♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ All those in favor of approving the minutes from January 15th. All right. We are unanimous. Okay. Moving on here. I don't think we have anything else to skip around. Oh, we do have the release. We're going to skip down to that item. I'm trying to. Okay. So do we need to act on these releases and call bonds? Did I get a? Did I get a? Yes, Mr. Chair. I would motion to release the surety bonds as provided by staff. Second. Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Forrester. Second by Commissioner Werth. All in favor? Okay. Great. All right. Do we have any postponements or withdrawals? All right. All right. We will go right to them then. Starting with our preliminary subdivision plans. Staff? Good afternoon. Chris Cheney, planning staff. The first. We have one preliminary subdivision plan, M.J. S.U.B. 25-5, suburban point subdivision expansion. And this is located at 421 Price Road. I'm going to jump over here to the aerial really quick. So the subject property is this large mostly undeveloped parcel here with Price Road here. And Georgetown Road is just out of the frame there with New Circle Road being to the north out of the frame. So I'm going to jump back to the development plan. So this is the overall development plan. We'll go ahead and go to the. Oh, I'm sorry. Preliminary subdivision plan. My apologies. The purpose of this preliminary subdivision plan is to create 55 single family lots, two open space parcels, one detention base and common area and streets. You can see the single family in yellow with the open space in green. There's a parcel here, a parcel here, and a larger parcel with the detention area. This does depict the extension of Dominican Drive from the adjacent neighborhood. St. Martins Avenue, also where it's stubbed into this property from the adjacent neighborhood. Tibbs Lane is stubbed in here. And then this is Price Road and where Tibbs will connect to Price Road. The applicants also revised the plan to depict a connector street through this block to break up the block length. I believe that's Pfister Way. So the reason that this preliminary subdivision plan is before you, as we know, KRS 100-275 has caused us to go back and change some of our regulations and ordinance to be more objective. And that applies to final record plats. But in the case of preliminary subdivision plats, those are still governed by KRS 100-277, which says that the planning commission or, pardon me, let me, I'm going to try to do it from memory and that will get me in trouble. It says no person or his agent shall subdivide any land before securing the approval of the planning commission of a plat designating the areas to be subdivided and no plat of a subdivision of land within the planning unit jurisdiction shall be recorded by the county clerk until the plat has been approved by the commission and the approval entered thereon in writing by the chairman secretary or other duly authorized officer of the commission. And so we bring you a preliminary subdivision plan for you to review and approve. And then with the final record plat, that can be approved by the tech committee if it meets all the objective standards. So that's why this is coming before you today and why you wouldn't necessarily see this as a final record plat when they get to that stage. And then the underlying zone, R1D, determines the density and the standards and it's also the same as the surrounding neighborhood. So this particular property where it's not going through a zone change, that allows for the extension of the existing neighborhood onto this property. So that's why we see the sub streets where they connect in being shown to go through the property and connect out to Price Road and connect to each other. So just kind of a little refresher on that. As far as the staff report, page two on your agenda, under requirements not met. Number one, the proposed street cross section must have restricted parking on one side of the street. And we can strike that at our plan review meeting yesterday. Mr. Beatty of the fire indicated that that wasn't necessary since they've changed the cross section of the streets. So that the requirement on one side isn't, sorry, the restricted parking on one side isn't required at this time. There are, they have added some traffic calming elements to the streets and then with the inclusion of the Pfister Way connect through the block, that'll add an additional intersection which will also help with the traffic calming. So we can strike number one on that. Under requirements not met. Number two, denote tree canopy and street tree requirements and provide tree mitigation proposal. Number three, denote all adjacent property owner information. And number four, correct zoning notation in the site statistics. It's mostly clean up under those items. There are no waivers required at this time where they did change the street cross section and add the cut through on the block. That removed the need for a waiver from their previous plan. Under design considerations, number one, see all Acela comments provided by the division of engineering. Number two, proposed street cross section must have restricted parking on one side of the street. And again, we can strike that number two under design considerations. Number three, design does not protect preserve greatest number of trees reasonably and practically. Evaluate preserving healthy significant trees on the property. Number four, describe how detention areas in the development are usable and accessible for common space. Under plan questions or concerns, number one, discuss accessibility for residential service trucks on proposed streets. Number two, discuss improvements for price road frontage. And there is a requirement that they do a half road improvement on price road as it's existing. And they do show that on the cross section of the plan. Number three, discuss impacts to spring point near lot 39. And that spring point is roughly in this area right here. Number four, discuss need for additional storm water or drainage easements. Number five, discuss detention area outfall and if this detention is sufficient for the development. Number six, discuss storm water management proposal. And number seven, discuss encroachment of structures from the adjacent property. And that initially that was we identified that it appeared as if some of the mobile homes on the adjacent property were going to encroach across the proposed property line. They have since submitted a no build minor plat which shows that property has been moved to prevent there being any encroachment across that proposed property line. So moving forward there won't be any encroachments onto this site. And all of the mobile homes and accessory buildings will be on a separate parcel. Let's see. And then we do recommend approval with the following conditions. The sign offs for engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, Department of Environmental Quality's approval of environmentally sensitive areas, bike ped planner, open space planner, and Division of Water Quality's approval of the capacity assurance program requirements. And then finally number 10, correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. And with that I'll turn it back over to you all. Yes. Any questions? Yes, Commissioner. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. Chris, you mentioned that it's plan questions or concerns, impact to spring point near lot 39. But it looks like it's adjacent to lot 38. Had they renumbered the lots? Oh, yeah. It may have. Yeah. So it's lot 38. Okay. Thank you. I didn't catch that. It's right there in that little triangle area. Madam Chair, Chris, clarify for me as far as restricted parking on one side of the street. Do we have restricted parking or do we not have restricted parking? Mr. Beatty indicated that that wasn't required now. From the initial submittal to now they've changed the cross section and before it wasn't going to be wide enough. So that's going away and they will not be any restricted parking? Correct. Okay. Yeah. They'll be able to park on both sides. Any other questions for staff? Thank you. Now we'll hear from the applicant. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant. I first have to apologize. I'm dealing with a heck of a head cold. So if I start babbling incoherently, please just wave your hands and I will quickly stop talking. I'm happy to answer any questions. I don't really have any kind of prepared remarks today. This is basically just a subdivision plan for a property that's already zoned and is in compliance with all the rules and regulations. I'm happy to work through any kind of concerns during the certification process as always. I did want to say I've spoken with Ms. Davis several times about the road connections here and I promised I would say this on the record. We are more than happy to work with the neighborhood to kind of close any road connections if the City Council is so inclined. If you all remember when we were going through the zone change process last time, we had proposed to close those roads because we were introducing kind of much more traffic into this area and part of the mobile home kind of park into this area. Since we are closing off the mobile home access entirely, I didn't feel that I can make a good faith argument for a waiver in front of you all based on the rules and kind of regulations that require it for you all to grant that waiver. We are in support of the neighborhood in any and all ways we possibly can be if the City Council is inclined to kind of close those roads. We do not need it for this development and so we're happy to kind of support them in their efforts. We understand and we've certainly heard a lot about trying to keep traffic out of that neighborhood and we're happy to support them. I just didn't feel I can make a good faith argument in front of you all to ask for a waiver, but the City Council is able to do that. So I'm happy to answer any questions if you all have them. Ms. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Nicholson, regarding point number three, under design considerations, design does not protect preserve the greatest number of trees reasonably and practically. Evaluate preserving healthy, significant trees on their property. Is the applicant willing to go back and look at that? We are. That's part of the certification process. We've submitted a kind of plan to the urban forester and we are continuing to kind of talk with him to figure out how best to kind of address that issue. The problem that we have run into thus far is because of the location of certain of the larger trees where that protection kind of range is, there's no way to actually get a road to the back of the property in any way, shape, or form because the kind of the spheres of the protection areas kind of overlap. So we're just going to work with him to make sure that he's happy. We're following all rules and mitigating kind of appropriateness. So these are more about, I guess, the design considerations that you're referring to throughout the site. What about the concerns that we've seen from the public about the trees along Price Road? Is that something you're also looking at? So again, we are required to show half improvements and the location of some of the trees on Price Road cannot be basically saved while also implementing those half improvements. If the urban forester and traffic engineering are willing to basically kind of waive the requirements for the half improvements, we're happy to do that. We don't have much of a kind of stake in that regards. We just have to follow your all's rules. And that's kind of what we're trying to do. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other questions? We're open for conversation. Without a doubt. Any other questions for the applicant? I did have one question. If the council decides to close those roads, does FIRE still agree? We still meet all FIRE code. And so that's why I've kind of said to the neighborhood, we're happy to support them in any way, shape, or form. We are A-OK on FIRE code, but we also know how important connectivity is. And so we wanted to show those connections. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. It looks like we have quite a few people to speak. We'll start with Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Bruce Simpson, I had previously requested 30 minutes. I understand the chair has ruled me only for 10. Is that correct? It's a pleasure to be here again on behalf of St. Martin's Village Neighborhood Association to address the plan. We are pleased that this is proposed for single family development. Like St. Martin's Village, the historic neighborhood first African-American neighborhood suburbs in Lexington's history. Designed under much different standards, of course. And that's one of the issues that I want to address with you today and my neighbors will address. My wife is here for the first time at a Planning Commission hearing. Cindy, if she's passed out the letter. She's already done it. Just wave because I can't see you. Part of the letter will include a report from Ed Holmes. Ed is, of course, I'm sure you all know, a highly regarded national certified planner. Ed has looked at this development plan and does have serious objections to it, particularly as regards to the connectivity of St. Martin's Village. I have included in my letter to you, in addition to the objections I have to the approvability of this plan, Ed's concerns as outlined with respect to impact this proposed plan, if approved, would have on St. Martin's Village. And just very briefly summarizing, his main theme is that the standards that have been developed since St. Martin's Village and all of the development that has taken place around St. Martin's Village, the build-up of development and certainly traffic with this proposed connectivity will have an adverse impact, serious adverse impact, on St. Martin's Village and severely adverse, have adverse impact on its historic integrity. As Ed points out in his report, these sub streets were never designed to be converted into collector streets, which they will be if you approve this plan. So we believe the plan, Ed couldn't be here today, and so we would ask two things in the alternative. One, that the plan be deferred until Ed can be here next month so that you can listen to his input. Or in the alternative, consider it now and amend the plan by recommending that the connector to the three streets in St. Martin's Village as a condition of approval not be required. If you do that, the neighborhood doesn't have any objections to the plan. Without those three conditions being adopted as a part of approval to close these streets, we do have serious reservations. And I have outlined those in my letter. In principal part, we're now under a different set of rules, of course, House Bill 443 codified now into the Kentucky Revised Statutes, which require objective criteria. And as I've outlined, objective criteria be met before the Planning Commission can approve anything. And we're at the stage now where you're going to punch a ticket on a preliminary subdivision plan for this project to go forward. And there are still many unanswered issues, many undecided compliance issues. As the staff indicated, there are three deficiencies, six issues regarding questions and concerns, and ten conditions of approval that would take place after this plan is approved by you all. My objection to doing it that way, approving this with all these uncertainties, under the requirement of compliance with objective criteria, is that in essence, you're not doing that. You're punting the decision on compliance with these standards to governmental staff outside the scope of a hearing, outside the scope of public review and comment. And in my judgment, that is an impermissible and illegal delegation of your authority to line staff outside the scope of a hearing, outside the scope of cross-examination, outside the scope of public comment and evaluation and input before you make a final decision. And here's the critical point of all of that. Under KRS Chapter 100-347, every final action by the Planning Commission, in this case, approval of this subdivision plan, has a right of appeal to the circuit court if you find that the requirements have not been complied with. Now, it's undisputed at this point, we've got ten, sixteen, nineteen issues still unresolved, either in non-compliance, questions and concerns, or conditions of approval. If you're going to make decisions on compliance with the objective criteria, it's premature to make them because you don't have all the evidence in front of you. The applicant needs to come forward with his homework and have done all of these things they're talking about doing on the back end, outside the scope of a public hearing, on the front end, so that everybody can look at them, examine them, and determine, and you all can satisfy yourself, and the court can review them in the event an appeal is necessary, because without that evidence in the record, the court has nothing to review, and the time limit for taking an appeal will long expire if you postpone decisions, or defer it, pun it, if you will, to line staff after you make the decision today. This decision today gives the ticket on this plan to be approved. And so, I'm asking one, I'm asking three things, give you three options. One, to postpone this action until Ed Holmes is here next month. Two, which we prefer, recommend closure of the three streets that connect to St. Martins Village. That's our number one goal. Preserve the neighborhood. Nick has indicated that they can serve the development safely, protect the public's health and welfare by closing the three streets. We put tons of evidence on at the previous hearings on the zone change about the adverse impact that the street connections would have on St. Martins Village. We're asking that you simply, if you're going to approve this plan today, close those, recommend that those streets not be connected. If you do that, we're good with this plan. We're good. Now, if you don't do that, then we object to this plan being approved for the reasons that I've indicated in my letter, that it's premature, you don't have all the information before you today. And that concludes my presentation. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Okay. Now we're ready for public comment if no one else has any questions. First up we have John Connor. John Connor. Wait a minute. Oh, wait a minute. They told me to sign in out there. I didn't know I was signing in to speak. Oh, okay. Well, you don't have to. There are some other people and I'm having trouble. But since I'm here, I will just say a few words. In 1956 my family moved into St. Martin Village. My mother still lives on Tills Lane. She's 99 years old. We would really appreciate if those three streets would stay closed. It sounds like the trailer court is saying that it is okay. There's no problem with it. But I want to go back to the history of the village. Fista and Seabird came together and they started that neighborhood and built it. And I don't know if when he named it, he named it St. Martin's Depose. And I looked up and it gave a definition of that name. And it's racial harmony. So Fista had a vision about this neighborhood. And if you look in the neighborhood today, there's all sorts of nationalities and different groups. And so many young people are moving in and a lot of older people have died off. And what we want to do is preserve the character of the neighborhood so that we can pass that on to other generations that come in. Not just minorities, but all groups. Because that was his vision. Is that racial harmony would be a part of it. And it sounds like the other side is in agreement and wants to make every effort to have those places, those single family residents built. And they are not opposed to the streets staying closed. And that's really our main issue is not opening up those streets so that the character can be preserved and be passed on to further generations. So many things have changed today. But the character of our neighborhood is really important to those of us that are still here and for our grandchildren that come along. Thank you. Next we'll hear from Ronald Barry. Let's see, I'm going down looking for those that are in support first and then we'll hear opposition. Enoch Elliott? Did you want to speak? Excuse me. I think that's Artie Green. Good evening. I just want to say one thing. I'm very elated to hear that the developers are willing to work with us in terms of keeping those streets closed since they do not need them. We were always concerned about the amount of traffic that was going to come through. It's a walking neighborhood. So we have seniors and everybody out walking and that sort of things. And so we think the vehicle count would have come up anyway. So we certainly appreciate Mr. Nicholson's approach and we hope we can work together in the future about whatever they need over there. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Tammy Bright, did you want to speak? Hello. My name is Tammy Bright. I live at 960 DePores Avenue. I'm going to read something for you. Okay. Dear Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, I respectfully request that the preliminary subdivision plan for Suburban Point be denied, amended, or deferred because it applies a conventional connectivity planning model in a location where the model is inappropriate and harmful to the historic character, land use and pattern, and long-standing residential function of St. Martins Village community. St. Martins is a historically significant African-American neighborhood whose street pattern, lot layout, and scale of development reflect generations of incremental growth rather than modern subdivision design. The internal street network was never intended to serve as a conduit for surrounding development traffic. It exists to serve the residents who live there and to preserve historic pattern... Wait a minute. And to preserve historic pattern... No. To preserve... Sorry. To preserve the quiet neighborhood-oriented character that has defined the community for decades. That historic pattern is a part of the neighborhood's cultural identity and should be treated as such and preservation asset, not a gap in the street grid to be corrected. The current proposal relies on tying approximately 55 homes into this local street system under the premise that connectivity is inherently good planning. While connectivity can be beneficial when it leaks compatible street types and similar development patterns, it becomes harmful when it forces a historic local street network to function as a connector for unrelated development. Under this design, Dominican Drive, St. Martins Avenue, and Tibbs Lane would be required to absorb hundreds of additional daily vehicle trips, gradually transforming the neighborhood's streets into a traffic corridor. Are we not finished? She's finished. Okay. One at a time. We don't share time. She's got three minutes. If you're done, then just state your name for... My name is Michelle Davis. I live at 940 DePores Avenue. This is merely a traffic concern. It is a neighborhood preservation issue. Applying a standard connectivity model here disregards the historical land use pattern and established residential function of St. Martins. Over time, increased traffic, speeding, noise, and cut-through behaviors irreversibly change its mobility and how the neighborhood functions and feels, eroding the quality that makes it historically important. The presence of these sub streets in St. Martins should not be interrupted, interpreted as an invitation to route traffic through the neighborhood. Those streets, those subs, were required under generic subdivision regulations dedicated decades ago and were intended to preserve the possibility of appropriate future connection between compatible streets and provide St. Martins and others for the N-grade and E-grade. They are intended to transform the local streets into collectors for external development. In this content, more appropriate planning response would be a permanent close and landscape those stubs as neighborhood enhancements. Sub streets and all green space are pedestrian links that enforces the integrity of the community rather than underline it. A preservation-based approach would instead center access for this development entirely on Price Road. Price Road and other future and more appropriate alternative connection design is functional as a roadway connectivity can be improved to accommodate additional values without exporting the development traffic burden in the historical neighborhood. Improvements such as lane turn lanes, forage improvements, sidewalks and traffic control measures along Price Road would allow the subdivision to function while preserving the character and the land use integrity of St. Martins. Not all streets are meant to be connected. In historical neighborhoods, protection from incompatible traffic pattern is often more important than achieving theoretical grid connectivity. Because this proposal depends on using St. Martins local street network in a way it was never intended to function. The site is premature for development in this current form. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission require a redesign and utilize Price Road as a sole access point and preserve the historical integrity and residential character of St. Martins Village community. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Ed Holmes, AICP President. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any others that would like to speak on this item? If you would, just state your name and address. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Austin Zinkel. I am a proud renter in the Castlewood neighborhood on the north side of town. So in effect, I do not live in St. Martins Village, but as a historian I wanted to come here today to contextualize the decision in front of you. St. Martins Village has a unique and significant place in Lexington history. This area was the first subdivision specifically established for black homeowners in Lexington in the decade after World War II. Beginning with an initial approval of 200 plots in 1955, the neighborhood has grown to now include 311 homes, including single family homes and apartments. Similar to so many other neighborhoods in Lexington, the residents of St. Martins Village are proud of their community that they refer to as the village. And that is because these homeowners, many of which are in the room today, are direct descendants from the very first homeowners in the 1950s. The neighbors are proud because the village was theirs during a time when Lexington was not so kind. Structural racism like redlining is the reason that St. Martins Village looks the way it does. But this community is not significant because it was the product of racism. No, it is significant in the hearts of these neighbors because it represents the ultimate American story. One of perseverance, good stewardship to one another, and how owning a home allowed so many black Lexingtonians to experience the promise of the American dream. The very character of the neighborhood is significant, down to the passage of homes from one generation to another. But the village is not just significant because of these neighbors. Historical records document its significance. In fact, the very first story that announced the construction of the new black neighborhood, this article was not buried in a back page of the newspaper, but no, it was found just beneath the fold on the very front page of the Lexington Leader in March of 1955. Additionally, an even earlier 1954 article mentions that this very planning and zoning committee approved for the approval of the first plots of St. Martins Village in the same meeting that the city began to develop other prominent neighborhoods like Chevy Chase. St. Martins Village is part of the historic story of Lexington. The same story that recognizes the character of Belcourt, Chevy Chase, and Ashland. Just as these historic neighborhoods are treated with efforts to preserve their identity, the neighbors of St. Martins Village have a valid claim to be treated with the same level of historic significance. To that end, I implore members of this committee to reject the current version of this proposal. Not because we think development could never happen, but the idea of preserving the character as it exists now is so important to the vital story of all of Lexington. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Shawnetta Thomas and I'm standing here before you for my children and my grandchildren. On August the 4th, 2013, my husband was ran off the road and killed by a drunk driver on Price Road. I'm sure plenty of you all have received emails concerning the Michael Thomas tree. That tree right there is part of our family. My daughter, when she graduated, she didn't go take graduation pictures, she went to the tree. When my son went to the prom, he didn't take prom pictures, he went to the tree. We have family gatherings. We have a lot of stuff that we do at that tree. That tree means a whole lot to me and my family. Even with some of my family memories has passed away, we still always go to that tree and celebrate. Even my grandbaby first learned how to walk at that tree. I just wanted you all to think about that when you all are taking down that tree. It feels like you all are taking away a piece of us, our memory, and my husband's legacy. This tree means a lot to us. We have our picnics, we have all types of stuff. When my son graduated from college, when he first got his seven scholarships for playing football, we had a celebration at the tree. When he received his award on the dean's list, we went to the tree. When he graduated from college with his bachelors, we went to the tree. That's somewhere where my kids get depressed or stressed out. They feel the comfort there. I know some people used to use a memorial tree. They put a yellow ribbon around a memorial tree and stuff like that. This is something that really means a lot to me and my family. I'm only here speaking because my kids wanted me to speak because they were concerned about that. My grandbaby's at school, but she wanted you all to hear this. I'm asking you guys to please not take down the tree of my granddaddy because that is the only memory we have left of him. When you all think about cutting down those trees, just think about the Thomas family. Thank you. ... ... ... Deval Headley from over in Pearltown. There's some stuff that will be here for the rest of you guys to read later on, but I would agree with Bruce in terms of postponement or redirect until some better planning is done, approaching it from a sort of different angle. Not necessarily the people of St. Martin, which I support and they're protecting of this area, but for the actual rest of the citizens and the city. Why are we sort of putting a non-local developer ahead of the actual citizens? Hopefully explain it in a way to somebody's son or daughter who might be younger so they understand because it's not just now, it's the future. I'd like to know, maybe through planning and zoning staff, what's the current property tax income for St. Martin's Village and the other affected neighborhoods and the same thing for the employment tax for the St. Martin's Village and the affected neighborhoods. These are taxpayers, these are voters, you're a portion of the city and they all need to be represented, especially some of the people who are outside of these neighborhoods who also pay taxes and vote. What's really sort of important and I never see any of these things in these planning and zoning things, is what's the off-balance sheet value of communities around the zone change to the overall value of Lexington, i.e. St. Martin's Village and its historic nature? Is this something we want to protect even though it may not have a direct hard number of value? I think it adds to the value of the communities itself. I think in that last meeting, Nick said they wanted off their books. Why doesn't LFUCG or somebody say, hey, maybe we can work together and find a solution that maybe is not what the developer wants and maybe not exactly what St. Martin wants but may be better long-term for the city as a whole in terms of something that goes in so we don't have something that's built now that becomes slums in 20 years as opposed to something being like St. Martin's Village which is a vibrant community and neighborhood. I think if we're thinking long-term Lexington, the next 250 years, we definitely need to be thinking about this. What are we developing now for the future for your kids, for your grandkids? I've just seen so many times when LFUCG has failed and dropped the ball. It's unfortunate. It's not correct. I'd like one time where this thing finally works out. In short, denial or postponement at this time until somebody can get some of these answers out there and put it out there so the citizens can read it and understand it in a communicable way because are we just working for a few of the wealthy or are we actually working for the citizens of this city who are the vast majority, not the minority? Just because you're rich, retired, or in the real estate trade doesn't mean that you should have a majority say when you're a minority yourself. Thank you all. Thank you. Any other public comment on this? All right. Next we'll have any rebuttal. Nick Nicholson again. I don't really have much of a rebuttal. This plan meets every rule and regulation that LFUCG has to offer. This is a subdivision of land and that's all that we're asking. It's single family lots on single family lots. Regarding the requirements not met, if you look, three of them are just notations that need to be corrected on the plan and Mr. Cheney already said that the first one is no longer applicable. So this does meet every single plan, every single rule, every single requirement that LFUCG has to offer. This land has been zoned for a very long time for this specific use. The sub streets have existed in this exact location for a very long time and the subdivision regulations require us to connect to them. The city council is able to actually stop that connection and again, we're more than happy to work with them to do that. But we can't show it today not connecting. So that's kind of where we are. Happy to answer any questions. Yes, Mr. Nicholson, which are the three, let's point out the three streets are in question because it's all about connectivity and we're in this battle again between neighborhood desires, community coherence and connectivity for safety and for broader connectivity to the community. So what are we looking at? Here are the three existings. This is Tibbs, Dominican over here and then St. Martins and those are stubbed in today. So we're just following the historic street pattern that was laid out with the original St. Martins Platz. So what we're looking at is that you believe that you can meet all of the requirements with a single entrance and exit on Tibbs Lane? On Price Road. So Price is the main kind of public thoroughfare that is where the property fronts and so this is where that access is. This is the existing Okay, so it would be the Tibbs connection to Price and what you're saying is you meet all subdivision requirements with that one entrance and exit? All fire code requirements. So fire code requires, that's where it gets tricky with regards to how many entrances you have to have based on dwelling units. But you meet fire code requirements? We do meet fire code requirements. Okay, and you've alluded to the process of you've alluded to the fact that council has the ability to make this type of decision. Can you please explain that process for everybody in the room? So the council has the authority to close any type of public right of way or even just barricade a road to prevent that connection to occur. One is temporary, one is permanent. And there's a standard procedure that goes through the public works division that allows for that process to go. This body has dealt with it several times in the past and has dealt with kind of the complications that comes with connectivity when you are dealing with existing neighborhoods that are surrounded in kind of vacant land for a long period of time. I personally think that it is this body's responsibility to enforce the subdivision regs that the city has put into place. It is the elected official's role to basically look at a certain situation and decide that because of the history, because of any type of concerns, we should not be following that sub-reg in this instance. And so I kind of leave it to them in that regards. After hearing that and looking around today, we've got agreement between both parties and it looks like you all have made a strong case for your desires to only have one entrance to this neighborhood, the new development to protect the existing neighborhood. But that's going, in my understanding, that's going to be an argument that you all would have to work together as a team to present to the council. And I would imagine that would be a pretty powerful presentation with both parties aligned on a very specific issue and it meets the requirements of the subdivision regulations. But we can't, it looks like right now, I'll have to confer with everybody here, but it looks like we may not have the power to make that decision on our side from where we're sitting. I'm kind of just there's a chain of thought here, but I think the point I'm trying to make is this group in here today with the team effort I think would continue to make a strong case that should be heard by council. One point I did want to make that I meant to bring up earlier, and I made it at the subdivision committee, by moving forward with a subdivision plan of an R1D zone property, I think it would go a long way to make sure that this land would only be single family moving forward. That trying to rezone this property to a higher density or commercial use would be incredibly difficult with it already kind of subdivided up as we've kind of seen on recent plans when you're trying to bring multifamily into several different single family lots. Are you done, Mr. Nickel? I'm getting a little deja vu feeling here. It's my recollection that we saw this piece of property previously. There was a proposal for manufactured homes. There was a proposal to open up the sub streets, and this body took a position on that proposal, and we voted not to open the sub streets. Then it went to council, and we were overruled by council. I guess I'm not clear with your point, Mr. Nickel, on why we could make a ruling to keep the sub streets closed last time around, and now we're being told it's not in our purview to make that decision. So the justification that I utilized to close the sub streets last time was based on the introduction of the existing suburban point mobile home kind of development and all of that traffic. It is a much larger track that surrounds all of this property, and it was being proposed to connect into this particular parcel basically kind of right in this location here. Since we are just proposing a single-family development and not an extension of the mobile home park in any way, shape, or form, I don't have that argument anymore that we are introducing a different type of traffic. It's just single-family on single-family lots. And so I did not feel that I could stand in front of you all and make a good-faith argument that meets the waiver requirements of the city of Seattle's subdivision regulations. It is much different. I believe I forget how many exactly, but the mobile home park is probably around 50, 60 acres of very tightly dense units that would be very much expanding the amount of traffic here. Here we're talking about 50-plus lots into a neighborhood that already has 300 kind of lots that exist today. That's just a much different argument from a waiver perspective. But again, we don't really have a care either which way. I just think that the council is probably the right body to follow all of the rules that Lexington has to close these roads. Okay. Thank you. I think we're done with you. Mr. Simpson, you want to speak on the objection? Ms. Wirth is exactly right. This is deja vu all over again with respect to the connectivity issue. And you all did make a decision to close those streets. You made a decision in the future not to allow connectivity to St. Martin's Village. You had the power then. Nothing's changed in terms of your authority to do it now. I presented evidence to you that's been read into the record from Ed Holmes that talks about the adverse impact this connectivity will have on St. Martin's Village. I see no need to punt this to the council and have these neighbors come down and do this all over again when you've already made the decision to close St. Martin's before based on the same evidence not to allow the connectivity. Let's stop this now and make a decision to amend the plan. Nick Nicholson is okay with that decision to not allow connectivity. You can make it today and these folks don't have to come down here anymore and I would ask that you do that for them. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. Well, first, staff, do you have anything or legal? Does somebody have any? I have a few things. Mr. Simpson mentioned there were 19 undisputed or unresolved issues and I want to clarify the requirements not met are enumerated on the agenda and there were four. As Mr. Nicholson mentioned, one of them was addressed by Mr. Chaney in his presentation, which leaves three. The other items listed on the agenda are things that were brought up at the technical committee review meeting to the applicant. for consideration, but they are not requirements and they do not need to be resolved, as he mentioned. They are things for the applicant to consider as they make revisions to their plan. I think what's really important, though, is there are numerous ways to design this land, to connect or not connect, but if you're not continuing a street, it needs a cul-de-sac. It needs an appropriate termination, and that's where the applicant could have proposed cul-de-sacs at the end of those three streets and still met the land subdivision regulations, but instead they proposed the connectivity, which, again, also meets the land subdivision regulations. I guess from planning's perspective, I'm not sure how legally you can grant a waiver that's not been applied for. They're asking for you not to change this plan and not connect streets, but the applicant is asking via this plan that the streets be connected, so I think you're being asked to do something that potentially isn't legally possible, and maybe Ms. Jones from the law department can weigh in. I think it's problematic, and we, the planning commission, are out of time. The applicant has 90 days unless they agree to postpone. Today is the last day before that 90 days expires. Not the last day, but we don't have another public hearing between now and the last day. Therefore the applicant would have to agree to a postponement or continuation to be moved to the next meeting, and if, I'm sorry, Mr. Holmes wasn't able to be here, but you have his letter, and it was read into the record, so I think that probably covers his expert witness information, and I guess my feeling is there are a lot of words in that and Mr. Simpson's appeal here, but what wasn't really addressed is how connectivity is harmful, and there's no real evidence. It's just stated that it is. And then also the contention that traffic would be incompatible, but you just heard from Mr. Nicholson, it's the same zone, it's the same land use, the same width streets. From a planning perspective, that's actually, that is compatible, right? Those land uses are compatible with each other and those traffic patterns will be similar or compatible. So I think to his point, the mobile home park was what was incompatible, but this proposal, our opinion, again, is that it is a compatible traffic pattern with the existing neighborhood. Ms. Jones, do you have a question? Let's hear from Ms. Jones. Mr. Wilson, did you have a specific, I mean, I can address something, but you look like you have a question. I got all kinds of questions, mostly as a kind of a footnote, because I was going to ask you to chime in, too. I heard what Mr. Simpson said, I was looking for this legal, because what Wade has indicated is why are we hearing this? I mean, why is it before us? Do we have, what authority do we have? Well, you're hearing it because it's a preliminary subdivision plan, and it's dividing lots, subdividing lots into single family home lots. You've heard Mr. Nicholson tell you that they did not ask for a waiver of being compliant with the subdivision regulations for a subdivision plan because the use of the lots is different than the last time you heard this. And he didn't believe that he had the right, in his judgment, he didn't believe he had the proper arguments to ask for a waiver, and he didn't. So let me say that again. There is no request for a waiver here. Our requirements now require, if there is a request for a waiver, that we publish that, give notice of that, advertise that, and that you all hear evidence about a waiver and make a decision. None of that has happened here, and so I would caution you strongly against granting basically a waiver from the subdivision regulations that are being complied with at this time without that happening. Then we also have the time problem that the 90 days is going to expire on September 22nd. You don't have another, I mean, February 22nd, you don't have another public hearing prior to that date. The only other thing I would say is what you have heard is, you know, if there is a reason to close or barricade streets, that is a council action, it is not an urban county planning commission action. And, you know, we can talk about that all you want. You're going to be talking about it in a minute again, I'm pretty sure, but that is the way our process works here. And there is a difference, but the council has the authority over both of those things. Commissioner Davis. I had a quick question for Tracy. Going back to the comments, yeah, the comments you made earlier, they were very insightful, they helped me to understand kind of what's going on, but a question I had was, at the risk of oversimplification, were you trying to say that had the applicant submitted a proposal that had cul-de-sacs attached to it, that might have set us down a different path or put us in a better position to help, I guess, the neighborhood and the applicant to both get what they said they wanted here today? Yes. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Woodson. Just kind of a general footnote, I had a deja vu moment, too, when Ms. Worth was talking. I used to live on Childs Avenue. Childs Avenue, Breathitt Avenue, Florence, those were my playing grounds. When they opened up St. Martin's Village, the same issue of traffic came into play at that time, because the people on the other side who was in Breathitt, Florence, and Childs, which I lived on, was asking the same question, because they only had one way in and one way out. Now, since then, they've got a second way up near, I know exactly where that is, but for the most part, we were curious about how 200 homes could be brought in with only one entrance at the time. The community got together, and I was just sitting there listening to it, and they decided that affordable housing, housing of some sorts, would be better than not to put up a few more elements of traffic as such. So I just say that as kind of a footnote. By the way, historically, Prawl Town was your first African-American subdivision, and second was Haskins Drive, St. Martin's Village was third. You can check it out for me. Thank you, Mr. Historian. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Owens. Thank you, Madam Chair. Tracy Jones. With all the discussion and so forth, do you have anything to add, just information-wise, as to what next steps could be going to the Council for closure of these streets or barricading these streets, just for information purposes? So are you asking about what is the process for that? Yes. Because, I mean, basically, in terms of what you're doing here today, it's not a role that you all have. Correct. I understand that. I'm just asking for the citizen aspect. Generally, they either go to the Department of Public Works, because they handle those, or they go to their Council member. It usually, frankly, starts with their Council member and gets shifted back through Public Works. There's a process and a series of things that occur, and then it goes to the Council for a vote. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Davis. Thank you. Thank you. Can I ask? I'm not sure whose question this is to ask of. If we go forward with how this is today, this plan, in its current shape, would have two sub streets with a barricade between them. People would say hello, but no cars could pass through. If we say okay to this, can the applicant create cul-de-sacs? To make? No. So the barricading process, again, as Tracy Jones mentioned, is a Council decision, right? Once the right-of-way, the roads become dedicated to the city, then the Council gets to make the decision instead of the Planning Commission about what happens on a public street. So yes, they can install barricades. Obviously, the planning policies don't really support that. To build a cul-de-sac, they would need a revised preliminary subdivision plan. Okay. And then the last question is, when Dominican Drive and St. Martins Avenue were stubbed out to the plan left, what was the thinking then? What were the rules then? Well, as I think Mr. Holmes mentioned in his letter, his opinion was they were generic subdivision regulations. That may be true, but in the 1950s, they were certainly more simple than they are today. But that is one thing that hasn't changed, is that a stubbed street or a street that just ends and is pointed into a vacant piece of property that has development potential, that's an indication that the street is to continue. If the street were not to continue, you would have built a cul-de-sac, right? There's no cul-de-sacs. Those two streets weren't terminated with cul-de-sacs in the 50s. That's correct. I guess to the planning staff, that's an indication that the roads were intended to continue in some form or fashion without really knowing exactly what kind of proposal would be brought forward in the future, but at least allowing for that connection. Thank you. All right. Planning Commission? I missed the first part of your question, so I'm going to ask for your patience to repeat this. Under what circumstances would this go to the council for a vote? Well, the subdivision plan never goes to the council for a vote. So if you're talking about the streets, all closures or barricades of public right-of-way go to the council when they're requested. Council typically doesn't just peruse all the streets in Fayette County and go, oh, hey, let's close that street today. I mean, that's not how they operate. Also just for note, the subregs, which dictate what the requirements are, are adopted by the Urban County Council. So that means the subregulations right now that are being applied here were adopted not only by you all, but by the Urban County Council in a vote through the representatives that have been publicly elected. So that's the rules, that's the regs, that's the policies we follow, you know, because they've been adopted. So there's a totally separate process, and typically when roads are being considered to be either closed, and closed means you go to the center of the right-of-way and you convey off each half to the neighboring adjacent owners, and that right-of-way goes away completely and it's permanent. Barricading means you put up a guardrail, bollards or something that prevent cross traffic from going through there, but that can be temporary and be removed by an action of the Urban County Council. Those two processes go to them through a variety of means. They can come through the Department of Public Works, but they typically come through citizens or developers or other people contacting the council person in that district and asking them to start that process. When you say subregs, you mean subdivision regulations, not subregs of some other regs. No, I mean the subdivision regulations that govern development plans, subdivision plans, and those types of things that you all are seeing on your agenda typically today. Okay. All right. Are we ready for a motion? Madam Chair, comment first, I guess. I can be sympathetic for everything that we've heard here today. My commission member, Mrs. Wirth, she referred to the fact that we have heard this. Everybody knows we've heard this, and we at the time did make a recommendation for non-connectivity, I'll put it that way. And the council decided to deny the requested zone change. I don't think they were really focusing on the connectivity or non-connectivity itself. They just simply denied the zone change itself, which did away with everything else. We're back today, and it's a whole new world. Mr. Simpson mentioned House Bill 443. I definitely will not get into that. But yeah, that set forth a whole new world as far as we're concerned. With a development plan, with a subdivision plan, these are the things that we've got to go with. And I personally do not see that we can change anything at this point. We could possibly ask for a postponement, however, we're out of time, and I really don't think that the applicant would be asking for that. So if you're ready for a motion, Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of plan MJDP 25-67. Whoops, that was the wrong one. Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of plan MJSUB 25-5, suburban point subdivision expansion with the 10 conditions that's noted by the staff. Second. Yes. I think it's been taken care of, and the requirements are, I think, noted in the conditions for approval under number 10. Okay. All right, we've had a motion by Commissioner Owens, second by Commissioner Nichol. Okay, we're ready to vote. May I ask one question? Question, yes. So what happens if the planning commission is unanimous and says, go ahead, do the citizens have any recourse to that? Does the person against it have any recourse to seek any changes or seek a reversement or take a change with council? I mean, are you talking about for the whole plan or the close? Yeah. Well, they always have the ability, if the major concern is the connectivity, to go to their council person and ask for closure or barricade of the roads. They also have the appeal rights that are enumerated in KRS 100. Okay. All right. Okay. We've got the motion. All right. That carries unanimously. All right. Thank you all. Moving on to our next item. All right. The next item on our agenda, you should have a revised staff report in your packet. It's on a pink sheet. What are you looking at? Oh, okay. Yep. Okay. Please go ahead. Okay. Once again, you should have a revised staff report in your packet. This is PLNMJDP2567, Margaret C. Kammack property, W. E. Savage property. This is located at 4630 Old Schoolhouse Lane. Let me bump over here. So this is the subject property here. This is Harrodsburg Road, Old Schoolhouse. It's a little bit hard to see at this level, but it comes in currently to this end of the property. This is the subject property. This is the subject property. Old Schoolhouse. It's a little bit hard to see at this level, but it comes in currently to this end of the property. And then the property does have stub connections between Rosetta and Agape. And I'm going to fail on these. Rima. I apologize. I can't remember the other. So it does show four stub connections on the eastern portion of the property and then Old Schoolhouse on this end. I'm going to go back to this is the overall plan. And so the previous development plan showed this all as single family homes with the street connections of Rima and Agape. This revised plan shows single family homes in the eastern portion along Rima. And then it shows a senior living facility on the eastern side of Agape. And at this time they're not showing any development on the western side of the property. As the applicant is looking specifically to develop this portion with the senior living facility and the current owner is retaining the remainder of the property at this time. So the purpose of this plan is to propose a senior living facility and ten single family residential lots, one HOA lot on a portion of the site with the associated street right of ways. This property is currently zoned R3 and that does allow for multifamily. There are also multifamily units in the vicinity. The remainder is single family in the surrounding neighborhoods. So currently under the R3 zoning this is allowed as a principal use. And then under requirements not met, number one, denote all existing and proposed easements. Number two, provide tree inventory map and tree preservation plan that comply with the zoning ordinance. There are no waivers identified at this time. And under design considerations, number one, review all ASELA comments provided by the Division of Engineering. And then under plan questions and concerns, number one, discuss the opening of Agape Drive, removal of a permanent barricade at the northern terminus point. And this was a council resolution and that would be located right here where currently Agape, well, not Agape, Rosetta Stubbs here. And so this plan proposes to show or shows the streets connecting through those four stub in points. And I actually meant to read this before with the other plan and I apologize. Under the land subdivision regulations article 6-8B, under street patterns and continuity, streets shall be related to topography and shall provide for the continuation of existing or dedicated streets and adjoining or nearby tracks in all directions. Street continuity shall be provided between subdivision development with collector streets. In addition, local street connections shall be provided between developments to act as a network to supplement the collector-connector and arterial street system. Street patterns shall generally allow for circulation within and between subdivisions that does not require the use of arterial streets. And then I know there have been some questions. We've had a lot of correspondence with the previous plan and with this plan from the public, and you should have that correspondence in your packet. We have looked into the trip generation. So the vehicle trip generation per dwelling unit on a weekday, and this is from the Institute of Transportation Engineers 10th edition manual, for single-family detached housing, which would include the adjacent neighborhoods primarily. So the trip generation per day on a weekday for single-family detached is 9.4 for trips. For this proposed congregated care facility, which is how this would be classified in the manual, that's 2.02 trips per day, and that's different from a low-rise multifamily, which would be like a standard apartment building that wouldn't be a senior living facility. That would be 7.3 trips per day, which is closer to the single family. Per unit, yes, that's per unit. So the difference being single family would be 9.44, multifamily would be 7.32, and congregated care facility would be 2.02. So I just kind of throw that out there, what the different trip generation would be for each of these uses. Under the plan questions or concerns, number two, discuss the density change and the land use change. Number three, discuss ownership and maintenance of stormwater management areas. And then finally, under the conditions, we do recommend approval subject to the following conditions, and those are the standard sign-offs for engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, bike ped, open space, division of fire, division of waste management, documentation of division of water quality's approval of the capacity assurance program requirements, United States Postal Service, and then finally, 13, to correct all the noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. And with that, I'll open it up to questions. Do you have any questions for staff? Sorry. Thank you, Chair. Chris, help me. I'm trying to locate Agape on somewhere. I see that on the view that you have, it's at the left, plan left. But where is it? It's a new street then? Is that what you're saying? Or it ties into? I'm looking at the PVA information. So this is existing Agape? Okay. And then I believe, and my eyes fail me sometimes, I think this is Rosetta here. So it's going to keep Agape through the property and then change names to the north? Okay. Yeah, it'll have to change it in the intersection. And then on the previous plan, when it was all single family, it showed an intersection in this area in the middle of the subject property, and that would have been where the name changed. But with this proposal, there is no intersection, so that will necessitate a name change at likely that intersection. So are we only considering the proposed senior housing at the back of the property, not anything in the front of the property? In the front as it orients to Harrodsburg Road, yes. So the eastern side of the property is what they're showing on their plan now. So let me go back here. So this is the full subject property, and this is where Agape would connect, which is roughly halfway. So all of the development they're proposing on this plan is to the east of that kind of center of the property. And we're looking at nothing on the western side of the property? Correct. Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Chris, help me just a little bit. A lot's been said here, and it's listed on the revised sheet that this is for a proposed senior living facility. Correct. Do we have a definition for a senior living facility? I could not find one. I'm sorry. I found one for assisted, but not a senior. Thank you. Chris, we can go on. She can put that up when she finds it. The second question I would have, when you were talking, and it's not as much about traffic counts or anything, but it's more about congregated? Yeah, and that's how it's defined in that manual, the Institute of Transportation Engineers manual. That's just how they refer to it. And is that just still, we're still talking about a senior living facility? I'm not sure exactly what that encompasses, but it does include that type of facility. Okay. But not, we made sure that we were making the distinction between that and multifamily, what's called low-rise multifamily. Okay. We can get back to senior living facility in a little bit. One other thing real quick. On the original development plan, following up with Mrs. Davis here, you've got the facility on the east side of Agape. The development plan shows a shaded area on the west side, 25% of it or something. What is that for? Are you talking about this area? Yeah. It says the common area. Maybe it's the single. I don't remember exactly how that's labeled. Okay. We can probably talk to the applicant about that. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I think we're still looking for the definition. Okay. Right now with what we're talking about, this is just a senior living facility. Correct. One of the early questions we had was, would this be like a nursing facility? Because in this zone district, that would require a conditional use permit. And so the applicant did indicate that it's senior living, not assisted living. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? All right. Thank you. We'll hear from the applicant. Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Johan Graham, president of AU Associates. And this is our development plan. So I'll be kind of presenting the applicant's point of view myself. I've got Steve Garland with Prime AE, our engineer, who's going to fill in a couple blanks for me when I get to some technical specifications in the middle of this. First, I wanted to kind of define our project, since there's been some questions about what we are just in the last couple minutes. So AU Associates develops affordable senior living using the low-income housing tax credit program. The definition of that is the head of household has to be 55 or older, and the household has to make less than 60% of the area median income. So that's the definition for this facility in terms of who we would propose to be serving. We are not affiliated with the prior development plan. We are a third-party buyer of the three-acre tract shown on the screen here for the senior living facility. So we are not affiliated with the previous development plan. We are a third-party unrelated buyer who's looking at this three-acre property to build a low-income housing tax credit property for seniors. I do want to start by thanking the neighborhood for their robust participation in the design and shredding process. I believe we've had really important, transparent, and productive dialogue to make this plan the best it could possibly be for both of us. Is it perfect for them? I think you'll hear that they don't believe so, but I believe we've made meaningful progress to make this plan as best as we can. And I'm going to walk you through a couple of the things that we have done to help make this plan as successful as possible. Initially, we proposed this plan back in November, and it was probably approvable at that time, but we requested two postponements to continue to work on the project to make it more appealing to the neighbors. We took this from a three-story building to a two-story building, reduced the height by 12 to 15 feet in doing that to be more compatible with the neighborhood homes that were also two-story. We flipped the building around to make it front along Agape, to hide the parking lot as much as possible, to insulate the dumpster from as view as possible, and to turn all the headlights into the property instead of out to the adjacent property owners. So I think we were really successful in accomplishing some of the bigger questions they had regarding the use of this property. Regarding the traffic count, I think what Chris was trying to say and show, it's a roughly three-to-one margin for senior living and single family. So for every three single family houses that could be built, one senior, or maybe the opposite, for every one single family housing that would be built, three senior units generate about the same amount of traffic. So the previous development plan showed 15 single family houses on this three-acre lot, and so the 45 senior units are roughly equal to the same traffic count as those 15 single family lots. I think that was the connection that they were trying to make earlier. I'm going to introduce Steve Garland with Prime Media to talk about three different things that came up at subdivision committee and on our recommendation sheet. So he's going to talk a little bit about stormwater, the tree protection plan, and then we can answer any questions about that common area plan note, I think, if people still have questions about that. Steve, before. So good afternoon. On the requirements not met, the number one to note all existing proposed easements, they're shown. As you can see, the 15-foot sanitary sewer easement is graphically shown and labeled. The storm drainage easement is down along the plan bottom, shown and labeled. And the tree inventory, as we saw from the aerial earlier, there's no trees on this open field. There's fence line trees, and we showed it by the drip line and labeled it existing tree line along the fence line and in the back where the creek is. The rest of the property is open field. So there's really nothing for a tree protection plan because there's no trees to protect in the interior of the property. On stormwater and the engineering, we've had a really good and fruitful correspondence in working with Ms. Vaughn Atkins, who's here. So we've addressed aspects of stormwater management that is allowed by the stormwater manual and that has been done on other properties in the area using the similar methodologies. And from our early correspondence so far, that looks like that's going to be an acceptable path to pursue. All right. There we go. I was looking for her affirmation of that. And if you have any questions for me, I'm here to answer any technical engineering questions. Any questions for the applicant? I've got a couple more. Is that okay? Hold on one second. Did you have something else? Yeah. I'll finish up quickly if you don't mind. Okay. Please. I appreciate it. I just want to be mindful of everybody's time in this process. The development is zoned for its use. We've proposed it at a lower density than allowed, and we have no variance request. And I believe we have done everything in our power to bring the affordable senior housing to every council district in Lexington. And bringing this desirable location, affordable housing for seniors in an awesome location, to allow them to age in place in an area where there is currently no affordable options is, I think, a really important thing for our city. So as Steve said, we're going to answer any questions about the open space, the common space, and what he was talking about in the tree protection buffer. On the plan note, there's a tree protection buffer around the property. So all the existing trees, for better or for worse, whatever they are, are in that tree protection buffer. And there's no other trees on the main site. Okay. All right. Commissioner Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Oops. So sorry. So again, what is the common area note? Because I can't find one. Yeah. The second one, what kind of bus access does this property have? And just out of curiosity, what is 60% of the median income? Yeah. I'm going to tackle those out of order, but try to tackle all three of them. 60% of the area median income for a family of one in Lexington is roughly $44,000. For a family of two, it's roughly $50,000. I may be off by 2% or 3%, but that's what a family of one in Lexington, the area median income for 60% is. The nearest bus stop, unfortunately, is at Wellington and Harrodsburg. So it's quite a hike. Though I would say that most things are quite a hike from LexTran bus stops here in Lexington. So this is not unique. We are situated near several very desirable shopping areas. And the Wheels program, which is their paratransit program, is very successful for seniors. And that's what we use at a lot of our other sites. I believe this site is so attractive, it will not be a barrier to leasing at all for us. The third thing is, and I may need a little help with this from staff, but the shaded area that's shown just off plan left on your page is... That's okay. Click forward. There we go. Sorry. Go to the bottom button. There we go. Anyway, this gray area just to the left... This gray area just to the left of our development is, and Eve helped us work through this with a common space note from the planning staff, is about the distance of any particular lot on this site from the entire site to an available greenway, I believe. And so you have to be within so many feet of available open space. There is a small box on our three-acre site that's labeled open space. That gray shaded area on the left side of the plan, that is the nearest open space to that piece of land area. So we had to have that shown as being available as potential green space for potential neighbors who are too far from another greenway. So I'm not sure if I explained that as well as I could, but... I'm not too clear what you mean. There's a box on the right, it's an empty box that says open space common area, 10,000 square feet. Are you saying that the common area note that's on the shaded area is the same as that note? I don't understand. Let me see if I can help. The previous plan has a divide where half of the people can get to their open space at the front along Old School House with a detention basin, and the other half have their open space at the back of the neighborhood along the greenway. The applicant was originally proposing to build a sidewalk from Agape down to Larissa slash Rimoway. That was not possible as an ADA compliant sidewalk. The only reason there was a sidewalk connecting between those is for the access to the open space. So for the units that were so much further away, right up here, they needed a clear access point to get down to here. So AU Associates proposed a sidewalk along the edge to get down to the greenway. When it was clear that it couldn't be ADA accessible, they looked at a way to provide open space on their property, which is the square, and then that open space will be accessible to the people who will live in that gray shaded area, whatever configuration that might be. Does that make sense? Okay, cool. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you, Madam Chair. And just for clarification, this is, there's no assisted living proposed? Correct. There's no medical on site. Okay. Obviously it's, I would presume this is rental and not home ownership? That's correct. Okay. And one bedroom, two bedrooms, or a mixture? 33 one bedrooms and 12 two bedrooms. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. Okay, now we'll hear public comment. Mr. Simpson. Hello again. Bruce Simpson on behalf of the Dogwood Trace Neighborhood Association. I'd ask for 30 minutes. Chair, I think you'd give me 10, is that correct? Yes. I'll do 15 if that helps you. Well, I still object to not getting 30. Okay. So noted. This is a really important case for this body on a number of levels, principally for legal reasons. Because I'm limited on time, I'm not going to be able to put on all my case, but I will have neighbors hopefully come up and support the general theme of my position when I question where all my evidence will be able to get in because of the time constraints. Principal objection is this. There's no dispute as I stand here tonight and as you all sit in front of me, this is not a single family development proposal. There's no dispute about that. There's also no dispute that when this property went through your development review process back in 2022 for the Planning Commission and the Urban County Council, that the application was for single family development, the entire property. This part is a part of that larger tract. Repeatedly, as you will hear subsequent to my presentation, the applicant's attorney, Nick Nicholson, made expressed commitments and promises on behalf of the owner and the applicant of the entire parcel of which this property is a part, that this was a single family development. It will be single family, single family, single family, et cetera, et cetera. I am incorporating the video record of the Planning Commission, the Urban County Council, all of the files in the Planning Commission's record that constitute a part of this subject property of which this is a subpart because it's part of the entire review and zoning process. That is part of the record in this case that needs to be reviewed if it has to by any subsequent court relative to the promises that were made and the enforceability of those promises should a court be required to make that determination. I've also got copies, thumb drives of the Council meeting, Planning Commission meeting. You will see clips from those meetings as part of the evidence in this case. I'll put those in the record now. In addition, all the files in the Planning Commission that constitute part of this entire development process as I indicated previously. So we have a threshold question about the legality of this application. It's not legally permissible. Approval of this plan, while it has all the appeal of senior housing, we get that. And that's a development tactic that I've seen employed many times over the years, representing developers and fighting them, as the case may be, to have property that's got commitments to how it's going to be developed. And then a more lucrative deal comes along and you'll say, well, I'd like to do this. So I'll option it off to this other party who have a kinder and sweeter kind of warm and fuzzy acceptable proposal. If I can get that in, then maybe I can shoehorn in the rest of the subject property for more intense development that's inconsistent like this one with the commitment that was made for single family homes less than four years ago. And that's what we're talking about today. Nice, warm and fuzzy, embraceable land use option, senior living, et cetera, but not consistent with the commitment and the promise and the decision of this body and the council that this is going to be single family only. That is not in dispute from any record in this case up till today. So when is a promise and a commitment after a year of processing the zone change not worthy of being honored is a question you have to decide today. Because approval of this plan will indicate that promise doesn't have to be complied with. I hope and request that you not do that. I request that you honor the commitment that was made to you, to the public, to these people, to the council, upon which they relied, upon which you relied and the council relied, that this is going to be single family. Now we're looking at bait and switch. We're looking at the opportunity to convert something that was supposed to be single family, this entire parcel, into something that is not in compliance with the original commitment that was made and upon which you all voted less than four years ago. Now that's a legal objection. And it's crystal clear that the law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky with respect to misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and constructive fraud would come into play here. And that's not a zoning regulation. Those are matters that a court would have to determine. I grant you. I hope I don't have to go there, but we will if necessary. What I'm asking you to do today, based on the other arguments I'm about to make, is that not only does this not qualify in terms of a promise and honor of what was originally supposed to be developed on this property, which it's clearly not, but in addition to the promises not being lived up to, the application under House Bill 443 and the unanswered questions that still remain today with respect to the discussion items and the conditional approval recommendation under House Bill 443, punting those unanswered questions, those objective criteria that have yet to be answered before you today, you're punting these to staff. And in my judgment, under House Bill 443 and the controlling law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, all of this information needs to be before you today before you approve this plan. So you don't have all of the evidence to make a decision about whether or not the objective criteria have been complied with. And the extent to which House Bill 443 and any other provision of KRS Chapter 100 that governs the law of planning and zoning in the Commonwealth allows you to punt it to the staff outside the scope of public scrutiny, outside the scope of evidence that can be appealed from to a circuit court, is an impermissible, unconstitutional delegation of your authority to subordinate line staff that cannot withstand judicial sanction. Now again, that's a legal argument, but I've got to make it here because this is where we start. This is where we start. So I'm preserving all of these legal objections. And I've set forth in my letter in more detail what they all are. But what I'm asking you to do is to hold the original applicant owner to the commitment that was made. I'm asking you to do that publicly, repeatedly, single family. Don't allow a bait and switch. I thank you for your attention. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Okay, at this time we will hear from Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark. All right. My name is Bennett Clark. I am a resident of 2441 La Crosse Court, directly adjacent to the subject property. You can see the little red balloon there. Our neighborhood understands and accepts that the property would eventually be developed. After much effort to establish our concerns, we were able to become supportive of the original plan, which clearly stated that single family homes would be built. Here we are again. How quickly can four years go by, yet we seem to forget the promises made? Over this time, the developer was denied in previous attempts to resubmit after approval. Well documented as a bait and switch tactic. Now we have a new version before us, the canary in the coal mine, being an affordable housing senior living facility, masked to do the dirty work for CalGill or some other developer for that matter. I'm here to make sure we recall the statements and promises made to us and address issues left unresolved, as well as to draw your attention to an urgent matter. Go on. Here we go. The specific request that we are here to discuss is whether 15 acres of the existing agricultural urban zone should be zoned planned neighborhood R3 and solely for a single family development. On density, there is no hiding. We are proposing lots that are smaller than dogwood trace, but we are also proposing lots that are in conformance with the type of lots that are being consistently built all over Lexington today. Just two weeks ago, you all have pre-approved a development plan that's been approved since 2016 that had this exact lot on there, 40 by 110s with the Coventry subdivision plan. The R3 zone is going to allow us a perfect opportunity to absorb much needed density and do so while maintaining the single family area. We're proposing the enhanced neighborhood place type because we heard during the tracery zone change that the multifamily that Ball Homes built is enough for this area. If you look from basically the residential going from the tracery all the way down to Jessamine County's line, this finishes out the residential development. And it does so, yes, by proposing a slightly different lot size, but is in conformity with existing lots that are in the area, exactly as called for in the comprehensive plan. When I first heard that this property was coming up for a zone change, I honestly expected that we were going to be having a very different conversation. We were going to be talking about attached homes, townhomes. We were going to be talking about some type of creative multifamily and quads. It's the stuff that our comprehensive plan does talk about specifically. And I was honestly, I'll admit, scared to death that that's what this plan was going to be. I was ecstatic when I saw that it was single family because I went through the battle with the tracery and I knew how much this was going to be a controversial zone change, not because of what's actually before you all today, but because of the road connections and the concerns that Dogwood Trace consistently brought up during the tracery zone change about cut through traffic. I very much understand it. The density, I can say that is in keeping with the status quo of how Lexington has been developed over the past 10 years because you all just found out from the sustainable growth task force that that is what status quo has been for the past 10 years. Six dwelling units per acre is what Lexington has been built out at when you're taking agricultural land and turning it into residential. This was just the status quo. To keep Lexington being developed how we have been for 10 years is calling for six dwelling units per acre. We're just under it at 5.9, but that is how I can say that what we are asking for you today is exactly what has been built consistently for the past 10 years. At least touch on the individual themes and how we are complying with them. The theme angle one, of course, is expand housing choices. I feel like I've already dwelled on that enough with regards to how these different lots are expanding the housing offerings, but we are not doing so in a way to overburden density with multifamily. Watching the subsequent council hearing of June 21st, 2022, there seemed to be some discussion that we were in opposition. I wanted to put on record that we were in support. I'm going to be delivering, so I ask that everybody in the audience in support of my message to please stand up for just a moment. Much like today, we had a group of people. They all stood up. The camera doesn't show it. All right. Thank you. Density, again, we're in agreement with the single-family detached housing lot size. Again, we're in complete agreement with the statement and in agreement with the proposal for single-family detached. Due to the existing adjacent property zoning and proposed plan indicating they would build single-family homes over something of higher density, I can agree to the zone change if, in fact, only single-family homes will be approved and if other problems can be properly addressed or conditional items be approved. Thank you. Here's your 10-foot tree protection area, 2022 versus yesterday. 22 versus yesterday. This is the property damage at the cold iron property on La Crosse Court. Barely missed the house. This is the property damage on the shank property on La Crosse. It did not miss the house. Thank you. also on the environmental side as Ms Wade did point out, we are going to do so in an effort to specifically make sure that we are going to be able to protect the perimeter trees as requested by the urban forester. in talking with the neighborhood, they also would like a barrier in between these lots. we will agree and we'll put it on the plan that we will install a six-foot wooden fence between the property lines in conjunction, though, with the urban forester. we could kind of figure out in talking with neighbors and talking with staff and with the urban forester is we kind of need to just have that conversation as this property comes online. we will agree to put up a fence so long as it's not directly interfering with a tree itself and if it does, we'll figure out a solution whether you are kind of putting a fence around the tree or you're just stopping the fence where that tree is and picking it back up on the other side. doesn't sound like a great plan. curious what the urban forester thinks now. I'd like to make a plea today as you move forward with whatever decision you make to amend this decision requiring the removal of all remaining trees and requiring more substantial buffer such as we see nearby in the palomar area with appropriate hardscape and landscape. this will assist remedying future issues with how the other conditional item, which ended up being an eight-foot fence, if you all remember, and perhaps more important than anything else, could be a life-saving decision. I'll just say personally, there's still a bunch of trees remaining directly behind my property and all of our children's bedrooms are in direct line for something to fall. it's not if but when. you will hear from some other residents today. we urge you to hold yourselves to the original agreement, allowing any deviation sets a negative precedent to the detriment of existing homeowners. honoring agreements and working in partnership with established neighborhoods makes our city stronger, a better place to live and restores trust between citizens and their officials. this is something our city needs now more than ever. thank you for listening to our concerns. thank you. we have any other citizens wishing to make comment? I can go through the list or I think it's probably easier for you to go through. let's see who we've got here. chris coldarn. you were the first one to raise your hand. thank you. thank you. just a reminder, the comments are three minutes. correct. my name is chris coldarn and I live at 2429 lacrosse court. I've owned the home since 2016. I'm here to hold this commission to its own administrative integrity. on april 28th of 22 and june 21st of 22, this property was granted an r3 zone, changed to a multi-family zone. the applicant's attorney, nick nicholson, stated clearly on record, the plan is for 88 single-family lots. it is intended to be and will be a single-family residential development. we are not seeking any multi-family components. he explicitly promised that the development does not need these roads. they have access to old school house lane. relying on these facts, the neighborhood withdrew its opposition. this is a substantial departure from the record. under the president of danville boyle county versus prawl, a developer is bound to the plan used to secure the zone. you cannot build a multi-family project on a foundation of single-family promises. we must address the strategy here. calgill is selling a portion of this land to au associates. once this commission approves a multi-family senior complex, you break the single-family seal on it. imagine lexington's 2045 plan mandates we enable residents to get on the property ladder and accumulate intergenerational wealth. the 22 plan for 88 homes fulfilled that goal. this new plan strips away homeownership for 88 families and replaces it with corporate rentals. this is an objective failure of the property ladder that this city claims to prioritize. moreover, this plan violates a vision safety mandate by authorizing the use of a single-family corridor through local residents' streets. under the framework of house bill 443, your role is ministerial. if a plan objectively fails technical requirements, it must be denied. please refer to exhibit a and b. opening these streets creates an unintended regional corridor. drivers from hundreds of units from tracery oaks and english station will not backtrack to harrisburg road to reach bella park. you can call a bicycle a freight train on paper, but the frame will snap under the load. under lfucg subdivision regulation 66b1, a 30-foot residential street is engineered for a maximum of 75 units. by removing the barricade, you are forcing 81 homes from english station, 196 units from tracery oaks, and 45 units from this new proposal. kind of going through that, that has an additional 2,400 daily trips. that's from the i.t. trip generation manual, the 11th edition. furthermore, this plan fails to a fire code, which you all can read through. but really, you all have to perform your ministerial duty. deny the plan because it fails the math. it fails the safety code and it fails the law. protect the families of this neighborhood. thank you. thank you. thank you all. those please. appreciate it. I apologize. Is it just a letter from him? yes. he's the president. Okay. Okay. Okay. You're just delivering it. Okay. All right. So we'll have this to add to our comments here. Steven Garland. Oh. Okay. I'm sorry. They're part of the group too. Okay. Morgan Clark. All right. Ready? Awesome. My name is Morgan Clark and I have resided at 2441 lacrosse court since April of 2022 when I was pregnant with my first child. As you heard from my husband Bennett, we share a property that backs directly up to the Kamek property and I have been actively engaged in this process from the onset appearing before you once before and your colleagues. We live in a critical time where accountability and integrity are called into question constantly on a global, national and local scale. A person's word is their bond. It's all we truly have and it's more important now than ever that we uphold our word. With regard to the development of the Kamek property, 88 single family detached homes were what was approved and also what is desperately needed, period. We are unable to move to Lexington because there is simply nothing in their price range to buy. That is not speculation. It is a fact. I believe in due process. I want to believe that I reside in a commonwealth that puts people before profits. I want to believe in the city of Lexington, who we are, where we're going and that which we collectively stand for. We thank you for your service to the city. You accepted these appointments because you believed you could make a difference and you can. You must. In the immortal words of Spider-Man, I have three kids so I have to say that, with great power comes great responsibility. The citizens of Dogwood Trace simply ask that you uphold the integrity of the planning and zoning process in which we all participated when this property was rezoned. Will you allow this bait and switch to take place under your jurisdiction? Is this the narrative you want to help shape? Is this the legacy you want to leave behind? It's up to you to be true to your word and hold yourselves accountable. Regardless of what happens here today and moving forward, I will sleep soundly each night knowing that I didn't stand idly by, putting the fate of my neighborhood in jeopardy with my silence or apathy. My three little girls, a three-year-old, and yes, one-year-old twins next Friday whose rooms are in jeopardy when the trees eventually do fall on them, will know that their mother fulfilled her civic duty and used her voice to shed light on what is true, what is just, and to amplify the feelings of many, many who could not be here today, nor in past meetings or future ones, because their livelihoods will not allow it. The vast majority of folks do not have the immense privilege of being able to drop everything and walk away from work to attend multiple meetings intentionally scheduled to take place in the middle of the workday. Thank you. Karen sping gate. Okay, Karen spring gate. I guess it's for the record. Yes, yeah, okay, okay, sure. Thank you to the planning commission for the opportunity to share my comments and concerns. My name is Karen spring gate and I live at 4760 rama way in dogwood trace. We have lived there. My husband Larry and I since November of 1996. So we've been residents going on for close to 30 years. I'm here in support of my neighbors. At the time of this rezoning in 2022, we were involved in and attended the planning commission and city council meetings, I spoke before this group and before the council on the original Calgill property proposal for 88 single family homes. My husband and I spent many hours gathering information, contacting professionals, speaking with neighbors, speaking with planning staff, learning about the planning and zoning process, which was, you know, very time consuming, but we learned a lot. As citizens and neighbors, we felt it was important to be informed and involved and we continue to feel that way. We were in support of the 88 single family homes that were promised and for which zoning was approved. I refer to the minutes of the urban county planning commission dated April 28, 2022 specifically pages 5 through 10 of those minutes. This news proposal is not consistent with what was promised and approved and can only be seen or described as bait and switch, as you've heard. This is a misrepresentation of the promises made to the planning commission, to the urban county council, and our neighborhood, and we believe they should be rejected. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Recy Stagnola. Good afternoon. Recy Stagnola. I live at 2436 La Crosse Court. I've been there for 32 years. I think the operative phrase here this afternoon is this is a classic bait and switch. I think we were all in support of the original proposal of 88 single family dwelling units and I think just concur in here to support my neighbors. I think some of the traffic stats that were referenced earlier would just be based on the volume of this low income senior living. I think once the other parcel would be developed, I think if it were to be developed, it would increase significantly for artery, for a street that is not built to accommodate that volume of traffic based on the size of the road. So I would just ask that you just adhere to the original approval of the single family homes and thank you for your time. Thank you. Michelle Shane. Hello, members of the commission, chairperson, also shout out to my neighbors. Hi, I'm new to the neighborhood, but I'm here today out of concern for the situation. I wanted to read some and maybe paraphrase some of the letter that you're going to have a copy of before you. I am a government executive career civil servant working daily with constituents to craft statewide statutes and regulations governing professional practice. One of my primary duties is to facilitate solutions amongst diverse groups of people and stakeholders. We make a concerted effort to work together to find compromise we can all live with. Stakeholder involvement and support allow for successful passage of the laws we write. Given my career and experience, I am shocked to learn of the sudden shift in development plan for the tract of land near Dogwood Trace neighborhood. The stakeholders have met and hammered out a hard compromise, one approved by the commission and the urban city council. It is now the commission's due diligence to uphold the plans as approved. To do otherwise is disingenuous to the citizens of the city, undermines trust in government and the democratic process. I am a new homeowner to Dogwood Trace. I have been a resident of Lexington since 2012 and I used that property ladder. I used to own a home in Garden Springs and now we've climbed up. But I am aware of a lot of folks who wish they could do the same thing and can't because properties are snapped up by big rental companies, they're bought out before they can spend more than 24 hours at the market. This approved plan for 88 homes is really needed for the city and I hope the council honors the approved plan as it is. I just want to say that given that the stakeholders supported development plan, you should reject the proposed changes. Multi-unit building developments do not belong this far out in the county, right on the line. You heard earlier, the closest bus stop is Wellington. That is really far away. It's not a hike. It's a cross man-o-war. That's a dangerous walk. We have to have a commitment to honor the approved plans as they stand, smart stakeholder supported development and I just request that you stick with that. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to comment. Thank you. Any other public comment? Good afternoon. My name is Mark Sock. I'm vice president of the Dogwood Trace Neighborhood Association, resident at 4752 Agape Drive for the last 26 years. I want to thank you for your time today. I especially want to thank my neighbors who have taken time out of their busy days to be here in support of what we're speaking to today. I want to emphasize that our neighborhood has been relying on the developer, the commission and the staff to stick to its commitment that any development in the Kamek cow-goat property be nothing but single family homes. If you go through the minutes of the April 28-22 planning commission meeting, which has been reiterated here a few times, there was never a mention of a multi-family dwelling on this property and the zoning change from AU to R3, quote, will support infill and redevelopment by establishing a single family residential area within context of the surrounding development, end quote. There seems to be a reliance on the comprehensive plan when steering decisions by the commission and I want to remind you of what else is in the 2045 comprehensive plan and its predecessor, although in similar words, not exact words. And under the 2045 comprehensive plan, theme D, improving a desirable community, pillar 2, placemaking policy number 15, quote, reduce slash discourage vehicle-oriented development patterns such as drive-thru businesses and gas stations within neighborhoods and the urban core, end quote. In the last six years, no fewer than six new drive-thru businesses and a gas station have been developed in a one-mile stretch of Harrodsburg Road from Man o' War to Military Pike. That doesn't include the gaudy car wash that's going to be an eyesore in front of the fountains development that is being built at this very point in time. So there seems to be a disregard of the comprehensive plan when it comes to businesses, but suddenly there has to be an adherence to it when it comes to residential developments. All we are asking for is simply this, deny this apartment development and require the developer to stick to their original plan and what is desperately needed in this town, single family homes. Once again, thank you for your time. Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay. At this time, we'll hear from the – oh, you had another. Thank you. I've got a question. My name is Larry Sprinkett. I live on – Excuse me. Yes, sir. You have a question, sir? Okay. Yes. I live on Raymond Way. I don't know the engineers here. I'd like to know if there's traffic calming measures on Raymond Way. Raymond Way is a local street. I've got that designated a local street. All through traffic should be eliminated. Right now, Raymond is proposed to be connected with this plan here. I think a minimum we need traffic calming measures there. According to – Sir, could you state your name again? Could you state your name? My name is Larry Sprinkett. Okay. Thank you. And your question again? My question is, is there traffic calming measures on Raymond Way? Are there traffic calming measures on Raymond Way? I've got the map here, but I can't read it. I'm sorry. Okay. The plan currently doesn't – Staff is getting ready to answer you. The plan doesn't currently show traffic calming on Raymond Way. It does show it on Agape. Yeah, we'll get the map back up. It's shown on Agape but not Raymond Way. Raymond is a local street. And right now, if Raymond is connected, it would be a freeway through there because it's the only way to get to Bell Reef Shopping Center. But we just need some traffic calming measures to slow down the traffic going through there. And if it's not there, I'm requesting that you put it there. In 2022, Mr. Bailey said that it was something that the commission could add or give a few examples of something that could add such a speed table. So you all have the authority to add that. But if you disprove it, which hopefully you will, then it won't be an issue. But anyway, I wanted to make that – go on record with that. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay. At this time, we'll have rebuttal. Hi. So I'm trying to choose my words carefully. Sorry, I raised the microphone up. I do want to reiterate that we are a third-party buyer of this site, not related to the original applicant. This site could sell over and over and over and over again with R3 zoning on it. Our plan, without variance requests, meets all the requirements of the subregulations and the R3 zoning. I do realize there are some hurt feelings over the last development that was proposed on this whole site, and I understand that. I don't know what I can do about that. And I'm not sure what any future owner could do about that, or we will continue to be up here every time there's a development plan proposed, which I guess is fine, and I think that's maybe their intention, is to fight this in perpetuity. And that's fine, too. That is their right to do so. I just stand here as somebody trying to develop affordable housing on the south side of Lexington with a plan that is compliant with all the zoning regulations and ask for approval. Thank you. Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to the gentleman's position, I suppose he's trying to have plausible deniability with respect to the promises and commitments that are unequivocally made to you all and to the Council. The fact is he can do something about it. He can withdraw this application and honor the promises that were made unequivocally and not in dispute, not rebutted, not rebutted in this chamber today. The evidence is not rebutted. He can withdraw it and honor the agreement. He can do that. He has that power. He filed it. I'm not going to say any more except to say this. My former law partner who I practice law with, Nick Nicholson, was a large part of the testimony in this case. Nick was here earlier. He's not here today. He wouldn't get within 20 miles of endorsing this application. He was here less than an hour ago. In all measure of good faith, fair dealing, honor, commitment, reliance, public trust, this project ought to be unanimously rejected. Thank you. Okay. I don't know how to say this. But I want to clarify that the dispute is between the landowner, not this potential application. This application is zoned R3. They're meeting all the requirements for R3. So I would just like to defend the position of the applicant itself. The agreement was made between the previous owner or the current owner of the property and not this current applicant. So in my opinion, I think it would be fair to limit the accusations and characterization of malintent by an affordable housing developer that's looking to develop senior housing on a piece of property that's currently zoned R3. The dispute is not with the current applicant. I understand the situation. I just wanted to bifurcate the two parties, party 1, the current owner, and party 2, the applicant who is interested in purchasing the parcel and then developing it underneath our subdivision requirements. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Nickel. Staff, do you have anything to? Okay. All right. Well, we'll bring you back to the ‑‑ excuse me. Yes. I just have a question. Based on the information we heard from even Mr. Nickel, do we have any jurisdiction to say ‑‑ I mean, it's currently R3 right now, right? And build apartments right now, correct? It is R3. And there's ‑‑ yes, there are uses under R3 that include multifamily housing. And those were not restricted by any kind of conditional zoning when the council approved the R3 zoning at this location. So we didn't agree to just do single family houses. We just agreed to the R3 zoning, not taking out apartments. I mean, that's correct. I mean, ultimately, the zoning ordinance reads that an R3 zone was approved for this tract of property. And there weren't ‑‑ you know, sometimes you all see and sometimes the council adds or they see conditional zoning restrictions that limit the types of uses in a zone. That's not the case here. It's zoned R3. And R3 does allow for multifamily housing. And do we comment on what we heard from 2022? It seems like that should be a courtroom decision, not our decision. Because it doesn't ‑‑ it don't make me feel comfortable hearing that, too, knowing that what Mrs. Simpson said, we was presented one thing and then it came back to something else. I mean, how does that work with us? This is the first time it came up since I've been on the commission. Well, I mean, it was presented with a preliminary development plan, which, as you know, isn't binding unless there's some kind of conditional zoning restrictions placed on use or buffering, which is the only thing conditional zoning restrictions can be placed on. And it's ‑‑ I'm trying to choose my words carefully here. It's not the first time you have seen a different development plan come back on a piece of property from what was preliminarily filed. You know, there are no permits or other things pulled to start construction with preliminary development plans. And you do see those change. You don't often see them change as much as this. So ‑‑ but the zone itself, unrestricted, doesn't prohibit the use that's being proposed on this development plan that you're being asked to approve based on the subdivision regulations. Okay. Yes. I was going to add, I think part of what you were asking was is there an avenue for the commission to disapprove something if it meets the regulations? Right now, I'm a little confused. Okay. Well, that's blurry, so that will make it even more confusing. Can you talk a little bit about it? Yes. Okay. So the zoning ordinance lists commission action. So this item has been to the technical committee. It's been to the subdivision committee. And now it's coming to the planning commission. So there's a date limit in there, 90 days. At the very end of this page, I think I underlined the word the. So if we can flip it. Can you flip that over? Okay. So the commission may modify or disapprove the development plan if it finds the plan does not comply with the regulations or when applicable the land subdivision regulations. So you've already heard that it does comply with those two things. So the only other avenue is you would have to have a finding that there's an existing or potential flood, drainage, traffic, topographic, health, safety, nuisance, or other similar problems related to the development of the subject property or the affected area. So you would have to find there to be a negative impact of this development that overrode approving it because it met the regulations. Thank you. Yes. Don't go away. Before you go away, we saw a picture of a tree that had fallen onto a house. And we saw that trees had, there was some conjecture that all the trees were going to fall. Do you know about the condition of the trees and why are they falling and that sort of thing? I'll be honest. I had a short conversation with the urban forester. But he's not here today. So I'd hate to infer anything. He's clearly our expert. I do think the land was cleared. And they left the 10-foot buffer of trees around the edge. In my, I guess, professional opinion, that could have impacted the root system of the trees that were left and could have, you know, led to some damage or trees falling. That being more likely if kind of that's not in a large tree stand anymore. But I don't know any specifics about when the trees fell. Okay. A couple other questions. Let me just interject one thing there. One important thing is that clearing or not clearing, whatever, you know, that's a whole other issue I'm not going to venture into today. But there was a requirement to have a 10-foot buffer of whatever tree stands were on the property line. So those trees were left because that was a requirement at the time. So just, you know, what impact that has, I'm certainly not going to tell you from, you know, my perspective. But that, just so you know, that was in there, in the requirements that were originally imposed. So the other question, thing I'm wondering is, I wasn't here on the commission April 2022. So what was the land use before, assuming it's agricultural, but the request was for R3? Yes. Which seems rather intense and intensive use. So, yeah, the request was to rezone from an agricultural zone to the R3 residential zone. And the reason they chose R3 over an R1 zone was because it allowed for smaller lots. Okay. And then I guess the last part of my questioning is, we aren't seeing anything about the western end of the property. So since it's zoned R3, there's nothing that says that it has to be as it was looked at. It could be something different as well. Not the single family homes that were mentioned a lot in the previous zone change. And I think that's a significant concern for the neighborhood as well. Not just the three acres proposed today. But, again, we don't know what would be proposed. And I'm not sure if you were here, but there was another proposal. One that was approved and then one that was recommended for disapproval. Which did bring forward almost all multifamily. And the staff recommended disapproval. They ended up withdrawing that request. Thank you very much. Okay. Commissioner Nichol. Ms. Wade. I've got a question about the 2022 hearing. Years ago, we were in... Years ago, we did participate in practice of conditional zoning restrictions. Which I was against to begin with. But there were many, many development plans that have come through here with conditional zoning restrictions. Were there any conditional zoning restrictions agreed upon by the planning commission in our approval of the zoning to be R3 in 2022? There were not. And I will tell you, since the 2013 comprehensive plan, the staff, once we switched away from a land use map recommendation into a policy plan, the staff did not make specific recommendations on density limits for properties any longer. That didn't prevent the planning commission from considering them or the council. But the staff stopped over a decade ago making recommendations to limit density. Again, letting the zone itself be the limit of either lot frontage requirements or FAR requirements and so forth. So there were no restrictions put in place on this property. Okay. And so what I'm thinking about is I understand that the applicants, the original applicant in 2022 made an effort to promote only R3 housing. But there was no restriction put in place for only single family residences on this property. Therefore, with R3, this property that we're looking at right here meets all the requirements for R3 as it stands. What I'm getting to is the point that it cannot be inferred that the reason that we made the decision for zoning to be R3 was because of the applicant stating that this development is single family only. That would be inference unless we had made a statement that said we would like to conditionally restrict this property for single family housing on R3 zoning. So that's the way I understand it. And if there was a bait and switch, it's not a bait and switch on this side of the house. Okay. Anyone else have comments? All right. One quick question. If the planning commission at that time had put those conditional restrictions in, then we would have had a different conversation here. Is that right? Right. We would be honoring whatever the restrictions are put in place. So the restrictions that are there related to fencing and the trees for buffering. Yeah. Well, and let me add to that. You know, all zone changes go to the council, and they have the opportunity to add conditional zoning restrictions, take conditional zoning restrictions away, or modify them. We're looking at the ordinance right now. They didn't do that either. Just for clarification, that means no matter what we do here, they could go to council and then that could be taken up again? No, this doesn't go to the council. For a zone change, though. Oh, for a zone change. Yeah, for a zone change. And so when this originally came up as part of the zone change, and so you all were considering a zone change from AU to R3. Right. And all zone changes in Fayette County have to have a preliminary development plan filed with them. Yeah. But the preliminary is not binding. But what I'm saying is, even if the planning commission didn't impose conditional zoning restrictions, or if you did, the council has the opportunity to change that when they get it, but they did not either. They didn't. Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. Just one last question. Ms. Jones, Mr. Simpson said at one point during this hearing that this was illegal for us to act upon this. What is the opinion of the council for this LFUCG planning commission? I disagree with that. And I think you have a development plan in front of you that's been filed pursuant to the subdivision regulations with the zoning in place, and I think you have to act. Not right now, thank you. One other question. I think we've asked about most of the issues. Some of this information we were given early on had to do with engineering in the roads, not traffic capacity, but just the ability of the roads to withstand the traffic. Could we get a comment from staff about that? David, Traffic Engineering. Yes, so the roads as proposed by the applicant are 30-foot wide, which is continually local. It's one of our standard cross sections that we see in all of our neighborhoods' streets. There are effectively two local choices, one of which is a 27-foot roadway cross section. The right-of-way is larger, like 52-foot right-of-way maybe, and then a 60-foot right-of-way. And so those are what we see in every neighborhood in the city, especially post-80. There's no regulation capping capacity of a particular street in a neighborhood. All right, well, I'll bring it back to the commission. Let's go first. Madam Chair, let me say this. One, I think I was taking a sabbatical in 2022, because I definitely don't remember this plan. And I am a senior, most definitely. Not that I want to admit to it. But I really don't think with the current applicant that this would be considered a bait and switch. I do have concerns about the thought of what was approved and what is now being asked for. We go through this all the time. We talk about infill and redevelopment. We talk about the need for affordable housing. We talk about the need for mixed use. And, you know, every once in a while we forget about the fact that, at least in my opinion, that we need to look at compatibility of these things. Our comprehensive plan does talk to that as well. The density, the use, being in the middle of a residential development like it is, is concerning to me. I've gone full circle here in the last week. I really have. I came in here a week ago. I was saying probably not. I came in here thinking today, well, probably so. And quite honestly right now I'm leaning the other way simply because I think we do need single family housing. We haven't been building that much in the way of single family housing. Everything has been leaning towards apartments and higher density and so forth. So I think you can guess where I'm headed with this. I would have to vote no on this. Okay. Where are we? Anybody want to? Just one quick question as a review. This is a zone change. No. I'm sorry. That's it. Yeah. Well, this is a, yeah. Right. Yes. I'm going to make another statement to defend the decision that was made in 2022 by this body. The decision was made to rezone the property to R3. There were no conditional restrictions applied upon this. And we're looking now at an R3 parcel with a preliminary subdivision plan that meets all the requirements. The city council also had the opportunity. The city council also had the opportunity to put additional zoning restrictions on this parcel. When it went to council, that didn't occur then either. So in my opinion, our decision was made for a zone change for R3 with no conditional zoning restrictions. And council then approved that decision. There were two opportunities to put conditional restrictions on this property. It did not occur and it passed. I just wanted to make that clarification. Ms. Barksdale, let me make a further clarification. We've pulled up the zoning ordinance from 2022, which is what controls this property right now. Because there hasn't been another zone change. And it did zone it from AR to R3. There was one conditional zoning restriction to build an 8-foot fence along the property line. And it says to build it along the property line with the adjacent single-family lots at the time of development in coordination with... Well, I'm trying to go on down here. The restriction says that it's necessary to build this 8-foot fence to ensure the adjoining single-family neighborhoods aren't adversely impacted while increasing housing options. So there was one conditional zoning restriction to build an 8-foot fence along the property line with the existing already single-family properties like in Dogwood Trace. So there was that one. But there was no conditional zoning restriction about the user density in the R3 zone. Okay. So we did make an effort to take into consideration a conditional zoning restriction. And we then acted upon that. But while we were taking up one conditional zoning restriction, we did not take up any other zoning restrictions, which in my mind lets me know that we made a decision based upon R3 as an appropriate zone, not single-family housing specific. Because if so, while we took up an additional zoning restriction, we would have done the same with use. I mean, you certainly can interpret that however you want. But I just want you to be aware that there is a conditional zoning restriction for the 8-foot fence along the property line. But there are no conditional zoning restrictions limiting user density inside the R3 zone. I'd like to make a comment. Like my fellow commissioner over here, I've been back and forth and back and forth. I heard today that this is intended to be senior living, not assisted living. Without that reassurance, I would probably be voting against this. Those of you who are advocating for more single-family homes, we absolutely do need those. But our housing shortage is 22,000 housing units in Lexington. And that is a huge need that goes beyond this one request. We're not going to tackle that request with the decision we're making here. And I'm sorry. I'm not going to say I feel your pain. I'm not Bill Clinton, so I'm not saying that. But I understand that you feel like you have been deceived. And I agree with my colleagues here. Most of us were not around on this commission when these decisions were made. And if we were, you've heard the requirements that we were presented. So although I know that's going to disappoint many of you, I'm going to vote in support of this proposal. Yes. One last thought for me is that the definition of the R3 zone says it could have medium density, mixed residential, multifamily, townhouses and condos, and a three-story development is typical. Three-story. The gentleman from AU Associates says their proposal is two stories. Is there any way that we can tie this to being two stories legally? In approval, could we tie it to being two stories? That has to be part of a zone change. You can't conditionally zoning restrict something when you approve a development plan. All right. Well, I thought I'd try. Thanks. I did have another question, though, with regard to the trees that remain. Whose responsibility are those trees? Does it belong to the developer or are they the property owner's trees? Well, let me say this. I don't want to speak for every lawyer I know, but every lawyer I know hates that question. Oh. And here's the reason why. Because trees don't grow this way and stay on their property. They grow this way. And so, I mean, you know, I think people have some right to protect their property if something is hanging over into their yard in their property. But, you know, technically the tree is probably on the person's, you know, where its trunk and its roots are is what property it's considered to be on. But that doesn't necessarily mean all of its growth is on that property. So, you know, I'd leave it to individual people to maybe talk to somebody else about what can I do here if something is hanging over on my property. Okay. Yeah, I was just curious because it seems like if the developer was responsible for the 10-foot barrier when it started deteriorating, it seemed like the developer would have had a responsibility to shore it up. But I know that's not under our purview, but it was just a question I had. I guess this is a related more comment than question in the clarification. The trees are on the developer's side of the property, right? The trees. The roots. Yeah. Well, I guess. The trees that are referenced in that 10-foot, you know, area were on the side of the property line of the developer. So this is one of those between a rock and a hard place, whether the urban forester would be in a position to look at those trees and look at the potential damage to the property owners on the other side of the fence and give dispensation to take out those trees to put in new plantings for the buffer. I mean, I don't want to get too far afield here, but I do believe that because that is in a tree protection area, and I wish the urban forester was here, but he's not, but he has the ability to look at those trees and make recommendations about them. Okay. Okay. So we're back. And I mean, I guess the reality is that the property could be sold again. The other part of the property could be sold and someone would come in with a apartment, general apartment, much, much higher traffic. So that's part of me is saying that, you know, having to think about the ramifications of an R3, the senior living facility will have less of an impact than if it was just regular apartments, which would be permitted, or even townhouses, which R3 would allow, right? So I don't know. For me, because at the time we didn't really focus on what it means to have R3. Yes, they presented single family homes that were close together, but I know that was probably my second year on the commission, and I didn't really think what that could bring down the line. So now we know that. So I don't know. I guess I'm inclined to go with a known that has a lesser impact because we're going to see this again because apparently they're not going to develop it like they had said they would initially, so I'm assuming they're going to probably eventually sell the other side, which that next person is just looking purely for an R3. And they may come in and do townhouses. They may come in and do small lots. We don't know. They may come in and do an apartment, want to do an apartment. I mean, this is a tough one because it's R3, and so it's allowed, and so that kind of limits, I think, what we're capable of turning down, I guess. I'd like to speak. Yes. As your neighbor, I feel for you guys. I want to kill this, but legally we can't. The genie's out of the bottle, and all we can do now is, I guess, mitigate the damage that's been done to you. We apologize. We're sorry about that, but we can't kill this in the form it's in right now. Okay. I would like to make a statement about when I was making my decision on whether the property should be R3 or not back in 2022, I was taking into consideration all the different possibilities of development on the property that are within the R3 regulations. What I would like to make a motion, if that's okay, a motion for approval of PLN-MJDP 25-67 Margaret C. Kammack property at 4630 Old Schoolhouse Lane with the 13 requirements that we reviewed. Second. Motion has been made and second. Any questions to that motion? All right. Let's vote. All right. It passes by majority. Thank you all for your time. Yeah, because I came on in 2020. Yeah. Mr. Mr. All right, all right. We're not done yet. No, we're not done yet. I'm sorry. We're still on the air. We're done, but not done. You're on the air. Just chatting with each other. Here we go. All right. Let's okay. Yes, I did. Okay. Okay. So just a reminder that you do have obviously meetings coming up. So our next meeting is next Thursday, and it's a work session. On February 19th. And then, of course, after that, you'll have zoning items on the 26th of February. All right, thank you. All right. With that. I'm sorry. Do you have a security know what we're discussing in our work session? interesting planning policies. All right. If there's no objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. with that. I'm sorry. Do you have a security know what we're discussing in our work session? All right. With that. I'm sorry. Do you have a security know what we're discussing in our work session? The meeting is adjourned.