# Planning Commission Zoning Subcommittee - April 4, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 4, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6082 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6082?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-04-04 - **Last revised**: April 4, 2024 - **Length**: 7,207 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Zoning Committee convened on April 4, 2024, at 1:30 PM in the Phoenix Building's 3rd Floor Conference Room. The committee addressed two agenda items during the session, with one motion requiring a formal vote and one item presented for informational purposes only. The committee took action on PLN-MAR-24-00006 involving Denton Floyd Real Estate Group, which received approval. Additionally, the committee heard an informational presentation regarding PLN-MAR-24-00002 concerning Anthony Humphress, though no formal action was required on this matter. No members of the public provided comments during the meeting. The session concluded with one formal vote taken and two agenda items completed. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on April 4, 2024: • Dan Crum • Mr. Martin • Lexi Holland • Tony Baird No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. All four listed members were in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included one formal vote on a zoning matter. **Zone Change Approval - Denton Floyd Real Estate Group** Mr. Michler made a motion to approve the zone change for Denton Floyd Real Estate Group, which was seconded by Mr. Pohl [timestamp: 00:00]. The motion passed unanimously. The approval came with specific conditions requiring the site plan to be reconsidered with emphasis on: - Building street frontage - Building diversity - Preservation of the burr oak trees The unanimous vote indicates all present members supported the zone change with the attached conditions for site plan modifications. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant area of disagreement regarding the Denton Floyd Real Estate Group development project. **Tree Preservation Dispute** A heated discussion emerged over the preservation of burr oak trees located on the Denton Floyd Real Estate Group development site. The disagreement centered on whether these trees should be cut down as part of the development process or preserved through alternative planning approaches. Several board members expressed strong opposition to removing the burr oak trees, though the transcript does not specify which members took these positions or provide their exact statements. The nature of the discussion was characterized as particularly intense, suggesting this was a point of significant contention among the participants. The specific details of the proposed development that would require tree removal, the exact number of trees in question, or the alternative preservation methods discussed were not detailed in the available materials. Additionally, the final outcome or resolution of this dispute was not documented in the provided information. This tree preservation issue appears to have been the primary source of disagreement during the meeting, with no other contested items noted in the proceedings. ## PLN-MAR-24-00006: Denton Floyd Real Estate Group [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed a petition for a zone map amendment from Professional Office (P-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-4) for property located at 2350 Remington Way. The petition was submitted by Denton Floyd Real Estate Group. Key speakers during the discussion included Dan Crum, Mr. Martin, Lexi Holland, and Tony Baird. The speakers presented details about the proposed zoning change and addressed questions from commission members regarding the transition from professional office use to medium density residential development. The discussion focused on the appropriateness of the zoning change for the specific location on Remington Way and how the proposed R-4 zoning would fit within the surrounding area's development pattern. Commission members evaluated the petition against applicable zoning criteria and community planning considerations. Following the presentation and discussion of the petition details, the commission voted to approve the zone map amendment request. The approval allows the property at 2350 Remington Way to be rezoned from P-1 Professional Office to R-4 Medium Density Residential, enabling the development of medium density residential uses on the site as permitted under the R-4 zoning classification. ## PLN-MAR-24-00002: Anthony Humphress [timestamp: 00:00] The meeting addressed a petition for a zone map amendment from Anthony Humphress requesting to change the zoning classification for properties located at 800 and 802 Golfview Drive. The proposed amendment would rezone the parcels from Single Family Residential (R-1C) to Townhouse Residential (R-1T). Key speakers during the discussion included Dan Crum and Tony Baird, who provided information and analysis regarding the zoning change request. The petition represents a shift from single-family residential use to a zoning classification that would permit townhouse development on the properties. The agenda item was presented as an informational discussion, allowing the meeting participants to review the details of the proposed zoning amendment and consider the implications of changing the land use designation for these Golfview Drive properties. The R-1T zoning classification would enable higher-density residential development compared to the current R-1C designation. This item served as a preliminary review of the zoning amendment petition, providing an opportunity for officials to examine the request and gather information before any formal decision-making process. The discussion focused on the technical aspects of the zone change and its potential impact on the surrounding area. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the zone change for Denton Floyd Real Estate Group with conditions on site plan reconsideration --- ## Full transcript Thank you. That's a little after 1.30, so we will begin the April 4th Zoning Committee meeting. Mr. Crum? Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. Our new rezoning this month is a request by the Denton Floyd Real Estate Group, and this is a request to rezone the property at 2350 Remington Way, and they are seeking to establish a multifamily residential development. So they are seeking to change it from the professional office to the R4 medium density residential zone. The property itself is about 13.09 acres. In the discussions on the place type and development type, they're seeking to locate this as a part of a new complete neighborhood under medium high density residential. Staff agrees that the choice in place type and development type can be appropriate at this location. So here we have the subject property outlined in white in the center of your screen. It's located on Remington Way, which is a collector roadway that intersects with Citation right as you're about to hit Georgetown Road. Zooming in a little bit closer, you can see the zoning of the surrounding area. So this is really a rather interesting mix of zoning. To the east, you've got this blue P2, which is part of the Coldstream development. To the north, we have I-1, light industrial development. And an existing residential use to the south. These are condominiums with R4 zoning. So essentially, this area was originally agricultural, a part of a larger Belmont farm. However, as citation came about in the early 2000s, how we anticipated using this area started to change. So in the early 2000s, the subject property shown here was zoned to R3. Later on, in 2014, there was a subsequent rezoning to establish the professional office zone that currently occupies the property. The intent there was to have the P1 sort of be a buffer between planned industrial development that occurred kind of further north on Remington Way. A couple of those uses have developed. Not the entirety of the parcels kind of identified for industrial, but that did occur. but the development of the subject property itself has yet to ever materialize. Gatton Way, which is the other roadway that has frontage on, has been partially completed, so a portion of it exists currently. It serves as access to that adjoining light industrial use. The applicant would be on a fully fleshed out development, extending this all the way to connect to the Coldstream property to the east. This visual map of the property, you can see the existing condominiums, the subject property itself, which is vacant except for several very significant trees. And then across on Huntley Place, we've got future residential development. And it's worth noting to the southwest at the intersection of Citation and Georgetown is the area we're seeing that grocery store development and some real commercial development occurring other than the industrial that sort of occupied it. So here we have the development plan for the subject property. As always, Mr. Martin will be on in a minute to discuss it in a little bit more detail, but what you're seeing is a 280-unit, four-story residential multifamily development. So you've got a total of the two, four, six, or seven total apartment buildings, along with the corresponding clubhouse building located here. Access to the site is going to be derived on Remington Way directly across from Huntley Place, and then two additional access points on Gatton Way that will be extended out. So access points here, access points here in order to serve the development. We've got approximately 440 parking spaces, which puts the parking ratio at a little bit above 1.5 per dwelling unit, which is on the higher end of what we've seen recently. Once again, we don't have parking minimums, but the applicant is really kind of honed in in their letter of justification, stating that that additional parking is necessary due to kind of the anticipated trip base of the users for the site. but that was a little high compared to what we're kind of seeing traditionally and what was required previous under the original ordinance. When we are taking a look at the site a couple of things as far as kind of sticking points and things to consider from staff's perspective is the open space and the green space. So they are showing several trees that are existing on the property absolutely massive burr oaks. So centralized open space here is sort of an amenity for the site. they are proposing to retain the two most significant trees so the bur oak here and the bur oak here however one thing that was brought up during technical committee and it was brought up in staff's review of the site is that there are several large significant bur oaks that are proposed being removed with this request now at this time the applicant is just provided just required to provide that tree inventory map and then at time of final development plan they go through the tree preservation and sort of flesh that out in a little bit greater detail but there is existing, and I can go back to sort of show you, the two largest trees are located here. However, in this tree line here are at least four significant burr oaks, ranging from approximately 25 inches, or yeah, 25 inches dbh, up to I think the mid-30s. So one thing that staff was considering and some development criteria that are called for in the comprehensive plan is looking at preserving existence and significant trees when you can so as a part of the discussion and going into final development plan staff would like to take a look at how those are being handled and how those will be the state those trees are in and sort of if they can be retained if at possible other points a conversation that staff have had with this that are identified in the report is access from certain buildings so they are showing generally some development that is sort of going to be fronting on Gatton Way. However, it lacks sort of direct pedestrian connections from the building. So the development criteria and to a certain point, the multifamily design standards call for having these entrances and access points be visible and make utilizing multimodal transportation as efficient as possible. They do have a significant amount of interior multimodal connections and that dark color that you're seeing here is a wider than usual trail that kind of circulates through the site. They are providing sidewalks where there isn't currently, so you will be able to take the sidewalk from Remington Way further south, connect to the development below, and get you onto Citation where those facilities exist as well. So staff has also reviewed the multifamily design standards. Here are some of the renderings that they've provided. Overall, they're meeting the majority of these. Once again, the real question that staff really had was just making sure that all of these that are sort of fronting on these public roads have adequate access, but otherwise it speaks to meeting those multifamily design standards, locating them on open space, eyes on the street, utilizing multiple materials, trying to avoid blank wall faces, utilizing windows as much as possible, but there was the sort of the lone kind of aspect of maximizing those entrances and having as much connectivity as possible. Here we have a view of the clubhouse as well, So they provide kind of several renderings to give you an idea and understanding of how these are going to function. But overall, staff is recommending approval. There's, like I said, a couple items that we'd like to point out. But overall, we think that this is an appropriate development for this type of location. It's an agreement with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, talking about providing higher density multifamily residential development, doing so on an underutilized parcel currently within the urban services area. We find it's agreement with the goals and policies. once again speaking to density utilizing land efficiently and in protecting environmental resources we find it's an agreement with the land use transportation and connectivity environmental sustainability site design and building form criteria and are as always this is subject to the approval and certification of the corresponding development plan so overall we are recommending approval of this and i'd be happy to entertain any questions you have at this time about the zoning component of the use thank you Daniel are there any Commissioner questions this kind of crosses between the zoning and the site plan but just broadly speaking here as we're developing this area and and seeing different kinds of uses is this public street component is there public parking on that street I not entirely sure because if we if we look I guess at the bigger picture here as a section of town that we're developing, are we creating a section of town that has only private parking and only private access, or is there somewhere where a general public can park without an explicit property owner in the bigger picture? I'd say that's one question I would have. Sure. Excellent point. Daniel one question I have is anytime I see a residential zone next to or directly adjoining an I an industrial walk me through the I think that's I1 what potential I mean what uses could go there in the future that might not be compatible to be next to a residential zone. Yeah, so the I-1 does allow for some production component. Really, that's the big jump between, say, the B-4 and the I-1 is the ability to have sort of production on site. That being said, they are sort of, this is, does adjoin sort of the, now we do have sort of this existing context. Of course, it could always redevelop in the future. but at this point they are showing a a pretty healthy buffering gap with that roadway kind of running in between the two but as far as noxious uses there could be production components to the use heavy truck traffic and speaking to Commissioner Mickler's point to this date this portion of Gatton Way that's been constructed and is currently operating has more or less exclusively been sort of access for this single kind of industrial use. So we do like to keep an eye when those uses are in close proximity, but the fact that these are going to be separated by this roadway and an existing sort of built element with sort of landscaping involved as well along the roadway, we felt that there was kind of a significant enough distance there that that would not necessarily be a point i mean be a great detriment okay and in the future if another user wanted to go on that i1 site and they brought a plan that perhaps really was not conducive to being that close to a residential zone staff and the commission would have some flexibility in saying that that's probably not going to work i think that would also depend on if there's i'm not sure off the top of my head if there is a development plan for the subject property to the north i would assume so that was based if it had a rezoning associated with it so i would say yes there is a development plan on that site so that's once again something that can be considered and as the site evolves you absolutely as the planning commission have purview over that okay all right thank you very much mr martin This is a, of course, a preliminary development plan, so there will be a final development on the property. I don't know how much I can add to what Daniel, he laid it out for you pretty concisely as to what we have here. Again, with the seven buildings that you can see distributed through the property, 280 units, as Daniel said. the access is aligned up with Huntley again and does provide kind of a central street into the development along with the pedestrian facility the other two access points to Gatton Way which has to be constructed as a part of this development and will be done so with the final development plan that timing is critical to getting that completed of course the amenities here with the pool and the clubhouse good old dog park in the back put all those little critters back there in the back they won't disturb as many people that way but again this is a preliminary plan there will be a final development plan there were a few clean up items on the review in terms of clarifying some of the line weights for utility easements and setbacks along the property, adding clarified meets and bounds, and then adding dimensions in places where they're missing, the dog park, the pool and deck area, because those are structures, and we like to have those dimensions. The trees were talked about considerably this morning with your subdivision committee. Daniel is correct. Our urban forester has been out there with the applicant and there are some very nice trees on the site. Tony, who will be up here shortly, spent a lot of time this morning talking about how they came up with this design relative to those trees. And again, they're trying to emphasize these two very large. These are the largest. So they're emphasizing those, incorporating them into their open space. The tree line, where the others do exist, as it comes down through here, now you can see they are proposing a building. There's parking that will be conflicting with those trees. And of course, they're trying to meet our requirements and put their buildings out along the street and create that frontage. Well, now they have to put their interior parking somewhere so that creates a conflict it could be one that could be looked at by the fact that they have a lot of parking 280 units but they do have a tremendous amount of parking now they have multiple bedroom units they have one two and three bedroom units so again they're already anticipating more residents per unit because of the bedroom size that they're offering as a mix but again Tony spent a considerable amount of time explaining to your committee this morning how they they want to address that and how they see that with their overall design the subdivision committee did recommend approval of the plan to you I can address a couple of questions you've raised at this point there's no parking restrictions on the public streets uh gatton will be a local street we'll stub into cold stream park the industrial use is interesting i my memory serves they make electrical components something related to the auto industry there i believe i know we've got one in that area that does that so i may have getting my my my industrial uses confused because it's been there a while that one is and uh and and And, Mr. Davis, the truth is if another legal use wanted to go in there and that use vacated and they didn't touch anything on the outside, they're going to be allowed to do so as long as they are an I-1 use. And as you're well aware, I-1 uses are not as noxious as I-2 and tend to have less of an impact on their neighbors. I do believe there is some conditional zoning in place in this area for the more concerning type uses. again I'm operating from memory I haven't I haven't checked because your question I'm just trying but but yeah you're you're concerned about the relationship just so you know that it would take a significant change to the plan for you to see a new user yes sir very new to the whole process but is there is there a mechanism in place for a preemptive zone change? Because there seems to be a concern that if a business went there under the current zoning, it's possible that that business could negatively impact this neighborhood. So is there a mechanism in place to preemptively change that zone so that we couldn't have that happen, or is that something that's not possible to do? No, sir. What we do in our system is we conditionally zone properties where we want them to prevent what we would view as more difficult relationships. And what's interesting about this area because what you're seeing historically this was all I-1 this whole area was going to be industrially zoned and then slowly over time we got some residential coming in and then the P1 came in was viewed as a buffer for the existing residential and the industrial to the north. Well the P1 has been there for years there's no demand no use so that they're back now with a residential use and again a high-density residential use on the parcel that entire quadrant of our community was dominated and still is if you look at the map with purple and that's industrial and that was the vision of the plan and it has it has changed it's been interesting how it's changed because we've seen a lot more industrial land go away for residential we've seen a lot more residential uses out there. But then we've seen a little piece here and there, like on Spur Road, they wanted to go back to I-1. And of course, we've seen the land swap with the turkey neck, with Coldstream, that's going to be industrial, and a job creation development for the community. So it's an interesting sector of our community in terms of development historically. The Givens property has been targeted, has been identified for commercial for its existence and so it's developing consistent with both older plans and the current plans as well thank you mr. Martin any further questions if not we'll hear from our applicant Good afternoon. I'm Lexi Holland at Wyatt-Harrant Combs and represent the applicant. And I want to touch on just a couple of items. I think the staff report really does a great job at talking about how this is, you know, medium to high density use which is something that you know Lexington really needs at this point and it is a part of the comprehensive plan and the goals in the comprehensive plan another question was raised this morning about public engagement and I just want to briefly give everyone an update on where that stands so we have reached out to the condominiums better to the south and the condominium owners Association we are trying to get either a remote or in-person meetings scheduled for April with them we haven't had too much conversation yet with that association but are working on it and we will set up a meeting with them as soon as possible to the north to the industrial use we've had several conversations ongoing conversations with them particularly about the construction of Gatton Way and it's been brought up the very interesting note 7 on the record plat which will require Gattonway to be constructed and dedicated really before kind of in conjunction more than likely with the construction of this property and those discussions have been ongoing our applicant is feels confident that the plat lets us have a temporary easement that will allow for that construction and then that easement terminates so I know there were a couple of questions about that but the owner to the north does not object to the use and we've been in good conversations we've had additional conversations about landscaping buffer between which I think would get to some of the Planning Commission's questions on that issue and kind of buffering between those two uses so conversations are ongoing but and then I'm gonna let Tony talk a little bit about the trees we had some discussion this morning but just to clarify Thank You Lexi Tony Barrett with Barrett partners just I wanted to talk a minute about the trees we did meet with Eric so when the urban forester on site when you go out there, this tree right here is a very large 72 inch, I think Jonathan could get his hands around it, but it's a big tree and it's out there in the field. It's very sculptural in its presence there. It's in good shape and it's just a very nice, beautiful Baroque The second tree in significance is this one, 62 inches, so still a very sizable bur oak tree. Not quite as in good form as the bigger one, but yet is still in good condition. It was fun being out there with Eric. pulled out his tree mallet and was banging on the tree. I've never seen anybody do that to make sure the bark was intact and it wasn't you know sloughing off as he was doing that. That was interesting. There was a the next tree is in this general location and it's a sizable tree but it's pretty much falling in on itself just from whatever fungus or disease the tree has come to or maybe lightning but it's just kind of collapsing on itself so he Eric agreed that that tree should come down and then there's three other bur oak trees that were noticed in this fence row and and they're not as significant you don't notice them they just kind of blend in with the cherry trees and the locust trees that are characteristic of a fence row but they're there if they were on their own they would be significant trees as well they're quite sizable They're in the fence row and going through the process of laying out the development and based on their location in that fence row, I kind of came to the decision to see if we couldn't take those down. And really focus on these two most significant trees on the site and play those up and protect them, do a good job of that. And so we kind of came up with this concept of this centralized road with a strong pedestrian connection, terminating or focusing on this public square with units kind of fronting around it, creating a really highlighting that square with that tree as the central feature of the site. And then a second square with that other tree and fronting the building on it. Good pedestrian circulation with the paths connecting from tree to tree basically, tie in the amenities, the dog park, there's a car wash maintenance facility here, and then the clubhouse at the entrance with a rather significant amenity package of pool and kind of outdoor amenity element. What kind of led, and Tom alluded to it earlier, with the requirements or the desire of the the zoning ordinance and the way we lay, like to have the buildings fronting the street and addressing the street with parking in the rear. I was having a real difficult time maintaining an element here that was significant size to protect the trees and not just squeeze them in and still utilize this corner because I couldn't get there, I couldn't get to it with adequate parking or circulation. And, you know, I guess I could have floated a building out here on the corner, but I wouldn't have, it would not have been, in my opinion, a successful building because I couldn't get parking to suit the building. The distribution of parking, you can kind of gauge as you look here that with the clubhouse, this building, and this building, I really have kind of a fairly minimal amount of parking distributed to that corner. and that's just because of the way the protecting that tree and creating that was impacting that whole corner and then when I added that fence row element on there it really compromised that whole corner of the you know it really impacts this whole quadrant if you would of the site and that's why that's how I kind of evolved into sacrificing those trees for the effort to protect the two most significant trees and have a apartment community that worked for the whole site. So that was kind of the process that I worked through in developing the site. are there's a existing fence row along this property line around the around the back here we're proposing a tree protection along the perimeter there and so that was kind of the way the plan evolved protection of the trees and the demise of the trees if you would but that the distribution of Robin you mentioned about the on-street parking we there's there's no restriction to my knowledge of on-street parking on Remington Way and I don't anticipate there would be a restriction to on-street parking on Gatton Way but that's not necessarily my call but we're not proposing that that be restricted and then just if you look at the old ordinance parking wise where we fall in the middle of what it would have been at the one and a half per unit requirement of would have been 420 we're at 440 and the bedroom count would have been 479 so basically 480 so we're pretty much in the in the mix they're kind of on the lower end of the goalpost. We're left center I guess. So that's kind of how the parking unfolded. I'll shut up now. One of my questions related to the on-street parking too is just because in some sense public parking can be more efficient because whatever user needs it could use it whereas private parking sort of you know reduces the efficiency or the utilization of the parking in one of the reasons I was also asking about that is you kind of point out that in that corner that you're talking about with the trees has access then to essentially two streets with public parking on it yeah um this would definitely impact your parking count on the site but did you look at taking um vehicular traffic, connecting that corner with vehicular traffic, but without making it as wide of a strip by having the parking lanes on there. essentially adding to the circulation you know for example around building F or something like that that would require resizing that a little bit but without necessarily adding parking just to connect that corner I mean I think the you kind of mentioned where you have that sort of square feeling on the other side of the lot with the E building and the C building with the largest bur oak tree I mean I think it would be strong to connect the sort of clubhouse area to that other tree and at least include and maybe, you know, create that sort of feeling of that sort of grove with those fence line trees, um, that would lose those parking spaces though, even if you could get the vehicular traffic through. Um, I personally think with so much street frontage that trying to accommodate this many spaces on the lot is what a lot of the past developments did, but not necessarily the best moving forward or not necessarily what our comprehensive plan is calling for. I recognize that, yeah. Thank you, Robin. Are there any other questions for Mr. Baird or Ms. Holland? Ms. Pope. Hey, Tony. I notice that there isn't a consistent relationship of the buildings as they have a front that's rather articulated another front that's less articulated and the relationship of those fronts doesn't seem to have any consistency with regard to whether it's facing parking or facing something else could you talk about that a little bit not entirely the I do know that as you saw on the renderings the elevations are very similar and I don't think there's a really a front side or a back side the the variation in the under in the undulation articulation of the of the facades I believe is the result that there are one two and three bedroom units on each floor so I think depending on the arrangement of the bedrooms you get more of a projection on some of the units than you do on the other units and I think that's how the architect has come to that layout I don't think it's a front side of the building and a rear side of the building and just to iterate Robin's comment when I first look at the plan I my my initial response which was probably a little off was some disappointment about failure of buildings to engage street frontage and in particular Remington Way where there's there doesn't seem to be any kind of effort to to engage Remington Way with the building frontage. And looking in particular at the clubhouse, like Robin, to me it would be ideal if the clubhouse either made a very strong gesture to Remington Way so that it makes a statement about this place or has a really strong relationship to that tree. I understand your wrestling match with the parking, but I just wanted to put that out there because I think it's worth pursuing that a little bit deeper. I know you've probably been deep, deep, deep, deep into this. But anyway, I wanted to put that out there. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pohl. Anybody else? I'm an amateur, and I know, Tony, you have spent hours staring at this. But I do think, rather than it being a problem, I do think you have more of an opportunity next to the clubhouse with those trees. And I totally agree with Mr. Mickler. I mean, you've got so much off-street parking on two roads. Could you perhaps swap where the dog park is over there, closer under those big trees? I mean, I think there's a way. They're really—I think what you're hearing today is we want that to really be looked at before we take those barogues down because they have 400 years ahead of them if they're left. anybody have anything else thank you very much all right is there any commissioner comment or questions before we take any action I want to go on record Mr. Davis is saying that what you said about the trees and what I was thinking but again I didn't feel like I was qualified to speak because I'm also an amateur when he was talking about that tree line there. It's reasonably made sense, but I still can't get past cutting those trees down. I'm not a tree hugger, but it bothered me for some reason. I just had a emotional reaction to that, a visceral reaction. I couldn't explain why, but thank you for elucidating what I was thinking. Well, I went through the same process that you all are engaging with me as well. and you know I'm trying to balance the the living on the property for the people the comfort of the people living here and the preservation of the trees who are already here so I appreciate your comments and you know That was the struggle I've been engaged with as well. So thank you. Well, I can maybe, oh, go ahead, and then I'll take a stab at the motion here. Yeah. Oh, sorry. Just back to Tony's point on that last point that he made, you know, the comprehensive plan does focus a lot on density, and we're really trying to kind of meet the multifamily housing and density requirements for a pretty condensed space to the extent that we can. So I think trying to kind of balance all of these goals and objectives, we've really tried to do that with this development. And we certainly appreciate all of your comments today. And thank you. I have one more quick comment, and that is, I'm going to keep on harping on this. One of the design standards is variety, and when I see these repeated boilerplate buildings, that doesn't speak about variety to me. And to me, living in a complex like this would be a better experience if one had a sense that the building that one is living in is not exactly like every other building, but has some identity. And I would really encourage the architect to look at ways to give each building some kind of a unique identity. Well, I'm going to try to make a motion that captures, I think, what this group has said, and feel free to chime in or ask for an amendment if I didn't quite get this right. But I would like to make a motion that we recommend approval for the zone change, but that the site plan be reconsidered to emphasize building street frontage, building diversity and preservation of the bur oak trees. Thank you, Mr. McClure. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Pohl, and any discussion? Is this a preliminary plan? Okay. Seeing no discussion, go ahead and take a vote. All in favor of Mr. Michler's motion, raise your right hand. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Alrighty. Next, Anthony Humphress. Mr. Crum. Mr. Crum. And this was, Dana Crum, planning staff, this was an item that previously was postponed, so I will give, the applicant has provided a new plan, a new justification, so staff will give you some information on that and show that to you. We haven't generated a new supplemental staff report yet, so the initial staff report postponement was based on the previous design, so we'll show the updated plan, give you a refresher on the site, and then give you that information and then that updated staff report will be provided ahead of the planning commission hearing itself but just to refresh you this was a request by mr. Humphress in order to reason the properties at 802 and 804 Gulfview Drive and they was seeking the R1T the townhouse residential zone there's these two properties total approximately half an acre in size and he was seeking to establish a townhome development at this location developing it in the initial manner also required a setback variance from a floodplain located to the rear of the properties that staff detailed as well so the two properties here are located at the the end of this this particular neighborhood so just orient ourselves we've got South Broadway as it's headed into town Red Mile Road and this is an existing primarily single family residential subdivision that is adjoining a golf course here. Zooming in a little bit closer, everything in the area is R1C and they're seeking, we're seeking to get additional density on these two parcels here. They are located at the terminus of Garrison and Golf View, both where they're stubbing into this golf development that is unlikely to develop in the future. So kind of two stub streets that aren't anticipated to be connected at this time. Here we have views of the subject properties themselves. They contain a single family residence each located here as well as here and then two garages located in the middle. And once again you've got the golf course, existing single family residential development that makes up the majority of that neighborhood. This is the applicant's initial design. I won't spend a lot of time on it but essentially 10 townhomes the original houses would have been demolished in the initial proposal 10 units townhome attached units would be replacing them they have rear decks rear parking rear dumpster staff in our initial review of the the project had some concerns about the relationship to the floodplain in the rear so this this dashed line this this heavier gray dashed is the location of the floodplain. So it was an additional pavement, dumpster located in the floodplain, and there was a variance needed in order to build closer than was originally allowed. So staff had those concerns, the relationship with the environment, and then how the site was being utilized. The applicant took those concerns and the concerns of the neighborhood and has modified the plan. Once again, this has not been fully evaluated by staff, but essentially they would be retaining the existing home here and the existing home here and essentially demolishing the interior units there in order to establish just three additional townhome units. So going from a total of 10 to a total of five total units, which is including the two on the end. It removes the rear parking and the dumpster, essentially reducing the number of units. My understanding is brought them under the threshold from needing a dumpster. So these would just be serviced by normal residential units. The flood plane remains in the rear but as a result of removing those units the variance request that is needed drops in skies and scale so initially they had to drop it as low as five feet from the setback that is now somewhere in the ballpark of about 15 so they've removed the impervious surface on site they'll be using on-street parking that is available sort of in these existing sub-streets and as how the site is historically sort of operated reduce the amount of impervious surface remove those conflicts and in kind of many of the criteria that staff originally had concern over have been sort of addressed at first glance with this so staff will be working on getting out a supplemental staff report that updates our recommendation you've already taken action previously recommending postponement and so this will be heard at the next zoning Planning Commission hearing but just wanted informationally TO PROVIDE THIS ALL TO YOU. THOSE WERE THE INITIAL REASONS FOR OUR INITIAL REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT. ONCE AGAIN, MANY OF THESE HAVE BEEN, APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AT FIRST GLEANTS. SO STAFF WILL UPDATE YOU ALL WITH THAT. BUT THIS WAS JUST SORT OF INFORMATIONAL. AND THEN TONY IS ALSO THE DESIGNER WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT AS WELL. SO HE CAN BRIEF YOU ON ANYTHING THAT SORT OF HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED. JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS. and we've done this consistently for the most part, and that is we approve these plans, and the applicants always say, I'm planning on meeting with the public, but they don't do it. Now, this one has two things on it. It says they were planning on meeting with the Golfview Neighborhood Association on February the 7th, and then over here it says the applicant has indicated they've reached out to the Goldview, but no meeting has occurred. Can you explain? Yes, so this has been sort of postponed several times, So since its initial application, they have had done, have had numerous conversations with the neighborhood. Staff personally attended one of those meetings as well. So this sort of conversation with the neighborhood has sort of been ongoing since the initial application. So at the request of the neighborhood, they've postponed. At the request of staff to address these items, they've postponed. So since that initial snapshot that you've got in front of you went out at the very beginning of the cycle, they have met multiple times. Staff has been present at at least one of those meetings. And I think they've had a healthy amount of dialogue. And I'm not entirely sure, you know, since they provided an updated copy of the plan to the neighborhood, I am aware. I don't know if they had planned any conversations since this design has changed. But I think Tony can can speak to that. Tony, will you speak to that? Does anybody have any more questions for Daniel? OK, Mr. Barrett. Thank you. I don't know that I can really add much more, but I can say that Anthony Humphress has had a very close working relationship with the Neighborhood Association. I'm at a loss for the fellow's name. Adrian. Adrian has come to these meetings, and we've had lengthy conversations following the meetings, and they've had neighborhood meetings that Anthony and Dick have attended. I think Dick attended, maybe not. I attended and Mr. Humphreys attended the neighborhood meeting. But there's been – Anthony owns a lot of property in the neighborhood as well, So I think they've had a long-term awareness of Anthony and his involvement in the neighborhood. So they pretty much know everything that is going on in real time. So it's been a positive collaboration. Just curious, how many in the day we showed up? So the meeting I attended was actually fairly well attended. I would say probably about 20 people we met in the adjoining church. And if I was to characterize the concerns of the neighborhood, they didn't have any, interestingly, they didn't have an issue with the original density. Most of their comments were sort of kind of probing what they would like to see as a neighborhood, they indicated, was opportunities for sort of owner-occupied housing, and they had some concerns with their relationship to the University of Kentucky as far as, you know, student housing, housing dominating and rentals and seeing if there was, you know, kind of opportunities for that. Staff, once again, when we look at housing, we're kind of looking at it kind of ownership agnostic. You know, we are looking sort of at the units and providing that because we don't have any mechanism to really go any further. So that was really their main concern was trying to see if they could get any movement on that. The amount of parking being generated also was brought up under the initial proposal. But once again, staff, the meeting that we attended was in reference to the initial plan. So this has been modified some, shrunk down in scope. So I don't think that they've sent in any revised response to that at the time. But a fairly healthy number of people came out and were in a dot log with that. Any other questions for Mr. Barrett? Thank you, Tony. I don't know if it was clear that we've reduced our request for the floodplain setback variance. Did you? Yes, I did. But essentially this shrinks the scope of needing a reduction from 25 to 5 feet to 25 to 15. I believe. And so part of the updated staff report will include the revised justification and the change in the scope and design. And the encroachment is only for the decks, the structures of buildings. Habitable building is not in the 25-foot setback. Okay. Thank you, Tony. Do we have anything else to discuss today? Your subject is planned this morning and did recommend approval. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Anything else? If not, without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next video.