Yancey. J.E. Caton. The property is 870. Could you state your name and address, sir? James Caton, C-A-T-O-N. All right. And your address? Office address is 1008-I Eastland Drive. Okay. Thank you, sir. The property that I'm speaking of is in the corner of Durode at the Versailles Road bridge in the railroad track, right tight in the corner. It is a conforming use. It's all in grass. No residential property is involved with it at all. The zone change will force me into a non-conforming use. Now, each one of you think about your property. If somebody's going to change the zone on it prior to somebody coming and talking to you next year about buying it from you, would you want it zoned to a lesser zone? I'm not opposed to the project. I've been involved in different projects down there since 1958 to make the place better. When Lincoln School was there, I was involved with it. When Mildred McCullough helped force down there and for many years worked the better things, I worked with Mildred. So I'm not opposed to the project at all. I'm opposed to the sequence of events. It should not be rezoned to a lesser zone before it is appraised. That is not the way business is done. It's just not the way it's done. So my property is conforming. It's not in any way blocking anything. It's tight in the corner with the bridge. I do not want to sell my property, but I will not have that choice, and I understand how the process works very well. But I want to state that as emphatically as possible. I didn't feel it was necessary for me to hire an attorney to say this because it seems like a fairly straightforward issue. I'm sorry, sir. What is the current zoning on your property, and can you show us on the map where it is? It's for sale by this room. And that's currently vacant property? I'm sorry, you said that's vacant property right in the corner there? And the property that we're talking about is right back there in the corner. It consists of a small brick warehouse, stone brick warehouse, rail, and an advertising sign. It makes it look very rural. So, now at that point, first of all, you have a problem. The rent is paid up in advance. It's a secure property for somebody who retires. You know how retirement investments go right now most of the time. This happens to be one that's older, that's old, temporary. Mr. Caton, can we ask you to? Sir, you need to get the hand mic. Thank you. Now, that piece of property I believe is currently zoned I-1. All right. Thank you, sir. We have a Gerald Ray. Good afternoon. My name is Gerald Ray, and my address is 1006 Eastland Drive. I own property at 567 McKinley. It's currently industrial, and I had intentions of using it along with my construction company to have a little office and a yard there. And I just don't hardly see how it's right that it can be kind of taken away from me, changed to residential. As Caton was saying, it just seems out of order as far as the process goes. I'm all in favor of the Newtown Pike extension. I think it's a great thing, but as far as the zoning changes, I don't think it's fair. Can you show us where? All right. Thank you, sir. We have a Bill Bausch. Yes. And you pronounced that correctly. Thank you, Bill Bausch. Thank you. I am an attorney representing Harry Gordon Scrap Materials. And it's going to take a little bit of history here, but they are the lessor of the property that was in turn passed under the will of Norman Gordon. And so the lessee of the property is Harry Gordon Scrap Materials. The owners are Diane and Barry Gordon, and I represent a one-half undivided interest in this property. A little complicated, but as with families, everybody's going to have their own representation. What's significant about this is that Harry Gordon, having been there since 1950s, they comprise of about 5.25 acres. And then the estate of Norman Gordon, of which I represent the one-half interest of the remainder interest, has approximately another two acres. Harry Gordon is housed at 637 to 645 Patterson. That's about 5.25 acres. And then the properties between 508 and 870 Dorote, a substantial portion of those properties were passed on to Barry and Diane Gordon. They comprise about 7.25 acres between them. I don't have an exact engineering measure, but it's somewhere between 7 and 7.5, making them basically the largest private property owner in this entire project. What the gentleman said about the phasing and the sequence of this has great, great impact. This property is currently zoned I-1, and it is being operated in its use parameters of I-1 as a steel plant and also scrap materials. They employ approximately 60 people, anywhere from 50 to 70, depending upon the time and the workload. With all that having been said, they're in favor of the project, but do not want to find themselves bearing the brunt of the cost of this project as private individuals. And I'm going to give you a little explanation on that. When property is condemned, it is valued as of the date of taking. The date of taking is the entry of the interlocutory order and judgment and the posting of the monies. My clients are in Phase III of this project. They're 48 to 72 months away from being made an offer on their property. If this property is rezoned at the current time, they will then be in a nonconforming use at the time of the date of taking. The difference in value of I-1 property and R-3 property, when you multiply that by 7 to 7.5 acres, could be well over a million dollars. And in essence, the rezoning of this property would effectuate a taking as of the date of rezoning. Having said that, we're still in favor of it. And what I'm asking for, and I've spoken with staff. Staff sent me to Mr. McDonald over at the State. Mr. McDonald, in turn, at Z-7, sent me back to the staff, and they said, well, it's going to be zoned based on the highest and best use. And I said, that's true, but that's the highest and best use as of the date of taking. The highest and best use might be I-1, and it still might be I-1 72 months from now, but when you go to value that property, it's going to be based on current condemnation law, which is a ready, willing, and able buyer and a ready, willing, and able seller, both of whom under no duress to sell or to buy. No one's going to buy I-1 property at I-1 prices when they can't use it for I-1 because the nonconforming use will go away. Now, I've made some proposals to staff, and basically they dumped it on you all. So I'm back up here, and that is if you do a zone change, make it effective as the date of taking. That way the property owners are not imperiled. They are not carrying the brunt. I don't have a reverse condemnation action immediately because, again, under condemnation law, the condemnor is required to deal in good faith. My client's property has already been cored. There's been environmental reports. Preliminary discussions are held. There's no question that we are in the middle of the condemnation process. I don't think anyone would doubt that. As such, we are required to be dealt with in good faith. Good faith is not rezoning your property in the middle of negotiations and taking the price and reducing it by a million-plus dollars. I need clarification. I, too, am making a record of this. But for those property owners who have bought, have put their businesses there, currently using that property for that purpose, when they are moved, they're going to have to take the funds that are given to them, relocate those businesses, rehire the 50 to 70 people that they are currently employing, and they're going to have to go buy I-1 property or lease it. You can't build a business on R-3 money in an I-1 zone. It just doesn't work. I don't know if I've articulated the dilemma that we're in, but it is a sequencing event, and I just don't think that property owners who have employed people for 50, 60 years should have to bear the burden of having their property devalued at the same time we are negotiating in good faith and entitled to the maximum amount of money. The only thing that I've come up with, and I've spent long hours trying to talk to different appraisers, some of whom work with the state, some of whom don't, and the only thing I could come up with is if the zoning goes through, make it contingent or effective as of the date of taking so that the appraisers will all come in at that value. The big dilemma is you rezone it now, 72 months from now, and we may not be here, and nobody's going to remember that we all agreed in good faith that this isn't going to happen. It's got to be documented. It needs to be protected, and it needs to make sure that property owners, particularly someone who has seven-plus acres out of 23 acres, doesn't carry the burden of this project. Answer any questions. I'd be glad to work with staff, work with the state, work with anyone on trying to make sure that we're not caught in that dilemma. So you said your clients have 23 acres and seven acres are affected by this? Seven to seven-and-a-half of the 23 acres that are currently being utilized. The 5.25 are going to be in this area, and then the Duroody Street property. So we're going to be in 5.25 in the proposed MU2, and then the remaining approximate two acres would be in the R3, and it's all currently I-1. All right. Thank you. Does anyone else have any questions right now of Mr. Boush? I wondered if staff might be able to put up the aerial projection that Ms. Wade had used, and maybe Mr. Boush could show us which properties he's referring to. Let me just show this on there. The next person that we had was, I think, William Pete Hager. Just a moment. Do you want the flat one? The part that shows the Scott Street front, because this property is closer to Scott Street, Newtown. That's the 5.25. That's the 5.25 that he was drawing the circle around. The Duroody Street properties are varying. They're down further on the property towards the center of the project where the R3 was. But they are contiguous on the back end of those properties to the 5.25, giving a single block of contiguous properties of approximately seven to seven and a half acres. Yes, ma'am. All right, then. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? All right, sir. If you want to come forward with your name and address. Council Chair, council members, thank you for giving me some time today. My name is William Hagan. I own six contiguous lots with a primary developed property at 555 Merino, which is at the corner of McKinley and Merino, with lots which run down the remainder of Merino and ending at 601 Duroody Street. My wife and I have owned this property for 11 years. It is zoned I-1. We have a small manufacturing business, and the use of that is compliant with the I-1 zoning. Our hesitation is not with the project. We are thoroughly behind the project. We feel like this is a showcase opportunity for Lexington to move forward, to provide much-needed resources and development in a very blighted environment. The citizens in that area need this project. However, as a property owner and as a small business operator, by rezoning it at this time you are artificially devaluing my property when we have not even had a day of negotiations with the people who take our property. Saying that, we have just invested just under $80,000 in redeveloping our office space on the upper floor of this property. By doing so, we've made a commitment to our community to maintain a professional workspace, and we expect that when we are asked to vacate this property, to sell the property for this project, that we would be compensated for such efforts. By allowing the rezoning of this area today, or allowing this to move forward to the council vote, we have, in essence, placed a value much lower than what an I-1 would bring by an R-3. Our actual property is in the proposed zoning of UOP, which is other use properties. The location of this is at the corner of Marino. Let's see here, future Newtown Pike Extension. It is this corner right here. This is McKinley Street. This is Marino Street. This is Dorote Street. We own the developed building, the two-story block building here. We own a parcel here, a parcel here, and the remaining parcels all the way down to Dorote Street. It is just under one acre of contiguous property, and by zoning that either R-3 or as a UOP zone, we are then limited in what we can expect from an appraisal. Given that, I'm not opposed to the project. I think that it's the right thing to do, and it's been a long time coming. However, there's no check in the mail. There's no set date for negotiations. I think this is the wrong time to rezone. Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you, sir. I think that was the last person I had on my sign-up list. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? You want to come forward, sir, and state your name and address? My name is Kevin McCormick. I live at 695 Woodward Lane. My family has operated an auto repair business on Dorote Street for almost 20 years. For the last 13 years, we've been property owners, and my father lives on the property. We've struggled to survive for many years. In the last two years, we've seen quite an increase in business. We're finally in a position possibly to expand our business to keep up. We placed an ad in the phone book this spring to help increase our business. The problem is with the proposed zone change, we will not be able to expand the building or the business to keep up with the growth that we're planning and experiencing. My understanding is the Newtown Pike Extension Project has been planned for going on 50 years or so. It's been a long time coming. We've been told the road is coming soon without any definite date. We've been going to meetings for many years. We stopped going to them because there's no new dates for us. It goes into different time periods. You're wanting to change the zone we're in now, limiting our growth and expansion, for what you might get to, what you will get to in the future sometime. On four of the zone changes in the areas that you're developing, the residential area down the other end, you've started that. I think that needs a zone change so you can go on with it. When you get ready to do our end, then propose a zone change for it. Otherwise, we may have to wait two years, four years, six years and have to live with what we have or maybe have to move out of a property that we own and we've been working for for many years. It's not fair to limit our growth. I agree with a couple of these other people that have talked about the price and value of the property. Sooner or later, we will be bought out or be moved one or the other. Zone one is where we're at now, and moving to multi-use two is going to decrease the value drastically. If it does have to be changed, I agree that it should be set forward to the day of possession that the zone be changed. And until then, we should be allowed to do whatever we need to do to survive and expand our businesses. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition? At this point in time, I'll ask the commission, are there any questions that they have of anyone before we close the hearing or start the rebuttal? Madam Chairman, I'd like to hear from the project manager and then reserve the opportunity to call somebody back that owns a piece of property just to ask. I don't know what his response is going to be. Okay. That will be fine. We will come forward. I guess you mean me. My name is Andrew Grunwald, and I work for the Division of Engineering. I'm the project manager for the Newtown Pike Extension Project, at least for the City of Lexington. As you all know, I won't go through the entire history of this project. It's actually older than I am. In most recent years, it did begin in the mid-'90s. It picked up steam. There was considerable discussion about alignment, and alignment was chosen. The project team was formed sometime in October of 2000. This project team began to work on what was called the environmental impact statement. This environmental impact statement held numerous public meetings. We evaluated different concerns associated with the development of this road and the corridor, and we were faced with a very large challenge, basically what to do with the area known as, I guess, Davis Bottoms, or what we call the South End Park area. We were under, basically under direction from an executive order, and that executive order is 12898. It was signed by President Clinton that stated that all socially economic areas must be considered an environmental impact statement. The area itself at the time and as now was approximately 60 to 70% rental. The worry was if it was left as industrial property with a new boulevard placed next to it with 26,000 to 30,000 cars a day, it would redevelop. The people would be displaced. We held numerous meetings trying to figure out exactly what to do, what would be fair to the people who live there, what would be fair to the property owners, what would be fair to the residents. And our solution was to create what we call the mitigation area, basically to acquire the property, to rezone it, to make it better for the people who live there. In doing this, we increased the cost of the project considerably. We had to lobby not only the Transportation Cabinet but the Federal Highway Administration. We had to come up with new mechanisms to solve significant problems. Some of these are the Community Land Trust, which I think some of you are familiar with. We also developed numerous planning documents in order to stabilize our plans to generate public input. And we also agreed that we would take this entire project through the Planning Commission, essentially to develop a cohesive atmosphere for ideas to be exchanged and to allow the President to absorb information not only from, I guess, the engineers from the State or the Federal Highway Administration, but from the city itself. This process has given us a great deal of knowledge and a great deal of input, not only from the Police Department, the Fire Department, the Planning Department. We have worked on this, I would say, for over four years. Some of the concerns that Mr. King had raised we have addressed. For instance, he mentioned the railroad line, the Norfolk Southern Railroad line and what will be the Newtown Pike Extension. We are planning to build a noise wall to separate the new neighborhood from that line. We are planning to add a significant amount of fill in the area. Mr. King is right. The area does lie in a low area. There is one box culvert that drains approximately 1,200 acres. We're going to refill that area, regrade it. We are also going to correct a lot of the sanitary sewer issues. We're going to rebuild the entire sanitary sewer system through the area. All these things are going to take place over the next couple of years. What brings us here today essentially is the zone change. The project itself will be funded over a series of years. We have broken it up into four parts. And the most immediate funding for that is what we call phase one and phase four. Now, unfortunately, phase one is not the entire south end project area. It is only a portion of it, basically from McKinley Street to the new boulevard to Versailles Road and to the railroad track. This phase will be constructed hopefully within the next two to three years. The other portions of the project will be constructed, I would say, possibly over the next eight to ten years, pending funding. Those aren't necessarily commitments I can make and, you know, can support. There are concerns, I think, that people have with the acquisition of property. When we, the government, approach individuals to buy their property, we will have to use the rules that are set forth by the Federal Highway Administration. There are federal acts that govern our actions. We will have to go out, basically have the property appraised, and it will be looked at as what we call highest and best use at the time of purchase. That statement is fairly powerful. For instance, if you have industrial property that is even nonconforming, we still have to look at it and evaluate it as industrial property. If you have residential property that's down in the neighborhood, we can also look at it with that statement as if it is residential rather than industrial. So it gives us the option to look at property and pay the best use almost no matter what the zoning is. Now, with that said, it's almost kind of hard to make a blanket statement about all the property in that area. I'm sure that's a major concern of most of the people in the room, at least that oppose the project. But we do have to pay highest and best use for the property at the time of the taking. The system for acquiring property, there are mechanisms, for instance, where the individual who owns the property can then go out and get their own appraisal. We also begin to negotiate with that property owner. And if those negotiations cannot be solved, we essentially initiate in the domain or go to condemnation. And at that point, of course, a judge as well as a jury establish the fair market value of the property. So hopefully that very quickly can tie up and address any questions that you all would have had. Yes. I think Mr. Penn has a question. Yes, sir. I'm trying to catch up with what you're saying. And I'm also intrigued by what they talked about, the effective date of taking. Yes, sir. When you heard the testimony of effective date of taking and the zone change at that date, and I hear you talk about the highest and best use at the time of purchase. Yes, sir. How far apart are we on those two issues? In other words, is that a compatible workable system? Why do you need all the zoning at one time? We would request all the zoning at one time so that we could have a development plan for the entire area. Okay. For instance, I'm not necessarily an expert. I might call upon our planning staff to help out on this a little bit. For instance, when a subdivision comes before you, it must have concurrent zoning with whatever the subdivision or the development is. Because of development. They usually come before you in a whole series, 15 to 30, for, let's say, an area like Heartland or Hamburg. And they are considerably broken up. Our effort is to consolidate that entire process and present to you one development plan that can be approved. Okay. So it's your contention that by doing the appraisal the way you outlined it to me, that that mitigates their concern as effective date of taking. In other words, the way you're going to appraise it would mitigate their concern of Their concern was make the zone change effective at the date of taking or the date of you purchased the property. I think I understand your question. You mean essentially to make the zone change once we buy the property, have the zone switch from whatever it is to what we need it to be. And why is that not a workable situation? I was going to say, yeah, that's probably a question for the law department. I don't know if Kentucky state law will allow us to approve a development plan without having continuous zoning. I don't think you can approve a zone change to be effective at some point in the future. And there are other issues with this one, particularly when you're talking about making it effective on the date of taking or the date that the property is purchased, presumably by the government. I had a couple of questions. If I understood you correctly, the zone change won't have that significant an impact on the acquisition of the property because it will be the negotiations will be in relation to how the property is used, not the zone change. Is that what you were saying pretty much? It will be as we approach the property at the time when we are acquiring it, we will look at what the property is being utilized for. And that will establish the value of the property. And if we make this zone change and you have a number of people that are involved in a nonconforming use, they can continue that use until such time as actually the project is ready to move forward? Yes, ma'am. Because they were already there. Okay. There was one other question that was brought up in addition to the question about the sequencing of the zone change. The other, we had an initial question about the Park and what happened is this whole piece here a part of phase one because there was a question about the single-family housing. Is there any single-family housing to be considered as part of this? But it'll still be part of the R3? Yes, single-family residential uses are intermingled here along the future roadway as well as along this Hammerhead cul-de-sac. And so the reason that R3 is proposed for these areas is because it allows for the flexibility of having duplexes, the fourplexes, single-family intermixed as well as then that allows for the townhouse uses in the other portion. That's what I want to brought out the flexibility that's allowed in that zone it's not as opposed to R1. Right, the yards as well. Right and then the other question was about the the park. Does anybody know about the park? I think right now the park is to be owned by the city and I think there was some concern as to whether that would continue once that's acquired and there's not much chance that it'll just you know. I don't know presently how that park property is held but for example there could be restrictions on it already I don't know but there wouldn't be anything to prevent that property assuming there's nothing in the deed already to be transferred to some trust or some other public entity to hold that property. Okay but that would have to be handled by deed or? Yes. Okay. All right are there any other questions? I'm not sure if this is better addressed to you or to Tracy. I'm concerned I wonder how the boundary between the the two zones came about. The MU and R3 boundaries seems to bisect the property of the gentleman who recently invested $80,000 into his his office and I wondered if you could explain the rationale behind that boundary. This property was not included in the MU zone. The mixed-use it was outside the mixed-use proposed zone. The zoning itself or the proposed zoning follows the centerline of the new proposed streets to be dedicated to the city of Lexington and essentially that is why it bisects the existing structure. Linda. Okay we have a question. Yeah yeah over here. Back on this highest and best use it seemed like if you were a property owner and you're trying to negotiate a price for I-1 land and it had already been rezoned to R3 it looks like that would take some of their negotiating power away from them because in the future it doesn't have any highest and best use and is there some way that I mean I know exactly what this is a down zone and it and I-1 property is four or five times the value of R3 property. Yes sir for some properties that is essentially true. For some industrial property that that's not necessarily the case. If the industrial property itself is does not have substantial size to be utilized as industrial property the actual I-1 zoning is almost a cost inhibitive part of that negotiation. So if you're looking at future value yes sir that could be a concern. Yeah I mean I'm concerned for these business owners have been there a long time and as well I mean I'm for the project but in their ability to get the highest and best money out of their project it looks like they're losing a point of negotiation by it already being down zoned. We can investigate that question a little bit further and try to get a definite ruling and I'm not necessarily an expert on right-of-way you know so to answer that question on let's say a specific parcel we almost have to do the work to do the appraisal before you can you can estimate that evaluation but we do need that flexibility to say highest and best use whether it either be industrial or residential for the vast majority of the property in that area. I just want to clarify a point we will get to rebuttal for the citizens so I don't want you to think we have a sequence but there was a lot more information that we needed so we had the staff presentation we listen to you and then we wanted to hear from the project manager so once we're finished asking him questions we will get into staff rebuttal and then you'll have an opportunity to speak again because I know you got other questions that are popping up but I wanted to do it this way because I thought the project manager needed to hear your questions before we ask questions because we needed to know what what the concerns were at this point in time so I hope that's okay with everybody but we still have some more questions so back back early someone asked the question about whether it was seven acres or ten acres you remember that that question from the audience can you help him with that answer the park itself I do believe that had to do with that big chunk of I one property that's the seven acres I think he meant Park who was yes so you're happy with your answer I mean mr. day I've got a question and I'm kind of have the same concerns that Mike does as far as that the people that have employed people and been the industry and kept a lot of a lot of people in point and done things is it I guess what I'm worried what I'm my question is what kind of a time frame are we talking about I've been here 50 years too and I've seen this new town I moved from here from alumni drive to wherever it's going to be and I just wondered are we pushed that why we have to make this zone change right now it's just going to bring us some move us ahead next year or five years from now or ten years now and my other kind of this is kind of a two-question question is that when you just lose a minute ago that when you deal with these industrial sites and so forth that you'll kind of you don't know who you're going to have to deal with there what time that seems to me seems that these things should have been your name or one concerned if you've got somebody that has a seven and a half acre industrial site in the middle of a 23 acre site I would have thought that would be my first negotiation as far as price goes you know just I said I'm in business I don't be one property somebody comes to me and says we're down zoning you're gonna have a hard time convincing me unless I think there's some negotiation or there's been some at least good faith effort made by the government trying to schedule this project has been incredibly complicated we we're going to acquire over 50 acres of what is downtown Lexington the road itself has a price tag of approximately almost 40 million dollars we have had significant curveballs thrown to us with that schedule as well and along with that we've also had funding concerns and how do you attempt to break the project up into sizable chunks that can be funded over time the location where I guess Harry Gordon Steel is they will be in our what we call phase three which will be the actually the last phase of the project to be constructed so they will be the farthest out we have given them a tentative date of course this is based on you know the availability of funding the availability of things to move forward of anywhere from four to five years that's the best case scenario date we did tell them that could be longer but it is hard to project those schedules out and I have many bosses that change a lot of things on us every day so but that was about the best time frame that we could give them at least for acquisition are there any other questions there are two other things I would like to add if I could we did come before you all I believe it was in November 2002 to to approve what we call the corridor plan which was called the corridor plan which doesn't really want to have to reset I guess the land use map and at that time the corridor plan called for us to to do a small area plan we also did that small area plan and brought it back to you all in November of 2003 I believe both those plans had been approved and it was the small area plan that did call for essentially the process that we're going through now to rezone the entire area and to establish the development plan and again with that said it it is very important for a couple of reasons that that we move forward today the primary one is the approval of the development plan and it allows us the mechanism to then go out and actually begin to to do the construction once we have acquired the property another reason is it does send a very strong message of support to not only the transportation cabinet but the Federal Highway Administration who who are providing a significant amounts of funding as well as a great deal of support they they were here at the last meeting and we actually have representatives here now today as a matter of fact so both of those organizations are very aware of this project of this process and this project and do support the rezoning of the area as we're doing all right at this time you will come forward with rebuttal there were just a few things and I think Andrew spoke to most of them the the last one I would address are two things were that some uses with the rezoning would become non-conforming but some uses would also become conforming so there is both sides of the coin in that situation but the zoning ordinance does allow for non-conforming uses to continue in the to the extent that they are today or when the zone change becomes law basically you cannot they cannot be enlarged or expanded but the purchase of property or change of ownership would not affect a non-conforming use also and then the last thing I would address would be that one of the attorneys said that the zoning changing the zone would constitute a taking and the staff would rebut that as not factual thank you so anything else with any questions Stacy with any other I'm sorry that's mr. Nakajima just pointed out to me that any expansion of a use if you chose to expand a use you would have to bring your full property into conformance with the existing zone just wanted to reiterate a non-conforming use can remain but if you did choose to expand or change or alter your use then you would have to agree with the zoning yes miss Wade the gentleman who owns that I'm not sure where the properties are located that for the gentleman from South Hill Auto Repair but couldn't you tell me whether his use will be conforming or non-conforming upon adoption of this zoning they would be non-conforming and they're here on Darudi near Gordon steel he would become mu2 add-on expand grow change or do a thing once he be he can continue to use his property as it is today you understand there any other questions is miss Wade or any of the staff if then then I will ask the audience will ask for rebuttal from any of the people who were I guess in support of the project and then we'll ask for those that were opposed you won't come forward for those who are in support of the project like I said on the issue at the park we just want to make sure it's all documented and to know the exact numbers that was the whole goal there like said we're still in favor of it on the two issues that were brought up by people opposed I talked to some of the people with the thing we had fought to get a sound wall put in and I want to make sure that that was brought up that that would address some of those sound issues and Andrew has confirmed with me that we're actually raising up the bottom with six feet approximately six feet so issues on drainage I think that would be covered on the thing with the r3 versus r1 I'm going to defer to you all because you're actually the zoning people duplexes four-plexes and townhouses aren't those covered under r2 and not under r3 what's what's but I'd have to look at the zoning but it's not quite as flexible if I could address that question townhouses are not permitted in our to nor are more than two attached units I'm just concerned by the number when when we're saying if ours three addresses 10 to 25 units per acre on the one end where we're getting the thing we have no problem with that it's on the other end where it's going to be like said the four-plexes and the townhouses if the issue there we're concerned like said once you put the r3 in place if there could be maybe some restriction put on there that you know if this is good gonna be that they can't go ahead and go to that 10 to 25 an acre if that's is that is that doable I guess is what I'm asking you you under you understand what I'm trying to ask yes in other words we're not we're not opposed necessarily that if there's a restriction put in for the approval saying that if this is approved this 10 to 25 that high number and again on that one side where the mixed-use is we have no problem with the higher density there it's on the other side where the people in this audience and that will actually be living to make sure that there is protection for them down the road to that this 10 to 25 doesn't come into effect you understand what I hate it I hate to be that forward-thinking and to think that long term I want you know everything to work out but if you don't as the guy was saying here earlier if you don't address it now and make that that note was in there then somebody will say oh well this was the intent and that was not the intent I guess is what I'm trying to can we work that some out some way isn't that addressed on the development plan that that was the point I was going to make certainly the Planning Commission has the ability through conditional zoning to address that issue now given that this is a preliminary development plan that's before you and there is at least the possibility of some shifting of uses or perhaps some of the lots changing or flipping this might be an issue better addressed at the time of the final development okay yeah record will clearly state that there is an issue with the density on that end of the property said if we need the r3 for the for the duplex that's okay but let's just make sure that we're not at some point down the road say 20 years when we're all dead and gone or moved on to greener pastures somebody has to say oh well that wasn't the intent right and then we know because it's in the it's in the documents and they can say oh well this is exactly what they intended at that time right and you know you're coming to be in the minutes today and then we could address this on the final development plan because this primarily allows the infrastructure to be put in it'll be looked at again right right come back thank you guys any additional comments or rebuttal from those who are opposed to this zone change first off I want to say this stash had probably about as tough a time as I've ever seen on any project and I've worked with with them for 20 plus years more than I care to remember and if they were all going to be around when this project's completed a lot of our issues of what's going to come to pass would you know maybe may not be an issue but the problem is I may not be around some of the staff may move and and we we have real serious issues and I just want to pose a couple of queries the first one is the way I was introduced to this project was that my client wanted to expand his business and had has a piece of equipment that due to state-of-the-art changes in steel production and in order to become more effective and bid more jobs he's looking at a six hundred thousand dollar piece of equipment in order to maintain his business so that gets into the point of some of the land right now is non-conforming because it's owned by one but it has residences on it a whole lot of those close to two acres of that property is owned by my client if it's zone has changed his ability to expand his business is gone his ability to say if the zoning changes today and he says you know what I'm gonna raise capital and I'm going to expand my business I want to sell this residential property as an hour one it's two acres it's large enough I'm gonna change it from non-conforming to conforming if that's not a taking or if that's not a loss immediately on his ability for a period of who knows how long we've heard four five eight ten years so he loses the ability to sell his property loses the ability to expand his pride you know his his building and his existing projects he loses the ability to be competitive in the marketplace and that's a taking I mean that's a prime definition of what constitutes a taking when something occurs on your property that affects its value I wouldn't be so adamant about this point except for one thing that keeps coming up and that is the funding for this project is not in place what if the zoning goes through and the funding never comes along it I've had my client property reduced by who knows how much his ability to expand his business and his ability to move forward reduced substantially as I said the very beginning all of this being said we're for the project it's good for Lexington it's good for the community but it should not be born on the back of a few individuals who have gone into an blighted area made a living invested money want to invest another six hundred thousand dollars and then lose the ability to maintain their competitiveness in this marketplace we've seen the economy tank and what's gonna do two years from now this project could be on hold the earliest date that we were ever going to be talked to the earliest date that they were going to negotiate with us was 48 months to five years that's the earliest we're even going to be talked to about buying our property my clients been in this business for 39 years he'd like to retire at some point in time he'll be 55 during the project of this he'd like to sell his business this is what he does if he can't sell his business he can't expand it he can't operate it he can't develop it that's bearing this project on the back of a few individuals who have gone into these areas so I guess that if you have to ask your question ask one question or answer it and that is what is the impact of this zoning if this project never goes it's been talked about since 1950 is this affecting and impacting the economic ability of people to perform their jobs and the answer is a resounding yes so with that we want to help we want to go forward but I don't think you can ask people to put their businesses on hold five ten years and ask them to sit back and take a down zoning and minimize their ability to make future plans eliminate their opportunity to sell their business expand it or retire I just don't think the project is designed to be carried on the backs of those individuals who who are employees of the community so thank you very much we heard a couple of questions sir can I ask you a question given the notoriety of this project as long as we've talked about this project isn't it true that if you were going to sell that property today the question would be how long could it say and I won the question would be what could you get for the property based on right now and and the fact is I don't think anybody can say how long it's going to be here that's so it could be five or ten years the other thing is whoever buys it would expect to be compensated as I won property in other words if I see if it were sold tomorrow and five years from now it's going to be revalued it would have to be valued as I won property in order to make its highest and best use and you brought up at one point and I forgot to address it and that was the highest and best use I represented the Commonwealth I've handled at one time almost a hundred condemnation cases for the Transportation Cabinet and I can tell you that zoning and valuation is one of the arrows you pull out of your quiver when you're trying to get the because the state's obviously trying to get the best price that it can and the property owner wants to get the most if you have a piece of property that's sitting at the intersection of a say I 75 that they put a new ramp up but it's agricultural zoning you darn sure bring that up when they're talking about highest and best use being commercial you say well have you done a have you done a plan have you tried to rezone it have you done these things and they're going hey what you've got is enhancement because we're putting this project through and we're going to compensate you as agricultural because that's what it was prior to the date of this project I've been on the other side I know exactly how it's how it's done and I'm as I said five eight ten years from now if there's not something that's codlocked that this property will be valued as I won as if it were I won as if it were allowed to be expanded and allowed to be used there is a diminution in value immediately upon the rezoning of this property no question about it I had a question along the lines of mr. pin you know there's been a lot of conversation for a long time and part of the funding is dependent upon the zone change the businesses that are located down there my concerns have you participated in the meetings are you aware of what the preliminary development plans are for the area and the comprehensive plan these are all things that have been discussed in those meetings in terms of guiding people business-wise in terms of what's anticipated for the area the problem is the sequencing and the timing is dependent on the funding and since that slows down some of the process for the business I see it puts people in a bind in terms of how long can I hang on to my land but the question of whether this land is going to be I want indefinitely has been answered a long time ago no mr. Gordon the senior who purchased this property in 1950 and his son Norman and I represented them back in the 80s this project has been around since that point in time they expanded their business because the project wasn't there if the only thing we've changed is from 1950 to 2008 we have 58 years now we're talking eight to ten years how do you how do you function in this that's one two yes there's been participation well prior development it's not the question it's whether they can expand their property now if the zone change what they're doing now can continue not so if the zone change occurs remember I indicated that there was approximately two acres of yet undeveloped industrial one property on this contiguous under Rudy Street right now it's non-conforming those houses can be removed the expansion of the business can occur and no one would have to go out and acquire additional I one property because we would actually be bringing it into conformity with zoning so but if they're saying that they're going to take some of its and make it conforming in other words they're going to take our one property that could be developed and expanded and utilized in this business and make it permanently unable to do so and if they want to expand their business they're going to have to leave go by seven acres somewhere else eight acres someplace and expand their business and and that's an awfully heavy burden to ask somebody to sit around ten years and do we want the project we want to help I understand the phasing I understand the sequencing and more than anything I understand funding but if the property is down zoned it's my contention is that that would effectuate a taking compensate us right now for the difference between this zone and the other zone then when we come back in and you want to take the property finally fine compensate there's two separate takings and I you know I was I didn't throw that term out flippantly that it would be a reverse condemnation suit but if I don't take some action on behalf of my client or secure something in the zoning that would protect them there's an immediate and irreparable injury that has and will occur you stated you had a non-conforming use which is a house on on this property on there on the da Rudy property on Patterson is all industrial I'm just okay so in his statement highest and best use at the time I mean if they come up there and your house is sitting there and it's being used as a residential five or six years from now wouldn't that be its highest and best use and in effect they would only want to give you residential price for it even though it's on industrial no and and the reason is we could tear that house down and sell those two acres right now for I one property I know but I'm you know we're saying none of us will be up here in eight years or six years or whatever you got a house sitting there it looks like it's has some issues as residential it'll be in a conforming zone looks like you're gonna lose out on the industrial pricing of that property at that point if they maintain it in that manner if the zoning goes through there will be forced to maintain it in that manner because they will not be allowed to expand onto that and I think another gentleman had a piece of property didn't have anything on it well what's the highest and best use on that you see I mean I could see I mean I'm agreeing with you where it could right and and if you look at the property transactions and you look at the rental value and you look at the houses it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that that property was not bought as residential property it was bought and paid for at the price due to proximity to their location as well as the zoning on the underlying property people assemble property all the time and redevelop and they pay more than a simple house would be worth and they pay more than an empty lot they pay for it because of its development capability and I'm saying that if this were to go through the expansion and development capabilities permanently lost you are correct if they maintain it as residential they make no efforts to use it as I won and they make no effort to develop it at the time that would be condemned eight ten years from now that would have to be taken into consideration and that's something for people to argue to a jury is what what's the highest and best use but highest and best use is how one even if you just sold it right now you'd sell it for a whole lot more than some of the houses that are on there would ever bring as residences I hope that answer your question thank you very much and I really appreciate your time I know this has been a difficult project thank you is there anyone else who wishes to speak in rebuttal this is once again William Hagan six contiguous lots primary properties 555 Marino Street thank you mr. rush for bringing up a very important point and that is we have been in the midst of this project now for somewhere in the realm of six years we have delayed repairs and maintenance on the building we finally came to a point because of storm damage that we had to make a considerable investment to maintain the use of the property that being said the type of business that I'm in if it is rezone would be non-conforming we currently house a piece of equipment at a vendors location in Indianapolis Indiana that's $125,000 we have the amount of land needed zoned I one currently that we can expand our operation from roughly 3300 square feet to just under 16,000 square feet and move some of that operation back to our location here in Lexington if this is rezone we do not have that opportunity to capitalize on the property that we currently own today and by doing that you're limiting the use the fair market use of my property you're limiting my ability to be compensated for an I one zone property and as a small business owner I think that each of you know in Lexington especially even with a depressed market to go out and find I one property on the periphery of Lexington is a considerable amount more than what we currently have so although I am not at all object to this project I think it's a wonderful idea I do know that when most developments come to you for rezoning you typically have a majority of the property owners in favor of the rezoning and in this case you have a mishmash of property owners who are hopeful for the rezoning because it has the opportunity to bring changes to a very blighted area but you also have some property owners who have made considerable investments into the into the area they want to see the protection of their investment that are not necessarily on board to be rezoned before the properties are purchased or negotiations take place for that so if if I could just ask you to take a business perspective to this and ask yourself would you want your property which would be zoned I one change to an r3 or for our case and other public uses zoning I think the answer would be no and that's what I asked today thank you did we have anyone else that wishes to speak from the community if not then we'll have final comments from the staff and then we'll turn it over to the Commission to close the hearing there are one or two things that I would like to to comment on as mentioned if I want is the best and highest use at the time that we purchase that is what we will have to compare it to if and if we do not do that and it can be rebutted by the individual property owner through their own independent appraisal with that said I would also like to add that there are other the other benefits to when the government actually buys your property as well as your business we have relocation benefits in which we not only help the individual who is who's being bought out find another place of business we also help them with with monetary values pay for them to move we we assess their downtime so there are benefits to having us the government buy your property that do not take place in the fair market system you sell your property and you have a business you simply just have to move it the the other very good point that I'd like to make is that with the inclusion of this area into the environmental impact statement with the signing of that by the Transportation Cabinet as well as the Federal Highway Administration it is a very strong tool and almost an assurance that they will fund it part of the reason why it takes so long to get those environmental impact statements completed is because they're looking for a reason to stall but they want to have a reason to to build up you know the the capital assets and to move those projects along so I just wanted to say that it might not be tomorrow that this project takes place but we do have federal commitments and state commitments so thank you West Nakajima, I'm part of the project team. This is a very complicated project as you can see and there are many different phases. One of the requirements for us building Newtown Pike Extension is our successful implementation of the mitigation plan and redeveloping this neighborhood and it's a big neighborhood it's a big chunk of land in the downtown and and crucial for us to move forward at this time is is to get the residential area is to get the residential area basically from McKinley Street to Versailles Road approved and rezoned. We have to have that we need the area to we currently we're working on temporary housing but we need that area to move forward so we can construct permanent housing to relocate the folks who are in the temporary housing and we have to have that and it's crucial for our timing and our schedule and again no mitigation no road and it's that simple. Thank you. You kind of were approaching the question that I was going to pose and it seems that the folks who have some issue with the rezoning and appraised value and condemnation proceedings tend to be located towards the M2 section which according to this booklet that's phase two of this project is there any way that we might be able to go forward with rezoning phase one according to the maps that are provided in this booklet and and hope that negotiations or further discussion can take place on phase two? Does that show the the level of intent and interest to any kind of funding decision-makers? I think the people at the state as well as the Federal Highway Administration have supported our proceeding with development consistent with that public facilities plan. They recognize it's a complex process and it might have to be broken down in phases and if you at your discretion can move forward portions of it at this time it would be very beneficial to the project. Okay. Thank you. At this point in time we will. Before we close, Ms. Coleman wanted to make a remark on behalf of one of the citizens. A rebuttal comment I believe. Come forward please. My name is Dorothy Coleman and I'm the community liaison for the Newtown Pike extension project and Jeannie Cowan who had to leave a moment ago to go take of her grant take care of her granddaughter asked me to make this comment on her behalf and what she asked me to say was that she would like for this zone change to be considered on behalf of the residents that live in the area and I understand being the community liaison I understand personally and professionally the concerns of the business owners but she asked me to ask you to make this zone change in consideration of the residents who would be left at an unfair advantage as well just as the commercial and industrial property owners and operators are and would like that consideration taken very seriously as to not consider any business needs over the lives of people who reside in the area. Thank you. Okay, was there any more comments from staff? Ms. Wade, you were done. I think that the staff is obviously in support of this zone change and would request that the Planning Commission seriously consider the importance of rezoning this area for the Newtown Pike project and for the residents that live there not to discount what the business owners need or want to do but in some cases their uses although for the most part I-1 uses are non-conforming in certain aspects and if they chose to go to building inspection to get a permit as I mentioned earlier they would be required to become conforming in all manners so if they don't have enough parking today they'd have to find parking if they don't have the required landscaping they would need to put that in. In some cases Gordon Steel is actually manufacturing or fabricating steel which is not an I-1 use so there are situations there that have been created where they're not conforming in the I-1 zone either so we would just ask that the Planning Commission seriously consider how important this project is for the whole community. Ms. Wade, before you leave, I'd like to close this hearing but I do need to ask I haven't had a chance to look at every line but was there a difference in the agenda and the staff report are the same. I just wanted to be sure I didn't miss anything between the two of them. All right, thank you. This hearing is now closed. I'll turn it over to the Commission for discussion and action and if you have any other questions. We have any discussion among the Commission? We have a motion. Madam Chair, what we're talking about down here is we're looking at figures 11 and 12 in the report that was distributed and that includes phases 1a and 1b and I don't know we're just thinking that based on the testimony from one of our staff people it seems that rezoning phase one or at least getting some initial zoning that addresses the residential may be a good thing at this point but just throwing out that idea. The problem with that is you've got a preliminary development plan that it throws completely out of whack. Have you looked at I mean you're looking at the entire Newtown Pike extension so I'm not sure that's what I heard. Mr. Nakajima, would you come forward please? On these phases, would you be able to take the mic and point out to the rest of the Commission where phase 1 and 2 are and how this would impact if it's broken up? The phase 1 area is basically from McKinley Street which includes this single-family court and this mix of residential uses along Dorotey. Okay. And then subsequent phases are the townhouses and then the apartments here. What would be the impact if phase 1 was approved and the phase 2 part was put on hold? Well, we need to move forward with the phase 1 but unfortunately or fortunately we need to put in the infrastructure. The infrastructure covers a much larger area than just that phase 1 residential. So it doesn't include all the commercial area but includes much of the commercial area. That's why I wanted to point it out, that whole section from Scott Street and your infrastructure is stopped dead in your tracks if you break that phase. Thank you. Again, the concern was that if we can't get it all through and then we have to wait a whole year to come back in terms of our schedule, it really complicates things. Let me ask you, does zoning affect the infrastructure? Does zoning impact the infrastructure? We being the city still maintain existing easements in the area and things like that. We can make improvements. At this point in time we haven't designed them all. It wouldn't make it impossible but it would complicate it significantly. This area not only being a major drainage area of Byers Avenue, it also maintains significant sanitary sewer lines which are constantly being utilized. How would you put the infrastructure in if you didn't already own the property? We're going to have to build the infrastructure in phases as we buy out the property. That's why Wes, as he was saying, we definitely need at least phase 1 rezoned. We are going to have to have a breaking point at McKinley Street simply because we are going to build all of the new houses. There will be a breaking point where we have existing property and existing areas that are left intact until we can relocate the residents into the new houses and then buy out the old houses. We could be okay with rezoning just our phase 1 area. You would see some mighty weird development plans coming your way as things were outside of them. Can I ask you another question? Yes. Do you have any idea when you're going to get the funding to buy all this property? Get the funding for all of it? Yes. It is funded in the next what they call six-year highway plan, the road bill. A considerable amount of money is funded through what we call high-priority projects or HPP money. That's earmarked money, for instance, from Ben Chandler. There is about $15 million of what we call STP money. That is committed state transportation funds. Once you get outside of that $35 million, the money that is utilized about, you know, two years, three to six is what they call SP money. That is state fund money. It exists, but it sometimes can be moved around. It can be shifted. It's not a lot of projects are funded with this money and a lot of projects don't necessarily get built. So you don't have any of it? I mean, you're not telling me when you're going to have it or you don't own any of this property now? No, we don't own any of this property now. I can tell you we are going to begin this summer. You're not a home builder. Are you trying to get rezoned with that? You rezoned it before we built it? I can tell you this. We are going to be, currently this summer, we have begun doing appraisals on properties that are renter-occupied. We have made allowances in our engineering contracts to do the relocations. We are going to buy those properties first. Those offers should be going out by the end of the summer. The rest of the property in what we call that Zone 1 area, owner-occupied properties or industrial business properties, those offers will probably come early to mid-fall. Mr. Cash did, Brian Cash, he's our project engineer. He did point out that we are going to buy the pipefitters' union during our Phase 1 acquisition, as well as one or two other properties, and these will be used for construction purposes, for site, you know, storing materials and things of that nature. These properties are appraised during the acquisition phase. Are they appraised for the present land use and zoning or the future? They are appraised using the present land use as well as zoning. If they are nonconforming, they will be evaluated using the nonconforming use. So, but we do not make any assertion as to what future value would be or future use. It is only at that point in time that is what the value of the property would be worth, and that's what we base our appraisal on. So it's not valued on the basis of the new land use? No. It's not valued on the existing land use as is today? The existing land use as is the day that we do the appraisal and make the offer. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Mr. Grunwald. Yes, sir. I'm struggling with one issue here, and that is the relocation and getting these people back into housing. In other words, we're going to dislocate them, I want to get them back into housing. Yes, sir. If we do phase one or go to McKinley Street, whatever that, however that works out, does that prevent the rebuilding and relocation and getting the people back into their houses? And will that all be funded in phase one? It would not prevent us from doing our phase one operation. And it would get the people back into the relocation of their houses? Yes, sir. Do we have a, are we ready for a motion? I'll try to make this motion based on what I hope I'm getting back and forth across here, is that I would move that we move forward with phase one to McKinley Street, changing the zoning to McKinley Street, which we consider phase one, and that we'll deal with phase two at a later date. What we want to make sure is we don't do anything, we want to make sure the residential component of this thing can go forward. And whatever we need to do that is, I think, what this committee wants to do. Just for the record, I highlighted from McKinley North to Versailles Road as a proposed area for rezoning in response to Mr. Day's motion. That blocks the sewers, that blocks the connection. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Linda, before we vote, I think it's inherent on us to say that in no way what we're doing is anything to say that we're not totally in support of this whole project. All we're trying to do is to give some of the people that are going to be on the back end of the phasing an opportunity to deal with their businesses. And I don't want anybody to misconstrue anything else we're doing up here today. We're behind this project. It's a question of sequence and timing. And we don't want to do harm to people that we don't necessarily have to do harm to. But don't assume that we're going to come back with the next phase of this and the planning commission is not going to support it. It's just a question of timing and funding. At least that's my take on it. I will say so. Okay. The hearing is actually closed, but. Staff, just like one clarification of the motion. Technically, that would put the phase, the next phase, the remainder of the zone change in a postponed indefinitely category, which means we could bring it back at some time with proper notice to everyone and you could reconsider. So that will stay as an active application, but it will not come back for hearing until a later date. Thank you. Before we vote, may I take the liberty of asking one to speak who appears to want to speak. I know this is out of the ordinary. Never deny a politician. My name is Ann Ross, and I do not live in the area. I'm president of the board of directors of Nathaniel Mission, and my question has been answered just now. Because that was my question about if you do this, sort of a piecemeal, if you'll pardon the expression, what happens to the whole plan? And I think it was alluded to, and will it be a year before we can come back, but I think Chris King has answered that for me. Okay, that's it. I would so alter my motion that phase two will go into an indefinite postponement to be brought back before the council or the committee whenever we get maybe some more answers or figure out when the funding is going to start to flow into that area. Okay, that'll work. That's an amendment. I will second that. Okay. So the motion is for approval of phase one of approval of MAR 2008-16 for the zone change for phase one, which goes from DeSales Road to McKinley Street. And the additional part of this application from McKinley Street to Scott Street would be indefinitely postponed until such time as funding is in place. And we have a motion and a second. I guess we're ready for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Madam Chairman. As part of that, I guess we need to look at the development plan. Right. We need to look at the development plan as part of the zone change that we just approved. The development plan is for ZDP 2008-71. Are you on a motion? We need a motion. I move approval. And are we approving the whole plan or just about? Madam Chairman, I think that would be the applicable portion of that development plan. Thank you. That's correct. Randy Gabb will get you so we can hear what's happening. Okay. We're in the process of entertaining a motion for the applicable portion of the zoning development plan. And the Chair will entertain a motion at this time. Leo, you want to do that too? I so move that we would approve the development plan for the proposed, what we would call phase one of this development. Okay. So we have a motion to approve the applicable phase one portion of ZDP 2008-71. And we have a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. We're down to audience items, but I think we lost most of the audience. If there's anybody else who has any questions. Madam Chair, we do have a staff item. There's an APA audio conference on Wednesday the 25th from 4 to 530 in our conference room. It's called Planning Law Review, and it'll be good for one and a half hours of credit training for you all. On the 25th? Uh-huh. Wednesday the 25th. What time? 4 to 530. The 25th at the seventh floor? All righty. Thank you. And King. Just one other announcement. I'm going to hold up this T-shirt that I'll be wearing in about 45 minutes along with a lot of other folks. Open it up so we can see it. East End. This has been quite a week. We had the major kickoff for the Central Sector Small Area Plan with a community meeting on Tuesday evening at the Dunbar Center, which was very well attended. And tonight we are kicking off the East End Small Area Plan, the very active public part with a community event including food, informational booths, and door prizes, a number of things. We're expecting a great community turnout. We're hoping for good weather. And that will start at 530. And we'll continue on into the evening, and then we'll continue also on Saturday morning with more conversations with the area. And all those meetings are going to be at the Charles Young Center on East 3rd Street. So if you have a chance to come join us. Are you the Grand Marshal? No. Just one of many. Many in the green T-shirts. So we're real excited about this project. We're off to a good start on all these small area plan projects and hope the commission members can continue to participate. Good job, Chris. Thank you.