♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ On behalf of the Planning Commission members and the staff of the Planning Office of the Urban County Government, we would like to read this resolution for Ms. Ann Ross. Whereas we, the members of the Lexington-fed Urban County Planning Commission, acknowledge the fulfillment of the term of office of Ms. Ann Ross from the Planning Commission, and whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Ms. Ross for her valuable service to this commission from June 23, 2003, to June 30, 2007, having served on the commission's zoning committee and having served as parliamentarian of the commission by unanimous vote of her peers, and whereas Ms. Ross has consistently shown a deep concern for the citizens of Fayette County as reflected in her decisions regarding land use and development, and whereas the members of the commission and the staff feel that the service given by Ms. Ross will be greatly missed by this body. Now, therefore, be it resolved, we, the members of the commission, along with the staff, who hereby express our gratitude to Ms. Ross for her service and to this commission and to the citizens of Lexington and Fayette County, and we, the Lexington-fed Urban County Planning Commission and staff, do hereby wish for Ms. Ross much happiness and continued success and ask that she continue to give valuable guidance to members of this commission, and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to Ms. Ross and also spread upon the minute book of this body, dated at Lexington this 25th day of October, 2007. Thank you. Thank you, Linda. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all very much. My service on the commission was a tremendous reward. This is just kind of icing on that cake. And I really appreciate the opportunity to serve with you very special people. And I welcome Carolyn and congratulate you and Ed, and I know that you have lots of work ahead and good things to do. But I want to say to you and to the members in the audience that of all the things I've done in government, and there are many, this was probably the most rewarding of all. And I cannot tell you how gratified I've been by the people of Fayette County and their participation. And I know they've always been good participants in our government and will continue to be. So my time on the council, I digress, my time on the commission was terrific, a special time in our history and a special group of people to serve with. And I know you'll do more good things for Lexington and Fayette County. Thank you. It's been a pleasure and an honor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. At this time we will turn to our regular agenda and we'll look for the approval of the minutes for September the 27th, 2007. Is there any additions or corrections or do we have a motion? Madam Chairman, I move for approval of the September 27th minutes as presented. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Minutes passed. At this time we'll ask for any postponements or withdrawals. Madam Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. On Page 1, Item 1, Tates Creek Heights LLC Zoning Map Amendment and Pinnacle Lot 1 Zoning Development Plan. I represent the owner. We're requesting a one-month postponement. I'm sorry, Mr. Murphy. Could you repeat which plan? I'm sorry. Item 1, Page 1, Number 1, Tates Creek Heights LLC Zoning Map Amendment and Pinnacle Lot 1 Zoning Development Plan. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this plan or request for postponement? Hearing none, I'll turn it over to the Commission. Due to the Thanksgiving holiday, your meeting in November is on the 29th of the month. Madam Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement to the November 29th for MAR 2007-9. Second. We have a motion and a second to postpone MAR 2007-9 to the November 29th meeting. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Request granted. Thank you. Also on Page 4, Item 3, Fortune Offices LLC Zoning Map Amendment and Eastwood Unit 6, Section 1, Lot 6 Zoning Development Plan. We're requesting a one-month postponement on that as well. We have a request for postponement of Fortune Offices. Is that the correct one? Okay. LLC Zoning Map Amendment and Eastwood Unit 6, Section 1, Lot 6 of the Zoning Development Plan. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this plan or this request for postponement? Hearing none, I'll turn it over to the Commission. Is that for one month? One month. November 29th. Madam Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement of MAR 2007-20. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second for postponement of MAR 2007-20. All in favor of postponing this plan, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you very much. Now we will move to our land subdivision items. Do we have any abbreviated staff? Yes, we do have one item that does qualify as an abbreviated hearing on page 3. Item number 2, Value Place Real Estate Services and the Associated Development Plan at Lake Point. I would ask if there is anyone here today that would like to speak either for or against that application. Seeing none, that would qualify as an abbreviated hearing. The second, I guess, that might qualify, although I see quite a few people in the audience who may be here to speak about this, is on page 5, the Huffam Industrial Zone Map Amendment and Related Development Plan, MAR 2007-24. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak to this zone change and development plan? Seeing none, I can assume that this also qualifies as an abbreviated hearing. I would just note that the other members in the audience may be here for the BOAR case. Thank you. We will set up and take the items in order on your agenda and we'll be prepared to begin in just a moment. Thank you. Let me back up. I'm sorry. I think I got everybody a little bit confused. We did the postponements and withdrawals. Now we look for abbreviated items. We have those. And we will start and work through the agenda from the top. We will start on page 3. Page 3, item 2. Page 3. We need to try. Good afternoon, Chairman or Chairperson Godfrey and other members of the Commission. The next item on today's agenda is, of course, on page 3. It's item 2 and is found in your notebooks behind tab 2. Let me, before I continue. I apologize. We have revised staff reports for this application. These revised staff reports will supplement the other application materials that are in your notebook under tab 2, but would replace that staff report. The petitioner did amend their application approximately three weeks ago. Previously, it was a zone change request from professional services to an R5 zone. But today the applicant is proposing a rezoning of P1 property at 2374 Lake Park Road on the northern half of the property. And they are proposing to rezone from P1 professional office to a B3 highway service business zone at this location. Lake Park Road runs along the Lexington Reservoir, and also Lake Park provides frontage for several apartment complexes, high-density apartment zone, R4 in that area, as well as some R3. And then the Lake Park Road also has access for the James Motor Company, as well as a Shell gas station that do have frontage on Richmond Road as well. The subject property does have frontage on to the New Circle Road ramp, as well as Lake Park Road. And also in the vicinity, there is quite a bit of B3 just across New Circle along Richmond Road in this area. As I mentioned, the applicant's proposal, when they amended it, actually changed from the southern half of the property to the northern half of the property, and they are now requesting a B3 zone. The immediate area does have the James Motor Company and the mostly apartment complexes, and the petitioner is proposing to utilize this parcel for an extended stay hotel to accommodate 121 units. The extended stay hotel is an allowable use, usually considered under hotels, motels in the B3 zone, and is considered a principal use, whereas in the R5 zone it is a conditional use. The extended stay hotel is defined a little bit differently than a regular hotel or motel in that each unit is equipped with a kitchen, and there is a requirement for extended stay hotels to have 75% of their occupancy be by the week or greater. The comprehensive plan for this location does recommend professional services, and the comp plan here for 2007, again we have Lake Park Road next to the reservoir, Richmond Road, and New Circle, and the subject property shown with the professional services land use designation. So the existing P1 zone on the property would be considered to be in agreement with the comprehensive plan, and the B3 zone would not be considered in agreement with the plan in this case. But because this is not in agreement with the comprehensive plan, the planning commission must look if there is any unanticipated changes in the immediate area that occurred since the adopted comprehensive plan, or if there is a case for appropriateness of the proposed zoning and the inappropriateness of the existing zoning. And in this case, the applicant does contend that their proposal for a restricted B3 zone is appropriate, and the P1 existing zoning is inappropriate. The request to amend the application brought forward some conditional zoning restrictions, although the staff was a little bit concerned about the extent of those restrictions, and following a meeting with the applicant, they were agreeable to making their conditional zoning restrictions far greater for the subject property than what was originally proposed when they amended their application. They are contending then that their proposal with the restricted B3, it will accommodate the extended stay hotel, but also be very compatible with the residential uses that are existing on Lake Park Road, and also the proposed office use that would occupy the southern part of this parcel. James Motor Company property to the north is zoned B3, but it has a very limited list of conditional zoning, so where the applicant is proposing far greater restrictions, that will help ensure a more effective transition between the James Motor Company B3 use and the residential and professional office uses to the south and west. The staff could also find that a reduction in the professional office zoning at this location wouldn't be detrimental, in that the extended stay hotel would be generally less intense than a typical P1 use, for instance, medical offices or other office uses, but yet very compatible with the residential, mainly because an extended stay hotel, their units are very similar to residential units. So the staff did recommend approval of this rezoning, and I believe the zoning committee recommended a referral to the full commission, because at that time the staff was still recommending postponement, because of the concern over conditional zoning. So the staff made findings that the requested restricted B3 zone is appropriate, and that the existing P1 zoning is inappropriate based on the restrictions for intensity and being able to have a more effective transition from the B3 to the P1 and residential uses in this area. The staff report does include the list of conditional zoning restrictions, and it is quite lengthy, but the staff believes that this will help to ensure that transition is effective in this area. There are 21 uses that are proposed to be prohibited on the property, and in addition to that, two signage restrictions, and I'll just go over the signage restrictions. First, that there be no advertising signs or billboards on the subject property, which would typically be allowed in a B3 zone, and also that any freestanding signage for the property, any signage that they applied for on Lake Park, be limited to a maximum height of 10 feet and a maximum square footage of 50 square feet. And just to let the commission know, typically a B3 zone would be allowed two freestanding signs, each would be up to 75 square feet in size and up to 25 feet tall. So that kind of tells you the difference between what we're proposing. And the staff would note that these restrictions are appropriate and necessary to provide the appropriate transition and to protect nearby residential from any inappropriate signage that would otherwise be allowed. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the staff's proposal or recommendation at this time. Is there no other zone this would fit into properly? And this sounds like we're redesigning a zone. Yeah. An extended stay hotel doesn't really have very many zones that it's allowed in. which the applicant originally proposed. A B3 zone and a B5P zone are really the only zones. In this case, at this location, B5P would be inappropriate because it's not near an interstate interchange. The R5 zone that they originally proposed was problematic for the applicant because of open space and signage. And that's why they opted to amend their application for the B3 zone. Any other questions? Okay, if there's no other questions of staff, then... I have one. Yes. Where's your list of conditions? It's on page, should be on page three of the staff report. The prohibited uses? Prohibited uses. Okay, those are the conditions. Those are the conditional zoning restrictions. Okay, I'll turn it over to Tom. Madam Chair, members of the commission, on page three of your agenda, item B is the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change. Lake Point subdivision, block B, lot one, a portion of. As Tracy explained to you, the location of this property, you can now see the associated development plan as it sits in front on Lake Park Road. New Circle Road is here. It's a very straightforward development plan, as you can see. Here is the extended stay motel building with associated parking and a single access point located here out to Lake Park Road. It is a four-story building. There are 10,750 square feet in the building footprint. They are proposing 121 units. There are 126 parking spaces. That's exactly what they require, and that's exactly what they are showing us. The previous plan was reviewed by the subdivision committee, and you'll see on your agenda that it states that. We have handed out to you revised conditions from the staff. It's the white piece of paper. The new submission has satisfied many of those previous requirements, and so we did a revised staff recommendation addressing that point for you. The conditions, as you can see, the first ones, one through seven, are very standard conditions appropriate to preliminary development plans. The eight through 14 conditions are cleanup conditions. As you can see by reading those, we're just requesting some addition of information and a revision and deletion of several notes. And then 15, of course, is should you adopt any additional or any conditional zoning requirements, and, of course, they must add those to the plan phase. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. I'm sorry. On the revised sheet, you have some of these marked out. Have these been addressed, like 9, 10, 11, and 12, 16, and 18? Yes, ma'am. That's exactly why we're showing them as being marked out, is that the new submission addressed those issues. For instance, they have added a written scale. They did add the name and address of the developer. They added the new circle cross section on this new submission. So since those were very basic conditions, cleanup conditions, we just went ahead and deleted those. Okay. So we still have 15 conditions. Yes, ma'am, you do. Okay. Along Lake Park Road, what will be the landscape requirements, since that's a private street, is it? There will be vehicular use area screening requirements. Not any right-of-way requirements, any street trees requirements, or anything like that? Not at this point. But should they subdivide the property, which I'm sure they intend to in the future, should they get the zoning they require, then street trees would be part of that process or requirement for street trees. Well, it just seems to me like it's a very specific roadway system in there, that it should have the quality of a street, and street trees, I think, should be provided, in connection with the landscape treatment for the buffering and so forth. Yes, sir, but again, it's not a requirement, per se, at this stage. I realize that, but I'm looking at it aesthetically, I guess. Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other questions of staff? If there are not at this time, we'll ask the applicant to. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the commission. I'm Rena Wiseman here for Value Place Real Estate Services. Reed Simpson is here from the company to answer any questions that you might have. We've worked on this application for several months with the staff. As you know, and as Tracy told you, we attempted to do this in the R5 zone on the southern part, but because of the open space requirements, we couldn't make the plan fit within those parameters. So we then went back to the landowner and agreed to buy this northern portion of the lot, which is P1, and went to, as we've talked about, really the only zone that can accommodate this use. It is currently P1, and in essence, depending on how you want to look at it, we're either asking for B3 light or P1 plus because we're, by the restricted uses, we're adding two or three business uses, including the hotel and the restaurant. The rest of the ones that are allowed to remain are the ones that would currently be allowed in the P1 zone. The development plan requirements for B3 and P1 are similar. We could build this building right now in the P1 zone. There's no open space in P1. The lot coverage, we're well under lot coverage for P1. We're well under floor area ratio for P1, and we're well under height for the P1. So the only difference would be you would have more parking, and so it would probably even be more intense if you did have professional offices to this extent on this property. So we think this is a good compromise to allow this use here. We are in agreement with all of the conditions that the staff has suggested and that we've worked out, including the signage. And, again, with regard to that, the sign that we've agreed to on Lake Park, any freestanding sign, we've agreed to limit that to 10 feet in height. That would be the same height that you could have in the P1 zone. So it's comparable, again, to what would be allowed there. We did ask for 10 square feet extra. The freestanding sign in P1 is 40 square feet. We asked for 50 square feet just to make sure that people would see the sign as they come around the corner there. But other than that, this is very comparable to the P1 zoning that's there now, except we're able to add this use as a principal use in it. Unless you have any questions, as I said, we're agreeable with the planning staff's recommendation on the zoning. We are also in agreement with the revised staff recommendation on the development plan, and we can answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. Ms. Wiseman, on the development plan, the park triangle that's shaded in green, is that going to continue to be green, or would that be an outlaw? I don't know that there's any plans for that. That was just we incorporated that. And I think there's discussions between the seller and the company as to what happens to that. I don't think – It stays as part of our – we're buying it. To stay green? Yeah, we don't intend to put a parking lot on it. Yeah, it'll just – they have enough parking. They don't intend to put any parking or any other uses on that. Yeah, that was my concern, that we'd grant that zoning, and that would wind up being an outlaw. It would – Right. It's 0.22 acres, so it's very small. All right. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Yeah, I just have a comment, not a question. I'm a little concerned about this many conditional prohibited uses on the B-3, and it's probably more to the staff if this type of use is more appropriate in the P-1. At some point, do we need to consider changing the P-1 to allow this type of a use? We've considered that, and I think that might be something that we follow up on after this application. Any other questions? Okay, if not, we have a plan before us, MAR-2007-17, and the request is to go from a professional office P-1 zone to highway business service B-3 zone for 2.22 net acres for property located at 2374 Lake Park Road. I'd like to turn it over to the commission at this time. Do we have any further discussion or a motion? Madam Chairman, I would like to submit an additional note to this in regard to my comments, that the additional landscape buffering will be provided along Lake Park Road on the final development plan. Okay. That would be as part of the development plan when we get to that piece? That's correct. But certainly putting that out for consideration now, you'd want to address the zoning first. Right. That would be condition 16 on the development plan. Okay. Do we want to move on the zoning first, or do we want to move on this condition to the development plan? The applicant has the right to respond to this part. I would suggest that you want to address the zoning first, because if you do not approve the zoning, then you typically will indefinitely postpone the development plan. All right. All right. At this time, we're looking at the zone change request first. You have the buff colored paper that has the revised findings of fact from the staff, as well as the proposed prohibited uses that the applicant has already agreed to. So at this time, is there any further discussion, or do we hear a motion about the zone change request? Madam Chairman, I move for approval of MAR 2007, day 17, with the 21, at the end of the 21, we have the 21. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chairman, I move for approval of MAR 2007, day 17, with the 21, as presented by staff, I guess is the best way to put it. Okay. You agree to the findings as presented by staff? And the findings revised by staff, yes, ma'am. And the prohibited uses? And the prohibited uses, yes. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second to approve the zone change request for MAR 2007, day 17 from a P1 to a highway service business for the reasons provided by staff, and along with the prohibited uses. Do we have, we're all in favor of the motion. Please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. The zone change was passed. Now we will take up the development plan. Where's my agenda? Do you want to add that? Okay. The request is for approval of the development plan, ZDP 2007-80. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of ZDP 2007-80 with the listing of recommendations, with the listing of recommendations as provided by the Subdivision Committee, and the additional one of landscape buffering along the roadway of Lake Park Road on the final development plan. Second. Mr. Chairman, I think we need a clarification on whether that is the conditions proposed by the Subcommittee or by the revised staff recommendation. I think the intent was the revised staff recommendation. The revised staff. All right. Yes. Lionel, what do you mean, what's the landscape buffering? I mean, what are you looking for in that? Well, you said you wanted to add some additional landscape buffering along. Yes. What I am looking for, Mike, is I think that it's a roadway through there, and it needs to be expressed as a roadway, not just a bunch of bushes. And so in reference to the other side of the road, the apartment side, so that there's a character of roadway rather than just being a screening easement in there. And I'm willing to be more specific than maybe I can be or should be, but I think that there needs to be a design expression there to express the road system. And that can be responded to from the standpoint of the landscape examiner's review of the thing, but I just want to express what I felt was a design issue as well as a zoning issue in this case. Well, I mean, I tend to agree with you. I just didn't know what that meant. Does it mean trees or fire bushes or what? Yes. I think you need trees of design elements that have that scale. Okay. Not just, like I say, just not bushes. Sorry. What I'm taking the note to be is that when we come back with the final development plan, we will show the commission a landscape plan along that road that you'll evaluate that time within the guidelines you just described. Okay. You didn't know how to do it. All right. You did it right this time. You're going to get a grade. All right. All right. Just to clarify, we've passed the zone change request for the development. The request is for approval of CDP 2007-80, Lake Point Subdivision Block 3, Lot 1, located 2374 Lake Park Road with the 14 revised conditions from the staff. It's on the revised development plan. Add in number 15, which is the addition of the conditional zoning restrictions, and then number 16, which is the landscape buffering along Lake Park Road. Right. Okay. Now, we have a motion and a second. Now we need all in favor of this motion for approval to signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Our next item is on page 5, number 4. They've got the restrictions actually right in the office. It should have been the people. It should have been the local commission. It should have been. You need to step right in there. Come on. Sure. We're getting way too many of these approvals on when they come back and change the development plan. Way too many. You know, that's a strategy, I think, because with all the other stuff we have to consider, is this the official? It's getting to be that way. We need to stop it. We're going to stop it until we get it right. Come by the landscape design and you can't. It's too small. But not just the approval of the landscape design. That's why I wanted to make a statement. Our next item is on page 5. It's item number 4 and can be found behind tab 4 in your notebooks. This is MAR 2007-24, a request by Huffam Industrial. Huffam behind 4. Oh. Maybe behind tab 3. Oh, tab 5, maybe? 5, thank you. Here we are. Okay. Sorry about that. Page 5. This is a zone change from an agricultural urban AU zone to a light industrial zone for approximately 40 acres, located at 1100 Alexandria Drive. The subject property is located on the northeast side of Alexandria, and Alexandria on our map is here. The right turn curve, right angle curve, further to the west, and New Circle Road just to the east of the subject property, and also in this vicinity is an RJ Corman railroad line that runs to the north and west of the subject property, and the Enterprise Business Industrial Park to the north as well. On the opposite side of New Circle, there's several residential neighborhoods along Alexandria Drive, and then to the south of the subject property on the opposite side of Alexandria is the Calumet Horse Farm. There are also two small parcels of agricultural land next to, just to the south of the subject property that are not included in the zone change, but you can see they do have their access, small access along Alexandria Drive, but then quite a bit of frontage along New Circle. The applicant is proposing to develop the subject property with an industrial subdivision of approximately 34 lots. The primary access for this industrial development would be through Enterprise Court along, which is very near the railroad tracks, and I'll use my pointer to identify that, and through the Enterprise Industrial Park. A secondary access with limited vehicular movement would be proposed by the applicant at Alexandria Drive. I would show you just an aerial of the subject property, which does show that most of the Enterprise Drive and Enterprise Industrial Park is developed to the north, and then you can see the subdivision residential development across New Circle to the south, and some of the agricultural land that's still being used to the south, the subject property. The subject property was the subject of an extensive rezoning in 1996, which then continued to 1997 in terms of a council hearing. At that time it was requested as an I-1 use and an I-1 zone, and it was disapproved by the council. It was litigated for several years, but the denial of a zone change was held, and that is why today we still have the AU zoning for the property, but in 2005 a second rezoning was requested. At that time they requested a residential zone, R3, to accommodate fourplexes, and I think they were the attached fourplexes, over 100 units on this property, but the planning commission did recommend disapproval of that, and the applicant at that time withdrew their application prior to going to the council. So again, it remained AU. The comprehensive plan for this location does recommend industrial land use, and again on our large map the Huffman property is located just to the northeast, I'm sorry, northwest of New Circle with Alexandria Drive acting as the urban service boundary in this location, and the railroad track, so Alexandria Drive, New Circle, and then Old Frankfurt, and the subject property with the light industrial recommendation. The applicant is requesting light industrial zoning, therefore their request would be considered to be in agreement with the comprehensive plan, and although their request today is very similar to what was requested approximately 10 years ago, there are a few differences in the past decade that the staff would just make mention of, including the progressive development of the Enterprise Industrial Park, the possibility of expanding the sewer to this location through the industrial park, and also that the applicant is now proposing limited access for traffic along Alexandria. That was a contentious point at the previous zone change for industrial use. The Alexandria corridor in this location does have residential on the southern portion, and then it's more of a rural cross-section as you go away from the more urbanized area towards the farmland. The staff is recommending approval, and the zoning committee did recommend approval of this request, because the light industrial is requested as in agreement with the comprehensive plan. The staff is also recommending a conditional zoning restriction for advertising signs or billboards on the subject property, because of the location of several other billboards in the vicinity, and also that the closeness of the Kelsey Drive residential area to where those billboards would likely be placed. This recommendation is made subject to the approval of the certified development plan within the two weeks, in order to send it to the Urban County Council. And the last thing I would mention is that there was a traffic impact study that was submitted with this application and required by Article 6 of the zoning ordinance, and Mr. Hammonds will provide a short report about that following the development plan presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chairman, members of the commission. On page 5, ZDP 2000-129 Huffman property is the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change. There we go. As you can see on the plan, just as Ms. Wade described it, we have an access off Enterprise Court, or Drive Court, pardon me, that this will become Enterprise Court. Circulating through here, we have the 34 lots, New Circle Road, the railroad through here. We have preliminary detention shown here and here. It very much reflects the topography of the site. It crests up in this area, drops this way, slightly drops off this way. The lots vary from a little over an acre to about three-quarters of an acre in size. The plan was reviewed by the subdivision committee and recommended for approval. Subject to standard conditions, as you can see on your agenda. I would point out that we also have cleanup items. That item 12, under our conditions, it states correct note number 14, actually is redundant because our ninth condition denotes there should be no development of the property until the planning commission approves a final development plan or a preliminary subdivision plan, does cover that condition. In our zeal in reviewing this plan, we jumped on that note, which was a poorly worded version, or incorrect, I shouldn't say poorly, of requirement number nine. So we just, I caught that earlier and wanted to bring that to your attention, that should you approve this plan, number 12 could be deleted. The other conditions following, again, are standard with the exception of 17, as you can see, resolve access proposed to Alexandria Drive. And as was pointed out earlier, we have an access coming in this way with a proposed access here out to Alexandria Drive. Now, that generated a tremendous amount of discussion among staff, both planning and other divisions, and with committee members. The general consensus of staff, both planning and other divisions, is we would prefer a local street. And I think, as you all recognize, that's a pretty consistent stance that we take in these situations. The applicant is offering a different proposal with a limited access that would discourage and prevent large tractor-trailers from using this access point. The minimum access point, I believe, that would be acceptable to staff members, of course, is the fire department's concern about emergency access to the property. And when all else fails, they are always ready to accept a gated emergency access into an area. So, again, this entire access issue, as stated there, is one that does need to be resolved. It does not absolutely have to be resolved on this plan. You will see another plan. There are a lot of circumstances to be discussed, we believe, and that's why we raise concern about this access. The nature of the applicant's proposal, it's a new one for us, and so we have what we think are some concerns that we hope can be addressed. And I'm sure the applicant will be happy to go over those with you. And with that, if there are no questions, I will turn this over to Mr. Hammonds. I've got a question. Yes. Mr. Martin, help me understand what's on the green in Alexander Drive on the Enterprise side. In that part of Calumet also, come on down right in here. No, the next one up. No, you're on the right there. Yes, sir. I believe that is correct. So, in other words, that is the piece of property that was testified to us in the other hearing that they use as a quarantine place. In other words, that's where they turn out horses. Honestly, I can't address the use. My point is that that's going to remain agriculture. Yes, sir. As part of Calumet Farms. For the present, yes, sir. Right. Okay. What about the other green down there? Here? No. This little piece? This is a privately owned piece that, as you can see, is extremely small. In the past, staff has had some concerns to that access. We have been informed that there may be a widening of New Circle Road if additional right-of-way, and this is speculation, but if additional right-of-way was required, the impact on that small piece would have to be evaluated to see if it was economical as a remnant. I'm just trying to be sure I'm thinking in the right place. Yes, sir. Calum, if I may, I don't see the same geometric shape on the development plan there as I see on the zoning plan. The outline of the property. The outline of the property? Well, I believe, actually, I know what the scale difference is. It's very hard, but they have shown it in that this, that line, again, I don't have my pointer, follows here and then does drop here. You can see where that drops, and that reflects the piece that Mr. Penn was just discussing as the area that the farm still utilizes. Thank you. What I'm seeing, Calum, here, it appears that there is some frontage on Alexandria on the development plan of maybe, you know, 150, 200 feet, depending on the scale of the map. I can't tell what it is, but that's a pretty large-scale map, and it seems like there's considerable access frontage there, whether you use access or not, one way or the other, but as opposed to the diagram that you have on the USA 14 map, which shows only a very small point, at least from this distance, and I think that's an issue to me as far as how that is dealt with because of the access situation with Alexandria and the interior of this property. The primary access for Enterprise Drive goes clear over to Old Frankfort Pike. Is that right? Yes, sir. And that's a pretty... The microphone. He's new at this. Yes, sir. Again, here's your primary access, and then back through into the property. And let me... We have, unfortunately, Mr. Ayton, colored in this dimension. Let me outline the property so I can give you an exact dimension of that frontage on Alexandria, but you can see this doesn't actually front on Alexandria. You're absolutely correct that it is a small bit of frontage right in here along Alexandria Drive, and again, that's why they show the access dropping down at that point. I think it's a difference in the scale of two maps, obviously, but the larger one, which is 400 scale, is it? This is a 200 scale. 200 scale? It's a little over 200 feet. 200 feet of frontage, a little over 200 feet. And this is exactly one half of it. This is at 100 feet, so that's... Well, I think that's an issue that needs to be addressed very carefully. And the other thing I have on this, too, and this is in the same regard as circulation, is the only access to this development from Old Frankfurt Pike. Well, again, they are proposing their primary access to be from Old Frankfurt Pike with this additional access out to Alexandria. How far is that from the development to Old Frankfurt Pike? And are there any other interconnecting streets along that way? I can't see any. As you come to here, do we have enterprise that runs this way back to this development? Microphone. I apologize. That orange shirt, bro. I figure you actually can hear me, but they can't, of course, get it in the minutes. But, again, you're coming from Old Frankfurt Pike, and you do have the major enterprise drive that drops back in here to feed all this industrial development. And, yes, you do have a street network. And then here we drop off, which is currently the court, which will be extended into this loop that you see on the preliminary development plan. Okay, thank you. If there's no other questions, I think Mr. Hammond had a report to give, and then we'll move on to that. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, citizens of Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government. I'm here today to review the Zone Change Applicants Traffic Impact Study report and provide you a review of the impacts of the on-site traffic onto the area's roadway network. To start out, I would just like to answer Lyle's question. It's about three-tenths of a mile from Old Frankfurt Pike to where Enterprise Drive goes into this site. And from the proposed access on the southern part of the property on Alexandria, it's about a little over eight-tenths of a mile up to Old Frankfurt and Alexandria intersections. First of all, I passed out the Traffic Impact Study review staff report, and you can see a lot of the information on the first page is a lot of the information that's already been provided to you, site location, existing roadway network, the access point to Enterprise Court, and the proposed secondary access to Alexandria Drive. My responsibility is to look at the traffic on-site and off-site and see what the impacts to the intersections are. If you would, turn over to page three, and we'll discuss the Old Frankfurt Pike and Enterprise Drive intersection and the 2007 and 2012 no-build and 2012 proposed level of service conditions for the subject intersections. First of all, you can see on page three, item number 11, Old Frankfurt Pike and Enterprise Drive, you'll see that you've got the overall intersection level of service, level of service D. Do you need a copy? Yeah. That's all right. Okay. Get back to page three, level of service. As you look at the existing level of service for Old Frankfurt Pike and Enterprise Drive, you'll see an overall level of service, which is D. In Article 6-1C of the zoning ordinance, we are charged to maintain a safe and acceptable level of service, D. So you'll see some individual turning movements that has some delay, but overall the intersection does meet our zoning ordinance requirements at Old Frankfurt Enterprise Drive. Now looking at the 2012 no-build and 2012 table below it, you'll see that Old Frankfurt Pike and Enterprise Drive is not showing much change. You have some individual turning movements at Old Frankfurt Circle, southbound, which is a left turn from a minor movement. So typically minor movements and left turn lanes, they're the ones that suffer the most. But overall, the level of service for that intersection is level of service C. The proposed Alexandria Drive access, you'll note that we've just got straight lines in there for the 20 no-build because it wouldn't be constructed. But as you look at the 2012 proposed, the level of service there is all showing A's and B's, which that's not much delay at all, you know, 1 to 12 seconds. And that's for the a.m. peak hour. The p.m. peak, you'll see the table at the bottom, the third table. You'll see that you have some E and F's there on some individual turning movements. But please keep in mind those turning movements are off the minor movement and that you've got a preexisting condition that's already there, the level of service reduced. And we've got a couple of things that we can work out on the final development plan to improve that. We're working with the Division of Traffic Engineering to look at the signal phasing to see if we can optimize that traffic signal. And we're also, we'll be working through the details on both the signal timing at Old Frankfurt Enterprise Drive and we'll be looking at in high detail of the proposed Alexandria Drive access to the southern portion of this proposed industrial site. So just kind of keep that in mind. But we've got safe and acceptable levels of service D. There will be some, there will be more review of the entrance details, the turning lanes, storage lanes, queuing and other such items as we move forward in the transportation and as we go further into the circulation of the site with the final development plan. A couple other quick items is that as you all may know, in spring of 2008, Old Frankfurt Pike and Alexandria will be let for construction. They're going to do a roundabout at that location. That will help improve overall circulation in that area. And in the next few years, Citation Boulevard will be coming in, terminating up toward Leestown Road. So I just wanted to give you some background information on that. And one related item to New Circle Road, when I coordinated this development plan with my technical committees, James Ballinger of District 7 did note that in the future, as you can see, New Circle Road being the eastern boundary of this site, we're looking and planning and trying to program roadway improvements that may impact the right-of-way there. But that's about all the information I have on other projects in the area. If you all have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. I know I went through this pretty quick. Any questions on site circulation, the roads in the area, access to other street network roadways, streets? I'm still concerned about this change in potential redevelopment and improvement of Alexandria. When that happens, will there be a new entrance into this development? It will be a permanent entrance? That's what we're hoping for, and that's what, when Tom was discussing the development plan, the Division of Traffic Engineering and most of the folks on staff, we're encouraging a full entrance into this site. And Jeff Neal of Traffic Engineering, I spoke to him just before this meeting, and he told me that they would be looking closely to double-check all the numbers on what the warrants were for left turns into this site. So it's going to be looked at a lot closer as this zone change and the development plan. It's going to be looked at comprehensively in regards to the improvement of Alexandria. Oh, definitely, sir, definitely. Yeah, we've been discussing that, and that came up in our zoning review meeting, the technical meetings, and so we'll have an opportunity to look at that in greater detail. Rob, what is the – I'm a little concerned with putting industrial traffic across New Circle Road on Alexandria because it does travel through some neighborhoods. What is the likelihood of developing some kind of an interchange on New Circle or some kind of a point of egress onto New Circle so that that industrial traffic could just make its way out of town? From my experience, I believe that's highly unlikely. First of all, this, as you know, this is the urban service area boundary, and the trip generation from this site, if everything works out according to the numbers, it's not going to be a major impact to the roadway. As you may be aware, there's already a lot of traffic, single-unit trucks and tractors and horse trailers and stuff out there already. We wouldn't want to disrupt this area any more than we would have to, but that's something that can be discussed in a future time, but I don't see that happening. Any other questions? If there's no other questions, then we will ask the applicants. Thank you very much. Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the Commission, I'm Darby Turner, here on behalf of the applicant, with its principal Bill McAlpin here as well. First of all, let me say we are in agreement with the staff's recommendation and are in agreement with all of the conditions. Having said that, I also want to give you a little background, too, and speak to kind of the issue you've just been talking about a little bit, which is the issue with regard to development of this property, and that's the access to Alexandria Drive. Going back to the zone change in 96, which was vigorously contested both by the Neighborhood Association in the area and Calumet Farm, the real substance of that objection was access to Alexandria Drive and industrial traffic utilizing that roadway. We, frankly, are in agreement with that, and if we had our druthers we would probably have no access at all to Alexandria Drive, but for fire safety and so forth it's necessary to have an additional access here. So the compromise that we've reached with the Neighborhood Association, and I think I'll say in a minute it's acceptable to Calumet, is a gate system, and this will be a private road, a gate system that will allow automobile and light truck traffic onto Alexandria Drive, but will prevent heavy trucks, semi-trailers, box trucks, and so forth. It will basically be a height restriction that will not allow those vehicles out onto Alexandria. It will have an emergency system to it so that fire can get their trucks through, and we've talked with Captain Woodward about that as well, and he's on board and in agreement. Obviously the details of all that will have to be reviewed at final development plan, but we're all in accord at this point. Todd Stricker, on behalf of the Calumet Area Neighborhood Association, is here with us today to express his support if necessary. Mike Moiser, who represents Calumet Farm, is here as well, and as he and I talked, I'll express the thoughts he expressed to me, or Calumet's position is that they would, all things being perfect, they would like it to remain as agricultural land, but they recognize the nature of the situation, and they have no objection to the development that is proposed. And so that's where we are, and it's the control of the traffic to Alexandria that has been able to reach that compromise, and frankly, Alexandria should not have heavy truck traffic out on it anyway. It's not that type of road. It's not built for that, and it's not a very good way to go anyway. So with that being said, that's how we got where we are, and we're in agreement with the staff's recommendation. We don't think full access should ever be allowed to Alexandria Drive. That would result in heavy truck traffic and heavy industrial traffic having access to that road. So we would disagree with the staff or with Rob's position relative to that. If there are any further questions, I'd be happy to. Condition on landscaping, but I guess my question is, that area between you and Calumet, is that a sufficient buffering that will keep them happy and keep horses? I guess there are buffers and then there are buffers, and I want to make sure our horses stay happy next to that. Well, yeah, this is Calumet's property here. This is not. And of course, what we've got between Calumet and us is one property, a railroad track, and another property. I thought that green right there was. Across Alexandria is. The other way. This way? Yes. This is Calumet. This is not. Staff said it was. I believe the staff was incorrect. I was incorrect in identifying the owner of that property. Right. This is not Calumet. Griffith, yeah. Yeah, these two properties are owned by Griffith. These two properties are owned by the same individual who resides right there. I withdraw my question. This is Calumet. I couldn't see. I was wondering about that. That's why I walked around. I missed what Tom was pointing to exactly. It's on the other side. It's on the other side of the. Other side of the railroad tracks and the other side of Alexandria. All right. Are there any other questions for Mr. Turner? If not, then I'll ask, is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this plan? Okay. Do you want to come forward, Mr. Moser? Madam Chair, members of the commission, my name is Mike Moser. I'm here on behalf of Calumet Farm. I just wanted to drive home one point that's central to what you've just been discussing. The lack of objection of Calumet to this proposal is tied directly to the fact that we're going to limit the vehicular traffic onto Alexandria Drive. That's the key to the whole thing and also the fact that we recognize it's in conformance with the recommended zoning. But that is central to the fact that we're not here with the farm represented in force talking about the impact on the horses. The farm is fully operational to this point all the way to that one little portion that you referred to, Mr. Penn, which we're just getting ready to re-fence and use for broodmares. So the farm is full at this point, and it's very important. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this plan for or against or either way? Okay. If there are no additional comments from the audience, then I will turn this over to the commission for discussion and a motion. Madam Chairman, there might be some staff rebuttal. I'm not sure. I would just like to – I'm sorry. I forgot. Yes. I would like to make something very clear that I think is important about the access to Alexandria Drive, and that it's not that there will be no vehicular access. The applicant's proposal is to restrict large truck traffic, tractor trailers. The access that they proposed will allow emergency access. It will allow cars. It will allow smaller trucks to utilize that access. And that is our understanding of their proposal, which is, again, one reason we wanted to state resolve access to Alexandria Road because there is a spectrum of access that needs to be addressed. Madam Chairman, I've got a question. Yes, Mr. Peer. Mr. Martin, before you leave, so that will be resolved at the final development plan? Yes, sir, and we have rewritten 17 if you find that helpful. All right, sir. And I can put that up, please. Okay. We're putting that up for you now. And you can see that it states that access to Alexandria Drive to be resolved at the time of the final development plan or preliminary subdivision plan. So that's where we're getting to the height of the bar and that type of stuff? Yes, sir. Then we can get into some details, the width of the street and how it will function and that sort of thing. Okay. Well, that's my question then. You know, it will be a design issue in terms of when you talk about resolve, the restrict. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, it would be. Yes, for instance, our fire department likes to see a minimum width on an emergency access, and items like that could then be addressed. Could we rephrase that then to say design of access or design considerations of access to? Well, I believe that's inherent in the statement, the requirement. I think it's kind of ambiguous. Well, this is very standard. Okay. When you talk, you know, number 17, we talk about resolve. You say to restrict large truck traffic, or when you say what's large truck traffic? Well, it is our understanding from the applicant that they are proposing an access point that will restrict large tractor-trailer type of traffic. Okay. They may need to elaborate on that for you, but that was our understanding. Okay, so we're talking tractor-trailers. Tractor-trailers, yes, sir. You know, would that include like tandem trucks or? Well, I think that that's going to be the ultimate issue that has to be resolved at those points. You know, do you restrict it to cars? Do you restrict it to small trucks? Do you restrict it to emergency vehicles only? All those issues have to be resolved at some point. And the question is, do you want to try to resolve them today, or do you want to try to resolve them prior to the final development or subdivision plan approval? Because that is a critical issue that has to be resolved, and there's lots of questions. Yes, Mr. Turner. We would prefer, as well as County Mike and the neighborhood, to make it clear in this note that semi-trailer, tractor-trailers, heavy truck traffic, semi-tractor-trailers, box trucks, and anything but automobile and light truck, pickup trucks and that sort of thing, would be restricted from entry to Alexandria, and that we will determine at final development plan the exact detail of how that restriction will work. It would be similar to like at the airport. You know, at the airport, they restrict big truck traffic from getting close to the airport. It would be similar to that. Like 6'8"? Right. The height of the bar and the width and the requirements of the fire department, I think, can be dealt with at that time. But we want to be clear, and we would love to have it as a condition here and state it so that everybody is certain, including our partners and our folks that we've worked this through with, that there won't be access, that large truck, semi-tractor-trailer trucks, box trucks, and other large trucks will not have access to Alexandria. I'm just wondering. I'm looking at the way the staff has rewritten 17 if we could incorporate the two ideas. If there's, you know, access to Alexandria Drive to be resolved at the time of the final development plan, but how can we put the statement in there to ensure the limiting of large truck traffic and the restriction key? I mean, can we add that to this statement? I think we can. Yes, ma'am. The exact wording we may have to … Madam Chairman, I would have some suggested language. Perhaps if that provision 17 began by stating the design of the restricted access to Alexandria Drive to be resolved at the time of the final development plan, the design of the restricted access, that might be helpful. Right. That would guide us in terms of knowing that it's going to be restricted. Could we have preceding that that access to Alexandria will be limited to automobiles and light trucks and the design will be … I think our only concern then becomes what about large garbage trucks? What about large fire trucks? And I think we're in accord about the nature of that access, but … Or maybe not. Well, I think you could say that access will be limited to automobiles, light trucks, emergency equipment. Garbage trucks will not be used. Linda. Okay. I mean, is there an option to not do it at all? I mean, is that something that you all … It doesn't. I don't think so. I mean, maybe the fire department doesn't want them, but, I mean, the light cars, the small cars, and those sort of things wouldn't have any trouble navigating back out of there and going out the other way. I mean, frankly, that's fine with us, but you do get into some health and safety issues. Okay. Well, I mean, that might be an option in the resolve to not have it at all or those other things. Well, I think the main thing that we want to be clear … Yeah, one idea and one of the things you might want to think about when we file a resolution of the restrictions is that it would be limited to emergency vehicles only. But those are … I think at this point in time we want to ensure that some restriction is imposed, but I don't know if we can determine what that restriction is today. Staff would just further comment we would not be comfortable with this level of development on an access that was only accessible by going over an at-grade railroad crossing. I just don't think that would be wise or prudent to have that as the only way in and out of the site, which would be the case if you did not have some type of access to Alexandria Drive. Okay. Andrea, could you read the language that you added to that a minute ago? I think Mr. Lee has added it to the item shown on the yellow. Oh, okay. All right. The revised language for number 17 is on overhead, so I guess we're ready for a motion. Madam Chairman, I move for approval of MAR 2007-24, subject to 16 conditions, and number 17 being what's on Elmholten design of the restricted access to Alexandria Drive be resolved at the time of the final development plan or preliminary subdivision plan. Okay. Just a minute. I think we already did the zone. I'm getting myself confused. We're doing the zoning first. Preferably the zoning motion would come right up. Okay. And that's what we want first, the zoning motion and then the development motion. All right. I was going to take a vote at the same time, but we'll do it this way. So MAR 2007-24 is for the zone change. Let's do the zone. All right. I move approval. All right. So the motion is to approve MAR 2007-24, the request for the zone change for property located at 1100 Alexandria Drive, and for the reasons provided by staff. Am I looking at the right paper here? Okay. And do we have a second for that? Ms. Chairman, was there the addition of the conditional zoning? Right. That's what I was looking at. We have these conditional zoning. Just a moment here. We have one restriction. Staff has recommended one conditional zoning. Right. And it's noted here under the staff approval and the recommendations. The restriction should be the advertising signs. It's noted under number three here on your agenda. Okay. So I will repeat the motion. We're getting confused here. Okay. The motion that's on the floor is to approve MAR 2007-24, the Harmon Industrial Plan. This is a petition for a zone map amendment from an agricultural urban zone to a light industrial zone for 40.68 acres for property located at 1100 Alexandria Drive. And we have a recommendation from the Zoning Commission Committee for approval. And we have a staff recommendation for approval based on three statements here plus, I mean, for two reasons plus a conditional restriction on the signage. Do we have a second? Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Please vote no. Okay. Motion carries. Now we're ready for a motion on the development plan. I'll do it. ZD 2007, ZDP 2007-129 with the 16 conditions. Number 17 is on ELMO. Should I read that? It's not necessary. I'd only suggest the addition of the conditional zoning restriction that was just approved to denote that on the DP. And denote the existence of the conditional zoning restrictions. Right. I'll second. Okay. We have a motion and a second for approval of ZDP 2007-129. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. It's not my absence. Okay. We should have had the zoning thing done and had the discussion about it. Yeah. No, no. We all did. It wasn't anybody's fault. That's exactly right. Yeah. If we had to do that one over, we should have done it. I guess. That's why I jumped ahead. That's exactly right. That was the issue. That's exactly right. Okay. Lay in. Lay in. Because if you don't, that's a quick way out of there. That's the way they'll go. Chair. He comes back with a development. You call it a freight truck, I guess. Madam Chair. Okay. If I could refer the commission to page five, item 6A, the commission item, DOAR 2007-3, an appeal by Mr. Alan R. Foster. The staff received a phone call from representatives for Mr. Foster requesting that this appeal be postponed to your November zoning meeting on the 29th. That would be to November 29th? That was their request, yes, ma'am. Can I ask a procedural question? How long can they keep postponing this? At this point in time, I'm not sure the commission has the ability to postpone it, but when it is applicant driven, they could ask theoretically every month. Why would you want to hear it if you were the applicant? Yes. We could investigate with the law department whether or not there is a limit to that. The commission, I don't believe, is obligated to postpone it in any one month, even though it may be requested. It's just a procedural question. I didn't know the answer. There's generally a 90-day limit for the commission to hear DOAR appeal unless agreed to a longer time by the applicant. So if I understand correctly, if the applicant asks for a postponement, that's the only way we can postpone it? Beyond 90 days, that's correct. Beyond 90 days, okay. This one has been in longer than that. It's been a while. Okay. We have a request that's been received by the staff to postpone this appeal. Yes. Uh-huh. No, I just don't. Did we have a motion? Madam Chairman, I move for postponement of DOAR 2007-3 to the November 29th meeting. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chair and commission members, we only have one remaining item, which we believe will be fairly brief, that we wanted to bring to your attention. That's listed on the addendum for today's meeting, item C. And we've distributed to you a communication that the staff received on your behalf from the State Public Service Commission. Received it in late September regarding the application of the Kentucky American Water Company for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorized the construction of Kentucky River Station 2 associated facilities and transmission main. We believe this is one of the water solutions, of course, that has been discussed, if you've been following that conversation. This is notifying the commission that a hearing will be held by the Public Service Commission on this matter on November 26, 2007. And we just wanted to make you aware of this and let you know that, as a planning commission, you do have certain rights to submit comments regarding this facility or even perhaps request intervention, which is another level of involvement. I've been informed the Urban County Government is already an intervening party on this. And typically, you as a planning commission do not act separately from the larger Urban County Government. But, again, you do have rights in this matter. We did want to make you aware of these. And we have representatives from the law department here who are working with this case and would be glad to answer any questions that you may have about this matter. Does anyone have any questions? Okay. All right. If there are no questions, then we'll move on to the next item. I mean, we don't have to take any action on this. You don't have to take any action. It's an informational item. But, again, since you as a body do have certain rights in this, staff felt appropriate to put it on your docket and make you aware of it and, again, be prepared to give you any information that you might like to have. Right. And planning commission members can request that information from the staff if they individually want to submit any comments or questions. Or does it have to be a commission action? Well, as a commission, I think you will have to act as a commission, as a body. Okay. Mr. Holmes has worked for the Public Service Commission. I would just add that I think the city is acting as an active intervener in the process, and I would acquiesce and go through the city's intervention. Very good. Again, I don't think any action is needed on your part. Thank you. Does anybody have anything else for the agenda to bring up today? Since we don't have the audience, it's all left, so I don't suppose there's any more audience items. So if that's all, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Well, frankly, he didn't say anything today. I think the water, you know, we got caught up on the water with the rain, and the weather changed. It's got us all a little goofy. Do we have a motion to adjourn, please? Okay. We are adjourned.