Music Thank you. I'd like to welcome everyone here. Our first agenda item. Since we have no approval of minutes, I'll ask for any postponements or withdrawals. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Yes. My screen is still not working. We'll see if we can get some help on that. Mr. Murphy, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy on page 3, item 2, Anderson Campus Rental Properties, Robert Hodges, and Anthony McIntyre, and the associated development plan. We're requesting a one-month postponement of that. Thank you. Anyone in the audience that wish to speak in regards to this postpomen, request for postpomen? If not, Mr. Sally, do you have a date? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Your meeting in July for zoning items is on the 26th. That's what you're asking for, Mr. Murphy? Yes. Okay. Okay. I have no one else wishing to speak on this. I'll entertain a motion for this request for postponement. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of MAR 2012-9 until the July 26 meeting. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement until July 26, 2012. please vote when it comes up on your screen okay everybody's voting affirmative on this so the motion passes thank you Mr. Murphy thank you any other requests for postponement or withdrawals Mr. Chairman if there are none from the audience the staff would ask for one item to be considered for postponement at this time. That appears on the top of page 5. It's item 3, ZOTA 2012-9. These are proposed amendments primarily to the B-1 neighborhood business fund. At this time, the staff would ask that this be postponed two months, and that would be to your August 23rd meeting. This will allow us a little bit of time to bring this to you at one or two work sessions, and then we can bring it back to you on your August 23rd agenda for public hearing. Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience or a commission member wish to speak in regards to this postponement? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, move postponement of ZOTA 2012-9 until August 23rd. Second. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded for postponement for two months until August 23rd. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Mr. Wilson, Mr. Berkeley, are you voting yet? Yes, okay, thank you. Motion passes as well. Any other requests for postponement or withdrawals? If not, we'll move to the first item on our agenda, which is at the bottom of page 1, Lexington Trots Breeders Association, LLC. MAR 2012-4. I wouldn't call to your attention for this. We do have revisions, which is on the pink sheet, which is in front of you. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Planning Commission. Again, we are on page one of the agenda, item 1A, and that information is behind tab 1 in your notebooks as well. This is MAR 2012-4, a request by Lexington Trots Breeders Association, LLC, to rezone property along Nelms Avenue and a portion of the Red Mile property. It's approximately 2.1 acres. The request is to rezone from a wholesale and warehouse business zone to the mixed-use community MU3 zone. the subject property is located at the intersection of red mile road and south broadway at the north intersection it includes the entrance sign for the red mile property and everything between Nelms Avenue and Red Mile Road to the entranceway for the Red Mile property, their first entrance. It also includes 10 parcels along the northeast side of Nelms Avenue. So it's sort of an L-shaped property. In the vicinity, the Red Mile is currently zoned MU3 as well as AU for the track that remains. Also to the east is a hotel and a restaurant and, I guess, a convenience store. Part of Nelms Avenue remains B4 with Bryant, Rental, and a few other businesses along there. Across Broadway are some P1 use and B4 for, I think it's medical equipment rental and sales. and then on the southeast side, the Shell Station, and a few commercial uses as well. I would note that the Red Mile Corridor as well as the South Broadway Corridor have both experienced quite a bit of redevelopment in the past decade or two as tobacco warehouses have been eliminated and in a lot of cases, either mixed-use or residential development has occurred in those areas. The petitioner today is proposing a mixed-use three-zone in order to incorporate this small area into the larger Red Mile mixed-use entertainment project. Today they are asking for two small buildings for a total of 86,000 square feet. They are three-story buildings with off-street parking to be included in a much larger development, which is closer to 100 acres. The petitioner also recently was the owner of a property that rezoned the Tattersalls property just to the north and east of this location. I mentioned some of these uses, but there's the hotel to the back or to the northeast. There's a standard-bred stable of memories. near this subject property as well. Bryant Rental is kind of a staple in the area. There's a fraternity across Red Mile Road and then a gas station, Shell and Gas Station, at the intersection across from this. Something of importance as we move forward today is for the staff, the sight line from Broadway to the standard-bred stable of memories to be able to view that iconic structure was important in the development plan prepared by the Red Mile, and I believe it's important as part of the comprehensive plan and the green space plan. This is a view of the subject property looking towards South Broadway. It is across the roadway here. This is Red Mile Road. So it would be the area with the white fence and the trees behind it there. This is a view of the existing curb cut and apron along Red Mile, and that is also important as we move forward. Kind of a view of where that curb cut is midway from the intersection of Broadway to the entrance for the Red Mile property. This is a view of the entrance to the Red Mile property that is closest to South Broadway, and there is quite a bit of extensive landscaping at this intersection entrance point and the white horse fences. And you can see that same entrance is very close to where the Stable of Memories barn exists. This is a view from Red Mile a little bit further back in front of the Red Mile property looking towards South Broadway. And last, a few pictures of Nelms Avenue, which does function more as an alley. This is directly in front of a portion of the tin parcels that line Nelms Avenue. And between Nelms and Red Mile, there is a heavy, dense buffer, I guess, of some sort. it's probably honeysuckle, and a utility easement that creates really a buffer between the roadway and Nelms. You really can't see Nelms Avenue from Red Mile Road. And then this is a view of one of the existing uses along Nelms Fennells, which is a horseman supply and leather goods. And they are right at the intersection of where Nelms intersects with the entrance road to Red Mile. You can see the hotel to the rear of this location. The comprehensive plan, 2007 comprehensive plan for the subject property, has a split recommendation. The properties on the northeast side of Nelms Avenue are recommended for a retail or commercial and retail and residential mixed use, and the area between Nelms and Red Mile Road is recommended for green space and open space. The commercial residential mixed use land use category is meant to encourage combinations of retail, office, and residential, and it's been located within the comp plan at places typically where older commercial areas are intended for redevelopment. And the green space open space designation identifies undeveloped open space land within the community. The green space plan that LFUCG currently has also identifies the entire Red Mile property as an urban open space site, specifically identifying it as a resource cluster and a trail link for the Red Mile property, and it includes this green space area designated on the comprehensive plan. In addition, there's a South Broadway corridor plan from 1990 that was adopted as part of the 1988 comprehensive plan, which first identified these parcels on the northeast side of Nomes Avenue for the mixed-use designation. More recently, the Red Mile development plan process occurred, and the staff did hand out a two-page sort of summary of the concept plan, and I don't have a copy to waive, but it's got the red at the top and it says development plan. Yes, that's exactly right. Thank you. Which shows the concept plan that was developed in 2009, as well as a more specific rendering of this entrance corridor from Broadway. So much of the area between Nelms and Red Mile was shown as green space with a multi-use trail in those graphics, and the parcels on the northeast side of Nelms were not a part of the overall concept plan approved for the larger Red Mile property. In addition, the content of the plan emphasized the entrance from South Broadway intersection of Red Mile as the front door to the Red Mile development. and there was a desire to preserve the visual character of that approach toward the standard-bred stable of memories. And these planning concepts were supportive of the green space, open space land use recommendation as seen on the comprehensive plan. This zone map amendment was reviewed by the staff in light of those three documents, three documents, the Red Mile Development Plan, as seen on overhead, the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Green Space Plan. Originally, the staff did recommend a postponement, but the applicant did revise their plan significantly and is now proposing a mixed-use development that is pushed to the northeast edge of the property, away from Red Mile Road. They have agreed to also maintain open space between... Can we put the PowerPoint back up, please? They've agreed to maintain open space, as you can see in the green shading there, from the access point that's not being used today. From that point towards South Broadway, they intend to keep that vacant, open space, landscape buffer, and then also to maintain a strip from that access point toward their entrance that gradually gets larger. And the staff, in assessing whether this agreed with the comprehensive plan and met that entrance, I guess, importance, the staff looked at whether we were still able, the community was still able to see the Stable of Memories from South Broadway, because that was an important concept for their entrance and for the community. In summary, the staff did believe that that sight line would remain. The applicant did some Photoshop exhibits that I'm sure they will show you that identified the buildings proposed to be behind that and the view shed to be maintained. As a result of that work with the applicant, the staff can now recommend approval of this application, and when the staff presented this to the zoning committee three weeks ago, they also recommended approval for really the reason that the mixed-use three zone is in agreement with the comprehensive plan and it kind of breaks down into three reasons. The north side of Nelms is recommended for mixed-use, future land use, and the petitioner is proposing a mixed-use zone and a mixed-use building at this site. Secondly, the south side of Nelms is recommended for green space and open space land use by the comprehensive plan and is proposed as a gateway entrance with the Red Mile mixed-use project. And a detailed study of the site plan was accepted by the Planning Commission in 2009 And third, the petitioner is substantially meeting the green space, open space land use recommendation by maintaining approximately two-thirds of the existing open space and ensuring a clear sight line to the standard bred stable of memories. The staff did propose two conditional zoning restrictions to maintain this open space as designated by these plans. and we have worked with the applicant to make one small edit to the restrictions that are seen on your pink sheet. The first restriction maintains that larger green chunk of land between South Broadway and the access point as completely open with the exception of the existing sign or a replacement sign if it is approved by or approvable through Article 17, permitted through Article 17. And then secondly, to keep the open space at a specific setback from the face of the existing sidewalk. So that would be between the extension of the existing concrete apron to the Red Mall entrance. Measured from the face of the sidewalk, there shall be maintained an open space and landscape buffer, not less than 15 feet at any point, and it must average at least 25 feet overall. And this was really to provide the applicant the most flexibility to be able to get their parking and their building into that space but still maintain the sight line. there would be only trees and a sidewalk, shrubs, open space within that area. These restrictions are appropriate and necessary in order to ensure agreement with the comprehensive plan, create the gateway entrance to the Red Mile, and to maintain a sight line to the standard bread stable of memories. I'd be happy to answer any questions about this application. Questions from the Commission? Frank? Tracy, I didn't hear you talk about the traffic flow on Mounds Avenue. Would that be an entrance and exit to that property and to that development? I believe it would. You know, I'm going to let Tom answer that question because he has much greater knowledge of the development plan. I'll wait for Tom. Okay, thank you. Other questions? Ms. Coburn? Yes. Ms. Wade, you're saying that trees, shrubs, and something else could go in the triangular green section? A sidebar. Well, if you lower that drawing down so we can see the stable of memories. It's a PowerPoint slide, and that photograph is. I just laid out a line from the corner of Broadway and Red Mile Road, a straight line, and drew it up to the right-hand side of the Stable of Memories. And if you put trees in that triangular area, you're going to block the view, particularly if it's very big trees. So I'm not sure that that's... I mean, dogwoods, yes, maybe yes, but you put tulip poplars, live oaks, or burr oaks, you can't see it because of the site distance from the corner. without getting into specific species designated at that location. We did try to reflect that by saying any new trees planted shall be placed so as to maintain the sight line. And tall trees, it would be difficult perhaps to do that. So we're hoping they can either group the trees or plant small trees to meet the requirements of the vehicular use screening. Okay. Any other questions? This way, Ms. Coven was talking about the green triangular area, the rectangular area that's not colored. What's the purpose of it, or what will down the road in the future? The purpose would be to maintain that as open space. Okay. All right. Thank you. Anything else? If not, we'll let Mr. Martin come forward. I see his feet and legs coming this way. Thank you. We need some blue sheets, it looks like. Tracy, do you know, it seems like we're missing some blue sheets as far as the revisions for the development plan up here. Tom, were your blue sheets handed out? Thank you. members of the commission. Mr. Martin, let us get these blue sheets handed out. We'll let you get started. Tracy is handing out the blue sheet. Those are the revised conditions that staff has prepared for you on this preliminary development plan that you see before you. The plan that is associated with this unchanged is ZDP 2012-13, Red Mile Mixed Use Development, as amended. It is located on page 2 of your agenda. And as you now know, you have a blue sheet with revised conditions on that plan. The area of the zone change and of the plan that you see before you today has been highlighted here for you on the overall development plan. Again, Red Mile, here is the proposed use with the buildings, the Red Mile Road, the various access points. And staff wanted you to see the relationship of this site to the overall plan. Tattersall's currently under development is located up here. Here is the connection that will eventually take folks to Curry Avenue and come down here again next to this proposed development. South Broadway, Red Mile, here is the stable of memories. We had the applicant prepare a blow-up for you because obviously at the detail of the overall plan, that's difficult to see. Again, here's the South Broadway Red Mile intersection. This is the road that will eventually, it's known as Tattersalls now, so we would assume that it will be known as Tattersalls Road, Avenue Drive, as it goes up to Curry Avenue. The applicant is proposing two 43,000 square foot buildings, three stories. Top two stories, residential units, 32 total residential units, and the bottom floors will be the commercial area in these mixed-use buildings. You can see, again, Mr. Penn, in relationship to your question, here is Nelms Alley. It will remain. This plan proposes to bring it out to the apron that Ms. Wade mentioned and provide a write-in and write-out only entrance into this development. The applicants proposing parking along the front, one bay at this location, additional parking here with an alley to provide circulation and service vehicles a way to serve the commercial uses that may locate in the building. The site has 45 parking spaces on it. they will have to park in other areas of the plan, and that is one reason, again, we wanted you to see the relationship. We view this thing, and this will be incorporated as an overall plan. It's all one integral development. The parking will have to be off-site, but in another part of the associated development. And again, at this point, on the preliminary, they're proposing 45 parking spaces. The line of sight that was mentioned previously is highlighted on this plan from this location right here with the stable of memories. And again, here's your open space along the elms that they're proposing, and here's the little triangular area where the zoning, the conditional zoning, would apply in terms of averaging and meeting the requirements in that area. The plan that you do see before you today is the fifth revision of this plan. As you are aware, staff spent a considerable amount of time meeting and negotiating and discussing the issues with the applicant. the conditions on your agenda go back to the very first submittal with the townhouses. The blue sheet that you see before you are the revised conditions that do address the plan that you see before you today. We have standard conditions on this plan for engineering, traffic, building inspection, the urban forester, the green space planner. are we asking them to denote their pedestrian connections to the public system? The sidewalks that you see on the plan are in the public system or will be in the public system, and we just like to have clearly shown internal connections from the development to that system. That brings us to the next connection, or pardon me, condition, condition number eight where we are requiring that they denote the need for sidewalks and widening on Nelms Avenue will be reviewed at the time of the final development plan. Again, this is a preliminary development plan. You will see a final development plan. It is associated with the overall development. There are TIF improvements that will be done. There will be TIF improvements along this road. There will be TIF improvements on Broadway. at the time they bring in a final development plan, NELMS is going to stop. This dashed line right through here, I know it's difficult for you to see, that's the current right-of-way. That will have to go away for this plan to be realized. And staff believes it's appropriate at that time then to review what improvements to NELMS, if any, would be required. It may be over time and use. there may not be any significant requirements necessary, but again, we think that's appropriate for the final development plan discussion. We also have a condition relative to the final development plan, and that is to resolve any improvements necessary to Red Mile relative to the right in, right out. Again, there's going to be TIF improvements, there's going to be evaluations done on Red Mile and any improvements to that street that are associated with this overall development, and we think it would be appropriate, again, at the time that we have a final development plan to fully determine what, if any, improvements would be necessary due to that realignment of Nelms. And then a very small little matter on number 11 is the building line conflict will have to be revised. The back building that you see on this plan crosses a lot line slightly at the rear next to the Tattersalls Road, And obviously that will have to be resolved at the final development plan stage, as will the right-of-way for NELMS, which constitute lot lines technically. They create boundaries for property, and that's the reason for your condition number 11. And I would just add, as a matter of a cleanup housekeeping, that should you approve the conditional zoning, then those would be denoted on the development plan as well. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Berkley? Clarifying Nelms, is it a dedicated right-of-way now, or is it easement? It is a dedicated right-of-way. It is in the public street system. Okay. What discussions, I guess, if any, have you had with Bryant? Or maybe the applicant can answer that. The applicant may have had some. We have not. the staff. Okay. Any other questions? Frank? Mr. Ben. Tom? Let's assume it's going to be built like we see it. The final development plan won't change much for this. Until, I guess the question would be is, if you go out in Am's Alley and you want to turn left, you're in trouble. If you come out the way they're proposing that we come out with right in and right out only, you still can't turn left. So anybody that's trying to get on going downtown, they'll have to come out to the entrance that hasn't been built yet? Yes, sir. the sensible movement for people wishing to go left instead of using Nelms would be to come out here and come down or turn right here at the new entrance and come to the light. I thought that was going to be right out and right on. Oh, I'm sorry. Again, you're right. They can't make a light. Pardon me. Yeah, they will have to go out to Tattersalls Road and turn left. They would have the option of going up Tattersalls Road once it's built to Curry Avenue and using that light as well. But my question is, will that have to be built before their development's built, the tattersalls? We are going to have to evaluate that at the final development plan and determine the... So that'll be a final development plan? Yes, sir. The scope of all the changes and necessary improvements will be done at that time. Ms. Planton? You may have just answered my question, but do you have any concerns about people turning left off of tattersalls, considering that the road is, I mean, what do you think the sight line is going to be for people trying to turn left with the curbed Red Mile? Is that an issue? The exact alignment of that particular access point will be reviewed further on the additional plans and with the TIF improvements and that sort of thing. That alignment may change. Also, Ms. Bland, I would add that the access there today is very wide, and this plan proposes to bring it more into a standard configuration. Ms. Phillips? Since we're talking access, what about individuals leaving this property along Tattersalls Lane and instead of coming down to Red Mile, they go back behind the hotel? There's a longer-term plan to connect on the other side of that Tattersalls property, Yes, ma'am. Yes, they would have the option, if they wanted to go downtown in that direction, north, of using what we'll call Tattersalls Road to go up to Curry Avenue. It's hard to see again at this scale, but it goes all the way, you can see it, and it cuts over to Curry. I know we've talked about this on other plans. Currently, there are no plans to improve Curry? No, ma'am, no plans at this time. And it is, of course, public right-of-way. But we could be inadvertently dumping a whole lot of traffic potentially onto Curry by approving this development. It will be a connection, and you could anticipate increased traffic. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Phillips, also on Curry, there is some improvement proposed on the north side of Curry, not on the south side of Curry. We've approved a residential development that does propose to widen the road where it will connect to Angliana on the north side of Currie. It's up in this area. You may recall the multifamily development, student development that crosses Angliana. There are improvements to Currie as it curls up to intersect with Angliana. That's what Mr. Sally is referring to. Mr. Cravens. Tom, how much parking is off-site? You said there's only 45 there. I mean, what's required for two 43,000? Well, I might add, although I didn't touch on the condition, that we're asking them to clarify and correct some of their site statistics. There's still some carryover and odd little numbers. Staff's required parking number is 125. Theirs is 99. So we'll have to reconcile how they derived that number compared to how we derived the parking. So 45 is provided immediately on site. The rest will all be off site. Okay, and then this Nelms Avenue, I mean, how do you reconcile that running into private property, public street running right into the private property and all the way out is to property? If this plan is developed, as you see before you today, Nelms will be public right away and curve into Red Mile, And then the old right-of-way will be closed, and they will assume possession. So the public part will be the little going out to that access point she showed? The public part will be this way. Okay. Yeah, and this part will be closed. This will just be a parking lot access to Tattersau's. It will be private. Tom, you have two conditions talking about sidewalks. The first one, addition of pedestrian connections to public system, I'm presuming that's the sidewalks that's going to be around the two buildings proposed for construction, and then the number eight is going to be the remaining NEMS alley at a later date? Yes, sir, if it's deemed appropriate and necessary. Okay. Any other questions? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Thank you, sir. I'm sorry. Yes, I'm sorry. Tom, I'm confused as to how a private entity can just set two buildings down on top of a public right-of-way, which is Nelms Avenue. It's merely a proposal. That would have to be closed for this plan to reach fruition. I mean, they'll have to go to council, they'll have to request closure, and it'll have to be granted. Okay, so they didn't buy it from the city yet? No, ma'am. There has been no closure of right-of-way at this time. Okay, thank you. Ms. Blanton. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did we get to that point because one of their previous iterations did not leave the green space, so kind of the tradeoff for the green space, I mean, would that be a fair? Yes, that is correct. Through the negotiation for the green space, the plan has changed, and for them to optimize the use of the site, it's going to require some closure of that right away. Any other questions right now? Yes. Yes, Ms. Phillips. One more, sorry. Since there won't be but 45 parking spaces on site, this site is well connected to adjoining lots in terms of sideways, and we're not going to have private individuals trespassing on private property to gain access, are we? Again, I think that's best illustrated by the fact that this is going to be incorporated into the overall development. There's a nice parking lot, a large parking lot located here. There will be other parking available. There are pedestrian systems that would allow people to cross, and hopefully they would use the sidewalk system and the crosswalk. to cross, but I'm sure there will be people just crossing directly across the street as they're prone to do. Thank you. Any other questions? No. Applicant, please. Thank you, Ms. Porter. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Chris Westover. I'm representing Lexington Breeders' Trots in this zone change. In the interest of brevity, I will just say that we agree with the staff recommendations both on the zone change and the development plan and respectfully request your approval. I will say that the staff probably was inclined to kick me out of their office a few times because we had so many meetings to talk about this. But I think what we can say at the end of the day is it is, I think, a win-win both for the government and for the Red Mile and the community because at the end of the day, there will be this permanent open space down here and a 10-foot sidewalk that will start connecting to the rest of the Red Mile property. And in exchange, the Red Mile will be able to develop a small development close to the rear there. So I think it's a real gain for everybody and without detriment to the historic features of the Red Mile. So I'm happy to answer any questions, and if not, I will sit down. Thank you, Ms. Westover. Any questions for Ms. Westover? Yes, Mr. Berkeley. So Bryant-Renall is also on NELMS, and this plan is going to require that that be closed off or portion closed. I'm assuming is what you're proposing. I don't know if you're talking about the whole thing or what, but what discussions have you all had with them in regards to this plan? First of all, in terms of the closure of Nelms, the entire street would not be closed. It would only be the portion that the Red Mile owns both sides of, and that is the portion that's closer there to where you see those buildings. and in exchange we would build the continuation of Nelms onto Red Mile Road via that curved portion there. So the part that's by Bryant-Renall will not be affected in any way by the closure because they will still be able to come in and out by that way, and we're not closing anything down by them. In terms of discussion, I have not had discussions with them personally. They are aware of the zone change. They have indicated in no way do they have any concern about it. It's my understanding that they are content to continue with what they're currently doing at their current location under the same way they're doing it now. The way this plan looks to me, anybody going into Bryant's would not have a left turn option other than right on South Broadway. Because I think right now, anybody that goes to Bryant's, they go all the way down to Nelms, and then they turn out left there about where this Trotter's Lane is proposed. It doesn't look like to me you're going to be able to do that afterwards, and you're going to funnel them into a right-in, right-out entrance so they can only go right. Well, actually, they will be able to go up to Tattersall's Way and turn right on that and get out onto Curry and to Broadway that way. So they're going to go through the parking lot, though? No. They wouldn't be going through the parking lot. they would be able to exit here, go here, and go down. Without going through the parking lot. I suppose if they wanted to, they could go through the parking lot. But there is public right-of-way right here. Right out, right. that they could make this movement. And I can tell you that there's active development going on here, and this portion of Tattersall's Way is going to be built within the very near future in conjunction with the rest of this development. And if this development goes forward, then this portion here will be built as well. And until there's development here, there's not going to be this construction. So it's going to stay the way it always is until this development goes forward and then there's the construction of the rest of Tattersall's Way. I guess now I've got a question for legal. Can you kind of explain the process to us that they would go through to close NELMS and what kind of agreement would be involved on the part of Bryant. And the reason I ask this is, you know, this plan seems very premature considering what kind of things still have to be done. Basically, all I can answer for you is the standard procedure for a road closing. If a road is closed, then it has to be by action of council, and each adjoining property receives half of the right-of-way that's being abandoned through the road closure. I'm not sure what plans or agreements otherwise there may be with Bryant. That would be kind of a private issue amongst the property owners that received that property upon the closing. So Bryant would not have to agree with this? the council could basically close this without their agreeing to it? They could, but I don't think, you know, for council to close a road and then leave it almost impossible to access a business would be extremely unlikely if there wasn't. I mean, you know, obviously being a council decision, it's in open meetings and there's an opportunity for especially the joining property owners to comment on the meeting. And that's my question. Are we setting the government up for a reverse kind of condemnation action, whereby if this was closed without their agreeing to it, would there be some liability potentially on the part of the city? they still have access along Broadway that can be reached by any other, you know, by several other means. I don't think that there's, I don't think there would be a takings issue. And if I might just make two comments. One in response to your latest question. That issue really was resolved by an urban county government case a few years ago in the case of Comer's Lounge where the property owner said he was denied access and he was claiming something like reverse condemnation. But the courts held that property owners are entitled to access, and as long as they have some access, then that's okay. And in this case, even if this were done, there would be an access point from South Broadway and there's access point from Red Mile Road and, I guess, Tattersall's through the parking lot. Finally, Mr. Hollaney pointed out to me that currently Nelms Avenue terminates into Red Mile property. So technically, the last portion of that is not a public way, and technically they're trespassing if they go on it now. And, of course, nobody wants to do anything or say anything about it, but technically that's not public right-of-way, that last little bit. And there's a curb cut, but there's no other access there. So when you come in and out of NELMS, technically it's one way in and one way out only. So this would increase their public right-of-way options. Mr. Pimm. Ms. Westover, before you could get an occupancy permit for these two buildings that you're building, one or both of those access points on Red Mile Road would be built. Oh, yes. I mean, I don't see how that building could be built without the public improvements going in first. So when we see the final development plan, part of the understanding will be that at least Nelms will come out with a right turn only to Red Mile Road. And further than that. And part of Tattersall's way or Trotton Way or what it's going to be called will be built in conjunction with those buildings. These buildings cannot be constructed unless and until the urban county government closes that road. because the existing right-of-way portion of it is within that development. So those are appropriate issues. We need to see whether the Council closes now. We have no indication now that they won't. And secondly, we just need to see the final development plan. So those would be conditions on the final development plan? I think they would have to be, right. Thank you. Other questions? Ms. Westover, you've heard me ask this before, and there's difficulties, I believe, from what you've said. However, I'd like to keep the door open and try and work on a connection going back to the hotel as well, somewhere down the road, because as we're learning, connectivity means a lot today. Yes, Chairman Owens. That's something that we can visit in the future. What we would need, though, is obviously agreement from the hotel, because their development plan would also need to be amended in order to do that, and also there would need to be some sort of maintenance agreement, agreement because we think that most of the traffic would be coming from the hotel and the other properties there. But yes, I think that if details could be worked out in the future, it would be possible to do that. Is that lane that goes back to the restaurant and convenience store and hotel, is that public now? No, sir, I don't think so. I think what you're referring to is all private. Let me see. Are you referring to this? Yes, ma'am. No, that's not public. That's just an access drive. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? Hearing none, I'll close this part of the discussion hearing and open it up to the Commission members for discussion and or motion. Mr. Brewer. I guess I'd like to just back up on this one and say from the beginning I've been very impressed with how the Red Mile development plan has, the broader development has been discussed. I think you guys have done a wonderful job engaging the community and the staff on something that could have been done piecemeal and taken a whole lot of time and a lot of effort to get done. So I applaud you on that. A little salt with the sugar. I hate the idea of dumping more traffic on Curry. I mean, that's a mess back there already. So I would hope you would try to find some alternatives to that as you move further down this path. Ms. Copeland? Yes. I would like to see us do some sort of documentation to something so that we can protect the top 50% of the stable of memories. It's sort of our Statue of Liberty, and it's okay to obliterate the bottom with a sign or planting, so forth, but I think all the way from South Broadway, not the view shed that you've drawn, but all the way from South Broadway, if you're parked there at this stoplight, you should have a view of the top of the Stable of Memories. We can put maybe Mr. Sally can help us with this where the planting plan would be reviewed by Mr. Query, and he would determine whether when the things are grown up, if that's going to hide the top of the stable of memories. But this also applies to signage. and I think we ought to make some sort of notation at the bottom of one of these two things so that that is guaranteed. And if you all want to comment, if you think I'm too far out, let me know. Mr. Salley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's try that. Dim the lights here. I think this was handed out to the commission members earlier. I have to go even more. This is out of the Red Mile study. Very difficult to see on the overhead. There is information on the after photo that is very germane to Ms. Copeland's comments that I wanted to make. The before picture is generally the current condition. and sorry I do not have my pointer today. The existing sign for the Red Mile is visible in both photos on the lower right. The stable of memories is in the center of the photo, and this is standing across Broadway from Red Mile Road. Is there any way to lighten that up? If you will look at your photo, this is not showing. in this area right here, between this pole that is part of some of the TIF improvements for signalization, right in this area, this is the area that is the biggest difference from this photo. And this was very much on the mind of the staff as we reviewed this development plan and this zone change from the start. If you look, the vegetation is thicker through that area, and you will also note that the sidewalk is wider, as is consistent with the applicant's proposal. However, that added landscaping, which would be similar to this development plan, would not impact the general visualization of the stable. And that's why we spent a lot of our meetings with the applicant talking about where is the sight line, where is the right side of the stable, where are the existing trees, how will it be impacted, and so forth. Certainly we could add restrictions to this development plan in those areas. I think we already have some restrictions drafted for you in terms of the conditional zoning restrictions, but I also think clearly the record of your hearing today will be a reminder as we review the final development plan, whether that's six months from today or six years from today or even longer. of the importance of these issues and that particular area in front of the parking lot. I hope that's of help to you. Mr. Sally, with all due respect, this is taken straight on coming out of Angliana, and I'm trying to get it so that you see it going up and down Broadway. If you're traveling up and down Broadway and you're stopped over here on the right behind the truck or whatever it is, or if you're in the truck spot, you can still see it, and it isn't blocked with shrubbery or trees or a sign down in the triangular part. That triangular section is an ideal place to put a sign for the commercial. Right. There is a sign there existing today. In looking at the development plan, the Bryant's building is on this corner, very close to the pavement of both streets. And so at this point, this is the first vehicle that could view the stable of memories. And they would have a sight line, albeit across the parking lot, into the stable. The building itself would not block that view. Right. Where you put the red pointer is what I'm talking about. Right. And you take it straight over to the stable of memories. As long as we keep the top 50% of the stable visible, then planting is okay. That's my thinking on it, but I'm open to what the Commission says. Let me ask Ms. West over. I think she went to Mr. Sally acknowledging this as well. Do you have any recommendations on any improvement as far as wording? Well, certainly the Red Mile has no interest or desire to block an iconic feature on its property, and that is important to the Red Mile's identity as well. So I don't have any wording to add, but I think that we're all cognizant of that, and maybe on the final development plan we can nail that down. We would be very happy to work with any landscape committee or anybody else to work on that to get the best landscaping plan that we can because we want to add landscaping, but we don't want to add it at the expense of the round barn. So just our sincere desire to work with you and maybe a final development plan note of some sort instead of a condition on the fly today. Okay. Anything to add, Mr. Salley or Ms. Wade? Okay. Any other questions or discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. That's a real . She's not here. Ms. Blanton. Move approval of MAR 2012-4 Lexington Trots Breeders Association for the reasons outlined by staff. The motion has been made and seconded for approval of MAR 2012-4 Lexington Trots Breeders Association with the reasons recommended on the pink sheet. Please vote. Everybody is already voting. Please vote. The motion passes. I will also ask for a motion for the Zoning Development Plan 2012-13 Red Mile Mixed-Use Development. Yes, Ms. Blanton. Move approval of ZDP 2012-13 Red Mile Mixed-Use Development with the 11 conditions outlined by staff. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded for approval of ZDP 2012-13 with the revised conditions. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Westover. I believe next on our agenda is at the bottom of page 3, under Public Hearings for Zone and Ordinance Tax Amendments, Zota 2012-4, amendment to amend the definition of banquet facilities. Thank you. Chairman Owens, members of the Cleaning Commission, Again, this is behind tab 3 in your notebooks, I believe. It is Zota 2012-4, a text amendment to amend the definition of banquet facilities to delete the requirement that the use be located within a building currently or formally used as a residence. C Brothers LLC has requested this text amendment to Article 1-11 of the zoning ordinance to change the definition of banquet facilities. Currently, the definition allows a building to be offered to the public for rent or lease for the purpose of entertainment or business meetings and events. However, the definition limits that use to only a structure which was either currently or formally used as a residence. This amendment would allow both residential and commercial buildings to be occupied by a banquet facility. Banquet facilities are a principal permitted use in the B1 zone. But that zone does carry forward into our B2 and B2A, which are downtown business zones, the B6P, which is our shopping center business zone, as well as all three of the mixed-use zones. Banquet facilities are listed also as an allowable use in an adaptive reuse project, which can be permitted in our B4, I1, and I2 zones. Banquet facilities and meeting rooms are also considered accessory or have been in the past to uses such as hotels, private clubs or country clubs restaurants, museums, and even churches Until 2007, the use was permitted as an accessory use In 2007, the zoning ordinance was amended to define banquet facilities establish off-street parking requirements, and designate which zoning districts it would be permitted in. Prior to that, there had been at least one Board of Adjustment case where an event facility or banquet facility was permitted called eVentions as a principal use in a B1 zone because it was similar to other B1 uses like a restaurant. Well, a restaurant. The text amendment in 2007 did clarify which zones it would be permitted in, but almost from the beginning, the approved definition was difficult for people to be able to utilize. It was problematic. The definition forced the adaptive reuse of a structure, so therefore it limited the location of a banquet facility fairly significantly to first the residential structures, which happened to be in a business zone, and then also they would have to be large enough to accommodate the parking requirements of the use. The applicant that applied for the text amendment in 2007 was intentionally trying to limit the text of the ordinance change because they were concerned about bringing in their banquet facility, not necessarily every banquet facility out there. But the staff actually recommended a broader definition than they originally brought in and it still has had unintended consequences of limiting the use to one location. Only one banquet facility has been permitted since 2007 that met all of the requirements. Another banquet facility has been approved in an adaptive reuse project. So in five years, only two uses have been permitted. But there have been numerous other facilities proposed to the staff of the Division of Planning just this year and then previous to the Division of Building Inspection asking for permission to locate in commercial areas. Clearly this requirement, locational requirement for being in a former residence, has been restrictive or a deterrent to establishing the use within the last five years. Last year in 2011, September, the Board of Adjustment had another case that someone asked for an administrative appeal to determine that a banquet facility was permitted in a B-1 zone in a commercial building. Because the applicant couldn't meet the definition as established for a residential structure, the Board of Adjustment had to deny that request. At that meeting, though, the Board did discuss and give direction to the staff, the Division of Planning, to consider a text amendment, and they indicated that that would be appropriate. During the course of the public hearing, the board discussed the possibility of either limiting banquet facilities in some other appropriate manner, including making it a conditional use, regulating the live entertainment more strictly, or allowing the use in any existing structure. The current request today has been, I guess, brought forward because they are or were, excuse me, exploring the possibility of an adaptive reuse of putting a banquet facility in an older structure that was never used as a residence. So they could not meet the existing definition of banquet facility. In the applicant's justification, they made three significant points. First, that there is a demand for this with the Board of Adjustment cases, and then the request that the staff has received for this use that we've had to tell people you just don't meet that definition first. Secondly, that this restriction for being located in a residential building is not for any other B1 use. So a restaurant could reuse, could go into a residential structure or a commercial structure. A grocery store could occupy a residential structure or a commercial structure. So that's kind of an unequal standing that we're putting or pressure we're putting on the banquet facilities. And then thirdly, the appellant stated that banquet facilities are very similar to other uses that are permitted in B1, such as private clubs and restaurants, and they can occupy any type of building. In reviewing the request, the staff had one significant concern that had to do with entertainment related to banquet facilities. In most banquet facilities that we're aware of, there is either indoor or outdoor live entertainment that's utilized at least for some events. And live entertainment, indoor live entertainment, is considered accessory to a banquet facility because it's part of the definition. As the applicant mentioned, it's appropriate to treat uses the same within a zone. and in the B1 zone, live entertainment is restricted. If it is outdoor live entertainment or if it's indoor live entertainment associated with a restaurant, if there's dancing involved, any of those cases go to the Board of Adjustment on a case-by-case basis for approval, and they must be located 100 feet from a residential zone. So the staff was concerned that by establishing this or permitting this in other business zones, that the live entertainment would become a bigger issue if it weren't similarly restricted, like in a restaurant or a private club. The staff has, since this text amendment was filed, added some language to another text amendment on your agenda today for the B1 zone that would regulate live entertainment for banquet facilities, making live entertainment indoor possibly a conditional use in some cases and others, and outdoor live entertainment always a conditional use. That's sort of on a separate tract for you to consider, but since the applicant has filed their text amendment, Their conditions or their use has, I believe, hit somewhat of a snag, and the petitioner is not present today to represent this application. I distributed a letter from Ms. Wiseman at your seat, who is the applicant's attorney, and they currently no longer wish to pursue the text amendment, but do understand there's a greater community interest in this definition change. Therefore, Ms. Wiseman is supportive of the commission taking action on the request but is not here to represent C Brothers LLC per se. The zoning committee and the staff have recommended approval of this request for two reasons. First, modifying the definition of banquet facilities to remove the residential requirement is logical and appropriate because it allows for similar uses to be treated in a similar manner within a zone. And then secondly, banquet facilities have been overly restricted in the past five years to the point that very few have been approved, even though demand exists. Lastly, I would say that we do have a letter of support from the Calumet Area Neighborhood Association, and they were supportive of the Board of Adjustment case in September as well, but understand that this text amendment is necessary for banquet facilities to be permitted more widely. I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time. Ms. Plumlee? I have a question about the tents and the temporary structures. How big would they be in comparison to the actual residence or the primary building, and how long would they stay up after, you know, you have an event? How long are they there? I don't think that there's a limit on the square footage of a tent, but we do have a separate text amendment, I believe, within the last year or two years that regulates temporary structures which a tent would fall within, and they are permitted as accessory uses for up to 60 days in a calendar year. So you can put them up for two days here and there in total 60 days, or you can put it up for one time for 60 days. Once you reach 61 days to 180 days, you have to get a conditional use permit in order to have the tent for that long or any temporary structure. and it would no longer be temporary if you were trying to have the structure there for more than 180 days in a calendar year. So there are restrictions for those. Ms. Phillips? Tracy, you said that only two have been approved since 2007. How many requests were there that were declined? I've spoken to at least five other interested parties personally. I don't know how many times building inspection has spoken to someone about it. Is it fair to say there have been 10 that have been turned down? Probably. Yes. I think that would be fair. Mr. Penn. Tracy, would it be advisable to go on with this today, knowing that we've got at least one other, we're going to look at the B-1 text amendment that we postponed. Is there enough demand for this that we need to go forward with this, or should we make this part of our consideration of what we're doing with the postponement? I think the Commission can look at it either way. I think there is demand, but it also makes sense to consider the live entertainment aspect of this at the same time so that they would be really probably implemented at the same time as well. I think people have been waiting for five years already, so a few more months. Tracy, what sort of deadline date do we have on this? Because there is an applicant with this case, the deadline that the commission has is six months, so October would be when the Planning Commission would need to act on this. Okay, and I guess that still holds even though they've, in essence, backed out? Yes. Okay, thank you. Ms. Copeland? I'm just concerned that this could mushroom where caterers put up a pole barn or something and then they have a banquet facility and the first time we have a lot of people in town, then they have a restaurant, but they don't have a restaurant, that it could undermine some of the entrepreneurs downtown who depend on a certain number of meals to just make their ends meet. And that this is sort of a shortcut around the back, and it keeps people from going to the country club, the bell house, those kind of places to have their banquets. even church basements. I'm just not real sure. Ms. Phillips? I'm concerned, too, about this potentially mushrooming. And before, I think we do have some time, and I'd be in favor of postponing this, but I'd like to see, I'm concerned about how this might impact our areas that are zone B1 outside of the urban services boundary. And stuff that's inside the urban services boundary, I think we're good to go. But that's where my concern is. And maybe to help with the decision making, it would be useful for me to be able to see where the B1 areas are outside of the urban services boundary because that's where I think it could be a little more sensitive. Before we get too far ahead of ourselves, let me ask if there's anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this. I kind of thought he was sitting back there for a reason. Thank you very much. I'm Dick Murphy, and I don't have a client today, but when I was talking to Rena about something else, and she mentioned she wasn't pushing this, and I did want to just make a couple remarks, because I run into this issue every year or so it comes up, and I was the one who had the Inventions case that was mentioned in the staff report back in 2002. Back at that time, there was no definition of banquet facility at all. We had to go to the Board of Adjustment. This was a shopping center, B1 shopping center out on Fortune Drive, and Inventions was approved and was operated for about four years and then closed at that location. The ironic thing, though, is that after the Texas Amendment came through in 2007, the result is that another banquet facility could not go in that same space that Vengeance was using because it was a new shopping center. It wasn't an old house. And this also comes up in the adaptive reuses in B4 and I1 because a banquet facility is a listed use there as well. And people discuss things with you every once in a while, and they always find it strange that you have to have an old house in the B4 or I1 zone before you can have that allowed banquet facility in that zone because there just aren't that many old houses in that zone. So the thrust of my comments was that even though Rena's client has dropped out, this is an issue which is going to come back before you, and you need to keep this going forward. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? You're just keeping Mr. Murphy company, I guess? Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? I would add that basically on the surface, I think this is a good idea. I think considering the fact that we do have another text amendment addressing B1 uses and so forth, and also with the fact that there's not any critical or real urgency to push forward with this, we do have time on it, then as far as I'm concerned, a continuance postponement, however you want to call it, would be in order to work on it along with the other B-1 text amendment. Mr. Penn? Are you ready for a motion? Unless it's further discussion. Yes, I'm ready for a motion. The question is, do we have to take action on this today? I would presume we need to. To move. We can just agree. Can't we? No, you need to postpone it. A motion to postpone it. It will be a continuance. Continuance. Thank you. Mr. Penn. Please continue. With appropriate coaching, I move that we continue this until we can come forth with our B-1 recommendations and then file this one afterward or solve it afterwards. Second. And that text amendment was postponed to your August 23rd meeting. Okay. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded to continue this. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. We have one other request for text amendment. It's on page 4, ZODA 2012-8, amendment to Article 2 for the GIS-based zoning map atlas. Ms. Wade. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. Our last item for consideration today is on the middle of page 4, and it is item 2 and tab 4 in your notebooks. This is ZODA 2012-8, an amendment, text amendment initiated by the Planning Commission to change the Zoning Map Atlas, which is a collection of or set of 71 maps, to use a system that would allow the LFUCG GIS system to serve as the official zoning map for the community. The GIS is an integrated hardware, software, and data for capturing, managing, analyzing, and displaying the forms of geographical referenced information, such as zoning data for Lexington, Fayette County. Having this GIS allows the government as well as our citizens to view, understand, analyze data in a visual format that can reveal patterns or relationships in the form of maps. The GIS can also produce reports and charts to assist the staff as well as citizens. The staff has been in a transitional mode for three years to move from our set of 81 maps, Patrick is shaking his head at me, 81 maps, and this is just an example of USA24, to what the GIS looks like. This is just a snapshot of the zoning layer for what is the same area as USA24. 24. And it shows all the addresses, all the property lines, all the zoning information that was present on this hard copy set and is now in our computer system. So the first step was to make sure all of this hard copy information was reflected in our GIS system accurately and to keep the GIS-based system updated rather than updating these hard copy maps at different locations throughout the government. The Planning Commission did initiate this text amendment in 2009. However, there was concern about adopting the text amendment without making sure all the mapping information was correct in our newer GIS system. So the staff has been working with the Office of GIS to make sure that errors have been corrected and new information is accurate on these maps or in this information. and in some cases the correction process does take research back to our 1969 maps and subsequent zone changes or redevelopments. So the staff is very close to completing that task, and in preparing the new zoning map, it would become effective when this text amendment was adopted. So the staff is recommending approval of this text change that would reference, rather than a hard copy map that is accessible in the Division of Planning and Building Inspection, to the Office of GIS mapping data as the official zoning information. I'd be happy to answer any questions. And staff in the zoning committee did recommend approval. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Will this allow you in the future to get development plans up on the big screen too? I don't know. Something on that road maybe. We can work on that. Seeing no one in the audience wishes to speak on this, If everybody is ready, I will entertain a motion. Ms. Phillips? Mr. Chair, I move that we approve ZOTA 2012-8, the amendment to Article 2 to adopt the GIS based zoning maps as the official zoning match for the urban county government. Thank you. Motion has been made. Is there a second? And seconded by Mr. Berkley. Any further discussion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. I think that's the actual last agenda item. Other commission items or anything? I would take note that, let everyone know, Mr. Jim Duncan, I believe, did have surgery today, came out of surgery in good shape, hopes to be home later today, and according to Mr. Duncan's schedule, back at work on Monday, gallbladder surgery. So with that said, also I'd like to take note and mention that this is Marie's last day with us. I would like to say I've preached a note. Excuse me if that's the case. I welcome you back for another two weeks. one way or the other I appreciate what you've done so anything else mr. King any stock item no if not I'll entertain a motion that we adjourn motion's been made seconded I presume yes by mrs. Plumlee all those in favor please stand Thank you.