# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - April 28, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 28, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1989 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1989?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-04-28 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 7,472 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 April 28, 2011, at 1:34 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 considered six agenda items, took eight votes, and heard three public comments during the session. The Commission approved four of the six items on the agenda. These included a zoning map amendment and development plan for Lexington Habitat for Humanity, Inc. related to the Arlington Weekly Payment Lot & Investment Company Addition; a zoning map amendment and Kirklevington North Zoning Development Plan for SRG Properties, Inc.; a Preliminary Development Plan for Kirklevington North; a Floodplain Setback Variance Request; and a Landscape Buffer Variance Request. One item—a zoning map amendment and request regarding Thunder Properties, LLC's Coons Property, Unit 11, Lot 2—was postponed. ## Attendance **Present:** Carla Blanton, Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Mike Owens, Derek Paulsen, Carolyn Richardson, Lynn Roche-Phillips, and Bill Wilson. **Absent:** Eunice Beatty, Patrick Brewer, and Ed Holmes. **Late:** Carla Blanton arrived after the meeting commenced. ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes** [timestamp: 0:25:29] The body unanimously approved minutes from the March 10 and March 24, 2011 meetings. Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Mike Cravens. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. **Postponement of MAR 2011-7: Thunder Properties, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment** [timestamp: 0:27:13] The body unanimously voted to postpone this zoning map amendment. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Derek Paulsen. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. **MAR 2011-8: Zoning Map Amendment, 221 Devonia Avenue** [timestamp: 0:37:23] The body unanimously approved a zoning map amendment from R-1C to R-1E for property at 221 Devonia Avenue. Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Lynn Roche-Phillips. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. Approval is conditional on Urban County Council rezoning the property R-1E, and requires acceptance by the Urban County Engineer of drainage, storm, and sanitary sewers; approval by the Urban County Traffic Engineer of street cross-sections and access; Building Inspection approval of landscaping; e911 staff approval of street addresses; Urban Forester approval of tree protection plan; and various plan modifications including denoting the 20-foot building line and tree information per Article 5-2(d)(8) of the Land Subdivision Regulations. **PLAN 2011-39P: Preliminary Subdivision Plan, Arlington Weekly Payment Lot & Investment Company Addition** [timestamp: 0:37:58] The body unanimously approved this preliminary subdivision plan. Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Lynn Roche-Phillips. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. Approval is conditional on Urban County Council rezoning the property R-1E and requires multiple departmental approvals and plan corrections. **MARV 2011-9: Zoning Map Amendment, 858 Malabu Drive** [timestamp: 1:13:39] The body unanimously approved a zoning map amendment from R-4 to P-1 for property at 858 Malabu Drive. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Derek Paulsen. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. Approval is conditional on Urban County Council rezoning and requires multiple departmental approvals and plan modifications. **Floodplain Setback Variance** [timestamp: 1:14:43] The body unanimously approved a variance from a 25-foot to 7-foot floodplain setback. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Derek Paulsen. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. Applicant must obtain a building permit and all applicable federal, state, and local approvals prior to construction. **Landscape Buffer Variance** [timestamp: 1:14:43] The body unanimously approved a variance from a 10-foot to 2-foot landscape buffer along the New Circle Road on-ramp. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Derek Paulsen. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. **ZDP 2011-30: Preliminary Development Plan, Kirklevington North** [timestamp: 1:15:14] The body unanimously approved this preliminary development plan. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Mike Owens. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. Approval is conditional on Urban County Council rezoning the property P-1 and requires multiple departmental approvals and plan modifications. ## Public Comment Three speakers provided public comment during the meeting. **Tony Barrett** [timestamp: 0:25:59] represented Thunder Properties, LLC and requested a one-month postponement of MAR 2011-7 to allow for additional preparation and review. **Myke Robbins** [timestamp: 0:36:15] represented Foster-Roland, Inc. and requested approval of the rezoning and subdivision plan for the Arlington Weekly Payment Lot. Robbins emphasized the need to build homes for families in need through Lexington Habitat for Humanity. **Rena Wiseman** [timestamp: 1:05:01] represented SRG Properties, Inc. and affirmed agreement with all conditions for the proposed project. Wiseman clarified that the property had previously been in foreclosure and had a history of disrepair, noting that residential redevelopment would be unlikely without the proposed rezoning and development. ## Contested Items **Residential vs. Commercial Use on Malabu Drive** A significant disagreement arose regarding a proposed rezoning of property on Malabu Drive from R-4 (residential) to P-1 (commercial) zoning. Commission members raised concerns about the implications of this rezoning, specifically questioning whether the change would result in the loss of 32 residential units. The core dispute centered on whether the property was appropriate for commercial use. The Comprehensive Plan recommended High Density Residential development for the site, creating tension between the petitioner's commercial proposal and the city's existing planning guidance. Commission members appeared skeptical of deviating from this recommendation. Staff members and the petitioner defending the rezoning emphasized the site's physical orientation and existing infrastructure as justification for the commercial use, arguing that these factors made the property suitable for P-1 zoning despite the Comprehensive Plan's residential designation. The item resulted in a split vote among commission members, indicating that commissioners were divided on whether to approve the rezoning request. This division reflected the fundamental disagreement about balancing the loss of potential residential units against the petitioner's arguments regarding site characteristics and infrastructure capacity. ## Thunder Properties, LLC: Zoning Map Amendment & Coons Property, Unit 11, Lot 2 [timestamp: 0:25:59] The Commission considered a zoning map amendment request for 4268 Saron Drive, which sought to rezone the property from P-1 to B-1 zoning classification. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended disapproval of the zoning map amendment. The analysis indicated that there was no demonstrated need for additional commercial use in the area. Staff also noted that the existing P-1 zoning served an important function as a buffer between retail and residential areas, and that changing this designation would compromise that protective role for the neighborhood. **Concerns Raised** The proposed amendment raised concerns about alignment with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. Staff and the Commission expressed concerns about the impact on neighborhood character and the loss of the transitional zoning that currently separates commercial and residential uses. **Outcome** The Commission postponed the zoning map amendment request rather than voting on the staff recommendation for disapproval. This postponement allowed for further consideration and potentially additional information to be gathered before a final decision is made. **Key Participant** Tony Barrett was identified as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. ## Lexington Habitat for Humanity, Inc.: Zoning Map Amendment & Arlington Weekly Payment Lot & Investment Company Addition [timestamp: 0:28:27] The Commission considered a zoning map amendment for 221 Devonia Avenue, proposed by Lexington Habitat for Humanity, Inc. The request sought to rezone the property from R-1C to R-1E to allow subdivision into two single-family lots. **Key Speakers and Presentation** Traci Wade, Tom Martin, and Myke Robbins participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Staff and Committee Findings** Staff and the Zoning Committee reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined it to be consistent with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan's Medium Density Residential recommendation. The Committee found that the R-1E zoning classification was more in line with the neighborhood character, particularly regarding lot size and frontage requirements. **Outcome** The Commission approved the rezoning request, allowing the property to be subdivided into two single-family lots under the R-1E zoning classification. ## SRG Properties, Inc.: Zoning Map Amendment & Kirklevington North Zoning Development Plan The Commission considered a zoning map amendment for SRG Properties, Inc. regarding 858 Malabu Drive. The proposal involved rezoning the property from R-4 (Residential) to P-1 (Parking) zoning classification. **Key Speakers and Presentation** Traci Wade, Tom Martin, Jimmy Emmons, and Rena Wiseman participated in the discussion of this agenda item, which occurred approximately 39 minutes into the meeting [timestamp: 0:39:20]. **Rationale for Rezoning** Staff analysis supported the rezoning to P-1 zoning based on several factors: - The site's physical orientation toward commercial uses - An existing parking lot that separates the property from residential areas - The need for a "step-down" in land use intensity between different zoning areas **Plan Consistency** Staff noted that while the Comprehensive Plan recommended High Density Residential zoning for the site, the P-1 classification was determined to be more appropriate given the property's actual characteristics and its relationship to surrounding land uses. **Outcome** The Commission approved the rezoning from R-4 to P-1 for 858 Malabu Drive. ## Kirklevington North: Preliminary Development Plan **Identifier:** ZDP 2011-30 The Commission approved the preliminary development plan for Kirklevington North [timestamp: 0:53:08]. **Project Overview** The plan includes an 18,000 square foot office building with subterranean parking and a 77-space parking lot. **Key Speakers** Tom Martin and Jimmy Emmons presented and discussed the project with the Commission. **Conditions of Approval** The Commission approved the preliminary development plan subject to the following conditions: * Floodplain resolution * Sewer line resolution * Tree protection measures * Geotechnical review **Outcome** The preliminary development plan was approved. ## Floodplain Setback Variance Request [timestamp: 00:58:43] The Commission considered a request for a variance to reduce the required floodplain setback from 25 feet to 7 feet. Jimmy Emmons presented the variance request to the Commission. The variance was supported by both staff and the Landscape Review Committee. The approval was based on specific mitigating factors related to the proposed construction: * The building would be constructed on piers * The site's topographic elevation provided justification for the reduced setback requirement The Commission approved the variance request, allowing the setback requirement to be reduced from the standard 25 feet to 7 feet. ## Landscape Buffer Variance Request The Commission considered a request for a landscape buffer variance during this meeting. [timestamp: 00:58:43] **Presentation and Recommendation** Jimmy Emmons presented the variance request, which sought to reduce the required landscape buffer from 10 feet to 2 feet along the New Circle Road on-ramp. The Landscape Review Committee and staff recommended approval of the request. **Basis for Approval** The Commission approved the variance, citing two primary mitigating factors: - The site's significant elevation difference - Existing vegetation on the property **Outcome** The variance request was approved. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of minutes from March 10 and March 24, 2011 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of MAR 2011-7: Thunder Properties, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment - **MAR 2011-8** — passed (8-0): Zoning map amendment from R-1C to R-1E for property at 221 Devonia Avenue - **PLAN 2011-39P** — passed (8-0): Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Arlington Weekly Payment Lot & Investment Company Addition - **MARV 2011-9** — passed (8-0): Zoning map amendment from R-4 to P-1 for property at 858 Malabu Drive - **Floodplain Setback Variance** — passed (8-0): Variance from 25-foot to 7-foot floodplain setback - **Landscape Buffer Variance** — passed (8-0): Variance from 10-foot to 2-foot landscape buffer along New Circle Road on-ramp - **ZDP 2011-30** — passed (8-0): Preliminary Development Plan for Kirklevington North --- ## Full transcript Happy Battle Noise! It's your one-way ticket to midnight Call it heavy metal High and high, feel it just right Call it heavy metal Desperation on a red lane Call it heavy metal I feel it just like Heavy metal noise Heavy metal noise Heavy metal noise Heavy metal noise Heavy metal Hey girls, gather round Listen to what I'm putting down Hey baby, I'm your handyman I'm not the kind to use a pencil or rule I'm handy with love and I'm no fool I've fixed broken hearts, I know, but I truly can't Your broken heart should be repaired Then I am the man to see I whisper sweet things, you tell all your friends They'll come running to me Here is the main thing that I want to say I'm busy 24 hours a day I dig some broken bones, I know But I truly can Come on, come on, come on, come on, come on Yeah, yeah, yeah Come on, come on, come on, come on Oh, now they'll come running to me Here's the main thing I want to say I'm busy 24 hours a day I've fixed broken hearts, baby I'm your handyman Karma, karma, karma, karma, karma Yeah, yeah, yeah Come, come, come, come, come, come, come Yeah, yeah, yeah That's me I'm your handyman Yeah, yeah, yeah That's me I'm your hand in hand Yeah, yeah, yeah Why, lady, why Can I leave you alone I try, lady, try But the feeling's too strong You stay on my mind Feel just like a fool Why, lady, why Can I get over you Why lady why It was easy before I try lady try But it ain't easy no more To be on my way Would be the best thing to do While anyone Can I get over you Why, lady, why can't I leave you alone? I try, lady, try But the feeling's too strong To be on my way Would be the best thing to do Why, lady, why Can I get over you? I'm not alone I don't have plans and schemes And I don't have hopes and dreams I don't want to have anything Since I don't have you I don't have fond desires And I don't have happy hours I don't have anything Since I don't have you I don't have happiness And I guess I never will ever again When you walked out on me In walk of misery And he's been here since then I don't have much to share And I don't have one to care I don't have anything Since I don't have you You, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you The End They have a feel, nothing to reveal Nothing but a way In the jealous case people play All it's up to you Better work hard If we refuse you In our defense The sky is a way to run your self The ground is a threat That way it doesn't feel like it will be me Doesn't matter when you play You're the delicate people play All it's up to you Ain't no more to understand Doesn't matter anyway All it's up to you I don't care to do it. I smile, baby, darling. Don't you cry. I'm crying. I'm crying. Can you hear me? I'm crying. I'm standing by it's real That's a good one Can you see that I'm To rise to the ground They have to feel Nothing to do Doesn't matter what you say In the jealous case Be afraid All that's not seen They don't mind To what they say Doesn't matter anyway All that I feel All that I feel All that I feel Well You know you make me wanna Kick my heels up and down Throw my hands up and down Throw my head back and down Come on now Don't forget to say you will Don't forget to say Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah Say you will Say it right now, baby Say you will Come on, come on Say you will Say it right now Yeah, yeah, yeah Come on now, say that you love me, say that you need me, say that you want me, say you wanna please me, say come on now, say come on now, say come on now, say I still remember when you used to be. Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Call the meeting to order, please. First item of business is the approval of the minutes of the March 10th and March 24th meeting. Are there any additions or deletions from those minutes? If not, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of minutes as written, dated March 10, 2011, and March 24, 2011. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Motion carries. Thank you. Are there any postponements or withdrawals at this time? Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Tony Barrett. And regarding on your first page, Thunder Properties, LLC, MAR 2011-7, as far as a one-month postponement. Thank you. And the date for that, Mr. Salley? Madam Chair, your next meeting for zoning items is May 26th, four weeks from today. Is there anyone in the audience that objects to this postponement? If not, is there anyone on the commission that objects? If not, I'll entertain a motion to postpone until May 24th. Second. 26th. Sorry. Madam Chairman, I move postponement of MAR 2011-7 to May 26th. Is there a second? Second. Motion is made by Mr. Craven, second by Mr. Paulson. Please vote electronically when it comes up. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Are there other postponements or withdrawals? If not, then we will move forward to our first zoning item, which will start at the end of page two. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Our first item on the agenda today to be heard is MAR 2011-8. This is a request by Lexington Habitat for Humanity Incorporated. And as you mentioned, it starts at the bottom of page 2, and the report can also be found in your notebooks behind tab 2. The request is to rezone property at 221 Devonia Avenue. And this current zoning of the subject property is R1C, and the applicant is requesting an R1E zone. Devonia Avenue is a two-block roadway, local roadway that connects between North Limestone and Bryan Avenue on the inside of New Circle Road. So really north, well, east of downtown Lexington. And as you would notice by our color up, the R1C zoning does surround the subject property completely and continues out to the properties that border New Circle and down towards the intersection of North Lyme and Bryan Avenue. The subject property is 14,000 square feet, 14,400 square feet, and it is much larger than the rest of the properties in this area. In fact, it is the largest lot on the block. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into two lots to build two single family residential homes. The principal difference between our R1E and our R1C zones is not use but lot size, yard requirements, and frontage. And the comprehensive plan for this location does recommend medium density residential. Barb, can you switch to the photo? Thank you. Our comprehensive plan does show medium density for this location and other uses in the area along Bryan Avenue there. The PR is Castlewood Park. Medium density residential is a range between 5 and 10 dwelling units per acre. The subject property, if it did have two dwelling units located there, would fall within that range at 6.01 dwelling units per acre. So the applicant's request is considered to be in agreement with our comprehensive plan. The existing zoning with the R1C zoning and one structure, or what was one structure on this lot, was not in agreement with the comprehensive plan at three dwelling units per net acre. But more importantly, the staff did consider what the existing neighborhood's development pattern was and whether the R1E single-family residential zone was appropriate at this location. In reviewing the properties on this block, I mentioned before the subject property is the largest, and in being split, it would actually become more similar to the rest of the properties in the area. In addition, the frontage is close to or is 100 feet, and again, splitting it into two lots would make it consistent with the rest of the block, which has about an average of 50 feet of frontage per lot. And setbacks was also a concern. the setbacks for Devonia Avenue currently average 12 feet, and the proposed zoning generally requires a 20-foot setback, or you can average existing buildings on each side. So in looking at the character of the neighborhood, the staff felt that the R1C zoning was actually out of character for this particular area, Again, the R1E zone allows for development that is more in character or redevelopment that's more in character with the existing neighborhood. For those reasons, the staff is recommending approval of the zone change. And basically because it's in agreement with the comprehensive plan and allows for consistency in the character of the development of this neighborhood. Happy to answer any questions at this time. Any commission members have questions? Ms. Phillips? Is it the only property on the block because of its lot size that carries that zoning designation? Actually, no. The whole neighborhood carries the zoning designation, but it's probably one of what is the only lot on the block that would be able to be subdivided. So if we approve this rezoning, will it be the only lot that is in the new zoning classification and it will be in an island of – It will, but in the staff's mind, they're both R1 zone, single-family use. The principal difference was the lot size. Okay, thank you. Are there additional questions from the Commission? Not. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Mark. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, The preliminary subdivision plan that is associated with your zone change today is on page 3. It is item B. It is the Arlington Weekly Payment Lot and Investment Company plan. You have a handout before you at your seats with revised conditions. As Ms. Wade explained, this is a lot that is situated on Devonia Avenue. They are proposing to subdivide it in the middle, creating two R1E lots, 50 feet of frontage on each lot, and each one exceeds 7,200 square feet. The maximum square footage in an R1E is 7,500. So these are about as big as R1E lots can get. The plan was reviewed and recommended for approval by staff and by your subdivision committee. As you can see from your handout, staff did meet with the applicant. They addressed all the cleanup conditions that were present on the plan. What remains now are your standard sign-off conditions and then one correction, and that is they need to correct a reference to Article 15, which governs the building line. In this particular situation, because it's an infill and redevelopment property, they're allowed to average the building line so that it is more consistent with the existing setbacks along the street. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Are there commission questions? Ms. Copeland? So what is the building line going to turn out to be? What's the setback? It will be averaged based on the adjoining properties. Those properties varied by 15 or 16 feet. One was about 18 feet, so they're allowed to vary it to match those lines. The previous home on this lot actually sat back over 24 feet. So we're going to put the new building really close to the street rather than a third of the way back. I mean. They can choose a more restrictive one if they wish, but they're allowed to average it under Article 15, which would allow it to more closely match the existing. So the building could sit farther back on the lot. It could. Yes, ma'am. They are allowed to do that. Are there other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Petitioner? Well, I find it very difficult to add to those fine presentations. I am just ready to ask for a motion for approval, and I'll get back to the office and get these sign-offs and we'll get these buildings built and get two families that need some houses in these houses that the Habitat wants to put out there. Are there questions of the petitioner? Thank you very much. Close the hearing then and we will, Chair will, if we'll entertain either motion or further discussion by the commission members. Mr. Owens. Yes, Madam Chair, if there's no questions, I'll be ready for a motion. Yes, sir. I'll move for approval of MAR 2011-8, Lexington Habitat for Humanity Incorporated, as staff recommended with the 6? Well, that's the VP, isn't it? Yeah. I'm sorry. For the reasons staff recommended as one and two. Is there a second? Second. Motion's been made by Mr. Owens, seconded by Ms. Phillips. All in favor, please vote electronically, either a high or nigh. Motion carries. All right. Mr. Owens. Yes, ma'am. I'll also move for approval of Plan 2011-39P, Arlington Weekly Payment Lot and Investment Company, with the revised staff recommendations noting the seven requirements. Motion by Mr. Owens. Is there a second? Second by Ms. Phillips. All in favor, please vote electronically. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you all very much. Staff will have an opportunity to set up for the next one. Thank you. MS. Good afternoon, Chair, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. Our next item is MARV 2011-9. This is a request by SRG Properties Incorporated, and it can be found on page 3 of your agenda and behind tab 3 in your notebook. The petitioner has requested a high-density apartment, I'm sorry, a change from a high-density apartment zone to a professional office P1 zone for a property, a portion of property at 858 Malibu Drive. The subject property does have frontage on Malibu Drive, but it is really just their access point. Most of their frontage is on Tates Creek Road and New Circle Road, really New Circle Road's ramp. This subject property does sit quite a bit above the ramp access in Tates Creek, and so it's not something that most people even notice that there was an apartment building or townhouse structures up on this property until about 2004 through 2007 they had been demolished. Within the vicinity, we have the Lansdowne shops to the north along Tates Creek Road and a gas station and Arby's restaurant. To the immediate north is a professional office building that does have access from Malibu and is oriented sort of towards Tates Creek and Malibu intersection. Also to the northwest would be townhouse development along Overbrook Fountain and more apartment buildings that have their rear frontage along New Circle but have access to Malibu. And then as you get further to the west, the Kirk-Levington and Lansdowne areas. Also in terms of apartment buildings and townhouses, Merrick Place across Tates Creek Road. The applicant is requesting the rezoning in order to utilize what is now a vacant half of this tract for professional office building. I'm going to show a few photographs for us. And that's just the zoning color up. Oops. This is an aerial photograph of the property proposed for rezoning, and there are still four buildings constructed on the subject property that would remain. They're condominiums, so they've been sold or rented for residential use. There's also a parking lot that remains on the property or paved area, but you can see that the residential structures that were there in the past have been removed. There are significant, in terms of trees, there are trees along the creek bed and then along New Circle Road's ramp there. This photograph was taken looking towards Tate's Creek Road from the parking lot. And there are a few trees this side of their silt fence that's there. And I think those were at one time screening trees for the apartments that were there. This is, again, from the parking lot looking towards New Circle Road with existing vegetation. This photograph is looking towards the existing P1 use in the area that has access to Malibu. Also in the photo, you can see the driveway that goes up to the west there towards Malibu, and it gives you a little bit of a sense of the topography of the site and how it does drop off towards Tate's Creek Road. Looking back towards, again, Malibu and the P1 office building that's adjacent, this office building that is built is a two-story building with parking underneath, So it appears to be a three-story, but the first level that you see there is actually just underground parking, and you access the building from into the first floor. And the subject property, they're proposing a building that functions very similar to that with underground parking or subterrain parking and then three stories above. This is a photograph looking back towards the residential condominium area, and there was a fire at some point for the units that sat here. So this is the view currently towards that. I just would anticipate that might change somewhat. And then a photograph from this was taken near the gas station on Malibu looking towards the intersection of Malibu Drive and Tates Creek Road. And this is where the creek goes underneath that bridge there and continues to the south along the subject property's frontage. This photograph was taken across Tates Creek Road from the Merrick Place apartments, and you can see the roof lines and the cell tower for the adjacent P1 structure, as well as the roof lines of the residential behind. So there would be, between those, a new structure. And then a photo showing, this is really the Tates Creek off-ramp from New Circle, with the vegetation that's currently there, you really cannot see the subject property very well. It's well buffered. That gray line that kind of cuts through there, I believe, is the existing parking lot. Something that the staff considered in looking, well, I should say, with the comprehensive plan recommendation for this property is high-density residential, and that is in keeping with the use that had been there for a number of years but has now been demolished. The high-density residential land use is generally defined as the 10 to 25 dwelling units per net acre. While the P1 zone that is requested does allow residential use, the applicant is not proposing any for this site. So the staff could not conclude that the P1 would be in agreement with the comprehensive plan in any way. Thus, we reviewed the appropriateness of the existing zoning and the proposed zoning for this location. There are a few physical issues that remain on the property that the staff considered. First, the parking lot and the fact that the parking lot is towards the west side of the property, which makes the developable area of this lot really the area that is closer to Tates Creek Road, that area that now has been vacated from the residential buildings. And that developable area, the way it's situated, is really closer and more oriented to the P1 use that's in that vicinity rather than the residential that continues up Malibu's Hill. Something else that the staff considered was the slope of the property down towards Tates Creek Road as a limiting factor in redevelopment. And one of the other things was where the land use divide is between residential and commercial office in this area. And the photograph I'm showing right now shows a red dashed line that is representative of where that break is between residential and commercial. And I included basically everything to the west is more residential in nature. And then this was the red is representative of the current business use and zoning. And really the proposal at the bottom of the screen here is more in line with the business uses and zoning in the area. So it will keep that same, I guess, depth of use from Tates Creek Road as what's already in existence along this corridor. And the last thing that the staff really considered is that the professional service land use and professional office zoning would create, at this location, a step down from the residential uses and higher density residential zoning to Tates Creek Road. And the staff came to the conclusion that the request is more appropriate, the P1 zoning is more appropriate at this location than the existing R4 zoning. And there were four reasons listed in our staff report, generally that dealt with where the developable area of the lot was, the physical conditions of the lot, what we just discussed about that kind of boundary line between commercial and residential uses in the area, and then also that this property can be a step down between the residential and the commercial corridor of Tates Creek Road there. The proposal, as always, our recommendation is subject to the development plan being approved and certified within two weeks. The staff, since this application was filed, the staff has received a request for two variances to the property as well, and Mr. Emmons will address those, but they deal with a setback from the floodplain and a landscape buffer. I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time. Are there questions from commission members? Ms. Wade? Thank you. I'm sorry, Ms. Owens. I'm sorry. Thank you. Tracy, did I hear you're talking about residential, you know, the residential property next to it. Is that on the property or adjoining the property? It is. It's all one lot currently. Okay. I mean, the boundary of the lot is the development plan shown here, but then it continues and stops here with the R4 and comes back. How many units are there? There are four buildings. I believe each building has four units. Does that seem about right, Rena? Maybe eight. Okay. 20 to 30 units. So in essence, we're asking to split zone a lot here? I believe that the lot would be subdivided. Okay. Because it would be two different owners, yeah. Okay. Just a couple more things real quick. You had mentioned a fire. You mentioned the apartments being demolished. Any connection? I think, yes, the fire caused, obviously, the buildings to be uninhabitable, and there was demolition because of that for at least one of the buildings. The other buildings, I believe, were demolished because of neglect and not being inhabited. Do you have any idea how many units was demolished as far as not far? I believe it was 32. 32. 32 units? Okay. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Are there other questions? Ms. Phillips? Ms. Phillips? So is 32 the maximum density that would be allowed under the current zoning for residential? Ms. I'd have to see. Well, there's, I don't know if it's the highest density allowed by the zoning. I could figure out if it was in agreement with the comp plan as it is. Is that your thing? Well, I'm just trying to get a sense as to how many housing units we would be losing by rezoning this property to a P1 classification. I recognize that residential would be allowed on the second floor, but there were 32 units that are housing that could potentially have served as housing units, and I just wondered what the maximum could be if we were to not rezone this. I would say that 32 was probably close to the maximum. There may have been the possibility of having a few more considering there was a pool, there was a swimming pool on this property that could have been developed with residential instead. But to be honest, I don't think the staff has done that analysis. Are there additional questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan that is associated with this some changes on page 4, item C, ZDP 2011-30, Kirk Levington North. As you can see from the rendering of the plan, here is Malibu Drive with the access that you saw in the picture in Ms. Wade's presentation coming into the property. Here we have the ramp for New Circle Road, and out here is Tate's Creek. They are proposing to construct an 18,000 square foot structure here with associated parking and an access aisle around the building. You can see as well that they are proposing parking underneath the building, which is illustrated by this elevation. There are 77 spaces required. They are proposing 77 spaces. Here is the heavily wooded and bushy area along the creek, which is located here. Here is your regulatory floodplain as it currently exists. This is the 25-foot setback highlighted here in orange that you can see there is some encroachment into that, and that is one of the reasons that you are going to be hearing a variance request today that Mr. Emmons will present to you. There is a wall that is being proposed to be constructed through here along these limits. As Ms. Wade explained, it is a very steep slope site. This plan was reviewed and recommended for approval. We handed out some revised conditions to you. We have standard sign-off conditions on this plan. including the urban county engineer traffic, building inspection, urban forester, and staff did follow up with the urban forester to discuss the trees on the site. He stated, he could not be here today, but he stated that his concern is for the riparian habitat. He wants to be sure that those trees in that area along the creek are protected. At the time of your final development plan, a tree protection area will be established. The Department of Environmental Quality's approval of environmentally sensitive areas, once again I'll state as you have heard, it is a steep slope site, so it was identified with the submission, so it is environmentally sensitive under our regulations. They have denoted the 25-foot floodplain setback. There is a sanitary sewer line on this property. Condition number 8 states that that needs to be resolved. The issue on the sewer line is right here. It's existing. It's an eight-inch line. They may have to move it. And, again, it depends on the complete nature of redeveloping this site and dealing with that grade and how they want to build it and how they can get the circulation in. If it's not deep enough because of the wall and this work, they're going to have to move it. If it is deep enough and it can stay where it is, they'll have to establish an easement. For whatever reason, nobody knows why, the easement's over here, but it was built here. quite some time ago. That does happen. Again, that will be resolved when they ultimately construct this site. We had another condition on the variance. You can see, again, Mr. Emmons is going to present that report to you, so that condition is no longer applicable. What will be applicable is whether or not you approve the variance request. and then there was a condition and it is the the steps that are located here these steps are massive and quite large they were formed and poured at the same time this retaining wall and i believe you saw that in the picture with this housing site being much higher they are intending at this time to retain this obviously when the final development plan comes in if some conditions have changed Due to further investigation on the site, they may have to address them. At a minimum, they will have to add a railing and that sort of thing to be sure that they are safe and for people to use. This leads up to the old swimming pool area that Tracy mentioned to you. Again, that can be resolved at the final development plan stage. Also at that time, because of the environmentally sensitive nature of this site, there will be a geotechnical report required. That geotechnical report will evaluate all the geological conditions that affect this site. It will take into effect the steep slope. It will take into effect any possible fill, proximity to the floodplain, as well as there are faults in this area. They will have to review that, all those circumstances in the geotech report. In addition to that geotech report, at the time of the building permit, they are required to submit seismic data to building inspection as well. That data is then evaluated and applied to the structure as necessary according to the building code. And with that, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Mr. Emmons, of course, is ready to present the variance report to you. Are there questions for Mr. Martin? Not. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There were two variances that have both been mentioned, the landscape buffer area variance. The specifics of this would be actually only along the property, along the on-ramp for New Circle Road. There's a 10-foot landscape buffer area that would be required whenever it's next to an arterial road. This property, as you know, is bounded by two arterial roads. The other buffers are within the riparian zone area, which is going to the tree protection areas that we expect would more than meet our landscaping requirements in the ordinance. They have requested from a 10-foot to a 2-foot reduction along the on-ramp for New Circle Road. In our review of this, there is a major topographic difference between the subject property and the on-ramp. This property is generally 15 to 25 feet higher than the on-ramp as you're coming along through here. That is definitely a mitigating circumstance for this. There is also plenty of existing vegetation, which you can see in the aerial view that we have And in the pictures that Tracy has already shown you, we have Tates Creek Road, the New Circle on-ramp, the subject property that you're looking at with the parking lot. And you can see there is dense vegetation there, including trees and bush honeysuckle, I believe. You can see this white wall here, that's the limestone cut for the property as you're coming up the New Circle Road, indicating the height difference for the subject property. The Landscape Review Committee did meet or was scheduled to meet on April 19th. They did not have a quorum, but the members that was there did not have a problem with this and recommended approval, as does the staff for the landscaping variants. As far as the floodplain setback variance, the first thing that should be realized with the subject property, they are proposing to build a building on piers, taking advantage of that steep slope of the property, so that this portion of the property would be on the ground and the back portion of the building would be on piers, and they would have parking underneath the office building, much like the office building next door. This is an important fact when looking at the floodplain setback. It's important to note this building is not in the floodplain. It's proposed to be seven feet away from the floodplain. Our ordinance would require a 25-foot horizontal step back from this. However, this being a commercial building and being built on piers as it is, this building could actually, by both the federal requirements and our local requirements, if they ask for a special permit use, this type of a commercial building on piers could actually be requested in the floodplain. So knowing that, the staff felt that the seven-foot variance from the floodplain setback is an appropriate variance. You can see on the building, we've highlighted just those portions of the building that are requested for the variance from the 25 feet to the 7 feet. If we could zoom in to especially this corner where the – there we go. they are proposing a retaining wall that would go around the subject property in order to stabilize it as they do all of the work for building and grading the parking lots in the building this is the back portion of the building that would be built on the piers with the parking underneath at its closest point it would be seven feet away from the regulatory floodplain and you can see the area highlighted in yellow is where the 25-foot line would be. They are proposing, once they've done this and they have submitted to FEMA a conditional letter of map revision, they are proposing that there be a modified floodplain for the subject property. They will have to, in order to do that, they would have to get approval from FEMA. They would have to get approval through a special permit use locally in order to do that. But from what they've submitted, everything seems to be in order. And if it were granted at the time of they would have to do all of this prior to a final development plan being certified, at the time it were granted, the building would actually be 26 feet away from the post-development floodplain that's proposed, which would actually negate the need for a floodplain variance today. As it is today, we are working off of the regulatory floodplain as it's shown. The staff is recommending approval of this variance based off of the building construction of the building on piers. Our reasons for recommending approval are listed in your staff report behind tab three on the cream-colored sheet. The recommendation for approval is made subject to several conditions which are fairly typical, but I would like to point out to you on number four, we said prior to any construction, the applicant should obtain a building permit, and we've tacked on and all applicable federal, state, and local approvals associated with the identified floodplain. We are recommending approval of both variances. If you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to try and answer them. Thank you. Are there questions? Mr. Owens. Thank you. Jimmy, I think you answered it a moment ago. Believe me, I'm not looking for more work. Floodplain is a floodplain committee since this building is not in the floodplain. We're just talking about a setback. It doesn't have to go to the floodplain committee. No, this would not have to go under. It's one of the things that would be allowed under Article 19. Okay. Thank you. Are there additional questions? Not. Thank you very much. Thank you. Petitioner. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Rena Wiseman for SRG Properties. We're in agreement with all the conditions referenced, the zone change, the variances, and the development plan. And I did want to address a couple of the questions that you asked just to clarify. This property will have to be subdivided. This property was in foreclosure. There's a thick record of code violations where these apartment buildings sat in disrepair for many years, going back as far as 2004, where they were demolished and the last ones were vacant for a long time. And ultimately, the owner defaulted, the bank foreclosed on it, and it was put up for sale by the master commissioner. And the bidder was the bank. So I think that's important to keep in mind that a residential developer, nobody came along to buy it, but the bank bought it. Our client owns the office building adjacent to it and has a contract to purchase just this part from the bank that's about 1.3 net acres. The balance that we were referring to here, those are condominiums. That is not being purchased by the bank, so there will have to be a plat. The site of that building, we aren't acquiring that building. we have to deal with those steps because they are part of that retaining wall. So we'll have to address those when we get to the final development plan. So while I appreciate your point about losing residential units, I don't think that it's likely, given the background of this property and the location. I think Tracy's made a pretty good discussion of why residential isn't appropriate, and it certainly, based on its track record, hasn't worked on this property. With that, we are in agreement with all the conditions. If there's other questions, Matt Carter is also here, who's the engineer, and he can answer them. And if there's anything else we need to respond to, we'll be here. Thank you. Request your approval. Are there questions from committee? Commission members? Yes. Ms. Coupland? Yes, I would like for somebody, either the engineer or Mr. Redman, to speak about the fault zone that's in that area, just because I think the public might be interested. My name is Jim Redman. I used to be the environmental planner in planning for about 34 years. And under the last administration, I got moved to the Department of Environmental Quality and the Division of Environmental Policy. I still do the planning for planning when it comes to environmental issues. There is a fault zone in the area. If you know where Waffle House is on Tates Creek Road and all that, there's a fairly major West Segment fault zone that is just to the west of Tates Creek, and it comes up the road and it actually swings right in the intersection here of New Circle Road and Tates Creek Road. So the property is close to it, but it's not exactly on it, but it is very close to it. And in the environmental routing form, this tells us potential problems, and I have checked off the over 15% slope. And when they do a 15% slope, they have to have geotech engineering, and we review that. And then whatever the recommendations are for their geotechnical engineer, we will have the building built according to those specifications. The fault is not an active fault. It's a historic fault. It's there millions of years. It hasn't moved. We have the Kentucky River Fault underneath the I-75 bridge, and this is a spinoff from that Kentucky River Fault. But it hasn't moved. We have no rumblings. The one problem you do have in it potentially is sinkholes, but no sinkholes are in this property here. But down in the Tates Creek Library, that was built close to a sinkhole, and that can provide problems because of water flow. So in this instance, because we have steep slope and we have slope going down to the stream, we'd want to make sure that the building has positive foundation drainage so we don't have anything that gets wet. But all in all, it should be okay. It should not be a problem. But again, we will have a geotech engineer go in there and take a look at it. Then we will review the report and go from there. Any other questions? Are there additional questions from Commission members? Not as there isn't anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this? Anyone? So I will close the hearing and open the discussion. For the Commission, I will entertain a motion. We will need to take the zoning first, then the variances, then the development plan. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess for Tracy as much as anything, Tracy, with this, I guess I'm looking for a little clarification as far as appropriateness. no longer appropriate or less appropriate, more appropriate, whatever, since there was residential there. It appears to me that residential could go back there, but you're saying that the P1 zoning would be more appropriate at this time? Yes. Do you have any idea, or maybe Ms. Wiseman could say, when the other professional office building was built in correlation to everything else? I think it's the early 70s. The plat I have is 1971. So this goes back 40 years. And the residential units that was on the property was before that? No, I think they came after that. After that? Okay. All right. Like I said, just trying to clarify some of this. The residential zoning was there in 66, 67. The P1 came in 68. So it came after and then developed first. Sorry, thank you. Yes, the P1 developed before those residential units filled in closer to this area. Okay, thank you. Are there other questions? Ms. Phillips? Do you want to go? My question was, aside from the P1 zoning adjacent, immediately adjacent to this property, is there any other P1 zoning along inside of New Circle Road, along Tates Creek Road? Just that Dove Run, that's on the opposite side. On Dove Run, there is. And then there's a small tract actually to the back of the Lansdowne Club, which is now called something else. Signature Club. Thank you, Signature Club, and the back of the Lansdowne Shops. There's a small P1 area there. There's P1 to the north of, and I don't know if that's the Mayfield. No, it's not the Mayfield. It's a bank to the north of the Mayfield. Central Bank. What about the other side? South of New Circle. Yeah, I don't see anything until here, which is further south than Reading Road off Walden. Okay, thank you. Mr. Gravens. Are you ready for a motion, Madam Chairman? Yes, sir. Okay. I want to move approval of MARV 2011-9 SRG properties for the findings as per staff. Is there a second? Second. Motion has been made by Mr. Craven, seconded by Mr. Paulson. Is there any other discussion? Not. Please vote electronically. Motion carries. I'd also like to move the development plan, ZDP 2011-30, the revised staff recommendation. It's like nine items. You want to do the variances first, please? I'm sorry. I can. I didn't want to, but I can. The variances, I don't have a copy of the variances here, but the two variances, the floodplain setback and the landscape buffer variance. I move approval. Is there a second? Second. Motions made by Mr. Cravens and seconded by Mr. Paulson. Any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. For the record, that does include the reasons. Reasons, yes. I thought I heard that. Motion carries. And now the development plan. ZDP 2011-30, Kirk-Levington North, revised staff recommendation of nine items. Move approval. Those that have been changed, there are now eight. Eight. Oh, there are nine. I'm sorry. I can't count today. Is there a second? Second. Motion is made by Mr. Craven, seconded by Mr. Carlson. Any further discussion? Not? Please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. Next item is our zoning text amendment request. And we do have to be out of this room by 3 o'clock. So I think we probably, staff think we have time to do one part of it Before we move? Madam Chair, we would, but it would depend on how much discussion the commission, some sense of the commission in terms of these text amendments. You know, we did talk about them in work session at committee. If the commission senses that there will be some extended discussion about it, it may be more prudent to go ahead and vacate this room now and start fresh down the street. We will be moving our meeting to the seventh floor. of the Phoenix building. So is it the pleasure of the commission that we recess to move the meeting? Then we shall do that. Commission is in recess. We will resume on the seventh floor of the Phoenix building. Thank you. Bye.