# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - November 18, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 18, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1754 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1754?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-11-18 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 34,512 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on November 18, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Carolyn Richardson presided over the meeting. The Commission addressed 11 agenda items, taking 11 motions and votes, and heard 6 public comments during the session. The Commission approved nine development and zoning-related proposals, including final subdivision plans for the Clark Property (Units 2-C, 2-D, 2-E), development plans for the L.T. Ruth Property (DP 2010-46), Lexington Plaza (DP 2010-70), Maple Leaf Subdivision (ZDP 2010-64), and the Waller Property (ZDP 2010-49). The Commission also approved a staff item for Bluegrass Executive Park (Plan 2010-115F) and three zoning-related matters: a zoning change for Carmike Cinemas (MAR 2010-11), a zoning change for James Waller (MAR 2010-9), and a zoning change for Phi Gamma Delta House (MARCV 2010-12) along with its corresponding development plan (ZDP 2010-63). All nine substantive proposals were approved. The meeting concluded with an informational presentation on the Courthouse Area Design Review Board Annual Report. ## Attendance **Present:** - Eunice Beatty - Carla Blanton - Patrick Brewer - Mike Cravens - Mike Owens - Derek Paulsen - Carolyn Richardson - Lynn Roche-Phillips - William Wilson **Absent:** - Marie Copeland - Ed Holmes **Late:** None reported ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included eleven votes, all of which passed by voice vote. **Minutes Approval** [0:33:26] The minutes from October 28, 2010 were approved on a motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Mike Cravens. **Development Plans and Zoning Changes** Plan 2010-119F, 2010-120F, and 2010-121F (Clark Property, Units 2-C, 2-D, 2-E) was approved with revised conditions on a motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Patrick Brewer [0:47:59]. Conditions included amending Condition 11 to remove pedestrian access easement on Units 2-C and 2-D, requiring fencing style review by the Division of Police and lot reorientation on Unit 2-E, and clarifying non-buildable areas versus easements for maintenance purposes. DP 2010-46 (L.T. Ruth Property, amended) was approved on a motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Derek Paulsen [0:55:51]. Conditions required correcting Planning Commission certification, obtaining KYDOT approval for proposed access to Newtown Pike, revising building envelope setback to 62 feet, and closing the existing access point on Newtown Pike. DP 2010-70 (Lexington Plaza, amended) was approved on a motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Derek Paulsen [1:15:00]. Conditions included adding floodplain and easement information, requiring 38 parking spaces, and adding brick pillars and additional trees. Plan 2010-115F (Bluegrass Executive Park, amended) was approved on a motion by Lynn Roche-Phillips, seconded by Patrick Brewer [1:23:13]. Conditions included deleting references to Lot 7 and the zone change requirement, and allowing consolidation plat for a portion of Lot 4. **Zoning Changes** MAR 2010-11: Zoning change from B-1 to B-6P for Carmike Cinemas, Inc. at 3151 Maple Leaf Drive was approved on a motion by Lynn Roche-Phillips, seconded by Mike Owens [1:38:10]. MAR 2010-9: Zoning change from R1C to B4 for James Waller at 1528 North Limestone was approved on a motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Lynn Roche-Phillips [3:26:14]. Conditions restricted outdoor music and unshielded lighting, required a 50-foot landscape buffer, and specified allowed uses. MARCV 2010-12: Zoning change from R2 to R3 for Phi Gamma Delta House Corporation at 578 Woodland and 505 Columbia was approved on a motion by Derek Paulsen, seconded by Patrick Brewer [4:31:14]. Conditions limited on-site residents to four and required LEED Platinum certification. **Subdivision and Development Plan Approvals** ZDP 2010-64 (Maple Leaf Subdivision Unit 1, Lot 4) was approved on a motion by Betty, seconded by Mike Owens [1:38:43]. ZDP 2010-49 (Waller property preliminary development plan) was approved on a motion by Furr, seconded by Lynn Roche-Phillips [3:26:47]. Parking was corrected from 38 to 41 spaces. ZDP 2010-63 (Phi Gamma Delta House preliminary development plan) was approved on a motion by Derek Paulson, seconded by Mike Beatty [4:35:01]. Conditions limited on-site residents to four and required LEED Platinum certification. ## Public Comment **Support for Waller Property Development** Jim McLaughlin, a resident and student, spoke in support of the B4 zone change [timestamp: 2:37:47]. He stated that the development would provide local job opportunities and improve the neighborhood, particularly benefiting those without transportation. Sandra McNeese, a resident, also supported the development [timestamp: 2:38:51]. She expressed the belief that the project would improve the area's appearance and create additional jobs, making the North Limestone corridor look better. **Opposition to Phi Gamma Delta Fraternity House** Janet Cowan, a neighbor, opposed the fraternity house project [timestamp: 4:07:28]. Her concerns included traffic congestion, stormwater issues, loss of historic homes, and noise from events. Mark Barker, a resident, also opposed the project [timestamp: 4:11:48]. He raised concerns about increased density, inadequate parking, stormwater problems, and the potential precedent the development might set for future projects in the area. Joshua England, representing Christian Student Fellowship, expressed concern specifically about parking [timestamp: 4:15:38]. He noted that the area already experiences difficulty finding parking for events. Ted Cowan, a resident, opposed the project [timestamp: 4:16:09]. He feared the development would establish a precedent for additional fraternity houses in the neighborhood and expressed concern about the loss of a historic home. ## Appointments The following changes to the Planning Commission were noted: * **Joan Whitman** resigned from the Planning Commission * **Frank Penn** resigned from the Planning Commission ## Contested Items The November 18, 2010 meeting included two significant contested items that generated substantial debate. **Zoning change for Waller property (MAR 2010-9)** A proposal to rezone the Waller property from R1C to B4 generated heated discussion among Commission members. The core disagreement centered on three issues: compatibility with the comprehensive plan, potential neighborhood impact, and economic feasibility of the proposed change. Staff initially recommended disapproval of the rezoning request. Despite this recommendation, the Commission ultimately voted to approve the proposal, but with strong conditional restrictions attached to the approval. **Phi Gamma Delta fraternity house (MARCV 2010-12)** The proposed Phi Gamma Delta fraternity house drew strong community opposition. Neighbors raised multiple concerns about the project, including traffic impacts, parking availability, stormwater management, and the loss of historic homes in the area. The debate revealed underlying tensions between the need for student housing and the desire to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. The contested nature of this item reflected the difficulty of balancing competing community interests and development pressures. ## Final Subdivision Plans: Clark Property, Units 2-C, 2-D, 2-E [timestamp: 0:34:53] The Planning Commission reviewed and approved three final subdivision plans for the Clark Property covering Units 2-C, 2-D, and 2-E. The discussion involved key speakers Bill Sallee and Richard Murphy, who addressed modifications to the original proposal. The revised plans incorporated several condition changes focused on improving site design and connectivity. Specific modifications included: * Pedestrian access easements * Lot reorientation adjustments * Designation and treatment of non-buildable areas Staff and the applicant worked collaboratively to refine the proposal, with particular attention to greenway connectivity improvements. These modifications were designed to enhance pedestrian access and environmental integration across the three units. Police concerns were also raised during the review process. The applicant and staff reached agreement on modifications to address these concerns, though the specific nature of the police department's initial issues was not detailed in the discussion. The Planning Commission voted to approve the final subdivision plans with the revised conditions in place. The approval reflects the successful resolution of the various concerns and the applicant's willingness to incorporate the requested modifications into the final design. ## Development Plan: L.T. Ruth Property (DP 2010-46) The Commission discussed and approved an amended development plan for the L.T. Ruth Property during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:49:13]. **Project Overview** The proposal involved a 60,000 square foot building to be located on Newtown Pike. **Key Participants** Chris Taylor and Jihad Hallany were the primary speakers during this discussion. **Conditions and Requirements** The Commission approved the amended development plan with several conditions: - Kentucky Department of Transportation (KYDOT) approval was required - Setback adjustments were necessary to meet zoning requirements - Access closure was mandated as part of the approval **Discussion and Revisions** Staff and the applicant worked through revisions during the meeting to address traffic and zoning requirements. The parties reached agreement on the modifications needed to bring the project into compliance with applicable standards. **Outcome** The Commission approved the amended development plan for the L.T. Ruth Property with the conditions noted above. ## Development Plan: Lexington Plaza (DP 2010-70) The Commission discussed and approved a revised development plan for a vehicle sales facility located at the corner of North Limestone and New Circle Road [timestamp: 0:57:21]. **Key Participants** Tom Martin and Bruce Simpson were the primary speakers during this agenda item. **Presentation and Discussion** The revised development plan for Lexington Plaza was presented to the Commission for consideration. The proposal involves a vehicle sales facility at a prominent intersection in the city. **Conditions and Requirements** The Commission's approval included several conditions that the applicant must address: - Gateway improvements at the site - Streetscape details and enhancements - Parking corrections to meet requirements **Concerns Addressed** Staff and the applicant discussed and agreed to address access and design concerns related to the development. These discussions ensured that the project would meet the Commission's standards for the location. **Outcome** The Commission approved the revised development plan for Lexington Plaza (DP 2010-70), contingent upon the applicant's compliance with the specified conditions regarding gateway improvements, streetscape details, and parking corrections. ## Staff Item: Bluegrass Executive Park (Plan 2010-115F) [timestamp: 1:16:05] The Commission discussed and approved a revised plat for Bluegrass Executive Park. Bill Sallee and Rory Cayley presented the item to the Commission. The revised plat was designed to facilitate a property acquisition. The Commission approved the plat with specific conditions that modified the original plan: * Removal of references to Lot 7 * Deletion of a zone change requirement The changes were characterized as temporary measures to accommodate a real estate transfer. The Commission approved the revised plat as presented. ## Zoning Change: Carmike Cinemas (MAR 2010-11) [timestamp: 1:27:12] The Commission considered a zoning change request for a movie theater site, with the proposal to rezone the property from B-1 to B-6P zoning classification. This change would eliminate a conditional use restriction currently applied to the site. **Key Speakers and Presentation** Tracy White and Jim Hodge presented on this agenda item, discussing the merits and implications of the proposed zoning change. **Staff and Applicant Position** Both staff and the applicant agreed that the zoning change aligns with the comprehensive plan and would support mixed-use development at the site. The change from B-1 to B-6P was presented as consistent with the community's planning goals. **Outcome** The Commission approved the zoning change for the Carmike Cinemas site. The approval allows the property to transition to B-6P zoning, removing the conditional use restriction and facilitating the proposed development. ## Development Plan: Maple Leaf Subdivision (ZDP 2010-64) [timestamp: 1:34:05] The Commission discussed and approved a revised development plan for the Maple Leaf Subdivision (ZDP 2010-64). Tracy White presented the item to the Commission. The Commission approved the revised development plan subject to eight conditions: - Floodplain compliance requirements - Buildable area corrections - Access coordination with KYDOT (Kentucky Department of Transportation) - Additional conditions as specified in the approval The outcome of this agenda item was approval of the development plan with the stated conditions. ## Zoning Change: James Waller (MAR 2010-9) [timestamp: 1:41:08] The Commission considered a zoning change request from R1C to B4 for a warehouse and office development on North Limestone. Key speakers included Tracy White, Bruce Simpson, and Jim Waller. The discussion proved contentious, with staff initially recommending disapproval of the zoning change. However, the Commission ultimately approved the request, contingent upon conditional zoning restrictions designed to mitigate potential impacts on the surrounding area. The conditional zoning restrictions imposed as part of the approval addressed three primary concerns: - Noise limitations - Traffic management - Visual impact mitigation The approval reflected the Commission's determination that the proposed warehouse and office development could proceed with these protective conditions in place, despite the initial staff recommendation against the change. The conditional restrictions were intended to balance the applicant's development goals with community protection measures. ## Development Plan: Waller Property (ZDP 2010-49) The Commission discussed and approved a preliminary development plan for the Waller property (ZDP 2010-49) [timestamp: 1:53:50]. **Key Speakers** Tom Martin and Bruce Simpson led the discussion on this agenda item. **Plan Details and Approval** The Commission approved the preliminary development plan with 14 conditions. The plan had been revised to address stormwater and design concerns raised during the review process. **Conditions of Approval** The approval included the following requirements: - A 50-foot buffer - Gateway enhancements - Facade requirements **Outcome** The development plan was approved with the 14 conditions specified by the Commission. ## Zoning Change: Phi Gamma Delta House (MARCV 2010-12) [timestamp: 3:30:17] The Commission considered and approved a zoning change request for the Phi Gamma Delta House, designated as MARCV 2010-12. The proposal involved rezoning the property from R2 to R3 zoning classification. **Key Speakers** The discussion included remarks from Tracy Wade, Ben Simmons, and Mr. Lear. **Outcome** The Commission approved the zoning change along with conditional use and variance approvals. The approval included several specific conditions designed to address operational and neighborhood impact concerns: - Four-person occupancy limit - Alcohol-free operation requirement - Green buffer requirements These conditions were established as part of the conditional use and variance approvals granted with the zoning change. ## Development Plan: Phi Gamma Delta House (ZDP 2010-63) [timestamp: 4:32:22] The Commission discussed and approved a preliminary development plan for the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity house, identified as ZDP 2010-63. **Key Speakers** Tom Martin and Ben Simmons led the discussion on this agenda item. **Action Taken** The Commission approved the preliminary development plan subject to seven conditions. The plan underwent modifications to address concerns related to parking and design elements. **Conditions of Approval** The approval included a revised open space waiver and use restrictions as conditions of the development plan. **Outcome** The development plan was approved with the specified conditions in place. ## Presentation: Courthouse Area Design Review Board Annual Report Billy Van Pelt presented the annual report of the Courthouse Area Design Review Board [timestamp: 4:36:03]. The presentation highlighted the board's activities and accomplishments in overseeing design standards and improvements within the downtown Lexington courthouse area. The report covered the board's approvals and the design improvements that resulted from their review process. Van Pelt also discussed the board's community engagement efforts, demonstrating how the Design Review Board has worked to involve stakeholders in the courthouse area's development and enhancement. This was an informational presentation with no formal action required. The report provided an overview of the board's work during the reporting period and its ongoing role in maintaining design quality and community standards in the downtown courthouse district. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of minutes from October 28, 2010 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2010-119F, 2010-120F, and 2010-121F (Clark Property, Units 2-C, 2-D, 2-E) with revised conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of DP 2010-46 (L.T. Ruth Property, amended) with revised conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of DP 2010-70 (Lexington Plaza, amended) with revised conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2010-115F (Bluegrass Executive Park, amended) with revised conditions - **MAR 2010-11** — passed: Zoning change from B-1 to B-6P for Carmike Cinemas, Inc. at 3151 Maple Leaf Drive - **ZDP 2010-64** — passed: Approval of Maple Leaf Subdivision Unit 1, Lot 4 with eight conditions - **MAR 2010-9** — passed: Zoning change from R1C to B4 for James Waller at 1528 North Limestone - **ZDP 2010-49** — passed: Approval of preliminary development plan for Waller property with 14 conditions - **MARCV 2010-12** — passed: Zoning change from R2 to R3 for Phi Gamma Delta House Corporation at 578 Woodland and 505 Columbia - **ZDP 2010-63** — passed: Approval of preliminary development plan for Phi Gamma Delta House with 7 conditions --- ## Full transcript But if you want that place, for us as a university, we're right next to it, so it's perfect for us. I would imagine that there are many people who live in Lexington who have never been on our campus, never been on the campus, have never walked through the campus, have never been around it. So anytime we can get them down and get them up on the campus, again, what is good for the city of Lexington is great for the University of Kentucky. I get asked this a lot as a council member. We just actually left the Lexington Center board meeting. What are the plans for a new arena? Are we any closer than we were a year ago? I don't know. I don't know. I do know that at some point, Rupp Arena, which is the greatest, is 35 years old or whatever it is. At some point, we're going to have to replace. They talked about right across the street, there's different areas. But my hope is within the next four years, we'll be in a new building. That would be my hope. And, you know, my dreams usually are a little bit high. But I would hope in the next four years everybody looks and says, this would be great for the downtown. It would be great for the university. It would be great for our city, great for our state. This is the Commonwealth's team. We need them to be projected the way it needs to be projected because it's for all of us. Well, no question the impact economic development has had or the university has had on economic development during basketball games. You mentioned the restaurants. The bars are bubbling over now. So we certainly appreciate that's a good change. It needed change that hadn't been around in a couple years. So thank you for that last year. Now, in closing, I asked Dr. Todd how long he's going to be around UK. Any promises to us? How long you're going to be here? Well, I don't make promises, but I'm having a ball here. This is something that I would tell you is unique. One of the things you find out is you've got a lot of people coming at you different ways. I go to different functions where I'll be in front of Kentucky people, and I'll go, they don't like us outside here, do they? And they go crazy. They don't. But I won't be moved based on anything other than my heart saying it's time. What I mean by that is I'm finally at a place where I can truly help young people better than anyone else. We just had five players drafted in the first round. One of them signed a $15 million shoe contract because of the publicity that the university has given him. We're on national television 21 times more than anybody. You think Notre Dame's hated? Wait until the next couple of years. Kentucky basketball is going to be worse than Notre Dame football. Why? Because we're on TV all the time. But the opportunity I have to do what I want to do, help young people reach their dreams. There is no better place in the country than here. So when I tell you, my heart will tell me it's time. But it's not going to be any other reason. I'm enjoying myself. I understand the enormity of this job. I'm humbled that I've had this position. I've gone to many functions and said, I am the grandson. I have a coal miner from Clarksburg, West Virginia, and I'm coaching at the university. What? I'm at the University of Kentucky, a coal miner's grandson. That is ridiculous. And that's what makes this kind of neat and fun. Well, Coach, congratulations on all your successes here. I know we're proud to have you here and the impact you'll have for many years to come on the community. and if there's anything the city can ever do to make that better, please let us know. We'll get that building built. Get behind that. We'll get that building built. Absolutely, sir. Coach, thank you. Thanks, Kevin. You've been watching the Stinnett Minute. This is 6th District City Council Member Kevin Stinnett. Thank you for watching. I'm Councilmember Linda Gorton, and I am out here in the beautiful rural area of Fayette County. And today I'd like to introduce you to the Purchase of Development Rights Program and specifically to one of our young farmers who is participating in the PEDR program. First of all, I'd like to introduce and welcome Billy Van Pelt, who's the director of our Purchase of Development Rights Program. Good morning, Billy. Good morning, Councilmember Gordon. Thank you. Well, thank you for being here. Sure. The Purchase of Development Rights Program has now been in effect in Fayette County for 10 years. Yes. And one of the things that many people don't know is that in the 1990s, a committee went to work to try to figure out how to manage our rural land. Fayette County is very unique because not only do we have one good-sized city, but we have a terrific ring of agriculture surrounding it. And so just to kind of give a little introduction, could you tell us a little bit about how that Rural Land Management Plan and the Purchase of Development Rights Program got started? Sure. The Rural Land Management Plan, which was adopted by the Planning Commission in 1999, made two recommendations. One recommendation was that we go from a 10-acre minimum in the rural service area to a 40-acre minimum. And the other recommendation was to implement a purchase of development rights program where conservation easements are purchased on farmland, and those conservation easements restrict the land to an agricultural use. So it helps us to protect our signature industries of general agriculture, equine, and tourism. Now why is that important? I mean, some people look at Fayette County and they think, when they think business, they think of, in the urban area, businesses. It's important because our signature landscape is our global brand identity. The equine, agriculture, and tourism industries have a collective economic impact of $3 billion a year in Fayette County. The tourism industry alone employs over 23,000 people, and we had $1.6 billion in tourism expenditures here in the year 2007. We had the largest cattle market east of the Mississippi River. and I think that our equine industry speaks for itself. People want to see this rural landscape. Well, one of the things that you mentioned is tourism, and a lot of people do come to Fayette County just to see this beautiful land. That's right. And then, you know, when they're here, they do other things, But it seems to me that the land itself is a big draw for a lot of people. They may say, well, let's go for a weekend to Fayette County, to Lexington. And we do have scenic drives through the countryside, and we do have ways for people to tour farms and that sort of thing. So talk about the economic impact, because you mentioned $3 billion with a B, billion dollars. Now, that's not just the farm itself, is it? No, it's all of the cluster of economic development that we have here, an equine cluster with farriers and equine hospitals. We have two equine hospitals that are the Mayo Clinics for the horse. We have all of the related services to general agriculture, to equine, that are all here supporting those industries. But I think that the main thing to realize is that it's just not an aesthetic quality. Yes. It's our soils. Fayette County has the second best soils in the state of Kentucky. Woodford County's number one in terms of prime farmland soils and soils of statewide importance. Our soils are irreplaceable. So we're not just protecting the scenic value of our farmland. We're protecting our soil quality. Agriculture will continue to evolve over time. and we have to protect our farmland and our soils so that we can evolve with changes in agriculture. We're actually protecting our business. We're protecting our factory floor. Yes, our factory floor. Now, how are we doing in terms of the Purchase of Development Rights Program, which, by the way, is voluntary? We don't make anybody participate, correct? It is a voluntary program and we are currently at 25,103 acres. We're over 50% of our goal that's prescribed in the ordinance. Yes. So it was very important for us to reach 25,000 acres in 2010 because we're halfway through the program. The ordinance defines 50,000 acres by the year 2020 and we're at 25,000 acres by 2010. So we're doing very well. We have 222 farms. We have 90 general agriculture farms, 13 of other types of farms, and 119 equine farms. But it's important not to get caught up in the types of farms because the farm use can change, different agricultural uses. But the important thing is that we're protecting our land and our soil. But based on what you just said, it is a nice mix of types of farms. It is a very nice mix. Yes. And we have a variety of farm owners. We have multi-generational farms. We have young farms like this. We have some farms that are owned by a few international folks. Uh-huh. Small farms? Small farms. Big farms. They range in size from 20 acres to 530 acres and everything in between. And 20 acres, is that the minimum to participate? That is the minimum size to participate. Okay. It's a really good blend of folks who participate with the general ag, the equine, the small farms, the larger farms. That's a very good mix. Yes, it is. And I think that when we talk about it in business terms and economic development terms, it's very, very important to our economy here in Fayette County. It certainly is. And it's what we're known for. it's our global brand. And I think it's important to note that funding is always a very important thing to recognize in this program. We've received over $33.5 million in federal and state matching grants. The city has invested $28 million. So we've gotten either a one-to-one or a two-to-one match with the local tax dollar. We've received $5.5 million more in matching grants than we've invested. So not in addition to our match, we've also received more than we've invested. Yes. The annual operating cost of the program is less than half of 1% of the entire city budget. It's very efficiently used money. Correct. Yes. Well, I really appreciate your being here. Thank you, Councilmember Gordon. We're going to take a little break. Okay, and we're going to talk with our young farmer. And so if you'll just stay with us, we'll be right back. Well, here I am again, back on the farm, and I have a young farmer with me named Robert Eads. I want to welcome Robert. Good morning. Good morning, Councilmember Gordon. Thank you for being here. Robert is one of our young farmers here in Fayette County. and you know I have to tell you Robert sitting up here on this wagon reminds me of my childhood all of my grandparents were farmers and I think a lot of times people don't understand exactly what is involved in bringing food to their table the business of farming so thank you for being here and I want to ask you a little bit about your farm because your farm is one of our purchase of Development Rights Protected Farms. Yes. And your family decided to participate in the PDR program. Tell me how big is your farm and what do you do on your farm? Well, the farm that is in PDR is 53 acres. 53. I have another farm that is 192, which we're hoping to get into PDR someday. And then we lease about another 150 acres that we do crops and stuff. Okay. Now, what do you actually farm here on this 53-acre piece? On the 53-acre piece, we have tobacco, alfalfa, hay, soybeans, wheat, occasionally, and corn. Okay. You have a variety of crops. Well, we try to rotate and rotate crops to utilize the soil in the best manner. Okay. That's really interesting. I know a lot of times people think of a farm and they think of animals, but you're actually raising things that will go on to help with our food production. Correct, yes, the grain crops. Most of our alfalfa is sold to the local horse farms. Okay, and they use it for their horses. Okay. It's really beautiful out here, and I know that a lot of people, when they look at a farm, they think beauty. But farming is actually hard work, isn't it? It can be very challenging at times. Yes, weather, the cost of doing things, equipment these days. All the elements. Yes. You have to rely on Mother Nature every day, don't you? Yes. Yes. Well, tell me, why did your family decide to participate in the Purchase of Development Rights Program? My grandparents spent their life building this operation, and they really wanted it to stay as a farm. And I wanted to carry on the tradition, and they knew that. And so they placed this farm in the PDR program so that it could be passed down. Okay. Well, I think from what I know, there are many multi-generational families in Fayette County, and there are several multi-generational families who participate in the PDR program because they believe in farming and agriculture. Right. And so if you were to say exactly what it is that you think is important about the PDR program, what would you tell people? People who don't know much about it. Well, I think it's a wonderful opportunity for the whole community to save this wonderful resource that we have. The agriculture industry. The agriculture industry, yes. And everybody can enjoy it and be here for future generations. Well, are there many young farmers such as yourself? Yes, I have several friends that have put property in the PDR program and are farming traditional agriculture type farms. Okay. Okay. Well, you're doing a great job with this 53 acres. It's beautiful out here. I'm really curious about what you love about farming because I think it's not for everybody. I love the opportunity to be my own boss. Okay. I love the change of seasons, the renewal of the crops every year, and just the challenges of being out. Outdoors. Outdoors. and every day is different. I'm thinking if you don't like to be outdoors, you are not going to make a very good farmer, right? No, no. Well, I really appreciate your sharing what it is about the PDR program that's important to you and your family and the fact that I think it's very encouraging that we have young farmers coming up who want to raise our crops for our food and who want to raise our cattle and our horses and the things that are important to our agriculture industry. So thank you so much for being here. It's a pleasure to talk with you. Thank you for coming. And I wish you good skies, sun, enough rain to keep going, and keep up the good work. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you so much. If you want to know more about the PDR program, you can check the government website at www.lexingtonky.gov, or you can email me, Councilmember Linda Gorton, at lgorton at lexingtonky.gov. Thank you so much. That'll bear for me the cost of a brand new start. Oh, what a love. To let me begin again. Oh, what a light. That'll brighten up the corners of a lonely life. Oh, what a light. To cast away the rain. Oh, what a light. To remove the gloom, the face, and the dark alone. Oh, what a light. I believe I can see again. I remember the day we walked on the beach till sunset. And we sang And the songs that we play Were a promise of love That'll last beyond the grave Oh, what a song learned From the sea, taught solely to the young Oh, what a song to cast away the rain Oh, what a song to break the bonds of fear Still beside Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Order, please. I think I'd like to, like I see in the audience, a former chair of the Planning Commission, and according to my agenda, there is a part on here that involves him, and it's the very last thing of the meeting today, and I just thought I might ask him if he would like to remain at the back of the agenda or if he would like for me to move it forward. That's what I thought might be the answer. We do have a couple of presentations today to make, and so if the commission members would come down to the front with me, we will do those at this time. Thank you. Could I have former Commissioner Member Joan Whitman come forward, please? On a personal note, I might say that I sure do miss having you sitting next to me. Because she picks up on those lines really fast. No, we really truly have missed you, and I know you probably haven't missed us, but we do have something we'd like to present you with, and I'm going to read this if my bifocals will work. Whereas we, the members of the Lexington Fayette County Planning Commission and staff, acknowledge the fulfillment of the term of office of Ms. Joan Whitman from the Planning Commission, and whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Ms. Whitman for her valuable service to this commission from July 18, 2002 to June 30, 2010, wow, having served on the commission's zoning committee and having served as secretary of the commission by a unanimous vote of her peers and whereas Ms. Whitman has been influential in her adoption of the 2001 comprehensive plan and the formation and adoption of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, whereas Ms. Whitman has been influential in the formation of the South Nicholasville Road Small Area Plan, the Rural Settlement Plan, and the Red Mile Village Development Plan, and whereas Ms. Whitman has also been influential in the formation and adoption of the Greenbrier Small Area Plan, the Indian Hills Small Area Plan, the Central Sector and East End Small Area Plans, the Residential and Non-Residential Infill and Redevelopment Studies, the Downtown Lexington Master Plan, the South End Park Urban Village Plan, the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan, the Tex Amendments Encouraging Infill and Redevelopment, and the Tex Amendments and Map Amendments Establishing the Mixed-Use Zones. and whereas Ms. Whitman has consistently shown a deep concern for the citizens of Lexington-Fayette County as reflected in her decisions regarding land use and development, and whereas the members of this commission and the staff feel that the service and guidance contributed by Ms. Whitman will be greatly missed by this body. And now, therefore, be it resolved, we, the members of the commission, along with the staff, to hereby express our gratitude to Ms. Whitman for her service to this commission and to the citizens of Lexington-Fayette County. And we, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Planning Commission and staff, do hereby wish for Ms. Whitman much happiness and continued success and ask that she continue to give valuable guidance to the members of this commission. Dated at Lexington, Kentucky, this 18th day of November, 2010. And we have a copy of this resolution to be presented to you today. and I get a hug. Thank you for your time. I don't think we had a single solitary study that Joan wasn't always willing to serve on and serve with distinction. And Joan, are you sure you don't want to say something? All right. Well, thank you again for your service. Mr. Penn, would you come forward? I actually had the pleasure of sitting between Mr. Penn and Ms. Whitman for quite a while, and it was really interesting, really interesting. But both of these people have given incredible service to this community, to this commission, and to the future of Lexington. And we're very grateful for all of that service because, believe you me, this is a fairly thankless job that requires at least one day a week. Every week they do give us off Thanksgiving and Christmas. So this is a huge time commitment, and they not only gave their time to this commission, but to the many different plans and committees that we were asked to serve on. And they did it most of the time with a smile on their face. But, Frank, whereas we, the members of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Planning Commission and staff, acknowledge the fulfillment of the term of office of Mr. Frank Penn from the Planning Commission, and whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Mr. Penn for his valuable service to this commission from July 18, 2002 to June 30, 2010, having served on the commission's zoning committee and subdivision committee, and having served as chair of the commission by unanimous vote of his peers. And whereas Mr. Penn has been influential in the adoption of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan and the formation and adoption of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, whereas Mr. Penn has been influential in the formation and the adoption of the South Nicholasville Road Small Area Plan, the Rural Settlement Plan, and the Red Mile Village Development Plan. And whereas Mr. Penn has also been influential in the formation and adoption of the Greenbrier Small Area Plan, the Indian Hills Small Area Plan, the Central Sector and the East End Small Area Plans, the Residential and Non-Residential Infill and Redevelopment Studies, the Downtown Lexington Master Plan, the South End Park Urban Village Plan, the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan, the Tex Amendments Encouraging Infill and Redevelopment, and the Tex Amendments and Map Amendments Establishing the Mixed-Use Zones. You were busy. Penn for his service to this commission and to the citizens of Lexington Fayette County and we the Lexington Fayette Urban County Planning Commission and staff to hereby wish for Mr. Penn much happiness and continued success and ask that he continue to give valuable guidance to the members of this commission and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Penn and spread upon the minute book, minutes books of this book, of this body. Dated at Lexington, Kentucky, the 18th, day of November 2010. Thank you for your service, Frank. It's I who would like to thank you all. To be able to serve on this commission and to try to help make a difference in our community, a community that I love, a place that I call home, a place we've raised our children, it's a high honor. And to be able to serve it for eight years has been a special privilege. Thank all of you for your help. Again, thank you to both Joan and Frank for many years of very, very valuable service to this commission. We appreciate you coming in also on a rainy afternoon. Thank you. At this time, I would like to, I will accept a motion for approval. Are any additions to the October 28, 2010 minutes? Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of the minutes dated October 28, 2010. I have a motion from Mr. Owens. Second. Second from Mr. Cravens. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Are there any postponements or withdrawals? You can always hope. Moving on to the first item under final division plans, Plan 2010-119F, the Clark property, if staff will pair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. The first items, the staff is prepared to present the first three subdivision plats that appear in your meeting agenda today. They are items 1, 2, and 3 on page 1 and 2 of your agenda. Plan 2010-119F, Clark Property Unit 2C. Plan 2010-120F, Clark Property Unit 2D. And on page 2, Plan 2010-121, Clark Property Unit 2E. These plats all have an address being a portion of 3335 Polo Club Boulevard. and these items all were postponed at your meeting last month. To orient the commission to the location of the area of these plats, we are east of Interstate 75, south of the interchange with Manowar Boulevard. These properties are also on the east side of Polo Club Boulevard, which is a major collector that parallels the interstate generally in this area. To the north is the Glen Eagles subdivision. The northeast is the Blackford property development, and the subject property is part of the Clark property, which is to the south of those and also to the east of I-75. This is generally in the area of the Rails to Trails project. It extends west from the interstate and is also planned to extend to the east as far as Polo Club and even further. These are three units of the Clark property plat, some of which were approved at your meeting last month. The staff asked that these three items be postponed a week because they were pulled from your consent agenda in order to further discuss pedestrian access easements that are involved with each of these three units. We have here the development plan that was approved. It's also a preliminary subdivision plan. Earlier this year, it was actually approved a day short of a year ago for this property. And these three units have been highlighted. They're in the eastern corner of the property, again extending from Polo Club Boulevard with a new loop street called Falling Leaves Lane. And at the time this development plan was before the subdivision committee late last year, there was extensive discussion about two issues. One was a possible street stub for property further to the south and east, and also an area of tree preservation generally along the eastern border of this property. The issues of street stub and tree preservation were decided by the commission. The street stub issue basically being eliminated through your committee review process. But in lieu of a street stub, there were two pedestrian connections that were anticipated for this development for the property further to the east. This property has not yet come in with any type of preliminary subdivision plan or development plan. But it is all zoned EAR2, and we do expect that at some future time there will be a proposal for probably similar single-family development of that area. Last week, we discovered that the police department did have an issue with the design of these pedestrian access easements, and that's why the staff asked to postpone it so we could give you a full report today of those. We have since met as a staff and also with the applicant to try and understand these issues a little better. And basically the staff is interested in good pedestrian connections into our greenway system. The greenways that are anticipated in this area are along the western part of the Unit 2. All of those plats have been approved by the commission, and that is in place. And also to the north of this particular area, extending into the Blackford property, and for a distance paralleling Blackford Parkway. The staff is focused primarily on the connection to this greenway at this location from the new subdivision. And we have on the overhead a redesign of some of the lotting for the Unit 2E plat that we would hope to see in order to augment and facilitate a better connection. That's on the display. If I could refer you to the bottom of the gold legal size sheet, We have addressed that in proposed condition 11 where those lots be revised, that we either extend an easement or a non-buildable area to allow for greater separation between the homes so that the pedestrian access way in this location will have a little more room between the two houses on the adjacent lots. With this design change and with the narrow distance between these two lots here, extending into an unapproved area of development, the staff is agreeable at this time, given this circumstance, not requiring this pedestrian mid-block connection in lieu of an augmented and improved connection at this location to the greenway. So all of these recommendations you see are to those points. For the Unit 2C plan, we would propose an amendment to Condition 11 so that the access easement would be removed. Similarly, on Clark Unit 2D, Condition 11 would have the same change, remove pedestrian access easement. Condition 10 on Unit 2E, we would like the fencing style and location between those lots to be approved by the Division of Police. And then finally, a new condition that the lot lines be reoriented between Lots 37 and 38, and that we add the non-buildable area or the easement to portions of those lots. With these revisions, the staff is still prepared to recommend approval of these flats as we did at your subdivision committee. We thank you for postponing these for a week, allowing us to get up to speed with the issue involved with these. At this time, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission before you consider these plans. Does any Commission member have a question for Mr. Sally? Mr. Olley. Well, a question for you, and as much as anything, I understand kind of what's going on, process-wise. And if I'm correct, this subdivision, we've seen this twice. It's been through technical, I believe, twice. Why wasn't this brought up as a technical item? Why wasn't it brought up earlier? Why is it kind of a last-minute, last-type thing now at this point? That's a good question. The staff was made first aware of this at your subdivision committee meeting two weeks ago today. I am not sure if the Division of Police was represented at the technical committee meeting that had been a week prior to that, but the first the staff learned of this concern about the pedestrian access easements was at your subdivision committee this time around. The access easements before were mostly decided after the technical committee had met, whether or not there would be a street stub and the pedestrian easements, I think were more at the time of the subdivision committee and following when this development plan first came through. But when the street stub and pedestrian area, that's my understanding anyway, when we first started preliminary and final subdivision plan together, it went back too technical since then, didn't it? And why wouldn't police be at the technical? I think they have been at many of the technical committee meetings. I don't know that they are a fairly new member of the technical committee. I don't know if they've been at all of them or at this meeting. Are there other questions? Maybe not a question, but I can answer a little bit. At the last technical committee meeting, Lieutenant Greg Jones was there, and he did. It was my understanding he did make some comment because he did tell me about it and that he raised an issue about it. But he was not on the technical committee the last time this was reviewed. So he was only on it the most recent technical committee. I don't have a problem with this in the least bit. It's kind of just the process thing because these three items hadn't made it to the consent agenda and got pulled off for obvious this reason. And, you know, somehow I think the process should be, you know, implemented somewhere or improved so that we catch these things early on. Lieutenant Jones did attend the orientation session that we had a few weeks ago. And so I think now he is aware of all the different activities of the Division of Planning, just including the technical committee being part of that. Are there other questions or comments? Thank you. Thank you. Petitioner. Thank you very much. I'm Dick Murphy. I represent North 40 Properties, which is the owner and developer of this property. North 40 Properties is a company owned by the Clark family, and Marion Clark is with us today, the managing member of North 40 Properties, along with Ralph Rochelle and Al Gross, our designer. And we did take the opportunity that the postponement gave us last week to meet with the staff. We met with Lieutenant Jones and representatives of the police, and we are agreeable with the proposal that Mr. Silley has presented to you. We had submitted this in accord with our approved preliminary development plan, excuse me, final development plan and preliminary subdivision plan, which was approved a year ago. So what we had presented to you was fully in accord with what had been approved a year ago. But we understand the process, and we have met with staff and the police department on this. So we're agreeable with what the staff is proposing. On item 3, 10 and 11, there's resolve. Some of that is, for instance, whether that pink area will be an easement or a non-buildable area. area, we feel it will probably be better as a non-buildable area because that will make it clear that the homeowner is going to be cutting the grass, not that the city is supposed to cut the grass on that. We've since learned that's an important issue not with the police department but with the Division of Public Works or Department of Public Works as well. They don't want to be saddled with additional maintenance responsibilities on that. So we'll work that out with the staff when it comes back. So we're in agreement with the revised conditions that the staff has handed. Commission members have any questions for Mr. Murphy? Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this? Seeing none, then because of the fact that this is at all, All three of these pieces of property that are being discussed are at 3335 Polo Club Boulevard. This can be taken as one motion. So at this time, I'll turn it over to the Commission for either further discussion or for a motion. Madam Chairman. Mr. Cravens. I move approval of Clark Property Unit 2C, 2D and 2E. With the conditions listed. Is there a second? Motion by Mr. Craven, second by Mr. Brewer. Is there other discussion? If not, you'll vote electronically. Either aye or nay when it comes up. Motion carries. Thank you very much. We'll move on to development plans. We'll give the staff an opportunity to set up the exhibits. Thank you. All right. The next item on your agenda is on page 2. It is DP 2010-46, the LT Ruth property amended. This is an amended final development plan for property located at 1301 and 1351 Newtown Pike. The property is located outside New Circle Road just before Citation Boulevard. It is located on the left side going out of town. Currently the property is accessed via one car width roughly access point off of Newtown Pike in this location and off of Citation Boulevard through Bull Lee through another adjacent property here. Again, the proposed, so the current access is right here on Newtown Pike, and they are proposing a 60,000 square foot building in the lower portion of this corner of the property right here. As I understand, the Fayette County Health Department is a potential user for the first level of the property, so the first 20,000 square feet of the building. The current access is proposed to close, which is a one-lane access. Their proposed access is a right-in, right-out only with a median control in this area, the median control here adjacent across the street from an existing right in right out at the Newtown Springs development. They have approximately 1,895 linear feet of frontage for this property. The staff was comfortable with the access point along their frontage, and the staff has met twice with the Division of Traffic Engineering as well as the Kentucky Department of Transportation to work out access details for this property. Our last communication with the Department of Transportation indicated that the current location did not meet their current spacing requirements for principal arterial road. The staff, after meeting with the applicant and Department of Transportation, does have a revised recommendation that is before you. The subdivision committee did recommend postponement the last time that this plan was before them. The applicant submitted a revised plan with the expectation that this access point would be acceptable. And since that time, there are still some work to be done with Department of Transportation as far as permitting of that access point. The staff does have a revised condition number 11 to Kentucky Department of Transportation's approval of the proposed access to Newtown Pike. Condition number 12 relates to the setback for the building envelope along Newtown Pike. The P2 zone has a significantly larger setback than the P1 zone. So the properties you see back here along Citation and the rest of Coldstream has a much deeper setback. The applicant is showing roughly 62 square feet or 62 foot setback. Further, it's basically as far as they can get it to their existing parking lot of this building. They do have a proposed building envelope, however, that allows it to come much closer. The staff's recommendation, as you can see, in condition number 12, is that they revise that building envelope to get the building as far back as is possible to get it as close to the existing setbacks for the other P2 property that is out there. The staff does have a few remaining cleanup conditions, as well as a timing condition, number 16, that relates to the closure of the existing access point on Newtown Pike, the narrow access point that is closer towards New Circle Road. But with that, I would be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Does anyone on the Commission have a question that they would like to ask at this time? Thank you very much. Petitioner. My name is Jihad Hallani and I will be representing this project. And we are in agreement with the staff, recommendation and comments. And if you have any questions, I will be more than happy to address it. Thank you very much. Does anyone on the Commission have a question for the petitioner? If not, thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this? If not, then the Chair will entertain a motion regarding DP 2010-46LT Bruce property amended, located at 1301 and 1351 Newtown Pike. I'll clarify on the original note 19 that now reads revised note number 18, does that apply to current note 15 now? No. It relates to note number 18 on the development plan. Okay. Thanks. Let me make that clear. Note number 18 talks about at the time of the operation of this right in, right out, this access point will be closed. The staff's preference was to tie it to something related to this building, be it occupancy or building permit. Are there other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of DP 2010-46 LT Ruth Properties, as staff has recommended, with the 16 requirements. I have a motion to approve by Mr. Owens, second by Mr. Paulson. Is there any further discussion? If not. Please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. We'll give staff a moment to prepare for our next plan. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, the next item on your agenda is at the bottom of page 2, DP 2010-70, Lexington Plaza amended. It is a final development plan. The property in question is at the corner of North Limestone and New Circle Road. To the west would be the Broadway New Circle Road intersection. We have the railroad on that to the west as well. And again, here is North Limestone. We have a new CVS over here on North Limestone. Goo Goo Car Wash is immediately adjacent to this property. The development plan that you see is this little area here of the overall development plan for this property. It was originally the Kmart Plaza. It is now a Goodwill and perhaps Verizon or the telephone company has an operation in that area. When this plan was brought to you and they submitted this section to staff, we requested that they bring the overall information in to gain some perspective on what they were requesting. The issue is access to the property. And this was a late plan, and it was for that reason staff had recommended postponement, which this body did last week, postponed the plan one week so we could discuss the proposed access here. Along with the access to this lot, they are asking for approval of a 3,700 square foot building along with seven parking spaces in this area. They are proposing this to be a car lot. These areas here will be display areas associated with the car lot. Initially, as this was reviewed and again staff recommended postponement and a wish to discuss two items, the aforementioned access, which was a concern to staff, and then there was discussion on the streetscape details relative to the gateway concept along Limestone Street. This is an integral part of the central sector small area plan. This that you see before you is the original development plan from 1964. out there we find them periodically floating around from the 60s. You can see that at the time that this plan was approved there was a full access point here and here to New Circle Road. There were also two full access points approved, the limestone which at that time was still identified as Paris Pike. But those were all full access points that were approved When this plan was first brought to the city, the applicant wasn't aware of this development plan. It was discovered, and therefore they realized they needed to file an amendment. At this time, again, they're asking for consideration to alter the access that you see on the existing plan that was approved. The next slide, please. If you would please go to the other one. Here is the overall picture of the site as it has developed. And that's an important aspect to their request. Again, here's New Circle Road. Here is the parking area, the old Kmart building. This is Goo Goo Car Wash. You can see right here, the access has actually developed as one access point, utilizing a write-in and write-out only. The next picture, please. This picture shows you the Goo Goo Car Wash and the property. Here is the subject property in this area. Again, New Circle Road. You can see the median that has been constructed in New Circle Road. Here is the adjoining property. There you can see that right out onto New Circle Road. They are requesting approval of their access point approximately in this location. It is, as you can see from the plan, a write-in and write-out. We met with the applicant after last week's postponement to discuss their situation. Staff had some concern about whether or not they should use the existing access and how that might function. Over time, as I pointed out to you, there was a 1964 development plan. It developed contrary to that plan. Over the years, there were record plots filed, the latest of which was 1999, that subdivided portions of this property. It was filed under a name other than Lexington Plaza, and I think that led to some of the confusion on tracking the development plan and the restrictions on this property. As this property was subdivided, all the lots that were created did have reciprocal parking and access agreements and requirements. This piece of ground right here, interesting enough, this little piece, the applicant's property, was never platted. It is actually a remnant of the parent deed. And the parent deed originally covered the entire Kmart Plaza property. So as they subdivided and created property, this just became a smaller and smaller remnant, although governed by that development plan. We fully discussed that and vetted it with the applicant, with our Department of Law, with Kentucky DOT, and with our traffic engineering staff. And with that, if you look before you at your place, you will find a handout for Lexington Plaza. and we are now, the staff, is recommending approval subject to the 11 conditions that you see before you, eight of which are standard along with the ninth, which is reviewed by the technical committee prior to certification. This was a late plan. Technical committee does meet next Wednesday. The tenth condition is to note the proposed access to the approval of the Kentucky Department of Transportation. And then the 11th condition is provide streetscape details relative to the gateway concept. That is this area through here. And what the discussions have led us to in a discussion through here, there will be improvements, curb, gutter, and sidewalk. They have also offered additional landscaping. This area is governed by Article 18. Article 18, there has to be vehicular use landscaping, but they have agreed to add additional trees and along with that some brick pillars and items of that nature, all to try to help create a much better relationship to North Limestone. With that, staff is now recommending approval of this plan. And if there are any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Ms. Phillips? Does, there's a new CVS on the other side, on the other side of North Limestone, there's a new CVS? Yes, ma'am. Does that one also have, when the development plan came in for that, did we also ask for a gateway? No, ma'am. It was built by Wright under the zone on existing properties. The only thing that staff saw was a consolidation plan. I do believe there were some public improvements done as part of the building permit process. So this gateway would be only on one side of the road? Yes, ma'am. We did get improvements from Gugu, and they are extending the sidewalk and improvements that Gugu gave us as well. Are there other questions? Mr. Owens. Tom, as far as the access there, right in, right out, I know there's a turning lane there for New Circle Road somewhere. Is the traffic coming back out onto New Circle Road, is that turning right into the right-turn lane and you're going to have to cross and so forth? Yes, sir. Unfortunately, in this circumstance and the way that it developed, that is, in fact, how it will operate. They are in close proximity. Again, they are both right in and right out with a median, which certainly raises a level of comfort that traffic and the Kentucky Department of Transportation had with this access. And I'm sorry, are you saying KDOT has given permission? We have seen communications to that effect. Yes, sir. All right. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Phillips? Another question. There's a grade change between the Kmart parking lot and this parking lot. Can you tell me how significant that grade difference is? Well, that's an excellent question. There was some discussion about that. Although there is a grade difference here, it's not perhaps insurmountable. It's a challenge, certainly. But you can engineer anything, and we do believe the grade, if absolutely necessary, could have been dealt with. However, it would have had an impact on the layout of the property. And more importantly, there was an out lot created here with access granted to it, but no access was granted across to this property. Are there other questions? Thank you, Mr. Martin. Tishner? Afternoon, Madam Chairperson, member of the council. on our planning commission, Bruce Simpson, on behalf of the applicant. We did meet with Tom and worked out issues that they had concern with, and they had requested the postponement, and we did so. We're in agreement with the conditions that the staff suggested. Roy Cayley, who's the architect and landscape architect and planner, did have a concern about item number 14. I'm going to let Roy address that before the body. Rory Koehler, The Partners. My only question with 14 is to provide the details. I'm hoping to have a drawing turned into building inspection and not make a landscape design part of a development plan. Typically in the past you don't want to do signs on development plans or any sort of landscape plans because as you make minute changes to these items, it can cause a whole development plan to be amended, and that seems, you know, onerous to the process. So I just want to clarify that the provided details would not appear on the development plan face itself, but would go through building inspection or planning if they would like to see it as well. Other questions? I think staff would be satisfied with an exhibit addressing the details. We want to augment the Article 18 requirements, which in our initial discussions I have agreed to do. So I believe an exhibit in the file would be appropriate. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this plan? Seeing none, then I'll turn it over to the commission for either further discussion or for a motion. Mr. Craven. What's this, the building on there? What is that building? What's the use of it? The site's going to be a car sales lot. I know, but what's the building going to be? Showroom? I don't. It's just the offices, right? It is a sales office. It is a car dealership for a used car. Could you state your name, please? Charvel Joseph, 113 Windridge Drive, Nicholasville, Kentucky. I'm the developer on behalf of Andover Motors. They're the operator and owner of the property. And they're moving their location. They're an existing used car dealership in Lexington, Kentucky, on New Circle. And they're moving their location to here is our hope. and it will be used as a used car dealer's office. So it's an office only. It's not, I mean, does it have garage doors on it somewhere? It does. It will have garage doors on it, and they do service a lot of cars as well. Where are they? It is the large portion. Where's the garage doors? Based on New Circle Road? Correct. The deeper portion of the building to the west, if you will, is the part that is the service garage center. And then the other portion to the east is the offices. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions? Mr. Owens. I'm sorry, this would be for traffic, I guess. I'm sorry, I'm going back to this access again. Does, Jeff, do you all have any purview over this, or is it just strictly the state? Oftentimes we collaborate with the state on accesses such as this. This is mainly their approval as far as accessing their road, and they have already basically given permission to make this type of connection. Okay. All right. To me, it seemed very problematic with the old Kmart access coming off, and you've got right turn in, right turn out onto turning lane, and then you've got North Limestone. And this is just a comment. I'm going to use one of Frank Penn's analogies. It seemed like a 10 pounds worth of flour and a 5-pound flour sack to me. It's an extremely small lot. And when we reviewed it, we reviewed it at the same time as the state did. And it was our understanding that they could not get alternative access. And so you essentially pretty much have to give them right of access to some roadway. Yeah. It would be the least problem. Okay. I appreciate it, Joe. Thank you. Yeah. Are there other questions or comments from the Commission? Mr. Clivens. Back to this building, is it a concrete block building? Yes, it will be a concrete block building. The architect is not completed with the plans, but more than likely it will be a concrete block building. It will look similar to an S&S tire type of building. So you understand this gateway concept? We have been made aware of it through this process, yes. Okay. I also understand that the access to the property, we worked with the state for three months along with the staff of this body for over three months. And we tried to make the entrance and egress and ingress as least intrusive as possible. of flying a helicopter to the property, there's no other way to get into the property. It is a small property. It is strategically located to sell cars and that's what they intend to do with it if we're granted permission to do so. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other questions or comments? Don, do I hear a motion? Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of DP 2010-70 Lexington Plaza amended. I have a motion. Do I hear a second? Second. Motion by Mr. Brewer, second by Mr. Paulson. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. At this time, there's a staff item that is at the back of our agenda on page 7. But before we start all the zoning, I'm going to ask the staff would present that so it will all be in sort of context before we start zoning. We're going to move Plan 2010-115F Bluegrass Executive Park, located at 2241 Buena Vista Road and 2250 Thunderstruck Drive, to the front of the agenda. Located on page 7. Thank you, Madam Chair. This item, as you mentioned, appears on the bottom of page 7. This is a final subdivision plat. Plan 2010-115F Bluegrass Executive Park Unit 1B Block F, Lots 2 and 7 amended. This is for property at 2241 Buena Vista Road and 2250 Thunderstick Drive. We have on the overhead the zoning map that shows these two addresses, and basically the property that you're looking at here was a plat reviewed by your subdivision committee two weeks ago and was approved by the Planning Commission last week. The property involves all of Lots 2, 4, and 7 in the Bluegrass Executive Park, Unit 1B. After your meeting last week, the staff discussed with the engineer and with the applicant constraints that they had in making an acquisition of this property. And that is the reason that the staff agreed to bring this back to the commission via a staff item. The plan the Commission approved last week, as I mentioned, is for Lots 2, a revised Lot 7, and a revised Lot 4 involving this property. Almost all the property is on P1 with the exception of the existing Lot 7 which is in a B5P zone. It's an interchange business zone. The applicant has an approved plat based on last week for three lots. They are in need of four parcels in order to transfer the property into one. The staff is not authorized to certify a plat that has more lots than the commission approved. So the applicant has revised their plat. It is now just involving lot two. That is the property at 2250 Thunderstick. It would leave lot seven intact and lot four intact. Looking at the overhead, their intention would be to acquire part of the existing Lot 2, all of Lot 7, and a portion of Lot 4. The portion of Lot 4 can be accomplished through a consolidation plat, which is a minor plat the staff can approve. That's to move the property line, in essence. However, what is desired by the applicant is the subdivision of Lot 2 and the creation, as you see here in the pink, of a new access easement to provide access to that lot so that they can acquire part of that property. We think it's very likely that the Commission will review a zone change for Lot 7, perhaps as early as next month, to further their desires. This is to accommodate additional office space for the Social Security Administration, which is currently in property adjacent to this area. Given the applicant's time constraints in that they want to try and make this acquisition by the end of the year, and given the fact that they need an additional parcel for this, the staff did agree to bring this back to the Commission as a staff item. On the pink sheet that should have been at your place prior to the start of the meeting, We have documented our discussions over the last week, and we would offer two revisions to the findings that the Commission, pardon me, the conditions that the Commission approved last week in their approval of this plat. One would be a slight revision to the end of the eighth condition, just deleting a reference to Lot 7, which is shown mainly for reference on this and is not proposed for change. Deletion of Condition 9, which requires the zone change to be accomplished before the plat would be recorded. And also findings necessary to create the access easement to be the sole access to what would be Lot 2B, the center lot in this area. Staff would expect, again, that you will see a zone change very soon for the B5P portion. Approval of the revised plat would allow the petitioner to make their acquisitions and do the real estate closings to assemble the property, perhaps by the end of the year if they can meet all the other remaining conditions. And the findings would be created to allow the access easement to serve Lot 2B through Lot 2A. I hope I haven't confused you, but if I have, I'll be glad to answer any questions at this time about our knowledge of the plat, about the revision to the plat, or any information about the plat you approved last week. Other questions? Ms. Phillips? So the blue outlined map is lot two? Yes, it is proposed for two lots. The remaining lot that has the existing office building and parking, and what is currently a vacant lot that is anticipated to be combined with the other two properties. Oh, okay. That speaks to my question because ordinarily we don't allow access easements to be the sole easement, the sole point of ingress-egress for newly created lots, but it's just a matter of time before that balance, the larger part will be reconsolidated into the lot that fronts on Buena Vista? Yes, I think that's correct. I think the plat you approved last week is how ultimately they hope to configure the property once these acquisitions are done. They have to have parcel here and a parcel here with legal descriptions in order to do those transfers with the other property owners. Okay. So this is just a temporary, very temporary by the beginning of the year. We're waiving the subdivision regulations to allow for the creation of this lot for legal purposes? There is actually no waiver involved. just the finding by the Commission that the access easement is appropriate to allow the division of the rear portion of the lot. Okay, thank you. But yes, I think you're exactly right. I think we're looking at a temporary situation that will exist for a matter of months. Are there other questions? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Petitioner? Rory Cayley with EA Partners. We are in agreement with the revised conditions and request approval. Are there any questions for this time? Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this plan? If not, I'll turn it over to the Commission for further discussion or a motion. Ms. Phillips? Madam Chair, I'd like to move approval of Plan 2010-115F Bluegrass Executive Park with the revised conditions on the pink sheet. I have a motion from Ms. Phillips, a second by Mr. Brewer. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Now we'll go back to page 3 of our agenda and we'll give the staff a few minutes to set up. Madam Chair, there are two of the zone changes that may qualify for abbreviated hearings this afternoon. The first appears at the top of page 5 of your agenda. This would be MAR 2010-11, a zone change request by Carmike Cinemas, Inc., seeking rezoning from an existing B-1 neighborhood business zone to a planned shopping center B-6P zone for property at 3151 Maple Leaf Drive. As this zone change and development plan are recommended for approval, the staff would ask if anyone is present today in the audience who wishes either to object to the zone change or to make comment about the zone change proposed on Maple Leaf Drive. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this, the for or against? Seeing none, Madam Chair, this item can be the first abbreviated hearing today. The other item that may qualify appears on the bottom of page 5 and continuing on to page 5 and 6. This is MARCV 2010-12, a zone change request by the Phi Gamma Delta House Corporation. This involves property at 578 Woodland Avenue and 505 Columbia Avenue and proposes a rezoning from an R2 two-family residential zone to an R3 planned neighborhood residential zone. Again, at this time, we would ask if anyone in the audience is interested in commenting or objecting to this proposed zone change on Woodland and Columbia. Thank you. This will require a full public hearing then. Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll be prepared to begin in just a moment. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. Our next item is found at the top of page 5. It's item number 2 and can be found in your notebooks behind tab 2. This is a request, a zone change request, MAR 2010-11 by Carmike Cinemas Incorporated. The request for this particular property is to rezone from a neighborhood business B1 zone to the planned shopping center B6P zone for seven acres of property located at 3151 Maple Leaf Drive. And the subject property location-wise is south of Manowar Boulevard and on the east side of Maple Leaf Drive. And in this vicinity, just to the northeast is the intersection of Liberty Road, Todd's Road, and Manowar Boulevard. So that gives you some context. The property is bound on two sides by commercial and two sides by residential zoning. To the south is a park with R4 zoning. to the east is an apartment complex called the Fountains with R3 zoning. Just to the north is a B1 zone with the Central Bank branch located there. And across Maple Leaf is the Andover Shops, which is a B6P zone. Also across Manowar Boulevard we have more townhouses in the Maple Leaf area as well as two other commercial areas at the intersection of Liberty, Manowar, and Todd's. the Brighton Place Shops and the Todd Center located there. The property was originally rezoned in 1982 to an R4 zone. A few years later, the current owner had requested a rezoning to the B1 zone in order to build a theater, In this case, a 10-screen movie theater complex. And the comprehensive plan at that time was in agreement with the existing zoning, the R4, for a high-density residential use. So they were asking for something in disagreement with the comprehensive plan. And at that time, the staff and the Planning Commission recommended disapproval. However, when it went to the Urban County Council, they rezoned the property and added a conditional zoning restriction to prohibit all other uses on this tract except a 10-screen cinema. So the current zoning of B-1 is in agreement with the comprehensive plan at this location, which does recommend retail trade and personal services. And I'll show you where that is again. We have Manowar Boulevard and Maple Leaf, and the subject property is shown in the red shading for retail trade and personal services. So the existing zoning, B1, is in agreement with that, but the B6P that they're requesting is also in agreement. And I would just note that those two zones are very similar in terms of uses. The main difference is signage and some of the conditional zoning restrictions that are allowed. And then the B6P also has a 50-foot setback from the exterior of the zone. So there's some additional restrictions with the shopping center zone, but generally they allow the same uses. Of concern to the applicant, though, is, of course, the fact that they have a conditional zoning restriction that basically prohibits any kind of redevelopment of this property with a single use. The Council did have the legal right to rezone with that kind of restriction. In fact, Article 6-7 of our zoning ordinance, which lays out how conditional zoning can be applied, does specifically say that there's the ability to restrict the use to a particular use or a class of uses or in terms of density. However, the Department of Law typically recommends against that activity or that approach to conditional zoning restriction simply because if a property owner ever does wish to redevelop, it puts an owner in the position of asking for a zone change, which is rather onerous for most property owners. So the staff does agree with the Department of Law that single-use conditional zoning restrictions are to be avoided. And in this case, that the B6P zone is not only in agreement with the comprehensive plan, but it is compatible with the existing development in the area in terms of the bank up at Manowar Boulevard, as well as the Andover shops, which are developing in a shopping center way as well. The property is not proposed for redevelopment at this time, but doing the zone change would allow for a whole host of different uses to be at this location. So the staff is recommending approval of the zone change, first because it's in agreement with the comprehensive plan, but second to eliminate the conditional zoning restriction is appropriate. Thank you, Ms. White. Are there questions? Ms. Terrellins? Tracy, thank you. Tracy, do you have any historical information as to why just the single conditional restriction was placed on this by the Council? MS. The conditional zoning restriction always has to have a reason, and the reason that was in the ordinance for this one is that the traffic, so to restrict the traffic impact in this neighborhood or the neighborhood behind that would be associated with a business use. MR. Thank you. MS. That's what's on the record. MR. Thank you. Are there other questions, Mr. Burrow? If I heard you correctly, the Planning Commission at the time did not approve the zoning change. The Council overwrote the Planning Commission and allowed this odd hybrid to exist. Is that correct? Yes. And when did that happen? That happened in 1994. Okay. So in 1982, the original zoning took place from agriculture to an R4, and then in 1994, the rezoning to the business zone happened. And without – I don't want to go back and do a whole lot of research, but was there any findings? Was there any reason that the Council did that when the Planning Commission disapproved it? I guess they felt that the B-1 zone would not have the same impact that the Commission and the staff felt it might. So they – I mean, they just frankly disagreed with the Planning Commission in that instance. Any other questions? Are there other questions? Thank you. Thank you. The zoning development plan is at the middle of page 5, item B, ZDP 2010-64, Maple Leaf Subdivision. This is property located, as Tracy said, at 3151 Maple Leaf Drive. The development plan does show 33,000 square feet buildable area off of Maple Leaf Drive for the theaters. There is no proposed change to this development. There is a FEMA floodplain running through the middle of the property. in the future should any development occur on this property in the area of the floodplain they would be required to do a letter of map of revision through FEMA or to accommodate their construction around that floodplain. There was a condition on this plan at the time of subdivision committee for them to revise their buildable area that was approved at the time to remove the portion in that floodplain. They have submitted a revised plan. Those conditions are on the sheet in front of you. They have addressed that condition as well as other cleanup items. They do have two items remaining, but the staff is recommending approval subject to the eight conditions shown on your revised handout. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Does anyone have any questions? Thank you very much. As we've already, the petitioner has, because this abbreviated hearing has waived his presentation and there's no one in the audience who wants to speak for or against, so we'll turn it over. Madam Chair, I believe the petitioner did want to submit written evidence. Oh, I'm sorry. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Jim Hodge. I represent Carmichael. Mike, frankly, notwithstanding the length of time I've been priceless in law, I've never had an abbreviated hearing or an uncontested hearing. So I'm not quite sure what I'm allowed to do at this point in time. But to protect the record, at a minimum, I'd like to introduce into the record all of my written evidence. and based on the questions that have been raised, I'd be happy to speak to them or answer questions or whatever serves the needs of the Commission at this time. But we would like to introduce into the record our books and our drawings and our boards and the like, please. That's no problem. Those will be submitted and accepted. Other questions? If not, I'll turn this back over to the Commission. In case you do have questions, I hope they're all answered on this one board. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. You're very welcome. Turn this back over to the Commission. For a motion, the Chair will entertain. I'm sorry, so we can record this. I move that we accept ZPT 2010. We need to start with the zoning, one above it. MAR 2010-11, Carmich Sinema. Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Would you like to continue your motion? Madam Chair, I also accept ZPT 2010-64 of Maple Leaf Subdivision Unit 1, Lot 4. Motion's been made by Ms. Betty and seconded by Mr. Owens. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you all very much. Now give the chair an opportunity to set up for the next. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Slide. Make sure that this is working. The next item on our agenda can be found at the bottom of page 3, and it's item number 1, tab 1 in your notebooks. This is MAR 2010-9, a request by James Waller. This is a zone change from a single-family R1C zone, and they're requesting warehouse, wholesale and warehouse business zoning, which is our B4 zone. The subject properties are about two and a half acres, and it's actually three parcels, and they are on the southeast side of North Limestone, and they are in very close proximity to a parcel of land that you all just considered for a development plan. So I'm glad that that went earlier today because it gave us some context for this zone change. New Circle is just to the northeast of this location, and on that side of New Circle is an existing car lot as well as Kroger Shopping Center and some out parcels along the front there with restaurants and other small businesses. On the inside of New Circle, on the subject property side of New Circle, there are several businesses, commercial development of varying types and intensities. There's mostly B3 zoning, but there is one parcel P1 and one parcel that's B1 in this vicinity. And I'll just point to a few of the uses on our map. There's a new CVS at the corner of North Limestone and New Circle Road, and one auto repair establishment between the subject properties and that CVS. On the opposite side, again, you have the proposed car lot at the corner, the Goo Goo car wash, and then an entrance to what is now the Goodwill Industries, their office and retail sales, and Windstream, and along the next two parcels along North Limestone include a daycare center and an insurance agent. On the subject property side of North Limestone, you have two more single-family residences, and then residential continues for another block as you go into town in this area. I'm going to show a few photographs. It's just an aerial showing the lotting in this area. And again, there are three single-family residences on these three parcels built in about the 1920s. This would be the parcel at 1528, closest to downtown. There's a wide area between this house and the second house here. And then between this middle lot and the lot closest to New Circle Road, there is a pretty significant tree stand. And this is the third house that is closest to the auto repair and CVS. This is a view of North Limestone looking towards New Circle, and you can see CVS in the background. of note, there's no sidewalks in this portion of the corridor. And this is a photo of North Limestone looking into downtown. You can see a few signs on the right-hand side of the photo related to the business uses and then the single-family uses on the left-hand side. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the property with 19 units that are planned to be small warehouses and shops of special trade. And those 19 units are combined into, I believe, four buildings that are single story in size for over 30,000 square feet of space. Shops of special trade are typically general contractors, plumbers, electricians, painters, and can be auto and truck repair associated too with those, among some other things. The comprehensive plan in this location is a little bit more complicated than some of our other zone changes. First, it has the underlying land use recommendation, which is for medium density residential, defined as five to ten dwelling units per acre. However, it also has a note on the plan that you can see with the asterisk I added there, number six. And that asterisk is an indication of a special area of special consideration by the Planning Commission. And when you look to the appendix as to what that means, it highlights the area of North Limestone and Rosemary, which is one of the local streets to the south there. And it calls for mixed use with office and limited neighborhood retail. and then in a separate sentence says, kind of a fragment here, but should be considered as part of the central sector small area plan. So that was adopted in 2007. That's the attention that the commission gave to this area. In 2009, the small area plan was completed for the central sector, and that small area plan has several and four guiding principles, and I think two of which really apply in this particular zone change, and that is enhancing the urban fabric and promoting and preparing for redevelopment and investment. The central sector was divided into five sub-areas, and this particular property is located in sub-area D, and they discuss quite a bit what North Limestone, what Loudoun Avenue, what Broadway really need in order to be enhanced. And the particular text related to North Limestone we've tried to pull out here. So North Limestone is reflective of neighborhood scale rather than a broader regional or whole community scale development. And the quote that I wanted to state for you all today was that there's locally owned retail shops and they're spurring a renaissance along North Limestone from downtown to New Circle. They're catering to the needs of the central sector residents. And I would just highlight the fact that they're talking about retail shops. This North Limestone corridor was also designated as a neighborhood connector by the small area plan with a gateway at New Circle, And Mr. Martin mentioned that in relation to the Goo Goo Car Wash and the proposed car lot. But the small area plan also had several recommendations related specifically to North Limestone. The sub-area D outlined North Limestone and Loudoun Avenue as designated focus areas. And so there is more detail for these two corridors. In sub-area D, there were six priorities highlighted, and one of them specifically calls for traditional neighborhood retail for North Limestone and identifies it as a unique character for this area. Indeed, it also talks about North Limestone needing some streetscape and building facade renovations, too. And this is just a sketch from that small area plan for North Limestone. I'll get to that in just a minute. I think what's most important in taking into consideration the applicant's request is that we look at the comprehensive plan recommendation for medium density residential, the note on the comprehensive plan, the four guiding principles of our small area plan, but also the statements specifically related to North Limestone in our small area plan and the work that went into the small area plan by the neighborhood as well as the Planning Commission. And collectively, the staff believes that the requested B4 zone is not in alignment with those recommendations in the 2007 plan or the 2009 Central Sector Small Area Plan. In fact, the proposed use of the subject property is not retail, any office or residential use, nor is it neighborhood oriented. Thus, the staff feels it cannot be said to be in agreement with these two plans. The Planning Commission has, in fact, twice considered the petitioner's proposal for designating wholesale and warehouse land use for the subject property during the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Small Area Plan. They asked for that consideration. And the staff, in looking at the appropriateness of a B-4 zone at this location, took into account the type of traffic associated with shops of special trade and the fact that that type of traffic is mostly dominated by trucks. And because truck traffic, the B4 zone is too intense for this neighborhood corridor, and typically a B4 zone is not considered to be an adequate buffer between single-family residential, which still exists along Rosemary and Lanetta Streets in this general vicinity, and the B3 or B1 zoning to either side of the subject properties. So the staff found also that the B3 zoning in this area, which does allow higher intensity use along New Circle and some across North Limestone, it actually has been developed not with that high intensity use that is actually allowed, but with a new CVS, with restaurants, with offices, with a daycare center. So those are more neighborhood-oriented uses. And the proposed warehouse and shops of special trade will actually significantly increase the intensity of use in this area, rather than act as a transition between single-family and the B3 or the commercial uses that are existing. So the staff is recommending disapproval of this request for a B4 zone. And just in summary, those are the four reasons for our recommendation. First, the request is not in agreement with the 2007 comprehensive plan or the 2009 small area plan. And there are four reasons that I've mentioned in my presentation that are also found on your agenda as well as in the staff report for that. But generally, the B4 zoning is not recommended for this area. retail and neighborhood related businesses are recommended and even a mixed use with residential is recommended here. The B4 zoning is an inappropriate use at this location and there are again four reasons for that but mostly related to the fact that a unique retail corridor is recommended and the B4 zone is not an adequate buffer and it is actually bringing in a higher intensity use rather than acting as a transition. And then lastly, the R1C zoning is appropriate in this location. Sorry, not lastly, thirdly. And then there have been no unanticipated changes in this area since the 2007 comprehensive plan or since the 2009 central sector plan that have significantly changed this corridor or how a B4 could be fit into this location. The Zoning Committee did refer this to the full Planning Commission, so they did not have a disapproval or approval recommendation. I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time. Any Commission members have questions for Ms. White at this time? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, at the bottom of page 4, item B, is the preliminary development plan that was submitted in association with this zone change request. It is ZDP 2010-49. What you see before you today is a revised plan. Again, I know you've been well oriented to the site and to the area, but here we have North Limestone. They are proposing an access point here. Parking is internalized in this area. They have 19 of the units proposed, 28,500 square feet of building. Back here is the detention that's proposed on the site. This is an area of landscaping and buffer relative to the residential neighborhood. Here we have open space that is being proposed as an aspect of the gateway concept that you've heard referenced earlier. This plan, as I stated, is a revised plan. Initially, when the plan was brought before the subdivision committee, they did recommend approval of the plan. It had numerous discussion items, and I would just take this moment to add that for audience members who may not be aware and for some of our newer Planning Commission members, the subdivision committee always reviews a plan as if the zoning was already in place. And again, as I said, your subdivision committee did recommend approval of this plan. There were six discussion items, which is somewhat unique. Generally, a plan with six discussion items will generate a postponement recommendation, as you're aware. In this case, several of these items were related. First and foremost, several of the discussion items, again, centered around the gateway concept, the access as originally proposed, as well as improvements to Limestone Road. These were all an aspect of staff's concern, again, about how this site would function relative to North Limestone Street. They initially had two access points. They had not addressed our concerns about Limestone. And so these were all connected aspects. We also had some concerns on this plan about a tree, a significant tree that had been identified in this area. Our urban forester, along with the applicant, revisited the property and discovered that this was not a single tree as originally identified, but a cluster of trees. So we were able to resolve that particular problem. As a result, oh, I would add, too, that we did have a question on the parking that has been resolved. We were concerned about the relationship of the parking with the overhead doors on the units. Perhaps I better point that out. They originally had parking just all along the front of the buildings proposed, and we were concerned about blockage and use of the buildings. They could correct this. You can see they have an insert here showing how this will function. They are also proposing parking within the buildings. The required parking on this site is 41. They are providing 53. That includes a parking space in each of the units. This is an acceptable practice. Staff has reviewed this submittal. We have prepared a handout for you. Another one of your tan pieces of paper, of course, with the title of this plan on it, ZDP 2010-49. Staff is recommending approval of this preliminary development plan. Should this move forward, of course, this body will see a final development plan prior to any development taking place on this property. We have very standard conditions. We have added new conditions, resolved the need for the limestone street improvements at the time of a final development plan, resolved the streetscape relative to the gateway concept again at time of final development plan. we think it would be appropriate at that time to determine exactly what those should be. We have also placed a condition that they need to revise their required parking from 38 to 41. They have attempted to utilize a reduction in required parking that is not available to them. It's three, so we're just asking that they correct that and stick with the required parking number of 41 that is on this plan. And if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Mr. Cravens. Do you have the original plan that we saw? We have it in the file, yes, sir. You don't have it with you? It should be a copy in the file, yes, sir. We do. if you'd like to see it we can certainly Thank you. Much harder to see. Tom, I guess what I want, is there parking in front of that? There was parking in front of that. front along limestone. They had an access point here and here, and those were those issues. Yes, sir. But those buildings were orientated to limestone. These were intended at that time, yes, sir. The other one, their backs are turned to. Well, they are at this point. These will be entrances for the people utilizing these. As to what they do here in terms of a treatment, I think we could certainly discuss that at a final development plan, And the need to, if we wanted to dress up those facades, present another front facade to the street, certainly that would be worthy of discussion. Are there other questions? Ms. Faddy. Did you make reference to the 36-inch Elm tree being insignificant now that it's a cluster of trees? Can you go back to that? Yes, ma'am. Initially, under our ordinance, a significant tree has to be of a certain size, and 36 is that breaking point. What subsequent investigation has shown that it is not 36 inches, it is a grouping of trees. Therefore, it's not a significant tree under our ordinance, because that's a tree. This happens to be a cluster of trees. So they can be removed? Is that what you're saying? they can be removed if necessary to the development of the site. Mr. Olley. Thank you. Tom, if I remember earlier discussion, there was stormwater drainage detention in the center of this. Did it get resolved or? The – during the course of the review of this plan, staff became aware that there was been a regional detention stormwater study done for this area of town. And parts of it have been implemented. This area was identified as a detention basin as part of that plan. It is our understanding that this area would have to accommodate those considerations should this property develop. Okay. And then kind of follow up with Ms. Beatty, so there was never a 36-inch tree there? That is our understanding. It was a grouping of trees that were identified mistakenly. Okay. Thank you. Are there other questions from the Commission? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Good afternoon again, Madam Chairperson and members of the Commission. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of the Waller family, which owns the property in question. I'm passing out some exhibit books here that I'm going to run through very briefly. Every case that I have had the privilege of representing applicants on, particularly when I am addressing a staff recommendation of disapproval, obviously causes myself and my clients some concern. And while the staff's recommendation, as I've worked with them for many years, is certainly respected. It is also a case, I suggest to you today, that is an opportunity to look at a piece of property that is substantially constrained. It is substantially constrained in terms of the bordering land uses, which I'll get to in a moment. It is substantially constrained by the history of this particular part of Lexington, of not being the site or location as viewed by developers in our community, to do anything improved. Other than the CVS Pharmacy store on the corner of Limestone and New Circle, and the Goo Goo Car Wash on Limestone, there is no other new or improved, if you will, structure located between Loudoun Avenue and New Circle Road on North Lyme. It is an area of town that has been challenged for a number of reasons, all of which were discussed, that you all discussed, during your deliberations and adoption of the Central Sector Small Area Plan. And what your study revealed during the course of that deliberation was that, and those of us who live in Lexington certainly bear witness to this, that is an area of town which, as the demographics have established through the course of this study, and they were quite candid. And I only suggest this because it is, in fact, in the report, that this has been an area of town which has traditionally struggled economically in terms of jobs, in terms of educational attainment, in terms of income, in terms of access to automobiles. In fact, your central sector small area plan talks about the importance of these constraints being addressed with respect to any new development. Jobs, walkability to jobs because people don't have cars, and jobs tailored to their neighborhood where they can walk to. Those are important underlying principles which this applicant is addressing, which is a part of the Central Sector Small Area Plan in terms of important fundamental land use policies, which we believe are worthy of your consideration to look at the plan not just in the limited context of the color on the map, which recommends that this 2.5-acre site be developed for medium-density residential development. but to look at it in terms of a realistic opportunity to not only provide an economic stimulus for this area, but to do so in a very handsome way. Now, your central sector small area plan discusses the importance of a gateway concept. But here today, no specific design standards have been adopted in terms of subdivision regulations or zoning ordinances that give specific guidance as to what is actually intended, what is desired by this body or the Urban County Council in the case of a zoning ordinance. And so we are here to present to you what we believe to be a handsome benchmark opportunity for what the residents, if you read the Central Sector Small Area Plan And what they talked about time and time again, and is in fact included on page 68 of the recommendations, was that this area, the area that we're talking about here today, was chosen by the residents as being the one that they would most likely see upgraded in terms of streetscape and building facades. Improving the streetscape also provides an opportunity for a sustainable solution to drainage and flooding issues in the form of rain gardens that line the street and contain landscaping. We're presenting the opportunity for the real first gateway improvement to this corridor. As you know, in the previous decision on the used car lot and CVS Pharmacy and even Goo Goo's Car Wash, which I will show you photographs of, really the used car lot has addressed it. It didn't have to address it under the law. It was already zoned for what it was allowed to do, but they voluntarily added some additional landscaping there. This one is a zone change. And if you drive by, and I'm sure you have, North Lyme, if you drive up and down the street, and I'll show you the photographs of what is actually in this area between Loudoun Avenue and New Circle Road, you will see what I'm saying is true. There hasn't been any newer improved other than the CVS Pharmacy and Goo Goo Car Wash. And what we're proposing, we had an architect retain, Jerry Sullivan, who has designed the streetscape for this project on this two-and-a-half acres to provide jobs, to provide a handsome benchmark for any future development. And what you see, what I've seen as a participant in these development cases, is that once you have one entity come in and establish a handsome benchmark, it creates a synergy and motivation for other developers to do likewise. In fact, you will hold them to do likewise in terms of subsequent applications. This is a part of town which has been, by and large, not been focused upon by our development community. This is an important case to start a progress towards improving it, to deal with the very question of improving the gateway that is the central part of the central sector small area plan. So it is an opportunity that I ask you to seriously pay attention to, because opportunities like this don't come along often. The applicant could try to go and adopt a comprehensive plan and try to put in medium density residential. I will show you shortly that the infrastructure cost alone would preclude that. The value of the properties in the existing area mitigate against getting a return on investment. Now I'm speaking in practical terms. We can discuss in theoretical concepts of what we would like to see. But at the end of the day, it's going to take a private investor risking his or her money to come into an area of town which historically has not been a hot spot for development and to try to put in apartments or townhouses in an area which are bordered by 400 feet of commercial B3 space on New Circle Road, unrestricted, a B3 with no conditional zoning. there's no question if this was residential land and the property on New Circle was not developed you'd have conditions placed upon what could go on that B3 there's no conditions on that B3 400 feet directly against this property and the people that would be asked to live there next to that B3 development would have no rights to complain because it's already approved the property is zoned R1C single family. I will show you in a minute why developing R1C lots on this property, which is zoned, is impractical for the reason that the development costs we have had calculated would be $50,000 per lot. You would be selling a lot for $50,000 just to break even. And then you've got to build a house on that lot. The average price of the houses bordering this property or a little over $50,000, $52,000, $53,000. So you're asking a developer to risk money to build a house, $50,000 for the lot, $200,000, $250,000 for the total house once it's developed, is not going to be in an area that's going to be commensurate with existing market conditions, and it's not going to happen. The property will sit as it is, as rental property, for time in the future until there's some change. In fact, I would suggest the whole North Lyme area, but for some major streetscape improvements that says, hey, that's a handsome building that Jerry Sullivan has designed here, a handsome landscaping package that we have here. That's the kind of new development that we want to see that would give people encouragement and the incentive to improve their facades and streetscape up and down North Lyme, which is substantially business-oriented, just like ours is. The only difference is we're creating jobs for people in the area that would work in these offices, warehouses. This is a concept with the Wallers have been involved in before, and you'll hear Mr. Walter talk about the types of businesses that would use this property for this kind of use that we're seeking approval for today. It is not dominated by truck traffic in terms of these businesses. They have an existing concept, an existing product just like this in Lexington. It's not dominated by truck traffic. So in terms of the context, I just ask that you consider, in terms of what we have to share, an opportunity, an opportunity to really implement a gateway orientation of the building and to provide jobs to a population that heretofore has been underserved in this area because of the demographic reasons which your comprehensive plan and the small area plan discuss at length. Now I do think in terms of the context, Tracy showed you some photographs, I just want to amplify very briefly what the existing uses and what the existing look is that the Wallers are having to address with respect to their proposal today. So, Alden, if you could put those up. And I'll go through these very, very, very quickly. This is the Waller property to the right. One of the themes of the Central Sector Small Area Plan is that there is no connectivity between the existing residential neighborhoods and New Circle Road where the shopping is. This is the existing features, and you see this all up and down North Lyme, no sidewalks, no curbs, no gutters. That creates significant stormwater drainage problems, public safety problems, because we don't have those. To the left over here is the Goodwill, formerly old Kmart store. All the stormwater runs off of this property and comes right down into the Waller's property. I'll talk about the stormwater issues in a moment. The next slide. Directly opposite, this is the driveway of the Waller property. Directly opposite is the commercial property of the Goodwill store, and over here is an office building, again, a business use. Next slide. Another shot of the extensive impervious surface that drains down toward the Waller property. No detention basin here for this property at all. Next slide. This is the office. next to the Goodwill store offices. Next one. This is the Goo Goo car wash that I was talking about. This is the newest structure that was built after the CVS pharmacy. This is on the west side of North Lyme. Again, this is, you can see what kind of streetscape improvements were made in connection with this. You've got some low-lying landscape. But, I mean, basically it is a very bright, obviously, marketable car wash so people can see it. Next slide. This is the property immediately adjacent to the subject property, which is over here, the Waller property. This is a staging area for Lex Park vehicles, vans and trucks. To the left of it is the CBS Pharmacy on the corner. but this is the current streetscape that exists north of the subject property, which was right here. This is recommended for residential development. It's zoned R1C single-family. I suggest to you it is totally unreasonable and impractical to expect a developer to come in here and develop single-family R1C lots at 50,000 a lot and have to live to 400 feet of B3 unrestricted uses. Next slide. That's kind of sideways, but it's the CVS Pharmacy. Next one. This is the property to the north of the subject property to the right of the CVS Pharmacy, O'Reilly's All Aparts, some other rental-to-own stores. Next one. This is property one block away on the east side of North Limestone. Use furniture store and then just kind of go through these fairly quickly. I don't know if you would. This is a liquor store adjacent to the furniture store. I have a plumbing store on up from that a block away from the subject property. A commercial nursery two blocks away. I used appliance store two blocks away, a grocery store three blocks away. This is the existing gateway from New Circle Road looking south on North Limestone. This is the vacant property here that came up earlier. Bob Carpenter probably would have a fit if you saw those signs out here, $4 for the car wash, the goo-goo, but this is the current gateway. CVS Pharmacy has no gateway enhancements whatsoever. So we're talking about going way back here for the first potential new development, which is where the wallet property is and the opportunity to start a gateway. Next slide. This is actually, go ahead and pull that back up, yeah. This is under tab number in the handout material, just to give you an accurate assessment of the business-oriented uses in the area. And all of those photographs were under tab number one in the handout material. So under tab number two, which you see on the screen as well, is the existing zoning between Loudoun Avenue and New Circle Road on North Limestone. You will see the red, of course, is dominated by B1. The dark brown is the B3. The crosshatched area right here is where the subject property is. So all of this is unrestricted B3 commercial uses. 400 feet to this way across the street with the Goodwill, and then, of course, commercial down and through here. The residential is in here and back into the interior of the property. You can see that this is 2.5 acres. This is Loudon. This is the New Circle Road right up here where it ends that we're talking about. Under tab number three, actually broke down in terms of that area, the percentages of land use currently between Loudoun Avenue and the New Circle Road on North Lyme, you will see on the east side, which is where the subject property is, 66% business use. Certainly 60%, close to 60% is B1, 9% B3, the balance in the single family, which would include the Waller property. On the west side, it's about 41% business use. So we're talking about whether it's B1 or B3 and the kind of uses that we're talking about is B4. It has a business-oriented flavor to it. Now, as Tracy indicated, the comprehensive plan obviously comes into question on every case. It has to by law, which I'll discuss in a moment. And when the 2007 comprehensive plan was adopted for the Waller property, there was a little six, as you will see in tab number four, placed on the property. which had some very brief language which simply said North Limestone and Rosemary, which is where this property is, mixed use, without defining mixed use, mixed use with office and limited neighborhood retail should be considered as part of the central sector small area plan. And really, that's about all the guidance that we have, mixed use with office and limited neighborhood retail. We do have offices. It is an office warehouse proposal that's before you today. There will be an office in each one of these buildings, and I'm going to have Mr. Waller, if he would just come up very briefly, Jim, and discuss the kinds of businesses that occupy your office warehouse business right now in Lexington. What we've seen is there's been a demand for people to need a small warehouse, and the people here already misrecommended what we were trying to think. There's a demand for people, let's say one of the ones that he's a shoe salesman for Converse Tennis Shoes. He has 500 pairs of shoes he gets every year. He needs a small warehouse to store those. When he goes to one of your sporting goods, he takes probably 50 with him. He cannot take the 500, so he needs a warehouse to store the place, and a lot of times he'll have a secretary there or somebody like that. Another one is a medical supply person that needs a place to store some little bit of inventory when he's selling his product in pharmacy. So that is the demand that we see that we're trying to fill with this development. Jim, just for the record, in terms of there was admonition expressed relative to our proposal about this being dominated by truck traffic. Could you discuss that? No, there might be a truck coming in once a year to drop off, sell for supplies, But basically it will be a car, a salesperson coming in with his car in the morning, getting what inventory he needs to go to his people he is planning on trying to sell his product. There will not be products sold out of there. It will be trying to place a storage product. Or, excuse me. Thank you, Jim. Under tab number five. Mr. Simpson, I might add you have another ten minutes. Okay. Under tab number five, it's simply, I put this in here, it's CARES-10213. I think sometimes it's helpful to understand that the comprehensive plan certainly is an important document because you all spend hours on it. And it's a guide for the community. It is, as the courts have determined, not a straitjacket. And we look at the comprehensive plan in terms of its application to what is really going on in a community. What else does it discuss besides the land use recommendation? We believe jobs, connecting sidewalks, dealing with stormwater improvements, are realistic aspects that make us in compliance with the plan. But even if we're not in compliance with the plan, we believe that the existing zoning of R1C, single-family lots, 8,000 square foot minimum, is an inappropriate zone. And the proposed zoning we're talking about that deals with creation of jobs and a handsome landscaping is appropriate. Tab number six, we've actually broken down through vision engineering the cost of developing this 2.5 acres into single family lots, and that cost is $50,510. Tab number seven, the assessed value of the surrounding properties, average home, $51,000. It's simply not marketable to spend $50,000 to create a lot when the average home adjoining this property is $51,000. Under tab number 8 is the architectural rendering that Jerry Sullivan has done. We have committed as part of our applications, which I will discuss, under tab number 10, which are conditional zoning provisions. That's out, a smaller photograph of this is in tab number 8. But Jerry Sullivan has spent a considerable amount of time addressing landscaping features, building facades, the types of veneer on these various buildings in order to present what we believe to be a handsome streetscape addition to this 2.5-acre frontage for the development. Under tab number 9 is photographs that show some of the existing buffering between this 2.5-acre parcel in the homes on Rosemary and Lynetta Drive, or Lynetta Street, which gets us to tab number 10. Obviously, we were sensitive in this application about a B4 use in connection with, we have severe constraints with our B3 uses for the north, 400 feet, across the street, and down North Limestone. We also wanted to be sensitive to existing residential concerns. And so what we have proposed is a 50-foot buffer that would circle the property, that would join Rosemary and Linetta Street, a 50-foot buffer, keeping the existing tree stands in place, adding a six-foot fence, and then on the other side of that fence, eight-foot pine trees, eight feet on center along that common border. You can see from the photographs that I have identified under tab number nine that there's a lot of screening right now, but we're proposing to enhance that. We are taking away a number of potential uses in the B4 zone, including ice plants, kennels, laundry, truck terminals, automobile service stations, circuses, outdoor music, sound systems, and call boxes are precluded. lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from nearby residential areas. Item number B of the proposed conditional zoning is the 50-foot open space and landscape buffer, setbacks along with the trees, and committing voluntarily to build in substantial conformance with this drawing, which we can voluntarily do as part of our application, to build exactly what this looks like and be held accountable to doing so as part of the zoning provision. These restrictions, we believe, provide an adequate and safe buffer for the neighborhood, create a benchmark for future residential development or future commercial development along North Limestone. And finally, one of the reasons we had to dealt with on the delay of postponement of a couple of times, if you recall, When we were coming before this body for the first time it was set to be a herd for the zone change, it came to our attention a couple of days before of this study that Tom Martin mentioned, that PDR, our peridelian herd, had actually done a study 10 or 12 years ago. It was sitting on the shelf, quite frankly, that they had looked at this area here for a potential regional detention basin, recognizing that in all of this area, in this corridor, there's no storm sewers. You go down Rosemary here, all this, there's no storm sewers. The water runs in little valleys along the street. And it does come into this property, and it goes into the storm sewers eventually over here with CVS Pharmacy. We looked at the studies. We had vision engineering calculate what was to be addressed in terms of stormwater concerns. the government certainly is not going to buy any of this property for a regional detention basin you still have to install storm waters considerably up north limestone but the reason we postponed and redesigned this is that we are going to address not only the existing storm water issues that are coming onto our property through no fault of our own undeterred on rosemary and upstream coming through our property. We're going to not only handle that as a benefit to the city at no cost to the city, but also address the stormwater issues that we would certainly have to comply with for our development. So we're actually upsizing this property to deal with, on a more regional basis, stormwater issues that this study addressed. This has been gone through with Hillard Newman at Division of Engineering. Obviously it takes more detailed examination. But at the end of the day, with this development, the city gets the benefit, this neighborhood gets the benefit of jobs, walk to work, sidewalks, curbs and gutters on North Line, a benchmark landscape plan and a facade plan, and a regional stormwater basin that it will not get if this project has to remain to remain as single-family or medium-density residential zoning. I believe there may be one or two neighbors that wish to speak, Madam Chairperson, but that concludes my presentation. I thank you for your attention. Thank you very much. Are there questions from anyone? Mr. Paulson. Bruce, real quick, what are the size, again, of the storage units that are to be developed? I kind of grasped the concept. It's an office above, but a storage unit below is? The office is on the same floor as the warehouse. Okay. 50 by 30? How is it comparable to like a used storage kind of place? Excuse me. You need to come to the microphone, please. These are going to be 30 by 50 deep. The ones, if you rent, say, the other little storage, they're like 10 by 10. Mr. Cravens. Yeah, I don't know who this is, Bruce, maybe. Under tab 10, you've got automotive service stations as conditional zoning. Are you going to allow automotive repair in those units? Yeah, we did leave automotive repair as a potential use. You know, again, you have to be careful with conditional zoning. I don't know that the Wallers necessarily, I know they don't plan on having automobile repair there, but typically you don't want to constrain it totally, but if that's a concern of the commission, it would be something that we could also exclude as well. We tried to eliminate all the real potential offensive uses without strapping the potential for the property to be successful, which you want it certainly to be successful. Ms. Phillips? Aside from the size, what differentiates these from a mini storage facility? I can't, just looking at that development plan, I can't see where the office space might be. And when you're talking about the creation of jobs, I can't tell based on the development plan where that would be. Well, there would be 19 new businesses. We're estimating 50 jobs for those businesses. Jim's more of an expert in the office warehouse concept compared to the mini warehouse. If you could distinguish the difference, Jim, between those two. Those other mini warehouses you're talking about do not have electricity or water. These will have, a lot of them will have a person there to answer the telephone and to organize their inventory. And they'll have like one or two employees besides themselves to keep the, they won't be walking in business, but just to keep the inventory up and to organize it and stuff like that. But some of them won't have the employee there every day too. There is one, I guess, additional clarification. On the screen is the picture of the trees that have grown together. Tim Query went out and looked at those, determined that they were not important trees. In fact, you can see that part of one of them over here has been trimmed off by, I guess, the owner of this lot over here. I don't know, but they're pretty much wild growing shrubs and trees, and there's just three skinny trees growing together. It's not like there's one significant tree there. Thank you. Any commission members have questions for Mr. Simpson? One other question just doesn't do with the jobs, and I know there's no way that you can guarantee the number, but where are you coming up with the number of 50? If you've got one person per warehouse, you don't have 50 warehouses there. Because the people that are using those, from the ones we've had before, we took an inventory on what they have, and some of them have two or three, and that is counting the salesmen that are out selling trying to push their product. Okay, and this is based on another one that you have here in town? Yes, we do, yes. We have another one on Eastland Parkway. And that employs about 50 people? About 50 people, yes. Thank you. Mr. Owens. A quick question, Mr. Waller, I think. With the – or Mr. Simpson, with the prohibited uses you've mentioned, nothing is said here as far as plumbers or electricians or contractors keeping equipment there. Would that be allowed? No, that would not be allowed because we've got to keep it looking nice for the other professional ones that are there too. So we don't restrict, but we do have to restrict because you don't want to run away good tenants. They want it cleaned up. They don't want to come up and it be junky and stuff like that. Okay, so you're saying no, they won't, but you don't want it as a restriction? We can use it as a restriction. We can use it as a restriction. Yes, we can. Okay. We can't use it. I'm going to hold this up here. Excuse me if I'm wrong. We've got a ways to go on. I'm just trying to get some answers right now. Thank you. I think, you know, we came up with the list, Mike, we being the attorneys for the applicant, to give the applicant some flexibility. I went over those with Mr. Waller. I would think it's fair to say that, from what he said here today anyway, that he wouldn't have any opposition to excluding a couple of more, including automobile repair as well as, you know, what you all discussed. So we've got the zoning ordinance. We could add those as prohibited uses if that becomes a deciding factor in terms of limiting the use of the B-4. Mr. Cravens. The exterior is, says in here, it looks like brick, but it's not. It's split-faced block and stucco. Is that right? It is. You're coloring the split face mark, that color. Get up here. This is Jerry Sullivan, the architect. No vinyl on there. Jerry Sullivan. Yes, it is a tinted split face, and there is stucco. There would also be an option to go with a brick, but I think they've come up with some very attractive split face that is a lot more durable, especially for this type of business. In fact, the CVS down the street is a pretty good-looking split base, tinted. So the tint comes in the block. It's not something that's painted. Are there other questions from the Commission? If not, thank you very much. At this time, if anyone in the audience, anyone who would like to speak in favor, is there anyone in favor? My name is Jim McLaughlin. I'm a resident of a neighborhood. Currently I'm underemployed. I'm a full-time student at Australia University. I'll graduate this end of the year with a bachelor's degree in IT and computer engineering. Now, what he proposes is kind of in my field because I could store things, do things there, repair computer work, stuff like that that's never been mentioned here. Sometimes I have to walk several miles to get to a part-time job right now. Sometimes I don't even have money for public transportation. But this way I'll be closer home and I can do my work right there. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this plan? Is there anyone in the office? Did you want to speak? Yes, ma'am. My name is Sandra McNeese. I'm a resident of the area, too. I just think that it would be a good opportunity for more jobs, and I think it would definitely make it look a lot better going down through there, because as you go down Limestone, it looks so good, like from the corner of New Circle where they've added the car wash and all that. And then it seems like once you pass that, it's just like there's a lot of businesses, but it's just they're like downhill businesses. I would think that I would go with it. I'm opposed to it. Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak against this plan? Seeing none, then I will go to rebuttal and closing statements from the staff, please. Or petitioner, I'm sorry. The staff may have some rebuttal. I don't know. Petitioner, you're first. Staff may have your rebuttal. You come first on the. Rebutting my own presentation. Did you want to say something, Tracy? Yeah. Yeah. Tracy can go first. Pretend like I'm Bruce and reserve the right to go last again. No, I'm kidding. They do that a lot. Just as a reference, I'm going to throw up on the overhead what the B4 zone does allow. So it does give you some reference as to what the applicant is excluding. which is really five items. Number three, laundries. Number four, the ice plants. Number eight, part of number eight, which is kennels. And I did a highlight on number two, which Mr. Cravens brought up, the shops of special trade. Is that you? Or Mr. Owen? And then if we zoom out or slide down, I guess it's up at the top of the list. Number 14, which is the automobile service stations, and number 17, circuses and carnivals. I think a lot of these would never be located off of a main arterial like New Circle anyway. An automobile service station would never want to be located that far off of the main road. So while those restrictions are an offering, I think if the commission is considering rezoning this, there are a number of other uses that we should restrict, including car sales on North Limestone. The staff doesn't believe those would be a good use of the property either. And I do want to say that we understand the possible market for this use. However, this is simply not the appropriate location for it. And the petitioner argues that the B3 and the R1C buffer is inappropriate here, but now they're asking to move that business residential buffer further into the established neighborhood, and that really just doesn't make the most sense at this location. In fact, they're asking to move it in and affect an affordable housing and low-income neighborhood, and that just doesn't seem to be the right situation here. And then lastly, the cost of redeveloping the property with R1C lots, the staff would suggest that their – and the comprehensive plan suggests a mixture of uses with possibly higher density residential at this location. And you could spread that cost over more units, over different types of business, office, and retail, and that $50,000 a lot is not really a true representation of what redevelopment at this location would be. Lastly, we just recommend disapproval of this zone change. Mr. Murray, did you have a question? Well, not a question. Yeah, a question about the condition. If you were to address the other conditional uses there, the rest of the staff would still be opposed to this for the two or three other reasons you just gave? Or can we come to a happy median here with working on conditional use? Yeah, the staff does not recommend approval of this. Ms. Cravens. Yeah, would the staff recommend B-3? No. I think an agreement with the comprehensive plan and the small area plan would be B-1 or mixed-use zone or a combination of residential and B-1. Well, doesn't this, I guess where I was going, doesn't this B-4 have a lot of the same uses as B-1 and B-3? No. The overlap is actually very minimal. The retail sale of building materials and lumber is in allowable use in the B3 zone, and so is car sales. And other than that, there really is no overlap except for some accessory storage is a B1 use. Thank you. Mr. Sampson. Thank you. Because of the questions raised relative to what our initial conditional zoning restriction was, and again, that comes about primarily from my experience in working with the staff and not trying to be advised, not try to limit the uses so much with conditional zoning. But in light of the concern that is expressed, and I've conferred with Mr. Waller during the break relative to Mr. Craven's concerns and also to Mike's concerns, that in addition to the exclusions which we have right now, which would preclude ice plants, kennels, laundry, excluding self-service laundry, clothes cleaning and drying shops, dyeing shops, truck terminals, automobile service stations, circuses, outdoor music, and loudspeaker systems. We would also exclude masonry, metalwork, automobile and truck repair, machine shops, and major or minor automobile and truck repair as additional uses that would be precluded for this property, which is consistent with Mr. Waller's representation of the types of clients that he wants to lease these properties to. Not heavy, intensive, truck-oriented uses, but the kind that salespeople need for storage, maintaining an office, and to deliver their goods by automobile. We think with these significant restrictions on B4, you provide the opportunity for a neighborhood to walk to work, to have sidewalks to walk to work, to take care of a long, festering stormwater problem that would not be created but for this project, and provide a handsome gateway with the commitments to architectural design that heretofore nobody on North Lyme has done before. You send an important benchmark for future redevelopment. We believe this is an opportunity to consider a very viable option, if you look at the entire plan, to provide this area of Lexington long forgotten, long neglected, with a spark to go forward and do better. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Layne. Just one note that whether this property redevelops with a B4 zone, an R3 zone, the stormwater issues would have to be addressed and sidewalks would have to be built on North Limestone. So while they're presenting that as something of a bonus today, those would be requirements no matter how the property was redeveloped. Thank you. There are other questions? Does anyone in the audience have additional comments that they would like to make? They can do so at this time. Yes, sir. Madam Speaker, I'm not a law person or anything like that. Would you state your name again? My name is Jim McLaughlin. Thank you. I just find it ironic that this area has been neglected for so many years. Currently the property that's there is outdated. It needs to be, it really needs to be renovated and redone. And I think Mr. Waller is putting forth a good effort here in front of the council. And if someone could just recognize that and see what he's trying to do. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? If not, then we will close this portion of the hearing, and I'll turn it over to the Commission for discussion, comments, and motions when appropriate. Ms. Phillips? I wondered if staff could tell me, I know that this is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, but have there been significant economic, social, or physical changes that have happened since the adoption, not so much of the 2009 central sector plan, but of the 2000 plan? I know that the CVS Pharmacy has been constructed. That was by right. I don't know when that permit was pulled. I also, today we just saw the Lexington, what was it called, Lexington Square? Lexington what? Plaza, which could potentially house a Andover Motors used car lot. And there was something else that had gone in. Yeah, the Gugu Car Wash. I don't remember. That was recently, but I couldn't. I'd be curious of the dates. The Goo Goo Car Wash did come in for rezoning from a P1 in this area at exactly the same time, well, a few months prior to the adoption of the small area plan. So that was approved in early 2009. And again, like you said, the CVS was redeveloped within that zone without a need for a development plan. They went to building inspection and got a permit. Yes, I would say within the last 12 months they built that and opened it. The requirements, and Mr. Simpson has provided those under Tab 5 for findings necessary for proposed map amendment, and it's 1B, that there's been a major change of an economic, physical, or social nature within the area involved, which were not anticipated by the adopted comprehensive plan and which have substantially altered the basic character. Are there other questions, comments from commission members? Mr. Brewer. Yeah, I have a comment, and I guess I'll tee it up with the best way I can describe it. I'm reluctant to go against the comp plan or the small area plan and particularly woe to go against staff because they're much smarter in this than I am. But in this situation, I work out in this area, and I see this area all the time, and I think it's sorely in need of something, and this seems to be a very tasteful development. With the other businesses that are on the corner, I'm very comfortable with moving in a little bit into the residential area, given the residential area that I've seen there and the other small businesses that I've seen there. And I'm particularly swayed by the gateway view of this. I think this does open it up as a gateway into that area. And I would hope that it would entice other developments of residential or mixed use that would flow better than the abrupt change that I realize this makes. So I'm comfortable with the decision or comfortable with moving forward with it. Mr. Cravens. Yeah, I agree with Patrick. I own some properties similar to this, and they've built properties like this. And it creates a lot of jobs. People can't – a lot of them don't have transportation to get to work. And once they get there, of course, they can use the company trucks. And then we also, we got a lot of tenants that were moving out of the residential areas where they were in violation of the building code, and they were sited, so then they had to go and rent a space that was, you know, for their business. And then their businesses grow, and a lot of the people that have moved in my spaces have outgrown them and moved on. And then I think B4 is a, the way this property is sited, I pointed out a minute ago, it focuses inward, and the ulterior makes a good buffer to the houses around it, and now that he's taken automotive out, which I would have been opposed to, It makes it a nice, quiet, just business area. And I can support this. Mr. Wilson. I'm going to tell you that I'm conflicted by this because I'm all for jobs. And I think it's extraordinarily important to have as many jobs, especially in today's economy, as we can. The one thing you've kept saying consistently is that this is for jobs for people in the neighborhood. And I'm concerned about that because I contend that as a business person you probably would get jobs, but it potentially could be from anywhere and everywhere. And I guess my experiences have led me to believe that there may be jobs, but you can't guarantee necessarily that those jobs would come through the neighborhood. And I was sitting here thinking as you were talking, as you were giving me these facts and figures, I'd be curious to know what the level of jobs that you're proposing as to what level of education that would be required for those jobs as it relates to the income status and what's going on there. I'm all for jobs, but I'm still conflicted by the issue of will these jobs be for people in the community, for those people that are pretended to be able to walk, or will it be just simply jobs as such? Now, you might say on the broader issue, it shouldn't make a difference. If it helps the economy in one hand, it can help everyone. But you've placed a lot of emphasis through your testimony that it would be for people in the neighborhood, and that's the part that I'm a little bit conflicted over. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Anyone else? I can address that if you'd like. Well, we've actually closed the hearing, but if the commission would like to hear the answer. The commission would like to hear the answer to that. And again, I will have Mr. Waller, because he's the, I'll let him explain how, Jim, explain the nature of the businesses. We've certainly, how long, Jim, explain that you've been involved in managing the facility that you have, and what kind of jobs are there separate from the ownership obviously? Separate from the ownership, the only one we had, we did it, finished it about 10 years ago and been doing it. And to give an example is that one of the ones, he is a pharmaceutical sales, and he has a person that works for him. He brought in just helping straighten up shelves and whatever. Now he has worked his way up and has his own route that he hits certain, what is he? He hits the dentist. He's a salesman for, it's Crest toothpaste that he sells. And he hits your dentists and stuff like that. And that person has worked up just from helping him organize his stuff and keeping his office organized. And he's worked his way up in that. And now he's got somebody else. So he started up from one man person to two person. Now he's got three people working for him. Any other kind of jobs that are in those other warehouses? What do the people else do that work there? One of the ones is that I have one of the ones that's a carpet layer. He lays carpet, but he does not sell carpet from there. He's an independent carpet layer. He pulls his van in there because his wife does not want him to bring his van home. So he pulls his van in there, and he keeps his tools there, and it's safe. And he has two or three people that walk from around there. This is off Eastland Parkway that walk from the 7th Street area, I walk and ride with him and he drives another car. Mr. Owens. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. As Mr. Wilson, I'm a little conflicted. I understand, and this rendering and what's being proposed, I think is good. My concern is, is it in the right area? You know, in the right area, I have no problem with this. The residential area that's surrounding this property is my concern. Yes, it would be in a low-income type status. We need that. I think we need housing, and we need medium-density housing as well. and it has been kind of alluded that this would improve the area. It would improve the area. It's also been alluded that possibly other commercial areas would subsequently come in as well. That's a concern to me as well. Once again, could it be a domino-type effect and continue throughout the residential area? We need residential as well. I agree with Tracy in the fact that whatever improvements are made, you know, whether it's this or a residential, the gateway concept's got to go in. The improvement's got to be there. The stormwater improvement's going to have to be made, et cetera. So, you know, I'm going to have to lean on the side of the staff at this point and go with disapproval of this. Are there other commission members who would like to comment? Ms. Phillips? I believe that the existing zoning is inappropriate because I don't believe that redevelopment of residential properties would happen in this area. The areas where we've seen higher density redevelopment is not exactly in this location because of the surrounding land uses. And I think that we can substantiate that there have been major changes since the adoption of the comprehensive plan. So I'm comfortable in supporting the approval of this. Are there others that would like to comment? I kind of have to agree with that. I was on the central sector and small area plans, and a lot of the discussion did center around economic development. And this is one of the – especially talking to the residents. Over and over, the things that kept coming up was economic development. How can we get jobs? And that seemed to be a great concern. Could this be some sort of a small business incubator? You know, in some sort of sense, it may be. And I really tend to agree with Ms. Phillips on this in that it does seem to fit better with some of the zoning that's in that general area. And I think I would also have to agree that I could support this proposal as it stands. Are there others who would like to comment? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. We need to take the zoning, zone map amendment. Let me make sure I've got the right one here, Madam Chairman. This is MAR 2010-9. Is that correct? We'll do first. Do you have findings? I'm getting my marching orders. Thank you. Mr. Burr will give you a shot at this. Well, given the count that I just got, there are several things here that need to be discussed, I believe, and that need to be evaluated by the petitioner, too, because if this is not going to meet his needs and he's going to then not be able to develop it, it's not something that we should be supporting here, I don't believe. So back up to – and, Michelle, please correct me if I get this wrong, but the beginning part is my motion needs to be based on findings. The findings that Council has provided here, some of them go further than our Council is comfortable going, and she's suggested that we base the motion on findings two and three in the petitioner's package. Just A of each, excuse me, 2A and 3A. And I'll read those into the record if I need to, but is that a yes? Okay, so if you guys look to the findings, which, Mr. Simpson, where are your findings? Tab number 11. 11. So if you could look at that too, Mr. Simpson, let us know if you have concerns before I go ahead with this, because if there are, then we may need to reassess. But where we're going right now is a motion based on the findings 2A on page 3 and 3A on page 4, which read, the existing R1C zoning is inappropriate. The property shares a long boundary with B3 commercial businesses that front on New Circle Road. These properties were developed for B3 uses prior to the enabling legislation that allowed urban county governments to impose conditional zoning restrictions. Thus, the zoning on these properties allows the full range of intensive uses that are permitted in the B3 zone. The noise, light, and unrestricted intensive uses of the B3 commercial strip are incompatible with the low-density single-family residentially zoned area immediately adjacent to it. The proposed B4 zoning is appropriate. The B4 development of small warehouses with associated offices and some retail will provide a much-needed buffer between the unrestricted B3 properties to the north and the residential neighborhood to the south. The buffer will not only provide a less intensive land use in terms of uses, business hours, noise, and traffic, but the B4 landscape buffer will provide an attractive new feature that is lacking in this part of the North Limestone Corridor. That's key to my opinion on this. Now then, Rochelle, tell me again, were these out of the findings as well, or did this get into the conditional usage? Thank you. can't do that for conditional zoning. So we felt that if the commission wants to refer to that plan and talk about the additional landscaping, we thought that would be an appropriate condition on the development plan that we could add to the conditions the staff had recommended. And basically the same thing with the architectural restrictions. Other than in an H-1 or a specific overlay, we don't generally deal with architectural restrictions as just general conditional zoning. but I think that you could and I've done just a little bit of rewriting but I think we could refer to that as a condition on the development plan and then again the reasons for imposing the conditional zoning what Mr. Simpson has provided is fine except that I would just simply delete any reference to the architectural aspect Alright so once again that will be on the next motion am I correct? Needs to be part of your zone change He's part of his own change. I need to know what else you want to restrict besides what was on his original list. So I heard Mr. Simpson say machine shops. Masonry. Auto repair. Gave me another. There's another here. I got that. There's another. Right. And, yeah, that's the second part of the question. Is there anything else you all would like to do? Okay. Yeah. So permitted would be wholesale establishments for storage and the like, shops of special trade with general contractors, plumbers, the heating, carpentry, painting, plastering, printing, publishing, lithography. Engraving, electrical, sign painting, upholstering, tile mosaic, and terrazzo work. Electroplating and interior decorating, then we skipped several. Tire retreading and recapping would be allowed. Sorry. Parking lots and structures would be allowed. Animal hospitals or clinics. Offices of purchasers, processors and handlers of agricultural products. Sales of feed, grain, and other agricultural supplies. garden centers these are all uses that would be allowed establishments and lots for the display, rental service keep going, sale repair of all the different equipment and vehicles I'm sorry Bruce did you delete truck terminals and freight yards? Yes and also I think I said tire retreating and recapping would also be excluded. All right, let me make a suggestion here. I don't know whether this is within the procedures or not, but can we take 10 minutes and let our staff and counsel for the petitioner discuss these conditions and then come back and finish the motion or not? Was that a yes or a no? No, it is an option. Yes. As the one who's making the petition, I'm confused already with these. So I would rather take 10 minutes and let you all work out what you think is appropriate from staff's perspective and what's acceptable, and then we'll make the decision on what comes in the motion. Chair. Okay. Chair, well, it agrees with that, and if it's agreeable with the rest of the commission, we will take a 10-minute break. Far less. Thank you. And the feeling's mutual. I'm going to call the commission back in session. Are you ready, Mr. Brewer? Thank you. All right. Spur. Okay. I think I have it now. So the motion that stands with the following. Under the provisions of Article 6-7 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following uses shall be restricted on the subject property via conditional zoning. Outdoor music or sound systems and call boxes, lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from the neighboring residential areas. Landscaping and buffering, as in the petitioner's package, number one in its entirety, number two up to the word trees, and deleting thereafter, deleting there shall be additional, God, it's all scratched out, It's planting some substantial conformity with the rendering prepared by J.R. Sullivan and depicted in the applicant's exhibit book is Exhibit 8. Does whoever need to know what this is saying, is that clear now? Yes. Okay. So what I was doing was adding the conditional zoning restrictions that Tracy and the petitioner have agreed to, and then including the landscaping buffering, all of one and just part of number two. So the last three lines, with the exception of trees, and number two are deleted. Okay. These restrictions are necessary and appropriate to protect the adjoining residential neighborhood from the potential negative effects of more intensive uses that could occur in the B-4 zone without the restrictions. And I think that concludes. Actually, I need to clarify. I'm sorry. I'm sorry? I need to clarify for just the provisions of Article 6-7, and we want to restrict the property to the principal uses that are allowed through this sheet. So I'm going to stick that up there, which were agreed to by the applicant. And I'm not going to read through them all. They're very similar to what we just discussed, with the exception. What they presented and what the Planning Commission felt concerned about, we've deleted as allowable uses. And the one addition related to display, rental, and servicing of farm equipment, tractors, other cars, trucks, minibikes, that list of the thing the staff was concerned about. So this is a list of allowable principal uses. The two prohibited uses would be the outdoor music and sound systems and the lighting would need to be directed away. And then the landscape buffering. So there's kind of a three-part thing, principal uses, prohibited, and landscape buffering. Everybody clear? I believe that concludes my motion on the first one. Is there a second? Second. Motion has been made by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Ms. Phillips. Second. Is there any further discussion? If not, call for the vote electronically when it appears on your screen. Motion carries. Madam Chairman, I move for approval. of GDP 2010-49 as written on the revised statement from staff. And I need to change, well, with the 11 conditions included on their revision, with the addition of number 12, there shall be a 50-foot landscape buffer along the entire property, abutting the lots facing Rosemary Avenue and Lynetta Street. Thank you. And 13, provide gateway details along frontage of property at the time of the final development plan, implementing the central sector small area plan. Adding number 14, denote the developer shall construct the buildings facing North Limestone with facades, of the buildings being a mix of split-faced concrete, block, and stucco with storefront windows and pedestrian doors. The building's façade shall be varied in height in building materials. There shall be no overhead or vehicular doors facing north limestone. Motion has been made by Mr. Furr, seconded by Ms. Phillips. Is there any further discussion? Not. Please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. Now I have to take a few moments for the staff to prepare for the next presentation. I think we need to keep that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Ms. White. Good afternoon, Chair Richardson and members of the Commission. I have four pieces of communication, and they are generally objections to the following application for zone change. I'm going to circulate those with Ms. Planton. Next item is found on page 5. It's item number 3, and it's behind tab 3 in your notebooks. This is MARCV, and I forgot my CV up there, 2010-12, a request by Phi Gamma Delta House Corporation. The MAR is reflective of our zone change request, but the C and V mean there's a conditional use request and a variance request with this application as well. The subject property is at the following address, it's 578 Woodland Avenue and 505 Columbia Avenue. The subject properties collectively, the two parcels are at the east corner of Columbia Avenue and Woodland Avenue. And that means that they are catty corner from the W.T. Young Library and the University of Kentucky campus. Also in this general vicinity there's a Woodland Learning Center which is a child care center on the opposite side of Woodland Avenue. And at the other corner, the southern corner of this intersection there are two church-related uses. One's the Christian Student Fellowship Organization and then the Wesley Center which are church-oriented. Some of it is residential use and some of it is more of a church use. In the vicinity, most of the zoning is R2, which is the current zoning of the subject property, including the university, part of the university property that used to be the neighborhood and is now the library, as well as along Columbia. The neighborhood, I'm sorry, the Woodland Learning Center is an R3 zone for the child care center. And then there are several other R3, or one other R3 property, which is to the east, northeast of the subject property and is developed with condominiums. But a majority of this area is R2, or immediately adjoining is R2. The rest of the university, as it goes towards South Lyme, is an R4 zone. The applicant is currently, they have a fraternity house currently located on Maxwellton Court, which is on the opposite side of South Limestone, and the university is interested in purchasing their property, so they are looking for a new location and have found this property adjacent to the university campus, and they are interested in rezoning it from an R2 zone to an R3 zone to accommodate a fraternity house. Fraternity and sorority houses are allowed in our R3, R4, and R5 zones, but only as conditional uses. The current situation on these properties is just an area I'll show you can see the library and much of the other university property to the west and then the neighborhood uses and single family to the east. This is a photo from the corner where the library is situated looking at the one house on the corner, which is the Woodland Avenue address, 578. And a little bit closer. And this is a photo of the second house, which is oriented towards Columbia Avenue. So there are two single-family residential structures on these two lots, one on each lot. And that constitutes two dwelling units, but there are nine bedrooms in these two dwelling units. But the way we calculate is that calculate density is based on dwelling units, So the density here is 11.76 dwelling units per acre. The fraternity house that is proposed would require demolition of these two properties, and they are proposing a rather small and unconventional fraternity house in terms of what a Greek organization might propose. It is less than 2,000 square feet, and it would only have two bedrooms to accommodate four members of the fraternity to live there. And then the rest of the structure would be used for common area or education-oriented use, and that's why they have described it as a study lodge rather than typically a fraternity house. However, it does fall into the definition of fraternity house under our ordinance. This is just a photo looking down Woodland Avenue, too. The comprehensive plan at this intersection is a little bit complicated. There's actually three different land uses recommended. The map on the overhead is probably the best one for you, so I'm going to kind of orient to that. The other public use shows up a little bit white on our map, but it's generally white-blue. So the library, and you'll note that it does show some single family or single lots, but those are university owned. So that's why they appear in the other public use category. So those are the properties on the northwest of Woodland. On the southeast of Woodland, there's two land use recommendations. First, medium density residential for the subject lots, and then two, and then the other for the subject lots and then to the east and south along Columbia and along Woodland, and then semi-public land use on the opposite side of Columbia, and that is coincident with the church uses. Whoops. I guess that's all my slides for you. Because of this unconventional layout, the proposed use of the property is really more similar to a single-family residential use, where there's only four individuals going to live there. And the requested use and zoning would be considered in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan if it was measured in that manner. The other thing the staff considered is the R3 zone does accommodate single-family, two-family, and multifamily residential use, which is rather consistent with the uses along Woodland Avenue and part of the use on Columbia Avenue. The staff has also considered appropriateness of a fraternity house at this location because of the requested zone change here, but also because there's been a recent text amendment and a lot of oversight for student housing in the past year. The staff gave this, obviously, some good thought as to whether this location is a good opportunity or place for a fraternity house. Based on conversations with the University of Kentucky's Student Affairs Office, they indicated they suggest that Greek organizations consider locating near-existing Greek organizations, and particularly on Woodland Avenue, Rose Lane, Pennsylvania Court, or near East Maxwell Street between campus and downtown. So this location is consistent with where they recommend the Greek houses to look. They do have an opportunity to rent property from the university, and our understanding is the applicant did consider that at one point, but they found it to be unsuitable for their needs. The subject property is appropriately situated on Woodland Avenue and near a significant number of other Greek organizations, which are mostly organized between Rose Street, Avenue of Champions turns into Euclid, then Woodland and Columbia. So there's a significant number of fraternities and sororities in that general, it's not one block, but general area. And then there are a few more located along East Maxwell. And then there's a few that are located further away over on South Limestone or off South Limestone. So this is very near other fraternities and sororities. In addition, it's located at the fringe of the Columbia Heights neighborhood and would not infringe upon that neighborhood any more than the existing single-family residential uses, which are now student housing, or the existing assembly uses, which are across Columbia Avenue. So this portion of Columbia Avenue has already been impacted by the student housing needs. The subject property is also, well, community must accommodate Greek housing and the organizations either on or off campus, as well as the broader category of students. And Goal 13 of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan directs that the community should provide housing opportunities to meet the needs of all citizens, which obviously would include students too. And lastly, because the R3 zoning allows residential development of varying densities and types, the staff would recommend a conditional zoning restriction for this property to limit the number of units as well as the use of the property. So the staff is recommending approval, and the zoning committee also recommended approval of this zone change from R2 to R3 because it is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. and a second reason was that the land use of a fraternity house is appropriate at this location because of its proximity to the university campus and other Greek organizations. And the conditional zoning restrictions proposed by the staff would be that no more than two residential dwelling units be permitted on the subject property. That would keep it within the existing situation, which is slightly more than the comprehensive plan recommends, that the only use as permitted would be single family, two family units, or a conditional use as permitted by the Board of Adjustment or the Planning Commission. And those are appropriate restrictions to ensure compatible development within the neighborhood. And if the conditional use does not develop on this property, then the property would be redeveloped in the same or consistent manner with the comprehensive plan. Happy to answer any questions about this request. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Mr. Wilson. Yes. Clarify, how many people can live to? There are two bedrooms. Two bedrooms? Four persons. And like any other residential place, they can bring in as many guests as they so desire? Yes. I think that would be true. So in effect, you could have four people, but 20 people. I don't. I'm exaggerating just a little bit, but you could have more than I think building code would probably prevent some of that I think the fraternity will show you their renderings of the layout and the way it's laid out I think it would prevent bedrooms out of the open spaces but I think they can address that concern I'll wait then, thank you or Bob Carpenter might be able to address that too from building inspection Well, what I'm getting at is, I don't particularly mind people having guests, but the issue, one issue for the neighborhood is the parking. And so I'll wait to see how you all are going to address that or how that will be addressed. Since that's not typically something I address in my zoning presentation, I know Mr. Martin and the fraternity will probably speak to that. Does anyone have any questions? Mr. Owens. Thank you. Okay, Tracy, as far as the child care center across the street, is that a 24-hour type operation, or do you know? No, I don't know. It was formerly a kinder care, and now it's called the Woodland Learning Center, and I don't think it's a 24-hour center, but I couldn't swear to that. Ms. Phillips says no. Okay, thank you. Other questions for Ms. Wade? If not, Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin is here and then Mr. Marks to present the conditional use request. Okay. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, on page 7 of your agenda is the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change, Item C, 2010-63, Columbia Heights, Lot 20. Again, as Ms. Wade oriented you, we have Columbia Avenue, Woodland Avenue. The property in question is located at the corner. There are two lots, 7,500 square feet of area. They are proposing a two-story building with 1,875 square feet lot coverage, two stories, 30 feet in height. Here on this back lot, the second lot here with an access point on Columbia, they are proposing to meet the required parking conditions or requirements of this development. Back here we have a large tree. This is the area of the tree canopy. This tree is predominantly on the adjoining property, but it does constitute some of the canopy requirements that this property has. They are proposing to remove three trees in these locations. These two obviously are associated with the parking lot development. This is one to be removed that is on the front and part of the landscaping along the streetscape. This was initially recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. They brought in this revised plan. They've addressed several of the cleanup conditions that were on that plan. You do have revised conditions before you. Another one of our pan sheets. Again, this revised plan has addressed several of the cleanup requirements, conditions. We do have that they must, provided that the Planning Commission grants a waiver. As Tracy mentioned, there is not only a conditional use request associated with this zone change, there is a waiver request as well. This waiver request is important to condition number eight, where you see, discuss usable open space provided. This development is requesting a waiver of the front side yard. When you have a corner lot, you in effect have two front yards. They are requesting a waiver that Mr. Marks will elaborate on from the 20-foot setback to three feet. This is important for two reasons on this property. Number one, they couldn't make the parking work. Number two, the open space won't work without this waiver. waiver. They can count this space behind a building line as usable open space. You cannot count a front yard as usable open space on this side of the building line. So the waiver request and whether you grant the waiver or not goes directly to that discussion item. Should you grant the waiver, then yes, the parking will work and the open space will work. So that's what Mr. Marks is going to discuss with you on the waiver. After that, he will discuss the conditional use. You can see that staff has recommended approval of this revised development plan. And if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Any Commission member have a question for Mr. Martin? Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Both a conditional use and a variance have been requested along with this zone change application. Tom referred to it as a waiver. We use the word variance, but they're interchangeable. So the conditional use, of course, is for establishing a fraternity house in the R3 zone that's been requested. The variance is to reduce the required what's called a side street side yard along Columbia Avenue from 20 feet to 3 feet to accommodate the proposed relatively small parking lot to the back of the building. Tom was alluding to the waiver and variance along on Columbia, so I'll do that one first. First, we feel that that's reasonable and justified for two main reasons. Both of these lots are only 50 feet wide, so they're relatively narrow. Corner properties are already hit pretty hard with yard requirements because you essentially have two front yards, one on each street. That's even worse when you have a relatively narrow lot on a corner, which is the case here. to comply with a 20-foot side street side yard and about a 5-foot side yard on the other side of the lot, you'd basically lose about 50% of that area, which would make it really difficult to construct any kind of functional building or associated parking lot. The other thing to keep in mind is that the existing conditions, there's already paving in the parking lot already up to the sidewalk, which is not a good situation. situation. There's no landscape buffer there. For public safety purposes, it's always a good idea to have some separation between a sidewalk and a parking area where vehicles are moving in and out of. Even though they're requesting a pretty substantial reduction in the yard along there from 20 feet to three feet, that three feet is pretty important because it will allow at least room for a landscape buffer, which they don't have right now, and will also provide a really important separation between the sidewalk and where the cars are moving in and out of. There will be a separation there, which is a big benefit for public safety. So we're very comfortable with the variance request. We think those two factors are pretty clear and pretty strong. The conditional use, just a reminder that the legal question you really need to address for that is whether or not they can undertake this proposed activity without adversely impacting the surrounding properties. There are several factors that led us to a conclusion that we don't think there will be an adverse impact. First, if you look at the surrounding properties, Tracy described the child care center on the other side of Woodland, the fellowship center and sort of additional church uses along Columbia Avenue directly across on the other side. We think the proposed use, which is described by them pretty much as a study lodge, which is pretty much an atypical type of fraternity house, but we think those activities would be very compatible with the surrounding uses. The other thing is that there really is nothing inherently noisy or disturbing about a study lodge that they've described it as. So we think it's important that they kind of hold to that description. In their application for the zone change, they describe the kind of activities that will be taking place there as tutoring, group studies, maybe some pledge activities, that sort of thing. One other thing of the residential activities as far as the condition of use goes. there will actually be a reduction in the intensity of the residential use with this redevelopment. So if folks are concerned about adverse impacts associated with intense residential use, that's not going to happen here because there will actually be a reduction in the intensity of the residential use. Staff is recommending approval of both the variance and the conditional use. There are seven recommended conditions if you've found your staff report kind of behind the zone change report, I think. All seven of those, with one exception, are fairly routine for new construction activities. The one exception is condition number three, where we talk about how the facility will be used. Like I said in their MAR application, they describe the use as kind of education-oriented. We think it's important to kind of hold them to that description, I'm not in a real, you know, restrictive way tying their arms behind their backs, but as a general umbrella to get a feel for the kinds of activities that are going to take place there. It is a sensitive issue because it is a fraternity house, although it's kind of a unique type of fraternity house in this case, more gathering place and study lodge. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. doing. The commission members have questions at this time. Mr. Owens? Jim, as far as the uses that you were mentioning, I wanted to restrict them seriously and so forth, but hold them accountable and all that. Do you have any recommendations on how to do that? How to enforce? Is that your question? Well, Bob's here and he can probably chime in if we need to, Bob Carpenter, but it's pretty much on a complaint basis. If we hear from neighbors that there's things going on there that don't comply with that, then they check them out. And from the applicant's perspective, this is a big issue because they're putting a lot of money into investing in a building that is going to be used a certain way. If it's not used that way, that really threatens a very large economic investment in a new building. So they should be really motivated to comply with that condition. So if there are complaints, you know, and hopefully there's not, but if this goes forward, if there are complaints, you're going back to a revocation-type hearing? Right. That would be a worst-case scenario if they don't change and get back into compliance with that condition. A revocation hearing could be requested. And we get maybe about one of those a year, at least through the Board of Adjustment. So it does happen. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Phillips? Can I follow up on Mike's question? I know that the Kentucky Revised Statutes allows us to act on behalf of the Board of Adjustment in certain instances. Obviously, this is one. But do we also have the privileges of revoking a conditional use? Do we have all the privileges of the Board of Adjustment? Rochelle is shaking her head, so I'm thinking that she's saying if it did get to the point of having to do a revocation, I'll let her finish the sentence. The statute only grants the Planning Commission the ability to consider approving a conditional use and or variance in connection with a zone change. After that, the jurisdiction for regulating, enforcing, whatever, would go back to the Board of Adjustment to the extent that it would exercise that if it had initially approved. That's what I wanted to clarify, is whose responsibility would it be. And I have another question. Who's the property owner? Is the property owner currently the fraternity? No, they're not. Tracy, do you have the name of the entity that owns the property? Handy? Mr. Lear just raised his hand. Yeah, he's here today. It's Touchstone Properties. Thank you. Okay. Thank you all. Are there other questions? No. Okay. Thank you. Petitioner. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Ben Simmons. I'm with UOP Architects. I am also a graduate of the fraternity. I wanted to begin by submitting a few things. The first is our development piece that we've created for fundraising purposes, and I will submit that here in a minute. And the second item is a collection of three letters of commendation that we've received. The first one is from Keith Ellis, who is the Assistant Dean of Students at the University. The second one is from the St. Agnes House, and the third one is from the Shepherd's House. St. Agnes House and Shepherd's House are our two neighbors over at our property on Maxwellton Court, and both of them have sent in letters to basically say good things about us and how we're nice neighbors. So if you'll bear with me here. I'm also going to give the fellow working the projector three images so you have a better understanding of the building. And I'll run you through those very quickly. The first one is the exterior of the building. As you can tell, this is looking from the corner of Woodland and Columbia. The letters are displayed prominently. Again, trying to blend in with the local scale and quality architecturally of the neighborhood while making a cool-looking building for the younger guys. This is an interior shot looking back on the first floor from the kitchen to the living space to kind of give you the understanding that it is basically a multi-use space. On the first floor, you see the bookshelves, group study area with a TV and lounge area, and a kitchen kind of close. On your left, you see the glass doors, which would be open to our outdoor patio, which we could use for events and such when we wanted to really show off the front or the first floor of that main space. Next slide. This is the floor plans. And I'll start with this. As you can see, we have one bedroom on the first floor and one bedroom on the second floor. The majority of the space on the first floor is what we call multi-use, basically like a condo would be set up. It's basically one large room delineated by furniture, used mainly for events such as Parent's Day weekend, graduate weekend, pledge meetings, weekly meetings. The second floor, with the exception of the bedroom and bathroom, is entirely devoted to study space. You have a private study room up there, which is closed off. So if you want to go up there and have complete quiet, that's what you use it for. You have a library up there as well. And then you have some study desks kind of looking over onto the first floor. The reason we have devoted so much of the footprint to study space is because of the way we fundraise. several years ago the international fraternity which is now located here in lexington it was actually audited by the irs and by no fault of our own they literally just picked a random fraternity and audited us and as a result of that we had to create an educational foundation that foundation takes money from graduates and via donations and uses it to pay for things like study space study materials, spaces inside fraternity houses, which are intended for study and educational uses. Now, the advantage that the educational foundation has over the regular fraternity is that when a graduate brother gives money to the foundation, they can write that off on their taxes. If they give money to the headquarters, to the general fraternity, they cannot do that. So what we're trying to do as part of the design is to maximize the square footage of the building, which we can consider study space, which allows us in our fundraising, it makes it easier to ask for a grad for $10,000 from a grad brother when you can say you can deduct that from your taxes. Right now, I think the building is about 33% total square footage is dedicated to study space, which translates into around $220,000 of our fundraising efforts. We're projecting that the building construction costs will run around $750,000. So that's the numbers that we're using. Also to clarify, the building is going to, it is alcohol-free and it is tobacco-free. To my knowledge, the University of Kentucky chapter of Phi Gamma Delta was the first chapter in the country of Phi Gamma Delta to go alcohol-free. That was back in early 2001. So that is the initiative. It's also my understanding that all of the fraternity houses on campus are alcohol-free. As far as the question of coming back and retrofitting, for example, if we get everything passed and we're allowed to build this building, the concern that what if a couple years down the road we decide to fill in that, for example, private study space with bedrooms. Based on our agreement with the Educational Foundation, we cannot do that, because that is money that is used by the Educational Foundation for study space. If we decided to build, we can't even do this anyway, but theoretically, if we decided to build a bedroom there, we would have to give all of that money back, which the foundation used to pay for that space, because technically it would no longer be educational space. So that is to kind of get more in-depth. The building planning is LEED Platinum, and that's the idea that it's... the only LEA Platinum fraternity house in the country. As far as parking, which I know is a concern, we met with the neighborhood several weeks ago, and that issue was brought up. We are meeting the minimum requirements of parking right now. We have six spaces. We can't add any more. To alleviate the requirement, you know, what if we have an event, and there's more than six people that come to the event, where do people park? We have been in conversation with the people at the Christian Student Fellowship, which is across Columbia Street from us. They have a parking lot of about 15 spaces that they have agreed to let us use. We just needed to coordinate time and event. The other thing, which is what a lot of other fraternities do, is that, if I get my bearings here, a lot of sorority houses are over here. The sororities don't have a lot of room to park. I think that at most some of them will have five or ten spots. But they have their meetings on Monday nights with 120, 150 girls, 120, 150 guys come to their meetings. What a lot of them do, they'll use the parking lots over across next to the library, which are closed, or which are open, I'm sorry, but free. They'll have a lot of their members park there and just walk across the street. We would do the same thing. There's several corner lots right here that we can use. So the guys would park here and here. There's plenty of parking, and then they would walk over here. We would do the same thing for when we had events. That way people wouldn't have to park along the streets in the neighborhood. As far as policing, like I said, our international headquarters of the entire fraternity is here in Lexington. It's on Red Mile Road. We actually have a member on their staff here today. We have a great relationship with them. We kind of follow a self-policing policy, but again, we know they're here, So we want to kind of be the bright, shining example of the fraternity. That's kind of our stance. The chapter's done incredibly well. The accomplishments over the years have been, you know, above the all-male average, thousands of service hours, winning the Dean's Cup from the fraternities and sororities. They're one of the best chapters in the fraternities on campus. So we understand that this is not your typical model for a fraternity house. Part of that was the realization that fraternity houses are becoming more and more difficult to fill. So we decided to lower the number of permanent residents there while providing a residential component for safety and security. So, again, that's why we do that. We lower the number of bedrooms. The final thing I have is about why we didn't look at going to a property owned by the university, and that had to do with the cash flow situation. We decided to purchase our own property because if we did not, if we did decide to build on a U.K. property, Their policy, at least thus far, is that you can give them a million and a half dollars and they will build you a house, but they will own the land which you build upon. So if you built a house on their property and got in trouble or whatever, they have the right to kick you out of the house. But also, from a cash flow standpoint, we need the money from the parking to pay bills and such over time. So UK owns the land, and if you build a house on that land and want to build parking spaces, they will control that land, and therefore all of the money that you would normally be giving to the fraternity for your parking spot per month goes instead to the university. So that adds up over time, and we thought it would be a much more financial, a better financial move for us to simply own our property and take care of it that way. And we appreciate the staff taking a lot of careful consideration for this. And, again, if you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer. Thank you. Are there questions from any of the Commission members? Okay. Maybe later, he says. Thank you very much. At this time, I would be happy to hear from any proponents, people who are citizens who are in support of this plan. Mr. Lear. Thank you very much. I'm one of the principals of Touchstone Properties, along with two of my sisters and all of our spouses. We've owned this property for, I would say, 10 years or so. Before we purchased it and during the time we purchased it, it's been used for student housing. This proposal is one that we support. Obviously, we've entered into a contract to sell this property. I would point out a couple of things. In terms of intensity of use, this is a lower use, fewer bedrooms, fewer square footage. And I would also, in regard to the issue of the appropriateness of this use, this is essentially, not essentially, this is 100% a student housing area. It's adjacent to the university campus. If you look at the notification map and the notification list that accompanied this, within the entire 400 feet notification area going up Columbia, away from the university, it is 100% student housing or owned by the University of Kentucky. It's non-owner occupied. If you look at the woodland apartments, the very high density or woodland studios behind it, there's 76 addresses on there. There are only two where the occupant's mailing address is the same as the owner's address. Again, it's all student housing. Same if you go away from the university on Woodland Avenue, 100%. So it's in an area that has been, not just for a few years, but for a long, long time, purely student housing. And, of course, further down Columbia Avenue or extending further down Columbia Avenue are the Wesleyan or the United Methodist Student Center as well as the Christian Student Fellowship. So if you have to find an area for a fraternity house, if it's not going to be on campus, it seems that the best place for it would be immediately adjacent to campus and in the middle of what is already a uniformly student housing area. So we very much support the application and request your approval. Thank you very much. Are there others who would like to speak in favor of this plan? Seeing none, then we'll open those. There are those in the audience who wish to speak against this plan. He didn't exceed it, so I didn't have to interrupt him, but each person speaking is entitled to three minutes. If you'd give your name and address, please. Thank you. My name's Janet Cowan. I live at 612 Columbia Avenue, and Bill's right. I wasn't within the 400 feet, but he and some other people came to our Neighborhood Association meeting to ask for our support on this. I'm not here to give that support, mainly because you're tearing a house down on Columbia Avenue. and although I think Tracy wrote that this did not infringe on the established neighborhood, every time you tear a house down it infringes on the neighborhood. We're working very hard, very hard to keep our neighborhood and that involves this morning the selling of a house back to a family, a mother and her 14-year-old daughter on our block. We're working for that. The house that they're proposing to take off of Columbia sits next to another one, and then two vacant lots. That goes. If that one goes, the other one goes. And then it's like Mr. Lear said, oh, well, there's a fraternity house there. Why not build another one here? And I can tell you the night before Halloween, the Christian Student Fellowship that they keep saying is there kept us all awake until we ended up calling at 612 Columbia Avenue. The police, both UK and LFUCG, who kind of argued over whose responsibility they were until 11 o'clock when they actually shut them down. We love those people. They park in their front yard. Last night I was trying to leave to go out Columbia at Woodland. I sat through six light changes, six, because that is such a busy intersection, and nobody here has discussed that. Nobody has talked about the traffic input or impact that that will have. The driveway that they're proposing, if a car wants to make a left-hand turn into that parking lot right now, it can potentially gridlock that whole part of town because you can't get through the traffic light. It stops traffic all the way to Rose and up and down Woodland to Euclid. And if you don't believe it, come out there tonight, well, it's probably past time right now, but tomorrow and watch it. It's hazardous. It's not a safe thing. Stormwater. If you don't believe that there's a problem with stormwater in Lexington, come see my basement at 612 Columbia Avenue. I don't care what they do with the house that faces Woodland. Sorry, Mr. Lear, but it's eyesore. It truly is. I care about the house that's sitting in my neighborhood on Columbia Avenue. Because when that house goes, you are taking a neighborhood. And it wasn't too many years ago that we were before you with an H-1 overlay. You considered those houses historic at that time. I don't think any of you are going to be there when the inherently lack of noise, the inherent lack of noise, who am I going to call for that? And I think one thing that was pointed out was, yes, two bedrooms, the little house across the street from me and the house down from me were Delta, the Taw Delta party houses, and they rented them to four people, and nightly there were 20, 30, 40 partiers there. I know my time's up. Yes, ma'am. So I just want to oppose the demolition of the house on Columbia Avenue. And if you seek to do this, please do something with the traffic. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Hello. My name is Mark Barker. I live at 439 Park Avenue. Dear Madam Chairwoman and Planning Commission members, I'm here to express my opposition to Fraternity House at the Corner of Woodland and Columbia. The area cannot support the additional density. We're also exposed from the storm sewers in front of my house after hard rains. I believe the city estimated 10 years ago that the fixing of the problems in the area would cost $10 million. They have yet to schedule the needed repairs. The cost of additional storm and sewer capacity is very high in this area. With approximately 400 homes in the area, the average is $25,000 a lot. Any additional density in the area will only make matters worse and increase the taxpayer's bill. In addition to storm and sanitary sewer capacity problems, this street has only parking on one side. I'm talking about Columbia. which is always filled to capacity. The corner lot that is proposed in the fraternity house has no parking in front of it. Where are they going to put all the fraternity brothers when they come over to visit? The fraternity house has indicated they have only four people actually stay at the fraternity, although the fraternity has, I believe, 60 members. I find this hard to believe. The current plan has a number of rooms designated private study rooms. Despite the fact that they are very close to the WT Young's library, the Hary has a lot of private study rooms. Those study rooms look like bedrooms to me. I'd also like to note that the current zoning only allows the FAR 0.35. The current proposed building is in excess of this. Number two, the proposal is contrary to discussed plans for fraternity houses in the past. The issue of where fraternity houses should be located has been discussed over and over 30 years, and general agreement has been that fraternity houses are not compatible with many of the other residential usage patterns, and that they should either be in the U.K. fraternity park bordered by the streets Rose Lane, Columbia, Woodland, and Rose, or the College Town area designated by Maxwell, Rose, Limestone, and High. There's a reason why the current zoning does not allow fraternity houses. is because it's not an appropriate site for a fraternity house. There are numerous slots in both the other areas for fraternities that could be used for this fraternity house. Let me add, if you do allow this fraternity house, it will be the first fraternity house off campus in this area. All the other fraternity houses and fraternity houses are on campus, and that's a difference because on campus, the UK is responsible for making sure they behave appropriately. And off campus, they don't have to worry about the no alcohol restrictions on campus. They can use that. They've been offered a place on campus within probably a block of this. They've chosen not to use it. I would therefore ask you to oppose this. If the city is so inclined to support this appraisal, I request to stipulate the following conditions. A, that the occupancy be limited to four. The fraternity is on record as indicating this is all that will live there, so they should have no problem with this. B, that the building not exceed the current far limit of .35. The area simply cannot support the additional density while excessive upgrades to the current infrastructure. C, that a six-foot green buffer be required between the rear parking lot and Columbia Avenue and the adjacent Columbia Avenue residence. Three feet is not enough. It just isn't. Three feet is this far. You have exceeded your time limit. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes. I'm not exactly in opposition, but my name is Joshua England, and I represent Christian Student Fellowship. I live at 509 South Upper Street. And we do have a concern with parking. I'm unaware of any agreement that the fraternity has made with our organization concerning parking, and we already have agreements with the former KinderCare Woodland Child Care Facility, and parking in this area is already very difficult to find any kind of parking for events. And so I would say that that is my number one concern that you need to consider is the parking issue. Four spots is not enough for 60 people, which would be possibly participating in some kind of pledging activity. Thank you. Thank you. Someone else? Ted Cowan. I live at 612 Columbia Avenue. As it's unfortunate, I guess, with many families, everything I'm going to say is not in agreement with my wife. So you may have to carry me out of here. Anyway, I think that this is a beautiful building, and I like the concept, but I have grave concerns about where they're talking about putting it. This will be the first time, to my knowledge, that a legal fraternity house has been built on the east side of Woodland Avenue. And it's not just Woodland Avenue. It's that whole neighborhood. I don't think there's one on that side of Woodland Avenue anywhere that's legal. On the western side towards Limestone, yes, lots of fraternity houses. And certainly there are homes that have been used in our neighborhood as fraternity houses, but they were not legal fraternity houses. So I have a grave concern that you're crossing a line and that other people will also seek to cross that line. I do think it's a pleasing design. I like the idea of an alcohol-free fraternity. I think that's very interesting for a lot of reasons. One of the things that concerns me, though, is that you will also be agreeing that this property is now R3. And, you know, no matter what people tell you today, someone's going to come in here six months or a year or two years from now, and they're going to say, you know, there's R3 property there now. Couldn't we have some more? And people are going to start saying the circumstances have changed, the neighborhood has changed, and that's going to be used as a reason to expand that. So I worry about that, and I guess I hope that you don't do it for that reason. If you're going to do it, I'd like for you to think about adding a condition. You know, we heard about the conditions that were proposed, such as be used only for study and group meetings and things like that. The fraternity has said it's going to be alcohol-free. Make that one of the conditions. Let's be upfront about that. Let me tell you a story that you've not heard. In 1997, a freshman pledge at MIT at a fraternity party, this fraternity, died of alcohol poisoning. The reason I suspect that this fraternity is now alcohol-free is set forth on their website. They entered into an agreement with the young man's family to do something about controlling alcohol use and educating their fraternity members. But despite that agreement, their website also says that you can get an exemption and that 30% of their chapters now have an exemption and do permit alcohol use in the facility. So let's make this one alcohol-free. You know, U.K. has an alcohol-free campus, an alcohol-free policy. I don't see why you can't put that in the conditions if you let this go forward. A couple of things I'd like to quickly say for you to at least think about is that you're being asked, have I run out of time? Yes, you have. Okay, well, thank you. Thank you. At this time, would the petitioner like to make closing statements? Is there anyone else who would like to speak? I'm sorry. If not, then could the petitioner make closing statements? I would just like to clarify a few things. Let's talk about the stormwater. Part of the LEED Platinum process is taking the entire parking lot and making it out of pervious pavers. What that will do is basically take all the water that's normally running off the parking lot, and actually it's collected in a cistern underground and stored. And then that is actually used to reduce your storm water as well as your things like potable water runoff. And the idea is that that will actually lower the water use for the property below what it is actually using now. And that is actually one of our design intents to do that. As far as the R3 zoning, this building footprint meets all of the requirements for the R3 zone. I believe the floor air ratio, which was quoted earlier, it needs to be at 1875. It's actually right there at 1875. So we're not exceeding any zoning requirements. We're not exceeding or violating any landscape buffer requirements, as far as we can tell, based on our conversations with staff, based on our conversations with the planning office. We have met all of the landscape requirements, parking requirements, if granted, the three-foot variance. we are the international fraternity does have an alcohol free exemption policy however this chapter chooses not to participate in that we choose to simply remain alcohol free all fraternities and sorority houses regardless if they're on campus or not are required to be alcohol free at the university so that being on campus doesn't matter if it is or not if you're part of the Greek fraternity and you're a registered fraternity or sorority It's required to be an alcohol-free facility. And I guess as far as the policing and the scholarship, it is our full intention, and this is just how we have laid it out, that scholarship is one of our priorities in the fraternity. It's actually the number one thing we pride ourselves on. So the way we are designing this house is keeping that as the priority of the design, that the building is used for scholarship activities and for gathering activities first. Then you have two bedrooms with four total people living in it. I can't, it was my understanding we have talked to Brian Marshall from the Christian Student Fellowship, and he did not have a conversation with me, but it's my understanding that the parking arrangements are being worked out with them, and we have been told that we can use the parking lots near the university library, for the parking issue. So that's it. We thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Do any of the objectors wish to have rebuttal time? I just want to point out one thing. Could you state your name again for the record? Mark Barker, 439. He did mention... He did mention that this is a green project. But the building may be green. But I don't see how the project is green. They're tearing down two buildings. And they're tearing down every single tree. There's four trees that are 60 feet tall. The three of the trees are on the back row. If they just add a couple more feet to the back buffer, they could probably save those. So, I mean, there's nothing green about that. There are other properties that they could renovate old houses and renovate those, and those would be green. They're in the designated area in the college town area that they could actually use those and be green and save homes instead of tear them down. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Yeah. Okay. Staff? I have two comments. First would be that the properties on Columbia in this block I believe were not included in the H-1 application that came through a few years ago. So they weren't considered as part of that area at the time. I'm not saying they're not historic buildings, but they weren't considered as part of the neighborhood to be protected. And then the second thing was that under number three on the conditional use conditions, page seven of your agenda, it currently reads, use of this facility should be as described in the applicant's MAR application received on October 14, 2010, and with a focus on scholarship activities, group studies, tutoring, and pledge education. And if the Planning Commission wishes, I think we could add, as long as the conditional use was in place, and limited to four on-site residents. So the words, and limited to four on-site residents. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, that's why Mr. Owens has a question. Thank you. Can you speak any to the R3 zoning, the concern as far as other property may go that way? Yeah, I think one of our findings for the approval of the conditional zoning restriction talked about the proposed use of a fraternity house and the density being appropriate. I guess the fraternity house being appropriate because it's adjacent to the University of Kentucky campus. The R3 zone could actually be in agreement with the comprehensive plan in other locations, and I think the staff, based on development plans, could approve or recommend approval of an R3. I don't think we would recommend approval of a fraternity house further into the neighborhood. The adjacency to the university is really the key to that. I do understand the neighborhood's concern about that, but we would evaluate any R3 zone based on the density recommended by the comprehensive plan and the density proposed by the applicant. Thank you very much. We'll now at this point, we've... Ms. Commission, I was fixing to close the hearing. hearing. We'll hear you. Janet Cowan at 612 Columbia Avenue. And Tracy, I wasn't talking about the two-year-ago H1 overlay. It was 12 years ago. After that, we kind of gave up on trying with that part of the neighborhood with Woodland Avenue once all of the shipyard poles went up and everything. So it has been included. Thank you very much. At this time, the Chair will close the hearing and turn the discussion and motions over to the Commission. Is there any discussion at this time? Madam Chair, one question for clarification purposes. The people from the fraternity said they would use it for study purposes and educational purposes, and then they used the phrase, other gatherings. What does other gatherings mean? Could we ask the – Yes, absolutely. Yes. Absolutely. Ben Simmons, other gatherings would be such things as Parents' Day weekend where the parents would come in. We would have, you know, a meet and greet or we'd walk them around. We'd have non-alcoholic refreshments. Everything we would do at the house, all events that are not related to, you know, scholarship or non-scholarship are all alcohol-free. That means if you have a recruitment event at the house where you have some brothers there meeting pledges, that's alcohol-free, but you might be grilling on your back porch. You'll have things like graduate weekend. You'll have some graduates come in, just want to do some meeting. It's mainly meeting and greeting kind of events. Are there other questions, comments from in the committee? Then we'll take the voting purposes. We'll first take the zone map amendment as a motion first. And then we will have to have two motions, as I understand it, one for the conditional use and one for the requested variance. And following that, we would take the subdivision plan. Madam Chair, do you want to make a motion for approval of MARCV 2010-12 Phi Gamma Delta House Corporation? Mr. Paulson has made a motion, second by Mr. Brewer. Is there any further discussion? Just a comment. You know, one, I was about ready to make a motion similar, and Mr. Paulson doing so is fine. You know, I would like to say that, you know, I think a lot of the concern here is, excuse the analogy, but a fraternity house being much like what we know it as a movie Animal House. I, you know, what I'm seeing and what I'm hearing, I don't think it is. I don't think it's headed in that direction. I certainly hope not. You know, I have sat on revocation hearings before with the BOA, and I hope it never goes that direction. The other thing would be my colleague just before leaving felt like this was another one of Frank pins putting 10 pounds into a 5-pound sack. It is tight, but I think it's doable. And for the most part, I just want to say the comments that's been made here is definitely not unheard. But, you know, I think we're in favor of this. We'll find out here in a minute. Yes. I want to clarify that that motion included the proposed conditional zoning pursuant to Article 6-7. Okay. Yes. Yes. Still a second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Vote electronic. Motion carries. Now we need a motion in regard to the requested variance and the conditional use. You can put those in one. I know with Board of Adjustment we will consider one application, so you can make one motion on that. Oh, we can make one motion. Unless there's a desire to separate them out for some voting. And the person making the motion should take into consideration whether they want to add to number three under the recommended conditions for the requested variance, a limit to four persons in the residence, living in the residence. If you'd like to make that as part of your motion, that was a suggestion from staff. I'll accept a motion at this time. All right, we are allowed to put the conditional use in. All right, so Madam Chair, first I'll make a motion for approval of the conditional use, as well as the ZDP 2010-63 in the conditional use. I'd like to add to the number three. I'm sorry, I misunderstood. It would be a motion concerning the conditional use application and the variances. Those two can be combined. Sorry. I misunderstood you. Long day. All right, conditional use and the variance with inside the variance number three, adding a limit to four residents to the property. Good. Mr. Paulson has made a motion. Do I hear a second? No. Mr. Brewer, I think, second. Is there any further discussion? Is everyone clear on the motion? So then please vote electronically. Motion carries. Now we need one more motion. I'll finish it off. It's still easier than what Patrick had to do earlier. Make a motion for approval of ZDP 2010-63 with the 13 conditions as stated. With the revised. See, I knew I messed it up. The revised eight conditions as stated. Yes. Second. Mr. Paulson has made the motion. Ms. Beatty is second to motion. All in favor? Is there any discussion? There is discussion. Well, just one question. Was it, I mean, there was one element concerned in the recommendation about on-site residents. Did we add that? That was in the other motion. That was in the variance? Oh, okay. In the variance. That was in the variance. I'm lost. That's okay. Mr. Cravens, we're still in. Yeah. Yeah. One question as far as number eight, discuss usable open space. With the variance, that goes away? Am I correct? Condition number eight, discuss usable open space, would go away now that you have granted the variance. Thank you. Mr. Paulson, would you like to delete condition number eight? I would love to delete condition number eight and amend that to just seven conditions. Ms. Paulson has made a motion. Do I hear a second? Mr. Brewer is seconded. Is there any other discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you all very much. Next item of business. Mr. King. Yes, Madam Chair and Commission members, we do have one item of business that was moved over from your meeting last week, which is the presentation of the required annual report of the courthouse area design review board activity. It's a mandatory requirement of ordinance, and Mr. Van Pelt is here to, I think, fairly briefly give you the report. Thank you. Mr. Van Pelt. Yes, ma'am. Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Billy Van Pelt. I'm the Design Review Officer for the Courthouse Area Design Overlay Zone. As Mr. King said, this is part of our mandated update to the Planning Commission, and I'll do one next week to the council letting you know what we've been up to. And I'll be extremely brief. The ordinance was established in 2001, 90 parcels, 24 acres in the core of downtown. We meet quarterly or on an as-needed basis, and this is our schedule for next year. This is all on our website, by the way. This is the makeup of the board. It's a cross-section of the community. The representation on the board is dictated by the ordinance. These are the approvals so far in 2010 and the approvals to date. And I'm going to go through these projects quickly that have been approved by the board. West Main North Limestone North Lime again North Lime again These are before and afters of the Metropole This is one of the more significant befores Dudleys and I'm sure some of you have been there It's pretty amazing what they've done This is what's going to happen outside when they do the terrace behind on the roof of the building there that you see. These are the three buildings between the Rosebud and the Festival Market that have been redone one by one. And that's the building, the after shot of the slide that we saw at the very beginning of the presentation. Some site projects. A before and after on West Main recently completed. One that's under construction right now, Short Street. And one that most recently completed and opened on Short Street. This is directly across from the Metropole, Table 310, 310 Westward. These two items are also required by the ordinance. Goals and objectives in terms of what we're doing to change the board since your last report in 2009. I'm serving on the form-based zones and design guidelines task force. It's possible that our review process could change based on the outcome of the findings of that task force. Statement of financial records, the only revenue that we receive is for copies for open records requests. Questions? Wow, that was short. Are there questions? If not, thank you very much. You're welcome. Are there any other items to come before the Commission today? No other business, Madam Chair. Thank you. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? Meeting adjourned. I don't know where I'm going. No, no, no. Turn off your hands. How I feel is just wasted, wasted, wasted time. Tell why you punish me