... for the February 26 meeting of the Planning Commission, and at this time, I will, uh, turn the commission's attention to the minutes of January 29th, uh, however brief. Um, you have those in front of you. And if there are no, um, corrections or additions, uh, chair will entertain a motion for acceptance of those minutes. Mr. Chairman, I move that we, uh, approve the January 29th minutes as, uh, stated and written. Second. Second. We have a motion and second to accept the minutes. Uh, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Minutes accepted. Thank you. Okay, at this time, uh, the commission will, um, um, accept any requests for postponement or withdrawal. We'll consider those at this time. Mr. Chairman, commission members, Foster Ockerman Jr., representing First United Methodist Church. It's page two, item number two. We're, we are requesting a one-month postponement, and by way of explanation, I'd like to report to you that we have been working diligently with the South Hill Neighborhood Association, uh, and we are very close, I think, to, uh, working out an agreement with them that would, uh, at least remove any opposition, possibly engender support. So we're asking for some more time to let their board meet and see if we can work that out. Thank you, Mr. Ockerman. Uh, Mr. Solied, uh, one month. What, can you, um, that date? That date is March 26th, four weeks from today. March 26th, okay. Thank you. We have a request for a, uh, one-month postponement of MAR2008-31. Uh, this is for a property located at 200 West High Street, a portion of 318 South Mill Street, and 323 and 327 South Upper Street. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a postpone, one-month postponement for our March 26th meeting of MAR2008-31. Second. We have a motion and a second for a one month, one-month postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Uh, page one, the, uh, item at the bottom of the page is the Thomas and Corbett LLC. We would like to request a two-month postponement for that case to the April 23rd meeting. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Uh, we have a request for a two-month postponement for MAR2008-23, Thomas and Corbett LLC. Uh, this is for property located at 1060 to thre- 1097 Bridlewood Lane, 5200 through 5205 Tikes Pass, 5121 Middleton Place, and 5397 Tates Creek Road. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a two-month postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd make a motion for MAR 2008-23 for a two-month pro- postponement. We have a motion to second for a two-month postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, um, any, any additional requests for a postponement or withdrawal? Okay. At this time, I'll ask the staff, do we have any, uh, uh, applications that, uh, may qualify for abbreviated hearing? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the commission, good afternoon. I believe that there is one item on your agenda remaining that may qualify for abbreviated hearing. That item is item number three on page three. This is MAR 2008-32, a request by RML Construction, RLLP. This is an amended zone change request, uh, to an R-4 high-density apartment zone for property at 852 Campbell Lane. Uh, we would ask at this time, uh, if any member of the audience wishes to discuss the proposed zone change to R-4, uh, at 852 Campbell Lane. Okay. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this ... We can deal with this, uh, zone change in abbreviated fashion. Uh, the following item does have a, uh, development plan discussion. Uh, so that, I think, would be the only abbreviated hearing today. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Solley. I guess, uh, we'll give staff a moment to, uh, get set up for that, that ha- ... that, uh, presentation. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Again, good afternoon. The first zone change of three remaining on your agenda appears on page three and four. This is item MAR 2008-32, RML Construction, RLLP, amended. This is an amended zone change request from a single-family residential R1D zone, and from a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone, requesting a high-density apartment R4 zone. This zone change involves less than one-half acre, gross, uh, and the subject property's address is 852 Campbell Lane. The staff report for this item should appear at tab three in your notebooks. Subject property is at the end of Campbell Lane, which is an older rural, uh, residential street that extends eastward off of Liberty Road. This is north of Todds Road, in the area of Cadentown, which is designated as a local historic district and has been now for not quite a decade. Uh, the subject property is zoned R1D for a very narrow sliver, but mostly R3. And the property is, uh, has a number of conditional zoning restrictions on the property. The bulk of the property was rezoned in 2005 to the R3 category, and was intended initially as a recreational use for an adjacent a- apartment complex at the end of Helmsdale Place, which now has a signalized intersection with Man o' War Boulevard, as does the Todds and Liberty Road intersection. There are over 250 dwelling units, uh, in the apartment complex, all told. The change is to rezone both the R1D and R3 portions of this property to R4 high-density apartment, and the proposal involves an additional 24 apartment units on this half-acre of the subject property. And as you'll see from the development plan, it's to be incorporated to the adjacent use. The comprehensive plan recommendation for this area, uh, is for a residential use, and to orient you, we have Man o' War Boulevard, Liberty Road is here, Helmsdale is here, the existing Adams property apartment complex, which does have a different name, is here. Campbell Lane is here, along with the existing residential uses along that street, including the subject property. The nearby high-density use is recognized by the comprehensive plan as a high-density use. Subject property and those properties on Campbell Lane, and in addition, adjacent, uh, vacant residential land is recommended for medium-density residential use, five to 10 units per net acre. When averaging the density between medium and high density, the comprehensive plan would suggest a maximum of almost 375 dwelling units for the adjacent complex, including the subject property. ... with the additional units proposed, a total of 264 units are being requested. That would result in a density of 17.3 dwelling units per net acre. Since this number is below the maximum allowed, it can be found that the high density apartment zone is in agreement with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan. It is, uh, worthy to note as well the loss of conditional zoning restrictions on the subject property is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the residence closest to the subject property, uh, has been removed from this site since the conditional zoning was initially put in place on the subject property. The staff has recommended, as has your Zoning Committee approval, of this proposed rezoning to R-4. The comprehensive plan recommends medium and high density residential land use for the subject property and the associated Adams property. Also, if the density were averaged for each portion of the subject property, an overall density, uh, of 17.13 dwelling units would be provided, which is in agreement with the plan. The staff is recommending the conditional zoning still be in place for the subject property for one restriction. Uh, any lighting installed on the property should be directed downward and away from adjoining single family residential, uh, zones. That is necessary to limit the impact of the increase in density upon the existing homes on Campbell Lane. Before the development plan's presented, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about the staff's report or about the application before you this afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Sallee. Are there any questions for Bill? Thank you, sir. Thank you. As Bill Salley was just talking about the zone change, if you turn to page four, it's Plan ZDP 2008148. It's Item B. This is a zone change from the R1D and R3 to R4. Here's the property at the corner up here in the rear, the end of Campbell Lane. A portion of it's the R1D, the other portion here is R3. The proposal is to add one additional building with 24 single f- 24 one-bedroom units. The Subdivision Committee had recommended approval with the 13 conditions, but reviewing the conditions we came up with Condition Number 8, it says, "Addition of required 25-foot floodplain setback information." At this time, with our new maps that we have just now, floodplain maps that we are just now using, there is no floodplain located on this property at this ... So this Condition Number 8 can be removed. Okay. You have any questions? Thank you, Ms. Galt. Are there any questions for Cheryl? So Condition 8 says, "The receipt of the new FEMA maps, we can remove Condition 8." Correct, sir. Those went into- Okay. ... effect in September. Okay, great. Thank you. I have one question. Mr. Holmes? When ... Y- you note on 13, the note to require zone-to-zone screening. Um, what, what type of screening is that? Um, there's ... In the zoning ordinance, we have it described out. I don't know specifically every detail for that zone at this time. Okay. It can consist of either a fence, a solid wall, berm, or, uh, hedges, uh, in addition to trees every 40 feet. Has that been presented or will that come? Those level of details sometimes are depicted on final development plans. Most often, that is, um, submitted to the Division of Building Inspection with a detailed landscaping plan that even, uh- Mm-hmm. ... shows specie and material. Thank you. Any other questions for Cheryl? Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. Day. I, I, I guess one question and, and it, I, on this. I- it, did we j- change this so they could build a tennis court? Isn't that what originally was gonna be there? Yes, sir. You're remembering the case. So, so does the zoning or the screening change any since now it's gonna be residential or will, will there ... Will it be the same, same screening requirements? It will not. The, uh, change to R-4 will only require landscape screening along the western edge of the property adjacent to the single family area. Uh, it fronts on a public street, so there will not be screening required there. Uh, the building itself will be oriented, uh, to the remainder of Campbell Lane, will not have access to Campbell Lane, but driving down the street, it will have an appearance at, to that street. Yeah. The parking, the parking lot sits adjacent to the single family residential, and the building sits just on the other side, so parking is in between the single family and the apartment unit. Therefore, the screening's there. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Cheryl? Thank you. Thanks. Also, Mr. Chairman, if I could direct your attention to Condition Number 1, that should read, "Should the council rezone the property to R-4?" I believe this dates to, uh, the time before the amendment was made. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sallee. Okay. Uh, petitioner? Mr. Chairman, I'm Rena Wiseman for RML Construction. Uh, unless you have any questions, we're in agreement with the staff recommendation on the zoning, including the conditional zoning restriction. ... and the conditions on the development plan with the additions that have, or deletions that have been made today. So we'd ask for your approval, but we can answer any questions, if you have them. Thank you, Ms. Weissman. Are there any questions for Ms. Weissman? Okay, thank you. Staff, anything else you'd like to add? Any further additions? Okay. All right. At this time, I will close this portion and, uh, turn it over to commission for further discussion, uh, comments, motion. Staff has, uh, recommended approval for the map amendment, uh, MAR 2008-32, um, for the reasons provided, uh, noting conditional restriction re- with regards to lighting. This time Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of MAR 2008-32, uh, with the, uh, condition of the lighting, as referred to in number 3A. Second. We have a motion and a second for approval, um, of MAR 2008-32. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, please note my abstinence. Okay. Uh, if we could note, uh, Ms. Whitman's abstention. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of ZDP 2008-148, with the deletion of number eight, so it would have 12 conditions. And noting the correction to condition one? Right. Okay. And to g- to go from an R-3 to an R-4. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve ZDP 2008-148 with the noted corrections, uh, to condition one and deletion to condition eight. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. And again, Mr. Chairman. Please note, um, Ms. Whitman's abstention. Thank you. Motion, motion carries, thank you. Mm-hmm. Mr. Taylor, I'm gonna ask, uh, legal a question real quick. Okay. On Ms. Whitman's abstention, is it, uh, are we required to provide a reason for that abstention? We're not? Disqualification re- re- requires a statement of the reason, an abstention does not. Abstention does not. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Mr. Taylor. All right. The next item on your agenda is on page four, and behind tab four of your notebooks as well. It is MAR 2009-2, Property Partners LLC. Uh, the applicant is requesting a zone change from R-1B, single family residential, to I-1, light industrial. Uh, the property is 1.26 gross acres and consists of two lots, 550 and 560 Stone Road. Property is, is these two lots right here. This is Big Run Road, S- Stone Road, new circle down here, and here's the bend in Stone Road. This is the property where the Montessori school... We saw a previous plan there. This is the Open Gate Neighborhood. And these are the, uh, Space Center storage units adjacent, as well as the KU, uh, facility there. Go to the next one. Closer up, you can see the access point for one of the two lots. Uh, it's harder to see, uh, I believe sh- actually, I believe they share an access point here. This is the entrance point for the Space Center storage, further on up to the north from the subject property. Go to the next one for me. Currently, the property sits right here, R-1B. There's R-1C zoned property to, to the east, or sorry, to the west in the Open Gate Neighborhood, R-1B with the Montessori, as well as additional I-1 around in the Big Run development, as well as I-2 back in this portion. Next one. No. Go ahead. This is the property, the single family residential structure that does remain on 560 Stone Road. Move it up, Barb. This is looking to the northeast along Stone Road. The, looking towards the crest of the hill to the right is the subject property. This is looking out of the access point from the subject property at this time. That, that is looking south towards the o- or towards the bend. This is the access point to the Space Center storage, which is just to the northeast of the subject property. And then on further up to the northeast, the KU access point. And you can see sidewalks and the wider portion of Stone Road at this location. It's difficult to see, but there is a, an embankment, as well as, uh, a row of trees at this location leading up to the access point for the subject property. This is down near Big Run and Gold Rush, looking, again, to the northeast towards the crest of the hill, approximately where the subject property is located. That's it. Actually, why don't we can throw the next one if we're going to start with that. The comprehensive plan recommends light industrial for the subject property, as well as for the, all the property adjacent to it. It recommends low-density residential here, semi-public uses at this location, and then up in the corner, a little portion of medium density. Due to the proximity of the residential neighborhood across Stone Road from this location, the staff recommends that the most intense industrial uses be prohibited on the subject property via conditional zoning. The staff recommend and the Subdivision Committee r- excuse me, that's a, staff and the Zoning Committee recommended approval for the following reasons. The requested rezoning to light industrial is in agreement with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, which recommends light industrial f- future land use for the subject property. The following uses, uh, that you can see under Note 3, A through I are listed as the prohibited uses under conditional zoning. Prohibition of those, those uses in the I-1 zone are appropriate and necessary for the subject property in order to protect and establish a residential neighborhood from the most intense industrial uses otherwise allowed at the location. Be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. Maybe in order to keep moving on, we may need a couple of those. Yeah. Does that conclude it, Mr. Taylor? Absolutely. Um, thank you, sir. All right. Are there any questions for, um, Chris, from the Commission? Thank you, sir. Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, on page five of your agenda is EDP 2009-11, Big Run Industrial Park, Unit 3 is the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change. As stated in Mr. Taylor's presentation, it's located on Stone Road. The plan is proposing, at this time, two buildings, 13,800 square feet of buildable area, with 23 parking spaces and proposed detention in this location. This is a revised plan that was submitted, and there were several conditions that this submittal did satisfy. And you can see from your agenda that there's only a small number of conditions that remain on this plan. However, this plan was referred by the Subdivision Committee to discuss number six, which is improvements to Stone Road. We have some photographs to illustrate the nature of our concern for these improvements. You can... We're looking north here, along Stone Road towards Pasadena. KU is to your right, my right, in the photograph. Um, that's the sidewalk. You can see the drainage ditch in front of the property. Next photograph, please. Here, we're now looking south, at the end of the sidewalk as it hits KU's access drive, and there is the mini-warehouse development immediately adjacent to the KU property. And on the other side is the subject property of your zone change. You can see that there are no improvements across the access drive, uh, including no sidewalk. Next photograph, please. This one's a little dark, but if you look in the foreground, you'll see four-by-four wood posts that are acting as a makeshift curb on this property th- apparently to help direct drainage off of the road. It is paved in that area, uh, adjacent to Stone Road as well. And the next photograph, please. This is the front, continuing across the warehouse property to the very front of the zone change, uh, subject property. And you can see there are no improvements. Uh, the, mm, there is a bit of a drainage ditch there, but again, and you can see a large tree sitting there, uh, on the property as well. And the next photograph, please. And now we're looking back, across the front of the subject property, towards KU, and again, you can see there are no improvements and a very faint, faint impression of the drainage ditch. Um, we wanted to make you all aware, very clearly of what the conditions were out there, and the reason for this discussion. Staff, uh, does support the provision of road improvements along this frontage, and I would like to touch on another item, to give you a little bit bigger picture here. ... but again- Check, check. ... we outlined-- Did you turn the lights on? I thought I was... Thank you. I know you guys can generally hear me without this, but they can't, can't record me, apparently. We wanted you to see the sidewalk network that does exist in the area, the overall network. And again, you can see the gaps that exist. These are the area that was... When this residential development was built, we had sidewalks here, again, KU. Here's a sidewalk network, uh, uh, kind of a hit-or-miss network within the Big Run industrial area, and again, we had that long discussion with Montessori in talking about the sidewalk connections here. So we wanted you to get a view of the, uh, sidewalk situation at a minimum. Well, that was the nature of that discussion item. I would add that we can, if the planning commission supports it, resolve this at the time of the final development plan. There are good reasons for that. When you get a final development plan, you see exactly what's going to be developed, and you're dealing specifically with drainage and those issues. There is a certain advantage then to dealing with those, the exact nature of those public improvements at that time. I would also like to make a note that you will have a extra condition, possibly number seven, to denote conditional zoning restrictions should you approve the zone change with those conditional zoning restrictions. And I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Tom? Mr. Penn? Tom, as I look at that, uh, is a detention basin in that particular location gonna create a problem for, for developing, widening, uh, Stone Road or putting in a drainage ditch? I think it's certainly going to have to go into consideration, how that would be structured and, and how it would serve in relationship to those improvements, yes, sir. So the location of the detention basin could be an item? It could be a problem? It could be, yes, sir. I do believe that is located in the, generally, the best area for that. As you looked at the photographs, you know, w- they're at the crest of the hill. I'm talking about sending it back enough to put a, whatever improvements you want to do to Stone Road there and not impact the detention basin. Without getting into engineering design, I, I would state that I think some flexibility is probably possible in that. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Tom? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Petitioner? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. I'm Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners here on behalf of, uh, Property Partners LLC. Tom Matthews is with me. He's the owner, uh, or partner with, uh, Property Partners. And, uh, with regards to the zone change, uh, we're in agreement with the, uh, with the staff on those and, uh, uh, don't have anything further to, uh, to add to that. Uh, this kind of fills the, the, the donut hole in the comprehensive plan for the industrial zoning in this area, so that would be, certainly appropriate. Uh, with regard to the development plan, um, I guess the, the, the real issue is, is the, uh, number six there that discuss required improvements to Stone Road. Um, the, the development, or the, uh, detention basin, retention basin, uh, it's located in the low point of the property. Uh, if, if during the design of the construction of the site, uh, if, if, uh, improvements to Stone Road are, are, uh, required, then, uh, you know, the, the site would just have to adjust to accommodate that. It... There's, there's, uh, uh, no magic to that other than just making sure that the numbers, the numbers work. The, uh... Our, our biggest concern with the, with the improvements to Stone Road is, is, uh, two, just, uh, the, the necessity of, of doing that, uh, and also the, the preservation of, of the trees, the fence row there. It's a pretty significant fence row. Uh, the zoning ordinance will require us to essentially replace it if we have to tear it down, uh, with, with much smaller material and, uh, less, uh, uh, not as, not as dense. Uh, we, we like the, the look of the, uh... It, it gives us some protection and also gives us some screening to the adjoining neighborhood, uh, that backs up to us across from Stone Road. I have an exhibit that I'm gonna have, uh, put on the overhead. And this, uh, this exhibit didn't account for the, uh, darkness of the screen today. Seems like it's usually a lot clearer than this. I don't know what... But, uh, maybe if I can use the Bill's... Can you get the whole image on there? Uh, - Oh, okay. Um, what this is showing is the, uh, or not showing in this case, is the, uh, the limits of the existing sidewalk improvements. And up at the top is Pasadena Way, and you've got, uh- ... uh, of course sidewalks on both sides of Pasadena, and then they come down. Uh, there's none on the right side until you get to the Stone Gate right here, so there's no sidewalks up along here to Pasadena, and then the sidewalk on this side of Stone Road stops just about right up in there. Uh, there's no sidewalks on Stone Road on this side all the way down. And, uh, as I said, where, where Stone, Stone Gate is, there's sidewalks here. There's, there's a, a gap here where this property is located, and then KU has built sidewalks on this, on their side. Here's the, the, uh, the mini warehouse building has no sidewalk. Uh, this is the subject property. It's, uh, a discussion. And then you get the Big Run Industrial Park, there's no sidewalk here. Uh, and I, and I guess, generally, I'm, uh, in, in support of sidewalks, uh, in most every case. Uh, I, I can see a real, uh, or I can see no need for sidewalks in this location. There's, there's essentially nowhere to go. Uh, the, the Montessori school is, is, is, is probably the only destination, uh, in the location, and, uh, who's gonna be using the Montessori school? Uh, it, I, I suspect it's a, uh, a larger, uh, uh, geographic boundary than, than the neighborhood, certainly. Uh, there you go. Uh, but I would propose that, that neighbors, students in, in this neighborhood and even in this neighborhood are not gonna come down Stone Road, uh, to reach the Montessori school. They're, uh, take the, the most, uh, residents in this neighborhood, if, if I'm walking to the Montessori, I'm gonna come out, come down a little bit of Stone Road, across into this neighborhood here, and then come down this road where the road stubs into their property and access their property internal to the neighborhood. Uh, that would, to me, seem the most logical, uh, path to follow and then, uh, of course, uh, everyone within the, the neighborhood here would, would follow the same suit rather than coming back out on the Stone Road and walking down, uh, walking down Stone Road where you've got the industrial traffic. Uh, beyond the Montessori school, there's, uh, there's some destinations that are on, uh, Pasadena up by, uh, uh, Nicholasville Road area, which might be, uh, you know, you got a Kentucky Fried Chicken and a gas station up there that, uh, is a convenient store, but I didn't measure the distance, but it's, it's substantial, more than, uh, most would be inclined to, to walk. And then down Stone Road the other way is the, uh, Stonewall Center on the other side of New Circle Road. You get down to, uh, uh, Clays Mill and turn left there, that would be your next destination. Uh, that's a pretty good hike there. Uh, at a, at a previous meeting in front of the Board of Adjustment, I had a hard time convincing the neighbors on the Board of Adjustment that people were gonna walk from the parking lot to the soccer fields, uh, uh, that were, uh, less than 200 yards away. So, I, I don't think I'm gonna have much difficulty in, in telling you that people are not gonna walk from, from this area of Stone Road up to Nicholasville Road or to Clays Mill, uh, for the, for the center to do a, for, uh, convenience shopping or restaurants. So, I really don't see the, uh, the need. There's, there's also a, uh, a little bit of a, of a proof in, in this location right here. Uh, I don't know what, what the history of that is, but there's no, uh, park. There's no sidewalk there. Uh, but, but maybe more, uh, telling that there's no sidewalk, there's no cow path either, uh, which tells me that there's just not many people walking, uh, in front of the KU lot to the Stone Gate, uh, neighborhood and beyond. So, uh, unlike Tates Creek Road, where you've got a clear cow path, now there's an example of where there's pedestrian activity with no sidewalk. Here, there's no, uh, evidence of pedestrian activity. Uh, so we would, uh, appeal to the, to the Planning Commission that, uh, that the improvements to Stone Road be essentially left as is. We have a, uh, 27-foot, uh, pavement there, uh, where the crest of the hill, it functions, uh, uh, adequately as, as it has for, uh, uh, for some time now and don't see a need for any further improvements. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Are there any, uh, questions for, uh, for Tony from the Commission? Uh, yes, sir. Mr. Owen. Uh, Mr. Barrett, as far as the trees, uh, have you identified the trees? They're a native, uh ... I can ... Um, they're native fence row trees. Uh ... Uh, black walnut. Uh, primarily black walnut. Uh, ash hackberry, mostly black walnut. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Any questions? Uh, any other questions for Tony? Do you have anything? Thank you. Mr.- Tom would like to speak. Oh, certainly. Certainly. Thank you for hearing me. Um, prior to purchasing the property, I met with the Open Gates Neighborhood Association to ask if they'd have any objection to my proposed use of the property. And one of the questions raised by them was, what would they see? And I told them that we were gonna maintain that fence line and the, uh, the, the four-plank fence and the tree line. I don't know if I could make that commitment, but I did. And then I took the plan, of course, I'd met with the urban forester on the site to make sure those trees were viable and not over-mature, and he said they were all worth keeping. I met with someone from the planning staff about what requirements would be made. This was many years ago. Um, and then took the plan to the Building Inspection Review Board, where there was a traffic engineer and a planning and zoning person, and all the people that would wanna chime in on it. And the traffic engineer expressed some concern about site distance due to the trees. That is, a vehicle coming out onto the road would have to nose out in order to see up and down the road. So, with that in mind, I purchased, and I'll leave the microphone to show you, this property that's adjacent to this property in the Big Run Industrial Park with the idea that we would come and go through the industrial park and eliminate that entrance, and so, in, in order to preserve the trees. Uh, part of our business is curb and gutter and, and sidewalk, and we do that in our sleep, and it's far more expensive for us to, to build an access from down here. I just thought it was important to maintain that screen, and I think, uh, I think it's worthy that, uh, to consider leaving those trees and not, not tearing them all out just so that we can replace it with other vegetation. Thank you, Mr. Matthews. Ms. Copeland, do you have a question? Yes. Um, when did you have these conversations with public officials? Because this is exactly opposite from what I've heard. How long ago? When did you pro- when did you purchase the property? 1999. So that's 10 years ago? Yes. Okay. And that's when all these conversations about quality of trees and saving the trees and all of that, that's when that took place? 10 years ago? I had four, four different meetings, and they all took place in 1999. Okay, thank you. I'm not sure the character ... I mean, you're saying that you have heard that, what? That ... I talked to the urban forester that we have today. Well, okay. And he had a different take on these trees, but maybe he'll be here and give testimony. I don't know. Okay. I'll look for him, but the, the one I met with on site, well, I think, I didn't know we had an urban forester, but, uh, Lindon Smith, the person in, uh, planning recommended that that would be one of the first things to do, would be to talk to him and see, and he walked the entire lot with me and looked at every tree to give me a overview. He, he recommended removing a bunch of honeysuckle, which we did and, uh, so ... Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Matthews. Are there any other questions for Mr. Matthews? Mr. Day? I do. Do you, do you say you do have the ability to access Goldrush? Yes, I, I purchased those. Actually, there were three little slivers there, and I, I got them, oh, like a week after, uh, I bought this property, I bought the other. Is, I mean, is there, are you saying the reason that you don't want to do that is 'cause it's longer to build a road to- No, no, I do want to do that. I'm saying, I mean, that, to me, it would be more important to, to come and go through the industrial park for a couple reasons. There was another comment that the Open Gates, uh, one person said he could hear the garbage trucks coming out and then starting up that hill and, you know, other than that minor annoyance, and I thought I'd kill two birds with one stone by eliminating that entrance to the property and just using some other access point. You're talking about eliminating the Stone Road and- Yes, uh, and the idea I had was if you, if you'd close that entrance down and access the property through this triangular piece, that would ... Actually, I own this too, this property, and I think, I guess this one, these three parcels, uh, that we would eliminate that problem. But this is already zoned High, so that's not part of the ... Well, I mean, I'm, uh, I've been out there to look at it twice. I mean, that's what I, I would, if you had the ability to come off Goldrush, I would think that that would answer at least some of my questions. Because the, the problem that I'm having with not requiring the sidewalks and the improvements is that you have a Stone Road address and none of those other people on the other side of the street, or none of the people in the industrial park have a Stone Road address. And if you'll also notice when you turn off Pasadena now for Stone Road, there's four houses now for sale, and I'm assuming when, if we em- approve some kind of a zone change on your piece of property, that those other four pou- pieces of property will be right down here wanting something. That's, that's just, that is, uh, eight years experience of being doing something. Well, th- th- that's the reason why I'm- And so if we, and to, and that's where we, all of a sudden then we would have sidewalks at some place because if we required each of those properties to put sidewalks in, then there would be very, not a very- ... 90% of the sidewalks would be in on that side of the road. Well, I, I, can't speak to those properties because they're not recommended for I. My reaction is that if this were the first piece of property developed, it would be a slam dunk. But the property to the south there, along the industrial park, it's got a big swale and the sidewalk wouldn't even work in that location unless the entire property were redeveloped because of the storm drain- drainage issues. You couldn't just put a sidewalk in there. And this, there is a, it's not shown on the drawing, and you can see it on one of the photographs, but there's a pronounced grade drop from the corner of my property onto the... So we'd have an island of sidewalk that would connect to, uh, the slow- I agree 100%. That's why I would... Well, I'd like to see you close the Stone Road entrance and use the Gold Rush. And that, to me, made all the sense in the world. Well, I guess, uh, do we put, do we put a condition on, uh, on this that that entrance be clo- or that if it, if it's ever developed that we close that entrance? Is that the solution? And then we don't have to make the- Well, that's just my personal opinion. Uh, I mean, I, I have been out, been out to look at it and, I mean, you, you've got to admit yourself, if you're going to build a parking for 20, 27 cars, that's a pretty tight entrance to go in and out of there on Stone Road, don't you think? I mean... Well, I don't ant- anticipate more traffic. In fact, I, I would expect less traffic than Dr. Hemple had when he ran a veterinary clinic there. This property has been used since before merged government for a business, and had a two-story building, and he had people coming and going all the time. We have much less traffic coming in and out. So the fact that there's room for that many cars is probably... I don't anticipate ever parking 23 cars for our business. We don't, we don't have that much use for, for, um, parking of that magnitude. But we put it on there because that's- And, and I appreciate... And my, those were just my observations, that's all. Okay. No problem. Thank you, Mr. Day. Um, Ms. Copeland? Um, when did you have your conversation with the neighborhood across the road? Uh, I met with Ron Wedding, who was the president. In fact, he lives on Severn Way and backed up to the property. He then took it to his next neighborhood association meeting, and that was in 1999. Okay. I, I then followed up with a letter to him confirming what we... Okay. Thank you, Mr. Matthews. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, I... Which way did you say you wanted to access the property? The way you have it drawn or do you want to go through the Gold Rush? I'd like... Well, we seek approval for this parcel because it's, it's con- entirely separate from the other property, but as a practical matter, I would prefer to come and go through Big Rush or Gold Rush if that would prevent my needing to tear down that row of trees. A- and during this last storm, uh, I mean, did it damage those trees any or? No, we lost one tree on the back property line. And, uh, it wasn't a big diameter tree. It was eight or nine inches. And I think we had some branches down. There may be one branch that's still hanging up there, but we'll, we'll get over and get it lift and get it down when we can. Well, um, a- and then could you, uh, keep the trees and, and run a sidewalk behind them or in some other... I, I mean, if you... I know it's an exaggerated elevation there, but... Well, that, that's part of the de- the, um, issue. A cr- a short section of curb and gutter was also part of the deal, and that's a drainage issue, and, uh, there would be no longer a ditch for it to run into, and there's no storm sewer out there, so the water would sheet down to the industrial park. And there's a fairly pronounced grade dif- difference, so you would be up several feet higher than the roadway, which is not in conformance with the city engineer's recommendation for sidewalk. It's supposed to be 10 inches higher than the gutter line, so. I, I just know in some cases, um, that I've done, you know, we, we didn't have to do the curb and gutter, but we did do the sidewalk in some fashion. That s- that seemed to be important to some people. Uh, here, you know, I mean, it's, it's so fragmented that, um, I don't know that it ever would be continuous through there, you know, that we'd ever get that all the way through there. My point exactly, and one of the issues, involves another line of trees behind the front line that those trees have been there, I guess, uh, and there, there are some that are right in the property line, right in, along the back of the fence. Then there are secondary trees that are a dogwood and a pine that are right in the way of the sidewalk. If you tried to come in there, you'd have a serpentine sidewalk, and there are issues about public safety, about people walking on sidewalks that can't be seen from the road. That's another public safety matter. And I, I don't... I'm not an expert on that, don't pretend to be, but it just doesn't seem practi- like that sidewalk would ever get used, given the pronounced drop into the industrial park. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Matthews? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Is there, um, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this application? Seeing none, is there anyone wishing to speak in objection to this application? Seeing none. Okay, thank you. Uh, staff, do you have a rebuttal? Mr. Chairman, members, just some clarification that I think may, may assist in this discussion. And that is, again, we made the recommendation that the required improvements could be resolved at the time of the final development plan. And I think this discussion shows that there are some issues that would make that a wise choice in staff's- ... view, and that has to do with what you've heard today with possible access to Goldrush Road, which you can also, if they are willing, commit them to that at this time, with a restriction to close the access to Stone Road and provide access to Goldrush Road, uh, again, at the time of final development plan. Uh, I would like to point out that the sidewalk is not the only public improvement that might be deemed necessary to Stone Road. And again, those very drainage issues that have been talked about may dictate some need for some improvements along that frontage as well. And I think those could best be resolved when we know on the final development plan w- how it's gonna be developed, how they propose to access the property, and, and see the answer. And, and Mr. Query, the urban forester, could be prepared at that time to, uh, offer up his assessment of the trees, because there are tree protection, uh, steps necessary at that time in the process. Thank you, Tom. I believe Mr. Penn has a question for you. So Tom, are you telling us that number six is adequate to, to, to further that discussion forward? Yes, sir. I, I do. I think it's been laid out on the table. Uh, everyone's aware of it, and I do believe it's adequate. Yes, sir. Would it be the staff's preference to, uh, d- discuss the connection to g- to Goldrush? It is, uh ... The staff is also appreciative, always appreciative of very definitive statements and, and conditions. And so, uh, we would be happy to add that as a, as a resolution item as well, or, again, as a condition, should this body deem it necessary. Thank you. Mr. Penn. Any- I guess I've got a question, Tom. Mr. Penn. 'Cause, and I'm sure the, the applicant may want to know this too, is if they choose the Goldrush entrance, and we stipulate that today, does that mean as far as for them that number six would, could go away? I believe we should still discuss the nature and extent of any improvements that may be required. That's true. It may be the sidewalk wouldn't be required, but perhaps some other improvements might be. Okay. I mean, I, I ... Thank you. Any, anything else as far as rebuttal? Mm, no, sir. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Petitioner, rebuttal? Yeah. We're, we're essentially in a- an agreement with deferring, uh, six to a final development plan, and if you wanted to include comment about access, potential access to Goldrush Road, that could be incorporated into the note as well. Just for my own clarification, uh, I, I assume that what you're saying is that if we postpone this decision until the final development plan, it wouldn't come to where we had to do both. That is, okay, we'll go through and then still go do the improvements. We're, we're ... That's what I thought. Okay. And that was what my question was to Mr. Martin, was ... Okay. Thank you. I, I guess, well, l- look, I wanna ... I want Mr. Martin to kind of respond to that, just so we're, we have an understanding. Then I'll, I'll address Mr. Craven's question. I still think there's some things unclear about where we are. Okay. Thank you. Well, uh, in regards to the improved system road, I was just trying to make the point that, again, not being our traffic engineer or the office, uh, Department of Engineering, they may well have concerns that would require some level of improvement to Stone Road, uh, independent of the sidewalk. And, uh, again, it may be that even the sidewalk may be the one that ultimately is determined to be appropriate without the others. And, and again, I, I tried to establish that point with the pictures, where I showed the, the drainage issues just as an example. So I just don't want to preclude addressing those issues. Thank you. Tom. Mr. Cravens, do you have a question? Um, this is for the owner. I, I, I guess just sitting here, um, and you're talking about accessing it through Goldrush, and then I see this other separate piece of property. Uh, I mean, I, I think that would hurt the value of your property, i- if you were to go through, you know, not have the entrance off of Stone Road. I mean, that's just my opinion. Do, would you want to comment on that, or ? That, that, it seems it would be a decision I'd have to make knowing that if I were to take out those trees, I would have to contend with that in the final development plan, if that were my choice. I think under the circumstances, I bought that property for that use, and I see no other use for that ... The reason those lots were the only three in Goldrush Industrial Park that hadn't been developed is because they have a whopping 30 feet of frontage on that circle, and I thought it was a natural, uh, combination to have those since they were contiguous and to, and to put them together. Um, it, it may well hurt the property value, but I think tearing the trees out would hurt the property value more. So that's where I am. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Um, we have before us, um, the, uh, zone map amendment request of MAR-2009-2. Um, Zoning Committee has recommended approval for this, uh, amendment request. Staff has recommended a-approval for the reasons provided, and the condi-... I'm sorry, the, uh, conditional restriction for the, uh, conditional zoning for prohibited uses A through I. Um, and we also have the Zoning Development Plan where, uh, we have six conditions. I believe staff has said they would feel comfortable with the resolution at time of final development plan on condition six. Um, if the con-... if the commission feels, um, feels so to, um, give staff some direction on this access to Goldrush, um, they may do so also as a further condition as well. I think that's what I heard staff say also. So at this time, um, chair will entertain any further discussion, comments, and/or motion. I've got one- Yes, sir, Mr. Brewer. ... comment, Marie. I'm sorry, Marie. Um, I have a map or overlay that I put together this weekend, and the information that I'm gonna show you I think addresses a bigger picture. And this is, uh... Barbara, would you hold it up please? It's a long piece-together quilt kind of a map, so it probably has some distortion in it. Okay, thanks. But this shows Stone Road, and it's based on Google Maps, which if you are, um, watching this on your TV now or later, you could have gone, um... I didn't have special access is what I'm saying. Any private citizen... Would you flip up the overlay please? Uh, any citizen can now go on the, um, um, Lexington Kentucky.gov website, go into, um, over on the right, whatever that panel is, um, government services, and then go down into public, um, what is it? Public information or what... Anyway, you get to the planning site, and then you can go in and you can look at the zoning things that are happening today. You can see the development plan, and you've got a Google map. Well, I was working, doing my homework, and I saw this looking at the big picture. If you'll go up to the top of Stone Road, up toward, um, north, and start up at Open Gates up there, and you... I have drawn a line on the l-... and that's what's showing up on all the setbacks that are coming down that road. Ca-... Okay, now take it up, Ms. Rockers. And now right now you're, uh, you'll see a orange triangle. That is the building that is the, uh, storage building, and then there's a circle, and that between those two points is the lot that we're talking about that we're gonna do the zone change. But you see where the buildings have a setback line all up and down through there? Now, flip over what they're proposing. They're proposing putting their building in front of the normal setback line on Stone Road. Those trees are important because it allows that building to go out into a s-... farther f-forward than the setback line. And if you'll look over here at this drawing right here, the, uh, plan, you'll see that his building is sitting in front of the normal setback line all up and down Stone Road. So if we allow this for what... for whatever reason, sidewalks, trees, they're just hackberries pre- pretty much , and who wants a walnut tree dropping walnuts on a road? But if we allow this, we have choked down this road for posterity, or we have caused a expense to the city, or Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, when they get ready to widen it, because they're gonna have to buy his building. We don't wanna do this. This is just not right. So let's look at this building line and why it's not, uh, delineated on this, um, chartreuse and purple plan. I don't understand that any more than some of the poor pictures we've seen today. Now, as far as the trees, I talked to Query, and he said they're mostly fence row hackberries. That is an urban tree, and it is good for birds, but that's it. Uh, I know a lot of fence row hackberries that are not put on the worship center. Uh, the bushes there are an invasive species that we are trying to get rid of. They're honeysuckle bushes. There are no sidewalks in part of this be-... but there is grass shoulder where you could walk with your seeing-eye dog if you wanted to. You cannot walk with your seeing-eye dog in front of this site. 200 feet from the corner of this property is the corner of the Montessori school system, where they're gonna develop in the floodplain down there. I think it just behooves us as a inner city school site, or near an inner city s- school site, to have a sidewalk. Sidewalks are not just for pedestrians. Unless you're downtown, you can bike on them, and to put this sidewalk in this space allows people to get off of Clays Mill Road and come over here and bike to and from UK. Um, that's pretty much it. I think we need to look at the big picture and put this r- rem- I am a landscape architect, and I'm saying the trees should not be what this is all about. It's having a safe road and safe connectivity. Thank you, Ms. Copeland. Mr. Brewer, you had question? Comment? No, I'm good. Okay. Thank you. Um, I just wanted to remind, I, I think that's some very good information, Ms. Copeland. Thank you. Uh, I, to be honest, as a designer, I, I guess I've never drilled down to that level and sorta conditioned myself to know that zone map amendment requests, we, we as a commission always have that opportunity to, um, uh, resolve those issues at development plan. And, uh, again, thank you. I just hadn't looked at it, but certainly we have that potential to resolve the development plan, uh, when it comes about and we can look at those, uh, those particular details. Um, any other questions? Comments? Mr. Penn? Yeah, the only comment I've got is that, and I appreciate, uh, Ms. Copeland's work there, but my concern is that even though the access could be on Stone Road, the best access is off of the internal development of the industrial park, for no other reason than for traffic. And so, I don't wanna get in a situation where it's either/or, but I think that that is worth a lot to the community to be able to take those, to take those vehicles in and out o- of the industrial park the way it's designed. Uh, I do have concerns and I always have concerns about the city having to come back and put the improvements in at a later stage. And I think, um, Todds Road taught me more about that, and Liberty Road, than, than I'll ever need to see again. So I, I think we need to look at that in the final development stage. I would like to, to, to encourage the access off of Gold Rush, and then I think the rest of this can be worked out at a later stage. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Any other comments? Okay. Is there a motion from commission? Uh, we'll take first the, uh, zone map amendment request, uh, MAR 2009-2. Zoning committee has recommended approval as well as staff. Staff has provided reasons, uh, along with, um, the, uh, conditional zoning prohibited uses. You're asking for a motion? Yes. Uh-huh. Okay. Um, I make a motion that we approve the, um, where is it? Uh, MAR 2009-2, uh, zone map amendment plan, with the, um, restrictions that, uh, there be a final development plan attached to it. Or, I think he said put, um, number seven denotes zoning restrictions. We'll, we'll do that on the zoning development plan. At this time, we're only taking the map amendment request. But that's 2009-2. Correct. Yeah. Okay. The MAR 2009-2, uh, zone map amendment. I vote we accept it, or I propose we accept it. But did it have any restrictions on it? No? That comes with the zon- Okay. ZDP-8- No- For a reason. Okay. We have a- For reasons provided by the staff. Thank you, Ms. Copeland. Um- Ooh. We have a motion to, um, to approve MAR 2009-2, um, for the reasons provided by staff, noting, uh, conditional zoning three- Oh, I was looking, yeah. ... for the prohibited uses, and we have a second. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Is there a motion for the zoning development plan? Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of ZDP 2009-11 with the six conditions and adding number seven, that the access should be used off Gold Rush. And, uh, was there another one we wanted to add to that, or is that it? The, denote that conditional zone- Yeah, the conditional zone is r- I guess conditional zoning restriction would be number seven, and number eight would be the access would be off Gold Rush. Second. We have a motion and a second, uh, to approve, um, ZDP- Sorry. Excuse me? Could you, could you repeat that motion ... . Could you repeat your motion, Mr. Penn? That we approve ZDP 2009-11 with the six conditions as printed on our program, or on our, uh- Agenda. ... agenda, and that we have the number seven be the conditional zoning, and number eight would be the access would be off Gold Rush. And I think six, are you saying, "resolve"? Resolve would probably be better than discuss. If that's... Yeah, r- I think resolve's probably better than discuss. I think so. There was a motion and a second. Is that... Did that help, Mr. Barrett, to clarify your moti- this motion? Well, it, it, it clarified the motion, but it's not necessarily what our understanding of, of what our agreement was. We were, uh, uh, we, we were proposing access to Goldrush as an option to eliminate future improvement to Stone Road or, or at least make that an option, uh, to consider with, with the total package, but not a requirement of access to S- Goldrush and further consideration of improvements to Stone Road. After what we saw here today, my reason for doing that is, is that we need to see the final development plan before we know where there's gonna have to be any other, other improvements to Stone Road. Well- And we don't have enough information. All that does is leave it open for us to do it, Mr. Barrett. I, I... Well, my interpretation of your motion is that access to Gold Ru- Goldrush Road is required. Encouraged, would that be better? Considered, discussed. I think, uh- Take it or leave it. I think you leave it. I think... Well, I'll, I'll, I'll tell you, I wanna, uh, I guess involve staff. Staff, in terms... You've heard the commission, um... Obviously, uh, you, I think you get a sense of direction and choice of words in that condition for Goldrush? We, um... I, I had, uh, understood you all to say that number six could be revised to state, "resolve required improvements to Stone Road and potential access to Goldrush Road." That allows that to be considered together. So is your thought to combine that as one condition? Yes, sir. That was my thought. We would be resolving those issues together. They are tied together. One doesn't preclude the other. Yeah, that's what I said. Mm-hmm. Well, I think I'm, I'm hearing words up here. But I think that's- L- we'll, we'll take it one at a time. Uh, Mr. Penn, you want to respond to that? I mean, I, I didn't hear it that way, and it... My motion was the other way. I guess we can vote it down and then come back with another one if you want to. I mean, the Chair can rule however he wants to do that, or I can rephrase the motion, whatever's wisest. I think, uh, we ought to rephrase the motion, if you, if you wouldn't mind, please. Mr. Martin, would you help me with the rephrasing of that motion? Yes, sir. Yes, sir, I'd be happy to. Uh, you could, uh... Again, if you wanted to keep that as a separate issue, then it too, number eight, could be, "resolve access to Goldrush Road," at time of final development plan. So it's, it's clearly stated as a separate issue for you, and it doesn't... It does not preclude improvements to Stone Road. That issue is still on the table, and we- And how would you combine that with number seven? Well, number seven is nothing more than, "denote conditional zoning restrictions." That's, that, that's the way I saw it. All right. It's an adjournment. So we want to denote the conditional zoning restrictions, and we're going to resolve the... The connection? The connection, yes, sir, to Goldrush Road, as well as the Stone Road improvements. Okay. We have the motion, um, as I, I have in my notes, "resolve required improvements to Zone, uh, Stone Road," uh, um, the "denote conditional zoning restrictions and resolve access to-" Goldrush. "... Goldrush Road." Goldrush Road. That's the motion. Does that work with the rest of Commission? Okay. Well, I believe, uh, Mr. Owens, uh, second that. Yes. Yes. Are you in agreement? Okay. Uh, yes. Question. Question. Yes. Uh, what, what are the "conditional zoning"? Wh- wh- where are they? The conditional zoning is prohibited uses. They appear on the bottom of page four and the top- But- ... of page five. Yes, under item three, under prohibited uses. Okay. We have a motion, uh, on the floor, as well as a second. Um, a- any other question? Yes. Mm. Kind of a question/request. Um, in order to, uh, I think, surmise the situation with respect to Stone Road, I respectfully request that you all come prepared with some tree data, so that we know what exactly sits on Stone Road, when and where. And if we could also request Urban Forester to be present at that meeting, I would appreciate it. Okay. Thank you. If we could, uh, I guess, communicate that, I guess, at time of final- I think it should be- ... development plan, we'll- ... have, uh, Forester here, Urban Forester. Okay, we have a motion on the floor and a second. Um, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." All- Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Does that make it clearer, Tony? Okay. Why don't we, uh, I guess, take about a- Yeah. ... 10-minute break, and then we'll reconvene for our next, uh, next application? Thank you. Residential use south and east. There is also a church immediately across the street from the subject property. And industrial uses are to the northeast and southeast of the subject property. This is viewing the subject property from the west, looking east at the front of the property. Here we have Louden and Eastland Drive. Subject property, you can see its former driveway. I guess, currently the driveway for the existing single family residential use there, uh, does have access to Louden Avenue. Little closer view of the existing structure on that property, property boundaries here. On both sides of the corner. This is a view looking from the north at the subject property. And you can see the residences, uh, in the nearby subdivision. That's the High Point Subdivision, mostly across Louden Avenue. Uh, the industrial uses here. Uh, of interest in the I-1 zone, there's also a m- older mobile home park not too very distant from the subject property, just to the southeast of that location. Yeah. So there's no reason to change- And the final photograph is also from the northerly direction, looking at the subject property along its frontage of Eastland Drive, this location. These photos are about two years old, and I think Mr. Murphy at your zoning committee meeting had some updated photographs, and we expect you to see, uh, some of the photographs from the recent road improvement you saw. In those photographs, that improvement was under construction at the time. The improvement has been since completed. In looking at the comprehensive plan, which is on the overhead and also here to my immediate left, the subject property on Louden Avenue north of Winchester is recommended for medium density residential use. Medium density is also recommended for the residences immediately south and west of the subject property. The church is identified as an existing semi-public land use. There is a utility, uh, a short distance north of the subject property, electric utility. It is identified as such on the comprehensive plan. And industrial uses, both light industrial to the southeast and then wholesale and warehouse use recommended on either side of Eastland Drive in this vicinity. The staff cannot find that the zone change that's before you this afternoon is in agreement with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan. Certainly, the comprehensive plan recognized the, the existing zoning and use in this particular area. Uh, in the staff's view, since it cannot be found to be in agreement with the plan, we must analyze whether there have been any unanticipated changes in the area and the appropriateness of the zoning. The staff believes that the existing R-1D zoning is appropriate at this location. In addition, uh, this subject property is in a much larger area where the central sector small area plan is currently under development. Uh, that plan exists in draft form, but at this time, the staff is not aware of any recommended land use changes in the particular area of the subject property. The 2007 plan recommendation for medium density, uh, is being reviewed, but at this point, uh, is being affirmed through that process. The staff does acknowledge that the property is along a land use boundary between residential and light industrial. However, uh, this property is at the northern end of numerous residences along the east side of Louden that have been residential for a long time, that all abut light industrial zoning and uses, uh, and are, uh, to remain both under the comprehensive plan that we have now and the central sector plan that is under development. As the photos indicated, until recently, the residence on the subject property was even buffered somewhat from the nearby industrial uses, although the trees that used to provide that buffer have since been removed, uh, over the last two years. The, uh, Louden Avenue improvements have reduced the frontage of the subject property 20 feet, but that has not, uh, diminished the appropriateness of our 1D zoning at this location. That road improvement, uh, is not an unanticipated change since the comprehensive plan was adopted in 2007. That improvement was underway in that time, as the photographs indicated, and had been planned for many years prior to it commencing. Your zoning committee reviewed this application three weeks ago and recommended referral of this zone change to the entire commission. The staff at your zoning committee recommended disapproval of this rezoning for four reasons. Those reasons appear in our staff report and on your agenda. The first, the requested rezoning to light industrial is not in agreement with the 2007 comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan recommends medium density residential at this location. Secondly, the central sector small area plan in it is underway, but does not recommend any land use change to this portion of the Louden Avenue corridor. Thirdly, the existing single family residential zone remains appropriate for the subject property. The property is one of the larger residential properties in this area, despite the right of way acquisition for Louden Avenue. And then fourth, there have been no unanticipated changes in the immediate area since the comprehensive plan was adopted in 2007. That concludes the staff's report on the zone change. In just a moment, you'll be presented with the development plan portion of this application. But the di- at this time, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the commission about our staff report or about the application before you today. Thank you, Mr. Solie. Ms. Phillips? Um, Mr. Solie, I wondered, um, in the staff report, uh, the staff is recommending disapproval based on the inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. Um, and this speaks to the, the map component of the comp plan. I wonder if we have any policy statements in the comprehensive plan that speaks to expansion of existing, uh, services, existing, uh, industrial uses, um, adjoining residential areas? Do we speak to that at all? I'm not certain that they are specific in terms of their relationship to residential. I know that there are goals and policy statements in the plan calling for expanded, uh, economic development and business opportunities, uh, no doubt some probably also directed directly at industrial uses. I'm not sure that we have any statements specifically about industrial into residential areas. But during the course of your hearing, I'd be glad to look at those, uh, and report to you at the end of the meeting. Thank you, Ms. Phillips. Mr. Holmes, do you have a question? Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Solie? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, at the bottom of page five and the top of page six, item B, ZDP 2009-10, Picklesheimer Subdivision, Lots 1 and 4 Block through 4 Block B is the associated preliminary development plan with this zone change. It is, as Mr. Solie pointed out, located at Louden Avenue and Eastland Drive. It is an existing 800 square foot building, currently used or as a residence. There is a covered porch, and they are proposing parking in this area. When the plan was originally submitted, they were proposing to use an access point here, an existing access point that was built as part of the Louden Street improvements. There was a lot of discussion about the appropriateness of that access point. In preliminary discussions and review, it was recommended by staff that that access be moved. You can see that they have done that. They are proposing access off Eastland Drive. In this area, we have an easement, which is for a traffic signal. It is staff's understanding that that traffic signal is active, and that, uh, the plan was recommended by the subdivision committee for approval. There were a number of conditions, as you can see on your agenda. They're mostly cleanup conditions. Some of those have been met on this new submittal. However, we did have two discussion items. If I would like to direct your attention to number 14. That is, discuss the access points and parking locations. You can see from this submittal that they have addressed the concern with item 14. Now, that, staff believes, can be deleted from the conditions. Item 15, resolve need for stormwater detention. Now, this is a small, less than an acre site. Nonetheless, they're adding a lot of parking, and so staff has a concern, and we would like to be sure that, if necessary, stormwater detention measures could be taken. That, we believe, again, this is a preliminary development plan, could be resolved at the time of a final development plan. And that relates a little bit to condition number 10, which says, "Delete note number 10." This big old long thing right here is delete note number 10, and it refers to stormwater detention. And it's an adequate note in and of itself. However, it needs to be deemed adequate and appropriate by our division of engineering. And so we don't want it on the plan at this time. It, it may show up on the final development plan. It may, in fact, be how they resolve, uh, any need for detention. Item 16, discuss Eastland Drive improvements. And again, that was a point of considerable discussion among staff and at the subdivision committee about the need to upgrade Eastland Drive along this frontage. Staff, as stated previously in this hearing, is always, uh, in favor of improving street frontages and public improvements, and we do recommend that along Eastland Drive. We also believe that that could be resolved at the time of the final development plan as well. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Tom? Yeah, I've got one, Tom. Are you saying we want to keep number 10, or we want to delete that note? We're gonna keep number 10. I just wanted, uh, the commission to understand that number 10 is connected to number 15. Okay. It's a storm water detention issue. Thank you. Any other questions for Tom? Thank you, sir. Petitioner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm pleased to be representing Clayton Ray Junior here today. Um, Clayton, or Jerry as, as he goes by, is with me in the second row here today. And, uh, with, uh, us are Andy Holmes of Midwest Engineering, our designer, and Chaz Height, a professional planner who works with us on it. And, uh, as I understand it, we will keep number... note 10, which says, "Delete note number 10." So if I'm not confused, I will certainly be at the end of this. But, uh, well, we'll keep the 10 that's on the agenda that says Delete Number 10 that's on the plan. So that's fine. And we, uh, do... we agree with the, uh, the, uh, suggestions that Mr. Martin had about the, uh, development plan, uh, especially 14, 15, and 16. Um, Jerry Ray, who's my client, uh, runs a local business here. He's an excavation contractor. He does about 75% of his business with horse farms in the local area here. He, uh, might do excavating for when they want a road done. He doesn't do the paving, but he does the excavating or, uh, laying of pipes and that sort of thing. His father started the business before him, Gerald Ray Senior, uh, 35 years ago. And he's, uh, continued the business of his father and needs a space to expand his business slightly. Uh, he, um, had few years ago, found some alternate space in the Dav- Davis Bottoms area, which was zoned I-1, uh, for a p- potential new location for his business. Uh, as luck would have it, the, uh, you all recently rezoned that residential as part of the redevelopment plan for, for that area, which is fine, which is fine. And, and we're not up here objecting to that. But, uh, then it, it led to having to look in some other direction for that. And, uh, this property became available and Jerry has purchased the property with, with hopes that he'd be able to use it. It's being used as a residence today, but in hopes that he'd be able to use it as his office. Um, he would like to have the office for his business there. And he does have some laser equipment, uh, that he would use, which he would like to store here too. And l- it helps to be in a warm environment that excavation isn't just like I thought of it. You know, get on a bulldozer and go away. You gotta be pretty precise about it. And the laser equipment is what he used for, for, for guiding himself on the, on the project there. The, um, Chaz, I think is... if you would go out and go ahead and hand out those handouts. We have a, uh, few handouts for you and wanted to discuss the history of this property a little bit. Uh, the, uh, wanna wait till you get around because you won't understand this until I'm showing it to you on here. I have numbered my handouts at the bottom right-hand corner. On page one there, once you get it, is the plat for this property of the Picklesheimer subdivision, which was platted in 1960. It was done by Dr. FM Picklesheimer, who owned the property at that point. And, uh, as you can see on this plat, I have given you a copy of the plat which is at the Fayette County Clerk's office, and we are lot number one on this property. As up on the diagonal here, that is the railroad tracks that are up Loudon Avenue a little bit, across Loudon Avenue. Every square inch of the land shown on this plat is zoned I-1, except for this lot. Um, I don't know why it wasn't historically, but, uh, the, uh, this is... this was part of the Picklesheimer property. All of the Picker- Picklesheimer property is zoned I-1 except for this one particular lot. And looking at page two, the topography of this property and the slope of it related to the property which Mr. Ray already owns. Looking at page two there, um, lot one... Do we have one we can put up on the overhead? Did I have an extra copy of that? No. On the, uh, this is the zoning map of the area. And, of course, this is the property in question, the one I've got colored in yellow completely. 825 East Loudon Avenue. Of course, here's Eastland Drive, here's Loudon Avenue. North is up at the top here. Um, Mr. Ray, uh, has his business on 1004 and 1002 Eastland Drive. That's where his business is right now. The lot 1000, if you're... if you went out to look at the property, lot, lot 1000 is vacant. It looks sort of like the back part of this lot right now. But it's already zoned I-1 out there. So it... and it relates down and it relates to that property. If you were out there, it sort of slopes down from this area to where Mr. Ray's is and, uh, and relates topographically to this property as well. The, um, um, also on this property, I know Bill mentioned that in their staff findings, they have stated that Eastland Drive constitutes the dividing line between what is industrial and what is residential. Well, I disagree with that because as you can see from this zoning map, here's Eastland Drive. ... and everything up here is I1. Here's the, this is the, right across the street is a printing company. That's a radiator shop. Mr. Ray's business is back here and there are, back here are what I would call shops of special trade. There's plumbers, uh, heating and air conditioning people, much like Mr. Ray has. He's a shop of special trade, too. Uh, contractors that work here in Central Kentucky. Up here is the big KU substation, which also fronts on Louden Avenue. But as you can see, the only point where this is the dividing line, S- Eastland Drive is a dividing line between industrial and, and residential is only at this one point. This is the exception. This is the anomaly. This is not the rule, because every other point, the dividing line is back here, or actually it goes down here way f- way farther back behind. There's industrial right here, and there's the trailer park back here, which is also apparently zoned light industrial as well. So, that is not the dividing line. This is the exception to the rule. This is the only place where this is a dividing line between industrial and, uh, residential. The, um, we revised our development plan in light of the comments we received at the Subdivision Committee. Those of you who were there who may remember that it was, uh, I guess the best way would be to say strongly suggested to us that we strongly consider, uh, changing the location of our access point on Louden Avenue. At that point we said we would look at that and if it were possible to do it, we would. And Andy Holmes, our engineer, has looked at that, and it is possible to do that, and we have made that change. And that has a couple benefits in looking at it. It, number one, if we're industrial, our industrial traffic will be going out onto Eastland Drive, which is totally industrial. Um, Louden is a mixture of industrial, commercial, and residential. But I know the, uh, the second point is that the, Geoff Neal had a problem with the fact that this driveway was actually in the start of, was already in the right-hand turn lane in here. And, of course, that's the way the city built it. I mean, the, there's an existing driveway right there, but we understand that, and this gets that driveway out of the turn lane. We would take that driveway up. But the third benefit of it is that this gives us, taking the driveway out of there gives us a wider buffer area between this use and the s- single family house which is next to us out there. We, we don't show the... Well, we do show the planting. We show trees through there, which would be planted along there. We would do the landscape buffer along there and it, and it, and it keeps the in-and-out traffic from going along the border with the single family house down there. So it really does have a lot of advantages to do that, so we have realigned that to put our entrance point on Eastland Drive. In addition, Mr. Neal had told us that he would like us to go ahead and do improvements to the sidewalk as was constructed along Louden up to this point. It was not constructed along Eastland, so we would bring the sidewalk on down along the frontage along Eastland. And the curb was brought to a certain point here and then stopped, and we'd bring the curb on down as well on that. So, uh, we agreed with the suggestions that Mr. Neal had made at the Subdivision Committee and I think those would be addressed by May, changing number 16 to resolve Eastland Drive improvements, which the staff had suggested. And we're... And I wanted to tell, tell you we're fine with, with those suggestions that were made at the Subdivision Committee. The, um, um, incidentally if you look at the property, if you go out, if you went out and saw it, the, there's a fence on the property which is actually not on the property line. It's actually inside our property. So if you went out there to look at the property and saw where the fence was, there's actually property that Mr. Ray owns on the other side of the fence. He hasn't made a big issue of that and hasn't been, but there's, there's more property there than appears on this side, and there, as I said, there's a vacant industrial lot behind there and in, before you get to where Mr. Ray is actually operating his business right back there. Um, our, our neighbor immediately next door has signed a petition saying he has no objection to this and that petition is back on page four of our handout as well. The, uh, and, uh, I know Ms. Phillips, you had mentioned, uh, goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Uh, there are goals and objectives about allowing local businesses to expand, to expand the economic viability of local businesses and do it in a way that is compatible with surrounding uses, and we, we do think we are doing that here 'cause I'm gonna discuss the surrounding uses a little bit. When you, as I said, when you look ar- immediately to the north of us here, we have the printing plant and the radiator shop, the KU substation, the shops of special trade all down through here, Mr. Ray's business on these two lots, 1002 and 1004. Now, across the street from us is the, uh, Bluegrass Baptist Church. Used to be Louden Avenue Church of God. They sold it a few years ago to Bluegrass Baptist Church over here. We do have a single family residential use on the, uh, on the south of us. But thus, we feel that historically through the plat, topographically through the way the property lies, and the surrounding uses all indicate that the existing residential use on this property is no longer appropriate and the light industrial use is appropriate. Now, I need to discuss the Louden Avenue improvements. Bill, Bill touched upon that, but, well, before I do, I wanna m- mention one other thing. Bill mentioned the central sector small area plan. That was mentioned in the newspaper yesterday, and, uh- We checked that out. I asked Chas Hyde, our planner, to talk with Mr. Duncan about that. And 'cause it appeared to me in the paper, looking at the map in the paper yesterday, this was in the area five, and which was an interesting comment. It said, "The residents of Central Sector don't really consider this part of the Central Sector." And in, in going over that draft plan, I want to note a couple things. One, it is a draft plan. It is not something that has come before you today. I mean, I could get up and say, "Well, I think the Central Sector Plan will say this or this." Well, I don't know what it's gonna say. Nobody knows what it's gonna say until it comes to you all. If you grant the zone change, certainly you can recognize the existence of the zone change in the Central Sector Plan and make accommodation for it when it comes to you. But actually, under Kentucky law, the law says that when you act upon a zone change, you have to act upon the zone change with the regulations that were enforced the day the zone change was filed. There's a famous case in Kentucky law that the Planning Commission turned down a zone change because they said, "Well, we know we're gonna be changing this ordinance in the next six months, and we're not sure whether it is... you're gonna agree with it or not. We wanna look at it further." And the court said, "No, you gotta act upon the ordinance and the regulations that existed the day the person filed the zone change request," which, which is only proper. Uh, but getting onto the Loudon Avenue widening, which I do need to discuss. We understand it was shown in the Comprehensive Plan, but also, we understand that this property has probably been the one property that has had the greatest single perhaps adverse impact of the Loudon Avenue widening. And if we could go to the pictures here, I have a, pictures of it. The... Loudon is now considered a minor arterial. As I mentioned to you, it carries industrial, commercial, and residential traffic. This is a picture we happen to have two years ago, from two years ago, of Loudon Avenue as it existed about two years ago. Our, our property, or the house is not in the picture here. It's right over on the left side here. We're looking south on Loudon toward Winchester Road here, on here. You can see, it's, there actually is a line down there. This is a two-lane highway there. People have little curve-outs where they've apparently used as front yard parking along Loudon Avenue. And maybe, I don't know if this was an informal right turn area or a parking space or not. I don't know what it was. But this is as it looked two years ago, and if you could note the... These were two bushes. This was obviously taken in the wintertime. Those were pretty substantial bushes when the summer, when the leaves came out. I had seen it at that point, and this, this tree that was there. And, uh, now if we could go to the second photograph. This is... There'd been changes in... This is as it looked six months ago. Uh, this was prior to the installation of the traffic signals and the walk/don't walk sign. Here, now we're looking north, the other way along Loudon Avenue here. But, uh, here's the new Loudon Avenue. Here's the curve going up. You can sort of see the substation in the background. Here's the printing shop right there. And as you can see, what's missing here is the two bushes and the tree, which had to be taken out because of the widening here. The, the setback was 30 feet or more before. Right now, the setback from the edge of the right of way, which is one foot beyond the sidewalk to the front of the porch is 20 feet. And it's been sort of reduced by a controlling figure, which I'm gonna show you in a minute. The, uh, if we could go to the next photograph, it shows the current width of Loudon Avenue. Again, we're looking north here. You can see we got four lanes. We got the lane toward Winchester Road, the continuous turn lane. We got the lane going north. We've got a right turn lane coming into Loudon Avenue there. That's our property right there. Plus, there's two bicycle lanes, which are there, and they've installed curbing. So we've gone from a two-lane road to a, well, four automobile lanes and two bicycle lane road, with curbing, with a right-hand turn lane on there, which is a pretty, pretty significant change for the property, and removing the landscaping that was in front of, uh, this particular property. Um, the next photograph shows the, uh, traffic signal, which is there now. Sorry, these are different sizes. We have to blow 'em up a little bit here. This is now in operation, the traffic signal there. This is a new street light which has been installed. This is the traffic signal. This is the, uh, controller for the traffic signal. And, um, these, if you go to the next photograph... sort of shows a little bit more of the impact of, of the way it is today out here. We have the sidewalk. Now we have the traffic li- the street light, the traffic signal, the walk/don't walk, and this, this was a lucky corner that got the control box for the traffic signal, and there's two yellow bollards there so that automobiles don't knock over the controller, I guess, if they go off the road. That controller is about 16 feet from the front of the property. They ha-... In addition to the roadway widening, which they took off the front, they also got a easement to put the traffic controller in the front yard of the property. So what we're looking at now, that wasn't there before, is we have traffic lights, which make light 24 hours a day, the walk/don't walk signal, which we're not objecting to. That ought to be there, but it is a lighting signal and that sort of thing. Um- ... we're gonna have traffic queuing in front of the property, which we didn't before. Before, Louden Avenue was free flow. Nobody had to stop on Louden Avenue at Eastland Drive. There was a stop sign on Eastland and Eastland teed in- tees in to Louden, as you know, that does not continue through Louden. So when I say we're the m- most heavily impacted of this property, we have that, the, the right turn lane has made us closer. We're gonna have traffic queuing up on both Eastland to stop at the traffic light and on Louden to start. And as you know, when trucks stop, it's not so bad when they stop, but when they start off, there's often vibrations, rattling. Cars stopped at stop lights have noise and that sort of thing. And all of that impacts the ability of this particular house, this particular house to maintain a re- as a real viable residential use. It's only 800 square feet to start with, so it's not a big house. It's only 800 feet, and when we add all those things, the vibration, and no trees, and noise, and that sort of thing, it is a major impact. We know it was anticipated in the comprehensive plan, but we know also that that reduces the appropriateness of this property for residential use quite considerably, unlike any other house on the frontage of Louden Avenue through, through here with the right turn lane and all that sort of thing. The next photograph sh- just shows us the... if you remember the first photograph, this shows the separation now we have from the church property across the street, looking across the four lanes and the bike lanes and all that sort of thing. The, the road is more now of a barrier than it was before for the, between us and the church property on the other side of the road. Um, next picture, I've only got two more here and I'll quit showing you pictures here. The, um, this is a look down Eastland, Eastland Drive. Doesn't show up real well. We're looking up toward, toward Louden Avenue just to show you it definitely is an industrial area. It's mainly shops of special trade, as I said, interspersed with the occasional used car lot, which makes it f- seem a little more cramped than it really is because they manage to put a lot of, a lot of cars on those used car lots. And then finally, wrapping up with the last picture, we're just, I'm just showing you here the, the uses which are... I'm again standing across the street. Here's Mr. Ray's house over here. This is the radiator shop. This is the printing plant on that. And we did that to, to, uh, show you just that... a- and if you've been out there, you can tell by looking at this property, this one property has had a particular impact that no other property has. And not the property next to us, not the property down the street, but this particular property has. And, uh, the, um, in order... I know the concerns are, "Well, if it goes I1, what'll happen if he sells the property or moves out or that sort of thing?" I propose conditional zoning restrictions on page five, which eliminate the, I think the ones, the uses in I1 that are not compatible with the residential house next to it. And, um, I will note the one in particular I removed was sales and s- and display of automobiles and motorcycles and trucks, so we could not have a used car lot or even a new car lot or a sell motorcycles or pickup trucks or whatever here, because that probably wouldn't be appropriate with the, with the row of houses that we have coming up to this house next to it. And the, the, the I1 use right across the street is a very good-looking, well kept up use as well, um, which shields the sub- substation from us on there. So, but we didn't think that selling cars would be appropriate here and i- you can... I won't read all the other things in there, but we, we feel that in particular is, would be a, is a use which is 50 yards or away from us, and we wanted to assure that that would not be coming into this property. And I'll conclude up just to say that it's, this is sort of a unique situation. It's a small piece of property. We appreciate you all looking at it because even though it's a small piece of property, it's very important to Mr. Ray. Um, as I said, his business has been located in Lexington for 35 years. He'd like an area to expand. He thought he had a plan before, but we have to change our plans on things. He is next door, would like to use this property as his office, and we think both topographically, historically, the way this has been platted with the surrounding uses we are appropriate with I1 use. We think that it's no longer appropriate for single family detached use at this property because of this. We're not saying that that would be a precedent for somebody else next to us, because as I said, this is really a pretty unique impact this has had on this property. I don't think any of us can deny that it does have an impact on this property, but this one in particular, being at the corner with the right turn lane and all that sort of thing that I related to you before. So, uh, um, and by moving this access point onto Eastland, we're putting that traffic on Eastland, we're not putting it in the turn lane, and we're supplying more buffer area between us and the house to the south of us. So, uh, we'll sum- I'll sum up and finish up and hope, uh, we hope that you will vote in favor of recommending this for approval to the council, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Are there any questions for Mr. Murphy? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this ... in favor of this application? Okay. Seeing none, uh, those wishing to speak in objection to this proposal. Yes, sir, if you could come forward and, uh, give us your name and address, please. Hello. Uh, my name's Larry Hamilton. I'm president of the Meadows Loudon Neighborhood Association, and also I'm a resident of Loudon Avenue. Uh, I have le- eleven letters opposing this from residents that live on Loudon, or within a block or two of Loudon Avenue. So, uh, these are two separate copies ... After listening to Mr. Murphy, I don't know why anybody would want to live in that neighborhood. But we do. We're part of the Central Sector plan. Uh, we think Loudon is part of the Central Sector. That's why we participated. We wrote several letters supporting the Central Sector. Uh, I wasn't at the meeting the other night because of other obligations. But I've attended at least four or five Central Sector meetings. This road's important to us. I was born and raised there. Uh, this corner lot is important to us right here. There's 14,000 cars travel on Loudon Avenue before the road improvement. Uh, if we allow an excavation business to move there, then what keeps Mr., uh, Ray, who seems like a nice fellow, from parking, uh, excavation equipment there on the corner? And is pa- uh, uh, is part of that being part of the Eastland Parkway where you draw the line between I-1 and a R-1? Well, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and that house faces Loudon Avenue. And that's why it was zoned single family. Has nothing to do with Eastland Parkway. We realize that behind Eastland Parkway was light industrial. You know, we're not anti-business or anything like that, but if this one lot goes I-1, then what keeps the rest of the houses on that side of Loudon Avenue from going I-1? And who would want to live next to I-1 lot? You know, and there's plenty of people that would be willing to rent this house or buy this house. And, uh, until just a few weeks ago, it was, uh, occupied, and still might be occupied. I don't know. I'm a landlord. I have rental property. Right now it's no problem at all renting out property, so we still think that this, this, uh, house could be productive, it's, could still make money for whoever the landlord is. Uh, our association, we have spearheaded this road improvement, and it took 10 years, negotiating with the city, utility companies, uh, subcontractors and everything like that to get this road improvement. Uh, the reason that we did this is we want owner occupied houses to come back in, you know. The north end of Loudon, or the, the Loudon Avenue is an important east-west corridor. Uh, there's a lot of people. We're trying to uplift the image of the inner city. Um, and I can't imagine anybody here that doesn't think that Loudon does not look better. I mean, that was a $4 million road project through there. Uh, anybody up and down the street could have participated. If he was not happy with the way that, that, uh, that corner lot was done, then, uh, he could have spoke up. We had numerous public meetings where he could have come and put his input in. We didn't get everything we wanted. We didn't want the traffic light either, but, you know, they put it there. Uh, as far as his house being the most affected, that's, that's not true. There was a house on the corner of Loudon and Oak Hill that the front yard was taken. It's, uh, less than five or six feet from the road, and it's still R-1, um, and I think a family would live there. So, um, I don't agree with everything that he said. I'm proud to live on Loudon Avenue. I plan on retiring there. Um, we don't want this to go I-1. Uh, with I-1 there, I don't see any situation where I-1 is next to R-1 to where it, it's beneficial. Then what happens, once this man locates on this corner lot, then what happens to the house next door to him? How long will it be before he comes in here and he wants to change, or the next house, or the next house, or the houses across the street? Um, his petition right here, there's at least two names that they don't even live there on the petition. I mean, it's easy to sign a petition wanting to change another man's neighborhood if you don't live there. I mean, I, that's, uh, common sense to me. And there's several houses there that's rental houses. And some of these names on here, I'm not for sure if these are the owners or if these are the tenants, and I would like, like that to be clarified. It's, uh, easy for a tenant knowing he may or may not be there, but just a few months, few weeks, or even a year to say, "Sure, yeah, you turn it into anything you want to." Um, these 11 letters that I presented to you, these are all property owners, owner-occupied houses, that live there. Um, they took the time to write the letters. I took the time to come down here and talk to you guys. I have numerous volunteer hours on this road. And to let this go I-1 would be ... it would be devastating to us. You can't turn the whole north end into industry. As, uh, far as the properties on the other side of Eastland Parkway going towards the bridge, those have always been I-1, you know, we can't change that. And I agree. I mean, the- they're there. What, what can you say about that? And then you have the transfer or the electrical station behind that, and then you have the bridge. Uh, so I hope that you all, uh, think about it, I hope that you oppose it, and, um ... That's really all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak? Okay with us. Yes, sir. If you could give us your name and address please. Kenneth Nash Calvin III. I live at 801 Meadowlane. It's on the corner of Meadowlane and Loudon. I'm opposed to this zone change because we have worked so hard to get this change done to the Loudon av- avenue to make it look more residential. And then we're getting ready to change the zoning on one resident on the same street. That don't make a lot of sense to me. Uh, according to the boundary lines he was showing, the line, like Larry said, the line had to stop somewhere, it had to curve somewhere. Why not keep it residential? And I'm for it to keep it residential. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to this application? Thank you. Um, staff, you have a rebuttal? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did have three, uh, rebuttal points that I wanted to, uh, to make to the commission. The first was, um, the assertion that the zoning of the subject proper- property is the anomaly. Um, I'd like to refer you to the zoning map and address that. True, this is the only property with frontage on Eastland Drive zoned residential, but this zoning's been in place for 40 years, and the anomaly would be should it be rezoned, it would be the only residence fronting on Loudon Avenue with light industrial zoning. So that anomaly does have an explanation, especially when viewed in light of the comprehensive plan. Secondly, uh, denial of the zone change is not, uh, based on the central sector plan. The staff did include that as a finding in our report, uh, but should the commission wish to recommend denial, uh, finding number two, as proposed by the staff, could be deleted, uh, and that recommendation would still be sound. Uh, thirdly, um, as to the improvements to, uh, Loudon being a justification for, in essence, the change in the land use that's proposed, um, th- these types of improvements have been desired by neighborhoods for years. Uh, the first time it caught my attention, uh, professionally was in the Kenwick area, because, uh, as a longtime resident, I remember that neighborhood before those improvements were made. Uh, these improvements enhance residential use. Uh, they were done recently right across Loudon Avenue to the west of this location, uh, in the adjacent subdivision, and they have been a, a bonus to the residents of that area. Uh, and, and I think the staff would just ask you to remember that in considering this request. Uh, as to Ms. Phillips' question about, uh, policy statements in the plan, uh, on the, uh, very, one of the very first pages of text, uh, we found, before we even got to the goals and objectives, uh, themes of the comprehensive plan. And I'd like to put this up on the overhead and review these with you. If we can zoom in, there were several... Could you zoom out just a little bit, please? And you may wanna hit the text switch, perhaps, there. Thank you. Um, the ones in boxes looked, uh, applicable to the application that, that you're reviewing. Um, expanding residential and commercial proper- uh, opportunities, uh, where they reinforce the fabric of the neighborhood, uh, allow, uh, creation and growth/retention of jobs, uh, is certainly a theme of the comprehensive plan. Um, the staff is not sure, you know, just exactly how many additional jobs would be, uh, resulting from, from this expansion. Uh, the third one that's boxed, "Preserving and maintaining existing residential neighborhoods" is certainly a strong theme of the comprehensive plan. Uh, and then finally, the, the lower one that kind of overlaps with the photo, uh, addresses really the road improvement that is just concluded in this area. That's certainly a theme of this plan, to, uh, evaluate and improve our infrastructure, uh, throughout the, uh, the urban area. In addition, we found a, a couple of, uh, goals of the comprehensive plan. Um, one is to, uh, provide diverse business and employment opportunities for Lexington/Fayette County. We've identified four objectives under that particular goal. Uh, of interest, a number of these, uh, talk about, uh, where compatible to residential neighborhoods. I'd like to circulate these to you real quick. It just occurred to me, I could identify actually the page in the comprehensive plan. You do have those, those with you. Uh, the other one is, uh, goal 15, appearing on page 27 of the comprehensive plan, "To preserve, protect, and enhance the character and quality of existing neighborhoods." There are two goals, uh, that look, uh, uh, especially... ... uh, pertinent to this application. Um, one of which is to develop, adopt, and periodically review small area plans as tools to address neighborhood and community enhancement issues. Um, and to review existing land use and zoning, uh, as necessary to protect neighborhoods. I'll circulate these also. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Solie. Uh, petition- question? For Bill. Um, in an R1D, is- is office permitted- or, or office use is permitted? It is not. Um, the only equivalent use would be something akin to a home occupation- Right. ... which is limited roughly to about 25% or 300 square feet of the dwelling. Thank you. Mr. Ravens, you had a question? Um, you stated that the, the Comprehensive Plan, uh, recommended medium density? Yes, sir. It... There's no medium density over there now, is there? The- That would be five to ten units per acre. Right. The density of this particular property, because it is a large residential lot, uh, is four units per net acre. The density of the entire subdivision is probably much more close to five, five and a half units per acre, because this subject property is one of the largest lots in the immediate area. But, but the property right, right beside it, I mean, those lots look like they're 40 or 50 feet wide. Yes, sir. Um, I don't believe you can get five, much over five per acre. The- Looks like more in low density to me, with, especially with a wide street. Right. The fact if, if they are one unit per lot, uh, as the zoning would indicate, their density currently south of this location, uh, almost all the lots would be over five units per acre, just at the calculation of one unit per lot, because the lots are so small. Yes, I understand your point about increasing the density in this area, yes. Given the small size, that would be difficult to do. I think the medium reflects more the existing density. Thank you, Mr. Solie. Any other questions for Bill? Okay, thank you. Petitioner, rebuttal? Yeah, just wanna make a few remarks. I'm, I... understand the, Mr. Hamilton's, uh, love for his neighborhood. I think that's very admirable and I think, uh, Mr. Ray, uh, has been located here a number of years and has a concern for that neighborhood as well. The... Mr. Hamilton had a concern about, what if Mr. Ray moves here? He's already here. He's already immediately behind the property. The property, uh, the, the, what appears to be the backyard of this lot is already zoned I1. Uh, can be used for I1 today, uh, upon obtaining appropriate building permits and that sort of thing. Uh, and he is here. He's not gonna be moving in. He's in the neighborhood and is right at the edge of the property line at this point. He said that 14,000 cars a u- a day used Loudon Avenue before the improvements. Of course, we all know that after roads are improved like this, the traffic increases because it takes it from other roads that aren't as good as this road. But let's say it's 14,000 trips a day. I asked Mr. Height, who specialI- spec- our planner, whose specialty is in transportation planning, he can testify if you want, I said, "Well, how many of those 14,000 cars are gonna be stopping in front of this house now, with a traffic signal there?" He said, "Probably about a third." And a third of 14,000 cars means that 4,666.66 cars are gonna be stopping in front of this house on Loudon Avenue every day where they did not before. Now, I did that out to 194 cars an hour stopping in front of this house 24 hours a day. Of course, at 3:00 AM there's not gonna be as many stopping as there are at 3:00 PM, but there's still gonna be a bunch of them stopping at 3:00 AM in the morning in front of this house. And that's just Loudon Avenue. That's not Eastland Drive, where they're gonna be backing up as well, which they do now for the stop sign, but they don't have to wait there as long for the stop sign. So that has had an impact on this property. It's a little different from the properties they mentioned at, uh, at, uh, Meadow Lane or Oak Hill. Those are up farther north on Loudon Avenue. They're beyond the railroad tracks, beyond the KU substation, beyond the industrial there, up in the, the bigger residential neighborhood which is up that area. They don't have properties like this, which have residential, excuse me, industrial on the north, industrial on the east, industrial on the southeast as well. It's a little different situation here. Um, the Comprehensive Plan, Bill mentioned a number of goals there. There's goals to... Goal 11 is to provide diverse business and employment opportunities for Lexington, Fayette County. Under Goal 11, Objective C is very important, encourage retention and expansion of existing local industries and businesses. That's an extremely import- and, and this day and time, I mean, I feel privileged to be up here representing a business which is even thinking of doing anything resembling expanding. It is, it is a bad economy out there, as you all know, and we need to encourage people who have been here 35 years to let them stay here another 35 years, here in Lexington. ... uh, objective I in Goal 11 is to provide essential employment areas that are compatible with residential neighborhoods in Lexington, Fayette County as a whole. I think we are. J is to encourage re- revitalization, revitalization and reuse of underuse- utilized employment centers. And, uh, the, um, objective M is to encourage economic development that will provide residents with economic opportunities that sustain adequate income and generate sufficient public revenue for equitable and adequate services and facilities. And there's a lot more in here we could quote of, but as, as I said, the main thrust of that was to encourage the retention and expansion of local businesses such as this. There's, there's very few businesses that have been around 35 years, and, uh, I applaud him for making the effort to stay here and to try to expand here as well. The, um, this property is already adjacent to I-1 in the back. Every of these, all of these houses along Loudon are adjacent to I-1 in the rear. Uh, we have proposed a buffer area. We have made modifications, which we think this will work more. And I'm gonna propose one more modification. And that is the concern Mr. Hamilton mentioned about having what if, what if outdoor ... What if he stored his equipment on this property, outdoor equipment? That wouldn't be appropriate. We agree. We would agree to a condition that there'd be no outdoor storage of equipment on this lot, except for the parking lot, which would be for people who come and go to work at the, at the, at the business. In other words, he wouldn't be storing his, his excavating equipment on this property. And we'd agree to, agree to an additional conditional zoning restriction to that effect. Um, the, uh, as I said, we, um, are very pleased to present this to you today. Um, I'm not gauging, gauging this solely on the changes to Loudon Avenue. As I started out and most of my presentation, I went to that 1960 plat which showed, showed the Picklesimer subdivision. Perhaps the only reason this was zoned residentials because the building faced Loudon Avenue. I don't know. But this is the only property in that entire subdivision which is zoned residential. The rest is industrial. That itself is a difference. Um, we are the property that has industrial on two sides. We have a greater separation now from the church on the other side of the property, and we're willing to change our driveway and do the buffering to soften and eliminate any impact to the property next to us. And that property owner has no objection to this zone change. Uh, we know this is a, um, difficult issue. We're not asking for an unrestricted I-1 on this property. Mr. Ray has agreed not to store any of his equipment on this property. As we said, he wants to use this as, as the office for his property and store some of his sensitive equipment indoors, where it can be temperature-controlled. So we feel we have a use which is very appropriate for this, which is important to encourage small business in this community, which is here already. And we hope you'll vote in favor of it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir, Mr. Hamilton, you have a brief rebuttal comment? Uh, yes, sir. There's hundreds of intersections in Fayette County that has 14,000 cars on them. And there's no telling how many residences are on the corners of those intersections. And they live there. They don't ask to be I-1 in all of them. You know, so that's, to me, that's a weak argument. That's, uh, smoke and mirrors right there. As, uh, far the business need not expand at the expense of any in that comprehensive plan, I, I agree that we ought to support our businesses, but not when it costs numerous residences where your property value goes down. So, um, I can't, I can't agree with that either. When you let light industrial on a road that's primarily a residential road, and, uh, then that's gonna hurt all of us that own property on Loudon. And I, I appreciate the, him saying he's not gonna park his, uh, construction equipment there, but that still doesn't eliminate the need that when that I-1 goes in, then what keeps the next house next to it, the next house next to it, going on down the line just like that? Uh, we're still, uh, we're still opposed to it. And he has been in business 35 years, and I, I think it's great. Uh, this is nothing personal between him and I. It's just that we have to draw the line somewhere. And, uh, I just ... Allowing more I-1 on Loudon Avenue would, would hurt our neighborhood. It would hurt the chance for us to move people into these houses that want to live in Loudon, that would live there, live in a house that they own. And that's what kills the north end of Lexington. We're trying to bring this end up, our end of town up, is what we're trying to do, not, not bring it down. That's why we spent all this time asking for this new road. And I think every house on that road that, uh, saw these improvements, that they all benefited. I mean, if, uh, if we wasn't in economics, uh, hardships right here, I would think that the property value of every single house on that road went up in value. Maybe not now because of the, the turndown, the economic turndown, but, uh, if the economy was still prospering, I think all those houses would have benefited. And we went up and down the street passing out information to get these people to come to these meetings, if you were unhappy with what the road was gonna be. The city was wonderful in talking to us and asking us what type of road we wanted. And so there was plenty of chances, uh, to put your two cents in. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Okay, we will close this portion of the public hearing and, um ... At this point, uh, turn it to, uh, Commission for, um, discussion. Comment? Ms. Copeland? I'll try to go fast. On page two of Mr. Murphy's handout, where he shows the lot lines, the, uh, Mr. Murphy's, um, person says that he will not park on 825, but there's no, uh, fence there, so he could park his c- his construction equip- equipment on Lot 1,000 of Eastland Drive, which would be just as much anti-residential as parking it on 825. The conditional uses that, uh, Mr. Murphy's, um, person proposes are sort of laughable, because the circus can't go there anyway. Um, I do think this is a gateway, a significant gateway, to affordable housing. And if we are going to talk about affordable housing, we have to support affordable housing. And we would not even think twice about this if it was out at Heartland on Tates Creek Pike. This is just as important, this is a gateway, it's just as important to these people who live over on Meadowlane and so forth, as Tates Creek Pike is to Heartland. So let's not, um, diminish what is happening here. Um, if he had mentioned moving his parking to the second lot, 1,000, and had come forth with maybe P1, that might have been something to think about. But to put I1 on that w- corner is just off the map. We're looking at a place inside New Circle Road. This is the 50-yard line of this county, anywhere inside New Circle Road. We have all the infrastructure that we have invested in for years. We have schools and, and buses and sidewalks and road improvements and sewers and, uh, connectivity. Why are we thinking about making this I1? That belongs where we don't have the medulla oblongata of the spinal system of the whole Fayette County. I just think this is off the wall to take this piece of property and make it I1, regardless of where it is inside New Circle Road. Thank you, Ms. Copeland. Mr. Cravens? Yeah. I think it's, Mr. Murphy stated that, uh, and, and I think it's great that a business can expand and provide jobs inside our city, and not, uh, not force someone to, to relocate and, uh, uh, with the heavy equipment and things that, uh, that they have, that would be a, a lot of fuel and a lot of, uh, time and a lot of, uh, effort, uh, if they were to have to move out to, um, to an industrial park, you know, a way out. And, um, also, um, they did change the plan, as we suggested, in, in subdivision. Uh, it takes anybody, uh, going to that, uh, site, away from the residential, and puts 'em round on the same street that all the commercials are. And I go to a lot of, uh, the lumber company over there, and, uh, there's, th- that Eastland Drive is very heav- heavy industrial. The lumber trucks go in and out of there, and then once I leave the lumber company, I come out and try to get through that intersection, now a stoplight, that's okay, and go down to Kentucky Lighting on the other place, so it's a, the whole area is industrial and, um, a lot of traffic like that. And then I'm, I'm not convinced of Mr. Salih's answer on the, uh, medium density. Uh, it looks a little more sparse than that. And so, if, if the plan we're recommending medium density, they're gonna have to build some more houses i- in that area, or, or put some of these accessory buildings or something around them. But, um, I, I would support the zone change for those reasons. Thank you. Mr. Owens? Yes, thank you. Um, one, I'd like to thank the city for improving Loudon Avenue. Uh, it's definitely the, the whole area there is much improved and it, in doing so, I think you're seeing changes for the good residentially there, uh, with, with improved housing there now. Um, I can appreciate the need for expansion from Mr. Ray. However, as Mr. Salih pointed out on several exam- examples through the, uh, comp plan, you know, I just picked out some words when it came to that, as far as residential areas, to protect, reinforce, maintain. It did mention, and I'll definitely paraphrase here, as far as economic development or, or business-wise, as long as it didn't, would not conflict with residential neighborhoods. So, you know, with that, uh, I think the residential area there is important, um, and, uh, you know, I appreciate the staff's, uh, recommendations. I think especially one, three, and four weigh very heavily. And, uh, I'm going to have to, uh, go along with the staff recommendations for this approval. Thank you, Mr. Owens. And I'm sorry, whenever. No, I'm sorry. Uh, you know, I'm sure there's other discussions if, if mo- motion's needed, I'll make that. Okay. Any other comments? Discussion? Motion? Can I? Yes. I... I... I don't know. I thought that I knew, but now I don't know, and, um, I'm very conflicted. I would, um, I... I'm not so convinced that this change was anticipated in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. Um, we knew that Loudoun Avenue was being enhanced, was being improved, but I did not envision, and unless you were a part and parcel of the planning process, I don't know that any of us really knew how it would change that section of Loudoun Avens Corridor... Loudouns Aven- Lou- the Loudoun Avon Corridor. And, um, it had been a two-lane, feather... rather intimate kind of, uh, neighborhood street. Now it appears to be a, you know, a major arterial for that region. And, um, I think it really has changed the character of that area. So, um, I'm not sure that we really anticipated that when we did the... the Comp Plan. Um, but I also remember when we did the Comp Plan that we did talk very heavily, and this is why I asked Bill to pull this section from the plan, uh, for everybody to be reminded that when we talked about conflict between, um, not necessarily industrial uses, but any kind of competing land use, that we were going to be very supportive of existing neighborhoods. So I'm torn, and, uh, I'm looking for some guidance. Thank you, Ms. Phillips. Any other comments? I'll make one. Yes, sir, Mr. Brewer. Yeah. I... I... I'm a little torn on this too. Uh, for me, it was interesting. When... When I looked at the first plan, it seemed clear that it was residential. Then when I looked at Mr. Murphy's, and it was all down Eastland, it's clear it was industrial. Um, so I could certainly be compelled to go either way and feel okay with it. But in this situation, the existing designation is residential, and I think you have to have compelling evidence to change that, especially when you change it so significantly for residential to industrial. Um, so I would entertain something that was... that was more in line. I'm not sure what the designation was that Ms. Copeland mentioned, but going from residential to industrial, to me, is too big of a leap, uh, without a... a very compelling case that I don't see right here. So I would... I would support the, uh, the staff's recommendation at this point. Thank you, Mr. Brewer. Is, uh, anyone prepared to take... make a motion? Uh, Mr. Chairman, I'll move, uh, for disapproval, as staff recommended, of, uh, MAR 2009-3, uh, Clayton Ray Zone... The Zone Map Amendment and Pickle Summer Subdivision for the, uh, recommendations staff has made, especially citing one, three, and four. Deleting number two? Would you delete number two, though? Is that- I would suggest you do delete number two. That would be my suggestion. I can... I can do that and- I think that was staff's- ... and I can do that very- ... staff's recommendation. Deleting number two. Deleting number two, I'll second. Deleting number two. We'll go with one, three, and four for the staff recommendations. Okay, we have a motion and a second, uh, to, uh, disapprove, uh, as recommended by staff for the reasons provided, reasons one, three, and four, and deleting reason number two. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." No. Okay, we got two nos. Motion carries. Thank you. Um, Zoning Development Plan, take action on that. Uh- I guess, uh- No, you don't have to either. Do we have to take action on the Zoning Development Plan, a postponement, or- Your typical procedure would be to postpone- Postpone. ... pending council action. That's right. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for postponement of ZDP 2009-10, pending council. Second. We have a motion and a second to postpone. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. It's far. Farbs. And residential was there. Yes, ma'am. Hello. Good afternoon. Hello. How are you? We have one item under commission items. That's a PFR2009-1. It's on page six of your agenda, item A. And it's been requested by the Division of Engineering for a public facility review for a salt barn facility. B1 or B2? Um, that's to be constructed in the summer of 2009, is what they're planning, and then they're also planning a fire station. The salt barn- Which one do you think it is? ... would be on this portion of the property, and then they're proposing a fire station- ... later in time for the rear portion of the property. The property is eight acres and it's located at 5680 Athens Boonesboro Road. And it doesn't have any frontage on Athens Boonesboro, but it's got an access easement from the road, which is this right there, in favor of the Urban County Government. And Bill, if you could put the site plan up, please. This shows the layout of the property for the salt barn facility. And it'll consist of, um, a 12,000 square foot building for the salt barn with a 1500 square foot lean-to. Could you flip it the other way? Yeah. Here's the salt barn building. There is a 10 by 150 foot area that's called a lean-to. They're gonna have an 1800 square foot office, and then the truck washing facility will be right there. And that is proposed to be self-contained. They'll, um, they'll collect the water in a sealed tank, and then when it's full they'll pump it and then dispose of the water off-site. The 2007 Comp Plan recommends core agricultural and rural land use for this, um, property, and that's generally defined as prime equine or agricultural land. And up until this morning, we had no indication one way or another whether there was support or opposition for this, and then this morning we got a phone call and there was concern about, from a property owner that owns property along, along the rear, which would be further down here. This is just the front portion of the property, but along the rear of the property. Mr. Tucker owns property along there, and he had some concerns. So he's here to address those. Um, we reviewed the 2007 Comp Plan to determine whether this was in compliance with the goals and objectives in the text, and that's required by KRS 100. And there is one objective that could be construed to be in opposition to that, and that would be, uh, Goal 9, Objective H, which states, "Protect the agricultural and scenic characteristics of the surrounding land." And then there are 16 that are definitely in support of this, and those are listed at the bottom of page 2L and page 3 of your staff report. And then there's one, Goal 6, Objective I, that's neither in support or in opposition. It can be considered applicable to this. It states, "Buffer rural land and activities, including green space, from the impact of new urban development by requiring the provision of a landscape and security buffer along and inside the urban service area and rural activity center boundaries to minimize the adverse short- and long-term effects of development on existing or potential farms and other green space." That, um, the property isn't exactly within Blue Sky, but it's directly across A- across Athens Boonesboro Road from Blue Sky. And the use of the property is substantially similar to uses that would be conducted in Blue Sky, or in any industrial area. The salt barn that we have now is out off of Old Frankfurt Pike and it's in an area that is zoned for and used for industrial use. Um, I considered recommending screening for this between this and the agricultural properties, but because the fire station is going to be on the rear of the property, that'll provide a land use buffer. And so, I didn't think that screening was, was really necessary, because it's gonna take the ma- major portion of the rear of the property for the fire station. One of the major themes in the Comp Plan is to provide, um, the need to provide adequate public facilities and to ensure their equitable distribution. Um, this applies not only to fire stations and emergency services and schools, but it also applies to safe and accessible roadways. The 2030 Transportation Plan, which is an element of the 2007 Comp Plan, has five adopted goals. Four of those are particularly applicable here: provide a safe and secure transportation system, provide accessibility and mobility for all people and goods, invest in transportation infrastructure to enhance the vitality of the community, and to protect and enhance the environment. And then, part of the planning process for the Metropolitan Planning Area, which our MPO is part of that, is to provide for consideration of projects that will, among other things, increase the safety of the transportation system, and increase accessibility and mobility for people and freight. So construction of the salt barn on this property, because the only one we have is on the western side of Fayette County, this is on the eastern side of Fayette County, will be consistent with the goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and those, um, those objectives, the planning strategies. And it'll help to im- implement Goal 18, Objective A, which is to ensure that public facilities are adequate and equitably distributed. That, and the fire station. The closest fire station, the one that serves this property is number 18, which is on South Cleveland Road, and they ha- they travel from that station across South Cleveland Road, which is a rural road, and it's 19 and a half feet wide at the most. And then would access this property through Athens Boonesboro. And so, um, it states also in the Community Facilities section of the plan that, "Besides faster response to emergencies, a sufficient supply of fire stations, equipment, and personnel may lead to reduced insurance costs for households and businesses. Service area standards for engine companies are one and a half road miles from the station, and two and a half miles for ladder companies." The one on South Cleveland Road is at least three miles away, so this will, this will help to implement that. Um, we have recommended approval of this because the text of the Comp Plan and the Goals and Objectives do support this. And if you have any questions about the staff report, I'd be glad to answer those. And Andrew Grunwald is here from the Division of Engineering to answer any other questions about technical issues as far as this goes. Thank you, Ms. Rikers. I believe Mr. Penn has a question? Barb, I, I don't know where to start with this other than just a- ask you some questions, and maybe I need to talk to Mr. Grunwald or, or whatever else. But I wanna ask the same questions of this as if it was private developer. Okay. Uh, the same type of, uh, let's, let's start with, uh, retention of storm water on that site. They are going to have a detention pond that they... And it's, it's oversized to account for this property, or this portion of the property and the fire station. What about septic on the, uh, office building? That will have to be answered by Mr., Mr. Grunwald. I can address that. Um, the office building will have one, one bathroom. The septic field... Is there any way you can open up the... Located in the parks facility, approximately here, is a septic field that services that ballpark. We are going to tie in from our office building to that septic field, one bathroom, and we are working with the health department to get clearance on that. Which way does the water run off of that property? Currently, right now, the property essentially wraps around, um, in this direction. There is a valley which runs through the property in that direction. Our detention basin will be located right here, with a bio drainage swale all along our property to channel the water into the detention basin, and then it will be released and flow into the natural drainage course which goes through the park. Okay. So there... The same, um, environmental impact if this was a private developer that was doing this, the city's doing the same, the same type of stormwater retention, stormwater runoff, salt brine, all that's being done just like it was being done for a private developer? Yes, sir. So- It is. ... you all are not... See, my problem with this is, is that, uh, i- it's not that the city needs or doesn't need it, it's how we are asking other people to do development plans, and how we're asking about stormwater, how we're asking about all these types of things. It's not fair for the rest of the people in the community, for the city not to abide by that. And I'm not saying you're not, the only way for me to know is to ask those questions. We, we have sized the detention basin to not only accommodate our site, but the proposed, um, fire station as well. And we've sized it to handle the 100-year storm, um, and have a foot of freeboard, and discharge no more water than already is discharged today. The only other question I have, and I might as well ask you while you're up here- Mm-hmm. ... is that this is an eight-acre site. The other land that adjoins it on that side of the road, this is opposite the road from Blue Sky, across, uh, Athens-Boonesborough Road... Or not Athens-Boonesborough, whatever name of that road. Yes. Uh, if this was a private developer, will... Would you have to put a s- a s- a, uh, lift station to put the sewer into, to, uh, Blue Sky? In other words, if this was a private development, would the city require them to put a lift station, a pump station if you will, and put it into the Blue Sky sewer? Into the Blue Sky treatment facility? Yeah- Didn't the consent decree, uh, Mr. Grunwald, didn't that prohibit us from making any expansions to Blue Sky? The consent decree? It's a moratorium. Yes, ma'am. Moratorium on, on any kind of tap-ons to... As near as I know, it, it did have language in, in the consent decree to that effect. Um, if we were a private developer, um, would we be allowed to tap onto a, to an existing, uh, septic field owned by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County government? To be honest with you, I'm not sure. If an agreement was struck, um, to where a private developer would sign it, it would be something that could be considered. Um, uh, of course that agreement would have to go through the, the Council. Uh, it probably would be rare, but not impossible. Um, since the Lexington-Fayette Urban County government does own both sites, um, we have been in discussion with the Parks Department, and we have worked with them to size our detention basin as well as take care of any concerns that they would have for salt runoff. Um, and, um, we have asked if they had any problem if we tie a bathroom, a single bathroom into that system, and they, they did not. Excuse me. Lynn, are you through? Where is the Crutcher property in relationship to this? The Crutcher property would be located right here. Behind it? Yes, sir. Would that be down? Uh- Would that be higher elevation or lower elevation? Going through the property approximately where the road is, you have, um, the top of a, the crest of a hill. So the Crutcher property actually drains this way. Okay. Out towards the, the west. We drain towards the east. Th- thank you. And, and I re- I realize, Barbara, this is a, you know, a facilities review, and, and I just, I just could not let this opportunity pass because I'm gonna ask a private developer those same questions, and I think the city ought to come to the same, same situation. Yes, sir. I agree. Thank you, Mr. Penn. I wanna, I wanna back up for a moment. I know we got you to the podium. Is there anything you want to add before we, I guess, throw other questions at you? We didn't give you a chance to do your spiel. Um, well, uh, my skill, I, I don't know about that, but, um, I would say that this, um, there has been a considerable amount of, uh, renewed interest in getting the salt barn up and constructed, um, after this winter. Um, it will have, uh, not only benefit for the Lexington-Fayette Urban County government, but, um, for the, uh, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet as well. It's located, uh, very close to the, uh, to the interstate. , um, currently we do have agreements with, um, the District Seven offices. They salt roads. Um, if they're near our salt barn, they'll actually pick up salt, so it not only will help at least, you know, the, the City of Lexington on, on the eastern side, but it will help the, the state, um, as well. And I just would like to make that point. Thank you, Andrew. Um- Sure. ... anything else you wanna add? I guess, is fire ... I guess, does fire wanna add anything? I know he's responded to ... Didn't know. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any, any questions for ... Yes, Ms. Copeland? When the salt trucks leave the site and go exit full of salt, they're gonna s- probably spill some salt. That salt will be runoff in, in, uh, unintentional runoff. Where is that gonna go? Is that gonna wind up in the detention basin or is it just gonna go flowing down that stream? Um, currently, the way it's designed, as you have salt trucks, they will come into the site, they will re- they will be loaded. As they go out, they will pass along the, kind of, the, the eastern side. It will come off the salt truck and possibly go off the pad. This entire ditch will basically be what we call a, um, a, a biofilter. It's on about a 2% slope. Um, it'll be vegetated, um, and then it will eventually wind up into the detention basin. At some point in the future, uh, the swale as well as the detention basin might have to be, um, replanted as well as cleaned out. And that's understandable, and it, it's a maintenance item that Streets and Roads will have to- W- but once it gets out on the road, where does that road water go? Come, come, come off the- Out on this road right here? Huh? On, on this road right here? I beg of 'em to get it off that road. Right. As they pick up speed and it sprays out, where does that road water gonna go? In other words, you lose your salt as you pick up speed and go down the road and it pops off your bumper or whatever. Um, y- uh, the access road, as it approaches Athens Boonesboro, which is roughly located here- Uh-huh. ... there is a crest in the top of the road. Everything from our site- Mm-hmm. ... comes back, flows through the site, and then flows into the detention basin. Okay. Thanks. Um, once you ... so. Thank you, Mr. Gronewold. Thank you, Ms. Copeland. Uh, Mr. Owens, you had a question for him? Mr. Gronewold, uh, back up just a little bit. You mentioned the connecting the, the septic to the septic offside. Yes, sir. Uh, that's for the salt facility? The, um, there will be one bathroom- Correct. ... located in this small, in this small- Okay. ... office building. Uh, um- Just for that single bathroom. Yeah. A- a- and I know we're talking about the salt facility right now. What about the fire department though? Fire station? Um, it is, uh, it is not known exactly when the fire department will actually have the funds to construct that facility. Um, that will have to be investigated at the time, um, that they, that they go to construction. We ... If another septic field would have to be constructed, that would be put into that, to that construction. And w- we do recognize that that's something that we have to look at. Um, w- we made as many concessions at this point as we could for them with the runoff and, but not ... We couldn't solve all the problems. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for Andrew? Thank you. I see Mr., Mr. Tucker, you'd like to comment? Kinda caught off guard today. Uh, I had 24 hours to prepare for this one, so if I sound a little bit, uh, off-key today and out of my normal, guess what? I'm winging it as we go. I haven't got to review the plans. Uh, kinda shocked that the Irving County Government just bought the property. I didn't even know that that's taking place. I was informed it happened sometime during the last mayorship in her last months in office. Uh, I was told at first, it was gonna be a state-run facility. And so, being a state, I get informed that there's no permits or nothing has to be required. They can do what they please. Found out yesterday, it's a c- city-owned property deal. I'm like, "Whoa. Wait a minute." Uh, I have concerns about the road. They're running up to the fence line here. They're gonna stop beside me and my neighbor, gonna come right up to, middle of our property. I got told today that there's a plan they may wanna put the road on through. I'm like, "Wow. Is that condemnation all over again if I try to oppose it?" So, I thought maybe we needed to come down and ask today, maybe we need to review this thing, let the public have a little bit of input here. This thing needs to be publicly heard. This is spending taxpayers' dollars. We're asking to put something in a sewer system in Blue Sky that's already a mess, that's under consent decree order to be fixed. They're, uh, talking about hauling this waste off, road waste, the water on trucks, washing trucks. It's mentioned here in one of the articles. I'm like, "Wow. Who's gonna haul that off? Who's gonna foot the bill for that?" If we can't cure Blue Sky, we can't pump it over there, then who's gonna pay for hauling it off? This is another expense. This is taxpayers' dollars. We asked for transparency. Mr. President Elect Obama just s- sit right here and told us, "We need transparency in government about government waste and spending." Right here is a prime example today. I'm concerned about it. I'm gonna be affected by what happens here. Yes, I have a fence line that borders this property. But how many people in Lexington has heard about this deal or even heard about it before today? Have you heard about it? I haven't. There hasn't been no public hearing on it. ... nobody has... Not a neighborhood association that I'm aware of to this point today has even been made aware of it out in Richmond Road. There's environmental issues on the other side of the road over to Croucher properties. There was 18 violations in 2005 controlling the Blue Line stream. Below the ball fields is right now, probably is going to be considered a wetlands or this water that they're talking about running down to this retention pond. And I don't know where they're going to build a retention pond, because anything in that stream down there is kind of questionable about whether it's a wetlands or not. So now we need to go find out if it's a wetlands or not. We need to have time to review this thing to find out what's happening and what permits are required to be doing this, to discharge this water into that. So that's all I'm asking for you all today. You may want to propose, postpone it a while and let people have a chance to review it and put input into it. Because just like any other development, most developments get to be heard. And the other thing I have a problem with, this is like giving the engineering department an open check, free credit card. Build what you want to, where you want to. That's my concern today. We need to know what's being spent, why it's being spent, and where it's going to be nailed down. This needs a budget review, and it needs to be opened up so people can look to see what's going on here. And that's why I have a concern. Now, thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Um, Chris, did you have something you want to add? I was just going to say, for clarification, Mr. Tucker may not be aware of a public facility review and what it is. This has been referred to you by the Urban County Council, who makes the decision on the construction of this facility and the need for this facility. Under state law, the Planning Commission is given a 60-day comment period whereby you are to comment, if you choose, as to how this proposal may relate to the comprehensive plan. It is not a development plan. It is not a development application. And again, your review is commentary only, and only to how it relates to the comprehensive plan. And there's a 60-day time window on that. So, um, again, I think Mr. Tucker has questions. Those questions are, are fair to be raised. To the extent that any of them can be answered today since he's come down here, I think it would be a good thing to go on and do that. But again, some of the questions as to the, uh, facility really, uh, have to do with, not with the planning commission. Okay. Thank you, Chris. Uh, I guess subsequent to that, no, no action on our part other than just comment- commentary? Right. And, and again, action is optional on the part of the Planning Commission, but- Okay. ... a- anytime we are notified of these, we certainly bring it to you, uh, within the, the 60-day window so you can have the opportunity to comment and we perform a staff review as well. Great. Thank you, Chris. Are there any, uh, comments? Yeah. Yeah. I've got one. Mr. Penn. S- so Chris, our, our discussion today would be considered comment or not comment? The discussion we've had here today with Mr. Greenwall and... I- is that a, is that officially- Yes. ... c- c- that is comment? It is comment. Yes, sir. And there will be a record taken of the comments. Any other, uh, comments? Mr. Day. I, I'm gonna comment just because I've got some questions. F- frankly, how do you all handle your sewers in the rural area? Septic tanks. So, I mean, I'm one of those guys that lived in the city and I had septic tanks until about, I don't know, 18, 20 years ago on a half-acre lot. We never had any problem. I just, it seems like every time that comes up, everybody here throws up this red flag. I've... And I've got a place at the lake. Everybody's got septic tanks. And if they're put in right and maintained, they don't have problems. And there are so many new techniques in septic tanks right now that there are some places even going in cities because they're... they've been improved that much. So that's the thing that I, that I would hate to see or hate anybody to think we may had a, a problem with this because we're concerned about the septic tank and how, what size site are we talking about. Eight acres. Eight Acres. So, I mean, we've got a lot before we've been in the 40 acre track. I'm sure we've got a lot of five, 10 acre tracks. I'm assuming in Fayette County they're on septic tanks and I'm guessing they're having... not having that much problem. Y- you can ask anybody in the rural community if they'd rather be on sewer or septic tank, and I'll guarantee you they'll vote for the sewer every time. Oh, I'm not arguing that part. I'm just saying- S- septic tanks are a necessary alternative, but they're not a e- end all for all problem. I- I know, but I mean- It depends on what kind of soil you got, how it perched, the level, how much water runs on it. But as long as they go through the health department and get that kind of approval, I would assume that they would be... that that would work. I mean, just like, you know, I, I just... I don't know. I'm only, you know... Lexington's two million people, whatever it is. So I can only say my half of the city. But um, to me, this is... a- and I just want to watch my words. You know, I hope them trucks drive come down my road. I mean, you know, they can... It's all... It's all... But there is like... Let me just tell you about... You talk about public... having a public hearing. If we got to the, to the part where we were gonna try to turn down, I'll tell you what you'd have. You'd have 100,000 people out there saying, "We need this." You know, and I, I guess I just get caught up in some of these little questions about it, because everybody that I know is bitching because they're not getting salt coming down the road. Um, and it's part of life if you have snow. It's part of life you have s- s- ice. So I don't know, I just... I'm... I just question why we're going through this kind of- It's- ... you know, putting these people through these kind of questions. It's, it's not the use, Neil, at all. What it is, is if, if a private developer was doing this eight acres across from Blue Sky, we would ask those same questions. I want the city to follow the same things that they would make the private developer do. I thought I made that clear. I certainly don't want anybody to undertook- to misunderstand what I'm saying here. I've not asked the city to do anything that we wouldn't ask a private developer to do. Thank you. Mr. Cravens, you had a question? Yeah, my, only thing I wanted to say was, um, I, I think you need... I- if you're gonna do a bathroom in there, we couldn't run a- a- another bathroom into a septic tank that's already... I mean, the Health Department's not gonna allow that, so you need your own septic tank, especially if you're doing any kinda expansion. I mean, I could see it, you know, growing, so I, I think you need to have your own septic tank on that site, and then I, I'm in favor of having the salt out there. It's... You know, so they don't have to go all the way back to one spot and come... You know. So I- Of course. ... think that's good, but I think you need to comply with the... Mr. King has something he wants to add. I'd just like to comment, the septic tank that exists in the park next door is a large facility acc- acc- designed to accommodate the assemblies that were there for the baseball games and, and a lot of, of, of people there. I actually saw that when it was under construction. We had a field trip back when we were doing the rural land management plan, and it was designed as a, a very large, high-capacity, state-of-the-art facility, and a group of us that were looking at different types of, uh, s- waste disposal in the rural community- I think you're- ... went and visited this site while it was under construction. What, was, was this, this property supposed to go into it? Well, I think what was said is that the, the Health Department will review that and to see if the capacity of that, again, knowing that it was designed for public assembly at baseball games, which are well-attended out at that facility, if one more bathroom for the salt barn facility can, can be accommodated properly- Well, I'm not concerned about that at all, you know, the, the amount that that little bathroom is gonna have, but generally, I mean, Mr. Penn was talking about what everybody else would have to do. Well, we'd have to build another septic tank if, if I were going out there and building that. I couldn't hook onto the... So- Again, city owns the park- City owns the park- ... city owns the salt barn- ... city owns the park- ... city owns the, uh- ... the salt barn. It's one ow- it's one ownership. ... uh, going to the fire station. Just, we'll run it by the Health Department then. Yeah. Um, I, I was gonna say, we, we, we are in discussion with the Health Department, and if there are, um, if there is additional work that either we have to do to the septic field in the ballpark or if we do have to add a new septic field, we will do either one of those things, um, to accommodate. And if, if it gets to a point where we're under construction and we can't resolve that, then, then we'll just leave, basically leave that bathroom facility out. Um, essentially it will just be a salt barn- Porta-Potty. ... without the restroom. Andrew, Andrew, I had a question. What, what number... And maybe this is for fire. What number of personnel... I, I keep hearing things about firehouse, firehouse. What number of personnel are we looking at even for this firehouse? If we can get somebody from fire just... I mean, I, I guess I'm sitting here thinking not, not being the designer of this facility, but most, most of these facilities aren't manned by... It's manned 24 hours, but not by a great, great number of personnel. And the gallons per day, I guess, um, is probably greater on a, on a single family residence. Yes, sir. Hello, I'm Captain Bowen with the Lexington Fire Department. How you doing, Captain Bowen? Uh, we, uh, normally have one... It'll be one station, it sounds like. I don't know a whole lot about this particular project. Uh, but, uh, normally, uh, in that kind of a setting, we would have, uh, it'd be one station and have three, uh, crew members for one truck, so. So at most, personnel, five to six on a 24-hour clock? Uh, e-... Well, on a 24-hour shift, just, uh, three. Three? Okay. Three to f- maybe, maybe four. Three, maybe four. Okay. All right. Thank you. I would probably say, by the time the fire station is built- Exactly. I can see that. ... and the owner actually moves to Blue Sky- I hope so. ... both of those two things- Concurrent, yeah. Yeah. Or consen- yeah. And that's... Any other comments? Yeah. Lynn? And, um, that's a comment that I wanted to make, is, um, I mean, everyone knows around here, with our coarse landscape, to try to minimize the numbers of septic tanks and the volumes through septic tanks, and if there's any way in the future, um, you know, post-consent decree that we could have a more sustainable, uh, system of dealing with- Yeah. ... waste off that side, I'd, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Absolutely. Any other, uh, any other comments? . Any other comments? Uh, yes, Andrew? Uh- Oh, I'm sorry, uh, go ahead. I could, uh, possibly address some of what, um, Mr. Tucker had already, um, uh, brought up. Um, and I, I will, I will get Mr. Tucker a, a set of site plans, um, for his review. Um, I mean, I'm, I think we can use input every once in a while. Um, but, uh, the, the construction of the road that is proposed, um, to the best of my knowledge and to the best of, uh, the vision of engineering, uh, we're building this in a, in an access easement. There are no plans to extend that road on. Um, i- y- y- that might be a rumor that was started at some point, and I would just like to make sure that everybody was aware of that. To the best of our knowledge, once this road is constructed, it will be an access road and, and nothing more. Now, in the future, if things develop and people tie onto it, that could be years away, but at this point in time, the road is only for the use of these two, uh, facilities, um, as well as Mr. Crutcher. He will have the right to tie onto it. Um, the, uh, the runoff from the site, um, the salt barn itself will be self-contained. The runoff will go into a bioswale and will go into the detention basin. The truck washout pit, as Barbara did point out, it will have a tank, it will be self-contained, and it will be drained. So that salt will not actually go into the bioswale and will not go into the, into the detention basin. Um, uh, also to, um, to let Mr. Tucker know, um, there are no wetlands anywhere on what we will disturb- ... um, and as a matter of fact, to the best of my knowledge, there is no wetlands on the site on any of the eight acres. Um, this site is a, has a fairly, uh, consistent slope to it. It has rock outcrops on it. Um, and it is, it is, eh, freely drained. Um, so I just at least wanted to, to mention those, and let you all know that, um, we do have some answers to those questions today. Thank you, Andrew. Mr. Tucker, I think you had s- additional comments? Uh, I guess the, the other thing, another point I'd like to point out is, uh, Mr. Crutcher's, you know, trying to develop out there. And he's wanting to file for a development plan, so I guess this is one step helping him to get closer to his development plan by leapfrogging him and building a fire station and an access road to it on the other side. This is what we've been fighting all the time, about this leapfrog-type development. Like I say, we know of issues he's having trouble with, and now you're gonna build a site on the other side of him and open up with a block of land stuck in the middle, so it'll just open the door for the development, which is already having problems. Now you're gonna open that door, so he'll be here within the next six months, trying to get his approved now. Uh, I guess he'll use the leverage of, "Well, the Lexington-Irvin County government got away with it, so we'll try it." And I thank you for your time, once again. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your comments. Um, any other, uh, comments from the commission? Okay, thank you. I guess we gotta... I'm happy with what we're gonna do. Just give them a minute. Okay, I guess, um, we'll move into the, um, next item on the agenda, text amendment initiation. Mr. Chairman, this item appears on the same page of your agenda, page number six. The, uh, staff is asking the commission to consider initiation of the proposed changes to the sign ordinance that we presented to you, uh, at your work session. These would deal with mostly the downtown business zones, and would revise and, and generally expand the allowable signage in the downtown area. Uh, if the commission, uh, does agree to initiate this change, we could possibly have a public hearing on this as soon as your meeting next month. I'd be glad to answer any questions at this time. Thank you, Mr. Sollie. I, I guess, um, we, uh, we heard this at a work session and had, uh, staff presentation and input from, uh, various, uh, uh, I guess, uh, Mr. Kelly and, uh, Downtown Development Authority and folks. So, um, I think we've spent some time with this, uh, so any questions, uh, for Bill? Any comments? Need a motion. I need a motion. Yes, sir. I make a motion that we, uh, schedule this for- Initiate the- ... initiate- Initiate the- Okay. ... for public hearing. Okay, initiate... Okay, we have a motion and a second to initiate this, uh, text amendment. Uh, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Very good. In addition, on your addendum, uh, we have three additional staff items, if you'll permit me. A one word, involve just a brief presentation too. You know, please save it. All right, the top item on page 11 of your addendum is a development plan that we reviewed at your January 15th meeting, for the Landsdowne Shopping Center. To orient you to the plan, this is actually the plan we reviewed at that meeting. We have Tates Creek Road. Malibu Drive is off the plan to the left. Raven Road is off the plan to the right. North is in this direction. Uh, there was a small addition proposed to one of the restaurants in this area, and we have a graphic from that meeting on the overhead, showing you, uh, the proposed addition. I believe we passed that graphic out to you at the start of the meeting. And on the reverse side were the conditions that we discussed at your January 15th meeting. This plan was approved with 18 different conditions and if I could refer you to conditions 13 and 14 on this plan. Two of the conditions were that, uh, the building square footage be clarified, as well as the parking statistics. I believe those of you on the Subdivision Committee will remember the staff presenting that parking was very close to the minimum amount for the shopping center. Uh, the applicant's engineer, in documenting the square footage, clarifying the parking, has discovered that this center is some 7,500 square feet larger than it was known to be. Uh, the staff went back and researched the development plans back to the mid-1990s. ... uh, and apparently it is now at a size that has never been approved by the commission, uh, by a few thousand square feet. The staff thought the easiest remedy to that, since the staff is not authorized to approve something larger than you have, is to bring this back to you so that the math can, uh, be approved, that the small addition to the restaurant can go forward and that this plan can be certified. There is one additional condition we're asking, uh, you to consider in, uh, agreeing to this, uh, larger size for the shopping center. Uh, there is just some grafting that needs to be cleared up in this part of the shopping center, where there's been an outdoor flower garden for a number of years. So, we would ask that, uh, the information shown on the right of way be deleted as part of your consideration of the additional 7700 square feet for the center. Have they done it? They have. They have. I believe that it's all throughout the center. I don't think it's in any one ex- uh, particular building. I think it's just a true inventory of what's there. Coughs] I'm just curious, just for, you know, we always see amendments. What, what amendment is this particular plan, number-wise, I guess? Oh, my. This is probably the 12th amendment- 12th amendment. ... from when it was originally approved. My theory of how this may have happened, the early development plans for this center were nowhere near this detailed. These buildings were each rectangular boxes. Um, and so we have focused more on the statistics of the square footages. Over the last few amendments, obviously, this level of detail has come to this development plan. The original development plan from the '70s was nowhere near this detailed. Okay. Thank you. Are there any, um... I'm sorry, Bill, are you finished? I am. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, are there any questions, uh, for Bill? Um, I guess petitioner is not here, I guess. All right. Oh, I'm sorry. Don Hill. I'm here to represent Foster Roland. Okay. And, uh, willing to try to answer any question y'all have. Okay. Are you in agreement with what staff has brought forward? Oh, yes. Yes, sir. Okay. We've, uh, we've actually satisfied one through 18, and we accept 19 as well. Okay. All right. Uh, are there any questions for the petitioner? 19 is removal of the garden center. It's a, it's a, I think it was a drafting, you know, that garden center out front. Um, 18, uh, provide a sidewalk minimum of 7.5 feet. I thought we increased the sidewalk. No, it's... On the addendum it says nine and a half. 9.5 feet. That's correct. The exhibit from our January 15th meeting does show it at seven and a half. That had been the staff's recommendation. The commission did approve it at nine and a half feet, and their drawing does depict it at nine and a half. Nine and a half. Okay. That's right. All righty. Okay. Are there any, uh, questions? Is there a motion? Um, staff's recommended approval. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept staff's recommendation of approval, adding, I guess, condition number 19 that says remove the garden center. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh-huh. There are two other, uh, staff items that we would ask you to consider. Uh, item F on your addendum on page 11. Um, we are asking for the commission to consider initiation of a text amendment to the land subdivision regulations. Uh, these are amendments we presented to you at your work session last week, and they are shown on, uh, a handout that was given before the start of the meeting on pages 1, 4-1, and 4-2. These would be three individual changes to update the procedure for major subdivision plans to allow infill and redevelopment issues to be considered, uh, in waiver requests. Uh, and thirdly, to allow, uh, bonding of private street sidewalks. Do we have to take these separately or together or... ? I believe all of the, uh, land subdivision regulations, um, and, and... Actually, I apologize. That is item G on your agenda. Okay. Uh, the first ones are, uh, could be bundled. They could be bundled? I believe so. Yes, sir. All right. Um, is there, are there any questions, uh, for Bill? Comments? Motion? You want to move both of 'em together, just the one? Um, I guess that's what... W- we could take... Why don't we do them separate, that way it's- So you want to do G first? Do, um... Yes, we can do G first. Mr. Chairman, I move that we initiate the, the text amendment as spelled out in our agenda for, for G, do- doing articles 1, 5, and 4, 7, 9C. We have a motion and a second to initiate text amendment. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. And then finally, now moving back to item F on page six of the handout, to article six of the zoning ordinance, the staff is asking for another initiation of a zoning ordinance text amendment. This would allow the planning commission to consider requests for conditional uses and variances at the time that you have a public hearing on a zone change. Currently, the commission has this authority, but only in the defined infill and redevelopment area. Uh, this would allow the commission to consider those types of applications at any map amendment request public hearing. The reason that that is required is notice is an important component of these types of requests. If initiated, this, uh, could be heard by the commission in probably a couple of months. And, of course, we'll notify all the neighborhood associations to this proposal, should you decide to initiate it. Okay. Thank you, Bill. Are there any questions for Bill? Motion? Or comments? I'm sorry. Yeah. The comment I'd make is can we trade the, uh, BOA f-... uh, the... our, uh, oversight for the BOAR and us take this? With a text amendment? Uh, it could be considered. Yes, sir. No, I'll, I'll move that we initiate a text amendment for Article 6-... 6-4C for the conditional use and variance at the time of rezoning. Second. We have a motion and second. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate your patience. Thank you, sir. I guess, uh, that inc- concludes Applications, um- ... under, um, any other staff items? Just one announcement, Mr. Chairman. I just want to announce that our extended planning family was augmented by one this morning with the arrival of, uh, Jimmy Emmons and his wife's, uh, baby daughter, so- Oh. All right. Please- What type of trade- Uh, that situation is still, uh, the same. Please extend our congratulations to Jimmy for us. Sure do. Great, great. Um, I did have one other thing. I guess, want to thank everybody for last week's participation. Um, have received, uh, positive feedback from, uh, last Thursday's sess- session, and, uh, hopefully we can, uh, be there next month, so other than that, is there any other business? Okay. Uh, is there a motion for adjournment? So moved. So moved. All right. All right. We're adjourned.