# Planning Commission Zoning Items - June 27, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 27, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6149 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6149?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-06-27 - **Last revised**: June 27, 2024 - **Length**: 23,727 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on June 27, 2024, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Larry Forester presiding as the presiding officer. The commission addressed seven agenda items during the session, taking nine motions and votes throughout the meeting while hearing two public comments from attendees. The meeting resulted in a mixed outcome of approvals and postponements, with the commission successfully approving the meeting minutes and two zoning map amendment requests. The 3743 Freedom, LLC Zoning Map Amendment and the New Republic Architecture Zoning Map Amendment both received approval from the commission. However, three significant items were postponed for future consideration: the Kurt R. Volk Exempt Family Share Trust Zoning Map Amendment, proposed regulations for solar energy systems, and amendments to Articles 5, 18, and 26 regarding landscaping and tree protection requirements. The session concluded with an informational presentation of the Nominating Committee Report, providing commissioners with updates on committee activities. The combination of approved zoning changes and postponed regulatory matters reflects the commission's careful deliberation process on both individual development requests and broader policy initiatives affecting the urban county's planning framework. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on June 27, 2024: • Larry Forester • Zach Davis • William Wilson • Janice Meyer • Ivy Barksdale • Robin Michler • Mike Owens • Graham Pohl • Bruce Nicol • Judy Worth • Johnathon Davis All eleven members were in attendance. No members were reported as absent or late for the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on nine items during the June 27, 2024 meeting, with all 11 members present and voting. **Postponements** Three items were unanimously postponed [timestamp: 00:00]: • **PLN-MAR-24-00007**: Kurt R. Volk Exempt Family Share Trust zoning map amendment was postponed on a motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Judy Worth (11-0) • **PLN-ZOTA-24-00003**: Regulation of solar energy systems text amendment was postponed on a motion by Robin Michler, seconded by Ivy Barksdale (11-0) • **PLN-ZOTA-24-00005**: Amendment to Articles 5, 18, and 26 regarding Landscaping and Tree Protection was postponed on a motion by Robin Michler, seconded by Janice Meyer (11-0) **Approvals** Four items received unanimous approval [timestamp: 00:00]: • **PLN-MAR-24-00008**: 3743 Freedom, LLC zoning map amendment was approved on a motion by Johnathon Davis, seconded by Graham Pohl (11-0) • **PLN-MJDP-24-00033**: Melody Village, Unit 3-C, Block C, Lot 12 (Freedom Senior Apartments) development plan was approved with a condition change from "discuss" to "resolve" in condition #11, on a motion by Johnathon Davis, seconded by Graham Pohl (11-0) • **PLN-MJSUB-24-00006**: Stephens & Winslow Subdivision (Parsons Green Development, LLC Property) was approved with the removal of item 13, on a motion by Robin Michler, seconded by Judy Worth (11-0) • Variances for New Republic Architecture zoning map amendment were approved on a motion by Robin Michler, seconded by William Wilson (11-0) **Split Vote** • **PLN-MAR-24-00009**: New Republic Architecture zoning map amendment without conditional zoning restrictions passed 8-3 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Larry Forester, Zach Davis, William Wilson, Janice Meyer, Ivy Barksdale, Robin Michler, Mike Owens, and Bruce Nicol. Voting against: Graham Pohl, Judy Worth, and Johnathon Davis. Motion by Robin Michler, seconded by Ivy Barksdale. **Continuance** The Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington, Inc. development plan discussion was continued to July 25, 2024, on a motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Bruce Nicol (11-0). ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the meeting during the public comment period. **Shannon Huffer** [timestamp: 00:00] spoke as the project manager for the applicant regarding the Freedom Senior Apartments proposal. Huffer discussed the proposed senior affordable housing development and outlined the efforts that have been made to engage with the surrounding neighborhood community regarding the project. **A representative from the South Hill Neighborhood Association** [timestamp: 00:00] also provided comments related to a New Republic Architecture project. The neighborhood association representative expressed the organization's support for the proposed project, specifically noting that they viewed the development as being context-sensitive and appropriate for the neighborhood character and setting. Both comments focused on development projects and community engagement, with the neighborhood association representative providing positive feedback on the architectural approach being proposed for their area. ## Appointments The council took action on one appointment during the meeting. • **Johnathon Davis** was reappointed to the Urban County Planning Commission The reappointment of Davis to the planning commission continues his service on the body that reviews development proposals, zoning changes, and other land use matters within the urban county area. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that generated heated discussion among participants. **Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington, Inc. Development Plan** The primary point of contention centered on the proposed development plan submitted by the Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington, Inc. The disagreement focused specifically on the removal of significant trees from the development site and the adequacy of the proposed environmental mitigation measures. The discussion became heated as disagreements emerged between the applicant and environmental services staff regarding the scope and implementation of tree removal mitigation plans. Environmental services raised concerns about the impact of removing significant trees from the property, while the applicant's representatives defended their proposed approach to addressing these environmental impacts. The core dispute revolved around whether the current mitigation plan adequately addressed the environmental consequences of the proposed tree removal. Environmental services indicated that a revised mitigation plan would be necessary to properly compensate for the loss of significant vegetation on the site. The disagreement highlighted the ongoing tension between development needs and environmental preservation requirements. Both parties presented their positions during the discussion, with environmental services emphasizing the importance of protecting existing tree cover and the applicant focusing on the practical requirements of their development proposal. The outcome of this contested item was not definitively resolved during the meeting, with the indication that further work would be required on the mitigation plan before the development proposal could move forward. The need for a revised mitigation plan suggests that the environmental concerns raised during the discussion would need to be addressed through additional planning and documentation before final approval could be considered. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:00] The meeting began with consideration of minutes from two previous meetings held on May 9, 2024, and May 23, 2024. Mike Owens and Janice Meyer were the key participants in the discussion of these minutes. The minutes required amendments before approval, though the specific nature of the changes was not detailed in the available materials. Following discussion of the necessary modifications, both sets of minutes were approved with the agreed-upon amendments. This agenda item was completed early in the meeting, allowing the board to proceed with the remainder of their business with properly documented records of their previous proceedings. ## Kurt R. Volk Exempt Family Share Trust Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 00:00] The planning commission considered petition PLN-MAR-24-00007, a request from the Kurt R. Volk Exempt Family Share Trust for a zoning map amendment. The proposal sought to rezone property from Agricultural Rural (A-R) to Agricultural Buffer (A-B) designation. Key speakers during the discussion included Nick Nicholson and Judy Worth, who participated in the deliberations regarding this zoning change request. The commission determined that additional discussion was necessary before making a decision on the petition. Rather than proceeding with a vote or approval at this meeting, the item was postponed to allow for further consideration of the zoning amendment proposal. The outcome of this agenda item was a postponement, indicating that commissioners felt more time was needed to thoroughly review the request to change the property's zoning classification from Agricultural Rural to Agricultural Buffer. The specific reasons for the postponement or details about what additional information or discussion was needed were not detailed in the available materials. The petition will presumably be reconsidered at a future planning commission meeting once the additional discussion has taken place. ## Regulation of Solar Energy Systems [timestamp: 00:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-ZOTA-24-00003, a proposed text amendment to create a new article in the Zoning Ordinance specifically addressing the regulation of solar energy systems. Traci Wade served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the proposed zoning text amendment that would establish comprehensive regulations for solar energy installations within the jurisdiction. The proposed amendment aimed to create a dedicated article within the existing Zoning Ordinance to provide clear guidelines and standards for solar energy systems. This would represent a new regulatory framework specifically tailored to address the growing prevalence of solar installations in the community. However, the Planning Commission ultimately decided to postpone consideration of this item. The postponement suggests that additional time may be needed for further review, public input, or refinement of the proposed regulations before the Commission is ready to take action. The creation of specific solar energy regulations reflects the community's need to balance renewable energy development with appropriate land use controls and design standards. Such ordinances typically address issues including placement requirements, aesthetic considerations, safety standards, and compatibility with existing zoning districts. No final action was taken on PLN-ZOTA-24-00003 during this meeting, and the item will be rescheduled for future consideration by the Planning Commission. ## Amendment to Articles 5, 18, and 26: Landscaping and Tree Protection The planning commission considered agenda item PLN-ZOTA-24-00005, a proposed text amendment to update landscaping and tree protection standards in Articles 5, 18, and 26 of the zoning ordinance [timestamp: 00:00]. Traci Wade served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the proposed amendments to the commission members. The proposed text amendment aimed to revise and update the existing landscaping and tree protection standards contained within the three articles of the municipal zoning code. These standards typically govern requirements for landscaping in new developments, tree preservation during construction, and related environmental protection measures. However, the commission ultimately decided to postpone consideration of this agenda item rather than proceeding with discussion or voting. No specific reasons for the postponement were detailed in the available materials, and the timeline for when the item might return to the commission's agenda was not established. The postponement means that the current landscaping and tree protection standards in Articles 5, 18, and 26 remain unchanged for now, and any developments or projects subject to these regulations will continue to operate under the existing framework until the commission takes up the proposed amendments at a future meeting. ## 3743 Freedom, LLC Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 00:00] The planning commission reviewed petition PLN-MAR-24-00008, a zoning map amendment request from 3743 Freedom, LLC to modify existing Conditional Zoning Restrictions for a senior affordable housing development project. The petition sought to increase the allowable square footage limits under the current zoning restrictions to accommodate the proposed senior housing development. Key speakers during the discussion included Daniel Crum and Shannon Huffer, who presented details about the modification request and its implications for the project. The amendment specifically addressed conditional zoning restrictions that were limiting the development's ability to provide adequate square footage for the planned senior affordable housing units. The modification was necessary to move forward with the housing project while maintaining compliance with local zoning requirements. Following discussion of the petition details and consideration of the project's affordable housing component, the commission approved the zoning map amendment. The approval allows 3743 Freedom, LLC to proceed with their senior affordable housing development under the modified square footage allowances. The successful petition represents progress toward increasing senior affordable housing options in the community while working within the established zoning framework through appropriate modifications to conditional restrictions. ## New Republic Architecture Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 00:00] The planning commission reviewed petition PLN-MAR-24-00009, a request from New Republic Architecture for a zoning map amendment to change property designation from Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone to Medium Density Residential (R-4) zone. Key speakers during the discussion included Daniel Crum and Robin Michler, who presented details regarding the proposed zoning change. The petition sought to rezone the property to allow for medium-density residential development rather than the current neighborhood business classification. The commission considered the merits of converting the commercial zoning to residential use. The R-4 Medium Density Residential zone would permit higher-density housing development compared to lower-density residential classifications, while removing the current commercial development potential under the B-1 Neighborhood Business designation. Following discussion of the proposal, the planning commission voted to approve the zoning map amendment. Notably, the approval was granted without any conditional zoning restrictions, meaning the property will be subject to the standard R-4 zoning requirements without additional limitations or special conditions imposed by the commission. The approval allows New Republic Architecture to proceed with medium-density residential development plans for the property, representing a shift from potential commercial use to residential housing in the area. ## Nominating Committee Report [timestamp: 00:00] Janice Meyer presented the Nominating Committee Report during the June 27, 2024 meeting. The committee recommended continuing with the same leadership team for the upcoming 2024 election. Meyer delivered the committee's findings as an informational presentation to the board. The nominating committee had evaluated the current leadership structure and determined that maintaining continuity with the existing team would best serve the organization's interests. The report was presented without debate or discussion from other board members. No concerns were raised regarding the committee's recommendation to retain the current leadership configuration. This agenda item served as an informational update, with no formal action required from the board at this time regarding the nominating committee's recommendation for the 2024 election cycle. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MAR-24-00007** — postponed (11-0): Postpone Kurt R. Volk Exempt Family Share Trust zoning map amendment - **PLN-ZOTA-24-00003** — postponed (11-0): Postpone regulation of solar energy systems text amendment - **PLN-ZOTA-24-00005** — postponed (11-0): Postpone amendment to Articles 5, 18, and 26: Landscaping and Tree Protection - **PLN-MAR-24-00008** — passed (11-0): Approve 3743 Freedom, LLC zoning map amendment - **PLN--MJDP-24-00033** — passed (11-0): Approve Melody Village, Unit 3-C, Block C, Lot 12 (Freedom Senior Apartments) development plan with condition change - **PLN-MAR-24-00009** — passed (8-3): Approve New Republic Architecture zoning map amendment without conditional zoning restrictions - **PLN-MJSUB-24-00006** — passed (11-0): Approve Stephens & Winslow Subdivision (Parsons Green Development, LLC Property) with condition removal - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approve variances for New Republic Architecture zoning map amendment - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Continue discussion on Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington, Inc. development plan --- ## Full transcript Well, on a regular patrol, are you on an as-needed basis? How does that work? We operate much like a fire department. We typically do not go up and do any type of patrol. We just go up as we're needed. Typically, we can get up very quickly. We have the aircraft preflighted and ready to go at the beginning of every shift, so we can get airborne very quickly, and then we can support the ground units as they need us. Can you give me a few examples of some of the calls that you've gotten and why you've gone up? We have assisted the ground units multiple times recently with locating either lost and missing persons or people that maybe have even driven here from another state that could possibly have dementia or something along those lines where they were an endangerment to themselves and others. And we were able to work with the ground units and actually locate those folks. And then the other aspect of it is everybody doesn't stop when the police pull them over. So if they flee from the ground units, we want to make sure that the folks on the ground are safe, the citizens on the ground are safe. So as opposed to having to pursue on the ground, we can actually follow and track the vehicle until they stop, whether they get out, have a foot pursuit afterwards, regardless. We can lower the liability and the safety on the ground, the safety concerns on the ground for the citizens. And how many people are in this unit? We have 10 people. So there are two positions in the air unit. We have the pilot, and then we also have what's called a tactical flight officer. So the pilot obviously is the person responsible for communicating with air traffic control, approach and departure, making sure everybody's safe, actually flying the mission the way we need to fly it in order for the tactical flight officer to do their job, which is operating the mission equipment, whether it be the camera, the thermal imager, the police radio, all basically any equipment on board other than the aviation equipment the tactical flight officer operates. That's great. I mean, you know, I said there was numerous opportunities with the police department, and this is just one. Where could individuals that are interested in the police department go to find out more about the different units that we have? Certainly go to our website through the city, and it links all the different bureaus, all the different units and sections under those bureaus, and talks about each of those. And you're right, we have a lot of opportunities. An agency our size is, we're small enough that you don't get lost, but we're also large enough to have a lot of specialized units and a lot of opportunities. So when somebody comes to work for Lexington, they don't have to do the same job their entire career. I've been on 27 years, and I've only been in the air support unit a little over five years. So it was like a whole new career for me when I came in and absolutely, absolutely love it. There are only three air support units that have the mission equipment we have in the state of Kentucky, Louisville, Kentucky State Police, and us. So we not only serve Lexington, but also the area around Lexington, which has aided us in getting assistance through Homeland Security and some of the grants that we've gotten in the past where we do operate about a 40-mile radius outside of Lexington. 27 years. Yeah. That's a great career. I'm a dinosaur in police ages. Well, we appreciate your service and your commitment to our community. Stay tuned to my next segment where we talk about Your Lex PD, where our citizens can find out more information about our police department and how they can get involved. A new initiative that our police department has taken on is something called Your Lex PD. and it's a video series that you and a colleague are working on to kind of bring the police department down to a residential level so people can understand a little bit more about our police department and what we do. So can you talk a little bit about that? So the original idea was actually the show that originated back in probably about 2001. It was called Keeping the Peace and Officer Debbie Wagner, everybody knew Debbie and also James Jackson, Assistant Chief James Jackson were the hosts of that show. And they were basically doing the same thing we're doing now as far as giving the public an insight to the police department. So I had a vision to kind of bring that program back. So back in about 2018, we started talking about it. We did some outlines on it, some ideas where we were going to go with it, and then the pandemic hit. So everything got put on hold. Fast forward to 2023, we decided to go forward with it. Some of the current issues had changed. Some of the technology had changed. And so we reached out to LexTV and LexTV, let me just tell you, they have been absolutely fantastic. The Lexington Police Department administration's been on board with this, but the LexTV folks, I mean, they spent a lot of time actually producing and editing. So we couldn't do it without them. And I have an absolute great co-host with Nicole. We air an episode every month and it does, it basically is a window to the police department, for the public so they can see the specialized units, the officers of the Lexington Police Department, the folks who are out here doing the job every single day, and get to know them and know what the police department's doing to try to keep them safe. I think that's really important for us to kind of show the humanitarian side of our police department. All too often, I think, our citizens see a police officer in uniform and then they don't kind of understand what their daily job looks like and what that means. I think it's a really good recruiting tool as well. Absolutely. Thank you. All right. It's 1.30. Welcome, everyone. It's June 27th, 2024. Let's welcome everybody to the Urban County Planning Commission Zoning Items Public Meeting. I do want to give one shout out to my parents. They are been married 43 years today. Thank you, Lord. That's great. So I'll make sure I tell them to watch this and I'll get some credit. But we're going to move on the agenda item. It's agenda item number two, the approval of minutes. the May 9th and May 23rd 2024 minutes. Is there any conversations about that or any additional that you want to add? If not, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair, if I may, since I was part of an amendment for the May 9th 2024, I think text has been sent to everyone for a couple of additions, One from myself and I think also one from Jan Myers. But for that, for May 9th, 2024, I'd move for approval of the minutes as amended. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Ms. Davis. Okay, thank you. And that's Mr. Jonathan Davis, seconded that motion. Please vote via Granicus. I thought he's up and running. Raise your hand, Bill. Let me see. Oh, you're fine. Did you vote? Just blame Bill. Either way. It's good. Come up. It'll get there. So you went for Bill. No, I will. Hold on. Take it off again. Take yours off. See, you signed in as Bill. Jonathan is signed in as Bill. Because you signed. You just hit yes and it went for Bill. sign there there we go all right all right there we go oh okay all right motion passes i don't think i've ever seen that before weird yeah okay okay uh next agenda item three postponements and withdrawals mr chair oh sorry yeah sorry you just did one sorry i'm sorry one Go ahead. Ms. Meyer? I move for approval of the May 23rd and 2024 minutes. Thank you. Seconded by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. All right, now postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Nicholson? Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the Kurt R. Volk Exempt Family Trust. I'd like to request a postponement for item number one on page two MAR 24-7 to the July 25th Planning Commission meeting. There's a lot of discussion at the zoning committee which I was not able to be there for on kind of how the rural land management plan and the comprehensive plan interact and I figured we probably should have that kind of conversation at a committee level since it's not really about the the zone change so we're happy to wait one more month and uh... the public hearing the senate you recommend that going back to the committee yes council will bring that back to uh... the zoning committee to have that kind of conversation make an alternative suggestion rather than talk about the vote property specifically i would like to recommend that we have a real and management board talk to uh... the commission members at our planning session before that meeting and i'd like to know things like why did they create the a b zone why did they select those specific areas how did it get implemented and how does it relate to our forty acre uh... in a way that does not talk about this specific case can we do that Ms. Worth, when did you want to do that? At the next planning session. At the work session? Work session. But that is after the next committee meeting, right? No. Okay. Whenever the next work session? So at the July 18th work session, you want to have a discussion about the history of the A, B, and the Rural Land Management Plan? Okay. Mr. Chair, do you... No, I do not. Let me explain why I'm requesting that. I think we'd be better served by having all of us in the room at the same time rather than each committee hearing different things. And the other thing I would say is I think this would be a better conversation in the context of the history, not about this specific case. and I think we can do that in the work session to set us up for the hearing. I understand your question, and I concur that we're delighted to bring that information to you. I am concerned, and that's why I'm asking counsel, because it is precipitated by an active zone change that you will not have taken action on. I just want to make sure that we're squared away on that. And I understand that, and let me say, having had experience with you, Mr. Duncan, when I start to ask a question that takes me someplace I should not take, go. I'm assuming that council and you can stop us from saying things we should not be saying in that work session that would jeopardize anything in terms of the case. Perhaps I could recommend Ms. Worth and Planning Commission members that we go ahead and take that under advisement. Let's talk about this with staff and then we can report back to you all. yeah but so where does that leave us in terms of dealing with mr nichols we're happy to still postpone one month i mean this isn't about an active development in any way shape or form this is really about estate planning and so we're we have plenty of time to do whatever the kind of planning commission would like so the work session is on the 18th you're asking for the 25th so I mean, we're going to have to talk about this work session idea, honestly, for the concerns that Mr. Duncan noted. But in terms of postponing to the 25th, you can certainly do that today. And they're saying they're requesting it. And since I wasn't at the zoning committee, I still plan on just kind of touching a few points about this application at the committee level, at the zoning committee level. okay i was just confirming our timeline that we have committee meetings on the third and that mr nicholson will be there along with rural land management to bring their context no no no that's not what that's not what we're saying i think she wants us to have a the rural land management i see work session which is the 18th okay I thought I heard Mr. Nicholson say that he was willing to come back to the zoning committee to discuss this at the next zoning. Okay, so what I'm proposing is that if we can't have the work session on that date, that we go back to it going back to the committee, the zoning committee. Is that a reasonable task? Yeah, that's what he's already doing with the 25th. He's going to meet on the 3rd for our zoning committee, which is July 3rd. So the understanding is that we would have an answer about that before that meeting. Correct. And my problem with that is as a member of the subdivision committee, I guess we can go to the zoning committee hearing and hear the same thing, right? Okay. You're more than welcome to come spend time with the zoning committee. Mr. Chair, if I may add one thing to that, because I think this is important. If it goes to zoning, I would ask Mr. Nicholson to come and talk to the subdivision as well, as far as that committee on that day as well. Because as Ms. Worth is saying, this is important enough for everybody to hear. and I think that merits that attention. And if we're going to do it in zoning, I think it should come to subdivision as well. I'm happy to attend both committee meetings. I was more just going to give information about this specific request. I don't want to speak on behalf of your planning staff for these global issues. I think we can do everything, maybe. Are we going to go back to what was proposed from Mr. Nicholson? I have a question. Mr. Davis. So a lot of this started based on a question that was asked at zoning, which is can we have some contextual history of the AR to AB of this region of Tates Creek? So that's why I asked is are we going to have rural land at these committees to answer questions? But I'm told no. We were only going to talk about that aspect of it at the work session. But really, I mean, we're just, we're going back to where we started, but without the requested information. I'm happy to give more time so everybody can have, kind of, you know, get comfortable with what is going on here. And by more time, do you mean on the 3rd or would you mean August? So my request is postponed for 30 days to the July, basically, planning commission meeting. that will give us plenty of time to basically come back and discuss the specific application at the different committees. And if staff would like to have a more kind of global discussion at the work sessions, this still gives that time as well. We're not trying to do anything untoward in any way, shape, or form. Mr. Davis, to clarify my request, the reason I'm requesting it at work session, without the discussion of this particular case is that I think what we learn in the work session will help us then apply what we understand from the Rural Land Management Board about their intent and about what it says and what it doesn't say when it comes to making the decision about the vote case. Right. But at that point, we'll have already made at least one decision at the committee level. Not necessarily. So when a postpartum item comes back to a committee, the planning commission does not actually have to take any action because it's already made a formal recommendation. This would be more just to provide any information and updates about the specific application. If the different committees would like to change a recommendation, they have that power, but they do not have that requirement. Okay. So my only concern is we get into something where we're talking about the case before we actually hear it. And that's why I'm relying on legal. So legal needs some time to address this. I can also tell you, Mr. Chair, that if they are available, certainly the Rural Land Management Board representatives can testify on the record at the hearing. So the same information that you may be receiving the week before could be presented on the record and that there'd be no question then that you were taking a case ex parte. I have a question. How much time would the Rural Land Management Board have to present their information? I'm sorry, Ms. Meyer, I didn't hear the fullness of... How much time would the Rural Land Management Board have to present the historic information that they they'd like to present do you mean are you asking how much time they would have at the committee meeting are you asking how much time do you hear it ready for it at a hearing well because they're they're already they're already on notice that this information's been requested i just sat through a meeting yesterday with them so they know um i think it's just a matter of trying to communicate with them i mean you know they're they're part of the government staff like all the rest of us here i mean you know you do what you have to do so i think we'll just have to talk with them and see but i do have some concerns and we'll discuss them further about you know we can't undo we can't undo hang on a second i just okay i don't i don't think you're going to get something from them specifically from that board on the third um next week at committee meetings from what i just got so um i don't know if that's because they're not here i'm not sure but that i don't think you're going to get a presentation or of any kind of committee meetings from the rural management board next next wednesday however we we need to further vet out some of this amongst ourselves i have a little bit of uncomfortableness about making this a work session topic knowing this is coming the next week i mean we can't i just think we need to talk about that because we we can't unring the bell once it happens. So I don't want to get in that work session and then it becomes about this and I'm not sure that we're going to be able to avoid that. So we just need to talk about that. But in terms of giving you historical information that would apply to this specific case next week, I think we can do that. And then at the hearing you'll get a full, you know, at the committee meetings and as Mr. Nicholson said, you have made a recommendation, don't have to make another one at the committee meetings next week because you've already made one out of the committee so you then would have till the 25th of july for it to be at a full hearing and if there was more information that you wanted than you what you hear at the committees you would be able to hear it at the hearing i just the work session piece is a little a little concerning to me I'm concerned that we're dealing with a specific case here and we may be veering into like the concern that I'm hearing from counsel and Mr. Duncan is that we could be conflating two issues, a larger issue with this specific case. The specific case that we're hearing now I think should be postponed per the request of the property owner in the manner that they asked. And if the rural land management group would like to come speak at the hearing, I think that that would be fully appropriate. And then post this case or this meeting, we can meet with the rural land management if they're unable to meet beforehand. I don't think that we should make the property owner, even though they're willing to, to work around our request to consult with rural land management because we are looking at a specific case that's being brought in front of us today. And I think we need to act on this case today. That's my thoughts on what we're doing. Let me offer this. One, I think we will act, and I appreciate Mr. Nicholson's willingness to postpone this. Work session-wise, I think what Ms. Worth is asking for is, we understand this case here, but historical information. That was asked both in subdivision and Mr. Davis did in zoning as well. uh i think that would be important but as i'm hearing as well and we know the rural land management plan can come to when we do hear this they can come and give a report as well and i think with what miss myers was asking for for as far as when she said time uh the way i see it rural land management is part of the staff and it'd be part of the staff report and you know that it it they wouldn't be limited to three minutes i think that's what you're asking so that's correct okay so you know you know personally i'd like to hear some historical information uh however i think we can move on with postponement and let the staff keep working on the work session part yeah it gives the staff 30 days to get rural land management back in front of us as a whole and that's kind of where i was at from the beginning so if this is the consensus of the commissioners you ready for postponement yeah i'm ready for the motion of postponement to to the July 25th meeting. If there's no further discussion, I'll move for a postponement of plan MAR 24-7, the Curt R. Volk Exempt Family Share of Trust, until July 25th, along with the associated development plan or subdivision plan. Thank you, Mr. Owens. And we have a second by Ms. Wirth. Do we have any further discussion? All right, so we vote via Granicus. Motion passes, Ms. Meyer? No, ma'am. Okay, motion passes unanimously, thank you. Thank you all, and I'll see you next week. See you again. Okay, staff? chairman forrester we do have two text amendments that appear on our agenda that are both requesting postponement the first one is pln zoda 24-3 regulation of solar energy systems we had communicated with the applicant previously about needing two months and they asked for us to postpone on a month-by-month basis but I don't believe they're even in attendance today so I would request that we postpone that one more month to the July 25th 2024 hearing. Okay thank Thank you. Floor is open for a motion. Yes, Ms. Mickler. I move that we postpone PLN ZODA 24-3, Regulation of Solar Energy System, to the July 25th meeting. Thank you. Do we have a second? Seconded by Ms. Barksdale. Okay, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. And then towards the bottom of page six is the second Zota, PLN Zota 24-5, an amendment to Articles 5, 18, and 26 for landscaping and tree protection. And the Zoning Committee did hear about this last month, but the staff has met with some additional stakeholders and will be prepared to make a presentation next week to the Zoning Committee with some revised language. So we'd ask for a postponement of that item also to July 25th. All righty, thank you. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Mickler. I move to postpone PLN ZODA 24-5, amendment to articles 518 and 26, landscaping and tree protection to the July 25th hearing. Thank you. We have a second by Ms. Meyer. Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. That's it. So we can start with our zoning hearings at the bottom of page 3. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Mr. Crum? 3743 Freedom, LLC. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. you should have a supplementary staff report in front of you. So this is a revised staff report based on an updated justification provided by the applicant. This is now a recommendation of approval for this particular request. And so, Mr. Chair, if there's no one present in the audience that would like to speak or have this item heard in full, this could potentially be done as an abbreviated hearing. So is there anyone in the audience that wishes to have this request heard in full or would like to speak on this item? It looks like this is eligible for an abbreviated hearing. So the subject property is located at 3743 Red River Drive. This is a request to amend conditional zoning restrictions that were applied on the property at its most recent rezoning to the R4 and P1 zone. The applicant is specifically looking to alter a conditional zoning restriction that limited the total square footage within the R4 zoned portions of the property. They're seeking to increase this from 60,000 to 80,000 square feet. The applicants, because this is a conditional zoning restriction, there won't be a discussion of place type, development type, or other place builder criteria. But to orient ourselves, the subject property shown at the center of the screen is located on Red River Drive. In the general vicinity, we have Manowar curving to the south, and to the north, we have Trent Boulevard. Zooming in a little bit closer gives you a better idea of the layout of the property and the surrounding area. So the zoning in the immediate vicinity is overwhelmingly residential. You also have existing agricultural zoning. This is the adjoining park, but otherwise is a solidly single family residential neighborhood. The rezoning that the property currently has was the result of the 2017 zone change that established the numerous conditional zoning restrictions that the applicant is seeking to amend today. That original development was utilizing an existing school building for an assisted living facility, along with some senior housing and other uses. The aerial of the subject property shows the school structure. So this is going to be very relevant as we move forward, that structure, its size, and kind of how we understand it. This was the site of the Bluegrass Baptist School, which was, I believe, established in the early 1970s, but in around 2016-2017 closed its doors. Thence the property was sold and rezoned. So we have the existing school structure here, as well as its gym, which has been, was since modified into a community center type use. The applicant wishes to utilize this vacant portion of the property to the west that will be shown on the corresponding development plan momentarily as an affordable senior housing residential development. The applicant is coming before you all in order to modify the size restrictions in order to accommodate this development. Here are some views of the existing site. So we have the school building as well as the former gym slash community center use. This vacant portion on the right hand portion of the site is the proposed location of the four story senior housing development. Here is a view down Red River Drive, once again, a local roadway, residential in nature. And the concerns at the 2017, why there were so many zoning restrictions placed on the property, was to kind of ensure that this development was compatible with the neighborhood and to place basically a cap on the scope of the project. Here we have the development plan as proposed by the applicant. So this would be that four-story residential structure, I believe slightly over 50 units of affordable senior housing. They would maintain and keep the existing school building as well as the gym structure as well. The applicant needs to increase that size threshold in order to accommodate it. The applicant has indicated that demolishing the existing structure here would be difficult and expensive. There's some environmental concerns with that as well. And so they're seeking to keep those existing buildings, but they will be operating and utilizing this structure here. The conditional zoning restrictions that were placed on the site in 2017, there was offered a number of them by the applicant. This was with consultations with the neighborhood. It includes restrictions on uses as well as the condition outlined in red here. So that 60,000 square feet total floor area is where the applicant is running into the issues. They are proposing a development that would be slightly under 80,000 square feet. The conversation around that at that time was to ensure comprehensive plan compliance and to protect the character of that existing neighborhood. When we talk about amending conditional zoning restrictions, it's sort of a very specific standard that you're looking at. You need to look at specific physical, economic, or social changes that weren't anticipated or kind of evaluated at that time and that make those conditions now inappropriate. And so the applicant is offering a couple different explanations as to how this particular case functions. So the first is a argument that there has been a physical change that makes the conditions inappropriate. And that stems from the size of the structure. So from the profile here, you see that this building is actually two stories tall. At the time of the initial development plan, this building was accounted for being slightly over 15,000 square feet. However, at that time, the fact that it had that full basement, full usable area, was not included in the engineer that developed that development plan and had that certified was incorrectly attributed. So this building is approximately 6,000 square feet larger than what was kind of initially approved in that initial development plan. Consequently, if the applicant ever tried to build out what was approved back in 2017, they would not be able to meet that conditional zoning restriction. And so the applicant opines that the size of that structure and the understanding of how big it even was was something that wasn't properly considered and makes that existing condition, that 60,000 square foot condition, inappropriate. Because at that time, the neighborhood, planning commission, council all considered this as maintaining the existing development plus the additional square footage. So the applicant opines that is a physical change that is different than the 2017 consideration and staff is in agreement. Additionally, the applicant has also proposed that there's been a social change in the area that makes this condition no longer appropriate. And they speak to the necessity for senior housing in particular. That demand has grown. And they point to census data. So the applicant has provided the above graphic that basically compares 2017 populations and demographics, specifically looking at the age population they're seeking to serve versus 2024 data. and has found a significant shift in the overall senior population and the kind of need for affordable housing. So in this time, the population of the census tract that this property is located in changed approximately 2%, but when you look at the different age bands of the demographics, it has skewed significantly older in that time. The applicant maintains that this increase, noted in the staff report, constitutes a social change. it makes the need for the affordable senior housing even more important for this particular area. And so in order to address that growing need, especially within this census tract, the applicant is proposing that additional allowance of that conditional square footage. Overall, staff is recommending approval of this request. Once again, we find that there is a physical change in the character of the site that it wasn't originally accounted for correctly that makes that 60,000 square foot threshold too low to even build the original plan. Furthermore, there's been a social change in the area, that increase in the age population that sort of contributes to this driving need to provide greater senior affordable housing. And we found that those conditional zoning restrictions unreasonably limit the use of the property. We are proposing the same suite of conditional zoning restrictions that were proposed to be found appropriate back in 17 with the loan difference being the increase from $60,000 to $80,000 as shown. And so, as always, that is subject to the approval of the corresponding development plan as well, but staff found that there was a couple of different ways in which this area's character has changed, and those initial conditions were not necessarily appropriate at that particular level. I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff, but you have the updated supplementary staff report in front of you, um and mr martin will be on to be discuss any questions for the development plan uh miss galt apologies okay thank you mr crumb any questions yes mr nickel i just have a comment that that i mean just a compliment to the staff to make such a recommendation and work with the applicant to increase density and provide the data as a backup i think this is a wonderful example of how we're working to increase density and provide more housing for all of our citizens. So I'm very impressed by your presentation and your thoughtfulness in trying to find a solution that meets the community's needs and the developer's needs. So thank you. Thank you. Mr. Minkler. Thank you for that presentation, Daniel. I've got one question on the sort of zoning. The logic and the arguments for why the conditional zone may seem inappropriate seem logical, but I'm not following the logic for why we're just picking another number instead of restoring it to a more standard zone. Yeah, yeah. So the concerns really, kind of that laundry list of concerns was generated out of a desire to kind of protect that particular neighborhood. That was done sort of at the input at that time with the neighborhood itself. I understand that where you're coming from on that end, but really we're responding to the applicants' ask, and they thought it would be most appropriate to say, this is the development that we are looking to do. We understand that this is sort of a residential area that really is sort of tucked into a neighborhood so that we should be cognizant of kind of how that development looks. And so that 80,000 was the number they offered to kind of accommodate their development, but also, you know, kind of keep the upper cap. But traditionally, we don't look to kind of do the full suite of conditional zoning restrictions, but it also speaks to kind of differing conditions as well. So the arguments needed to kind of change that particular restriction is different when it's no longer just a size argument, but versus, you know, arguing for particular uses that were removed. And so the applicants felt kind of most comfortable addressing the specific size issue, which really had a disconnect from the start. And they felt it was still appropriate to just propose that and keep an upper cap. I see your logic there. One thing that I'm thinking of, though, is that one thing that I think we're looking to change, though, is thinking of these zones in terms of floor area ratio and square footage and thinking in terms of height of the buildings as scale. And this does sort of reinforce a size concept that I think we're trying to move away from. I mean, I do, that is sort of a question. Are we not trying to move away from these square footage oriented limitations and towards height limitations? I think it's really dependent on the project. I mean, these are supposed to be the intentionality behind conditional zoning is to address kind of a particular issue with that particular location at particular time. So there's multiple tools or ways to do that. And especially we've sort of have, as we've utilized conditional zoning, we've changed sort of approaches over time, but I think overall it's still sort of very site-specific kind of understanding. Because built in, you know, with the same kind of considerations is if you're concerned is traffic, the square footage, the amount of space, you know, is a more relevant idea than kind of the verticality of the structure. So there's neighborhood impact in terms of visual scale, and then there's impacts in other ways, traffic, kind of necessary features, and that sort of thing. So I understand where you're coming from on that, but I think staff thinks in this case that the 80,000 is the cleanest way to kind of afford the applicants the ability to develop here while also keeping the neighborhood at that level that it understood when it endorsed that zone change back in 2017. And one comment actually that should be mentioned along with this was the initial rezoning request had a significant amount of public outreach. The staff identified that within the staff report as something that should be kind of pursued further. But the applicants, when provided with the information on the contact information, it appears that the contacts that we have in our system are out of date and that they did not respond to sort of the requests for meetings or to discuss the proposal. So we suggest the applicant kind of as this moves forward to continue any and all outreach. Staff has not received any opposition calls or response letters to any of the required mailings, sign postings, and the like. But that is another kind of consideration as well is that that same level of outreach wasn't possible on this end at this time. Any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Grum. Development plan? Good afternoon. As you can see, we will have revised conditions. They should be on a yellow sheet for you all. This is Melanie Village, Unit 3C, Block C, Lot 12, Freedom Senior Apartments, and Amended. as daniel had noted this is they have one structure on the property and this being the street frontage up here they have their access into the property they have one structure with like an office area down in this area uh... as opposed to the other buildings on the other development plan when it's previously approved they hadn't several structures of this one they're trying to combine it into one structure on this property but they revised their plan they came back made several changes clean up conditions so we just have our typical sign off just have a couple other cleanup conditions which are just information from our final record plan which is addition of building line across the frontage of the whole piece of property because this is one piece of property so we need to show that whole property property building line existing and proposed easements on the previous on the record plat and there's an easement because across here for a sidewalk and as you can see on note number eleven can design a sidewalk in to park different from recorded easement they had a straight sidewalk on the previous record plat so i'm the discussion question is where did they come up with the design on the sidewalk and this b and senior living uh... this is a lot of walking curves and stuff to get to the park and so that was just kind of a question uh... that it's kind of outside the limits of the easement with that and they just have their typical parking uh... sidewalks leading from uh... office area up through here down into the park access or being able to connect up onto the street and down the street. With that I'll open it to you all to see if you all have any other comments or questions. Any questions for staff? Yes, Ms. Migler. Well first I'm glad you brought up the very as indirect as possible route to the park on the sidewalk, and I'm sure we'll ask the applicant that. One question, the way that this building is oriented, you know, down this long lot, and just looking at the parking lot where they have those handicapped parking, where they have that little bit of extra sort of sidewalk and landing and ramp area, It really seems like they're gearing for the main activity area to be the furthest from the street. And I was wondering if you all discussed that they had sort of put that office and main activity and entrance area in the back instead of bringing it to the front. I believe it's a flatter area down here at the end. They also have a dog park right here in this location. So you see where they have a sidewalk that leads to a dog park. And then they have like a greenhouse. This circular building here is a greenhouse. So I imagine it's the flatter part of the property because this property does slope from the street down to the back because as Daniel had shown the previous elevation of the church, the existing church, you saw where it came in at one floor and then all of a sudden you saw there was a second floor or the basement level. So you know this property slopes from the street down to the back of this property. So this was probably the flattest location on the property, and that's why they might have had the handicap and the dog area and the greenhouse all located at the rear portion of the property. It might be something they might be able to help you in answer. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. All right. I wasn't sure if you needed me or not. I was staying silent until I was called forth. My name is Shannon. I am the representative for the owner applicant. I helped them get this LIHTC deal awarded by Kentucky Housing Corporation, which was There's just over $10 million of tax credits to do a fairly innovative project here, which is going to be, as the staff already alluded to, a 52-unit senior affordable housing development. We're doing some fun things with it. We have that greenhouse, which was already alluded to, which is also counted in to our square foot, by the way. And that's all to encourage health and long living, with the idea being that even residents of the neighborhood could transition to this if they got to the point that living in their home became unfeasible for them for various reasons. We have talked to several members of the neighborhood, we just weren't able to get anybody to come over and meet with us as far as do a formal meeting, but the owner of the entire parcel does do a senior care facility out of the existing gymnasium, is more than happy to host ongoing meetings and outreach, and the idea, I'm not, it's, I think our revised plans may have straightened out that sidewalk to that point on that because the idea was always to provide a walkthrough. It's already a natural path if you actually go out to the site right now. Local folks do use that as a dirt path going down. So we're just making it more accessible, lighted. We're going to put some stairs. We're working with the parks department to get that to happen. But all together, we're quite excited. Oh, the other big thing, first modular development for affordable housing. So this will actually be built offsite, assembled onsite. It will look just like a Class A apartment building, but it should reduce our waste footprint quite a bit. We're also, the reason behind the combined floor plan or footprint outside of building costs was also just permeable cover that was substantially higher even though we were providing, they were providing fewer units on the 2017 plan. So we were looking at permeable cover as well in our calculations and runoff as well because of somewhat that slope of that lot. We're also doing solar on top, were trying to do a lot of things that are going to offset impacts of that to the side or to the neighborhood and be something that is an overall value at the entire area we have any questions for that here would you mind just speaking to the uh... orientation of the entrance at that at the back instead of the sort of neighborhood side? I wish I had my architect with me. I know between him and the civil engineer looking at both, we looked at both the offsets, the layout, the grading, and where things fit most comfortably on the lot. I mean, it was just a practicality purpose as much as anything. There's also going to be two solar-powered charging spots, those kind of grade-in area that's going to be coalescing with that. And these being sort of modular developments, are you aware of any conversations about the aesthetic for that sort of side that faces the neighborhood there where it ends in the cul-de-sac or sort of treatment of that side as giving it the feeling of the front of the building, even though the building's oriented as that's more rear? Unfortunately, I don't have the visuals of the building itself. But if you were to look at this, it looks like any Class A, B apartment. So it's going to have, what are they called? They look like a balcony, but they're not around the windows, those metal things. It's going to have a stone base at the bottom. It's going to have hardy board above that and a TPO flat roof with with the solar panels on top So when you look at this from any angle, it looks like a very modern nice You know hardy backer stone Does that make sense sort of okay looking me askance. I was quite worried But but yeah, so no it'll it will look very nice because khc has very strict requirements that we have to build to as as part and parcel of getting those tax credits that are over and above anything applied by the city itself. Well, I think you could find ways to make a better aesthetic than what you described, but I do thank you for the description. I wish I could show you pictures. So just because the stone base, the wraparound, it looks like the metal, you know, step onto balconies. We're not doing balconies because of mostly safety risk of having a balcony out there. But, and then the multi, you know, if you were looking at it facing it here, they're not all the same height. You've got some dimensional change. You've got changes in the siding. It's not all going to be one color. It's a few different colors. it's again if i had pictures it would illustrate more than a thousand words good okay all right thank you okay all right thank you i'll see we have any further questions so thank you for your your time do we have anyone else that would like to speak don't think so So we'll bring it back to the commission for any further questions or a motion. Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we approve PLN MJDP 24 Melody Village. I do the zoning first. It's PLN MER 24-8. As the chair said. All right, so we have a motion, do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Pohl. If there's not any further discussion, please vote via Granticus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Mr. Davis? Jonathan Davis. I was just going to make a quick comment. If you all feel like condition number 11, we can say resolve now instead of discuss. Okay. If she was able to answer some of your questions that you were. That's right. That's right here. No. What you're doing is improving this. with 10 and moving this one from discussed to resolved. Okay. And also we're moving number 10 from discussed to resolved. Number 11. Excuse me, number 11, excuse me. Number 11 from discussed to resolved. So you're going to make a motion for PLN MJDP 24-33 with change in number 11 discussed to resolve. As the chair said. Second. Okay, we got a motion and a second. Please vote via Granicus. Seconded by Mr. Poll. Okay. All right, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay, we got New Republic. All right, so, what's going on? Page five? Yes, that's what I thought. Okay, just put us on page five, PLNMAR 24-9, New Republic, architecture. All right. Daniel Crum, planning staff once again. And as with the last application, you should have a new supplemental staff report in front of you with a revised staff recommendation as well. Mr. Chair, as this is a recommendation of approval from planning staff. Oh, sorry. I don't think we have that. We don't have that. It may be on the, is it on the computer? If it's on the computer, it's fine. Oh, revised. Yeah, revised. I thought he... Oh, yes. Yes. It should be in Granicus. This is... No, that's right. Yeah, what was sent out? Sorry. But with that, staff is recommending approval with this request. So is there anyone in the audience that would like to have this item heard in full or comment? So it looks like this is eligible as an abbreviated hearing, Mr. Chair. So this is a request to rezone the three properties at 226, 228, and 232 West Maxwell Street from their existing neighborhood business to a medium density residential R4 zone. The applicant is seeking this rezoning in order to establish three single family residential uses. The initial staff report that was sent before you all was a recommendation of disapproval. approval. Really the things that we were addressing at that initial time were really concerns with the density being proposed initially, as well as the orientation of the site. So as we kind of have these discussions, staff will allude to kind of what has changed since then and the updates and the justification. And that plays into the applicant's choice, initial choice of place type and development type. This is along the West Maxwell corridor, which staff has historically kind of designated as being near a downtown area. But the applicant has made a second tier justification basing to situate it within the South Hill, historic South Hill neighborhood. With that, they were proposing a low density residential development type. Staff did have an issue with this, with sort of neither the second tier urban nor the downtown really recommending low density residential. So some of the changes to the proposed density of the site was how staff was able to arrive from a disapproval to an approval recommendation of this request. But staff will dig into that a little bit more here momentarily. To identify the parcels shown in white on the center of your screen, they are located on West Maxwell. Basically, this is the intersection between South Mill, West Maxwell, and Lawrence Street. A little bit more visible as you kind of zoom in and look at the surrounding area. This is a stretch of commercial zoning that extends along West Maxwell here. There haven't been any zoning changes since this initial zoning was applied. But in the immediate vicinity, you do have a kind of true mixing of uses. So along the corridor, we have commercial elements, but residential zoning as you back away and get into these existing neighborhoods within the South Hill. The South Hill neighborhood itself is kind of defined by its mixture of uses. You have these existing single-family residences, residences that have been modified into multifamily, new townhouse development, commercial along the corridor. or a true mixture of uses, all within an existing H-1 overlay. So keep in mind as you look at the development of the site that it also requires the Board of Architectural Review to weigh in as to the appropriateness of this design. They've had some preliminary conversations with the BOAR as well as the neighborhood itself. The Historic South Hill Neighborhood has submitted a recommendation or a letter of support for this particular request. But here you can see the borders of the outline. So this hatched coloration that you see shows that H1 overlay that extends all the way down to just past Cedar Street. But really this particular location here is what we are examining. Currently it is a surface parking lot. It has been for a number of years. The applicant, as part of the revised justification, has provided a significant amount of historical information, not only to sort of the context of the area, but the orientation of the lots themselves. So here it is shown as three lots that face and front and oriented generally to Maxwell Street. The applicant has provided some historic information that shows the original development on this site that they believe was accessory to the Dudley Square School was originally oriented actually towards South Mill. Here to the south, we have existing residential uses that have been a mixture of single-family homes, homes that have been converted into multifamily, but also oriented towards South Mill Street. And so really the applicant's justification really spent a lot of time giving us additional information as to how this is historically situated, how the site has sort of operated prior to the installation of that parking lot, which occurred at some point after the early 1900s. We have some records in the 1980s of mentions of demolition of structures on the far two right parcels, but really historically, most recently, it has been used as an underutilized parking lot that served the adjoining area. Here is a view of the subject property as it exists today. So we've got the existing masonry wall that rings this parking lot. There are a couple existing trees within the proposed development that are proposed to be removed. There is a larger significant tree that as far back as the 1980s was being called to be preserved. This is located at the corner and it will show up in some of the other photos. But Maxwell and Lawrence Street, there is a large significant tree that is being proposed to be retained in this request. But the newer trees that were installed probably around the same time as the parking lot itself would be removed with this request. But giving yourself an idea of the development of the general area, This is a view from the intersection of Maxwell and South Mill. So you've got residential uses further down, existing commercial use, all of which kind of speak to the downtown fabric. Mixing of uses, mixing of housing types, built kind of closer to the street in a little bit more of an urban context. This is the view down Maxwell. So this is one of our main downtown corridors. A mixing of commercial uses, multi-story buildings that are fronting on Maxwell Street. Here we have the subject property to the right, that existing masonry wall, as well as the significant tree located at the corner that is proposed to be retained. Here we have the view down Lawrence Street. Lawrence is the smallest of all three of those streets, and so this is really going to serve as the rear of the development and the access points for the vehicles proposed with this site. Here we have the preliminary subdivision plan. So as this is single-family residential development, the applicant is able to file this as a subdivision plan. Unlike a development plan, it lacks really a lot of the specific detail that we are normally used to seeing with developments that require zone changes. And so part of staff's initial recommendation of disapproval was the lack of information that they could point to specifically with a plan to say, we are meeting these various development criteria, we are respecting these roadways, we are meeting kind of this historic context. Really, all they need to show is the parcel lines, but they have provided sort of the rough footprints of the building itself. To sort of accentuate this, the applicant has provided some further, more graphics in order to kind of make this justification. So included in the information that was provided after staff's recommendation of disapproval was some information of the Sanborn maps. These were insurance maps that go back to at least in these documents showing the 1886. But basically from 1880 or 1871 really, we have records of, it's a little difficult to see. Let's see if I can zoom in. Yes. So within that red box at the intersection of Mill Street and Maxwell Street, you see the subject properties. And so once again showing the historic orientation towards South Mill Street, which the applicant is kind of seeking to recreate here. Much of the conversation that was within that initial staff report was kind of fight the difference between staff's kind of initial recommendation of usually when we have something like a downtown corridor, development is usually most appropriate to face and address that corridor. The applicants here have kind of made a case for the context of the area, showing that it's being in that H1 overlay, that it would be most appropriate to kind of match that field, match the pattern of the neighborhood there. Based on the updated information that they were able to provide in their updated justification, staff is in agreement on that point, and it really changes kind of the conceptualization of the site. Here we have a supplementary site plan graphic that I think illustrates a couple changes that the applicant has proposed. So the first point that we really talked about earlier was the density of the site. Initially, this was three single-family residences with accessory garages, so that would amount to three units on basically about a third of an acre for a density of less than 10 units per acre. That is below really any existing development within the South Hill Historic Area, and so staff was looking, especially along a corridor, to obtain a higher amount of density on the site. In response, the applicant has pledged to develop these units located to the rear, or the garages to the rear, as 625 square foot ADUs. They've also made some changes as to the sort of articulation with those buildings and created a little bit more interaction with the street. These now will have essentially an entranceway that is on Maxwell Street, along with street plantings and some other architectural considerations to try to activate that roadway even though they are orienting towards South Mill Street. So they are trying to kind of bridge the gap between providing that historic context while also meeting some of the things that we're talking about to make sure that we're not neglecting one of our most important downtown roadways. And so they are showing these as ADUs. They're making the commitment to that along with increased landscaping and other articulation. Here is some of the supplementary graphics. Once again, this was information that was provided at the time of the initial graphics provided at the time of the committee hearings. And so staff has evaluated those being put under the record and being proposed. But once again, the three single family detached homes fronting on South Mill. This is the view from Maxwell Street. So much of the existing structures, architecture is being retained as the same as their initial proposal. but they have made changes to the ADU. The structure now features much more articulation, the windows being wrapped around that roof treatment being consisted, and the relocation of that door, along with including a gate and access onto Maxwell, really substantially improved kind of the quality of that experience walking down Maxwell. It feels like sort of a deliberate architectural choice instead of the side of an existing building. accompanying that is some landscaping areas and street trees, which are currently not present, along this portion of West Maxwell. So staff really found that the applicant had took some of the criticism from the initial request of, you're not doing enough on this major roadway to make this walkable, to make this feel kind of intentional, and really respecting the context for that corridor. Here's the proposed elevations from the rear. Once again, garages with a 625 square foot ADU proposed over top. By providing those ADUs, they double the density of the site. So essentially jumping from three dwelling units to six, which brings the dwelling units per acre to approximately just below 20, which is much kind of in greater harmony with the existing development within this area. And so really we're able to provide that additional density by committing to providing that feature. SAF overall is recommending approval for this request, finding that this revised request by providing those ADUs, they're providing kind of a mixing of housing types, accommodating additional development on what is an underutilized parcel, and really meeting goals to kind of encouraging these ADUs and encouraging kind of creative ways to provide density in a context-sensitive manner. We find in its agreement with the policies of the comprehensive plan, as well as the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. We found that when we were looking at this, that the orientation of the structures matches that historic character, but the considerations that they've offered from a design perspective have improved that pedestrian experience along Maxwell as well. So we're finding that they meet the criteria for land use, transportation and pedestrian connectivity, environmental sustainability and resiliency, site design, as well as building form. For once again, improving what is currently an underutilized lot in a manner that is harmonious with the existing development and can kind of provide a greater density than what was originally proposed. There is one additional aspect that staff would like to touch on, is that staff, in order to hold the applicant to developing these as ADUs, is proposing a minimum density for the site. So this is six dwelling units, or the 19 dwelling units per net acre. This is what the applicant is proposing. And so in a way that we do not have kind of direct control over a subdivision plan like we do a development plan, this condition would stay with the property and provide that density that the applicant is proposing, and then its staff feels is appropriate kind of moving forward without overburdening the applicant. This recommendation is made subject to approval to the corresponding subdivision plan. The applicant is also proposing a couple variances associated with this request. So after the staff's presentation on the subdivision plan, I will return to give our presentation, our revised recommendation for the variances on this site. But overall, we found the applicant gave us an overwhelming amount of information, a greater amount of commitment to that site, that we were comfortable changing our recommendation from disapproval to approval with the conditional zoning restriction. But I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have to staff at this time. Do we have any questions for Mr. Crum? Yes, Mr. Mickler. Yeah, Mr. Graham. You said that the original recommendation of dividing this parking lot into three houses, which is if you look back, I guess it had been one lot and then at one point it had been divided into three, was not in keeping with the normal size or density of the neighborhood. And that, you know, what are those, that's a tenth of an acre per lot. You know, what is the normal lot size in this neighborhood? There's a lot of single family houses. Is it a, if it's not a tenth of an acre, is it a twentieth of an acre? So when staff, staff was really referring to more of the densities, less than the specific parcel size. So that 20 dwelling units per acre was essentially sort of the midpoint of what we saw. Is it a twentieth of an acre? What is the normal lot size of a single family house in this historic neighborhood? We don't have the stats for the full entire neighborhood. And once again, but you said that it was not in keeping with the neighborhood. So what is the normal? Because you were very specific that this is not in keeping with the neighborhood, a neighborhood I'm very familiar with. And I looked at the lot sizes before this meeting. So what did you find was the lot size in this neighborhood? Mr. Mickler, staff is referring to the density of the development and to the sort of, we're not referring to the lot sizes themselves. We're referring to the orientation, we're referring to the amount of density that was present on the site. The specific size of what that lot would carve out to be wasn't ever in contention on staff's end. So there's not really lots smaller than what they were proposing. There are, but that's not the norm in the neighborhood. And what you're saying then is it's inappropriate to have a single family house on a normal size lot in a second tier urban neighborhood. That's the conclusion that I see with this proposed zoning restriction. And obviously, I'm upset by that because I really like living in this neighborhood and in this area, and I really like the diversity of apartments, of single-family homes, and I like the ability, and I really like seeing an applicant restoring a parking lot that was three lots back to three lots. And I don't see the reason to mandate apartments, which is what this seems like it's calling for. And I mean, I don't think, I'd like to hear more what your, why is a small lot with a single family house, a lot size that's similar to single family houses all over our second tier urban neighborhood now inappropriate? So the applicant's original development of one house for each of these designated lots was a density that is lower than everything else around it. That single-family residential structure to the south of it is 12 and a half versus less than 10. So staff was really trying to bridge the goals and objectives that we as a community approved when we talk about development along a corridor. So here, this is the balancing act from staff's perspective of this is undoubtedly located in a historic overlay. But balancing that with the goals, objectives, policies that we have that talk about what you do when you develop along something like West Maxwell Street. So that impacts the sort of density discussions that we have in a way that this maybe wouldn't occur if this was located further into the neighborhood where it wasn't on one of our primary entries kind of into the community. So this was a desire to kind of provide some greater density with redevelopment of this parcel that was sort of in keeping with what is existing there, not going all the way to what the comp plan would fully kind of call for outside of a historic context, but sort of providing that extra step up. Staff found that the ADUs in the site was a little bit of an elegant solution. Provide additional density in a way that we call for in the comp plan while also kind of respecting what the neighborhood wants. The letter from the South Hill neighborhood kind of talks to that concept of we are comfortable with that single-family residence along with the dwelling unit that when combined with the small lot size that you mentioned get us to a density that staff was comfortable with. So when we're talking about the parcels here, it's not the size, although the size does impact some of the discussions we'll have later with the variance, but it's really talking about the kind of the density that is needed in order to sustain our community moving forward and doing that in a way that we are comfortable with and that can kind of meet the goals of a historic neighborhood. And so that was a staff's initial kind of concern with the proposal because this, as originally construed without ADUs, is the lowest density of anything in the surrounding area. I mean, further up, we had densities of 40 to 50. Everything on the street was higher in 10 to 20. This was very, very, very low density relative to that. This brings it into keeping. And so that's what staff was evaluating when we looked at the applicant's request and felt that that was sort of a happy ground that respected that H1 character while also kind of moving us closer to those overall goals. I would like to hear a specific response to the place type of second tier urban. So, when we look around our second-tier urban neighborhoods, on our main corridors, we see a lot of lot sizes that are larger, up to maybe a quarter of an acre. And then on our side streets, we see lots that are smaller, occasionally dipping below a tenth of an acre, but a lot of them are a tenth of an acre or so. And a lot of these neighborhoods that we sort of think of iconic second tier urban neighborhoods around our downtown are filled with single family small lots. And I do define a tenth of an acre as a small lot. And I'm wondering, you're saying that that is not considered a recommended place type in the second tier urban. I just am trying to confirm that we are saying that these sort of classic tenth of a lot single family houses are now, you would not define those as appropriate in a second tier urban neighborhood. So there's a conversation on sort of what our existing development patterns are. When we're talking about our downtown and our existing second tier urban areas, this is existing development that obviously is going back hundreds of years. So when we're talking about what's appropriate, we're looking through that through the redevelopment lens. We can't continue to sort of only build single family in these type of areas. We have to kind of get creative with how we are looking at this. Really, staff would look at any potential application kind of on its individual merits, but when we're looking for redevelopment, where it makes sense in additional densities being called for in these downtown areas, in the areas that are second-tier urban around that downtown core that kind of call for additional density. So this isn't a prohibition against single-family residential. It's having this conversation when they are proposed of, does this make sense here? Does it make sense to only have single-family residential along this corridor? It's by no means a prohibition against that. It just guides the discussion. This is what, as a community, we thought is important. These are the areas that we think that density is most necessary when we're talking about provision of services, location of approximate to jobs, education and the like. So it's by no means a prohibition in the same way that there are zones and zoning ordinance that are not currently recommended for a particular place type or development type. It's not precluding any of these development decisions from happening. It's just sort of giving based on the goals, objectives, policies, criteria, themes, pillars of this comprehensive plan that we as an entire community have kind of put forth. So staff is not preventing single-family residential in any of these areas. We are just talking about how those things line up together. In this instance, this being included within a historic overlay kind of influences that. It has a, you know, within all development, there's sort of a conversation about context-sensitive development and kind of matching that. But that is sort of doubly important in an area like this that has got these historic protections. So within a second-tier urban, it is all kind of dependent on the larger context. It could be appropriate to have single-family residential there, but it's part of the conversation. What does it look like with the rest of development? What is it matching? How is that being driven? Are they doing things like accessory dwelling units? So staff would be hesitant to make any type of broad categorical sort of assumptions when that's what we have. But in this instance, we found with it being on a major corridor, that single-family residential alone was not sufficient. Thank you. I guess I just want to – this is my last comment here. But, you know, we just approved a 600-some-odd development on Maxwell. We have huge development plans coming just down the street on Maxwell. When I hear the comprehensive plan say not only single family, you can also interpret that as including single family. And when we see plan after plan in this area being proposed as apartments, and one plan since I've been on here for this area be proposed as single family houses, I think we should know when to not ask for more. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. Thank you, Mr. Crone. All right, I will be on after Mr. Martin to discuss the variances. Thank you. Mr. Martin. All right, good afternoon. So, as Daniel has already explained, what we have today associated with this zone change is a preliminary subdivision plan. And preliminary subdivision plans are acceptable for a zone change when we are doing single family housing. Very, very common. Historically, it's been done that way. So this is exactly that, a preliminary subdivision plan. You will not see any further information on this development. Once this, if this zone change is approved, it goes forward, it's plan certified, they can pull permits and build these homes in conformance with the exhibits that you've seen and according to the codes and the applicable standards that exist. They are in the infill and redevelopment area. There's a few minor architectural details that they have to meet when they build in that area along with the more stringent, of course, historic preservation requirements. They are proposing, as Daniel already demonstrated to you, to re-lot these into three long linear lots as opposed to the previous lots that ran from Maxwell. Generally with a preliminary salvage plan, you're also looking at infrastructure requirements. Well again here, they're not really required to do any, the infrastructure exists. They're not being asked to do any improvements in that regard. The stormwater system exists primarily in the back, and they'll have to take their stormwater to the back of the, well I say back to Lawrence Street, which is the back in this orientation. They have sanitary sewer locations both to the rear and to the front. There was some discussion at tech committee about the possibility of having to extend the sewer to make sure that they can get their laterals there because there are state plumbing code requirements on the length of the laterals from these homes. So there's a possibility they might have to extend the public sewer a short distance to serve these properties. The preliminary subdivision plan has a minimal number of our sign-offs on it from the various agencies. They need to clean it up just a little bit. There's a couple of notes that are not relevant to a preliminary subvision plan. Daniel's going to talk about the variances, which will have to be granted. They have, and he'll get into this in detail, they've dropped a couple of their variances at this point in time. They're not necessary at this point in the process for them. The variances that do remain are setbacks, so they can get oriented to the street in the way that they wish. And again, Daniel will elaborate on that for you. I mentioned that they will have to comply with the infill and redevelopment requirements and with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have on this preliminary subvision plan. You all have heard me say this, they're not as much fun as the final development plan. I get to talk about a lot of things. This is really just about the layout of the land in this regard. I'm not seeing any hands raised. Oh, no. Mr. Wilson? I just assume, Mr. Martin, that number 13, rather than discuss, can put resolve there, too. The place builder criteria? Yes. You heard that discussion with Daniel with your zoning presentation. So can we strike you? You can delete it. Do we have to leave it on? You can delete it. Leave it? Mm-hmm. Delete it. All right. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Crum? I can't have you down two days from retirement. Two months. All right, so there are several variances associated with this request. Once again, just a reminder that when you all are reviewing a zone change, you have the ability to act on the requested variances in the same manner as the Board of Adjustment. But as far as the findings, you're going to be examining whether these variances affect the public health, safety, or welfare, or negatively impact the character of the general vicinity. You'll consider if there's any special circumstances that apply to these properties, and would the application of these variances deprive the applicant reasonable use of their land. So they're requesting three variances. Initially, they requested a height and driveway width variance. They have decided to withdraw those requests at this time. They have the freedom to pursue those later, but really are just looking at the setback variances that are sort of dictated by the lots orienting their historical kind of perspective, as well as the fact that there's three roadways there. So they are requesting a front yard setback down to 14 feet, a side street, which is Maxwell, down to 6 feet, and a side yard variance from 3 to 0 feet. Once again, here's the graphic that generally shows the applicant's proposal. So the first variance is seeking to reduce this front distance from 20 to 14 feet. The applicant notes that the other homes in the general vicinity follow that similar pattern. Once again, the requested variance on Maxwell Street is from 20 feet to 6 feet. Because it's a corner lot, they are required to meet that full normal setback. The applicant argues that, once again, historic context, other developments in the vicinity all have reduced setbacks. And staff found that with this being kind of close to that downtown context, we really want to encourage buildings and development that is closer to the street, giving you a little bit more of that consistent feel and a better pedestrian experience. Finally, the distance between the structures themselves, the minimum side yard is three feet. They are showing these being built at a zero lot line, essentially, but providing essentially five feet in between the structures there to allow for that light and air circulation. So while this is a reduction from three to zero, they're still providing that gap between the structures, and so it is a little bit less of a variance kind of in practice. But giving you a look at kind of what the general vicinity, the commercial building on the other side of South Mill located at the corner there built at a zero lot line. We have the commercial buildings further down Maxwell, the single story existing buildings built at a very similar request to that six or seven feet. Further up North Mill Street, you see the distances between these buildings are fairly limited. So essentially that historic pattern development occurring well before our zoning ordinance kind of varies within this vicinity. And so the applicant's request we found overall as we're looking at these structures, we found that it was reasonable. This reorientation of the lots to their historic character kind of speaks to the history of the area. They're in keeping with the setbacks. They're wanting to match but not imitate the historic character of the area. This is the adjoining property to the south, and so this brick wall here is the location of the structure, so we wanted to give you an idea of what that last variance building closer to that side setback would look like, but there is still sufficient area kind of between those structures, and this is an area that includes townhomes, single-family attached products as well. So overall, staff is recommending approval of the three setback variances, finding they're not negatively going to impact the public health, safety, or welfare. They're trying to remain consistent with the existing setbacks that are there and reinforce that streetscape. Once again, they're constrained on three sides by public roadways. They've got South Mill, Maxwell, and Lawrence Street, all of which impose their own specific setbacks. Meeting all three of those with a full 20-foot would significantly limit their ability to develop the site. And so overall, we found that the variances were appropriate and that we are recommending approval at this time. recommendations of approval are the standard items requiring that resounding to the our four zone going through all necessary permits and approval uh... and noting it on the preliminary subdivision plan and all subsequent plots for the properties so uh... staff found that there was good basis uh... for their requests to modify the setbacks i'd be happy to entertain any questions you have to step at this time any questions from the scrum Thank you, sir. Advocate. Good afternoon. I'm Matt Matone. I was here with the two subcommittee meetings about three weeks ago. We received some thorough review of the proposal, and over the last couple of weeks at commission's request and desire, we reached out and worked back with staff. And while at first we thought this was a daunting task, I think we have to say our office is in Cincinnati. I grew up in Lexington, went to University of Kentucky Architectural School and Historic Preservation. This is my first time working with staff on a professional level, and I must say they are thorough, but they are fair, and they've been really a pleasure to work with. That said, we took it under advice, the recommendations, the comments from the subcommittee meetings. Mr. Pohl, we did look at trying to do the Brooklyn kind of townhome approach about increasing the density. We understood that was the largest concern from staff as regarding how this infill development would apply to a downtown corridor. I think we felt and the applicants felt that single family was an appropriate scaled infill development. We understood that it was going to be challenging. So we worked with both the applicants and staff to figure out how we could achieve that density. They've always envisioned the opportunity or the possibility of having ADUs as a part of the development. And so that is, I guess, in the end what we've decided was appropriate. We also took an advice or under advice the additional means to how we could activate the pedestrian corridor and nature of that. I guess growing up in Lexington and not really thinking about Maxwell as being a primary corridor or downtown corridor, I always think of Mill Street as a quiet bridge. And so we approached the project initially and kind of have maintained that because this is an historic overlay, so much of the fabric within this historic overlay has been eroded, kind of like a death of a thousand cuts by turning them into multifamily, into detached or separated. that we felt it was important for this project to anchor that corner and kind of hold that Mill Street line as a residential neighborhood and tried to architecturally address the kind of scale of moving from larger development on Broadway and kind of moving down Maxwell to the east and kind of scaling it down to those commercial buildings, which were originally residential homes. So we've tried to address staff's concerns and the comprehensive plans, objectives, and we feel very fortunate to have worked with them. And then our clients, I think, are very receptive to proactively restoring context that's been missing for several, for 100 years at least. And I think that's where we are. And we, again, appreciate working with staff. And I'm happy to take any other questions from you or if you guys would like. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay. Sir, do you have anything you want to add to this particular application? Hi, David Kessheimer. I'm with the South Hills Neighborhood Association. And these men were kind enough to come and visit with us and present their plans and discuss it with us. And using your urban service report terminology, we felt it was context sensitive to the neighborhood. the density issue, the having in a single dwelling or with the use of, you know, adding in on the back of the lot, I think would be better left to the owner of the lot versus mandated myself. But however, the density issue in the whole area is going to have your all plates full with Maxwell Street and we already have the hub and South Broadway and now with the potential development of Upper Street and the intended you know building of another high very high density facility on it you'll have a lot of work to do but the neighborhood association felt that this was a reasonable plan for the neighborhood and kept kept it more of a neighborhood versus the high density and you know transient people thank you thank you sir all right we bring this back to the commission um any further questions or comments mr michler i would make a motion If floor is open for a motion too, but Mr. Owens may have a comment. I don't know. Thank you. Before your motion, just a couple of comments. One, I appreciated the back and forth between Mr. Crum and Mr. Mickler earlier. I don't know who won, but I personally lean in towards Mr. Mickler on that because, yes, we always are looking for density. we need distantly but I do believe our comp plan does say a mix of all housing which I think includes single family housing and I expressed that I think in the subdivision committee that I thought this was a good good set for this area I appreciate the applicant's willingness in looking at what they're doing with the possibility of including density with the accessory dwelling units I do not believe that we mandate accessory dwelling units anywhere in the city of Lexington we offer it we allow it but I don't think we mandate it you know I'm in favor of everything I see here I think everybody's worked hard I'm not in favor of the conditional zoning restrictions It's in their head now. I think that probably and may do accessory dwelling units, but I don't think we should mandate that. Those are my thoughts. Mr. Mickler. I would move to approve PLN-MAR-24-9 as proposed by staff with removing the conditional use requiring a specific density for the three lots. I believe the applicant's proposal with or without the accessory dwelling units meets the second tier urban criteria in the comprehensive plan. Okay, we have a motion. Was that without the conditional zoning restrictions? Yes, without the conditional zoning restrictions. I'll second that motion. Okay. Okay, I don't have to. No, you do not. You got a second by Ms. Barksdale. Do we have any further discussions to this motion? Hearing none, Mr. Poe? Yeah, I don't agree with eliminating the conditional use. I totally agree with staff on this one. And I also feel that the applicants move to make a relationship to Maxwell Street with the accessory dwelling unit, including a gate and entrance to that unit is really important to the experience on maxwell street so for me there are architectural reasons for supporting the additional density requirement nickel my comment would be I agree with the staff's recommendation and I also appreciate the effort that the applicant has made, but in my opinion, and tell me if this is correct, if we reduce the need for the conditional requirement for ADUs on the site, that provides more flexibility for the property owner and increases their property rights or their ability to do what they'd like to do. I think that that would end up being a benefit to the applicant. I'm kind of looking over here at the applicant to see what they say, and it looks like I'm getting it. Okay. I'm going to withdraw my second for now because having heard what Mr. Pohl said, i do um support the you know having the ability to do the additional adus so i guess i'm kind of i kind of probably hit it too soon before he withdrew the condition so mr nickel may have a response i think to that i i need to better have an understanding of the motion here so if the motion that is being proposed he's right here eliminates the requirement to have an adu does it make the adu not possible to occur in the future my motion is to give them more flexibility and as far as i see it we're actually zoning for multi-family so that doesn't even preclude multi-family on a lot okay so you're bringing it back okay yeah so ms barstead i just want to be sure i was seconding what i thought i would say okay mr nickel wants it okay so we got a motion in a second i let them deal with that um any further discussion question If we go with the motion as presented and we're leaving it then to the property owners, if they want to put in an ADU or some sort of supplementary building, are we giving them a lot more latitude in terms of the architectural features of what they propose or will there be additional reviews regarding the architectural character since it's in a historic neighborhood? Fred? Yeah, so any construction within this area is going to have to go before the historic preservation board. The catch is with sort of removing the condition essentially would say it is okay if they just built a single family residence there and never developed an ADU. So to Mr. Mickler's point, that affords the applicant additional flexibility. Staff saw that condition as a way to kind of lock in some lower, some kind of easy density that could be attained at the site that the applicant kind of stated they wished to develop. But they would have a large amount of freedom moving forward to develop the site or redevelop the site as long as whatever proposal met the historic guidelines kind of down the road. so in a way we don't have as much flexibility past this point or as much sort of input on the design past this point. But the density was desired to kind of accommodate our understanding of what the applicant was offering as far as density. Okay. Any more questions? Mr. Wilson. Yeah, one question for technical purposes. If the motion goes through, in effect, we would have said that we would have agreed with the staff's recommendation, but then there's another removal of the conditions. Do we need findings for that? I think Mr. Rickler gave some findings when he made his motion. But do we need them formalized in that motion? I think they are. I think when I made the motion, my intent was by removing that condition, I stated that the lot size and proposal was in keeping with the place type of second tier urban. Okay. Your vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. So we got the major subdivision. Ms. Michler. And we got the subdivision first. I got thrown off since that staff report was on Granicus. Which page am I on? page 13. we delete number 13. okay i move to approve pln mj sub 24-6 removing with the staff's recommended conditions removing item 13. do we have a second Second. Second by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus. Mr. Mikler. I move to approve all the variances as proposed by staff. Thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Second by Mr. Wilson. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Avery. Have a good trip back. Commission items? Nominating committee report? Yes. I'll go first. Nominating committee, Mr. Nichol, Mr. Michler and I had a telephonic meeting on June the 19th. And although we think term limits are often a good thing, and there are a lot of good leaders on this commission, lots of people who could step up, We felt that given the environment we're moving into this year, it would be good to do steady as we go. And so we are recommending that we continue with the same leadership team. Larry Forster's chair, Zach Davis's vice chair, Jen Meyer's secretary, and me as the parliamentarian. We recognize that a couple of these folks are coming to the end of their terms, But the bylaws call for a supermajority vote to continue for an additional year. And so what we're doing is nominating the same team and hope we get a supermajority vote. Thank you. Guys, you want to add anything? I'll just add that we did take into consideration with the approval of the EMP. we've got significant work to do and we've got some award-winning leadership here so we wanted to that's you larry i saw your trophy so we did so we thought it was important to keep all of our acting leaders in place as we go through what looks to be a very busy year ahead of us and they've provided great leadership and i'm thankful for what they do for us I agree with what they just said. Okay. All right. So we just, that election comes up on the 11th of July. So we should be good to go there. Would it be appropriate to ask about attendance for that meeting at this point? Or do we vote now? Certainly you can poll right now if you want to know who's not going to be here. okay it we we will have to know that we don't need to know your answers but we need to know we have enough people who will be here that we could get a super majority vote if we needed one you could you could ask for a show of hands right now we can do it we can vote now that's what i'm told you can vote no vote oh no which one on the slate now just see who will be just who's gonna be here all right that's fine okay all right miss wade moving to staff items if you're ready yes ma'am okay um just as a refresher and for those who might not have been here two weeks ago the staff forwarded forwarded a development plan back to the Planning Commission for further consideration, and it's for property located at 4085 Harrodsburg Road, and this is the Shriners Hospital Masonic Temple Association property. And so you have my presentation as well as some other documents in Granicus this afternoon, and those include a development plan that was submitted before our last meeting, a tree preservation plan also submitted before our last meeting, and then two landscaping plans. An applicant can tell you more information about what's different about those two plans. I think graphically they're the same. I just think that the data on the sheet is slightly different, more tables versus less. And then also a letter from Mr. Gaffield, who's the Fayette County Neighborhood Council President about trees. So again, we're at 4085 Harrodsburg Road, and this is a request for the commission to consider amending the tree preservation plan associated with this property because four significant red oak trees have been removed. And just as a refresher, it's on the southwest side of Harrodsburg Road outside of Manowar Boulevard. And the trees in question are at the rear of the property or were at the rear of the property and all sort of in a line. And they showed up on the development plan as an area to be protected between three townhomes and then I believe four on this side. So again, whoops, I'm going the wrong direction. Where are we today? So at the end of the meeting on June 13th, the commission asked for more information about a landscape plan to be implemented for replacement of the trees. Mr. Helani indicated during the meeting that there were 116 trees proposed to be planted, And I believe, for clarification, that was 116 trees above the required canopy. So just to clarify for everyone, our R3 zone requires a 30% canopy requirement. Our B3 zone requires a 20% canopy requirement, so residential a little bit higher than our commercial areas. And so based on the acreages associated with this particular plan, you can see the math of the canopy required. So for the entire site, they're required a canopy of over 121,000 square feet, which is approximately 162 large trees. And that's based on a calculation from the zoning ordinance, which grants developers a credit of 750 square feet per large tree. So in just a refresher, they removed 8,300 square feet, which is the equivalent of about 14 newly planted large trees. So today, what came to light in the last two weeks is that the landscape plan associated with the site includes trees that address canopy coverage, but also trees that address requirements associated with article 18 which are zone to zone buffering for instance between the residential zones behind and the commercial zone here as i'll in addition the screening that's required between the two zones on the property and then screening or landscaping that goes within the parking lots so those are part of Article 18 requirements. When looking at the entire site for both Article 26 and Article 28, the applicant found that they were proposing now 40 large trees to replace or to mitigate the removed canopy. So 40 large trees in addition to what is already required on site. And those trees that are in addition to what is required are shown in red. Again, large trees in green and then the mitigation trees in red. The Division of Environmental Services had requested 83 large trees to be planted on site in order to mitigate the lost canopy. And that's again That's, again, the 8,300 square feet. So counting any new tree planted as 100 square feet because it would be small when it's planted, and that would mitigate the immediate loss. So they calculated 100 square feet per tree to, again, immediately mitigate the lost trees. So what we have today is still not quite a meeting of the minds in terms of what mitigation is proposed and what mitigation is being requested and then how that looks on the site. So today we ask that the Planning Commission evaluate the landscape plan and the request for mitigation and then also the proposed mitigation and determine what is appropriate at this site. And again, the staff recommended re-approval with these two conditions at the bottom to update the proposed amendment, to address changes to the tree protection plan, correct any site statistics, reference the mitigation plan in the notes, and then that assumes that the Planning Commission accepts a mitigation plan for the site. And we just ask that you determine what that is. And of course, Mr. Halani is here to represent vision engineering and the site developer team and then Eric Sutherland, our urban forester, is also here to address any questions related to the mitigation request. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Chair, does Urban Forest want to say anything before Mr. Jihad does? Yes. Good afternoon, everyone. I'll just give you a really quick summation of what's happened on our end in the last two weeks. here. And let's see. It starts with, we had a proposal submitted to us last week on the 20th. I provided some immediate comments, just glancing at the numerous amounts of data on the landscape plan that there were mathematical errors. We weren't seeing 116 trees that we had originally agreed would be a good mitigation. I asked for the trees to be drawn to scale on the plan so that we could actually see how those are going to fit into the overall landscape. Also, I made the comment that if we couldn't fit them in that he was going to have to look at the design of the overall project to see where these trees could actually be fit into that site as that is DES's preference that those trees remain on site. The next day we got another plan with some added tables and I responded. Actually that came in late on a Friday night so I responded on Monday. Still errors. My opinion and perspective was that there was a lot of redundant information displayed in these numerous tables and that it was very confusing. Some of it wasn't matching what was presented elsewhere. And I asked for a simplification of this proposal so that we could all understand it. And also to change the color of the mitigation trees on the plan so you all can actually see that. You can see that request was provided for us. I think it was late, way past I leave my job on that same evening that we received the L1.0 and L1.1 that you all have before you today. Tuesday was when I could reply. I replied just with a few notes talking about some errors that I saw. My request was that we didn't need the table showing what the stats would be if the significant trees were still there because that's irrelevant now, right? The trees are gone. We don't need to see that information. It just confuses us. I also clarified the square foot question, which still seems to be a sticking point. Vision seems to be proposing their mitigation trees at a 750 square foot ratio, which is what we would require in Article 26. Because this is a mitigation, we're only giving them 100 square feet credit for a large tree. So I also reiterated that. And then also that at a minimum, we had asked in our initial mitigation meeting that we would wanted 83 trees because that would equal 8,300 square feet if we do that math. To replace the canopy coverage that was lost when the significant trees were removed. That didn't go very far, get us anywhere. So the next day, which was yesterday, I tried reviewing the numerous tables again. Again, I think you will find that they are very confusing and that a lot of the numbers don't match. I went over it with my director and our landscape examiner just to make sure that I wasn't the only one who was having trouble discerning what was being presented. We all agreed that it was confusing and a little messy. Typically, Article 18 information is provided in its own table on a development plan, so it's very clear for the landscape examiner when he gets that document, he can look at it and see the proposed information. And then the chapter, or the Article 26 notes are usually placed in the tree preservation plan notes, which is a nice, succinct little area, and or in the overall site statistics, And that would include the existing canopy on site, the required canopy, and the proposed canopy coverage. Period. Very simple, succinct information. This is what we have expected in a proposed mitigation plan. As you can see, if you look at it, there is 18 and 26 information put together. It's very confusing. So we've tried to wade through that a little bit. I'll just point out a couple of just total tree numbers that don't make any sense. The total proposed number of trees was given as 280 on the very initial Excel sheet calculations that I received in my office as a proposal. That was on June 5th. And then that was actually included in the amended development plan that you are here to review. That same total proposed tree number is listed as 368 in table 1 and the proposed trees table here on this document, which is L1.1. The proposed tree number total is 285 in table 2 on this same document, and it's 298 in the tree canopy note listing. So that is just a little bit of why we have not signed off on this mitigation proposal. It's been very confusing. I don't think it's very clear. In the end of the day, they are showing 40 additional trees to mitigate what was lost. We still don't think that's sufficient. And as of today, I have not agreed to the proposed mitigation plan. And we'll take your questions if you have any. Do we have any questions? Ms. Meyer. I wonder how many trees you can plant on this site and I wonder how many trees you can plant on this site and have them be viable trees, the way that it's looking now. So we've got 40 trees to mitigate the loss. you're asking you're saying we need 43 more that is what we would like to see and I would like to see that too but my question is the goal is to have these trees thrive and provide what trees provide so you mentioned that maybe there needs to be an amendment change to the overall development plan. Is that your thought? I think it is the opinion of the Environmental Services Division that we would prefer the trees to be on site in a space that would be conducive to their long-term survival. And if that means removing existing proposed buildings and parking lots to accommodate that, that's what we would like to see. And my other question is, oftentimes we plant trees around town and there's no, you know, is there an avenue to follow up? Is there some provision somewhere to follow these trees or care for these trees until they reach a certain point so that they can provide what they're supposed to provide. I mean, is there some avenue that we can go down to see this happen? We're all for that. We're all for that idea. As you can imagine, that takes lots of resources. and you know currently 26 holds developers responsible for the trees for a year. I will tell you that in my experience there's no there's no one checking on those trees until the HOA says we've got 15 dead trees along the street. So I think that's a great idea. I'm not sure how to get there without massive resources being put into urban forestry. Or conversely, looking at how do we make the developing community be more responsible for that investment in infrastructure. Because let's be real, it's utility infrastructure that they're putting in. And those trees are providing utility services to the community. So if we have standards for walls and gutters, et cetera, then I don't know why we don't have that for the green infrastructure that is serving our community and providing beneficial utilities. So I think that would be a good conversation to start having yesterday and to maybe try to make the developing community have more standards in place to actually care for that green infrastructure and make sure that it doesn't just wither away and become the homeowner's responsibility in a few years. I wanted to say something to your comment about, so those 40 proposed trees, typically those perimeter areas are set at 40 feet spacing. They have proposed that perimeter to be 25 feet. And the landscape examiner in our division and I agreed that that would be a fine compromise. Again, you're putting in a lot of trees in areas that are marginal. You know, some of those perimeters are probably going to be better places for the trees because there's already a buffer zone there and a little bit more green space, but when you're talking about moving those into the islands and that kind of thing, obviously there's a lot more heat island effect around those, less space for them to grow. It's a challenge. Thank you. Thank you. I'd just like to have one more comment. In our comprehensive plan, we talk about we want carbon neutrality, we want to have a, we're concerned about the climate, and I hope that we can keep that in mind as we move forward. Absolutely. Thank you, Mrs. Meyer. Commissioner Nichol? Yes. As a practice, as we're looking at this, I'm adamantly opposed to any decision that would lead to any changing of the site statistics of the buildings themselves. My question to you would be, is it possible to add 43 more trees to the site as you see it, in your opinion, without affecting the overall development other than the landscape plan? It doesn't appear there's much more room for trees. And what is the, how do you come to that conclusion? As I said in the previous meeting two weeks ago, most of the open space are in the residential zone. However, you put trees on a private property, those become trees lost to the private sphere, and there's no guarantee that those trees wouldn't be cut down. If you look at the plan and see what's proposed, I think there's five buildings with parking lots associated with them. There's not a lot of space. The area where the significant trees were removed, there is a little bit of a space there, and I think he's put some of those trees in that area. we are fine with grouping trees together into stands but again i mean that is ultimately the developers issue to figure out where these trees go on this site understood if from looking at this i think there is the ability to add the trees and a viable planting, but does any of our rules prohibit the additional trees that could be planted on the residential lots to not be counted as mitigation trees? So once again, I'll just be more clear. Is there any law or rule that says that the mitigation trees could not be planted on the residential property? Not that I'm aware of. Okay, so they can be planted. What's that? I think there's a handful of them that are in the R3 zone. Yeah, there's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16 already approved on residential. There should be no reason, if you all can't figure this out, that the additional 43 trees could be planted on residential. Once again, I'm trying to avoid a development plan coming back through with any changing of the site statistics of the buildings themselves. Because this is already, where we are in the process, unwinding this whole development plan is not feasible. So, what I would recommend that you all do is find a way to get them on the property, period. And if the trees have to be planted on the residential, they should be counted as the mitigation trees. That's my comment. Okay, I just had a comment from my director. You know, theoretically they could go in the detention basin. There's none in that currently. The only trees other than perimeter trees in the residential area are in that green, that common area where the significant trees are and then street trees. You know, if he can't get 43 trees in the detention basin, then I guess we would have to look at alternative means. but I think those questions need to go to Mr. Helani and not the Division of Environmental Services. You are exactly correct. You are correct. Yeah. And I understand how confusing this has been for you. I was just asking a question as it relates to the rules. So I can see that this has been challenging. Yeah. I'm just trying to avoid anything that has to deal with the buildings themselves. So I understand that you have not been provided the information that you need to make a decision. And I fully understand that. And I'm seeing what you're seeing. Right. So, you know, just quickly, you know, the trees in the street, those remain in public right-of-way, so we have jurisdiction over those trees. trees. You know, the only other option I would see in a residential area that doesn't include that detention basin would be adding perimeter trees because some of this existing canopy that you see in the lime green is overhang. It's overhanging canopy from the neighborhood nearby which they can get credit for. So there's not like there's a trunk of a tree there. You know, they might be able to put additional perimeter trees along that area. But again, And I think that those questions should be pointed towards Mr. Helani and vision engineering. And we would be agreeable to things that make sense for the long term health. I concur 100%. It's not your responsibility to design a developer's project. And it's not certainly something that we do not need to be doing on this body is designing someone's development. So I'm with you on that. But thank you for the clarification. You're welcome. All righty. any other commissioner like to ask mr sutherland a question mr owens let me just say i think i kind of said it last week or two weeks ago uh one i appreciate your being here and you're being quite frank and forthwith and part of our our reason we're sitting here is to help you when needed. And I firmly believe that. At this point, I don't want to see a building taken off either. But we didn't do this. It was the applicant that did this. And I would hope that the two of y'all can come together here real quickly. Can we leave it as a, in your hands? I don't know, that's up to the applicant, I guess. Otherwise, we postpone for two weeks because things were not in place. It doesn't sound like things are hardly in place again. We can continue to postpone, or continue, I'm sorry. But those are my thoughts. I do appreciate you being here. Thank you Mr. Owens. Mr. Davis. Thank you again for your testimony. helped me to formulate how I want to proceed when it comes time to vote on this project. And again, like everybody else has said, I also do not want to see him lose buildings, but that's kind of where we are right now. It's not our responsibility to fix the things wrong with this project. He's got to come back with a plan that makes sense for not just himself, but for the community that's been harmed as well. And I cannot support the project in its current form. And if a building has to be taken away, then so be it. Mr. Davis, thank you. Any other discussion for Mr. Sutherland? If not, thank you, Mr. Sutherland. Thank you. Or Ms. Worth. Were you expecting an answer to your questions, or were those just rhetorical questions? Yeah, I'm talking to you. I don't think we're done yet. Those, I'd like to hear from the applicant and we'll continue with this discussion in another minute or two. All right. If I could just add a final statement. This is very time consuming for us. We have a lot on our plates already. And so I agree with you. I would like to see this handled and swiftly so we can move on with the jobs that we're supposed to be doing. It's taken a lot of our time and effort trying to wade through it. And so I agree with you, Commissioner Owens, that let's get a plan together and present it to you so we can move forward. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sutherland. Thank you. If nothing else, we'll hear from Mr. Helani. Mr. Chairman for Dracut, My name is Jihad Halani, who is Vision Engineering. I have a kind of short PowerPoint presentation. I'd like to go through it, if possible. So, okay. All right. So this is the final development plan that's in front of you today, I guess. So the three, okay. Do you want to use the laser? yeah okay so basically this is our day as miss Wade mentioned this is our significant trees that has been removed from the site okay okay all right perfect thank you okay I'm just not going to the second slide. There, right here. Yeah. That's all the slides we've got. What? You've got to let things around. No, there should be. These aren't powerful. Oh, yeah. There's no powerful. There's no powerful. There's no powerful. There's no power. There's no power. There's no power. There's no power. There's no power. There's no power. Okay. all right so I would keep going so basically Jewish language okay so basically if I don't know if you can read it or not the article 26 can change the phone I mean this is font in PowerPoint. So basically article 26-4 said when we review tree protection plan, so the plan has to, in order to preserve the greatest amount of tree, that plan has to be reasonable and practical and individuality should be removed only as necessary to carry the development plan. So basically that's what article 26-C said. So if you look at what's reasonable and what's practical and also if you look at the safety and the public welfare. So in order to protect these four trees, we are required to have a retaining wall in height that vary from 11.5 feet to 13 feet adjacent to the townhouses. And then being the retaining wall higher than 30 inches or 36 inches, you have to provide some railing. and the railing is three and a half feet. So at that time, the total height between the railing and the wall, so you're talking about the height of 14 to 16 feet. Given this is, and the length of the whole retaining wall is going to be approximately 235 linear feet. So in the residential neighborhood, having kids climbing on this railing, trying to jump into the trees, we felt there was some safety issue, and there was major concern from a safety point of view. So this is kind of a look of where the retaining walls will be. So there will be one retaining wall along the townhouses, along the entrance, and one along one of the access points to these townhouses, and one along the corner of this over there. So, and this picture next to it, it kind of give you, it's a little bit more zoomed in here, it gives you a concept of what would be that retaining wall. So at the beginning it's almost 11 and a half feet. As it goes farther, it's almost 13 plus 3 and a half, 16 and a half feet height. And this is the townhouses. And this is kind of, it has a basement with finished floor. So if we go back to also to section 26-5 of article 26, it cannot define for article 26, for each large tree you get 750 square feet. And also if you group them, you get 10% in the credit. So we're not taking the 10%, we just want to focus on each tree, large tree has 750 square feet and this is the zoning ordinance section 26-5. look at section 26-9, if we need to make an adjustment of the tree protection plan, and the field adjustment, it specifically said that the urban forester has the permission up to 5% to remove 5% of what's required for tree protection plan. And then it goes into the blue area I'm saying that any tree removed must be replaced in accordance with section 26-5. With 26-5, it's on the right side, it said large tree has to be 750 square feet. Can we take credit for large tree 750 square feet? So this is the landscape plan. The reason there was many tables on the landscape plan, we have table number one and table number two, basically the summary, and the other information, backup information, if somebody wants to dig and see how did we came up with this summary table, table number one and number two. The green tree is basically the large tree. This is what's proposed as required under three sections. We have to require three regulations we have to follow. We have to follow Article 26, which is the three canopy. We have to follow Article 18. And also, that happened, we are on the corridor, the Harrisburg corridor, which is required some landscape requirement based on, so between all of these three requirements, that's the the proposed landscaping, and the red color represent additional tree that we propose to mitigate. So this is table number one and table number two. Basically what we are saying here for R3 zone, and we are showing how many large tree we are proposing for the R3 zone and what's required for R3 and B3 and what's proposed for R3 and B3. And then this is the medium and the small tree are required because of the Herzberg Road landscape plan. And table number two below, it talks about what would be required for Article 26. So the first table is basically the three requirements, Article 18, Article 26, and the Herzberg Road requirement. Table number two is a summary of what would be required for Article 26. How do I go back, please? The bottom one. Okay. So, again, this is a landscape plan. This is what would be required and what we are proposing. And this is basically the three species that we are proposing. And these three species has been picked based on what kind of trees will absorb and store the most carbon that can live in our environment. And these trees, basically, they are the trees that have the capacity to absorb the most amount of carbon. So this is kind of the species. So this one here, if you don't mind, please. So, sorry. Thank you. So, based on Article 26-2, Section 26-5, we are required to have an equivalent 26-5, tree canopy, it's basically, it can be easier by square footage, or if you are assume certain size of trees based on section 26-5, it will tell you we are required to have 163, we are proposing on site, 285, we have additional tree canopy provided, 125. The 125, 40 of them are for mitigation. 85 goes toward requirement for Article 18 and requirement for the Herzberg Road Landscape Plan. So this one here, so this is the proposed mitigation, what we are proposing. So if we look into Article 26-5, where it said any tree removed from the site has to be planted based on one tree equivalent to 750 square feet, and this is in the zoning ordinance, and that's what we have to abide with. So we are providing equivalent 43 that make the ratio to 225 square feet per tree instead of having 750 square feet per tree, which is making us, we are exceeding requirement 333%. we are three times more what's required based on article 26. So, and the last one is if you have a question, but there's another topic since somebody mentioned carbon. I just want to show you this table that I did. So if you look at this table, we have year 2025, year 2035, year 245, 255. I assume the three that has been removed are 40 years old. there's four trees on site that there will be the total carbon general stored into this trees 116 tons 145 173 202 when it reach seven years old tree so net how much increment every 10 years there's 28 tons 20 29 28 28 29 tons of total 86 tons of trees of total carbon has been absorbed and stored into these trees between 2025 and 2055. If you come on the right side, the first year we have 40 trees, we have zero carbon emitted, captured and stored. 2035 we have 16 tons. 2045 we have 165 and 2055 after the year, 30 years old, it can store 245 tons of trees carbon, which is a look at the table along the incremental increase as you can tell in less than 12 years we basically exceed the total amount that has been lost and what has been in 30 years 86 tons of carbon dioxide has been captured and stored, we generate And if anybody has a question, we'd be glad to answer it. Mr. Hedical. Yes, sir, Mr. Halani, is there a way that you can work with environmental services and provide what they are requiring without a major development plan adjustment and get that back to us. Can you solve the problem is what I'm asking. Can you work with environmental services and solve the problem as presented by environmental services or are you saying that's not a possibility? Well, what I'm saying, sir, we are following Article 26-5. Okay, so you're saying that you're disputing the findings of environmental service. I'm not sure where the 100 square feet has came in into the equations. Why 100? Why not 75? Why not 200? I'm just going with whatever, basically this is over here. It said any trees removed must be replaced in accordance with section 26-5. And it is as clear as it can be. Each large tree has to be 750 square feet. And this is article 26-9. It's extremely clear. Okay, so what you're saying is that your plan here does comply with the mitigation plan as proposed by staff and environmental services. I'm trying to get to a resolution here. What I'm saying is that our plan agrees with the zoning ordinance. Staff would like to see instead of, they'd like to see instead of 750 over here, they'd like to see 100. I'm saying, well, we all want to plant more trees, and we all for the environment, and we all want to do the right thing. and it's like this tree has been removed it's not arbitrary i can assure you why it has been removed hence i again i made a mistake hence i 2020 i should have came and discussed it and chosen why it has been removed for safety reason for not practical reason even the zoning ordinance discuss it is that basically if you have a condition where trees cannot be removed it has to be reasonable and practical. I don't believe having a retaining wall 16 feet tall or 13 feet tall is a practical. And even if you even if you try to put that retaining wall, what are the chances that these trees are going to survive with that much of changing in material or earthwork around it? I mean, that's what we are saying. This is unpractical, unreasonable, and we are following section 26-5 by the teeth and we are exceed the requirement three times and that's why we like to move forward and we don't want to delay the project further mr hall were your decisions regarding uh the site development uh where you put your buildings that that forced the retaining wall those were decisions that you made those buildings weren't there before okay so you you could have have made other decisions about how the site was developed in a way that would have prevented the need for a retaining wall. All right. Am I correct? Is that correct? You're right, but I just want to respond back to you. So I'm right. So your whole argument about retaining wall is ridiculous, and making us listen to this, re-litigating something that is clearly, you're clearly in the wrong, is extremely annoying and a waste of our time. And the way I see it, you need to be listening to environmental services, finding out what they need to get satisfied and get it done. And we can't re-litigate this thing. We can't listen to all this stuff and make a decision. It's way too, there's too much going on. we're not experts. There are experts in environmental services and you have to work with those experts. Well, I understand that. I respect that, sir. But I also, at the same talk, there is subdivision regulation and there is zoning ordinance that we all have to follow. Staff and applicant. And we are following the zoning ordinance. 100%. And to answer your question further, this is the local plan that is certified. It shows exactly the house where it is. And that plan is certified. Urban Forester has sign-off on it. It is 100% complete. And all what I'm, if you go also even farther, if you look at this, if you. Well, did they understand that those trees would be lost if the plan were executed? No, they didn't understand that. they would they would not have approved the plan had they known that those trees would have to be well this is something that came up after the certification of the development plan this is came in during the design stage and this is where in the design stage we came up into that situation and there's a lot of things that happen between the design stage and construction and it's you know So the problem is that the plan required a construction that was unreasonable and that was not anticipated by you or anyone else. But you're the engineer, you're the designer, and it's your responsibility. So re-litigating the issue of the retaining wall is useless and a waste of time because The site shouldn't have been developed. The plan shouldn't have been created with that condition. You should have seen that coming, and you didn't. And to ask us to give you some leeway because you didn't see it coming is entirely unfair, and you're not accepting your responsibility in this thing, and you need to. Well, we're not asking for any favor on this one. We are following the zoning ordinance. And then I'm not holding responsibility. I'm holding responsible myself. I admit I messed up by not talking and following the right procedure. But we are in where we are in. It's not going to change the fact. We agree on that. Mr. Mickler. Well, in your PowerPoint, can you go back to where you have that zoning ordinance? Yes. Which one? The one where you refer, yeah, right there. So when you said you're following the zoning ordinance, you're highlighting the bottom part of that, but you're ignoring the top part where it says the urban forester may permit removal of up to 5% of the total canopy required. Yes, we're not requiring any removal. We are still following what's required 30%. And the zoning ordinance that also required you to follow the development plan. But I have a little bit different question. When you had a tenant that required more parking, you came to us and removed green space and changed parking spaces from full size to compact. How many parking spaces have you removed or changed to compact to make room for trees as part of this process? My response to you, sir, I don't remember the number on top of my head. I have to go back. But that tree's preservation does not fall into this development plan. It falls into previous certified development plan. Technically, you guys should not hear it. It should not be in front of you at all. I'm sorry. I think you're getting sidetracked. How many parking spaces have been removed? Or even, I mean, you changed parking spaces when your tenant needed more parking. You change parking spaces from nine foot widths to seven and a half narrow, really narrow parking spaces to make more parking for your tenant. Have you made any parking spaces narrower so you can get more trees in in the front part where there are no compact parking? Have you removed any parking to make room for trees where you have hundreds and hundreds of parking up front and in the back? Well, okay. I'm following your question now. But just a little bit. This development plan was certified with this configuration, and these are the buildings that you are referring to. Basically, it used to be the three buildings, and now it is. I think you're missing the point. I'm talking about creativity. So we had a development plan that was locked in, right? And you have a tenant that comes and needs more parking. Correct. And you creatively balanced sort of wider parking spaces. You got a lot of compact parking. I assume for staff, you created some really narrow parking because they'd be only going in and out once a day rather than for the customers. In the front, you don't have any of that, but those are the kinds of things you could be thinking through. A line of 10 cars at 9-foot spacing on the far edge of the building is unlikely to be customer parking. If you made that that same narrow staff parking that you did in the back, you could have created space for two trees. Those are the kinds of creative thinking that we would expect and would show that you're taking this seriously. Mr. Nichols. I think that one thing that we did hear Mr. Duncan talk about is that it looks like you do have the ability to add more trees to the detention basin. I think that that was pointed out by Mr. Duncan. So, or you can also add some more trees if that's the decision that is being requested also throughout the site. What I'm trying to say is when Mr. Duncan came over, it looked like there was the possibility to add more trees to satisfy the requirements of environmental services so we can get this project going. I mean, we can fit a few trees in the detention basin, but it's not going to get us to the 833 numbers. I think we're talking about you need to add 43 more trees and I think it's possible for you to do so and you may want to- I don't think I'm planning to add 43 more trees on this site. Okay. Mr. Owens. I've got a statement, I'm ready for a motion, but I'm just wondering if Ms. Wade's got something that she would like to add. Just in terms of the data that Mr. Mickler asked for, the difference between the previously certified plan, which was the first final development plan, and then the one that we reviewed in March with the added parking. So approved in the B3 160 parking spaces last year and approved in March of this year 311. So it almost doubled. It went from 160, increased 151 to 311. okay miss meyer i think we've given mr helani a couple of things to think about in the way of how we might come to terms with the environmental services and we've been sitting here helping him solve this problem and i'm ready to make a motion that we continue this that mr helani and And Mr. Sutherland, Environmental Services, worked this out. As I said, he's got two suggestions. So that's my motion. I'll second my motion. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none. How long are we looking at as far as... Mrs. Meyer, how long of a continuance? How does that sound like two weeks? Does the commission think that that's a fair amount of time? I'm open to suggestions, but I think it's time to continue it. Just to be fair, Mr. Sutherland, is there anything you briefly want to add, or are you okay for now? Just quickly, I think that the representation of what's in Article 26 was misrepresented. as Mr. Mickler pointed out, it has to have the written approval of the urban forester to change anything on that plan. So that did not happen. So all the other stuff's irrelevant. The 100 square feet is based on a previous mitigation that we went through with the same individual in the past, and that's what we're basing that on, and those we will be trying to put into the zoning text amendments for our mitigation process to make that formal in the phase two efforts that we are undergoing. I would like more than two weeks because it's going to be, I'm going to get it at the last minute again, and we have staff vacations and those types of things coming up. So I would like to have some more time for him to present us with a very pared down, simplified, clear plan for how he's going to get the 83 trees. And I will make a note, he agreed to 116 trees initially. So I don't think that we're asking for a whole lot here to get to that minimum that we had initially asked for. Mr. Sutherland, do you want a month? Do you want... That would be fine. One second. Okay. That's not true that we are the misrepresentation of Article 26-5, because it said any three mover, but I'm not changing the plan. Either you vote on it to turn it down, or it's not going to change. In one week, two weeks, one month, two months, three months, it's not going to change. That's the mitigation plan. Okay, do you want to vote? Mrs. Meyer, do you want to amend or withdraw your motion then? No, I say that we continue this to our, yeah. So, I'll second that. Okay. So Ms. Meyer, continuance and seconded by Mr. Nickel. Is there any discussion? And that would be I'm guessing to July 25th. Is there any discussion? It's, it's, to hear nothing's going to. Mrs. Ward. Okay. All right. All right. Well, there's a motion. We'll go ahead and put it to a vote, please. That carries unanimously. And now Ms. Worth had a comment. Yeah, I would just like to say to the applicant, your track record with us needs a little improvement. I mean, we saw the initial approved plan. The next plan came in significantly different. Then we sent it back for approval. What came back, Boyd in the back had a hard time reading and asked you to simplify, so that had to go back again. I mean, this is a recycle, recycle, recycle. It seems to me you're not listening to what staff is saying to you, and I hope you will. I'm listening to the zoning ordinance, and if the zoning ordinance has no value, I have nothing to say. All righty. Thank you. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to remind you that your committees next week are one day early because of the 4th of July holiday, So we'll be meeting on Wednesday, July 3rd at 8.30 and 1.30 in the usual place in Phoenix. And then also just to update you that Mr. Davis has been reconfirmed by the council to continue service on the Planning Commission. And in just a few minutes, Ms. Meyer and Ms. Barksdale will face the gauntlet. So we wish them well as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you.