The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. The End Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. First order of business is approval of the minutes of the May 12, 2011 and May 26, 2011 meetings. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? Hearing none. Do you have? No. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to approve of those minutes. Madam Chairman, move approval of the minutes from May 12th and May 26th. I have a motion by Mr. Cravens. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Owens. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Minutes are approved. Next item on our agenda is postponement. Are there any postponements or withdrawals today? okay seeing seeing none we'll move along to the development plans first one is DP 2011-40 the guest property unit one located at 480 Charlesburg Road staffel Okay. Mr. Martin. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, the first item on your agenda is DP 2011-44, Guest Property Unit 1. This is a final development plan. Guest Unit 1 is located here in this area of the guest development. You have Hayes Boulevard running here. Here's I-75, Hayes Boulevard, running in this direction to Richmond Road here. You most recently reviewed Guest 8, which was located in this area of the property, as well as a zone change and a development plan for Dennis Anderson right here off of Childsburg Road are the most recent developments you have reviewed. Again, Jacobson Park is in this location. Here's Childsburg Road. Makes its hard 90-degree turn in this area. And again, this area of Unit 1 is located. The plan itself is an area of just over 21 acres. They are proposing 100 townhouse units. These units are in three layouts, A, B, and C. They each have a minimum size specified of 1,300 square feet. The primary difference is unit A is a two-car garage unit, B is a one-unit garage, and the Cs have no garage. The parking required is 150. They are providing a combination again of garage spaces and surface parking. You can see the surface parking in the plan in these areas for a total of 209 parking spaces. The development is served by an access here. And again, you can see it loops through. They have the townhouse units in various locations and groups throughout the development. The access point is directly aligned across from Marcus Trail, which is a developed street in this area, Unit 4 and Unit 12 of the guest's property. The site has some constraints that we've tried to highlight for you. Here's the FEMA floodplain in this location. This is the 200-foot setback, and this is a requirement from Charlesburg Road. This is a requirement of the expansion area master plan, and again, we highlighted that for you. You can see how it restricts the property. In addition, we've highlighted two significant easements for you. This is a 50-foot high-pressure gas line easement that goes through the property. This is a Kentucky American water easement, again, that cuts diagonally through the property. This has forced them to cluster in this area. However, as important as these restrictions are, this is also a special design area. And as you may recall, the special design area has an open space requirement of 60%. And this plan does slightly exceed that. That number would be 12.8. They are providing actually 13.7 acres of open space on this property. The plan was reviewed and initially recommended for postponement. We met with the applicant and resolved many of the conditions. And what you see before you is a handout, again, with those revisions. when they revised the plan they addressed many of our concerns and conditions on the plan some were very typical as you can see correction of notes, deletion of notes the floodplain information needed to be clarified which they have done building envelopes there was one missing they are proposing envelopes around these townhouses that allow a slight adjustment in the layout of the townhouses In addition to that, we had concern about the pedestrian access in the area. They have added an internal sidewalk system that runs basically along the interior of the access that they've provided. There are also sidewalk connections out to Hayes Boulevard and the sidewalks on Hayes Boulevard. In conjunction and in conformance with the overall plan and the Greenway plan as well, they're proposing some pedestrian connection, trail connections, which will take them to the greenway system and the trail system that is planned for this area. The old driveway to the old house, there was an old house in this area, this driveway will become part of that pedestrian system as well. It will be blocked off in some manner to restrict any kind of vehicular access. There is no vehicular access allowed to Childsburg Road. The conditions that remain on your plan involve our standard sign-offs with many of our departments, urban forester, environmental quality, the bike pad planner, division of fire and solid waste, and of course traffic engineering, urban county engineer, and building inspection. We have also, of course, have a condition that they must – pardon me, provided that the Planning Commission makes a finding of compliance with the AMP and I'm going to present that report to you shortly. In addition, we're having them revise the plan title to remove the preliminary subdivision plan aspect of this and exactions to the approval of the Division of Planning. Those are somewhat related and they're also related to the reason you see an awful lot of conditions that have been removed from this plan. In the expansion area, they are required, a developer is to file a preliminary development plan and a final development plan. Should they intend to subdivide, then they have to file a preliminary subdivision plan. They have to meet those requirements under the regulations, those subdivision requirements. Frankly, what we've seen out of them for the most part, most developers, is a combination, and that's what this body has seen, a combined preliminary subdivision plan and development plan. That's because you've seen predominantly single family, and of course they want to subdivide those. This is a townhouse development attached with, according to the applicant, no intention to subdivide. Therefore, the issue about the access and the ability for it to function as a street was no longer an issue. Should they wish to subdivide, they will come back to this body with a subdivision plan. And at that time, they will have to address the adequacy of that circulation and driveway system that you see. And it will have to meet the standards of the ordinance. But on the development plan, this is similar to an apartment complex where they have a driveway and parking and they're not going to subdivide it. And so that relieved an awful lot of staff's concern on this plan. However, it also requires that the exactions be on this plan because they can pull permits off this plan. And when you pull a permit, that's the time you pay exactions. normally with a single family development those are paid per house per lot as a building permit is pulled so that's the reason you see a lot of the conditions on this plan we were able to remove for the simple reason they changed the status of this plan the EMP compliance report the The primary infrastructure components I'll address first, they have been built in this area. Hayes Boulevard, that was required by the AMP. There are sanitary trunk lines. Force main runs right through here. The sewers have been constructed to serve this area. The drainage, those stormwater facilities have been largely constructed in this area. In fact, immediately here is a very large regional detention. This regional detention, although not shown here, serves the regional area, and when you may recall the discussion on this property about flooding and that sort of thing, well, that's the regional basin that serves this development. And you may recall, again, we talked about wetlands and that sort of thing. That's all below that basin that is located in this area. So, again, the infrastructure components have all been met and comply with the AAMP. The density of this land use recommendation, when applied to the entire EAR1 of the guest area, which is how it was originally laid out and reviewed, does comply. It's about 2.7 units per acre. This townhouse development in and of itself is slightly over four units an acre. But under the entire area of the AR1, it is well in compliance with that aspect of the AMP. The community design elements, there is a greenway that is associated with the drainage area that I illustrated to you. It's in blue on the plan. They are providing proposed pedestrian trails in conjunction with the sidewalks that they're going to provide. This will all help provide pedestrian connectivity in conformance with the trail system and neighborhood connectivity that is encouraged in the AMP. They have also addressed some architectural standards. This is, as I said, a townhouse development. It is the first townhouse development in the guest area. they have specified besides minimum sizes there will be gable roofs and they'll restrict the facades to a minimum amount of brick and glass similar to other features they've used elsewhere however they're not quite as restrictive as some other standards they've used for instance in the GAS 8 because of the proximity of single family homes and some of those issues in the neighborhood being able to blend in and match the existing development. This, as you can see, this development is isolated and somewhat unique in its position. But in reviewing the components of this plan, staff has found that it is in compliance with the AMP. If you have any questions about the recommended approval on the staff conditions of the plan or the AMP compliance report, be happy to try to answer. Does anyone on the Commission have any questions? Mr. Martin? Mr. Owens? Thank you. Mr. Martin, a couple of things. One, you mentioned the pedestrian trail, particularly pedestrian trail going into the floodway. Is that a loop or does it just go and stop? It's part of the, it will hook up to the overall greenway trail system that's planned for the area those are linear they travel down the floodplain through the drainage areas do we have any idea when it would be hooked up no sir there's a certain aspect of those trails that are independent of the developers okay decision making okay as far as the design standards have they provided any elevations any drawings any photographs no sir they renderings of any sort No, sir. They have just provided the standards on the plan and in the compliance report, similar to what they've done with single family and that sort of thing. Okay. Thank you. Additional questions? Mr. Phillips? I want to come back to the question of access and the adequacy of the roadway circulation. This is being platted or designed as a townhouse development, but the individual townhomes will be the only thing that is transacted in real estate or will it be common ownership or are they available for rent? I'm confused as to how we're going to get around this. Yes, ma'am, I understand. Again, it is a final development plan similar to what you might see in an apartment complex or commercial development. It could be condoed out. They can be rented. In order for them to be subdivided, they will have to come back to this body with a preliminary subdivision plan. And at that time, the street system, the access system that you see, would be evaluated relative to the requirements. And it would have to meet those requirements before it could be approved and then subdivided. Or else this body would have to make a finding for an access easement, which you have done before in other developments. So the issue is the width. What is the issue associated with the access and it potentially not meeting standards for a subdivision? Is it the width of the accesses? Is it the ways in which they're constructed? The bins? The primary issue in this case is not so much width in that they are providing adequate width according to all the public service providers and the fire department. It is how they're constructed. It's the base. It's the pavement. You know, these types of developments, unless they choose to be more strict, tend to be developed similar to parking lots and that sort of thing. So it's more of a construction standard associated with the bed of the street as opposed to any sort of design criteria. Yes, ma'am. There was a slight concern with radius and that sort of thing on some of the turns. But, again, it was determined that they were adequate to provide service. Okay. Thanks. Ms. Phillips, just to add on to your question, there's one design issue that's pertinent to access easement versus street, and that's the parking being perpendicular. Generally on the street, the parking is not perpendicular to the right-of-way. Yes. Thank you. Actually, that's very important because that's rarely, if ever, approved. Are there additional questions from commission members? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Additionally? Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Happy to say I'm in agreement with staffs for revised conditions, request approval and I'll try to answer any questions you might have. I also have the required notification. Are there any questions from commission members? If not, thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? If not, then commission, I will close the hearing and turn it over to the commission for any discussion or for a motion to approve or disapprove. Mr. Cravens. Yes, Madam Chairman, are you ready for a motion? Yes. Okay. I move approval of DP 2011-40 Guest Property with 13 conditions, revised page here. And do I need to say something about compliance report or is that covered? I think you need to say something about it. Yes, you need to include in your motion a finding that it is in compliance with the EAMP and adopting the reasons set forth by the staff in their report. Okay. And also I would move that it's in compliance with the EMAP as provided by the staff in our report, their findings. I have a motion by Mr. Cravens. Do I have a second? Second by Ms. Beatty. Is there any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. motion carries thank you very much Thank you. All right. All right. The next item on your agenda is at the top of page two. It is DP 2011-41, the Blackford property, Phase 1, Unit 5, and Phase 3. the purpose this property is located between Manowar Boulevard and Walnut Grove Lane it's just outside of I-75 and Polo Club Blackford Parkway is here runs down this way currently ends into the Clark property that is undeveloped we've seen preliminary subdivision plan and some record plots for this portion of the Clark property but this plan is to take the remainder of this unplatted area and is amending that. As you can see, we have Blackford Parkway, again, coming in here, the previously platted areas in this area, and over here, Manowar. They have EAR-2 zoning following this boundary, and EAR-1 in this area. The Greenbrier neighborhood is just north here. the purpose of this plan is is proposing 460 residential single-family lots a total of 372 in the ear1 zone and a total of 88 in the remaining ear2 property the plan does show a number of open space areas there is a 50-foot conditional zoning buffer right here as well as a tree protection area that's in the dark green the lighter green colors are the areas of open space that are proposed to be dedicated as greenway under the urban county government these areas that are outlined are HOA maintained areas this large buffer that you see right here is a 200 foot setback from the established right-of-way of Walnut Grove Lane and another line it's tougher to see here is a special design area under the expansion area master plan that does require a 60 percent open space which is what you see with these open spaces here as well as down through here the plan does show a proposed detention basin up in this area it is a recommended detention basin under the expansion area stormwater plan the plan the dashed one that you see here is where it was shown early on in the expansion master plan process so there's a slight variation in the location of that proposed detention basin the original plan was submitted and recommended for postponement by the subdivision committee the applicant that was related to an issue with the detention basin that is shown on the plan now was not shown on the original filing the staff recommended postponement at that time to address that stormwater a very important stormwater issue this revised plan the primary change in the plan is to redistribute the lots that they had shown with a cul-de-sac up here down into this area the lots back here closer to the Clark property and to the urban County Government Park property these lots got a little bit smaller to keep the same number of lots on the overall development but in order to make room for that detention basin there. Subdivision Committee recommended postponement subject to 18 conditions. However the staff has provided a revised recommendation that has 14 conditions. The first nine are sign-offs and I'll start from the bottom up. Number 14 is to denote no development on lots 412 through 416 until Blackford Parkway is constructed the property line down here currently fronts on what will be Blackford Parkway however the black portion of Blackford Parkway that is on the Clark property Blackford proper Parkway currently stops as constructed right here so final record plats for these lots that have frontage and their driveways would be on that portion of Blackford will have to wait to be platted until that section of Clark property comes in and that section of Blackford Parkway is constructed number 13 relates to a sinkhole that has been identified on the preliminary subdivision plan and this area it is standard for applicants to denote sinkholes on the plans at the time of preliminary subdivision plan however the staff is asking to be consistent with other preliminary subdivision plans that we've done that the entire area of the closed contour that makes up that sinkhole be denoted as well as a standard sinkhole notes that apply that we've had in Hill and Meyer property and others lately also be denoted on this plan number 12 is the resolve the tree preservation area conflict with the EAMP stormwater plans this they've the previous plan that came in had all of this area marked as tree protection area once they added the detention basin they're still showing that area as a tree protection area which it doesn't appear feasible that be able to construct the basin as well as to keep the trees on the site so the staff is asking that that area where the detention basin will be not be hashed as tree protect protection area number 11 is a discussion item the staff had raised the last time this plan was in related to the greenway action at lots 391 and 392 again as i mentioned earlier there is a park property urban county government park property in this area as well as the hoa area down through here open space the staff had wanted to maintain an opening here in order to get access and get to the park property we have done this on the to the clark property on the previous preliminary subdivision plan the exhibit that you see on the overhead is a clark unit two pedestrian access that also in the fully colored in area is the park property and the lots in the hatched area was a non-buildable area on the two lots that was that is to be recorded It shows where those areas are not to be built in in order to maintain visibility out to the greenway, as well as a 10-foot pedestrian access easement in that area. So the staff was looking for some sort of similar type of solution for these two lots to allow pedestrian connection to the park property. And number 10 is our standard for expansionary master plans, provided that the Planning Commission makes a finding that it is in compliance with the AAMP. Mr. Martin is going to go over that expansionary master plan compliance report, but I'll be happy to answer any questions you have about the development plan. Are there questions for many of the commission members? Ms. Phillips? How many lots are we talking about here? It's a total of 460 on this development plan. That includes the EAR1 and the EAR1 area and the EAR2. 401? 460. What is the average lot size? There are three different average lot sizes that are indicated on the plan. There's a 60 foot by 120, a 50 by 120, and a 45 by 115. This entire area is proposed as 60 foot. This area that I have in yellow is marked as scales out at 50 foot lots. Obviously there's some variation in the turns and things. And this area here and down is marked as the 45 foot lots. 460 on this plan. The overall density for the Blackford property, again these densities are measured on the overall at the time of the zone change for the original Blackford property. The EAR1 for not just this property but for including all of Blackford comes out at 538 dwelling units just under 3 units an acre at 2.99 units per acre. The EAR2 as proposed as proposed with these lots comes out at 3.57 units per acre for the entirety of the Blackfield property. Thank you. Mr. Arlington. Thank you. Chris, as far as just to follow up with what Lynn was asking, this plan has been before us or been in the works for quite some time. You're saying that now there's 460 lots being proposed. Is that a significant change from the previous plan? No. What is significantly different from the plan that came through and then was withdrawn and then resubmitted was the location of that density. The significant difference is that this street here that borders the Greenbrier subdivision is now a single loaded street up against the 50-foot conditional zoning buffer. And so there are fronts of houses facing that portion of the property. The significant difference is these lots here that were smaller are now 50-foot lots, and the 45-foot lots are back in this area and down. Okay, thank you. Are there additional questions? Not yet. Ms. Phillips. Can you clarify, what do you mean a single-loaded street? Well, it's a residential street with lots only on one side of the street. There are no residential lots over here. Single loaded meeting just on one side. I'm sorry. Additional questions? Mr. Martin will go over the compliance report. Couldn't see him from behind the easel. Madam Chairman, members of the commission, The discussion you just had is the perfect segue into the AMP compliance report. In reviewing, as Mr. Taylor said, in reviewing the density for the Blackford property, staff has found that the density proposed on this plan does fall within the AMP guidelines for both the AR1 and the AR2. In addition, the plan has some similarities to the previous plan that you just saw. And that is that Walnut Grove Lane, also known as Deer Haven on one portion of it, is also as a special design area relative to the rural road. And that is this area that you see here and it is totaled by this black line. It has that 60% open space requirement. The plan that you see before you does meet that requirement, and it respects the open space and the trees and much of the area along Walnut Grove Lane. And again, that is a requirement of the AMP. This plan does propose to protect that. The interesting aspect of that as well in working with this area, when Mr. Taylor explained to you this basin, The original submittal did not have this basin, and it is required by the stormwater plan of the AMP. And without that, of course, it did not comply. Now that they have added it to the plan, it is in compliance with the stormwater. What you see here is just a general location. This is the actual basin as shown on the stormwater plan. Now, once it's engineered, fully engineered and designed, it's going to occupy this area. It may or may not have some impact on these lots. If it does, those lots will probably go away. It is required because it drains into the Greenbrier property, into their pond. Overall, the Blackford property has a large regional detention basin that is located downstream on the property. It has been designed to serve the entire property and actually has the capacity to serve the property. The sewer lines that serve this property, the permanent trunk lines have been constructed as well. In conjunction with those trunk lines, there is a temporary pump station that has been constructed, and it serves the entire development. When the pump station that the government completes that they are building on the north side of Winchester Road, and you may recall that discussion about that location, it's beyond Hamburg downstream, when it goes online, this pump station will be able to go offline because that pump station is designed to serve the entire development. The Greenbrier neighborhood currently served by a pump station, that will be able to go offline as well. The Blackford Parkway is designed to serve the entire development. It is identified in the AMP. It has been constructed in large part and will serve the development. So we are able to find that in addition to the land use, the infrastructure element, with the addition of this required detention basin. This plan is in compliance with the infrastructure requirements of the AMP. The community design element relates primarily to the open space requirement and protecting the 60% open space of the SDA along with the setback as well as the greenways and the somewhat – The neighborhoods have been laid out in respect for these areas, these, and these areas that all mimic drainage areas and tree areas that have existed on the property. In reviewing these, and again, in your report, staff has found that this plan is in compliance with the AMP. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Are there commissioners with questions regarding the EAMP compliance report? Scott, thank you very much. Thank you. Petitioner. Madam Chair, Madam Commissioner, again I'm Rory Kaley with EAA Partners. We will start with the photo and affidavit again. We are once again in agreement with the staff's revised conditions. Some of the items on here, the item 13, the sinkhole, the report, geotechnical reports have been provided to Mr. Redman. technically the lot numbers that will have these areas on them will be lot 53 and 91 not 90 we are agreement 12 and 14 as far as having these notes added number 11 the detail for the greenway connection The first plan we provided did not have a mid-block connection to the Greenway as it was. There was some single loaded street. We were going to use that. We've come back. We have added an access easement to it now, mid-block. And I know what's up on the screen. We went through that with a lot of discussion last time. A lot of discussion. And we're in agreement to have that connection not be easemented on the lots. We will take that 20 feet and we'll set it aside separately so it's not encumbered and we don't have to deal with all of these non-build triangles and all this other stuff. And I think that takes care of most of those concerns. Are there questions? Any commission members? Not? Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak either for or against this proposal? Ms. Ma'am, would you come forward and give your name please and your address. My name is Susan Enloe. I'm the President of the Greenbrier Neighborhood Association. Thank you for the opportunity to address this body. We have been involved with the developers and the Planning Commission for nearly a year in this endeavor and after a little bit of a rocky start, we've made good progress, I think, in keeping everybody relatively happy. I appreciate the efforts of the Planning Commission and the developer in communicating with us and we're happy with everything that we've seen with this. I did have a question. We have been reassured repeatedly that there will not be City access to Walnut Grove Lane from this development and I've been told that repeatedly. There's a note on the plan that says anything that's currently on here, it says access shall be limited to the points indicated on this plan. Does that mean that there will be no access? Can we assume that? Okay, that was the only concern, and I think the comfort of Walnut Grove Estates, that neighborhood, and Greenbrier would be at its ultimate best if the plan notes could reflect specifically that there would be no access, commercial, or no street access into Walnut Grove Lane. So that's all I have. Thank you very much. Is there any objection to that from the petitioner? No, no objection to that. A similar note was on the original development plan, but you might know that. Mr. D'Alier, would you mind? Sure, I'm sorry. Please. I get to answer this question so I can explain why I'm sending the bill for being here today. we have no objection whatsoever on the original development plan at the time of the zone change there was a specific note that said there'll be no access to that stretch of road there is a little confusion it's shown on the plan as walnut grove if you drive out there the street sign says deer haven so whichever one it currently is there'd be no access to it and you might also note that in appendix 23A zoning categories and restrictions there is actually a special provision prohibiting this type of access so it's in the it's in the zoning ordinance itself and it specifically mentions Walnut Grove and Deer Haven so that's this is a belt and suspenders approach that we have no objection to thank you very much Mr. Lear is there anyone else in in the audience that would like to speak for or against this? Seeing none then I'll close the hearing and turn it over to the Commission for either further discussion or the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Owen? Madam Chair, one question. I guess with number 11 and the Greenway Connection, it sounds like can we change that to resolve? Yeah, I think so. applicant suggested with a 20-foot designation instead of an it's different from what we've shown on the exhibit but what they are suggesting is acceptable do we need wording for that no you can change it to resolve okay all right then and then number 15 I guess it sounds like would it be acceptable to everybody for the comfort of everybody to include number 15 is no street access to Walnut Grove or Deerhaven whichever the case may be even though it's street or driveway street no vehicular okay Do you have another question or are you going to make a motion? A motion if everybody's ready. Everyone ready? Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of DP 2011-41 with the revised staff recommendations change in number 11 to resolve the details adding number 15 as no street or driveway access to I know I'm sorry no vehicular access to Walnut Grove or Deerhaven whichever the case may be and finding also that this is in compliance with EAMP compliance as a staff has reported with their recommendations listed. I have a question. Did we not – I may have misunderstood, but in number 13, I think the lots were – I think I caught 53 and 91. Is that correct? We need to change that in our – is that correct? Staff was unsure based on where – the information is just a dot. It doesn't tell us necessarily where the extent of the sinkhole is. point from staff was to denote the extent of the sinkhole whichever lots that may include so do we want to leave it as it is or leave it 90 and 91 you can delete the last part the result of the extent of the sinkhole will is sufficient to what we're looking for motion by thank you I have motion by mr. Owens do I have a second second by mr. Cravens is there any further discussion if not please vote electronically motion carries thank you all very much Thank you. Mr. Martin. Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is on page 2. It is DP 2011-56, the letter of property, located at 312 North Limestone Street. This was an item that you postponed two weeks ago at your subdivision hearing. it is an amended final development plan for the Carrick House that it is known which is this area of the old Whitehall Chapel with a addition, a banquet hall that has been constructed on the rear of the building. You can see here is East 3rd Street, North Limestone. You have a circular drive. This is an existing drive that serves as access off limestone. And this is Lake Alley to the rear of the property where they have access as well into their parking that you can see here and with the proposed drive through here. Now, after the last two weeks ago, we had a discussion about the scope of the changes. We thought it might be beneficial. This is the current approved plan. We thought this might help you see more clearly some of the areas that have changed and are part of this amendment that you have before you today. This was an open courtyard that was part of the old building and where this was being tied in. You can see that's been closed in. The additional square footage on this plan is roughly 140 square feet. It's not a whole lot of square feet, but they have squared, they have closed that in. This is a building envelope, the heavy black line, and that was added on this plan as well when it was approved. You can see a bump out here. That's a small square footage area that they've added. That is a change. The approved patio, you can see, had offsets in it. What they have now has just been squared up, provides more room on the patio as well. This spot right here was kind of a service drive as it came up, and you can see on the approved plan it was also the proposed dumpster location, which that change, of course, was discussed considerably by this body at its last hearing. This plan, as it was also amended, took away the existing access point to 3rd Street. The amendment that you see before you wishes to maintain that access point. They also wish to move the dumpster, and again, they had proposed it in the right-of-way of Lake Alley. And those are the principal changes that you see before you. Since the postponement last week, planning has met and talked with four different governmental bodies to address the issues that were facing this plan. We spoke with traffic and had a meeting with traffic. After our traffic engineer had the opportunity to make a site visit, we had a discussion. the gist of that discussion was that initially it was determined that that access point if it was to remain needed to be either an exit or an entrance one or the other couldn't be both subsequent to that site visit the traffic engineer has stated that he believes it would be best if it was an entrance only which was similar very similar to the recommendation of several members of this body last week In addition, we communicated with the Solid Waste Department, and there was this body expressed considerable concern about placing the dumpster in Lake Alley. The condition on your plan that stated document encroachment permit for existing and proposed improvements concerned not just that dumpster location, which could not be approved by Solid Waste unless they did receive an encroachment permit. It also concerned some improvements that they made to Lake Alley. There has been some pavement improvements. I believe concrete has been added to a portion of Lake Alley. Our Solid Waste Department has stated that they met with the applicant several weeks ago, and they've discussed alternatives to the dumpster location. They responded when asked, what do you think of it, you know, in its proposed location, Lake Alley, and they stated very simply, it wouldn't be our preferred, and they can't do it unless the encroachment is allowed, but they do have some concerns with that location. So again, they don't believe that would be the optimum location. We have also had discussions with historic preservation. As you know, one of your conditions is that they denote the Board of Architectural Review's approval prior to certification. They met before that body, as our understanding, last night. The BOER approved all the changes that you see on this plan, except one. This little addition right here happens to have a garage door in it, and that garage door faces limestone. and they have been directed to remove that garage door by the BOAR. I also had a discussion with building inspection in an attempt to clarify some of the situations that have come about, some of the issues on this property. There is a certificate of occupancy for the Carrick House, the original Whitechapel, and they can legally use that portion of the building. no certificate of occupancy has been issued for the banquet hall. The inspector, when he made his inspection and discovered these discrepancies, and again, you can see them on the plan, when he discovered that that service aisle had been expanded around the building, when he discovered the changes in the patio and the access point, he went back to his supervisor. They discussed it, met with the applicant, and said, you have two options. One, you comply with the approved plan. Or two, you go to the Planning Commission and get approval of these changes. And so that's the reason they are before you today, is that they were directed to come to this body to have these changes, again, approved by this body. You will note that we have handed out to you a revised recommendation. The staff has recommended approval, as did your subdivision committee when they reviewed this plan previously, to those standard clean-up conditions that you are sign-off conditions, your first six. They still need to document the encroachment permit for those pavement improvements that they've done in Lake Alley. They also need to denote the access to 3rd Street as entrance only. They need to remove the word proposed from the right-of-way on Lake Alley. That's just a cleanup condition. That right-of-way was dedicated on a minor plat, and there's no need to label it. It does exist. They don't need to call it proposed. Again, as I stated, they're going to have to denote the BOAR's approval of the changes. And then staff also thought it very appropriate, in lieu of the discussion two weeks ago, that they needed to denote that the dumpster location needs to be on the site and not on the Lake Alley right-of-way. We thought it very appropriate, per your all's discussion, that that be a condition on this plan. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions that I may. Do any commission members have questions? Ms. Phillips. My question pertains to number seven, condition number seven, about the encroachment permit for the existing and proposed improvements on Lake Alley. Is this the bollards that they put in? Hadn't they placed some sort of structure? There are two bollards at the very end. They will have to get permission, literally an encroachment permit, to allow those to remain. Okay. That's what the encroachment permit is about. Well, there's also roughly, and I didn't measure it, I walked it, but, you know, they did some concrete work as they expanded this, and they did a little bit of concrete work, you know, driveway, surface work on the right-of-way. And technically, yes, they should have had an encroachment permit before they did that work. Thank you. There are other questions. Mr. Owens. Tom, in following up with what you just said, with where you were pointing, the concrete work that was done on Lake Alley, is any part of that patio or wall way setting on Lake Alley? It is not patio, no sir, to our knowledge. I'm sure that the applicant could deal with any exact details. Okay. Thank you. Are there additional questions? Not. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Petitioner? My name is Nick Nicholson. I'm with Stalkine and Ogden here on behalf of the applicant on GCL Properties. While we are in agreement with a majority of the staff's recommendations, we would ask for some consideration on the last condition with regards to the dumpster location. We have been discussing with the city various alternatives. One was what we originally proposed where we would put the dumpster on the right-of-way with the proper encroachment agreement. If that is not the wishes of the board, we would request that it not say that the dumpster location must be on the site due to one of the other possible locations is on the the proposed parking lot that is on north limestone which is kind of adjacent to the alley which i will be kind of showing so at the start i just kind of wanted to say that is our only concern with the addition i did want to briefly go through some of the uh the board or excuse me some of the commission's concerns from last time with regards to the entrance this is the view from 3rd Street that we have and as as you can see this is taken basically in the driveway and right here is where in the middle of the street with based on your all's comments and the feedback we are getting from traffic we did go ahead and strike that only for entrance it will be entrance there will be no exit in hopes that that resolves any concerns with regards to the headlights coming in to Third Street and any other issues. With regards to the additions on the square footage that was added, a majority of the square footage is kind of coming from this little bump out. This is the door that the BOAR had issues with and the square footage the reason why this had to be added is based on conversations with the Health Department during construction this is how it was originally designed there was only scheduled to be one corridor that would go from the food the food preparation area to the actual banquet facilities that corridor was unfortunately going to be mixed with the food basically service to the banquet as well as the pedestrian traffic to any of the guest bathrooms. I think that is pretty obvious why that is an issue once the health department actually was there on site during construction. Based on their recommendations, we moved the bathrooms basically a few feet to the south in order to give us room to have an extra corridor that would go straight from the food preparation area and then into the banquet facility. At this point, it became clear to us that we were going to have to enclose that corner as opposed to using an exit door and then going outside with the food and coming back into the banquet facility. Also, there is an emergency exit door that was originally scheduled to be right here, and we felt that based on any potential fire code issues that would arise with having a lot of traffic from the kitchen to the banquet facility, if there ever was any emergency, that would add too many complications to allow for that emergency exit to satisfy the fire code. And so this is what we have now, and it is basically, that is the reason for the extra square footage that came into play. with the dumpster location if this is going forward there we go this is where the original dumpster was scheduled to be it is still as you can see able to be there technically we could place the dumpster there we do not feel that that is the appropriate place and in conversations with waste management they do not feel that it is the optimal location either There are several reasons why this does not really work for us The first is right here These two windows are from the old mansion And they would basically be directly looking out From one of the main rooms onto the dumpster itself And for sheer aesthetical reasons We felt that that would not be very appropriate But that is not the only reason And certainly not the main reason these are the HVAC intake vents for a little just kind of to gather your location this is where they're located and we did not choose the placement of this this was basically informed to us that this is where these needed to be and this also was directly above where the original location was for the dumpster so on one side you have people looking out onto the beautiful dumpster on the second they are breathing in the air that is coming off of that and we felt that that cheerily just basically was inappropriate to have it at an event space our proposed location is on Lake Alley if the board does not feel that the right-of-way can take place we are in talks with possibly either purchasing the area or doing what the city did back in about I believe it was the 70s with a lot of these alleys is they basically abandoned their interest in the right-of-way this alley was not in satisfactory condition to make it a major exit for our property. So we did actually pave over it, as Mr. Martin did indicate. Lake Alley basically is right here along this line. I don't know if you all can see it, but there is a slight line where you can kind of tell where it is. It's about 12 feet in diameter, and our property, we paved over to that 12 feet. So to answer your question, there certainly is no encroachment of the actual patio. The pollards are right here and if it is determined that we cannot have the dumpster, Ms. Phillips right there if you can see better, if it is determined that the dumpster cannot go in the right of way or in this location, we will be removing those. They are temporary in nature and we can take those out. We felt that this was best to go ahead and do. We knew that this needed to be paved. at this point was not a real city responsibility since we wanted to widen that exit anyways and so we went ahead and did that that was not in anticipation for the dumpster being approved it was something that needed to be done regardless we just now feel that that is the more appropriate location for the dumpster the reason why our former location was not adequate we felt for and also waste management did the entrance the second entrance on north limestone was where they were going to have to come in we did in fact widen that per their request and it's still a tight fit for these big trucks and so they were going to have to come in that and then basically try to angle in past the old mansion the location is basically in between the old mansion and the addition that was going to have to require some room some moving up the truck and then once they actually serviced it they were gonna have to pretty much do a turnabout for lack of a better term in front of the mansion and then back out the front we feel that Lake Alley is a straight shot for them to service where they can go in there and then basically leave there are other locations being determined off-site on the I believe it is the Martin Luther King property you will see that this is another alleyway it is a 90 degree about three-fourths of the way up Lake Alley that services the back portions of the adjacent buildings on 3rd Street and it also does connect to the to the north limestone property that I believe has been previously approved for potential parking and that is basically the issue with the dumpster we feel that it's the most much more appropriate location and we are in the encroachment process with the city it has not received any negative feedback from what we have been we have heard from engineering yet obviously it is not a finished product by any means but that is what we are personally requesting beyond that I'm happy to accept any questions or answer any questions we are in you know agreement with the staff except for that last condition thank you all and I'll take some questions are there questions Ms. Blanton. Mr. Martin told us that Waste Management did not prefer to have the Lake Alley location for the dumpster. Is that not your understanding? It is my understanding that while it was not their preferred location, they did say that it was in fact preferable to the originally proposed location. What did they mention any other locations as being locations? I believe the Martin Luther King property was discussed. I was not present at that meeting. I i do not know but it is my understanding that was discussed however they did say that this location was more preferable certainly more accessible than what was previously approved but they could not actually uh say yes due to the right-of-way concerns please uh is the banquet hall in use right now i to my knowledge i do not i'm not sure i certainly have not attended a banquet there I know that we as Mr. Martin indicated there's a certificate of occupancy with the main building I'm not sure if there's a temporary one or not I apologize for giving a vague answer okay I just have one final comment and that is from Mr. Martin's comments there are four or five government agencies that have been tied up in this because the applicant has not followed what I think are pretty clear basic rules of how things need to operate and so I would really encourage that this not happen again before this body indeed are there other questions or comments strong one mr. Nicholson I would concur with what Carl just said as far as you know in time you know it may have been simpler it's definitely been the right thing to do been may have been simpler to come to us or bring the plan first. I know you were not involved with that, but it would, you know, get this out of the way without these delays, necessary delays to go on and on and on. Right now, I do not agree with a dumpster location on the alley in talking, well, I'm not going to say that right now. I'm going to ask Mr. Neal from traffic to give me a couple of answers to things. but I would definitely concur and I do have a question for traffic. Yes, Mr. Owens. Thank you, Jeff. Since we're talking about the dumpster, is there a concern as far as the screening hindering access and turn in that corner of the lot and building and going down the side of the building? From what I understand, the position of the dumpster in relation to the wall that's going around the patio, if they do the proper screening that the solid waste vehicles will not be able to make the turn okay so that that's an issue that that would be an issue yes okay thank you the other question I had going back to the entrance it's everybody's understanding that you want it as an entrance only yes okay with the striping and the painting of the arrow going in to me it really doesn't seem like anybody that's on the parking lot or on the top side would be able to see that arrow what else can be done to to notify and limit it as an entrance only and prevent it being an exit well aside from making it impossible we can add more paint more arrows so that it's more clear that people as they come around through the parking lot that they're not supposed to make a right turn out to 3rd Street any any curbing or Island or anything like that is that possible that's certainly one option you could add another landscaped Island there at the at the front would would definitely be a positive move okay all right thank Thank you. Ms. Blahn. I had one more question for Mr. Neal. You mentioned that the solid waste would not be able to make that turn. Is that because the patio was expanded beyond what had been originally improved? Well, that certainly plays a factor in it. Okay. Thank you. You know, I guess if there's a way to move the bollards in the dumpster location where they've got it proposed now, they wouldn't possibly be able to make that turn. Ms. Beatty. Could I address one thing, if possible? On the expansion of the patio, the primary reason that that was done was once we actually basically put shovel to ground, we determined we were able to save that back tree, which was originally viewed as virtually impossible. That was the primary concern for the expansion of the patio. And I also believe that it was not Waste Management's intention to go around the actual side of the building. That was not paved in order for through traffic to be going through in any way. I apologize for interrupting that. Could you explain again where the Martin Luther King property location is that you were thinking about? If you basically go down this alley, it dead ends into the back of the Martin Luther King property. Without a more clear map, it is right in the end of the line. Could you kick a microphone, please? Thank you. It would be approximately, I would say, basically right back here. Here is Lake Alley. Here would be the 90-degree alley turn. There are, I believe, three houses right here. I know a violin store, and I forget what is the house that is right adjacent, but this is right in here. It is fairly, I would say, parallel to the Carrick House as far as north-south goes. That alley directly goes into it, and that site has been discussed with waste management. Are there additional questions for Mr. Nicholson? Comments? Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? Seeing none, then I will close the hearing. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. One more thing. I guess, thank you and I'm sorry. Mr. Nicholson, as far as the entrance only. Yes, sir. I don't know how would be the best way to do it other than asking that we note here to work with traffic to improve that to make it limited as truly an entrance only sure you I'm okay with that I cannot you know speak to the addition of an islander I do not know what impact that would have on traffic flow Okay, so certainly I do not object to that by any means Yeah, you know, it's something to do, you know, because right now an arrow that's down below that everybody's up top, they're not going to see it. Yes, sir. Thank you. Are there any other questions? If not, then I'll close the hearing and open it up for either discussion or the Chair will entertain a motion. Ms. Bader? Did I understand in our discussions that we were going to change number 11 to resolving the dumpster location but that it would not be on Lake Alley? I mean, we heard both sides of the pros and cons, but is that my understanding? I think we were waiting to see the form of the motion. I guess I wanted to clarify what it was we were. There hadn't been a motion made on the 4th. Yeah, there's not a motion on the 4th this time. Certainly. Okay. Sure. I'm sorry because the public hearing is closed I understand how far the Martin Luther King property and you guys were talking about potentially citing the dumpster how far is that distance I know you showed us on the platform and are there are there spacing criteria I cannot speak to the spacing criteria off Off the top of my head, I would say it is, I mean, no further than 20 to 50 yards, I think is what we are talking, the width of about two houses. It is not along the space. It is directly behind Ms. Leterer's current property that's kind of fenced off from ours. But it would be, my concern is that it would be in that residential area. I mean, is that property zoned residential? I know there's a violin store there. I would hate to have a dumpster dumped at 5 in the morning, 4.30 in the morning. I understand that entirely. Directly behind and also was concerned about it being so distant from the Carrick House itself that, you know, the distance may be a deterrent to people actually making good use of it. Sure. Question. Are there additional questions? Mr. Craven, the hearings now have been reopened, so you all feel free. We're back, guys. We're back. Is it reopened or not? Yes, it is. I guess Mr. Martin would know this answer about the dumpster. Is the dumpster location, the original location approved? was it was it an approved location by by everyone the original location was certified which means everybody signed off on its solid waste area so yes so it's okay to put it there under the current approved plan yes sir yeah okay I mean I'm just saying I'm hearing all these locations and after seeing the pictures I would prefer the dumpster back in its original location and I think you could, because I wouldn't, first of all, I wouldn't have to carry the garbage all the way out there. And second, I think you could screen it from those windows, and then you could put some sort of diverter or something on those air intakes. That's just fresh air and ventilation for your furnace. I think you could put some sort of something that would deflect the air so it wouldn't pull right off of it. But I think when you look at it, it'll look much worse out there by that patio and then you're going to have to I mean there there's the location you've already got it approved I mean if you agree to put it there you don't have to do anything else I cannot directly address that except that that is very much not the applicants a preferred location there was serious concern with the accessibility of that location with waste management the trucks getting into the second entrance and also serving this dumpster I believe that that you know obviously this this does not directly impact the decision of the Commission by any ways but I do know that that was certainly not the applicants desire and they would prefer Martin Luther King location before this one and obviously with Lake Alley being our our number one draft pick so to speak. Ms. Byam. I think Mr. Cravens makes an excellent suggestion. I would be in favor of putting it back at its original location and if waste management has some I mean they didn't have accessibility issues originally or it wouldn't have been certified there if changes that the Carrick House has made that have been on approved changes need to be go back to original plans in order to accommodate waste management I'd like to make that part of the motion if everyone is so inclined. There are other questions, comments? Can I close the hearing? Chair will now close the hearing I'll turn this back over to the Commission for any further discussion. Not. If there's no more discussion then I the chair will entertain a motion I'd like to make one suggestion in light of the fact that since these conditions were drafted they have had their BOAR hearing and on number 10 it says denote Board of Architectural Review's approval prior to certification plan in light of the fact that they apparently approved it but did not approve the garage door there is a change between what they approved and what the plan says and if we could just add to that with any changes required by the BOAR to make sure there is not an appearance of conflict between this body's decision and the BOAR decision that's acknowledging the fact that that BOAR has required some changes. Thank you very much. Mr. Owens? Thank you. I'll take a stab at a motion if everybody is ready. There's no further. Okay. First of all, there was a question that was asked. It is my understanding that the entire facility was in use yesterday, last night. With that being said, you know, it disturbs me greatly, but in an effort to move this forward and hopefully everybody understands that there are better ways to go about doing this, I'll move for approval of DP 2011-56, the letter of property, with the revised staff recommendations. Eleven recommendations. I would like to add to number eight, denote the new access to Third Street as entrance only and resolve signage with traffic. That may be covered up above but I'd like to add that. On number ten, 10, denote Board of Architectural Review's approval prior to certification with any changes required by the Board of Architectural Review. I think that works. And then number 11, to resolve the dumpster location on or off the site, specifically not on Lake Alley right away. Second. Ms. Blanton? Discussion? motion in a second on the floor I'm not quite sure how to with the process you like to make an amendment to the motion I would like to make an amendment for motion that number 11 regarding the dumpster would read that the dumpster would go in its initially approved location and that if waste management needed to make any if waste management had problems accessing it that could be resolved by going back to modifying the patio to its originally approved construction that that would be done. Does that make sense? We need to vote on whether or not to pass the amendment. So those, does everyone understand the amendment? Is there a second? No. Okay. I'll second it. Mr. Kravitz, okay, now I have a motion, I mean, I have an amendment and a second. Mr. Kravitz, you have discussion. Okay. What was the last part you said about the patio? I don't agree with that. Well, it was originally approved, so I assume waste management was fine with it. But then there were some questions about them having to make that hard turn that came from traffic. So I'm wondering if part of that change and what is now a problem is that the initial patio was smaller and curved and the patio that they built without approval juts out more if they have to go back to that originally approved design or something closer to it in order to accommodate waste management, if waste management needs that change to be made, since they built the patio without approval, to be willing to make some modifications if waste management needs it. Well, wouldn't that be up? I mean, if we say we're putting it back in the original location, then if they are not happy with that, and they want to move it somewhere else, don't they have to file another development plan and bring it back and show us where they're going to put it? Would that be their process? Yes. Okay. So, I mean, that's what would have to happen. You're saying you want to put it back where it was originally. I agree with that. And then if they don't like that, then they have to go through this again. So then that would be, if that remedy was to change the patio, then that's what they'd have to do. I guess I'm more concerned that waste management, because of the way the patio is built, maybe waste management is not going to find that to be as accessible as they did previously. Well, all that would be taken into consideration if they decide they were going to move it. Jeff, do you have any clarification for that? Number six already says Division of Waste Management's approval of refuse collection. So if they are going to require changes to allow their access, I think that's probably going to be covered under condition 6. Thank you. Would you like to rephrase your amendment? No, I would amend my amendment to that number 11, condition number 11 would be to locate the dumpster in its originally approved location. I have a motion. Would you second that? No, no. Yeah, I guess I will. I have a motion and a second for the amendment. Please vote electronically. Madam Chair, the electronic system only allows one electronic vote on each plan. I might suggest either a roll call. So parliamentary wise gotten over even that said. Okay. All in favor of the amendment to the motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. So the original, now we have an amendment, so let's go back and vote on the motion at this time. As amended. Is there any further discussion in regard to that? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. We'll now move on to the zoning items and staff can set up. Madam Chair, we have one more plan item on the addendum. I think it would be good to deal with quickly before we move on to zoning items. Oh, I'm sorry we do. I was looking in the wrong agenda. Thank you. Thank you. on your addendum it is development plan DP 2010-22 this is a re-approval request for a redevelopment project which we put back on as on this agenda as a redevelopment project this is a development plan for the Kroger shopping center at New Circle and Bryan Station Road this is really a one issue reapproval the point the applicants had been working for quite some time on this property to orient you on the development plan we have new circle road brian staven brian station avenue they have access to new circle road the main kroger building right is right here the purpose of this development plan was to do an expansion that expansion uh went over several existing easements the applicant has had to take time to build new facilities so that they can dedicate new easements so that the old easements can be released. Tonight at the Urban County Council meeting, it's on for a second reading to release the utility easements. However, it was noted that this plan expired about a month ago. And so they're asking for a re-approval of this redevelopment project so that all of the other work has been done towards certifying this. The applicant has made progress with building inspection and getting stuff looked at, but we still have to get this development plan certified. They are asking for a re-approval subject to the previous conditions, most of which have been met. And later on tonight, all of them should have been met. And we are recommending re-approval. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them. It was simply the time it took to build the new facilities to go through the paperwork to get to this point. Thank you. Are there any questions? Petitioner? Is the petitioner here? Yes. Do you have any comments? My name is Bob Cornett. You all worked with us real close on this. It was a big box. It has taken forever. And it was a shock to me when I went to get the development plan certified and i said we're going to be getting the release of the easement and then we started counting back the days and we were about a month past the 12-month deadline on certifications so staff has been most gracious to work with us and help us here plans are approved from a building standpoint they can't certify anything until we have a development plan certified so we're ready to start construction on the building now does anyone have any questions for the petitioner If not, the Chair will close the hearing. I'll help them for discussion and are a motion. Mr. Owens. Madam Chair, I'll move for re-approval of DP 2010-22, subject 12 conditions as presented by staff. Is there a second? Second. Motion's been made by Mr. Owens, seconded by Ms. Phillips. All in favor, please vote electronically. Opposed. Can't pull it up. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Now we're ready to move on to zoning. Yes, Madam Chair, thank you. There are two zone changes on your agenda. The first appears on page 3 and the second begins on the top of page 4. One of those items does qualify for consideration at this time as an abbreviated hearing. That is the second item appearing on page 4. That is MARCV 2011-10, a request by Dennis Anderson, Investments 1700, LLC. This involves a proposed rezoning from B1 neighborhood business to P1 and a corollary zone change from P1 professional office to B1 neighborhood business. all involve properties located on Louie Place. At this time, the staff would ask if anyone is present in the audience who wishes either to object to this proposed rezoning or wishes to comment on this application. That will then require us to have a full public hearing on that item. We'll begin with the first item appearing on page 3 in just a moment. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Salley. Thank you, Madam Chair. of the Commission good afternoon your first zone change appears on page three it's item number one MAR 2011-7 this is a zone change request by Thunder Properties LLC this zone change is from a professional office p1 zone to a requested neighborhood business zone b1 this staff report on this zone change you'll find at tab one of your notebook and behind the staff report and the petitioner's application you will also find a letter from the applicant proposing conditional zoning restrictions as part of this zone change the zone change involves just over two and a half net acres of property the property being a portion of 4268 sarin drive to orient you to the location of the zone change we use this zoning map we'll also have one on the overhead this is tates creek Road and its signalized intersection with Manowar Boulevard here. The next signalized intersection to the west of that is at Sarin Drive. It also serves the Tates Creek shopping center to the north and the Tates Creek South shopping center on the southeast corner. The subject property is directly to the south of that shopping center at the corner of Sarin Drive which is a collector street and Chaz Drive, which is a loop street connecting Sarin to Duval Street, another short collector street connecting Sarin to Tates Creek Road here. The subject property is part about half of a larger tract of land bounded on three sides by the streets and on a fourth side by R3 zoning where there's mostly two-family residential development duplexes. This portion of the property is P1 for just over 400 feet in depth and that is not proposed to change. That property is to remain P1 under this application. The western half of the property however is proposed to go from P1 to B1 with the conditional zoning restriction. On the overhead you'll see an aerial photograph of this area. We'll orient you again to the location of the property. This is Sarin Drive south of Manowar. Here is Duval Street to the east of Tates Creek. Chas Drive is here and the zone change before you this afternoon involves this portion of the property. You can see the Tates Creek Shopping Center is immediately to the north and there is vacant property in the area as well. Not only the other half of the subject property, also property across Seren Drive at this location. That property is in a residential zone and just to the east of that is a very large floodplain area associated with the Hickman Creek. There are two cul-de-sacs here that have the duplex units I mentioned earlier and just beyond that is a single family subdivision immediately to the south of the property and an apartment complex to the south and east of the subject property. across Sarin Drive is an existing daycare center. I have a few closer up photos of the property to show you as well. First is of the subject property as it's viewed from the corner of Sarin Drive and Chas Drive. And again in the distance you can see the adjacent duplexes. This photo is from the intersection of one of those streets to Sarin Drive. This is a view of the daycare center directly across the street that is in a residential zone and has been approved by the Board of Adjustment as a conditional use. Final photo is of the subject property from Sarin Drive looking across at the vacant area that is also P1. In the distance there is another subdivision across Chas Drive from the portion of the property that is to remain P1. Finally, on the overhead, we have the comprehensive plan recommendation. The 2007 comprehensive plan recognizes the existence of the Tates Creek South Shopping Center of the child care center directly across the street as a semi-public use and shows the subject property being recommended for professional service land use which does correspond to its existing P1 zoning. The residential uses nearby are shown as medium density residential, that is both for the duplexes and the single family area, in addition to the vacant property directly to the east and across Seren Drive from this location. Again, to orient you to the comprehensive plan, here's Tates Creek Road, Manowar Boulevard. The area of the subject property is here, and residential uses are by and large the dominant land use recommendation in this area, with the exception of the two shopping centers and sporadic office uses that join those two centers in this area. The comprehensive plan does have some history. In 2001, this property was proposed to be designated for a retail trade and personal service land use. However, the staff recommendation at that time was that it be designated for professional service instead, and the Planning Commission agreed with that recommendation in its adoption of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan, which is, of course, the predecessor to our current plan. The property has been zoned for P1 for almost 10 years as a result of that action in 2001. The staff cannot find that the proposed B1 zone is in agreement with the professional service land use recommendation of the plan. So that takes us to other findings to review as to whether or not the zone change can be approved. The first is the appropriateness of the zoning. The staff did not agree with the application and petitioner's justification that a B1 zone is appropriate at this location. The primary reason being that generally there is a step down quite often from an arterial roadway to commercial, office, and then residential use and we see that type of step down in existence here. We think that's still a sound recommendation. We also felt that there were plentiful opportunities for retail and restaurant uses in the area and there was not a compelling need from the staff perspective for additional commercial use. That is not the only possible justification though. Also there can be a compelling or pardon me an unanticipated change determined in the area. The staff in its report on page 3 could not find that there were any physical, social for economic changes that the current comprehensive plan did not anticipate in 2007. That led the staff at your zoning committee a few months ago to recommend disapproval of this request. We have met with the applicant since and they have proposed the conditional zoning restrictions that I've mentioned. Your zoning committee has reviewed this request twice and at your most recent meeting earlier this month the zoning committee did recommend approval of this request with the conditional zoning restrictions. The staff in our report that appears in your tab and also the agenda has recommended disapproval of this request primarily for three reasons. The first being the requested B1 zone is not in agreement with the 2007 comprehensive plan which recommends a professional service land use for the subject property. Secondly, our finding is that the proposed B1 zone is not appropriate for the subject property for the four reasons that are listed in our staff report and on your agenda. Finally, the staff finds that there have been no unanticipated changes of the physical, social or economic nature within the immediate area since the comprehensive plan was adopted in 2007. That concludes our staff report on this zone change request. Prior to Mr. Martin presenting the zoning development plan that has been filed with this application, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission at this time on either our report or our recommendation to you this afternoon. Are there any questions from commission members? Thank you very much. Mr. Martin. Madam Chairman, members of the commission, at the bottom of page 3, you will find the preliminary development plan that is associated with the zone change before you today, ZDP 2011-21, Coons Property Unit 11, Lot 2. This is a, as I stated, a preliminary development plan. It does cover the entire property, as you see here, Sarin Drive, Chas Drive, through here, and again covers the entire property. Here is the area that is the subject of the zone change. They are asking for the B1. You can see they are proposing two buildings, associated parking, access point here, access point here. There is cross access between the properties proposed. These are professional office buildings in the P1 with an access point across from this street being proposed at this location. The combined square footage of these two buildings is over 30,000 square feet, about 30,600. The entire property as a whole has over 70,000 plus square feet of property encompassed in all these buildings. Again, as I stated, this is a preliminary development plan, and there could be no development of the property until a final development plan was approved by the Planning Commission. This plan was reviewed and recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. And I'll just briefly state for anyone in the audience and for the commission, as you all are aware, the subdivision committee reviews these plans as if the zoning was already in place. I just want to make that clear. Sometimes people don't understand the different recommendations that can take place, but that is the reason for that. The conditions of approval are, of course, provided the Urban County Council does resign the property, the Urban County Engineer's approval, traffic, building inspection, the Urban Forester, bike and pedestrian planner department of environmental qualities approval of environmentally sensitive areas a minor correction to note one a resolution of the easement and pond relocation for building c d and e at the time of the final development plan addition of street tree information from the previous plan and then correct the stormwater easement dimensions from 15 to 20 feet per the recorded record plat and i will briefly want to show you those issues on 9 and 11. there's an existing easement in a drainage area that was established that runs through this portion of the property currently there's been off-site stormwater work being done here in conjunction with another development off of tates creek road and deval so there's been some much that's all going to have to when it's redone these easements will be moved that conflict will be removed that will have to be dealt with at the final development plan before any development can take place the other one again is the extension of this easement is just improperly noted as 15 feet when it is in fact 20 feet I just wanted to explain those to you and again the subdivision Committee has recommended approval of this plan. Are there any questions? Commission members. If not, thank you, Mr. Martin. Petitioner? Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm John Talbot with DeCamp in Talbot. I'm here on behalf of Thunder Properties. It's rare that I find myself standing up here disagreeing with Mr. Salley. I think in my career I may have done it maybe once. Tony Barrett is here. prepared a development plan for Bayer Partners and he'll speak to that if there any questions about that I also have with me today Ms. Cheryl Johnston who's back here who prepared the letter the marketing study that shows the need and talks about the changes at the Kroger Center that's behind tab 4 first I guess there are no questions about the development plan the next part of this I'd like to move to would be to talk about some of the goals of the comprehensive plan that are behind tab two first and goal seven I'm not gonna spend too much of your time on this but I would like to point out a few of these that I think do that lend themselves to this site in particular first goal seven is to create in goal seven is to create balanced employment opportunities that are accessible to arterials and compatible with existing developed areas Goal 11 is to provide diverse business and employment opportunities to encourage retention and expansion of existing businesses. And when I talk in a minute about the surrounding commercial developments and the surrounding residential, I'm going to flesh some of these goals out, but I kind of want to go through them and you can see how they apply as we discuss the area. Flexibility in commercial use is to provide both large and small spaces. 14 is a self-sustaining community by enabling a range of activity in goal 15 at F to talk about the establishment of retail uses with a neighborhood focus that are bike and pedestrian friendly and also in this goal it talks about reviewing the map to encourage density in fact in goal 16 plan locations of commercial to provide facilities compatible with the neighborhood. So then to orient you to the existing commercial development in the area, I'd like you to turn behind tab three. And in the bottom right-hand corner is something that's labeled Clearwater Commons. And if you all could bear with me for just a second, And that Clearwater Commons is a small new development that was built in 2006 that's located right here. And that's about a 30,000 square foot building. It's zone B1. And as you can see, the tenants there are listed underneath there. There's one 1,500 square foot vacancy, but otherwise the building is completely full. then moving further away from the property we'll go over to the Kroger Center at Manowar in Tate's Creek and the expansion I want to talk for a minute about the expansion that's going on there there at the Kroger Center if you'll turn to the next page you'll see the existing Kroger Center with the small shop space if you turn to the next page you'll see that the small shop space there I found it was previously about 18,000 square feet is being eliminated and replaced with a Kroger expansion of 36,000 square feet the Tates Creek Center in general is quite full as you can go you can see the list of tenants there there's very few vacancies I think the center is about 95 by my view about 95 percent full in the expansion they're actually going to eliminate several businesses or spaces for several businesses by that expansion. And so I think that the existing vacancies of the small shop space will be filled by those tenants being relocated to the other side of the center around the Rite Aid and the Ramseys over there. Then moving closer back to the subject property, this is the Tate's Creek South Center, which is currently occupied by the Walmart grocery store. By our count, it's 100% occupied with possibly maybe a temporary use in the Special Olympics. It's having a rummage sale there, but it's quite a busy full center. So in the area, there is minimal vacancy, far below Lexington norms and far below national norms, I'll submit to you. This property, as Mr. Salley pointed out, was rezoned at Thunder's request to be P1 10 years ago. It sat for 10 years without any activity, without any demand for it. Currently, as Ms. Johnston found, we think there is an excess of P1 in the community and particularly in this area. And so our goal here is really just to create an opportunity for something to get done on this property. We're not proposing a major change. What we seek is to have basically two-story development offices above and retail below. So we don't think this is a change from day to night, but more just creating more opportunities to do things like bakeries, coffee shops, liquor stores, things that might be desirable, net uses for the neighborhood, much like the Clearwater Commons down the street. The folks driving by, the folks living in the neighborhood, they'll be our customers. That's the need we're trying to fill. Both Walmart and Kroger, in their leases, insist on extensive restrictions. For example, a Kroger store will not want a bakery next to it. They won't want beer and wine sold next to it. They won't want just a whole litany of things. They won't want a fitness place next to it. So by approving the zone change, you create the opportunity for retail that might otherwise be restricted in this area. and it's particularly beneficial in an area where there's a need for it as established by the absence of a significant vacancy. And so if you'll turn with me now to tab four, you'll see Ms. Johnson here present a letter that we gave to the Planning Commission. She performed a comprehensive market analysis. She believes that the lack of small shop space in this area is a particular concern. There's a high population density, and this area is actually increasing in density and population. She notes that the current P1 zoning has been there for 10 years and that there's significant weakness in this market. Based upon all that, she thinks there's a substantial need for additional retail in this area. Behind tab five are our proposed findings and the conditional uses that are acceptable to us. And in addition, at the bottom, you'll see we've also proposed a 15-foot landscape buffer with the adjoining residences, a six-foot fence, and dense vegetation. So we've attempted to make our uses compatible with the neighborhood and hope to be a desirable amenity for the neighborhood. We've attempted to contact the neighborhood to get somebody here today or to get them to work with us. We contacted the management company for the different neighborhood associations out there on three occasions and didn't have any response. And so with that, our request approval based on the recommendation that we've submitted behind Tab 5. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for the petitioner? Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Tavala. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the conditional use restrictions here. I've got one concern as far as possible use going in, and depending on the depending on the site and the distance and so forth it may not be applicable however a restaurant with live entertainment and dancing is shown as a conditional use in a b1 it also i think mentions that it would need to be located with at least a 100 foot buffer or distance from any residential zone I guess I don't know if it'd be clarification from you or from legal is would this be applicable here or would you all mind limiting adding that as a conditional restriction either way you know I hate to rule out too many things I mean that's a reasonable one to rule out but I think that in order to do that and Ms. Bowling can correct me if I'm wrong but I think that to get a conditional use to allow that they'd have to come back before this body at that time to get approval to do it. I've seen situations, Ms. Bowling did you want to say anything? No? Not yet? I really did not hear the beginning of it because I was working on it. Well, some under-proposed findings for approval, but… Okay. My question would be in the B-1 as a conditional use, it does allow for restaurants offering live entertainment and or dancing, cocktail lounges, et cetera. And it does state in there such uses shall be located at least 100 feet from a residential zone. I know it would need VOA approval if they wanted to do something like that. However, with past history, it seems like these sorts of live entertainment facilities can be problematic for a residential area and that's why I would have a tendency to kind of want to just do away with it now. Well, I mean, in what they have offered you, they have listed three conditional uses that under conditional zoning would not be allowed, which in essence means they couldn't even apply to the Board of Adjustment Board. Right. So as far as from a legal standpoint, I think you can certainly add or subtract from that list of conditional uses that you want to be prohibited. Okay. Back to you, Mr. Tappell. What's your thoughts on that? In this instance, on one side we're abutted by the back of the shopping center. On the other side there's a daycare across the street and then the P1 behind us. So it's a fairly isolated spot. I mean, I think your point is well taken. What sort of distance are we talking about? If you're talking about the other side of the street? The other side of Chaz Drive? The other side of Cairn going the other way. That would be, if that property ever developed as residential. It sounded like you were saying, well, there might be a place on this property that such a use could go in without being problematic? I think, I mean, it'd be... Tony, get a microphone. We have to kind of look at the distances. I'm not sure that... Because it is... I forgot about the residential across Sarin. How difficult would it be for you all to accept adding that? I think... Okay. If that's the Commission's preference, I think we can do that. Okay. You know, because, you know, we have seen it before where, you know, it can create noisy situations at 1 o'clock in the morning. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. I must say that I'm somewhat conflicted. At the zoning committee meeting, I probably took notice of the fact that I'm probably the only one that voted against this. But let me ask you something that I'm a bit concerned about. and first of all I went out there and wrote and sat beside that property. I guess people wondered what I was doing there. It was unsightly to begin with and that thing has been empty I suppose for I don't know how many years. It's been kind of sitting there vacant. I kept wondering what good use could be made of this particular property, which is what put me in a conflicted position. But one thing you said earlier about you tried to contact the neighborhood association and no one has responded from the neighborhood. Of all those houses out there, not a single soul came forward and said anything good or bad. Basically, that's correct. Or not basically, that is correct. I contacted the property management company and got the name of the neighborhood association president and her email address, and I sent her an email. I never heard back from her so I called back to the property manager to tell her that we never heard anything and if there was any concern or if they ever met about it or anything. She asked me to send her the email and she forwarded it directly to the neighborhood association. So I then followed up with the property management company again and she said she never heard anything and she just said I guess they don't have any you know they didn't advise her one way or the other regarding it so that's that's what they got the neighborhood the regular 400 foot notice can I pursue my questioning just did the community the person you talked with was the person who was supposed to be the representative of the community is that correct she's the property manager of that that manages the neighborhood for the neighborhood association and she did not make any attempt or she said she's made an attempt to get out and talk to people and just no one she advised her board okay of the zone change and never got any direction from them one way or the other okay and I was curious well whenever I'm in a conflicted position I admit that I usually lean a little bit toward what the community says so I was pushing you on that particular issue the one other observation I'll make is that area I think it's a Walmart grocery right now yes sir it's been I guess in the last five to ten years that thing has turned over several times if I were a The land speculator I would suggest is probably going to go down again, which means there's going to be lots of retail space going to be left up in that area, but that's just the summation there. That's all the comments I have. Thank you. The initial turnover was the Winn-Dixie, which went out, had national trouble, and now that Walmart has moved in, it's regained its strength. I guess Cheryl may be able to address this better than I, but a center is basically only as strong as its major anchor and Walmart has proven to be a pretty good anchor right there. I'm Cheryl Johnston. I'm with CMI Properties and I provided the letter. Your concerns I think speak more to national trends with retailers as opposed to the neighborhood. I've been in the business for 20 years and one of the concerns in this area that's always come up from time to time the rents at Tates Creek Center are traditionally five dollars a square foot above market and when a tenant's lease rolls there oftentimes they don't have a lot of options and whether or not they either pay the increase or they move out of the trade area and when you think about some of the tenants that have actually moved out of tates creek center that's been the case they could no longer afford 30 32 35 a square foot when markets 20 to 24. so i mean tates creek south as you know you can't winn dixie um the movie rental places i mean those are those are national occurrences when you look at the demographic study that's provided in this report the growth trends are solid the demand solid and this doesn't pick up any of the cash economy numbers in this particular trade area so it's why Kroger's expanding and they create some disadvantages they require exclusives if you are charged with the responsibility of leasing a Kroger anchored center and you have a bakery that calls you the Kroger lease or ECRs of Kroger happens to own the property will restrict you from putting a florist lots of their categories their category that so it affects the elements in this trade area which are you know half mile which I think you know speaks to the success of Clearwater Commons that they have maintained very solid occupancy rates with no anchors it's it's all local businesses that need a sign on their storefront because they have limited marketing resources which is what the B1 would encourage. Are there additional questions? If not then I will open up for the anyone in the audience that would like to make comment. Is there anyone? Seeing none then I will We'll close the hearing and we'll entertain a motion or further discussion by the Commission. I'm sorry. What? Does staff have any rebuttal? I'm sorry. I was ignoring you over there. I've been quiet for some time. I don't blame you one bit. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just two real brief points. First to Mr. Wilson's question. I wanted to let you and the Commission members know the staff sent three neighborhood notices for this zone change. We notified the Pinnacle, the Waterford, and the Tanbark Neighborhood Associations with formal letters advising them of this zone change. Also we posted the sign on three occasions because of the postponements with the required zoning change sign. Speaking with Ms. Wade, we estimate that those notifications, in addition to the legal ad published in the newspaper generated four phone calls to the office. So obviously there's not been a lot of communication with the staff from residents of the area or organized neighborhood associations. The one rebuttal point that I did want to address, I think the difference between the applicant and the staff on this application is very much summarized by the first page after the applicants tab three and that is whether the focus is on what's happening at Tates Creek Center or instead on what's happening in the business areas that are zoned closer to this site. Looking at the right column in that exhibit, the Tates Creek South Center, when the staff drafted our initial report in March, we don't believe that the Special Olympics use was occupying that site that was a vacant space from our recollection a few months ago also with the Clearwater Commons development that's at the corner of Sarin and Clearwater very poignant to the staff is the fact that all of those uses listed with exceptional probably of the salon at Pinnacle are uses that would be permitted in the P1 zone and that led us to a great deal of difficulty in saying that P1 was not appropriate at this location also thank Thank you very much. Thank you. Sorry I overlooked you. Apologize. Are there any other comments? If not, then the chair will entertain a motion or further discussion. Second. Thank you. Ms. Blanton. Move approval of MAR 2011-7 Thunder Properties LLC based on the two findings of core approval along with the list of prohibited conditional uses. Is there a second? Motion has been made by Ms. Blanton, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Any further discussion? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Owens? If possible, I would like to amend that to include as a restricted conditional use restaurants with live entertainment and or dancing. Is there any objection to that amendment by Ms. Blanton? None. I'm sorry I just forgot that okay oh all right you agree well did that mr. Cravens is there any other discussion clarification what what did we just do here I mean what were the conditions it's all right this yes this put that one plus mr. Owens amendment okay everybody is everybody clear on what right and you wanted to include it in your motion is that correct yes that's fine okay I'm sorry do you have something Ms. Phillips? The audience do you want to read the motion? Read the findings? That's what I mean. The findings are as follows. Number one, although the proposed zone change is not in agreement with the comprehensive plan the nearby Kroger expansion in a B1 zone will effectively eliminate significant availability of smaller neighborhood retail space which would be replaced with this zone change. That major expansion of the Kroger in what was intended to be a neighborhood business area is a change not anticipated by the comprehensive plan. As a result, the proposed zoning B1 is more appropriate than the current P1 zoning due to the need to replace the available space for small shops. Number 2, the proposed rezoning to a neighborhood business B1 zone will benefit the relevant area by creating economic and employment opportunities for businesses needing small shop space to provide services for the adjoining residential areas and by replacing the small shop space that has been eliminated by the expansion of the premises occupied by Kroger located in the Tates Creek Center in the proximity of the subject property. Is there any further discussion? If not, let's vote electronically, please. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Now, we need the subvision plan. That was not included in the motion, so we need to do that separately. Do I hear a motion or is there a discussion? Go ahead. I move approval of ZDP 2011-21 with the 11 conditions outlined by staff. I have a motion by Ms. Blanton. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Cravens. Any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you all very much. While they're setting up, we're going to take a five-minute recess. We'll take a short recess. Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon members of the Planning Commission the next item on our agenda can be found on your on page four of your agenda it's item 2a marvcv 2011-10 this is a request by Dennis Anderson investments 1700 LLC the proposal today is to rezone approximately five acres on Louie place in the Townley Park development of Sharkey property it's a portion going from a P1 to a B1 it's our professional office to our neighborhood business zone and another portion doing the opposite going from a B1 to a P1 zone so let me orient you to the property subject property is to the interior of our Sharkey property it is located on Louie place both halves of the parcel or the property proposed for rezoning we have Lees Town Road to the northeast, New Circle Road to the northwest. Within the Sharkey development, the entrance drive is Town Center Drive, Sharkey Way, Hatter, Lane, and Louie Place. And the subject property again, half, approximately half on the west side of Louie Place and the other half on the east side of Louie place it's actually three parcels 119 124 and 125 Louie place in this vicinity within the Sharkey property we also have apartments to the south and single family homes to the south east or southwest excuse me business uses including restaurants and service stores in the town center area and also fronting on to New Circle and Leestown Road and then several professional office structures that do also have more of an orientation to Leastown Road. To the southeast is a Kroger shopping center, and to the southwest further is the town branch wastewater treatment facility, and then also in the vicinity across Leastown Road is the Meadowthorpe subdivision. the subject property was originally rezoned in 2002 to the present zoning you see today and it's part of a mixed-use development for the Sharkey property the comprehensive plan in this actually let me show you a few photographs of the site this aerial from 2010 shows what was developed at the time. And again, the property towards the center of the Sharkey development is proposed to go from a B1 to a P1. And the property along the edge of the Sharkey development is proposed to go from P1 to B1. The property at the bottom of that photo, which is to the south, is proposed for apartments and that zone change was approved most recently in this area in 2009. Those apartments are under construction currently. Most of the rest of the property in this area has been built on. You can see there's a few vacant lots bounded by Sharky Way, but the property along Leestown Road does now have a medical clinic on it. This is a photograph of the property that's proposed to go to P1, the professional office area. You can see in the background of the vacant land the Townley Center Drive area with Applebee's and several other restaurants and service areas. This is the subject property that's proposed to go to a B1 zone with the tree line that borders the property. And that tree line really provides a buffer between this property and the shopping center. with the Kroger. This is a view towards Leastown Road of the existing professional office area with a three-story building and then a story and a half building up closer to Leastown Road. The comprehensive plan for this location does recommend a combination of professional services and retail trade with that is in agreement with the existing zoning in this location so the professional services as you can see on the overhead is recommended for the area along louis to the east east side of louis place and the retail trade and personal services is recommended for the west side of louis place and the applicant is proposing the swap to to not be be in agreement precisely with the land uses shown on the comprehensive plan map today. The 2007 comp plan also shows for Sharkey Highway commercial property up closer to New Circle Road, a medium density residential for the apartments, townhouses and single family area. It also shows our warehouse and wholesale land use area which is now proposed for apartments and then the two land uses I just spoke of. The applicant is requesting this zoning swap in order to develop an extended stay hotel in the center of the property that is the area bound by Louie Place, Sharky Way, and Hatter Lane and is proposing uses that are allowed in a B1 zone on the area that's to the east of Louie including a restaurant and an auto service station with retail sale of tires. And this swap is proposed in order to allow the extended stay hotel to be more of a center focus in the development and to allow for walkability between the neighborhood and the existing commercial and those individuals staying at the extended stay hotel. In looking at the rezoning request, the staff considered that the land use relationships while swapping would remain generally consistent in this area in addition the existing properties are the properties proposed for rezoning are currently vacant and so no nonconformities would be created in that regard also the rezoning would maintain the current mixture of zones and land use in the area and the swap is almost identical in acreage I believe one is 2.38 acres and the other is 2.7 acres in addition the proposed uses that are on the development plans today are uses that do support the design concept that the developer has laid out from the beginning in 2002 and that is to create a more walkable and mixed-use community in this area the staff also is supportive of the extended stay hotel because it does have a residential component and that is more in agreement with the original recommendation in 2001 by the comprehensive plan for a more of a residential land use in this area the zoning committee and the staff are both recommending approval of this request for swapping the two the P1 and the B1 zoning and we feel it's appropriate and also an agreement with the 2007 comprehensive plan for three reasons first that the 2007 plan does recommend retail trade and personal services and professional services land uses and that the zonings that support those two land uses are being requested by the applicant also the proposed rezoning is generally maintaining the mixture of uses recommended by the comprehensive plan and lastly as the current or the properties are currently vacant the proposed swap will facilitate redevelop our development of those lots in the in the near future the recommendation is made subject to the approval of the corollary development plan and its certification within two weeks in addition to the request for rezoning the applicant has also asked for conditional use and variance for the two properties or the two areas involved and that will be covered under a separate presentation be happy to answer any questions about this request are there Commission members who have questions for Ms. Wade? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Taylor. The development plan, zoning development plan for this property can be found at the bottom or middle of page 5, ZDEP 2011-54, the Sharkey property, Unit 1, Lots 9, 10, and 18. as tracy laid out this property is located within the sharky development between sharky louis place and hatter near the apartment complex that is getting ready to be started here the applicant is proposing the four-story extended stay hotel with a outdoor or an indoor pool facility there tire store and a proposed restaurant and access located off of the peabody way private access easement into the shopping center the adjacent kroger shopping center as well as one two three access points on louis one centered that serves both of these properties as well as one two and three one on each street to serve the extended stay facility the subdivision committee recommended approval at its last meeting the applicant did submit a revised plan to address many of their cleanup conditions on their on their plan there's a revised condition or sheet handed out to you condition number eight as a note to clean up the construction access location that is a note that is required on a preliminary development plan the applicant had put a note on there wanting to define those points at the final development plan stage and while that may make some sense the ordinance is pretty clear and requiring that those access points be denoted at the preliminary development plan stage a Number 9 is to denote any approved conditional use or variances on this plan once it is approved. Number 10, the applicant did agree to put an access point again in this shared location. The final record plat has been filed that shows an access easement there. The staff is asking with condition number 10 that they denote that access easement and the extent of it on this development plan as well. Number 11 is to denote the encroachment permits to be required for an indoor pool building. This 20-foot building line that runs along the front of Louis for the Extended State Hotel is also a utility easement. This indoor pool does encroach into that area. They would need an encroachment agreement in order to construct that. We're just asking that they denote that on this plan. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Any questions from commission members? Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Emmons? I'm going to present the C and the V portions of this application. The conditional use request is for an extended stay hotel on the requested P1 property. They are requests, I believe the hotel is proposed to be about 107 units. An extended stay hotel by our definition is a is residential in its nature each individual unit will often have its own kitchen It comes down to how long is it rented if it were an apartment It would have to be rented for a minimum of one week An extended stay hotel can rent 50% of their rooms over a year's worth of time for less than one week but the majority you know of their business is for at least weekly rentals with all conditional uses we look at the appropriateness of the request on at the site along with the to make sure that the prop that the proposed use would not be a nuisance for the property I'm happy to say that we have found that this is an appropriate location for this use and as the applicants pointed out that the in swapping the P1 zoning in through here that'll allow the people here that are staying in this to closer access to walk to the walkable town center that you see and there are a few pictures of the existing town center along their main street up and through here and if you'll notice in the development and in this area they do have a lot of varying roof lines that'll come in important in the next as we talk about the variance which I'll switch to now the second part of the request on the B1 portion of the property where it is requested for a for the tire store they are requesting a height variance to the B1 zone the B1 zone has a minimum height a maximum height restriction of 25 feet if you're just doing business what the applicant wishes to do is to raise the for the tire store the bays and the bay area would be meet the height restriction but they want some additional height over top of their sales area for the subject building as the staff was looking at this variance request and the justification that was provided essentially this proposed lot is actually kind of down in a hole and it might be surprising to you i've tried to color code the elevations for the subject property we have leestown road up and through here this is where the light is for the meadow thorpe shopping center for the audience that's the meadow thorpe shopping center right there and if everybody knows that you know it comes up to a hill there at that light this is an elevation of about 950 once you come to Louie place intersection it's at about 940 the existing businesses up along and through here including the McDonald's and the office uses that are along in there they're all in the 930 range and then whenever you get down to the subject property it's down in the 920s so essentially this property is about eight to ten feet I'm coming back to this microphone this property is about eight to ten feet below its surrounding neighbors it's kind of down in a hole it's actually about 20 feet below Lee's Town Road as it comes in on Louie place the applicants are asking for a modest variance to allow the their the height of their building if we can show the last picture this is a picture of let's see can you flip it to the other one there we go that's a picture of one of their it's a little bit out of focus but you can see the idea of the the the built the architecture is that they're going to raise it up over their customer service center they do plan they usually have put their signage on that raised area in other places there is a very similar building that was built in Lexington this one is a picture of a fairly new Ken Towers in Louisville there is a fairly recent one in in Lexington at the corner of Liberty Road and Man of War it used to be a shell station down in through there in that case the bays were a little bit higher the architecture wasn't quite the same that's why I used the picture from from Louisville we believe this to be very similar to the request that you're seeing today. We do find that not only because of the physical characteristics of the property, but also with that general varying roof lines that are in the overall development, both the conditional use and the variance requests are justified. We are recommending approval for the reasons listed on your agenda. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to try and answer them. Other questions from commission members? Thank you. Thank you very much. Petitioner? Thank you very much. I'm Dick Murphy representing Dennis Anderson and his company who owns the property. And with me today is Dennis, regretted that he cannot be here, but Leslie Lawrence is with me who's Dennis' commercial property manager. Also Rory Kaley from EAA Partners, our engineers and designers. And also with us today is Bob Cornette of the Roberts Group. There you are, Bob, who's the engineer for Ken Towery Tire and Auto Service Centers. And Stephen Berry of Berry Associated Architects, who's the architect for Ken Towery Tire and Auto Care Centers. Chas Hyde is with me, who's a planner, who's assisting me. I'm very happy to be presenting this to you. This is essentially a swap of land. P1 and B1 are going to cross the road with each other because we think it will make a much better design for a town center here. But I'm pleased because, as you all know, I'm a zoning lawyer and there hasn't been a lot of zone changes here over the last three or four years. And the – it's – of course, it's business for me, obviously, but I think it's important that we have two businesses here, Kentowry and the Extended Stay Hotel, who are willing to come into Lexington in this area and to – they'll supply, of course, construction jobs but long-term jobs and add to the – not only Townley but this entire area up here. It's important to have that and why, while I may not have thought that that was very important four years ago, I certainly do think it's important now and our, especially our commercial tenants in Townley are very excited about this development coming in. We think it will be a very positive development for Townley. As I said, we're essentially swapping land. We're ending up with a little more P1 professional office than we had before. It's 2.7 net acres to professional office and it will be 2.31 to B1 neighborhood business. So we'll end up with a little more professional office than we had before, but essentially about equal. And Townley, as you know, is a mixed-use development. We have residential in there. We have all kinds of residential, single-family detached, single-family attached apartments. We have the Holiday Inn Express and we think the Extended Stay Hotel will complement that very much. In businesses, we have Shell Station, we have Fast Food, we have sit-down restaurants, we have Applebee's, we have Mexican restaurant, we have Happy Panda in there, the three sit-down restaurants, and professional offices in there. And as you all know, it probably received the Mayor's Award for Best Infill Development a few years ago. I want to tell you a little bit about how this came out. If you could put this slide up. Since this is in the interior of the center, I sometimes have trouble getting my bearings on exactly where we are. I have put up here our – this is a layout we did about three years ago and we've superimposed what we're planning on doing on this property. On this one, here's Leastown Road. Here's New Circle, of course. Here's the main entrance, Town Center Drive. The landmark here is the Walgreens located right here at the corner of Leastown Road and Town Center Drive. Then we have the Urgent Treatment Center. We have Community Trust Bank. And then we have Central Baptist Facility here. Dennis's office is right here that's the office building that was shown in the pictures by the staff and this property is the property behind the office building here and on the below on this rendering that the commercial center here this is where we have Applebee's restaurant Mexican restaurant is here Happy Panda we have a State Farm and AT&T and those sort of things and this has been very positive development for the area we have in this area up here future construction we have under construction right now new building which has been leased among other things to firehouse subs and to orange leaf yogurt which is the big trendy yogurt franchise right now and those were in those uses in particular were encouraged by the fact that we may have of the Extended Stay Hotel coming in here. I want to tell you a little bit about how this came about. Originally, Mr. Towery had entered into a contract with Dennis to purchase this property behind his building, which is Zone B1, and he operates a tire and auto service center, which is allowed in the B1 zone, and he had a contract to purchase that. Very shortly afterwards, Dennis was approached by the company which operates the Extended Stay Hotel to discuss putting the Extended Stay Hotel in the area, which is allowed as a conditional use in the P1 Zone. And in the discussions, the extended stay hotel and Dennis realized that it would be much more appropriate to have the extended stay hotel where on the property that was actually contracted to Mr. Towery because by putting it here as opposed to here, we get it close to the commercial center. We get it in within easy walking distance of the restaurants that are there right now. And it's a plus for both the hotel and for the commercial center. The people who stay at extended stay hotels, this what we're proposing is in the sort of upper range of the extended stay category and people who stay there are professional or technical people who may be on assignment here in Lexington at a manufacturing facility or educational or government facility for a week to three months or whatever and stay in these facilities. or it may be a family or a couple who is thinking of relocating to Lexington and wants to scout out the area to make a decision or they've already decided to relocate and want to live in a facility for a while while they're looking for a house. And these units do have kitchens, but as you might imagine, they are high users of restaurants. They dine out a little more highly proportionally to other people because of the situation they're in. They want to get out. They want to learn about the area. They're doing things. And if we have the restaurants there within walking that they can see and walk to, that's a plus for them, and it's a plus for the restaurants, too. So the extended stay folks and Dennis thought that it would be much better to locate the extended stay hotel closer to the commercial center. The property was under contract to Mr. Towery. Dennis approached Mr. Towery and Mr. Towery very graciously agreed that he would take this parcel over here to switch it over here to what might be considered a less desirable parcel. But he looked at the big picture and saw the layout and agreed to do it. He didn't have to do it. He had a signed contract on the other parcel and he could have said, no, I want that one. But we are very grateful to him that he did agree to this and we think makes the entire development better. And it serves our goal, as Ms. Wise mentioned, and we feel it agrees with the comprehensive plan goals that we have strived for all along in having an innovative design in this area, a walkable community, and mixed-use development. And we think it's important to show that mixed use works not only in downtown, but it can work in suburban areas as well. It's a little different in suburban areas, but it works in this area perhaps better than it does, or at least as well, or better than it does in downtown. So we feel we agree with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. We agree with the densities shown on this property in the 2007 comprehensive plan because we, by swapping the land out, we are maintaining the same proportion of business, professional office, and residential uses in this area. Wanted to discuss the conditional use a little bit. I've discussed it some. Won't spend too much time more, but on the extended stay hotel, which we're showing right in this area. The, as I said, this is, we feel, is complementary to both residential uses and business. As Mr. Emmons mentioned, this is considered more or less a residential use. The traffic flow on this will be opposite normal retail, won't be contributing to traffic problems because in the morning when people are coming into retail, people will be leaving this area. Opposite in the evening, the traffic flows are sort of reversed from retail type uses. Obviously we want people to park their cars and leave them here in the evening. We want them to go walk over to the restaurant or walk over to some of the retail areas. And we want more sit-down restaurants in Townley. We've talked to Metathorpe and think they'd like some more dining options in Townley. And having an extended stay hotel is going to encourage more sit-down restaurants to come into this area and locate. I want to show you one picture too. Before you put the picture up, I want to point to where I'm looking at. Barbara, if you could put that one back there. I'm sorry, I was going to point to where we took the picture here. This photograph I'm going to show you is of the nearest residential use, which is right here, sort of catty corner from the hotel. It's right there, and for the audience, it's right there. Here's the hotel, and there's that. Because we want to talk about the scaling of it. We do have a four-story hotel building coming in here, but if you could show the picture, we think it's a good step process here on it because this is our, the closest residential to us. This doesn't show it real well in the picture, but this is our first townhouse unit that's going down that street back there. You can see it's a three level. Right here is the garage units underneath. That's the first level on the garage. And then the second and third level are the living spaces. spaces so that's a fairly large structure there that's a that's the townhouse unit which is going on down the street there so we feel we have an appropriate step step down situation there on the variance if you could go back to the one we had before on the development plan this is the variance for the Kentowry Tire and Auto Service Center, which is located right here. Again, Leastown is out here, and the Kentowry store will be right here. Looking even on this development plan, it illustrates what Mr. Emmons was telling you, and that is this elevation right in the back here, which is up against the Kroger Shopping Center, Thank you. This elevation in the back of this property, again, Leastown Road is up here. The Central Baptist facility is here. Coming down to this is the Peabody Way, which is the connector into the Kroger Shopping Center over here. This elevation is 938 back here, the lowest one on the shopping center. Down this elevation right here at this end is 926. So we're 12 feet lower right here than the shopping center is up here. And as Mr. Emmons mentioned, we're even a greater distance below Lee's Town Road coming down here. And we're sort of in the low place on the property in this area right here. And the fact that we have a 43-foot office building right here, highest point 43 feet. We have three-story apartment buildings back here which are now under construction. As I mentioned over here, we have a three-story townhouse unit over here. We're going to have a four-story extended stay hotel right here. We think that's very appropriate and very in keeping with the design we have. Throughout Townley, as you notice, we have made an important point of the architectural variance, especially on the roof lines. The roof lines add a lot of architectural interest to this, and if you can just think of the difference between, say, a Hampton Inn that was built 30 years ago, which is essentially a block facility, and the hotels which are built today, which have gables and architectural interest in the roofs. That's an important item that Dennis wants in Townley Center, to have that architectural variance on not only the buildings but the roofs themselves. I'll conclude in just a second here. We are pleased today to have the support of the Metathorpe Neighborhood Association. We have worked closely with them for 12 years on this project, and before this was even filed as a zone change, we approached the Meadowthorpe Neighborhood Association, presented it to them, and Dennis and Leslie approached the president of the Townley Association and presented it to him so they would be aware of what's going on. I understand we have some objectors here who live in Townley today, but we had not received any negative feedback or know of anything until just recently on Townley. But Metathorpe went through the Development Review Committee and the Neighborhood Association with unanimous approval, as Mr. Stone, I think, will tell you in a little bit. But in conclusion, this is, as I said, a swap of areas. The Ken Towery Tire and Auto Care Center is in allowed use in the B-1 and would be allowed in the lot it was originally going to purchase. We thank them for Mr. Towery for his cooperation in doing this. We couldn't have done any of this if he hadn't seen the big picture and being willing to switch lots with us on this. And again, we think this in combination with the Extended Stay Hotel is a very positive contribution to the future success of Townley Center. It will help not only these businesses but the other businesses we have there, especially the restaurant uses in Townley. So we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have about this. Are there questions from commission members for the petitioner? I think Mr. Stone is here for Thorpe Association. I will ask for those who are in favor of this proposal, if anyone in the audience would like to speak. Good afternoon. I'm Jim Stone. And hello to the Madam Chairman and Commission members. We have a Mettathorpe Development Review Committee and I'm Chairman of that and I'm here in lieu of the neighborhood president. We got the word from Mr. Anderson via his engineer, Bob Cornette, and since it went directly to Mr. Collins, our President, he forwarded the information to me. And of course, I took over and scheduled a meeting. We had a meeting. We have 10 members present at our development review committee out of 15. And Mr. Cornett, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Towery and maybe a lawyer too were there. We had about an hour and a half worth of discussion and questions. And finally, we were all out of questions and satisfied, so we allowed those folks to leave, and our little committee voted 10-0 to approve it. And then, I guess it was about two or three weeks later, our committee took this information forward to the full membership of the Metathorpe Community Association, and it was again approved by the total group. so I just wanted to say that our group approves it and we actually prefer the new location of the Kentowry store so that worked out good for our desire so we're very happy with it and I understand there's some opposition but we're across the street so everything's fine with us. Thank you very much, Mr. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in opposition? Yes, ma'am? Name and your address, please. My name is Jean Settle and I live at 172 Town Center Drive in Townley Park. Mr. Stone just mentioned that Mr. Anderson and various people in his organization had a meeting with the Neighborhood Association of Metathorpe and he told me a little while ago that that apparently was in late March. Mr. Anderson does not meet with Townley Park people. He apparently doesn't think he needs to do that because we don't have political power and he therefore doesn't need to consider our needs, wishes, desires, feelings, etc. when he wants to do something. So many of us in the neighborhood didn't know what he was planning to do with these properties until we received the letter that was mailed to some of us, not all of us in the neighborhood, in May. and it took a lot of investigation on the part of some of us individuals to figure out the ramifications of those requested zoning changes and what mr Anderson's true intentions were with regard to those properties and how those intentions would affect us as the residents who live right next to those properties and use that neighborhood which we had been led to believe was our neighborhood since we bought those properties the property was sold to us as a mixed-use planned residential neighborhood I think it's owned our 3 and we were lured into Townley Park by promises of a safe, walkable, friendly, front porch sitting kind of pretty neighborhood of single houses and townhomes with green space, trees, walking trails, possibly a community garden. convenient neighborhood-oriented businesses that fit with the design and scale of our community and would entice us to walk to them and enjoy using them. They would serve both us and Metathorpe and provide things that we need on a daily or weekly basis. It seems to us that the proposed extended stay hotel and the tire store don't fit into this concept. They serve the needs of the builder, not the needs of the residents, the homeowners of Townley Park. There are 51 single homes and 17 townhomes right now. There are five more homes under construction, single homes, and 30 more townhomes. And we, many of us, are already disillusioned with the reality of this neighborhood, the way it has developed since we bought into it. The extended stay hotel and the tire store are further disappointments. We believe that the extended stay hotel and the tire store will adversely affect the character and the quality of our neighborhood. The hotel is only a conditional use even if that property is rezoned to P1. It will be 60 feet tall. The tallest building around it is that office building where Dennis has his office right now. And that, as Mr. Murphy said, is only 43 feet tall. The extended stay hotel will be, I believe, 107 rooms, 103,000 square feet, 144 parking spaces. it will take up the majority of that central block that you can see in the green areas on the map. And we who live in the houses and townhomes will be looking at it every day as we go out around the neighborhood, whether we're walking or riding our bicycle or driving. Our houses, the tallest of our houses, are 24 feet high. And we are all downhill from the commercial center. The apartment buildings are 35 feet tall. and the condo or the town home that is right across the street from that proposed site is three stories, yes, because it has a basement, not because it's really three stories tall. The hotel would not really serve our neighborhood. It would not serve the residents. We don't need an extended stay hotel. We have a place to stay. People who visit us would have a place to stay, either in our homes or at the Holiday Inn. A new hotel would compete with the Holiday Inn that's already in our neighborhood. It would make it difficult for the Holiday Inn to stay in business and to maintain its quality. If a price war ensues, both of those businesses would suffer, and that would cause the entire neighborhood, both business and residential, to suffer. When we bought into the neighborhood, we believed that we were buying into a neighborhood of homeowners. Many of us were not even told that Mr. Anderson intended to build apartments. Now we have two large blocks of apartments flanking us to the east and to the west. We're not happy about the idea of having another large block of temporary residence. We wanted a stable neighborhood where people would live there long term. we would get to know each other, we would work together for the betterment of our community, much like Metathorpe. We want to feel secure about walking our neighborhood, walking to the businesses, running and jogging in the evening, bicycling, letting our children play outside, leaving our back gates unlocked, and feeling that the people in our neighborhood were people that belonged there, and that we could trust and feel safe with. If this hotel comes in, that uses up most of the space that could be used by other retail and restaurant-type businesses that we would like to see more of. Some of those sit-down restaurants that we don't have. something like a hardware store that we don't have on our side of town and a beauty shop, a Panera's, a Caldi's, to name a few things that we would rather see other than a tire store or an extended stay hotel. Ms. Settles? Yes. You were given, we have a five minute limit. are you about to wrap up here gone over a little I have a little bit more I'd like to say but I can pass it off to somebody else if you would like me to do that either that or if someone wants to extend their give you their time okay We have other people here that are giving me their time, I think. I wanted to also speak about the tire store. I looked at the zoning ordinances on the LFUCG website. It looks to me like even with a B1 zoning, that type of business is not appropriate in that zoning. It looks to me like it belongs in a B3 or a B4, which is a highway service business. The other Kentowery stores in town are located on major arterial streets, not inside mixed-use neighborhoods. They are accessible directly from those major streets where people don't have to enter neighborhoods in order to access them. A tire store doesn't just sell tires. It works on cars. It repairs. It does a lot of other things. There is a prohibition under B-1 against establishments engaged in the display, rental sales, service, major repair of automobiles, and establishments primarily engaged in the sale of supplies and parts for vehicles. So it seems to me that the tire store should be prohibited in a B-1 zone. It's not neighborhood oriented. It discourages walking and bicycling for residents. We don't walk to tire stores. It's unsightly, dirty, noisy, and smelling. It will increase vehicular traffic and congestion in that location, which is already a problem because there is so much cut-through traffic there already, and Peabody Way is very narrow. It will require regular deliveries of tires, which involves semis coming into the neighborhood and maneuvering to get into that parking lot to drop off their tires. I can't imagine that a nice restaurant would want to locate right next to it. And its location would be directly across from professional offices to medical facilities. a bank and office buildings so it just seems to me that and to many of us there are several supporters here and we have emails from many other neighbors who couldn't come today but sent us their encouragement to see what we could do to prevent both of these projects from going forward so I thank you for attention and please consider the needs of the residents in this case. Let's see what can be done to find a better solution for the uses of these locations. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Edels. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? I misspoke a moment ago. Each person is supposed to have three minutes. Five minutes is for the rebuttal. well it seemed that the representatives of mr anderson seemed to get a little bit more than three minutes so if you don't mind i'm conley saluer i'm here representing some of the homeowners in this organization i'm a the vice president and i live in the development and i like it very much we've worked on a lot of projects with dentists in the past and some rezoning issues and they've been resolved satisfactorily we'll see where this one can go the first thing i want to talk about is this the use that we have on the scale of what we're trying to do here we'll record this yes you'll have to go to the mic I have to go to the mic or take one with me right that's pretty dark but that's the scale and you've seen that one before of the office buildings in the neighborhood and that if you go back to the take that off and put up that one we just had a minute ago on the more narrow strip going down here a budding Peabody is marked 920 that was what was envisioned for that area so you've got a lot of Georgian looking office complex kinds of building would fit in there an extended stay probably wouldn't fit in that space so that's a reason to swap it out you can you may use the portable mic if you sure but I enjoy the walk it's sitting down and no standing just drives me crazy I don't know how you all do it I really don't this is a very good resolution but that is my grandson and I standing on the on the corner at the top of the lot where the extended stay hotel would be and you can see that from that point a 60-foot building four-story building will be a little bit out of scale and you also have the house which is right on your immediate right as you face that picture like and as Jean said none of them are than 24 feet now if you reverse that view from and look back to where I was standing that's the scale of the development of the house that's right in the neighborhood those are the ones that are right there and that's what's out of scale This is the corner of Peabody and Louie Place, the fire hydrant where this tire store is supposed to go in. This is a, as you can see, because of the way these streets spin, this is a very awkward in and out, and Peabody leads right up to Kroger's, and that's where everybody goes. It's a very bad place from a traffic perspective. the apartment houses if you kept going down to the left of this picture the increased number of apartment houses down at the end of that street so there's going to be a lot more traffic coming that way we saw a picture of um this tire store this proposed i don't know that there are any what the requirements are I haven't seen any drawings on this this is the this is one of his tire stores on Bryan Avenue and there's new circle this is the same story if you can brighten it on the left there's a truck that's been brought in there that's back doors open and tires are on the ground it's very unsightly place I'll leave these for the commissioners if they want to see them they're better close up it is kind of hard and this is the last one of the tower store on Bryan Avenue and New Circle Road so until you know there's some drawings that have been put to bed here on what this thing is going to look like you can see why we're not too excited about this tenant. One of the comments that staff made, and I can understand from staff's perspective, if you haven't been out there and walked this neighborhood, how it could look like a logical swap, a P1 for a B1. I mean, on paper, it makes a lot of sense. When you go there, it begins to make less sense. And it's a little bit disingenuous. one of the arguments that was used for this being the 35 foot can the exception allowed to make this tire store up to 35 feet was that juxtaposed to the four-story 60-foot extended-stay hotel that it wouldn't seem so out of scale but you got to admit that you've got to remember you got to do that swift a swamp before you can make that happen so you create you create your situation that you're reinforcing with the same comment that's really all I wanted to say just this is out of out of scale and out of touch with what has been expected in this neighborhood what people want and what we have been expecting I understand Dennis is doing a lot of building out there right now he's building new commercial areas up with with more stores and more restaurants he's putting in new townhomes He's putting in new single-family homes, and he would really like to clear out of this area, I'm sure. But this kind of last-minute kind of switch to get that done is just not satisfactory to us. And I thank you for your time very much. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak? If not, then we will open up for rebuttal and closing statements. At this time, Petitioner. Thank you very much. Just want to respond to some of the items. Everybody has the right to voice their concerns, and I know residents coming in have different ideas in their minds about how the neighborhood would be. I want to point out, though, we're not changing the proportion of uses here, B1 to P1. We are not, there was not a particular use promised on these particular pieces of property. These are uses which are allowed in the B1 zone. Mr. Towery's architect just mentioned to me, said, well, you know, we could have gone in and gotten a building permit on that site behind Dennis' office without going through any of this zone change at all. That would have been the easy way to go, and that tire store would be going out there now. And but to his credit he did not do that and he was willing to do this switch because he saw the benefit to the neighborhood and the area as well. I wanted to say also that at the time we contacted the Meadowthorpe Neighborhood Association, the information meeting was also held with the president of the Townley Park Neighborhood Association to inform them of what was going on. was going on. It was with the President and that was back in March or April before this was filed as well. So I wanted you all to know that we had not purposely failed to notify the Townley Park Neighborhood Association on this and I don't think there's been any formal action on the part of the Townley Association as well. We understand individual owners have the right to express their opinion, however. I do want to discuss the uses of the tire store just to clarify that. This is the excerpt of the zoning ordinance. In the B1 zone, you're allowed to have what they call an automobile service station, and I tried to highlight that. It's coming out now. What's circled in the yellow right here is automobile service station. which is a building or structure used for minor automobile and truck repair, retail sale and dispensing of fuel, lubricants, tires, batteries, accessories, and supplies, including installation and minor servicing customarily incidental thereto. Facilities for washing and for chassis and gear lubrication are permitted if it's enclosed in the building. So that's what's allowed in B1, and of course it defines, it uses the word minor automobile repair. So you have to go back up and look at what minor automobile repair is. And that is minor repairs, including auto inspection lanes, engine tune-up, adjusting lights and brakes, but not including any operations specified under automobile and truck repair. Major. So basically you can't do anything major. So you have to go look in major to see what you can't do. And what you cannot do in B-1 is major automobile repair, which is rebuilding or reconditioning of engines or transmissions, vehicles or trailers, repair and collision service, such as body, frame, or fender straightening, painting, upholstering, auto glass work, and the like. Mr. Towery does not do any of these things. I had a real good conversation with Mr. Towery this morning just in preparation for the hearing, and I wanted to pass on to you some of the things he told me, and especially in the response, the statement that was made that this tire restorer was going to be dirty, noisy, and smelly. Okay? The, Mr. Towery said as far as first use as he was, when we first did this, filed this before we filed it, my first question to Dennis was check and make sure this is minor automobile repair because major is not allowed in the B1 zone. He checked with Mr. Towery, confirmed it was minor. Mr. Towery reconfirmed that to me today. He said he does not do windshields, does not do transmissions, does not rebuild engines, does not do body work. I'll keep moving faster here on this, but I need to tell you what he said. And as far as how he keeps up his businesses, he owns these in different ownership interests. The one that was shown on Bryan Avenue is one he bought from an older store here in Lexington. He owns it with another party. The one that Mr. Emmons showed you the picture of is owned by him individually. The one out on Man of War, which has been mentioned, is owned by him individually. Now, he and his Louisville stores in 2010, they had a civic organization that gives a prize for best image of business. And that includes landscaping and cleanliness. In his category, he won second place in his category in Louisville in that competition in 2010. In 2008, there's a trade magazine, which is a nationwide, the leading tire store magazine, modern tire dealer, rated 28,000 dealers across the United States as far as image of the stores, cleanliness, appearance, community involvement. Again, 28,000 chains or stores across the country were rated. His chain, his individually owned stores were rated number one in the United States. In his individually owned stores, he does not allow any outdoor storage. He does not allow any work to be done outdoors. You won't see racks of tires stored outdoors or anything like that. He told me today, he said, in his business, he sells tires, he replaces parts, replaces batteries, and that sort of thing. the cleanliness of the stores, the outdoor appearance is critical. He said, I have to appeal to new customers coming in. He said, 60% of my customers are female, but regardless of whether they're female or male, people today are looking for a positive experience when they're there. They want something that's clean. Mr. Barfi, you've exceeded your time. Okay, if I could just make a couple other points on the, I think the other people went over. Mr. Barfi, you've exceeded your time. Okay. I let you go over as it is. Okay. Well, we feel that the extended stay is appropriate in the location. I won't go into the reasons. I mentioned the reasons why we think it's there. It's important to new businesses coming into that area. Thank you. Citizens are next. Sorry. Is there anyone in the audience? You have five minutes maximum. I guess I'll have to give you another minute or two. To be fair, is there anyone that would like for a rebuttal or have you concluded your statements? Yes, Ms. Settle? Thank you. I will be very brief. Just because something is legal doesn't make it always appropriate. Thank you. Staff? I'm sorry, is there anyone else that would like to speak? Not staff rebuttal? I just wanted to confirm that Mr. Murphy's interpretation of the automobile service station was in fact the staff and building inspection, how they read the ordinance and do permit tire stores in B1 as well as the B3 and B4 zones. So that's one of those uses that kind of crosses over. service to the neighborhoods but can also be a more intense use so thank you thank you yes ma'am my name is june salier i live in townley park um near the development and And could Mr. Murphy tell us what is proposed to be next to the tire store? There is another structure there that we couldn't identify. Yes. Mr. Mark. What we propose, I think we're referring to this lot right there next to the tar store, is a retail center. We do not know what would be going into that at this point. The purpose of a development plan, of course, is to show that we can meet zoning ordinance requirements on a lot. We can put a building there which meets all parking, et cetera, requirements, and that's why it's there. We obviously hope to get more retail or business or restaurant type uses in there, but we just don't know at this point. Thank you. Ms. Wade. The development plan does say it's a restaurant, so I don't know if that's going to change or not, but at this point they've indicated it's a restaurant and probably to use the maximum parking spaces just to make sure it works. Thank you. If there's no further comment from the audience, then I will declare the hearing closed and I will turn it over to the Commission for any discussion or for motions. I'm sorry. Any questions? Yes. I don't know to whom we should direct this, but I wanted to just remind the members of the audience that in our rezoning we rezone that in if that rezoning were granted any of the permitted uses within those zoning classifications could be allowed and it turns out that they have a development plan that shows the proposed land uses but the with respect to zoning any of the allowable uses or conditional uses if they went to the Board of Adjustment could be permitted So I want you all to keep in mind if this zoning does go through that it's not exactly the Commission's endorsement of those particular land uses of the extended stay hotel or the Kentowary it's the zoning classifications that we're concerned with. Are there other comments, questions, discussion amongst the commission members not then the chair will entertain a motion we will we'll have to take the zoning first and then we'll do it in that order then the conditional use and variance and i can i assume that we can put the conditional use and variance in one motion okay and then we would do the plan. Ms. Platton? I move approval of MARCV 2010-11 Dennis Anderson LLC. Are there no conditions there second I have a motion from Mrs. Blanton second from mr. Cravens there any further discussion if not please vote electronically Motion carries. The next item we'd have to take up would be the conditional use and variance and that can be done in one motion. Ms. Glatton. I move approval of the requested conditional use and requested variance based on the three staff recommendations for the conditional use and the five staff recommendations for the variance height variance subject to the six conditions. We have a motion by Mrs. Blanton. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Cravens. Any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. We need one more motion. Ms. Blanton? Move approval of ZDP 2011-54 of Sharkey property with the 11 revised staff requirements. Motion by Ms. Blanton. Is there a second? Second. Is there any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. And thank you all for coming. We now move on to the public hearings on zoning ordinance and text amendment request. slide the first item under text amendments is at the bottom of page 5 and it can be found behind tab 3 in your notebook this is ZODA 2011-3 it's a text amendment that's been initiated by the urban County Council in order to provide for right of entry administrative warrants and civil penalties in the zoning ordinance there is a handout at your seat that includes a staff handout as well as it's stapled to it a letter from the Fayette Alliance in support it's on white paper I think Did you lose it? Okay, good. This text amendment affects Articles 5, 17, 23C, and 26 of the zoning ordinance and is intended to broaden the means of enforcement for our division of building inspection in three ways. First, to allow for right of entry for the purpose of inspecting, ascertaining, and causing to be corrected any violation of the ordinance second in order to administer a administrative search warrant if provided for by district court and third to clarify that civil citations and penalties are allowed in all cases of a violation the text has been recommended by the building inspection task force which was an ad hoc committee of the council established in 2009 they completed a comprehensive review of the division of building inspection and its functions and in doing so looked at six primary issues two of which affect this text amendment one had to do with safety issues and the second with civil administration and enforcement those two issues were discussed by the task force on multiple occasions and they resulted in the Department of Law drafting this text amendment the task force then forwarded their recommendation to the planning and zoning committee of the council in March of this year and then And the committee forwarded their recommendation or referred this to the full council. And the council initiated this text amendment in April. The changes proposed for Article 5 involve a change to, or an addition, a new section called Right of Entry for Article 5-1A. this would propose to allow the division of building inspection to enter upon a property land structure or building for the for the purpose of it enforcing the ordinance the division of code enforcement and also the division of fire and emergency services currently have this authority to address life safety issues but building inspection does not and it became an issue or item of concern in terms of enforcing some student housing issues about two years ago. In addition, the text proposed under 5-1A would allow for the Division to seek an administrative search warrant from the Fayette District Court, but does also provide some protection for individual property owners in residential areas that language is intended to protect residences from unreasonable inspections in accord with our Fourth Amendment rights. The remainder of the text amendment proposed today involves Articles 5-9, 17-14, 23-13, and 26-12. And these all pertain to allowing civil penalties to be issued as an alternative to what is currently allowed today which is a criminal citation. The current process for building inspection is that they would identify a zoning violation issue a notice of violation to the offender which would identify the violation specifically and also identify a time period by which that violation needs to be corrected if the offender does not correct the violation in a timely way or is refusing to correct it at all then the case can be forwarded to the district Fayette District Court as a criminal matter. Overall there's been a lack of satisfaction with this process for two reasons. First it has limited success in obtaining compliance in a timely manner and second the criminal court proceedings can be costly and time-consuming for the government as well as the person they're pursuing action from and also the court system does not necessarily prioritize these type of cases. The text amendment would specifically provide for both criminal and civil penalties in any violation it would be up to the individual I guess or the situation individual situation as to which which Avenue was pursued the civil site and process is set forth in 5-9 already in the past it was used with our soil erosion control ordinance since that has moved to the code of ordinances there is not any section of our zoning ordinance that currently allows for the civil citation process so this new language in these four or five sections would specifically say now a civil citation can can be issued and with the process already laid out in 5.9 or 5-9 that would just be followed the hope would be that there would be greater compliance with the zoning ordinance if civil citations are issued and a someone could either pay a fine or appeal that issue to the infrastructure hearing board the staff is recommending approval of this text amendment for two reasons first hopefully it will allow the ordinance to be adhered to in a quicker manner by allowing the civil citation process which is more effective and expedient than the existing criminal process and secondly that putting in place article 5-1a will allow the division of building inspection to have right of entry and that access would permit for better enforcement facilitate better enforcement of the zoning ordinance the staff presented our recommendation to the zoning committee three weeks ago and they expressed some concern about the proposed language in 5-1a specifically so they referred that section to the Commission full Commission and recommended approval of the change that dealt with the civil citations. The staff is proposing a small change to the initiated text and that would be on the handout. The first section is what was initiated for 5-1A by the Council. The second section deletes a phrase that talks about empowering the director to prescribe, adopt, promulgate and enforce reasonable rules, regulations and guidelines. And in speaking with the Department of Law, they stated that that was not necessarily required to be in there, that the reading of it would still be the same without it. And also for reference, the code enforcement in FHIR's current language, that gives them right of entry also for property. I'd be happy to answer any questions about this text amendment. And Mr. Barbary from the Department of Law is here as well. He drafted the text amendment. Are there questions? Commission members? Ms. Phillips? Tracy, in the committee we talked about we did have reservations about the ability of building inspections to enter a property. And I remember our discussion we talked about we wondered how many other communities have that authority either within the state or in other states. Were you all able to glean that information? I was able to do some research about that. In Kentucky, Louisville does have that within their ordinance and they have the ability to enter a property. And so I looked a little bit broader just to see clearly in Kentucky it would be allowed. Two other towns that popped out in just a quick research on the internet were Cleveland and Falls Church, Virginia. So I know that gave me the idea that other states currently use this as well. It seemed pretty common language. The language they used was similar to what we were proposing too. Additional questions? Nothing. Commission. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm really not trying to be prejudiced against you today, Mr. Murphy. I was, I'm sorry, I was. And I do apologize when I was talking before. I thought I'd only talk for two minutes when obviously I'd gone. Time flies when you're having fun. Exactly. Sorry about that. I just want to address this a little bit to you. I was one of the five attorneys locked in a room for 25 hours with Chris King about a year ago. And I was – Bill Lear and I were representing the property owner's side. I was representing the Greater Lexington Department Association and Mike Moiser and Ted Cowan and Rochelle. And Mr. Askew was then Commissioner of Law. And after we were locked in there for 25 hours with Chris, he made us come to an agreement on things, which we did. And we had thought we had addressed a lot of the student housing issues. I know Ms. Wade mentioned that some of this came out of student housing and enforcement. We changed the rule. As you know now, there's a rule only four unrelated people can live in a house unless it's been used for more in the past, which is a limit of six. And one of the reasons we did that was for ease of enforcement. It's easy to, for building inspection, to go to the landlord and say, okay, how many leases have you got on this property? And the landlord has to say, okay, if they've got four and you're okay, well, if you've got five, you're in trouble. and it was a way of enforcing that without having to go through all the rigmar mold that we're going through at that time and enforcing a vague ordinance. I had tried to reach the Great Election Department Association people this week to see if they had any concerns about this. Unfortunately, they're all in their national convention. The National Department Association convention is right now and they were unable to get a response. They did ask me to relate that they have had concerns in the past about this. I guess my only concern looking at it is it's worded in the positive, and that is you have the right to enter. I don't think, and Mr. Barbary, I'm sure, has been doing research on this, I don't think the police have the right to enter a private residence without probable cause to investigate a crime that's occurring. Recently there was a U.S. Supreme Court case. The U.S. Supreme Court said that when they were knocking on the door saying they wanted to get in to investigate and heard the toilet flushing repeatedly to destroy evidence, in that case they could enter the private residence. They couldn't under any other circumstances. Now, I don't know how many zoning violations are going to get covered up by flushing the toilet. I don't think there's many of them around here. I think you can see that by observing the house. I think if they're selling Amway out of their house illegally, you're going to be able to figure that out, whether it's a day or two down the line, rather than having to go to the door. The concern I have, it's worded in the positive. You have the right to enter. And a 19-year-old, when confronted with a representative of the government saying, I have the right to enter your private house right now, is a little intimidated and doesn't know that they have the right to say no, go get a warrant. They don't know that. That's, I would be much more comfortable if we were to word it in a negative, but I don't want to get into that too much. My main point is that Apartment Association has, I don't know, 22,000 units or something they rent out that they represent. They are an organization that has major concerns about this. They'd ask me to ask you for a postponement. I called Bill up and Bill said, well, sorry, they can't postpone. and the council only gives you 60 days, and you all don't meet again until the 60 days has run. So I'm a little bit in a quandary here. I do need to express to you that there are concerns about it that need to be addressed. You know, we're not against enforcing the ordinance or anything like that. But they need to have time to look at it and think about it and have input. So I guess what I'm saying is, if you have – please take that into account when you act. But I do want to say for the record, and we'll probably have to say to the council, we're going to have to ask the council to have a hearing on this so that the GLAA can look at it and give an unemotional measured response to the council about what their concerns are on that. So thank you very much for hearing me out. You're welcome. Yes. My name is Charles Hott. I live at 929 Aurora. I just want to echo Mr. Murphy's concerns about this. As a private homeowner, I'm not sure that this would pass the Fourth Amendment test. I think in order for people to – there is a guarantee in our Constitution against unlawful search and seizure. And without a warrant and probable cause, I don't see where you all have the power to do this. So I just want to speak as a private citizen. Thank you. Thank you. The comments or questions? I have a question for Mr. Murphy, actually. You know, those are some concerns that we talked about in committee, and I guess my reassurance was they can't enter. They've got to go to a judge who will make that determination. However, you mentioned wording it in the negative rather than how it's worded now. What would that look like? Well, I guess the wording would be they're not authorized to enter without a warrant. Unless – Anything in between that and what we have – Well, there's always consent. They can consent, right, David, to come in. Yes, would you please? I'm Dave Barbary with the Department of Law, for those of you all that don't already know me. I think one of the reasons it looks like this is because it's generally drafted broadly so that it can compass all of the zoning ordinance. And some of that's business stuff. And the way this is supposed to operate, if you legally, they can go in an open business premises as long as it's open during business hours and do their functions anyway. That's something they can do without even having this on the books. So in some respects, that's just replicating what some of the law is anyway. The real assistance this provides is it unquestionably gives them the right to do their job in some respect. The way it's supposed to operate with a private residence and and and I understand your concern dick if they went to the door of a private residence and asked to do an inspection and it was a Tenant that was there if the tenant decided it was okay to let them in and do it They wouldn't have to get a warrant, but if the tenant said, you know, I don't want you to do this without I Have I have rights I want to protect then then they would in fact have to get a warrant That's but that's the way the law largely operates now anyway without even putting it in writing. We're just mimicking kind of how the law would operate if someone in a private residence tells you you know you can't come in and do your job you need to go to court and tell the court why you need why you need to be in there the standard legally for those of you that care it's really not as great in a in a civil context which is how we're kind of operating this as opposed to to sending someone to jail for something. So it is a little looser from a legal standpoint on what your rights are. And I think part of the issue is that this does try to cover the business aspect as much so, or even more so, than it's focusing on the private property. But the private property protection would be that if the citizen has a problem with them coming in the premises, they simply tell them, you know, you can't come in, and they would have to go to court to get the warrant. Does that address your question? Anybody else have any questions? I have a question. Mr. Barbary, you just said that the right of entry would be applicable to commercial dwellings as well. and doesn't it say here in the text that it would be only occupied private dwellings? No, the protection is for occupied. The specific protection is focused on occupied dwellings that's cited in here. A business that's open to the general public doesn't have the same level of protection legally that a private resident says. The reason that language is in here is actually to protect private citizens from an unwarranted entry into their domicile. There wasn't a need to really put the commercial people in here because they don't enjoy the same legal right anyway if they're open for business to the public. And just so you all know, operationally, if a business had part of it that was not open to the public, our people would go get a warrant if they were told they weren't supposed to go back there and do their inspection. So that's, you know. Thank you. Mr. Cravens. Yeah, do we have – are we able to postpone this to give the department – I know it says July the 12th. Right, you don't have another Planning Commission meeting prior to that. Well, I mean, can't you postpone it if the petitioner agrees to it? You're not the petitioner. I know, but we can ask them. Counsel? Yeah. I mean he's gonna have to take it back before him anyway unless you let go this process yeah we have to act the Planning Commission has to act within 60 days do we have to act can we not act make a recommendation so you can recommend approval or disapproval We went through this once. You have to, under the statute, this is state law, this is not local. KRS 100 says that if your local legislature initiates a text amendment, the planning commission has to consider it and act in some regard within 60 days. If they don't, they simply lose the opportunity and it goes straight to the legislature because of the fact that you're required by statute to act. So you will lose any opportunity to comment on it at all would be the ultimate practical effect. Now, you can approve it, you can disapprove it, or I think that you could just say we've considered it and we're going to send it back to you without a recommendation. We're going to check the language on that. I think that's our question. Didn't we do that with the fence ordinance and we tried to guide them in the direction that we preferred and maybe in this case you recommended disapproval on that one? We were going to check the exact wording because I don't think this question has really come up obviously you can approve or disapprove I mean you can disapprove I think what you did with the fencing is you disapproved and then basically stated the problems you had with it so you certainly have that option to give them input I guess the council will hear input from the University Housing Group anyway. The question was that. Whether that happens today or, you know, at a different hearing. Why haven't they heard it prior to during the process? I'm sorry? Why wouldn't they have heard from all of the constituent groups during the process before? You mean the Building Inspection Task Force? Why did they not? Right. You said that the council will be hearing from the apartment group. Because Dick will ask for a public hearing. He just told us that he was going to ask for a hearing to make a statement. Right? Well, no, this is prior. I think you're asking why prior. I don't know. I mean, I just, and I'm sorry, you know, I sort of feel bad. I don't want to mess up the works here, but I think GLAA has a concern. They didn't know this was going on. and they feel they are an organization which has – can give some useful input on this thing. They just haven't had a chance to. I don't know – I don't know if they had an opportunity or didn't or if they weren't informed or what, but they're not aware of it. It hasn't gone to the council. I mean, they just initiated it. It came from – the inspection task force sent it to their planning and zoning committee. The committee considered it, sent it to the full council, and the council initiated it. So they've heard or seen this text. It will not become, of course, an amendment to the zoning ordinance until it is also acted upon by council. So, you know, as Mr. Murphy indicated, I mean, regardless of what you do today, the Landlord Association would certainly have an opportunity not only to request a hearing from council, but, I mean, they can ask council to put it back into committee to give them an opportunity to comment i mean at that point council has however long it wants before it does anything with it or they can put a committee and it can go away this is not the last opportunity for them to comment is the only thing i'm saying what is the pleasure of the commission at this time i would just note the krs wording on the screen there with the underlining whether the amendment shall be approved or disapproved is what the commission is asked to do make a recommendation on whether it should be approved or disapproved. Okay. Mr. Creighton. Yeah, I'm just concerned. I mean he raised a good point not being a lawyer. I don't even want to impersonate one, but he raised a good point about this right to entry and if you knocked on the door of a tenant over there they're gonna say come on in, you know, where you know maybe they shouldn't, they don't know their rights and then I'm surprised that they haven't seen this this text you know prior to this and then also it makes me a little nervous giving anybody right especially a city inspector just more more rights I guess is there a motion that would anyone on the count on the Commission like to put this in form of motion one way or for or against I'm sure mr. Owens I'll give an attempt I I don't know where it will lead. With Mr. Murphy's concerns duly noted and with the idea that council will probably be hearing from him as well. And considering the fact that law and order is probably on TV 24 hours a day, and usually that's the first thing that comes up is that there should be a warrant or there is a warrant or something. I'm going to make motion for approval of ZOTA 2011-3 with the revised conditions as the staff has presented with the two reasons listed. With the revised language? With the revised language, yes. I have a motion by Mr. Owens. Is there a second? Mr. Wilson has given us a second. Is there any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Madam Chair, we regret to inform you the electronic system is down. Okay. Would all in favor please raise your hand. What did we get? Two. All opposed, please raise your right hand. The motion is defeated. So now do we have, do we need to, can you accept that as a motion of disapproval or do we have to have another motion? You can approve a portion of it, like the civil penalties part that the zoning committee wasn't concerned about. You can recommend disapproval of this portion. Can we do that? Can we do that? Well, I mean, as you can see, the statute says that you can recommend whether it shall be approved or disapproved. It doesn't talk really about portions of it, but it also says and shall state the reasons for its recommendation. It also says that you shall also state the reasons for the recommendation. So I think you could make a motion to approve the proposed text amendment to article such and such and article such and such and disapprove the text amendment to article, in other words divide it up. But you need also under the statute to state your reasons and at that point you can state your concern over the warrant issue but recommend approval if you choose to do so for the civil penalties in the administrative process. So your motion should include what you're recommending approval for, what you're recommending disapproval for, and the reasons. Okay. Do you want to give a shot at that, Ms. Phillips? I hope people jump in when I mess this up. I would recommend approval of the civil penalties portion of the proposed text amendment, which would include amendments to Article 5-9, Article 17-14, Article 23-13, Article 26-12, For the reasons provided by staff. Just reason number one. Just reason number one. Enforcement of and compliance with zoning ordinance has been hampered in the past by the fact that penalties or violations for violations result in criminal citation and criminal court proceedings. That paragraph. Yes. And you also need to cover the section that we're disapproving of. Article 5-1A that you're recommending disapproval. I would like to recommend disapproval of Article 5-1A. And your reason, therefore? Because... I like it. Yeah. Commission is concerned about the right of privacy and entry into private dwelling. Private property. Does that work? That will work. Is that close? There's a second. Mr. Cravens, did you have a comment? Yeah. This part is to add the civil penalties in addition to the criminal penalties. Is that what it's doing? It's as an alternative. I don't think you can pursue both. It gives us the ability to pursue. Now it's only criminal, and this is adding the civil part? Yes. So it's easier to take somebody to court over a violation in civil than criminal? No. No, sir. It goes through an administrative hearing process. It's a lot more informal, but it probably would be quicker. And I think actually probably both sides would get a better result than they get in district now. I know they've been trying to do that a long time. Okay. Motion's on the floor, and I have a second for Mr. Wilson. Is there any further discussion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Opposed? Carries unanimously. Thank you. There's a council meeting at 6 o'clock. What are we? I'm sure we can relocate or we can put the pedal to the metal. We think you can either relocate or put the pedal to the metal. Go. Go. Thank you. The next item, you have two more remaining hearings. The next one is on page seven, item number two. This is EOTA 2011-4, a proposed text amendment to define and regulate temporary structures. This has been initiated by the Urban County Council and it is also subject to your review before your next scheduled meeting. The staff did prepare and present to you two exhibits that are the basis of our presentation on a blue sheet and a pink sheet. The blue sheet defines that this regulation will deal with temporary structures and commercial zones. The top portion of that drawing indicates past practice which under the State Building Code allows the temporary structure to be erected for half a year. We have a local example where such a structure was then removed for a couple of years and then re-erected. That is the event that led to the Council considering this text amendment, which they have done for the past three years. It's on a blue sheet. The bottom portion of that sheet shows the impact of the proposed amendment. That would be to regulate temporary structures similarly but only allow them in commercial zones for 60 days. Beyond that, up to the half year that's permitted by the building code, they would become conditional uses, meaning there would be notification given to area property owners and a review on a site-by-site basis by the Board of Adjustment. This text amendment will also define temporary structures in four ways, one of which deals with the pink exhibit given by the staff to define their size. Under the building code, a structure of 120 square feet or less is not subject to permitting and things of that nature. And then we have a range in there of some other common temporary structure sizes and estimated costs by staff research. This was discussed between the staff, building inspection, and the law department prior to the council's initiation of this text amendment. Besides the definitions and the changes that are proposed with this in commercial zones, the definition of a structure would also be amended to cite that it is either permanent or continuous location on the ground. Again, to differentiate between a temporary structure. That is a very abbreviated presentation. I would tell you that the Zoning Committee and staff have recommended approval of this text amendment for four reasons, which appear on our staff report and on the agenda. I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission at this time. Does anyone have any questions? Not? Thank you. Yeah. Oh, okay. Oh. All right. Could we – do I hear a motion? Madam Chairman. Yes. Move approval of ZOTA 2011-4. And the findings. I have a motion by Ms. Craven, seconded by Ms. Beatty. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Number three. Next item on your agenda is ZOTA 2011-5. This text amendment was also initiated by the Urban County Council, and it involves regulations for circuses and carnivals. This text amendment is proposing two new definitions, one for circus and one for carnival, and it also would change how they are regulated in business and industrial zones. Specifically, it would make a circus a conditional use in the B1, B2, B2A, which are the downtown, B3 and B4, I1, I2, and the CC zones. So circus would become conditional in all those zones and would remain as a principal permitted use in our B5P and the B2B downtown Lexington Center business downtown zone. The proposed change would leave carnivals as a temporary use in all those zones, but just move circuses as a conditional use. The one change that the staff – I'm not going to get into the reasons because we've talked about this in Zoning Committee and it's in the staff report, but there's been some concerns about the locations of circuses near residential areas and also utilizing parking lots for circuses and carnivals. The proposal suggested leaving circuses as a principal use in the B5P zone. The staff would suggest making it conditional just like all the other business zones. There was a feeling that the downtown business zone would be appropriate for circuses but not other locations. and staff is also suggesting some minor tweaks to the text of the definition of carnival to clarify that no carnival can occur two weeks prior to the designated county fair and also changing all references within the text amendment from building, the word building, to structure. Staff is recommending approval of these changes. Are there any questions? Ms. Blanton? Oh. Proceed. Move approval of ZOTA 2011-5 Circuses and Carnivals, text amendment to Articles 1, 8, and 23 as noted by staff. Motion on the floor is seconded by Ms. Phillips. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Do we need to cancel a meeting for next Thursday? No. I would be pleased to announce that in anticipation of the extra week that we have next week in the calendar, looking and knowing that it was coming before the 4th of July holiday weekend, when you adopted your meeting and filing schedule, you did not schedule a meeting. So, again, we want to remind you, you do not have a meeting next Thursday. Does anybody have anything they'd like to bring up? Meetings adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you.