# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - June 27, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 27, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3046 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3046?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-06-27 - **Last revised**: June 27, 2013 - **Length**: 59,185 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on June 27, 2013, at 1:34 PM in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting. The Commission considered two agenda items and took four votes during the session. The Commission heard three public comments and approved both items on the agenda: a proposal regarding Hospice Facilities in the ED Zone and a proposal concerning Mobile Food Unit Vendors as Accessory Uses. ## Attendance **Present:** - Eunice Beatty - Will Berkley - Carla Blanton - Mike Cravens - Karen Mundy - Mike Owens - Frank Penn - Carolyn Plumlee - Bill Wilson **Absent:** - Patrick Brewer - Lynn Roche-Phillips **Late:** None reported ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes from May 23, 2013** [timestamp: 0:08:06] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The minutes were approved unanimously with 9 ayes and 0 nays. **MARV 2013-11: Zone Change Request for 562 Short Street, LLC** [timestamp: 0:27:26] Motion by Carla Blanton, seconded by Karen Mundy. The zone change request passed unanimously with 9 ayes and 0 nays. The approval is subject to conditional zoning restrictions as recommended by staff. **MARV 2013-7: Zone Change Request for Bayer Properties, LLC** [timestamp: 3:34:25] Motion by Carla Blanton, seconded by Karen Mundy. The zone change request passed by roll call vote with 9 ayes and 0 nays. The approval is subject to certification of the zoning development plan and conditional zoning restriction. Voting in favor: Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, and Bill Wilson. **MARC 2013-8: Zone Change Request for MMA Management, LLC** [timestamp: 6:55:49] Motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Mike Cravens. The zone change request failed by roll call vote with 4 ayes and 5 nays. Voting in favor: Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, and Bill Wilson. Voting against: Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, and Carolyn Plumlee. ## Public Comment Three speakers provided public comment during the meeting. **Bill Johnston** [timestamp: 0:10:49] Bill Johnston, president of the Western Suburb Neighborhood Association, spoke in support of the zone change request for 562 Short Street, LLC. He conditioned his support on restrictions being placed on bars and restaurants. **Hank Grady** [timestamp: 2:19:25] Hank Grady, representing neighborhood associations, addressed the zone change request for Bayer Properties, LLC. He expressed concerns about traffic and density impacts and urged the commission to either deny the application or request modifications to the proposal. **Chris Westover** [timestamp: 5:19:25] Chris Westover, representing the High Point Neighborhood Association, spoke against the zone change request for MMA Management, LLC. He argued that the proposed zone change was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and raised concerns about potential negative impacts. ## Appointments Carla Blanton was appointed to serve as Secretary of the Planning Commission. ## Contested Items **Zone Change Request for MMA Management, LLC** A zone change request for MMA Management, LLC resulted in a split vote among commission members. The motion for the zone change failed with a vote of 5-4, indicating significant disagreement about whether the requested zoning change should be approved. The close vote reflects a division within the commission, with nearly half of the members supporting the zone change and the other half opposing it. The failure of the motion means the zone change request was not granted. ## Hospice Facilities in the ED Zone This agenda item (ZOTA 2013-2) addressed a text amendment to define hospice facilities, add them as a permitted use in the economic development zone, and establish parking regulations for such facilities. [timestamp: 7:04:28] **Key Speakers and Presentation** Tracy Wade and Dick Murphy were the primary speakers on this matter. **Content of the Amendment** The proposed ordinance included three main components: - A definition of hospice facilities - Authorization to permit hospice facilities as a use within the economic development zone - Establishment of parking regulations specific to hospice facilities **Outcome** The amendment was approved. ## Mobile Food Unit Vendors as Accessory Uses The meeting addressed a text amendment (ZOTA 2013-3) to allow mobile food unit vendors to operate as accessory uses in warehouse business, industrial, and economic development zones. Tracy Wade presented this ordinance proposal. The amendment would permit mobile food unit vendors to function as accessory uses within specified zoning districts, expanding food service options in these commercial and industrial areas. The proposal was approved by the body. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of minutes from May 23, 2013 - **MARV 2013-11** — passed (9-0): Zone change request for 562 Short Street, LLC - **MARV 2013-7** — passed (9-0): Zone change request for Bayer Properties, LLC - **MARC 2013-8** — failed (4-5): Zone change request for MMA Management, LLC --- ## Full transcript Thank you. If everyone take their seats, we'll get started in about two minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. And after that brief announcement, I'm beginning to wonder if that's the only time today I'll have command of this group of distinguished people. Good afternoon. This is June 27, 2013. I will call this meeting to order. First on the agenda are minutes for approval. They were emailed to the Commission members. These are minutes for May 23. I'll entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I move. approval of the minutes for May 23, 2013. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the minutes of May 23, 2013. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. Next would be any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman. Item 1 on your agenda, item A, under development plan, DP 2013-6, SAM's property amended. This is property located at 2640 Spur Road. Staff has received a request from the applicant to withdraw this plan. Thank you, sir. No actions needed on this since they're withdrawn, or do we need to? Mr. Chairman, it's customary for the Commission to accept the withdrawal through a motion. Through a motion, okay. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request for a withdrawal? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for withdrawal of DP 2013-6. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for the withdrawal of DP 2013-6. Sam's property amended. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. What I'll ask Mr. Salee to do now would be to sound the agenda to see if we do have any no discussion items. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Good afternoon. There is one zone change on your agenda that may qualify for abbreviated hearing. That item appears on the very top of page 6 of your meeting agenda. This is MARV 2013-11, a request by 562 Short Street, LLC. There is a typo on the agenda. This is a zone change request from a high-density apartment R4 zone to a Lexington Center business B2B zone involving 1,300 of a net acre with a property address of 562 West Short Street. At this time, the staff would ask the members of the audience if anyone is present that wishes to either comment or object to this proposed rezoning from R4 and B2B at 562 West Short Street. Please come to the microphone, sir. I'm Bill Johnson. I live at 645 West York. And I'm president of the Western Supper Neighborhood Association. And we've had various conversations with Mr. Martelli, and I believe we have agreed to also add a restriction to restrict bars and restaurants for this zone change. And if that's agreeable with Mr. Martelli, then we're all for the change. Okay. Thank you, sir. I think we can probably take care of that with an abbreviated hearing. Ms. Wade may be able to provide you with that condition in writing that we plan to present to the Commission. Okay. Looks pretty good. Okay. Thank you, sir. We'd ask you. We appreciate that as well. Ask if there's anyone else in the audience here to speak to this particular zone change at 562 West Shore. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, we could have this as an abbreviated hearing. Okay. Let's do so. I'll ask staff to set up and present for that, and then we'll resume to the agenda. While they are setting up, I will ask the commission members to take notice. This is on page 6. We do have the zone change, MARV 2013-11. There is a variance as well. We do have revisions for conditional zoning. that should be on a tan sheet that is before you. And then also we have revisions for the zoning development plan that's on a salmon-colored sheet that should be before you as well. Chairman Owens, members of the Commission, before we start with the hearing, I do have some letters to enter into the record. There's a group of emails that we received prior to the last time this was on the agenda in May, and most of them are from individuals that Mr. Johnston represents in the neighborhood. Since then, he has submitted a letter stating that they are in agreement with the zone change or in support of it, and then we also received a letter from the Bluegrass Trust. Thank you. This requested zone change is for 562 West Short Street, and the applicant's name is actually 562 Short Street, LLC. It's MARV 2013-11, and as mentioned, it's a request from a high-density apartment R4 zone to our Lexington Center Business B2B zone. The subject property is located on the west side of West Short Street, and it is bound on three sides by other R4 zoning. Use the overhead. Immediately adjacent is a large property that houses a church. The subject property also has B2B zoning to the rear, so it would be adjacent to another B2B zone if rezoned. in the area as well are the Opera House, Square Townhouses, and Residential along Short Street until Jefferson Street, which is mostly in a B1 zone. The subject property currently has a house situated there, and it has been used for multiple purposes in the past. generally the applicant is proposing to reuse the structure because it's in the historic western suburb overlay, historic overlay district. So reuse the building for a commercial or office use in the downtown area. They are proposing to, well they have removed a detached garage from the rear and they're proposing to construct three parking spaces in the rear of the property. that's the current the existing structure it's kind of a yellow brick home and the demolished demolition of the garage in the back the 2007 comprehensive plan recommends our downtown master plan land use and this development are the comprehensive plan states that redevelopment recommendations for this land use category are in the master plan itself if it's not implemented, the Commission should also consider the 2001 Comprehensive Plans land use element, which does recommend medium density residential in this area. But the Downtown Lexington Master Plan identifies this as part of the western suburb, and that area has some recommendations for infill and redevelopment, but it does not provide much guidance as to specific zones to accomplish such redevelopment. The master plan does call for additional convenience, retail, and office uses in the area, which includes Jefferson Street. But it also identifies this west side of West Short Street as a mixed-use area that should be expanded to include a wider range of uses with the goal of creating a vibrant, active corridor connecting the existing surrounding neighborhoods. The applicant has indicated in their application that they believe the H-1 overlay provides some protection for the neighborhood because any exterior changes would have to be approved by our Board of Architectural Review. And they also contend that the 2012 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives are supportive of this type of redevelopment, particularly adaptive reuse that is contact and design sensitive, and also that the zone change will protect and enhance the cultural landscape that makes this western suburb neighborhood unique and will, in fact, further historic preservation efforts within the community. The staff, based upon the master plan recommendations and the goals and objectives, the staff opined that more flexibility is necessary or suggested within these mixed-use areas and that the B2B zone is one zone that can accomplish that mixed use and flexibility. The B2B zone is recommended for approval by the staff as well as the zoning committee. The staff would note that we made a recommendation for conditional zoning restrictions for the property because of the surrounding residential area, and we suggested limiting, I believe, seven uses, excuse me, six uses. And since the zoning committee, the applicant has met with the Neighborhood Association and their biggest concern that they identified was the fact that restaurants, cocktail lounges, and nightclubs could still occupy this location. So the applicant has volunteered to prohibit those uses as well. So the staff distributed a brown sheet with a revised recommendation based on the applicant's willingness to prohibit those uses as well. And the staff also recommends approval of this zone change for the reasons listed on the agenda and in our staff report. But this recommendation is, as always, subject to certification of the zoning development plan that you see before you. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Martin. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. The final development plan associated with this on change is on page 7 of your agenda. It is ZDP 2013-44. There is a revised handout for conditions that have been distributed to the Planning Commission. This is a final development plan for the property. It is an existing structure, as Ms. Wade explained. There is a driveway that serves the structure, and as she stated, three parking spaces will be constructed in the rear of the property where there is currently a garage that is to be removed. Again, it's already a developed site, and with the exception of the parking and removal of the garage, there's little else that's going to be done on the property. Your subdivision committee recommended approval subject to standard conditions, and they need to denote their proposed uses on the plan, and then resolve the zone-to-zone and vehicular use area screening and buffering. Because it is an existing site with an existing driveway and it was constrained, there was concern about the buffering along the perimeter of the property. That is relevant to the variance that you're going to hear shortly from Mr. Sally, and that will obviously need to be resolved on the plan. If you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to answer them. Questions for Mr. Martin? No. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Salley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're going to put an aerial photo on the overhead that I hope will explain the variance that's been requested as part of this application. As Ms. Wade mentioned, this property is currently zoned R4, as are the properties on either side, one of which is an existing parking lot, the other are residents. If this property were to be rezoned B2B, there would be required zone-to-zone screening required on each side property line. This is a fairly narrow lot at a little over 65 feet in width, and the ordinance requires a 15-foot landscape buffer where a business zone adjoins a residential zone. That buffer may be reduced to 5 feet when, in conjunction with that buffer, a six-foot-high or taller fence, wall, or earth mound is also supplied. In this particular instance, this existing dwelling is closer to the property line than five feet. In addition, along this side, the staff questioned the wisdom of having a fence that tall, separating the vehicular use area that's to serve the parking spaces for this use and the existing parking lot. The staff referred the applicant to the Division of Historic Preservation, since this is also in the western suburb Historic District, and upon consultation with that office, it was discovered that a six-foot-high fence between this structure and the adjoining residence, as well as between the driveway and the parking lot, would not likely meet the adopted historic preservation guidelines. Those facts led to the applicant filing this request. The staff has reviewed this request, as has the Landscape Review Committee. The committee did not have a quorum the day they met, and ironically, the two members of the five that were present did not agree on whether or not the variance should be granted. The staff believes that the variance is justifiable, given the fact that this is an historic district. There is not the minimum room to have a five-foot buffer, and also because of the fact that in most historic districts there are not six-foot fences between historic structures in a historic district. We've provided findings for approval of this requested variance to reduce the buffer to a minimum of five feet and to eliminate the fencing requirement, knowing that the applicant still does intend to plant trees along this landscape buffer and possibly other lower-level landscape material that might be approved by the Board of Architectural Review. We've provided five reasons for the approval that are listed on our staff report in your notebook and on the agenda, briefly covering those. Granting the requested variance should not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare. Secondly, approval of the variances will not result in an unreasonable circumvention of our zoning ordinance. Thirdly, there are special circumstances that apply to this property, being that it's in an older local historic district and is adjacent to a pay parking line. Thirdly, or pardon me, fourthly, strict applications of the requirements of the zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship to the applicant. And finally, the circumstances surrounding this request are not the direct result of actions taken by the applicant. We have provided four conditions in recommending approval of this variance. First, that the property be rezone B2B, otherwise the approval of the variance is null and void. Secondly, that a note be added to the development plan should the Planning Commission grant the variances. Thirdly, that all applicable permits from state and local agencies be obtained for this work. Finally, trees and other landscaping or shorter walls be installed along the side property lines, as may be approved by the local Board of Architects for Review and the Division of Historic Preservation. With that, I'd be glad to answer any questions on our report on the requested variance. Any questions from Mr. Sally? Thank you. Thank you. He did mention those variances and reasons and conditions were in your notebook under tab 3. Is Apkin here? Good afternoon, Mr. Cayley. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. Here on behalf of Mr. Martelli. We've read the conditions. I wanted a clarification with the denote proposed uses on plan. If I denote the ones that are restricted, do you also want everything from the B2B listed that is allowed still? That was my only question. Mr. Markham, denote proposed uses on plan on the ZDP? I believe that if they denote the conditional restrictions, then everything else would be implied to be allowed, so I believe that would fulfill that condition. Okay. Yes, we are in agreement, and I'm trying to answer any questions you might have. You're in agreement of the zoning conditions with restrictions, variance, and the ZDP? Very agreeable. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Cayley? Thank you, sir. If not, and having asked and no one in the audience wishing to speak on this at this time, unless there's questions from the Commission, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion, comments, or motion. Yes, ma'am. I'd like to move approval of MARV 2013-11 for the reasons outlined by staff, including the prohibited uses. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of MARV 2013-11 revised recommendations. Yes. If it was seconded, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Next, we need a motion for the variance. Move approval of the variance for the reasons and conditions outlined by staff. Second. The motion has been made and seconded for approval, MARV 2013 variances. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And now we need a motion for the ZDP 2013-44. We've got revised conditions. Move approval of ZDP 2013-44. with the eight conditions outlined by staff. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you folks. Thank you Mr. Cayley. We will return to page 2 and take the remaining items in order as are shown on the agenda. The next one. Back up one second. Stephanie. Mr. Wilson was voting approval on that, if you can make note of that. Now, page two, halfway down the page, Bayer Property, LLC, amended number two, zoning map amendment in Fritz Farm, LLC, Summit Lexington Bayer Property Zoning Development Plan. I will ask everyone, I'm sure this is going to be lengthy. We've had several requests for additional time. some of those requests have been granted I'll put it that way we are interested in what everybody has to say any citizens that would like to speak welcome to speak as well we just simply ask not to be repetitive and keep it concise Mr. Penn Mike on the original motion of that short street we probably ought to say It's provided on the salmon-colored sheet because that's different than the version. So that's just a matter of corrections already. Can we make note of that? So moved. Okay. We'll have Ms. Wade, I think, start us off with this in just a moment. I believe for the most part we will be working off time limits that should be shown most of the time up on the screen. Thank you. Chairman Owens, members of the commission, before we get started, I have two things for the commission. I did do a handout of a revised recommendation and just a blow-up of the numbers on the development plan, square footages for your convenience. I also have an excerpt from the South Nicholasville Road small area plan that the commission has, but I would like to enter the whole plan into the record for the meeting. And then the second item would be that we have received correspondence via both mail and e-mail related to this request, and there are ten letters here, all in opposition. This is MARV 2013-7, and it actually is on its second amendment. A request by Bayer Properties LLC to rezone approximately 50 acres from mostly an agricultural urban zone and then three small lots from a single-family residential R1D zone to our mixed-use community, which is the MU3 zone. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Nicholasville Road and Manowar Boulevard. The tract also has frontage along Habersham Drive, which is about 2,200 feet to the west of that intersection here. And with the three small properties on Tibberton, it does have frontage on East Tibberton Way as well. Known for decades as the Fritz Farm, this agricultural property has been zoned AU for about 45 years. It has been requested for rezoning several times, but those attempts to rezone have proven unsuccessful. Even after being litigated, they have ultimately been denied. Currently, there is a conditional use permit for a garden center and plant nursery on the property that was approved by the Board of Adjustment in 2001. It's an aerial photograph, and you can see that most of the property is not utilized in an urban manner. There is the small garden center towards the corner of Nicholasville Road and Manowar, and there's an existing residence on the property as well. So I'm going to go around the property starting on the north side to show some site photos. This is a view from the Fritz property looking towards Nicholasville Road. This is the frontage on East Tiverton Way. It is slightly above the grade of the road there. This is from that same spot looking the other way, west, I'm sorry, east on East Tiverton. And you can see the Devondale Baptist Church. Excuse me. On Tiverton, there would be another. There's two proposed accesses. Those two photos showed where one access point would be. This is an existing sub-street that is aimed into the Fritz property. This is from Havisham Drive looking onto the Fritz property. There's a slight grade that you can't really see over the crest of that small hill, but from the hill, top of the hill there, You can see down to Nicholasville Road and Manowar and the current plant nursery and some mulch operation. This is a view of Manowar looking towards Harrodsburg Road, so from the intersection there. This is Nicholasville Road in front of the entrance road to the plant nursery there, looking towards the intersection of Nicholasville Road and Manowar. This is 2 o'clock in the afternoon, so clearly not its busiest time of day. This is the existing garden center and plant nursery business at the corner. They do have some other kind of accessory things going on. The existing Fritz Family Farmhouse does sit a little bit further back off Nicholasville Road. and then just to the side of that there's a small garden and then this looks towards Tiverton, sort of towards the northeast. So that's kind of a view from the ground around the property. The petitioner initially requested a B6P zone for this property, which is our shopping center zone, and later amended that map request to request a mixture of zones, the B6P, the R5, B3, and the MU3 zone. That met with some concern, and so the applicant has amended their application a second time and is now requesting only a mixed-use 3 zone. The development plan proposes a hotel use above retail uses, some mixed-use structures, and then some only residential buildings and some only commercial buildings. The comprehensive plan at this location for many years has recommended a mixture of medium density and high density residential, and that's what our 2007 comprehensive plan land use map also showed. but the comprehensive plan also recommended a study, a small area plan, be done for a one-and-a-half-mile-long corridor south to the Jesmond County line in order to assess or look at the large amount of vacant property in this area. So after the planning effort, the result was a small area plan called the South Nicholasville Road Small Area Plan, and that's what the staff worked from in terms of assessing the applicant's proposal. The South Nicholasville Road Small Area Plan does encourage mixed use in a village-style development with emphasis on pedestrian, bike, and transit-oriented design, and that is specifically for this property. They recommended mixed use for the subject property. and then high-density residential for the three small lots along Tiverton. They also recommended constructing residential-only structures as a buffer to existing residential uses adjacent to the subject property. There was recommendations for placing non-residential structures at the intersection of Nicholasville Road and Manowar and along Nicholasville Road in order to buffer noise for the neighborhoods, and then also a stormwater study for the large Fritz Farm property and surrounding properties should be conducted. And those recommendations are found indicated as page 67 from the plan, sub-area four recommendations. Also within that study or the small area plan, the staff prepared a concept plan called the Fritz Village concept, and in that they broke down recommended land uses into residential only, non-residential, and then a mixture for the mixed-use development. And those percentages broke out to residential only being about 16%. The non-residential structures proposed to be at about 45%, and then the mixed-use to make up the difference, which was 38%. The staff is pleased that the applicant brought in an amendment to their zone change and is now requesting the mixed-use zone because it can more fully implement the small area plan recommendations. The petitioner is now proposing just over a million square feet of retail, residential, and hotel uses on the subject property, and that is much in line with the suggested Fritz Village concept, not in terms of total square footage, but in terms of the percentages broken down. They are now showing non-residential uses along the two arterial frontages at about 30% of their total floor area. the residential uses adjacent to the Devondale subdivision with about 25% of their floor area, and then they're showing the mixed-use development, much like that Fritz Village, towards the center of the property, and that encompasses about 46% of the total floor area. As proposed, this mixed-use area will flank the central public open space and will allow for entertainment opportunities such as live music, concerts, public gathering, and special events. And that becomes important because they're asking for the entertainment portion of the mixed-use zone as well, and that would be on their development plan. Of the total square footage proposed on the site, slightly over half would be devoted to commercial purposes. The staff in our report did mention that Article 28 of the ordinance, which identifies the mixed-use zones, outlines locational criteria and the applicant is meeting those requirements. And so that makes it eligible for the mixed-use zoning. The only thing that the staff was concerned about was, not the only thing, but in terms of the plan proposed and the zoning with the comprehensive plan, was there was no residential proposed off of Tangley Way, which is also a Stub Street. The applicant is actually leaving much of this area open with no use, whereas the small area plan recommended that the use in that area be residential. so the petitioner doesn't desire to have additional residential uses in that portion of the property as the small area plan suggests, but the staff believes that a landscaped open space is an equally appropriate buffer between the commercial use proposed along Manowar Boulevard and the single-family residences on Tangley. The staff is suggesting one conditional zoning restriction for the property, and that is that there shall be no commercial development within 75 feet of any single-family residential use in the Devondale subdivision, and that will ensure what the small area plan suggests, that the commercial development be further away from the single-family residential areas. And the staff had originally suggested that that distance be from a residential zone, and the applicant asked that it be changed to a residential use, and that would be because the Devondale Church on Tiverton is also in a residential zone. But it's clearly not a residential use. The small air plan also recommended that the stormwater study for the Nicholasville Road property be conducted prior to new development, and the applicant has done that, and they are currently working with the Division of Water Quality on the issues. They are willing to work collaboratively with that division in order to make appropriate stormwater improvements, not just for their site but also for the adjoining neighborhood. And these issues can be discussed more in depth when Tom presents the development plan. But the staff at this time and the zoning committee also recommend approval of the rezoning to a mixed-use three-zone, and there are four reasons for that. First, the South Nicholasville Road Area Small Area Plan encourages mixed use in a village-style development. The sub-area four of the South Nicholasville Road Small Area Plan recommends mixed use. for a majority of the subject property and high-density residential use for three parcels on Tiverton. There's also the stormwater study recommended. It's recommended that residential-only structures be used as a buffer to existing single-family residential adjacent to the property and also that placing non-residential structures be put at the intersection of Nicholasville Road and Manor Ward to buffer noise. This requested MU3 zone does meet the locational criteria of Article 28 in terms of meeting the frontage requirement on Nicholasville Road. It's over three acres in size, and it is located within an area recommended for mixed use on our comprehensive plan. And then lastly, this proposed development will implement the vision and direction of the smaller area plan to create a mixed-use development that places commercial-only structures at the arterials and to provide a mixed-use village-style area in the center of the property and in the residential-only along the existing neighborhood. The staff recommends approval of this zone change request subject to certification of the zoning development plan and also with the conditional zoning restriction. And I did hand out a brown sheet which shows the change, and the zoning committee was in agreement with that change as well. I'm happy to answer any questions about the requested zone change, and we have a few more presentations for you as well today. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Any questions? No? Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Martin, she's laid down the gauntlet. She did come in under time. We do have staff on time limits as well. Go ahead, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the preliminary development plan that is associated with zone change is located on page three, pardon me, page four of your agenda. However, you will find that there's been a blue sheet provided to you with revised conditions on the plan, as well as a green sheet, which is associated with the preliminary development plan that you see before you today. And I would like to stress for those that are with us today that this is a preliminary development plan, and should you approve the zone change, there will be a final development plan on this property that will be subject to your review prior to any development on the property. And also just briefly note that when the staff reviews these plans, as the subdivision committee is well aware, we review these as if the zoning was already in place. I just wanted to say those things for the benefit of people who aren't familiar with our process. Again, the preliminary development plan you see rendered here before you. Here is the Nicholasville Road frontage. Here is East Tiverton Way. Down here we have Manowar Boulevard. And here's Habersham. Habersham does run back up this way and does hook up with Tiverton. They are collector streets. Here is the local street, Tangley Way, that stubs into the property. Here, this is a public street stub that stubs in at this location. This is a proposed access point for this development. This access point here is also being proposed with this development from Nicholasville Road. And as you can see along Manowar, they are proposing a write-in and write-out. Now, the development plan is in mixed use. It's comprised of residential and commercial buildings. You can see how they're distributed across the property. These are one-story buildings, one-and-a-half story here, here, one-story buildings along the perimeter of the property. You can see these buildings oriented towards Man O' War. These are one-story buildings as well. This is a one-story building, as is this building. We highlighted for you in orange those buildings that are residential. These solid orange buildings here are residential buildings. The orange outline with the red are where they have residential above. These are four-story buildings. Here we have the commercial building that includes the hotel. It is a five-story building in this location. We also wanted to outline for you here, here, and here in this pink. These are parking structures. The plan does propose over a million square feet of development. on the lot. One of the reasons for your previous postponement recommendation was to clarify those numbers and be sure that they met the requirements of the ordinance. The FAR on the MU zone is 2.0, which allows for a lot of vertical development and dense development. The lot coverage is at 50%. They are just under that, so they're proposing just about to maximum lot coverage on their development. The residential and commercial space is roughly 50-50. There's a slight difference in the actual square footage proposed. They have 400 dwelling units with 600 and 620 bedrooms in those 400 units, the one, two, and three bedroom they're proposing for the development. And there are 2,477 parking spaces. And you can see again how they have the parking distributed, proposed for this development. This is a one-story surface and one-story parking structure. This is a two-story parking structure. This would be a one-story with the surface parking structure in this location. They have over 300 excess parking spaces. And just to give you an idea, there are 208 spaces in this structure, so they do have an excess parking proposed on the site on this preliminary plan. And this area is the detention basin that's been proposed on this site. And as Ms. Wade mentioned, there has been a study done. The city has paid for a study that's been done for this area to study. There is a history of flooding and stormwater issues in the area. and downstream. The study had various recommendations of what could be done. The number one alternative was to provide the tension on this site to alleviate the downstream issues. It won't solve them all, but it will help. The applicant is proposing to build an oversized basin in this location. It is a basin. It is not going to be covered up. It's not underground. This structure will extend out over it slightly. And again, you can see it outlined in this. The ultimate design depth and size, of course, will be determined by infrastructure plans that we submitted with the building permit process. The revised plan that you see before you has been recommended for approval by the staff. There are conditions, obviously, that need to be addressed. They need to remove some extraneous notes. There's just some notes on the plan that don't apply. They need to go. They've kept the mixed-use community zone requirements from the ordinance on the plan. They don't need to put the ordinance on the plan. They just need to meet the ordinance. So that needs to come off. There's one I'd direct your attention to, number eight, to note compliance with Article 28-6B through G. These are requirements in the mixed-use zone that apply to all the mixed-use zones. These are facade, building issues, parking, pedestrian facilities, lighting, that sort of thing. And they are generally met on your final development plan. But we want to see that level of detail since you build off the final development plan, and they'll need to address that at that time. We want that clearly denoted. They need to denote their proposed open space. Although they've given us the FAR and the lot coverage numbers now, and we're clear on those, there is an open space requirement of 15%. We'd like to see that number clearly shown. On the final development plan with residential units and the size of this basin, that may well be an issue worth discussing at that time. There are variances associated with this plan. Mr. Emmons is going to go over those with you. They are three setback variances, and I'm not going to belabor those with you since Jimmy has a full presentation. The parking and building lot orientation on the arterial streets. And these are these areas, here and here. And again, staff thinks it's important at the time of the final development plan, And we talk about what kind of face they're going to present to the public and to the right-of-ways. And to give you an example, when Trader Joe's came in, we wanted to see a front facade facing Nicholasville Road, even though they had a front facade facing the interior where their parking is. And again, with this development, you can see with the boulevard that they have through here, they're going to be oriented internally. So we felt that was worthy of discussion at the final development plan stage. We also have a 15th condition, and that's resolved the proposed access and potential road improvements at the time of the final development plan. As you all are aware, there are issues, obviously, with the access and with the potential for off-site improvements and improvements to the existing right-of-way as well. And I will point out, it says construction access, but that is a typo. they have indicated that the construction access will be on the old farm roads. Once construction is finished, they'll close those as they develop. But again, access off man-of-war, right in, right out. There's spacing issues. There's design issues that, of course, are significant to this site and how it will function. The light that is proposed here, and you're going to hear more about that when the traffic impact studies are discussed. Again, the spacing. I think anybody who's aware on Nicholson Road knows that the lights are spaced in some areas very close together, and so that's an important consideration, as well as Tiverton Way. And we discussed with the applicant some issues on improving this intersection, particularly storage for a right turn lane on Tiverton to help that function as well. They are not proposing access here. There will be bike and pedestrian access to help at this location, but no vehicular access at this point. Habersham, again, right here, there is a light at this location. It is a collector street, as is Tiverton. There are stop signs up here which slow the Habersham traffic. They are proposing access here, obviously, to avail themselves of the light on Man of War. So staff recognizes the importance of those issues and believes that, again, the level of improvements and the actual design of the access can certainly be determined at the final development plan stage. There's one other item, and that's your green sheet. This is a little unusual for you, I know, but your mixed-use entertainment zone, which is what this is under MU3, it meets that requirement. It's over 10 acres, as was Red Miles, the other one that you approved. Your ordinance requires that you make a finding, and the staff has distributed this to you. And very briefly, based on its location, its 10 acres, the fact that there is considerable commercial property in the area, there's multifamily development in the area, The staff has found that this does meet the compatibility and the appropriateness of location as required in your ordinance for the five reasons that are listed on your report. And if there are any questions you have for me, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Yes, we do have some questions. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Martin, could you clarify about the Habersham? Is that a right only or is that a right or left? I've forgotten. Over here, when you come out the exit. Habersham at the Manila intersection. No, no, the other one, right? This would be right in, right out, left out. This would be a full access, full movements. Yes, sir. Thank you. Ms. Blanton. I know we've heard several concerns from neighbors who live on Fox Harbor, I believe it is. Yes, ma'am. Will any of the, you mentioned condition 15 to resolve access and potential road improvements, might there be some relief for them down the road in terms of being able to find ways to ensure that they'll be able to get out on Haversham? Yes, ma'am, absolutely. And I would say staff's already had discussions with traffic about traffic calming that could be appropriate to the area. Other questions? Yes, go ahead. I just want to clarify on that basin. That's pretty much like a wet weather basin, right? It'll be a detention basin, yes, ma'am. It'll hold water when there's water to be held and then release it. Great. Other questions? Mr. Barton, as far as the detention basin, the blue line there, That's just an outline in the detention basin. It's not a trail or anything like that? It is a detention basin. Okay. Yes, sir. Not a trail? No, sir, not a trail. Just the general area. It all drains this way, and that's where the studies recommend that a basin be located. If you could, measurement-wise, what's the scale on that? On this? Yes. It's several acres in size. Not the detention basin, just the overall scale, one inch for how many feet? Well, this is one to 100, but we blew it up to 1.25 so you could see it. Okay. Do you know the overall frontage on Manowar? The overall frontage on Manowar is around 2,200 plus, just a little over feet through here. That's one of the issues with the spacing discussion on any kind of access to Manowar. Okay. And two other questions. On the revised staff conditions, you said there was a typo on number 15 as far as construction access. Should we delete construction if that's a typo? Yes, that is a typo. That was meant to be deleted, yes, because they have designated construction. Resolve proposed access. Okay. Yes. One other thing in reading through this, particularly the small area plan, the small area plan recommended a stormwater study be done prior to any new development. You mentioned that a couple of people had looked at, has there been a study? A study has been done, yes, sir, and submitted to the Lexington-Fed Urban County Government Division of Water Quality. They have funded a study, and it has been done. Okay, good deal. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, Ms. Plumlee. Are there bike racks? Pardon me? Will there be bike racks for them? Oh, yes, ma'am. There will be. And, again, that's one of the issues in the mixed use that I mentioned, that they'll have to meet at the final development plan. They'll have to demonstrate bike parking and that sort of thing on the final development plan. Anything else? If not, thank you, Mr. Martin. Thank you. I'm sure you'll be available. Mr. Emmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I want to present the variances. There are three variances requested in association with this zone change request today. Before I get started, just a couple of housekeeping things. The original staff report recommended postponement for one of the three. The staff has supplied a supplemental staff report on a yellow piece of paper. It should be in your notebooks. right behind there. And for the audience, there are extra copies in the back of the room and over on this corner right behind me. Should the Planning Commission agree with the staff, and you would want to make a motion to approve it with both staff reports, it is supplemental. It does not replace the original staff report. I have got a PowerPoint presentation. If I can get it going. My apologies. Thank you. I'm going to quickly go through and use the development plan. And as we look at the subject property, I would like to point out that in my graphics, I did unintentionally leave out of the boundary of the property the Tiverton Road properties out of my graphics. That does not mean it's not a part of the development plan. It is still before you today. Also, the graphics that I have prepared are not to scale. They are for illustrative purposes only. The first variance request is a requirement of the MU3 zone that 15% of the building wall frontage along the public street would have to be at the zero-foot setback line. The applicant has asked for an elimination of this requirement. but the practical implication of that zoning ordinance requirement for this piece of property is that the buildings that are along Nicholasville Road and Manowar would have to be right at the right-of-way line, at the zero setback line for at least 15% of their wall frontages. The applicant is proposing an internal circulation system, a private street system, if you will, that will circulate through the property, and they are proposing to meet that condition but along the private street and not along the public streets. The staff really sees that the applicants, that the intention there is meeting the intention of the ordinance of bringing those buildings up along the street at the zero-foot set lack, allowing for instances of pedestrian activity and things of that nature. So it meets the intent of the regulation. Even if it wasn't for, which I think is enough to recommend justifying that variance in and of itself, but there's also a practical reason that if these buildings were built right at the right-of-way line on these two major intersections, that if there was ever a need to widen those right-of-ways in the future, that could cause a problem if those buildings were built right at that. There was a discussion about this very item when in 2004, I think in 2004, when we allowed mixed-use zones to jump outside of New Circle Road. We knew that on a case-by-case basis, we would have to look at this provision and look at its suitability for each and every zone change, mixed-use zone change that came before you. The second one is that just a couple of features of the property. as you're well aware that there are some drainage areas that go through the subject property, and there is also a 100-foot-wide overhead utility easement that runs through the property. These features actually, even though this is a very large site, nearly 50 acres, they do have a tendency to trifurcate this property and create areas that are a little more problematic to develop, and hence the request for the two other variances. So to look at variance request number two, and that is the setback variance for building D. These properties are adjacent to a residential zone. The typical setback in an MU3 zone is a 10-foot setback, unless you are adjacent to a residentially zoned property. And then it becomes a one-to-one height-to-yard ratio. So every foot of building, you have to be a foot back. And in this particular instance with building D, they are adjacent to a residential zone. That residential zone property is an institutional use, the church located on East Tiverton Way, and an open space lot that is also vacant currently and owned by the church. Because of the 100-foot utility easement, that essentially creates a triangular-shaped area whenever you look at where the access needs to be to East Tiverton Road, and it greatly limits the amount of developable area for the subject property in that location. The applicants are asking for a setback variance that would allow a 25-foot tall building 15 feet from the property line. The staff is recommending approval of variance request number two for building D because of the restrictions that the overhead utility and the necessary access to East Tiverton Way put on the subject property. And the third request are for setback variances for FF and GG. These are the two residential-only buildings that are located in the back of the property. They are proposed to be four-story residential buildings that would orient and face toward their internal street system. The staff on the original staff report had recommended postponement of the variance request. They had requested a 58-foot height that could be as close as 50 feet to the property line. And in reviewing the revised development plan that was submitted for building FF, it's actually 70 feet away from the residentially zoned property and is only proposed to be 56 feet tall. So the staff found that it was unnecessary to grant a variance for building FF. Also looking at the revised preliminary development plan, building GG is about 53 feet. It's really hard to tell on the scale of the map because how wide is the thickness of the line. But it does appear to be depicted at slightly more than 50 feet and less than 55 feet on the preliminary development plan. Also, the height of the building is now being requested to 56 feet. So they are asking for a 56-foot tall building that would be 53 feet away. The staff looked at this. It really is noncompliant against two single-family residential properties, which we've highlighted there off of East Tiverton Way. Those properties from building to building would be over 100 feet. The staff could not find that a 56-foot tall or even a 58-foot tall building for GG would have a negative impact any more than a 50-foot tall building would on the subject properties. However, the staff could also find no justification for the requested zone change. at 53 feet, a 53-foot tall building would be compliant, and the staff believes that with either a slight revision to either the building architecture or the placement of the building, that the applicants would be able to fit a compliant building on the subject property in this location. And the staff does say at this time, because it could be that if this zone change is granted and the final design of the retention basin comes in, there might actually be more restrictions on this that might justify a variance in the future, but at this time the staff cannot recommend approval of the variance for Building GG. As such, the staff recommendation, and this is the final slide, is just an aerial photograph of the subject property. and I tried to get the buildings in there about at the angle that you would be seeing them. And you can see the church properties and the single-family homes that I mentioned. The staff is recommending approval of variance requests 1 and 2 and disapproval of the third request for the reasons listed on our agenda and on our staff reports, primarily with conditions, very typical conditions, that should this property be rezoned, and a note will be placed on the development plan noting the Planning Commission's approval of the variances. The reason for disapproval for building FF is because it's unnecessary, and for building GG because a slight modification to their plan or the architecture of the building and a compliant building could be provided. That is it for the staff presentation on the variances. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to try and answer them. We do have a traffic study, which Max Conyers from Transportation Planning can briefly go over that staff report. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Questions? Not at this time? Thank you, sir. Mr. Conyers, good afternoon. Good afternoon, members of the commission. Good to see you all. My intent is just to briefly summarize the traffic impact review that was conducted by Mr. Rob Hammons of our staff. And just for the record, I'm Max Conyers, transportation planning manager for the LFCCG Division of Planning, also with the Lexington Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. A lot has been mentioned already with access and so forth, so I will not go over that again. But just to briefly summarize the Traffic Impact Study Review, you should have a copy that was handed out. You can refer to that as I go along. It is a mixed-use development by that nature. It reduces trips, given that you can get a lot of internal-internal type trips. If somebody goes out to lunch, they don't have to leave the site. Just a good example. The full development year is proposed at 2015, so we know that's not very far away for an opening day, so to speak. I won't go over the access information. Mr. Martin did that very well. You can see it's very well connected with many exit and enter points, which is a very good thing from a trip distribution. standpoint. Just to briefly go over where the development lies in the transportation system, that's a primary arterial, US-27, one of our very important national highway system north-south corridors. So it is a very important major principal arterial. And then Man of War being a very important cross-circumferential east-west minor arterial. It doesn't connect regionally, but it certainly has huge function connecting the arterials. Looking at the trip generation, the average daily trips from the ITE, the Institute of Traffic Engineers, the handbook is expected to be around in excess of 20,000 per day. That sounds pretty excessive, but when you look at it spread over a day, you can look at the p.m. peak hour, which our traffic impact ordinance requires, because that is usually the worst time. It's kind of a mesh of the work travel and the site-generated travel kind of interacting. You can see that 2,134, or about 10% of the daily traffic, would be occurring then. 255 trips entering, I'm sorry, 1,030 trips entering and 991 exiting at that time. The consultant also did a.m. peak hour and did 711 total trips in the a.m. peak hour. everybody coming to work at that time 330 entering and 381 exiting so it gives you an idea of the amount of turning movements that you're experiencing I won't go over the land uses you've got a good mix of retail and you've got a hotel, shopping center residential, these types of uses can serve each other within the development as I said looking at the trip distribution this is very important where are these trips going to come from and go to on a daily basis the consultant I feel did a very valid job 36% from the north meaning north Nicholasville Road 24% from the south Jessamine County, south of Lexington and then 20% even on east and west Man of War we felt that was very reasonable and you've heard the term pass-by trips. Not all this traffic is going to be new to this area. You're going to have people that are driving by there today now making a turn into the development and out of it, possibly, you hope. The developer hopes that. And so that could be as high as we estimated. Well, the developer in their study represented 20%. We feel that could even be higher, 25% or more, given where it lies on the transportation system. Getting into the capacity and level of service determination. This was done by our traffic engineers at the district's, the developers' traffic engineers. Over a year's period now, I've been meeting with the District 7 KYTC traffic engineers, our LFUCG traffic engineers. So it's been done in good coordination, and you see the results. I won't go into it, but all the required intersections are right there. and the bottom line is it slightly increases delay per vehicle on these intersections. Some of the minor movements can be pretty severely increased. However, the levels of service have been demonstrated to remain the same. The only one that changed the level of service letter was the Man of War Habersham Victoria Way. It kind of doubled from 15 seconds per vehicle to 30 seconds per vehicle, went from B to C. So that pretty much covers the levels of service. So we feel that in the big scheme of the voluminous traffic out there, it really does not present, I mean, it can be made to work in a signalization. And we rely on our traffic engineers. And that synchro analysis is called synchro, which all the traffic signalization, timing, and so forth is considered. and get pretty technical, and these guys work it out. And they have demonstrated that it can be accommodated, and I'm talking in the year 2015. There is some very significant growth expected on these arterials in the far future, and I'm talking into the year 2020 and so forth. This is a very regional area. So you do expect a lot of growth. They aren't required in our traffic impact ordinance to look that far in the future. They are looking at 2015, and those are the levels of service. So that pretty much sums up. I did want to let you know that the developers proposed a very important, I think, improvement. They are proposing to construct another lane, another through lane, and it starts at Toronto to the south and goes all the way through the development. This helps alleviate the bottleneck effect of that intersection, that at-grade intersection with all those volumes, especially at peak hours. We did, a couple of years ago, install a variable lane system in there to help with that. This kind of supplements that and even improves it with that extra lane. And, of course, they're proposing right-turn lanes in, too, right, auxiliary lanes into their development. So that is a very good thing in the estimation of the traffic engineers in our minds, to get that through traffic through there, those three lanes in the peak hours. And so our conclusion is that the developer has met the requirements of our traffic impact study, our traffic impact study requirements of our zoning ordinance, Article 6. And I wanted to mention just a few other points. Our pedestrian and bicycle planners have looked at this, and they feel that the development meets, has very good pedestrian connectivity and bicycle utility. They do realize that some revisions and tweaking can be done towards the final development plan. The parking garages are traditionally very pedestrian-friendly, which is a good thing. And in the mixed-use and the residential and so forth, we want to emphasize that those pedestrian connections are very important with those county land uses. so that's something that needs to be continued emphasis on that. We met with the consultants engineers yesterday at LexTran because I don't know if all of you are aware, but we're conducting a transit alternatives analysis on US-27 from Nicholasville all the way into downtown. And basically it's looking at innovative things that we can apply for from the Transit Trust Fund. Right now we're donors to places like L.A., New York for transit. We were talking maybe to apply for some small starts money to get transit improvements. And don't let this term fool you, but it's called bus rapid transit. Basically it means that the buses will compete with the single occupancy vehicles much better and people can choose to ride a bus into town. And it won't be delayed. It won't be stopping everywhere. It can express in. So you can imagine, if that's our plan in the near future, that we want transit-oriented design. The developers did talk to us and said they're very open to that out on Nicholasville Road. They did indicate that buses can enter their site very easily with the road system that they propose in there. that can work with the Walmart Park and Ride and bus express route we have now. There is a bus express route proposed to go down into Jessamine County at the Kohl's and the Walmart down there. Now we've got funding. They're going to try that. So I don't think this would impede that. It might even help it. So that's a very good thing. I just want to stress the importance of transit for significant commercial areas such as this one. And that is, I think, all I need to tell you. In summary, I think traffic will be talked about in much more detail, but I'd be glad to try to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. Yes, Mr. Penn. Mr. Conyers, that extra lane that you're talking about, that's on Nicholasville Road? Yes, it would start south. And how far north does it go? Right now it's proposed to stop, I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would stop at their primary interest across from the Walmart. at the main entrance. Oh, I'm sorry, you're talking about the three lane would merge on in and align with the other lanes that pick up north of that development. Okay, so it would go clear at the end of the development. Yes, yes. It would be three lanes merging through the intersection and then on past the development. So would that be Treverton Way? I've got to apologize. I haven't seen how far that goes. That's right. We'll get there. Yes, I'm sure they will illustrate that. But the main principle I wanted to let you know is you've got three lanes now getting you through that major bottleneck. And I think Tiverton, too. I think Tiverton, the three lanes are already established at that point on north. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. Any other questions? No? Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it very much. I appreciate the work the staff has done and trying to be concise throughout all this. Commission members, are you ready to go ahead or does anyone need a break at the moment? Let's proceed on. Mr. Leary, it looks like you're just dying to get up there. I'm dying to get up here because I've waited a lot of years to be able to say I'm presenting a proposal on the Fritz Farm that's in full compliance with the comprehensive plan and has full support of the staff. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, just to state for your record, my name is Bill Lear. I'm here with my co-counsel, Mr. Bruce Simpson. We'll be glad to pose for a Kodak moment later since we're on the same side of a zone change for the first time in history. And Nick Nicholson, who's also with us. With us also today is David Silverstein with Bayer Properties, the developer. Ben Eadlin, Mark McIntosh, Keith Messinger with HDR, Michael Dunning with Shook Kelly, the architects, and the Fritz family, Johnny Fritz, Carol Johnson, and Judy Blake. You know what the zone change is today. I can tell you that this is a zone change that has been well-conceived, well-planned, and has evolved in conjunction with various officials of the governmental agencies involved. We have worked, you'll hear about this, we've worked for a long, long time with, for example, the urban county government stormwater engineers with the state and local transportation engineers with planning staff. And you have in front of you what I've chosen to call the Jimmy Emmons zone change because when we originally filed this, we filed this B6P zone change, which is a zone because you can put residential above office and retail in B6P does allow for a mixed-use development but does not allow for standalone residential. After hearing from the staff in their first iteration, we came back with a B6P, B3, and a residential zone, R4 perhaps. And again, they looked at it, but that one, because it was using traditional zones to try to do a new urban type of development, required a whole lot of variances, which frankly, in our view, was not an indictment of the plan so much as it was of our traditional zoning ordinances, which were essentially developed in the 60s, and trying to make them conform to a new style of development. So Jimmy, very politely in his way, suggested, why don't you do this, looking at the uses you want and looking at everything else, why don't you come back as an MU3 with the entertainment designation, and that's what we've created. This is, some people would call this a lifestyle center. Some people would call it new urban development. One of the interesting things is that the architects that have designed this are the same ones that have designed some of the outstanding developments of this type in the southeastern United States. One of them that I personally looked at when we were doing our own South Hill area developments is called Birkdale. It's outside Charlotte. It is an incredible development, spectacularly successful. It has the same kind of features you see here. It has parking structures, which are obviously not typical in a suburban setting. It has taller buildings than you would typically see in a suburban setting that involves a significant amount of retail. All of those things that you see built in are characteristic of other developments that these folks have designed that have worked extremely well. You'll hear some more detail about all of that in just a moment. Some other features, this is a development that provides maximum ingress and egress, which is really important to make this whole project function. It provides a solution to a longstanding stormwater problem, one that if this development did not go forward would cost the urban county government a couple of million dollars to fix because of a preexisting condition that is no fault of the agricultural land on the Fritz properties but is created by great big pipes that you'll hear about that are taking water from across the road and dumping it onto the Fritz property. There is well more detention on this property than would be required if it were just being considered as a stand-alone development. It does provide for access to Nicholasville Road in a signalized intersection for which we have received conceptual approval from the Transportation Cabinet. That was really important to make this function, so we work with the local and the state transportation people from the very get-go, and we have secured that kind of approval. It's the most you can ever get from them on the front end until the final designs are there, but it's not an issue of weather. It's just simply an issue of gaining approval, moving ahead with the development, doing the extra lane that's called for, and they will allow a signalized intersection. That's very important. It also features a right in and right out on this long stretch of Manowar Boulevard. Those are critically important to the functioning of this. There is precedent for doing that sort of thing on Manowar Boulevard. In fact, precedent in a very short distance from where this property is located. It will help all of these accesses that we're talking about. It will not only help the functioning of this development, they will take traffic off of the neighborhood streets. They'll take traffic off of Tibberton, and they'll take traffic off of Habersham. That would be there if anything like what's called for in the comprehensive plan, anything even remotely approaching what's called for in the comprehensive plan were built. Without these access points, traffic on Habersham and Tibberton would be choked. Our presentation today is, and we are mindful of your time limits, first David Silverstein, who's the principal with Bayer, will speak. Then we'll have Ben, Ben Edlin, and Bruce will talk about some of the infrastructure, the traffic issue, the traffic access, stormwater. I'll talk about comprehensive plan compliance, and we'll have a brief presentation from John Ferris on economic impact. So with that, I'd like to introduce David Silverstein, who will tell you about Bayer Properties and this proposed development. Thank you, Bill. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I am David Silverstein, and I am one of the owners of Bear Properties, and we are the proposed developers of the Fritz property. It has been well over two years now that we have been working on our development plans for this project, so it is indeed exciting to be before you today to share with you our plans. As I began working on this project, I became keenly aware of the many challenges associated with the development of the Fritz property. I know, for example, that the rezoning of this property has been previously considered by the city, and that the process has been, let me say, somewhat contentious. We soon learned that there are severe infrastructure challenges with the development of the site, such as stormwater drainage, and I certainly recognize that the traffic concerns for any new development along Nicholsville Road and Manowar Boulevard exist. Recognizing the numerous development issues and challenges that would need to be addressed, we engage the best and brightest professionals in your community to provide the proper guidance to help us address all of these issues. The small area plan adopted several years ago provided us with the framework in which to begin the design process, and I trust you will find that the plan being presented to you today is in keeping with the small area plan. Our professionals have engaged with city staff to address the various engineering, traffic, and design features of the project, and I believe the process has worked nicely. Additionally, we have worked closely with the traffic engineers in Frankfort, with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, as we analyze the required improvements to Nicholsville Road and Manowar Boulevard. The point being that our plan has received, as it should, the appropriate scrutiny at both the city and state levels, and we are in accord with the recommendations. I've also had the pleasure to hold a neighborhood meeting to discuss our plans with the adjoining residents. The residents are certainly entitled to have an understanding of the details of our project, and we have attempted to answer as many of their questions as possible. I know we have a lot of ground to cover this afternoon, and Bill Lear has said to me, be brief. But I would like to take just a moment to share with you a little information about my company, our development track record, and our vision for the project that we would like to bring to Lexington. And if I can operate this, I'll show you. I am from Birmingham, Alabama, and that's my home, born and raised there, and our company is headquartered there. And I believe I can stand before you today and say that we have been fortunate enough to have developed properties throughout the country. Birmingham, Louisville, Reno, Nevada, Fort Collins. And I believe that our developments have, in their own special way, enhanced the quality of life of those particular communities that we've been afforded an opportunity to develop. Although we're located in Birmingham, we do have a national footprint from Charleston, South Carolina, to Oklahoma City, to Reno, Nevada. We are a full-service real estate company. That is, we develop for our own accord, but we also manage and lease properties for others. It's probably fair to say that over the last 15 years, our signature brand has come to be known as The Summit. And about 1994, my partner and I, Jeffrey Bear, we began working on a project in Birmingham. For those of you who have been to Birmingham, we are a hidden jewel. But in 1994, our consumer traveled to Atlanta to shop. I've got four daughters, and I can attest to the fact that they traveled to Atlanta to shop. And our thought was that we could attract retail that was not otherwise in Birmingham to a project there that would be well designed with beautiful architecture, wonderful landscaping, and a quality mix of tenants. And we began to work on what is known as the Summit in Birmingham. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, so let me just show you a few pictures. Our focus is not only with bringing quality retailers. Our focus is also on enhancing what we call the hardscape. You're looking at this picture, and my back's to you. When I refer to hardscape, I mean the sidewalks and landscaping. And if you were to go to Birmingham right now and go to the summit, I promise you this is exactly what you would see. With the hanging baskets, the fountains. Some people say it's so clean you can eat off the sidewalks. It's not complicated, but our consumer responds to it. And right now we have over a million square feet in Birmingham of the summit retail. And it's a project that has office and residential as well. This is looking down. Birmingham is challenged topographically, so our site in Birmingham is on different grade separations. This is looking down into the plaza where Saks Fifth Avenue is located. We work closely in the communities that we go into with local cultural organizations. Here you see the Alabama Ballet actually performing in the Saks Plaza. We went west to Reno, Nevada. I don't know if you've ever been to Reno, but another city that has had good growth over the years. The consumer there was traveling to Sacramento. There wasn't a Pottery Barn. There wasn't a Williams-Sonoma. And we were able to come to Reno and bring a summit project to that community as well. The hanging baskets in Reno are on steroids. I've never seen it quite as lush as what happens in Reno. We try to do that in Birmingham, but we have a little bit of a struggle to have them look quite as nice as this. It's a sense of place. It really is. If you want to shop in the Coach store in this development, for example, it's convenient access. You can pull up to the front of the store, shop at Coach. But if you want to walk and browse, it lends itself to that. We invite you to stay. It's a beautiful setting in Reno. It's at the foot of the Sierras. I hope that you have ventured to our project in Louisville. If you haven't, I'm sorry to hear that. But we did a summit in Louisville about 10 years ago, and it has had a wonderful reception in that market as well. Bill has outlined our development team, but I would acknowledge to you that we've hired the best in the bodies, as I said in my opening remarks to you, to help us deal with the issues at hand, be it stormwater, traffic. and I believe that we have worked with staff both here at the City of Lexington and with engineers at Frankfort to develop a plan that really staff could come before you today and say they endorse. As I indicated to you early on, it is part of our makeup, it's part of our DNA, that when we go into a community, there are several charities which we partner with to hold certain events out at the site. We've had the Heart Walk at our summit projects. We've had the JDRF Walk. And so it's part of our mission to come into these communities that we develop in and establish a relationship with local charities that we support throughout our organization. Just to give you a feel for what this model shows, I know it's hard to look at a site plan on a board and relate it to what's down here. But what this plan reflects, and this is Tiverton, and this is Nicholsville, and this is Manowar. First and foremost, we recognize from a site line perspective that what you see along Manowar, Nicholsville and Manowar, has to be pleasing. architecturally we are committed to designing a project that is not looking into just a parking field that's not what this is all about i remember when i met with mr salive for the first time i committed to you and to your staff that we would come forward with a plan that did have a sense of place and i didn't know if i was going to get your support or not because we had never worked together but after two years of working with you and your staff i believe what you see here is a plan that will create exactly what we call a sense of place. Yes, there will be bike racks throughout, I hope, that we're able to draw people here and have people live and work and shop within the development. We did a project in Fort Collins, Colorado, where we actually put a library facility over a retail portion of the space. And people in Fort Collins, which is just north of Denver, bike everywhere. So we have bike racks in a library, and people come and they shop and they read books. and they enjoy the environment. Recognize that there are issues with stormwater, and although one diagram showed it being blue, it's not a retained detention area. It will control the flow of water and help it go out through the back and into that neighborhood that's experienced over years a tremendous amount of stormwater issues, and that's in the rear back here. understand fully the sensitivity of having a proper buffer between our development and the residential neighborhood, and we're committed to work through that, as we've done in all of our projects. Our project in Birmingham, for example, is nestled inside our beltway and up against a suburban community called Mountain Brook, and I will tell you that we were successful in buffering our project from that neighborhood. And if you go to homes that are in close proximity to our summit project in Birmingham, for example, and if a house is for sale, you know how they put flyers in front of the house that list the features of the home? Well, you can look at these flyers of homes that are in close proximity and one of the features will say we're within a mile or two of the summit. because it's a great place to go and experience good shopping, good food, fine dining, and it's a sense of place. So our track record, and I invite you, before we submit the final development plan, inquire about us. We recognize that although this was really just a preliminary development plan, I think it's gone well beyond that because in order to truly design this, you have to go a little bit further than just presenting concepts. This is how it will look, and this is the feel that you will have when you come to the project. Access points are critical, for sure, no question about it. I respect the neighbors and their concern that, you know, access needs to be limited on the residential streets. For example, that's why the Man of War, right in, right out, will help eliminate the need to come along Habersham. So I know that you'll have questions throughout the process. I'm here. I'll be happy to answer a question that you may have, if the best I can. And we appreciate the opportunity to be before you. I will say on a personal note, I've been coming to your city for many years. My dearest friends are Nancy and Headley Bell, who have lived here for all their life. I guess I've been coming to your fair city for over 30 years, and I certainly appreciate the quality of life that you have here. Bill Lear and his family. Barbara and Bill Thomason. I mean, I could go on and name friends that are here. So it is indeed an honor to be before you. They put a lot of pressure on me to do it the right way. I assure you of that. But I do respect what we're trying to do and the fact that this site has been before you before. But I hope that you will find that it is in keeping with the small area plan and will look favorable upon our request tonight. And we look forward to coming back with the final plan in the very near future. Final note, it has been a pleasure working with the Fritz family, John and Carol and Judy. They have had a lot of patience with us because, you know, it's taken us a while, over two years, to get to where we are today. That's because we haven't cut corners. We've looked at all the details. We've attempted to answer all the questions. And I submit to you that this is a plan that, you know, should be allowed to go forward. So thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. Thank you, Mr. Silverstein. Mr. Lehrer, Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson, you're scaring me with those books. Not to be alarmed, Mr. Chairman. How are we doing on time? You've got 15 minutes. 15. There it is right there on the screen. I'll just take, I've got a book with 38 exhibits, but I want to hold that. I do have to admit that I've had to restrain myself from getting up and speaking in opposition because Mr. Lear was up here. Since this is the first time since we were 10 years old that we've been on the same team on anything. But I'm glad it's this case, and as you just heard from David Silverstein, and you've witnessed his presentation and his passion about the quality of his developments and their history, they are bringing a truly iconic development to this gateway of Lexington at a place that's had a lot of controversy. And as Bill mentioned, the Fritz family stands before you today with a recommendation from everybody in the government for approval in terms of the comprehensive plan, which is critical. And because of that, there's no need to go into a whole lot of detail about all the permutations and coefficients of traffic and turning movements and things of that nature. The truth of the matter is that we filed our traffic study initially in August of last year. It's been vetted all the way through the year. It was amended, and we filed our final one on May 23rd of this year. You will hear from some people that don't want to see this zone change, and they filed their traffic studies today. It has not had the benefit of your staff's review. We got it a few hours ago. and we have not had the opportunity to look at it. But needless to say, one important thing needs to be kept in mind. The small area plan, as part of their lengthy review and evaluation, recommended a development on this property for mixed use, of which we are in full compliance, and we're at one half of the density that was recommended. there's going to be a lot less traffic from this development than what the Small Area Plan Committee and what you all authorized, which is pretty unusual. You have to say in terms of commercial and mixed-use development to have a 50 percent reduction in terms of the application. So traffic is what traffic is. Ben Eadlin, Mark McIntosh, and Keith have done a remarkable job of designing this to manage traffic. And more importantly, it's been vetted through your staff. You know, I always point out that in the midst of opposition, there's only one neutral party, and that's the staff. And if you can satisfy the staff that you've met the requirements under the law in terms of traffic and in terms of stormwater, then you've met your obligations under the law. You've met your duty to the community to come forward with a development that's well thought out, professionally done, and something that can easily be approved. Mr. Chairman, you had a question about stormwater studies, and Mr. Martin mentioned that, in fact, a study had been done. The truth of the matter is there's been two studies done, and I've had the time to read through all this, believe it or not. These are the studies that cost the government close to $250,000. They were required to be done before this application was filed. and the Bayer company is going to be fixing a lot of stormwater problems that exist right now not caused by the Fritz family but caused by development that's developed over the years that flows into their property. The truth of the matter is as the studies confirm there's a 36 inch line going under Manowar point discharging water into the Fritz farm. There's a 48-inch line going under Manowar, point discharging stormwater to the Fritz property. And there's an 18-inch line coming from Walmart underneath Nicholasville Road, point discharging to the Fritz property. And it's a farm. They've got all this water coming directly to them, which is why all these studies have recommended the government condemn a portion of the Fritz property and create a regional basin at a cost to the taxpayers of about $2 million. The Bayer Company is doing that at no cost to the taxpayers, supersizing the stormwater and will provide immediate relief to the neighborhood that's adversely impacted now. The studies recommend that anywhere from four to nine houses be demolished because of the existing problem, four to nine. I don't know how many of those houses we can prevent from being demolished, But I dare say your engineers would confirm we're going to contribute greatly and immediately, much sooner than the government would turn a loose $2 million check to put in a supersized detention basin. It will be done immediately with this development to benefit people downstream. That's an important factor in this case. Ben Edlin is here to respond to any specific questions you have about our traffic study, about our stormwater management study. I'll be happy to review some of the details of these documents if necessary. And I have a 37-page exhibit book I can pass out and elucidate for you. But when you have staff approval, and this project's been going on for two years, and we have the kind of ringing recommendation that we have, I'm going to be polite and sit down and thank you for your attention. Thank you very much, Mr. Simpson. Any questions? Come ahead, Mr. Eden. I'm not going to have quite a bit to say, but I think my predecessors have said most of it already, and also with your staff. I'm being equal with HDR. Three things on infrastructure, traffic, stormwater, sanitary sewers. Traffic, you've heard, we've been working over a year with staff. Some of the major infrastructure we're looking at here was the intersection here. We are adding the lane from south of Manowar up. Mr. Penn, to answer your question, that third lane, once we get north of this intersection, you have three lanes up here entering into Tiverton, so we will tie into that. That will give you three full lanes coming through without having to use a reversible lane. And that's something Bayer is going to do. The urban county government and state haven't been able to do it because of the cost of moving utilities. We also are showing a ride-in, ride-out on Manowar Boulevard. We believe that's important. The difference here that maybe you would see in other points on Manowar Boulevard, when Manowar was designed, it was designed to set up a minimum of 1,200-foot access basings. We were working with developers at the time, and I know because I was working on Manowar earlier in my career, we worked with the different developers, and sometimes it got down lower than the 1,200-foot, down to 1,100 feet. You have almost 2,200 feet here from here to here. So there is ample room here to work with. If this had been under development at the time, good chance that they would have fit in another entrance in there because we did do it, say, one place was over in Palomar and working with the developer at the time. So I just make that as a point of emphasis. We do emphasize a lot of connectivity, very good for this development. Once again, we did work with the staff and the state for over a year. we do have a conditional letter of approval for the intersection in this location. Stormwater. The size of basin we're talking about here, if we were developing this just based on the regular rules, we'd have like a one-acre basin. In this case here, it's going to be like a 2.8-acre basin. I could get into all the acre feet and volumes of stuff, but comparable size, that's what's going on. the cost also increases by having to develop it underneath the parking structure. So this developer is going above and beyond. And if you talk to your staff, and we have, we've worked with them all along the way for over a year, they will tell you we are the key for them to provide us downstream improvements for the two studies that you saw that Bruce had, the tetra-take design that's going on right now. We are the key to do that, to provide that detention. Lastly, sanitary sewer. We have been working with Rod's service and his folks in the sanitary sewer group. We have analyzed the downstream lines. We identified 500 feet that was undersized, no matter what was developed here, that was going to cause that sewer to back up. We are committing to go in and replace that 500 feet, upsize it and correct some gradient issues that are with that sanitary sewer. The Broad Service will tell you we are working with them, and they are very happy with the analysis we've done and those improvements. So with that, if you've got any questions. Questions for Mr. Edelman at this point? No. Yes, Mr. Penn. When you did the road analysis there as far as the, are you factoring the fact that Nicholasville Road or Manowar might have to be widened? You said there's three lanes that's connected there now, and we saw we had a variance request come out to the edge. So the question becomes, is there enough space if they had to widen either one of those roads that they could do that? we did not look at widening our analysis showed for this development period when we're fully developed at 2015 at the end of 2015 that by making the improvement there on nicholasville road that the roadway would be wide enough to handle our development now as time goes on as nicholasville road is going to be widened i think the way max answered that some of that question is the city is looking for bus transit to help offload those peaks any other questions right now no thank you thank you just a little bit more about comprehensive plan compliance you all know this far better than than I. The small area plan took over a year all in to get done. There were 11 meetings, detailed analysis, three public meetings, two focus groups, an opinion survey, comments, and then your own public hearing that went into this. The steering committee included council members. It included representatives of the major property owners, the major neighborhood associations out in that area, and it came forward with this mixed-use recommendation. And the prototype example that David made reference to that's in the plan had up to 2.6 million square feet of development. This actually is about 1,045,000 square feet of development, but it's plenty intense, we submit to you. And this is all part of a long-range plan for our community where we're attempting to go up and not out. And that's what mixed-use development of this type is about. And it's delightful that it's going to be of the quality you see there. If you look at the small area plan, it talks about the kinds of, number one, it says this is a great place for a mixed-use development and a mixed-use designation. It says it typically provides for greater residential density, a more diverse and sizable population, promotes more safety and social interaction, and it talks about features of design and specifically the pedestrian experience, the so-called sense of place that you get. And that's one of the reasons that they went to the trouble they went to with this model. This model can show you better than a one-dimensional development plan, even if it indicates the number of stories in each building. And that's why it's so important, they thought, to present this model. One other feature, the COMP plan does not show direct access off of Manowar Boulevard. However, we submit to you that the right in, right out is totally warranted. There's plenty of distance along there, 2,200 feet. It is not unprecedented to do that. Just down the road toward Tate's Creek, Osborne Way was approved by this planning commission because the alternative was to stub into a neighborhood street that there was a lot of concern about, and so there was also a long stretch of man-of-war that didn't have an access point, and that Osborne Way is actually a full-blown access point. It's not just a right in, right out. So we would respectfully submit that what we're proposing will function well. will not create traffic issues. Obviously, the final design is a matter for the final development plan, but having your approval in a preliminary sense would be very important in ultimately accomplishing that. The comp plan calls for a mixed-use development. The zoning we propose is mixed-use, MU3. It's no different than if the comp plan said light industrial and we proposed an I-1 zone change, or if it said professional services and we proposed P-1. This will be, if approved and built like this, as someone said, an iconic development for Lexington that will work well in all respects. I'm going to – we're going to forego at this point the economic impact. I will say to you in that regard, though, in order to meet our time, we're going to forego it, this is an $80 to $100 million project. It is a significant project that will provide, obviously, a huge impact in terms of construction, a huge impact in terms of the sale of goods and services, a huge impact in terms of employment, and all in an absolutely idyllic setting. And all you have to do to believe that is to go to one of the other projects that this developer has built around the country. So we're going to stop. I'm going to give you back 50 seconds on the clock and respectfully request your approval of both the zone change and the development plan. Thank you, Mr. Lehrer. I believe we have a question. Mr. Berkley? Mr. Chairman, would it be all right to request some extended time so they could give us this economic impact? How much time would you need? About three minutes. Three minutes? Yes, sir. Great. I'll try to work this. It's coming back now. Okay. Great. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, my name is John Ferris. Our firm, Commonwealth Economics, conducted an economic impact study and fiscal impact study on the proposed project. and I'm here to give you some of the results of the study. Can we stop the plot? We have the... She's working on it. She's working on it. Okay, I'll just go ahead. Two types of impacts when we use the in-plan economic output, input-output model, very well-respected economic impact model. And there's the impact from construction. Obviously from a $90 million project, there's enormous impact. And it's estimated that the construction impact alone, when you look at direct and induced impacts, there it is up on your screen, approximately $153 million of total economic impact generated during the construction period alone. This generates an estimated employment of approximately 1,360 jobs with wages totaling $40 million. Next slide, please. Okay. Then there's economic impact from continuing operations. approximately $128 million estimated direct, indirect, and induced economic impact throughout the region annually due to restaurant and retail operations alone, $55 million in estimated total wages created from the induced and indirect direct impact and support for about 2,900 jobs. On to the fiscal impact, there are an estimated $6 million in incremental tax revenues that would be generated, 5.3 from state tax revenues, about $700,000 from local tax revenues. And if you look how those are created, we estimated some of the different taxes and what the generation of those taxes will look like for the state and the community versus what's there now. approximately $562. So you have a huge impact from this particular project. And I think when considering the proposed zoning change, it's just important to be mindful of the economic and fiscal impact for the proposed project. Any questions? Carolyn, I see you looking at that very intently. Ag value under state law, it continues. So agricultural value is one of the no-barriers. Come to the microphone. That's fine. Yeah, come to the microphone, Mr. Lear. Sure. You can explain. Yeah, I mean, there's the. Why the current tax base is so low. Yeah, the current tax base, when you look at on the actual property, is the property tax value is very low tax value because it's zoned agriculture and there's a special rate for agriculture and it remains. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? No? Thank you, folks. At this point, I think we'll take a five-minute break and then proceed on. Thank you. Good job. Thank you. guitar solo I'm sorry. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. or just standing up? Citizens would have three minutes. Thank you, sir. Jeff Stidham, Stidham Commercial Partners here in Lexington. I live on Lion Drive here in Lexington. Thank you all for the chance to speak in support of the summit. I want to say first of all I do have a vested interest in this project. If it were to be successful and to be built, if one of the tenants that I've referred to Bayer is selected, then I would earn a fee. This is a world-class community. We're involved in these sorts of developments in various places around the country, and it's a world-class developer. We're so lucky to have the opportunity to have a project of this quality and this scope developed here. You know, it's really the kind of lifestyle and new urbanism and village design that cities around the country want. And Lexington has wanted. It's very efficient use of land. It's a place where people can work and live and shop. property values, there's a lot of evidence that residential properties surrounding these communities increase. Mr. Silverstein is right. I can show you ads close to similar developments in many places in the country where they will put for sale walking distance to the summit, where they can shop, where they can dine, where their guests and their friends and their neighbors can stay in a nice hotel where they have social functions and concerts and bike paths and bike racks. These are destinations, and they're very, very popular. You know, we're really lucky here in Lexington. Our firm recently represented Bingham McCutcheon, an international law firm that chose Lexington for a new headquarters. 250 new jobs. we played a role in attracting them or convincing them to come to lexington we were just one of many and they came here they were looking at 300 cities and they chose lexington because of its beauty its quality of life arts culture educational opportunities shopping and dining educating workforce i'm hurrying up because i see my time tracy whitley the coo of that company just bought a house here and moved to Lexington, Kentucky. Her office is in Boston. Bingham McCutcheon just had their annual gathering here in Lexington. They've had it in Martha's Vineyard for years. Is there more traffic because of that? Yes. I'm going to run through this. We have done similar projects for Windstream, S&S Firestone, a lot of jobs. We had to get variances in certain zoning kinds of issues, the net result, a lot of good jobs for our city. More traffic? Yes. Traffic is an indicator of a city's economic vitality. In fact, show me a city where you don't have some traffic. And I drive down Harrodsburg Road every morning and back every evening, and I know it can be frustrating, but it's an indicator of economic vitality. And I I think that these guys have done everything you can possibly do to handle that traffic. And the trips are really just not as severe because so much of that is internalized. I want to finish by saying I mentioned I have the best interest. But, you know, there are a lot of other people do as well. Local engineers, architects, general contractors, builders, carpenters, bricklayers, electricians, plumbers, roofing companies, lawyers, insurance companies, title companies. I believe we all have a vested interest in supporting a world-class development like the Summit Lexington. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Stidham. Anyone else in favor, please come forward. Your name and address, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Donald Brown. I live on our native lane in Lexington, and I also have, my wife and I have leased property in Birmingham about two miles from your summit. And I will tell you, you're a very lucky group of people to have the summit come to Lexington, and I'm very thrilled with that. It is exactly as it was described. It is beautiful, it's well-maintained, and it's very, very popular, and it's brought a lot of business to Birmingham. So vote yes. It's a good, good problem. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this, please come forward. Yeah. If you want to, just come line up behind the microphone. Name and address, sir. My name is John Brunel. I'm a commercial real estate broker. My address is 1212 Cape Cod Circle with Lexington. I've known John Fritz for years. I've followed it. He and I have talked about his land for years and the use of his land. And I've been observing as a commercial real estate broker all the things that he's gone through with his property, with zoning issues over the years and all the other things that have gone around about him. And we know there has to be a highest and best use for this land. and I'm so happy that the Bayer Company has come along and given him the thing that he's always looked for and that is a contribution to this community with this land because we know it can't stay there like it is. It's too valuable. It's too much of an asset to our community and I just think that this is a great time for our city to see this develop in the best way possible and we'll all be benefactors of it in the future. Thank you. Thank you, sir. My name is Charles Hyde. I live at 929 Aurora. I'm often in front of this body, usually with Richard Murphy. As a private citizen and a planner, I just wanted to say that I know how hard the staff has worked on this, and I, too, am in favor of this development. I think this piece of land has remained vacant for much too long, and I think this is something that the staff and everyone has worked very hard to make work, and I certainly hope you all vote in favor. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. My name is Georgia Cruz. I live at 1171 Kelsey Drive. I am a commercial real estate inspector, and I have had the pleasure of inspecting the Summit property in Louisville, And I can assure you it is an absolutely beautiful property that they take exceptional pride in and maintain impeccably. It's always a pleasure to visit well-kept properties, and I can say that the Summit has always been one in Louisville. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? If not, then Mr. Grady, I don't know if you know Mr. Turner-Groostraws, but I hear you get to go first. We do have time limits. I hope you all play nicely together. Mr. Chairman, thank you. My name is Hank Grady, and I've talked with Mr. Turner. I would like to use 30 minutes of the, I think, the 35 minutes that we've been allocated. Mr. Turner would like to use five minutes, and I hope that doesn't limit citizen participation after we're completed. Hopefully all of you have a notebook in front of you that says don't overload Nicolafell Road with more traffic and also don't overload our neighborhoods with more traffic. My name is Hank Grady, and I'm here with my associate, Randy Strobo, and we represent individuals in the neighborhoods. And I want to remind you of the presentation that Mr. Lear made where he talked about meeting with all of the government officials, meeting with them for over two years, over a year, working on this with government officials for a long time. But they did not meet with the neighbors until earlier this year when they met with the neighbors in February or March. And 75 people showed up and expressed concerns about the impact this would have on their neighborhood. Now, I recognize that, let me say, I am from Midway, Kentucky. And I know a village. and that may be the summit, and it may be a spectacular urban development, but it's no village. And to call it a village-style development, and to say that it complies with a comprehensive plan that says the Fritz Farm is going to be developed as a village-style development, is butchering the English language. it is not compliant with a comprehensive plan that calls for a village-style development. Now, again, I represent the neighbors who are concerned about the impact that it's going to have on their lives. And we feel like we were not included in the planning of this development, and this development, as it's currently proposed, will have severe impacts on my clients, on Tiverton Way and on Fox Harbor, trying to get out of Habersham and across the street coming out of Victoria, that these neighborhoods are going to be adversely impacted by this proposal. You heard the discussion about the economic benefit, and I don't deny that this has a promise of great economic benefit. But there is another factor that is equally important, and you must give it equal, if not greater weight, and that is safety. The ability to drive on our streets without increased risk of an auto accident. And this proposal is located on a street that is the most dangerous street in Fayette County. and the proposal that's before you will make the risks of that street, of Nicholsville Road, even more dangerous. And that's why if the summit comes to Lexington and locates here, the density must be reduced and the traffic aspects must be reconsidered. And until that is done, we would ask that you deny the application or invite them to withdraw and modify the application to remove some of what we think are the removable parts of the application. Now let me summarize the points that I believe give you a basis for turning down the application as it's currently presented. We will present our traffic engineer to demonstrate that the Bayer traffic study is incomplete, It is inadequate, and it fails to properly assess the corridor impacts of this development, and it fails to assess the impacts in the design year. It is basically looking at intersection by intersection in isolation, and we believe that it violates both your zoning ordinance, Article 6, and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet requirements. Secondly, this development, as is proposed, actually prevents a remedy for the Nicholasville Road Manowar interchange that is called for in the small area plan. Now, nobody up to now has talked about this. They've talked about only the land use element of the Nicholasville small area plan. Nobody's mentioned the transportation element in the Nicholasville, and that's the most important element in the Nicholasville small area plan. And there is a remedy in the plan that this proposal blocks. It forecloses the construction of a single-point urban interchange. Next point. As said earlier, this may be an attractive development for an urban area, but it's not a village. We believe that this development is way too intense for this location. Across the street is Fayette Mall. It has 1.4 million square feet on about 100 acres. That is about 14,000 square feet per acre. This is 1 million square feet on 50 acres. In other words, it's about 20,000 square feet of building per acre. It is more intense than Fayette Mall. It is the most intense development, I believe, that Fayette County has ever seen. And it's on a piece of property that has constraints. Unlike Fayette Mall with seven exits and none of which go through residential neighborhoods, this has frontage on a road that is already limited and it exits or proposed to exits on Tiverton Way and Habersham into neighborhoods. So this is a piece of property that is smaller than the one across the road that has limitations on it because that's the way it is presented to you. It adjoins a neighborhood, and yet it's asked for development far in excess of the built-up capacity across the street. We will ask you to find that the small area plan contradicts itself, where in one place it talks about a transportation fix, but then when they have their concept plan, they seem to ignore the transportation fix. And we believe the numbers in the small area plan were not intended to be a guide on development. In fact, we think it says these numbers are not to be a development plan. And we believe the developer is misstating that plan when he hides behind the $2.5 million and says it could be so much worse. It can't get much worse than that. Every inch of that piece of property is paved. It's all impervious. There is maybe nine acres, if that, of urban forest and greenery and area for infiltration. We have not seen their stormwater plan. I've just leaned over and asked Bruce if he'll provide it to me. I know he held up a lot of documents. I asked him if these are public documents. But there's no evidence that we have seen that this developer and that their engineers are attempting to use green infrastructure techniques as called for in your comprehensive plan to try to increase the infiltration and absorption on the property so that the runoff does not become runoff in the first place. We have not seen any evidence of perviousness and roof gardens and rain gardens. And these are features that we think should be discussed at the planning and zoning stage. They should have been presented in order to make this truly a green and sustainable development if that's what it claims to be. Finally, we have made suggestions to the developer of modifications to this plan that would, we think, mitigate the impact on the neighbors and make this more compatible with the small area plan and make it perhaps something that the neighbors could support. And I will, essentially what we would be asking is that they not develop the two buildings next to Habersham, that they keep that area as forest, that they move off of the intersection with Manowar and Nicholsville, move back from that in order to allow room to build the single-point urban interchange. And we still don't see the need for all of the residential property that is located in buildings FF and GG in that area. We don't see that they are necessary for a summit. And the removal of that part of the development would reduce the density, reduce the impact on our clients who are trying to leave every morning to go out Tiverton. And now they're going to be competing with 400 more units trying to get out Tiverton at 9 o'clock in the morning. And it would help immensely if those were simply taken off the project and the core of the summit, the part that they're celebrating with you, the core of the summit could get built. Those are the points that I will discuss in more detail in my presentation. We submit to you that this is too dense. It would be too dense if Nicholasville Road was flowing freely. It's still more dense than anything else we have. And when your mixed unit location criteria in Article 26 say it must be located on an adequate thoroughfare, and they claim Nicholasville Road is currently an adequate thoroughfare, they're ignoring the fact that it may be big enough, but it's not currently functioning. It's functioning at an unacceptable level. So today, they should not get credit for meeting the criteria of being located on an adequate working large arterial street. They are located, because that's where the Fritz Farm is, on a street that is currently operating at unacceptable levels. and should not be made worse. Let me ask, if you will, to look at some of the pieces in the small area plan. You have on the slide a discussion of traffic safety in the small area, and I'll let you read that to yourself. I won't read it to you. But the small area plan recognizes that one of the most significant features that must be dealt with with South Nicholsville Road is traffic safety and traffic congestion. Next slide. These were the comments made by the public. Look at the last one. Fix traffic and roads first. If traffic worsens, no one will live here. Traffic needs to be addressed. All right, keep going, Randy. One of the main concerns for the public was traffic. Keep going. At this point, I'd like to introduce Adam Kirk, who will present our traffic study. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I will save everybody some headache today instead of getting into a bickering match of how much traffic should be turning right and how much should be generated and how much should be turning left. And when this traffic impact study was brought to me, what we did was we said, okay, these are the assumptions that they made for the trip generation, where all the traffic is going to. And we essentially just said we're going to use those numbers. What I'm hoping to do today is show that if you follow some of the requirements, specifically that were laid out by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, that you can see that the impact study where it was performed does an adequate job. So we're not going to argue over those points and belabor them. What I think you can see, though, is that if you look at the analysis and look at the impacts in a different way, there are still a lot of unanswered questions on how this is going to operate now as well as in the future. And these are things that are not necessarily going to be addressed in the final plans, but really within the preliminary concept, we should be looking at what is the trip generation, what is the total volume of traffic that can be supported with this access plan. Is there going to be room for future improvements so that we can maintain Nicholasville Road mobility now as well as in the future? And then finally, I think we need to be looking at how does that proposed access impact the RTO as well. So what I'll be referring to is the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet requirements for traffic impact study. These were adopted by the Transportation Cabinet and apply anywhere somebody needs to put a new signal in. has a significant development on a U.S. or state route. And there's four areas that I'm going to talk about. There's a lot of other details that are in your handout, but I'm going to talk primarily about four areas. The first one is looking at your existing conditions. Whenever you see a traffic impact study, we typically do say, this is what your existing conditions are. Oftentimes, we say, this is what your existing conditions are. It's level of service A, B, or C, and then it's never mentioned again. what we require from the transportation cabinet is that those existing conditions actually be calibrated to the roadway itself. And you can do that by saying, okay, these are what the existing queues are on my roadway. I'm going to use, this is the traffic model I'm using, and it shows the same amount of queues. You can say, this is how much delay I've got at the intersection. You study the actual existing conditions. You say, this is how much delay is there. So you essentially validate your model. And because your existing model is what you use to then modify and say, okay, this is what the build condition looks like. This is what my future condition looks like. So if you start screwing up that initial model, everything along there also doesn't have the right assumptions because there's a lot of factors that go into it. The traffic impact study doesn't provide any sort of calibration or validation whatsoever of those existing conditions. And I think this is going to be a major point to where we have to call into question, is the model that they've got really valid? I was approached by this, reviewed the study on Thursday. On Friday afternoon, I drove out to Nicholasville Road. This is a ride in, ride out at Walmart, standing looking south. You can see sort of the intersection down there to the south with Man of War. You can see traffic right now is queued back up to here, which is about 700 feet, 700 to 800 feet. And then this is turning and looking the other way. Right off in the distance right through here is the intersection of Tiverton. Traffic actually queues back from Man of War back to Tiverton. If anybody's driven Nicholasville Road at 5 o'clock in the afternoon trying to get out of town, you're going to be sitting in a long line of traffic, and it takes quite a while to get out there. This is the study in the existing conditions for the PM peak period that was submitted and reviewed. and circled right here are the queuing impacts. What their study was showing is that there's only going to be 60 feet of queue. This is the southbound direction. So we've got three lanes, and they're showing the largest queue that you could expect on Nicholasville Road at a p.m. peak at 5 o'clock is 60 feet. That's between two and three cars. the way that we found this is that we actually went through it and we recreated the analysis and we were able to recreate their base model in saying here's our 61 foot queue where this came from is there's an error in the way the input analysis was done where how signals were synchronized and there was just a default value was used for this intersection as opposed to the other ones where it was changed and that one small problem essentially broke the system. Because what happened is all the traffic ended up getting bottlenecked at Tiverton so it couldn't make its way through to the adjacent intersections. So if you look at the analysis, you see Tiverton often operates very poorly. In fact, it operates more or worse than Man of War. It operates worse than Wilson Downing and some of the others that have more traffic coming through them. So it was essentially bottlenecking it there. And then once you fix that problem to where you're actually timing the signals like they currently are, like they're supposed to be, it releases the floodgates and you get a lot of congestion into it. So what we did is we made one change looking at how the signals were synchronized. And you can see on the left here, this is our corrected analysis, and this is the summit TIS. Manowar, we saw before, had a 61-foot queue. With one small change, we're looking at the actual southbound queue is about 750 feet. That's actually a little bit less than what was actually observed. You're actually looking at about a 1,500-foot queue. You look at the delay, you're looking at about an 80-second delay. That's a little over a minute. That's probably about what you sit through. If you look at the sum of TIS, you're looking at about a level of service, D, 45 seconds. If you see about a minute per signal to get through there. So that, I think, is what happens. the existing conditions that we initially used actually underestimated the impacts or the current operations. You can see right now what was reported, level of service D, level of service C, level of service D. Those are really acceptable levels of service. That's what we strive for. That's what we design for. I don't think anybody would really think that Nicholasville Road during the PMP is really what we should be designing for and making our roads operate like. So that was the existing conditions or the no-build option. and this is what the analysis then looks like when we add that development traffic on top of it. You can see before it was reported that the man-of-war was level service E. We actually see it at level service F with 120 seconds of delay or about a two-minute wait to get through the intersection. And then Wilson down in level service D to an F, road J, level service C to an F. And these are all results of that increased traffic that's generated by that development. I think 36 percent traffic travels north, 24 percent of traffic follows south. So as we load up this network, those other impact or downstream signals are impacted as well. One of the other things that this study failed to do was look at a future year analysis. The Transportation Cabinet requirements, and this is something that was involved in putting together, and we spent a lot of time figuring out, do we need to look at the future year? And we ended up saying, yes, we need to look at the future year analysis. And the reason why is because there's a huge public infrastructure investment. And if we don't, and when we build roads, we look at 20 years out, 30 years out, 50 years for some bridges. If we don't allow a private developer to come in and use up all our capacity on day one of opening, what does that do to the public investment that we had for the next 20 years? And so that's why we looked at a 10-year design horizon to say when we build a development, We're going to at least look 10 years out to make sure that that development not only works today, because you're only going to see today once, but make sure that it's going to work for the next 10 years as well so that then you don't see public infrastructure money having to come back in and fix problems that were created by additional development. When you look at that future improvement between the no-build as well as the build, you see about a 60-second increase in delay at Man of War, so you're going from waiting two minutes to waiting three minutes. You see about 40 seconds at Tiverton, Rojay about another 40 seconds, and about 70 seconds up at Wilson Downey. So a much more significant impact in that future year, because as our networks get more clogged and congested with traffic, this additional development is kind of that straw that breaks the camel's back. Once conditions get so bad and we see that this growth in traffic – excuse me. I'm sorry. You all have about 10 minutes left. Thank you. And then we'll look at the corridor-level analysis. What the report provided for corridor-level analysis, they said there's adequate green band or the same green band before the development as there's afterwards. What green band is is that the amount of time between the first person at a green light and the last person at a green light that can drive through the corridor without stopping at a red light. It has absolutely no bearing on the impact of how long it takes you to get through the system. It has no impact on what you experience, especially when you get to congested conditions Because has anybody ever driven out Nicholasville Road during the P.M. peak period and just had a wide open roadway ahead of you that you could have 30 seconds to go through the green band? It hasn't happened to me maybe in the middle of the night, but it doesn't happen that often. Instead, what we did is go back to the requirements for the transportation cabinet and said, okay, let's look at travel speed. This is what your travel speeds look like during the existing condition. You can say it takes about two minutes to travel this one-mile section of roadway northbound. It takes a little over four minutes or five minutes to come southbound. When you look at the proposed condition, you see we're doubling our travel time northbound, as well as adding about another two minutes of delay or a minute and a half of delay southbound. Significantly worse during the design year. It's taken about 15 minutes to go from Wilson Downing Road to Man of War in 10 years from now. So if we look at 10 years from where we're at today, it's going to take you 15 minutes just to go through Wilson Downing Road. So I'm going to skip through some safety analysis. I'm going to say that this is a very high crash corridor. We had 300 crashes, 77 injuries, and this is some analysis done where we look at signals per mile. You can see right now we've got four signals per mile, which runs about five accidents per million vehicles a mile. We add another one within this one-mile stretch, we're literally off this chart. So we're going to see a significant increase in traffic. I'll just visit the small area study now. What the small area study gets very right is the SPOEY, single point interchange, looking at great separating Man of War and Nicholasville Road. That's a significant capacity improvement that we need for this area. As well as if you look at the access. Say that again slower. Give the term again slow enough for everybody to hear. I'm not quite sure what exactly I said, But it's a significant improvement for capacity so that we can keep the traffic moving through Manowar and Nicholasville. One of the others is the access plan for the development. If you look at the way the access is proposed, it's a ride-in, ride-out. A ride-in, ride-out can work in conjunction with a single-point interchange. In fact, you can see that they're showing it operating with the Walmart on the other side of the road. and you can look at a similar setup on the east side of the road to provide access with that right in, right out. What's wrong is that the level of density and level of development in there does not support that right in, right out. And I think that that's really what we need to look at is what is the proper amount of intensity and the amount of trips generated that can be served by a future development or a future improvement plan. One last note, I'll say a lot of people say, well, we're not going to grade separate, put a single-point interchange in at Manowar and Nicholasville. If you look at the amount of traffic through there, this is just a planning-level map where we have 30,000 ADT or 30,000 vehicles a day on Manowar. We've got 58,000 or 54,000 down here on Nicholasville. We have about 84,000 vehicles coming through that intersection a day. If you go over and look at Winchester Road and New Circle, where we have a significantly sized buoy, we've got 81,000. We've got more traffic going through the intersection of Nicholasville and Man of War than we've got going through Winchester Road and New Circle. If you look at Interstate 75, we've got about 83,000 vehicles a day going on Interstate 75 between Winchester Road and Newtown. So this is a significant amount of traffic we've got there today, and we need to make sure that we have the improvements to be able to protect that area for the future. Any questions? Questions for Mr. Clark? I'm sorry. No. No, I'm just asking. No. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, how much? The clock will come back up in just a second. You've got about five minutes. Thank you. Let me incorporate what Adam has given you. If you'll look on page three of my letter to you, we have summarized our points. I went through those a few minutes ago. I'm sorry, back up to page two. Based upon what Mr. Kirk has told you, we ask you to find that the developer's traffic impact study is incomplete and misleading and is not in compliance with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet requirements and the LFUCG Article 6.1c requirements for a traffic impact study. We ask you to find that the zone change is contrary to the comprehensive plan, where it is contrary to the transportation recommendations, where it forecloses the opportunity for a single-point urban interchange, and it is contrary to the right-in, right-out recommendations of the small area plan. The stoplight that Ms. DeLear wants to put across the Manowar, in fact, helps block this traffic remedy for this intersection. And putting buildings in that corner is putting them where the footprint of that interchange needs to be built. And we would ask that you require the developer move the buildings away from that interchange so that you protect the right to be able to build the single-point urban interchange that your comprehensive plan calls for at that location. If you will turn to page 9 of my letter to you, I quote again from the small area plan. This is what the South Nicholsville Road small area plan says. to handle additional traffic volumes and flow and to accommodate turn lanes, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet has recommended that an additional 45 feet of right-of-way be added. And I've highlighted, KYTC also recommended keeping signalized intersections limited to the existing locations, East Diverton Way, Manowar, South Point Drive. As this spacing is designed to ease traffic congestion, a right-in, right-out access is recommended for 41 Nicholsville Road across from the Walmart And then below that, the paragraph at the bottom of the page talks about the single-point urban interchange. And the next page of my letter to you shows the map that Mr. Kirk just showed you that is part of your small area plan and shows where it needs to be built. And it needs to be built where Summit wants to propose some of their outlying buildings, buildings we would ask that you relocate. If you will turn to the last page of my letter, page 16. We were going to go over this in great detail, but I think the clock is. These are the requests that we have made and that we're asking this Planning Commission to support. We ask that you remove the commercial buildings W and V, the ones up here next to Habersham. These are outbuildings. They don't really contribute to the summit. And require that that be additional open space for this development and not connect the summit to Habersham. Keep that area closed and able to hike and bicycle, but not have the summit exit onto Haversham and out at that interchange. We support the right in, right out of a man of war in order to access this. We agree that that helps relieve the impact on the neighbors. But if this change could be made, that would greatly allay our concerns about what this development is going to do to the neighborhoods that we live in. We ask that you, we've asked the developer, we ask that you support removing commercial buildings P and N, the ones in the corner along Nicholsville Road, and designate this corner as open space or forest so as to retain the space needed to construct the single point urban interchange as called for in the comprehensive plan at page 39. We ask that you, we've asked the developer, we would ask that you support removal of the four-story residential buildings, FFGG and HH, which in the earlier plan were designated as two-story. We see that, we don't see that these residential buildings provide any benefit to the summit itself. We would prefer a buffer with our neighborhoods of open space. However, if the developer wants to propose office space for this location, that might be an acceptable alternative. We ask the developer, and we would ask this planning commission, to follow your comprehensive plan and not support a signalized intersection across from Walmart. That is a safety issue. That intersection, that stoplight, will make Nicholasville Road more unsafe. That was the statistics that Kirk was giving to you. And that single step, adding one more stoplight within that mile, is a step toward a more hazardous road. That's what the developer is asking you to do. Make Nicholasville Road more hazardous. We ask that at this stage the density be reduced and that this intersection be a right in, write out as called for in your comprehensive plan. If they want to say they're supporting the comprehensive plan, they need to support all the pieces of the comprehensive plan, not just pick and choose. Please grab up, Mr. Grady. Finally, we would ask that the Planning Commission support efforts by the Summit and the City to widen Tibberton Way to create a four-lane access to provide an improvement over the current conditions at that location. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, we would ask that you find that this is not a village-style development. I have enclosed findings of fact either in the front or the back of my notebook to you, and I would ask that you look at those and adopt the ones that you believe are applicable. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Grady. Any questions for Mr. Grady at this point? I have handed this. I want to make sure this is in evidence. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Grady. Mr. Turner. Thanks. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, how are you all? I'm Darby Turner, here representing Fayette Mall. And I'm not sure it's a Kodak moment. I don't think that's a current term, but it may be a Facebook or a YouTube moment with Bill and I on different sides and so forth. And me rising at a strange point in these proceedings. But on behalf of what I'm passing out to you is a traffic study that we had done by CDM Smith, former Wilbur Smith by Brad Johnson. And we did this, actually we had started this before the summit actually, not two years ago, but before things kind of became more public of what was going on, really in an effort to understand the I-75 connector and kind of what was going to happen on Nicholasville Road in the foreseeable, you know, in the 10-year, 15-year game to kind of try to understand that situation. As this development came online, it obviously heightened the necessity, if you will, to understand exactly what was going to happen. and Fayette Mall is not opposed to the commercial development, and we understand and we have great sympathy with the Fritz family. They've got a farm in the middle of as intense an urban area as there is in Lexington other than downtown and so forth, so we certainly understand that. Having said that, our concern is traffic and the proper functioning of Nicholasville Road, And I know that's a strange thing to be coming from Fayette Mall. But Fayette Mall was built in 1973 and has grown several times since then. And Nicholasville and Jessamine County has grown and has become a very active corridor. And that's a good thing for commercial property. That's a very good thing to have traffic going by. Having said that, the road at this point is demonstrated by Brad's report that I just passed out to you and Mr. Kirk's review and his report that you just heard. We're at a real capacity issue with that road. But with this development, we've also got two other undeveloped corners, the U.K. South Farm and the other, the south piece of the Fritz property. And I think it's incumbent on us all to plan the road improvements that are going to be necessary for the development in the next 10 or 20 years to make these things function correctly. Otherwise, you're going to have a deterioration of, we're concerned about deterioration of the commercial activity and so forth that could occur not only to us, but to Summit and other retailers that might be there. I'm not going to go into a lot of traffic comment because you've already heard it, But the write-in, write-out on Nicholasville Road that is proposed was in the small area plan, in the cop plan, that was put in, as Bill indicated, when you've got 2.6 million square feet of development on the property. So it should be able to handle a million, if all that theory is correct. correct. The problem with the full intersection there, as pointed out by Mr. Kirk, is it adds one more intersection. It prevents one significant solution that's been adopted in the small area plan, but also is recommended by the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, as adopted in 2009. That's where that flyover, the the SPUI, as it's called, came from. So there have been extensive stormwater studies done on this property in this area. There have not been the traffic studies necessarily to determine what viable options are really there to increase capacity, decrease congestion on Nicholasville Road, not only for the summit, Fayette Mall, but future developments and the future residents that will occur and travel that road back and forth from Jessamyn County. So in our view, at this point from a development plan point of view, this plan is really not ready to be approved. Either the road needs to have significant road improvements that need to be planned and not necessarily built at the same time, but understand what is going in there to alleviate the 10-year, 20-year time frame. Or we need to right-size the development for the current situation. And I don't know if that means phasing. Those are all questions to be answered, and I don't have the answers. but we're at a critical point in my view from looking at the traffic information that we have that real solutions need to be found and considered to be implemented. So I would ask you to reconsider whether it is appropriate for the plan to be approved at this point or whether the issues of density, access, traffic improvements need to be dealt with now as opposed to pushed onto the final development plan. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Any questions, Mr. Turner, at this point? Can I have one minute? Yes, sir. Come to the microphone. I've failed to advise you that also in the notebook I've given you are petitions. from folks in the neighborhoods expressing their concern about this proposal. I want to make sure you see those. Okay. Thank you, sir. At this point, we would go to any citizens that's in the audience that would like to speak in opposition of this. We would offer that we want to hear from you and hear your concerns. We've heard a lot about traffic. I believe everyone can recognize the traffic situation out there. But if you have anything to add, please come forward, give us your name and address, and we'll proceed on. Yes, sir. And please, in the interest of time, line up behind this gentleman. Name and address, sir. My name is Edward Prentice. My address is 396 Fox Albert Drive. I was listening to, well, first of all, I apologize for the way I'm dressed. I didn't know everybody was going to wear suits. I didn't know where we was going to film or what we was going to do today. They get paid big money to do that. But anyway, we was talking about the economic impact, and I heard that in first in the neighborhood. And also they were talking about the right in, the right out on Manowar, and it's for the development. But from what I was understanding and what they're still trying to do between Manowar and Tiffin' and Way, they are intending to make that four-wheel lane coming out of that development and on to Habersham. I was, Fox Harbor is just a two lane coming out, so they intended to make it a four lane on their development plan. So we won't be able to get out of that neighborhood, but at any rate, one piece of property we're talking about, we're talking about one family's right to develop their property. And our outside entity is the one who's developing this property. The city will receive tax money. The entity will make money. The family will make money, all at the expense of the neighborhood. The thousands will be affected on Nicholasfield Road, Manowar, Tevelton, Havisham, Fox Harbor, and Victoria Way. Now, the architects, and that is very pretty, but the architect and engineers, they can draw pretty pictures and come up with some pretty plans and do the measurements to make it fit the property. But whether it's practical or not is what I'm talking about. And the footprint is too large. Now, you should not approve this zone change because you can. but do what's right for the neighborhood, the community, the thousands of travelers affected each day of the year because of this development. Is it your job to make many suffer to please a few? And what I was really surprised about was your staff. They have been working along with this, and yes, you can put 20 rows or make in and out, And also they mentioned the right in and out on Mount of War between Nicholas Fear Road and Habersham. From what I get from them, they're expecting the people that come from Fox Harbor to come all the way through their development to get out. This is not practical. And they're also talking about the Tiffordian people to be able to come through their development to be able to get out. So I just wish you consider all these things as far as from the neighborhood point of view. And I'm asking you to oppose this change as far as right now until the traffic conditions and what they're going to do for the neighborhood. So I know it's a lot of money, and I don't know what point you're coming from, but the point is you have to think about the neighbors that's already living in that neighborhood. So a pretty development is nice, but I just hope you don't get caught up in how pretty that is. But it's a wrong piece of development on a wrong piece of property. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Others that would like to speak? Okay. A little bit interesting. So anyway, what we will proceed on at this point is rebuttal. So Mr. Lear, five minutes. Thank you very much. Most of what you heard in opposition is an attempted indictment of the planning process. and it is an attempt to say that even though the Planning Commission and its staff and its technical support spent a year in the small area plan and included representatives of the neighborhood, included representatives of the institution, included political representatives, supported by all of the staff, and hearing concerns about traffic and hearing concerns about stormwater apparently paid no attention to them and came up with a small area plan that this development meets. I think you know that's not so. And you've also heard about how some of the key points of this project don't meet various guidelines of the State Transportation Cabinet. Now, that would be the same State Transportation Cabinet that did say originally, do a write-in, write-out, and then after we presented detailed studies to them and they reacted to them and asked for more information and we provided more information and we provided further studies to them, gave us conceptual approval for the signalization. And probably the greatest irony of all is that that signal on Nicholasville Road provides the greatest amount of relief possible for Habersham and for Tiverton. They say they want us to make it four lanes going out of Tiverton. We'll need to make it six lanes going out of Tiverton if they take away the access to Nicholasville Road that we're proposing there. I have to say, of all the things I never expected to hear, I had an out-of-body experience about ten minutes ago because Fayette Mall's representative, my friend Darby Turner, was up here telling you about their concerns about traffic on Nicholasville Road. I can't believe it. I didn't hear that when the mall was done originally. I didn't hear that when they did an expansion a few years ago of Fayette Mall that is bigger. Just the expansion is bigger than any other shopping center on all of Fayette Mall. And I swear to you, I can't remember hearing any concerns then about traffic on Nicholasville Road. As a matter of fact, I heard the opposite. I do want to point out, both of the attorneys have pointed to this three-sentence statement on page 39 about this huge interchange. It says, this plan doesn't recommend it. It references the fact that the MTP, a state plan that provides like a 30-year horizon, has that in it. But if you read that plan, it says, A, it's not funded, and if it's built, we're talking about 2030 or thereafter. 2030 or thereafter. So let's not let anything. We've only been keeping the Fritz property idle for about the last 50 years. Let's see if we can't wait until 2030 and see if they're going to build that interchange. So what this really comes down to is an issue whether or not the planning process makes any sense. the planning process that was followed by this commission, whether or not the independent people at the state and local level that have technical expertise and do more than go out on one Friday afternoon and wait until the queue is the longest in one particular place and take a photograph of it, who look at the entire cycle over a period of time as our study was required to do, and then come up with the projections. I can go to some low-traffic areas in Lexington, and if I catch them at the right moment, I'm not saying there aren't queues on Nicholasville Road that are long. I'm not making that point at all. There are at times, but they have to look, and we've been made to look at the entire cycle over a period of time in coming up with the data that's in this report, which, again, has been screwed. This is not like we walked over to the state and said, give us approval. Here's our study. And they know the situation on Nicholasville Road. They know the signalization. They know the traffic. They know the safety. And they made us jump through a lot of hoops to satisfy them. So the last thing I will say is it does relate to the Fritz property. I said this has been through several iterations before, and I've been through it with them. They asked to put a neighborhood shopping center, a Randall shopping center, remember that name? and they were turned down because it was not in agreement with the comprehensive plan. Then they came back and asked to have a retail center, and I think it had Kohl's in it and maybe Kroger. And that was turned down, and they looked up, and down Nicholasville Road at Brandon Crossing, here's Kohl's and here's Kroger, and then Kohl's further on. And then they came in with a development where they were proposing, I think it was Lowe's. It was turned down, not against the comprehensive plan, and they blinked, and across the street the comp plan was changed for the South Farm, and there was that development. And then, and I'm almost through, Mr. Chairman, and then in Mr. Fritz's wife's home place at Mason Healy Road, or Wilson Downing, rather, Wilson Downing Road, they proposed a development there. It got turned down, and they looked across the road, and Fayette Mall did the expansion of the same kind of thing. It's the Fritz's time, and they're in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan this time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Grady, Mr. Turner, any closing statements? No? I knew better. I really don't have anything more than that. Okay, thank you. Thank you. No, go ahead. Again, I think I closed when I finished. I think our position is that the plan is immature and improper at this time, incomplete, to be heard there are too many open questions. I know the recommendation is to push those open questions down to final development plan. And that's going to involve a lot of expense and time. for a lot of folks if we don't deal with those right now. But we're either going to deal with you all are going to have to deal with them now or you're going to have to deal with them in the final development plan phase. So we would appreciate it if you'd do it now. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Staff, rebuttal, anything? The staff does not have any rebuttal comments. Of course, we're available for questions if you have any. Okay, thank you. At this point, I'll turn it over to the Commission and ask for any questions that anyone might have for anyone that has spoken. I'm seeing no one. There we go. Ms. Plumlee. My philosophy is when developers and neighbors get together, that generally the development improves. And so my question now is, is there any chance that maybe the P&N removal of that building could happen? Would that make it better? At the corner of Nicholasville and Manowar? Do I have the building right? Are you saying on the corner of Manowar and the cell? Yes, the corner of the building P. Yeah, building P. Are you asking us? I'm asking if there's any possibility of compromise with making this maybe a little denser. That was your suggestion to make it denser. I think that question would need to go to Mr. Linger and the applicant, if anything. If anyone. Microphone, Mr. Lear. Okay. Whatever the building Mr. Grady mentioned. We need you at the microphone. Well, I appreciate the question. And having been doing this for years, I've been doing it. I understand the desire to reach agreement or accord with neighborhoods as we do developments. However, in this instance, I received a letter yesterday to suggest to me that we remove this building, this building, these buildings, and turn it into forest. And I would submit to you after two years of planning that that's really an unreasonable request at this time to ask us to reduce the density in that severe a manner. I'm not sure, quite frankly, what reducing or taking this building off the plan does. I have seen no proof that that's going to significantly change their attitude about this development. This building and this building are at the forefront. We recognize that this is a gateway into Lexington. A lot of time, attention has been paid to the design of those buildings. They're an important part of this development. So it would, in the truest sense, sure, I'd love to work with the neighborhood in doing certain things to the plan. Bill, I'm going to go ahead and jump in there and say, you know, we've committed, for example, appropriate discussions need to be held, for example, that, you know, during the construction of this project, we absolutely will adhere to the commitment that construction traffic doesn't enter this project through the residential streets. That's an appropriate commitment to make. I absolutely agree, for example, that if there's any blasting on the site, that we adhere to your standards and conduct pre-blast surveys and make sure that those types of conditions are imposed. And we're going to do that even without the imposing of conditions. But to suggest after two years of planning and working on this that 12 hours before we make this presentation that we gut the development like that is really, I think, beyond reasonableness. And so I'm here to work in certain areas but not to gut the development. I just don't think that's a reasonable request. I just want the one building was all I'm. . . Well, they're requesting more than that. Yeah, I was just mentioning the one. Her question was regarding the corner. The corner. Only the corner. Well, sorry if I jump beyond that. It was presented as if that was a plan to bring us together. No, thank you. Mr. Wilson. I have a question, and I'm not quite sure who to direct this to. This has to do with the stormwater basin. I believe either in our committee, in our zoning committee, there was some discussion about potentially securing additional land or properties in order for that stormwater basin to work. Could someone tell me if I'm out of line or what's okay? Mr. Wilson, what you're talking about is where we've been cooperating with the urban county government. They've got a plan in progress, and part of that plan was us putting the detention basin or putting the detention basin on the Fritz property. We are complying with the amount of volume they need in storage. As far as any kind of acquiring properties on the other side of the property line, that's going to be part of the Urban County Government study and part of their ongoing effort for stormwater reduction as it goes through the neighborhood. So I'm not exactly sure where the Urban County Government is. I know that they are working on that design right now. But I wouldn't want to jump too soon to say what they have or haven't talked to or acquired. They might be in some discussions with some of the owners there already. Mr. Chairman, could I follow up? Yes, sir. Can anyone else answer the question related? Let me clarify what he's – Part of the plan in several areas of Lexington is where there are the worst flooding conditions, it is less expensive to actually buy houses. And they've done that in the past. This is not a new development. It's less expensive to go and buy some of the houses that are most impacted than it is to upsize both pipes going downstream and detention facilities upstream. So it has long been a part of the plan for curing the issue out there that they would potentially acquire one or more residences downstream. That's what I think the conversation has been about. But what Ben was saying is he doesn't know where the government is in terms of discussions with the property owners. We don't. We're not privy to those. But we've been working with the government for many, many months, actually over a year on this whole thing, and they're the ones that have dictated how much we have to upsize this. And it could be that upsizing it enough will require that we'll necessitate the purchase of fewer, not more, properties downstream. That's the only property acquisition I'm aware of, Bill. Mr. Martin, do you have anything to add? I see your feet. Staff has had a recent conversation with the Division of Water Quality, and they have not, the acquisition is similar to what Mr. Lear has said. It's a possibility, but it's not absolutely deemed necessary, nor are they going to buy any houses off people that don't wish to sell their property. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Penn? Go ahead. Dr. Beatty. Before, Mr. Pendell, I just want to follow up with that. On an early map, did we not see like three residential houses that almost look like in like a little cove area? I don't know. I think staff showed that. So that property that is included in that property, that's not three residents privately owned? Ms. Beatty, I believe what you're referring to was we did talk about the various types of things that could be done based on this study. And there were several properties that had been targeted as potential purchases. But, I mean, there were several alternatives that were developed in different scenarios to deal with the stormwater. So we were just trying to identify potential impact from the stormwater project. But no acquisitions have taken place? Oh, no, ma'am. None whatsoever. And I don't believe any offers or anything like that or anywhere in the making. Mr. Penn, did you have anything? Yeah, I just wanted to talk to the commission about what we're doing here. Number one is with 102 inches of pipes coming into Fritz property, I'm surprised they didn't make Lake Lexington there. I mean, you know, they've got a lot of water coming in there. The other thing is that this is a preliminary development plan, and I don't see how we can sit here and try to let's make a deal here to approve the preliminary development plan. I think we can voice our concerns. We can vote it up or down. We can do those types of things. But if we're going to go back to trying to redo the development plan, especially the preliminary development plan, I'm not sure we need to do it in this form. So I don't want to limit discussion or anything like that. I just want us to focus on what we're doing here today, and let's debate the merits of what we have in front of us, and if we don't like it, we'll have to do something different. Mr. Cravens. Yeah, on the, I don't know who this is for, maybe. Tom Martin, on the right end coming off of Manowar, does that traffic have to stop at that? I mean, I see the gray road stopping there at some other road. Can that traffic just come on in there, or does it have to stop right there? You're talking about the entrance off Manowar? So will that just flow on in there? This is a preliminary development plan, and it shows a layout. Obviously, at the final development plan, we'd have to talk about circulation, stop bars, stop signs. All those types of things would have to be looked at on how it's going to internally function. I understand, and that's been a concern of mine from back when we've in committee work, that the traffic would be able to come in there without stopping and not back up out on man-of-war. I guess you know about that, but that's what I'm trying to say there. I'd like to see that, be able to come in here and queue in there instead of out on Manowar. Mr. Cravens, our plan is for the free flow of traffic all the way through there, so we would not be stopping on Manowar. Okay, and then my other question was there's been some mention of 2015. Are you going to construct this whole project in a year and a half, Are you going to do it in phases? Our goal would be to open a significant portion of this in the fall of 2015. As we've done with a lot of our projects, there may well be some phasing. We're not speculators. We will build what's appropriate and what we lease appropriately. So there may well be a phasing of this project. perhaps not all the residential will be built at the first phase. And perhaps not all of the residential will be built in the first phase. The residential that is, the residential that, and I wanted to point this out to you, these buildings are where the residential is above retail. So that definitely will be built as part of the first phase. Will all of the freestanding residential be built? not quite sure. We will build according to market demand. So there may well be a phasing. And there may be some phasing of the portions of the retail, too. So I don't stand before you here today saying it's all going to be built and open at the same time, but there may well be some phasing of the project. Dr. Beatty. Mr. Chair, I don't mean to prevent any other questions. If they if they are there for commission members, but I just had a couple of general statements to make. As it refers to... Let me ask first if there are any other questions, and we'll get to that if that's okay with you. Any other questions? No? Before we get too far down the line, Mr. Wilson. There is one question. The staff has recommended the fact that we do not approve the variance number three, yet I did not hear the developers Thank you Bill we talked about that after their presentation and we want to withdraw that variance request number three if it should be something that we think is absolutely critical on down the road then we can always bring it back but we'll take that off your agenda I meant to mention that Thank you Any other questions? for staff or anyone? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing, and then I'll open it for comments among commission members and eventually a motion, I'm sure. Dr. Beatty. Sorry to slow you down. That's okay. You sound like you were on a roll. I'm sorry. I didn't intend to stop the questions, but I do want to just make a couple of general comments. I do think that this applies and is very much in line with the comprehensive plan. Certainly as it relates to the small area plan, it's nice to see when we put our resources in a small area plan, we see some turnaround fairly quickly. I know that we review a lot of small area plans, and then they get shelved for a considerable amount of time. So this seemed to be something that was turned around fairly quickly. I certainly applaud the MU. I like the idea of the mixed use. I understand the concern that the residents may have. And in looking at land use and hearing how many times we've looked at this piece of land and trying to come up with the most appropriate use for that land, I do think that this is a good use for the land. Now, with that being said, I also understand that it affects other people and traffic being one of the biggest concerns. I do think that staff, someone other than myself, certainly has the expertise to take a really nice look at what we haven't already done and what we have done with traffic and try to come up with the best way to resolve that. And if it means, Ms. Plumlee, of going back and looking at the plan, I would just like for us to give the applicant and the residents an opportunity, if they need to go back and relook at that, to have some discussions. It seems to be an indication there that there hadn't been much communication because of the lateness of documents being shared or whatever. So I'm for looking at that maybe a little bit later at the final development stage if that's necessary to consider. So I'm not wiping that off because I do think traffic is a concern, but I don't know that what we have in front of us today, that should prevent us from making a decision. I do look forward to any other concerns and questions being addressed with the final development plan, but I do think it's compatible with the comprehensive plan and good use of the land, and I like the mixed use for zoning. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. I agree with my colleague. I think it is good use for that land. I have to say with somewhat tongue-in-cheek, because I worked in New York City for 10 years, and when someone mentions the word traffic, they don't know what traffic is and how long you have to sit in traffic until you've been to New York or L.A. on the 405. But in due respect to that, I understand that traffic issue, and I think it's a very serious one. The other thing I'd like to say, as it relates to this commission and what we're struggling with, we're pushing as much as we can for infield development. And as it relates to infield development, I think this is probably a really good project to do. I have, gentlemen, been to the summit in Louisville, Kentucky. I went there, and I am so happy that my wife was not with me. I could see myself having to extend a 15-minute trip to maybe two hours or so, But it was, and I was very impressed with the development. I was very impressed with the ambiance. I mean, I liked it. And I kind of subliminally said I wondered if we would ever get something of this quality in Lexington. I did not know I would be the one sitting here to help either deny or whatever. But I think it does fit the comprehensive plan. I am aware of the traffic. But I think as we think of this infield development issue, we're going to have to make at least some simple tradeoffs here a little bit. And I think overarchingly what I see is what I like. So I think I can support your concept. Ms. Mundy. Yes, I too would like to echo the comments of my colleagues that I support the MU use, and I'd like to commend Jimmy for putting that together and coming up with that. I think it's an awesome use of this land. And like Mr. Wilson, I also lived in New Jersey for a while, and so again, when you talk about traffic, I have a different perspective, I guess, of it. I also know that having lived here for nearly 20 years in our wonderful city of Lexington, that people tend to find ways. I can avoid Nicholasville Road anytime I want to. Now we've got a lot of great throughways and the upgrade of Clay's Mill, and of course I'm all over town most of the time, but I can avoid Nicholasville Road from Thanksgiving, the day before Thanksgiving until the middle of January, just to stay out of all of that. So I know Nicholasville Road is a concern for all of us, but I also know that we have professionals out there that are looking at it They're aware of it, and I think we have to make a decision based on compliance with our regulations here in the city and let those professionals who are involved with traffic counts and how the traffic flows and how that all works. We need to make our decisions to help them make their decisions, but I think we need to rely on the professionalism of those people who deal with the highways and the roads, and that's what their knowledge is in. So, again, I commend you for all you've done. I'd like to commend our staff for all the hard work they've put in on this thing. And, you know, I'm looking forward to seeing a final development plan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Penn. I don't like seeing anybody have to sell their land, especially if they're farmers. But that's become way past a farm a long, long time ago. And so that is a developer piece of land. So what we're talking about now is how we're going to develop it. I'm to the point with this to where I think the MU is the way to go on this. I think the staff is right on that. Whether this is what the final development plan is going to look like or not, I don't know. I've never seen a 3-D preliminary development plan. And if you've raised the bar to where it's going to be hard to follow. But the point of this is that I think it's time to do something with the Fridge property. And whenever you all are ready, I'm ready to make a motion. If one of the rest of you all want to do it, you go right ahead. But I think we're at the point right now where we've got to eat a fish or cut bait. Thank you, Mr. Fenn. I think we're at that point. I'm seeing some heads nodding. Let me add that traffic is always going to be an issue on Nicholas Hill Road. Someone said the Fayette Mall was built in 1973. I think in 1975 I spent about 45 minutes out in front of the place. And as Ms. Mundy said, we've got to leave some of this stuff up to traffic engineering professionals to do their job. Since that time, it got better. There was less traffic there at that time, but it got better. I'm sure it's gotten worse, and it's going to get better, and it's going to get worse. But I will agree that, unfortunately, I like farmland as well, but the time has come for something to happen on this piece of property. And I appreciate the concerns of everyone. I think anyone would be fooling themselves to think that this corner would never be developed. But once again, I appreciate the concerns of everyone. I appreciate the work that everyone has done. I mean, we've seen it a few times in committee and so forth, and it's changed immensely during that time. If Jimmy Emmons is to be credited for it, then where to go, Jimmy? Otherwise, are there any other comments or Mr. Penn seems to be ready for a motion? We would need a motion on the zone change MARV 2013-7. We do have a hand sheet in front of you that we can work off of. Mr. Penn? Mr. Chairman, I move for approval as a staff recommendation for MER 2013, Day 7, with the conditions provided by staff on the 10 sheet. Second. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Next, we move to the variances, which is also on a TAN sheet. There's a revised staff report for variances. And let me say with what Mr. Lear said, they are withdrawing number three. So I believe we can turn our attentions to one and two, in which staff was recommending approval and had three conditions on. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the requested variances number one and number two, deleting number three. Second. The motion has been made and seconded for approval of the variances on MARV 2013-7. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Let me ask, I guess we need, do we need a motion for the findings for Article 28.5H? Yes. I've got that right here. On the green sheet. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move for the findings provided by staff in ZDP 2013-22, and this revised Article 28-5. Thank you. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Mr. Chairman, that vote we cannot do electronically. Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. The last one would be ZDP 2013-22, the Prince Property LLC, with revised conditions, 15 of them on the blue sheet. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of ZDP 2013-22 with revised 15 conditions. Removing the word construction. Yes. On number 15, it should resolve proposed access, deleting the word construction. Thank you. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval with revised conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you. That motion passes as well. I'd like to thank everyone for coming in and participating and sharing their interest. We appreciate it very much. If it's the will of the Commission, I'm going to ask to see if we can take something out of order. Since we're talking about this corner piece of property, we do have a TIF consideration, which is Barb Rackers would walk us through. If I can get to it, it's on page 10 at the top of the page. The TIF report itself was emailed to everyone, and we'll take care of that at this time. If I could ask everyone to go ahead and take their conversations outside. Mr. Ackers. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. As you said, this is on page 10 of the agenda. It is the only commission item we have today, and it's a request for review of a TIF application by Bayer Properties, and as you know, the property is called Summit Lexington. Before I get started, I'd like to say that the staff report that you have in front of you is the one that was done originally, and yesterday there were some minor revisions made to it, and the copies were already made, and so I'm just going to note that there is clarification in the language, As opposed to TIF district, it's TIF development area. And on page two where it's got the TIF eligible improvements, the private improvements are not TIF eligible. It's just the public improvements. And that is to clarify things for the council when they review this and vote on it and when it goes to the state. And a corrected staff report has already been issued to the applicant. This property is located at 4100 Nicholasville Road, and then the three properties on East Tibberton. This is the... I mean, I can read it, but... There we go. Okay. Okay, it's this area right here that's outlined in black. And it's for a mixed-use redevelopment TIF, which is a specialized TIF. It has certain requirements so that it would qualify for that. Those requirements are that it must have a net positive economic and fiscal impact to the Commonwealth. The TIF footprint can't include any one retail establishment that exceeds 20,000 square feet of finished square footage. It must meet the required minimum capital investment of $20 million. The development area must be less than the maximum three square miles. It must include at least two of the following retail, residential, office, restaurant, or hospitality. And it must either be located in an area with blighted conditions and inadequate public infrastructure, or it must be a mixed-use development that includes either or both significant public stormwater and sanitary sewer facilities that are designed to comply with a community-wide court decree mandating corrective action by the local government or an agency thereof, meaning the consent decree. As you all probably know, the TIF process provides a mechanism for financing public improvements within the development area. Those improvements would include roads, utilities, sanitary and storm sewers, and other public improvements. Once the properties develop, the value increases, and then a percentage of the increased tax revenue are the mechanism for paying for the improvements that have been made. Part of the process is planning commission review with regard to compliance with a comprehensive plan. Once you have done that, we forward your recommendation to the Urban County Council, and they hold a public hearing. And then if they approve the project, it gets forwarded to the state, and it's reviewed by the state economic development cabinet. If it's approved by the state, then the state and the LFUCG enter into a formal agreement, and the TIF is implemented. We've reviewed probably six TIF applications, and three of them have been implemented. Red Mile, the distillery district, and the Phoenix Park courthouse area. This TIF has been reviewed relative to not only the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, but to the South Nicholasville Road Small Area Plan, and that was an adopted element of the 2007 Comp Plan back in 2009. There are several public improvements that are eligible. For the TIF, those are listed on page two. That would be transportation corridor expansion, improved access to the property from Manowar and Nicholasville Road, storm sewer improvements, sanitary sewer improvements, utility provision, modification, and burial, access roads and street lighting and curbs and sidewalks, new parking, which would consist of structure and service spaces, public spaces and parks, land preparation and demolition, and geotechnical services, environmental remediation, and other contingencies and soft costs. And again, the private things that are listed there, the residential dwelling units, the retail hotel and restaurant, and the outdoor restaurant dining areas are not TIP eligible. They're not covered. There are several elements of the comprehensive plan, including the mission statement and the vision for Lexington that speak to the improvements that are proposed as part of this project. and the mission statement and the vision supply the basis for our land use decisions and development in Fayette County. It states in the Comprehensive Plan that the mission of planning efforts is to provide a vision for physical development that will allow Lexington to grow and prosper and that will promote economic and viable job development. This TIF development area has been designed to implement that vision. There are six themes contained in the vision that are applicable to this. Those are also listed on page two and go over to page three. Implementing infill and redevelopment strategies that expand residential and commercial opportunities are appropriate in character and design and complement and reinforce the fabric of the neighborhood. Enabling the creation, growth, and retention of jobs that permit a strong, progressive, and diversified urban and rural economy. Developing a green infrastructure system with open space, facilities, and amenities that serve all citizens and help create a sense of community. Preserving, protecting, and maintaining existing residential neighborhoods in a manner that ensures stability and the highest quality of life for all residents. Ensuring the availability of well-designed, affordable housing in an aesthetically satisfying environment, including housing opportunities in all price ranges that meet the needs of all citizens. and providing infrastructure improvements to fully survey existing developments, to accommodate current growth, to plan for long-term future urban needs, and to enhance the high quality of life in Lexington. And as Tracy noted in her zone change presentation, during the development of the 2007 comprehensive plan, there were several areas that were identified for further study and evaluation, and the recommendation was made that small area plans be done, one of these being the South Nicholas Spill Road Small Area Plan. and that consists of an area between East Tiberton Way on the east side of Nicholasville Road and Manowar Boulevard on the west side of Nicholasville Road and then it extends to the Jessamine County line. Bill, if you would put the next one up, please. This is the study area. It's the area in the dashed line. This is Tiberton up here and then Manowar down here. Nicholasville Road is here, and then this is the county line right there. So this is the area that was the study area for the small area plan. It was divided into sub-areas, and if you could put the next one up, which would be sub-area 4. This property basically takes up half of the sub-area 4. This is sub-area 4 that's outlined in yellow, and then this is the property right there. And that takes up, as I said, just about half of the sub-area. And one of the recommendations for sub-area 4 was that 4100 Nicholasville Road be developed as mixed-use. And there was a concept called the urban village development, and you kind of saw that before. If you could put that last one up, Bill. That called for residential, commercial, and mixed-use. And this is not what the comprehensive plan, it wasn't recommending that it be developed just like this. This was just a conceptual thing showing that how it could be developed as mixed-use. It shows the residential, it shows mixed use, and it shows non-residential commercial uses in there. And then what is proposed is a mix of residential, retail, restaurant, and hotel, and you saw that on the development plan and on this great model here. And looking at the comprehensive plan, there are several goals and objectives of the 2007 plan that either support or are supported by this project, and those are listed on pages 3 to 7 in your staff report. And there are also several goals and objectives of the 2012-2013 Comprehensive Plan, and those go from the middle of page 7 to the top of page 8. In the land use chapter of the plan, it describes various principles that were used to formulate the plan, and 10 of those were incorporated into the South Nicholasville-Redsmill Area Plan and applied to this project, and those were listed on page 8. Then there is one small paragraph in the text of the plan, and it was actually part of the infill and redevelopment discussion, but it applies to this very particularly. There is substantial literature on best practice methods for infill and redevelopment and densification. The local challenges lie in addressing inadequate infrastructure, including storm and sanitary sewers and roads and open space, as well as the adequacy of public schools. Neighborhood residents and historic preservation officials have expressed concern about the design, use, and density of new construction and the compatibility with existing conditions in developed areas. and as Tracy had said also in her presentation that prior to the small area plan the comprehensive plan recommended medium density residential and high density residential for the properties and once the small area plan was adopted that was changed to mixed use and that's a category that encourages a mix of professional office and retail or other commercial with a residential component and then high density residential is still recommended for the three little properties on East Tibberton And when the small area plan was done, there were several recommendations for sub-area 4, and three of those specifically apply to this project. The first one has been basically completed. That was to conduct a stormwater study for 4100 Nicholasville Road and the property surrounding it, including directly across the rights-of-way prior to any new development. And then the other two are reflected on the preliminary development plan. Those are to construct residential-only structures as a buffer to existing residential uses throughout sub-area 4, and to place non-residential structures at the intersection of Nicholasville Road and Manowar Boulevard and along Nicholasville Road to buffer noise. And this property is basically undeveloped except for the Pritz family home and accessory farm structures and the small buildings that are part of the garden center and the mulch business. those are mostly concentrated in about this portion of the property, so the rest is undeveloped. The small area plan noted that this is the largest parcel within subarea four, and with the high level of traffic on both Nicholasville Road and Manowar Boulevard, it has been and continues to be attractive to commercial development. The current proposal for mixed-use development, it will have a large amount of commercial, and it does comply with the small area plan recommendation. So in conclusion, as part of the certification process, any recommendations with regard to rezoning, text amendments, or other changes that are needed to accommodate the TIF development plan as it relates to the compliance with the comprehensive plan, those are to be included with the recommendation to the council. Zone change is needed, and that's because neither the AU zone or the R1D zone would accommodate what they're requesting, and the MU3 zone is the best fit for the property for what's proposed. Without the zone change, the project can't be done, especially in a way that the small area plan recommended. And the zone change still has to be approved by council for the development to occur. It's been proposed. But once the final development plan is approved and certified, permits can be issued for any kind of development on the property and improvements made. And that would be once the zone change is completed. there isn't any FEMA flood plain on the property and there aren't any other environmentally sensitive areas on the property specifically but there is a challenge with the topography and the depth to bedrock and that's likely to pose development challenges so that will have to be dealt with in the process flooding has occurred on this property and on the adjacent residential properties to the east but hopefully that will be mitigated with the proposed development and the improvements to the storm and sanitary sewer systems water quality, off-site stormwater issues, and sanitary sewer issues will be addressed with this project. And assuming that the TIF is approved and implemented, then the downstream problems should be mitigated. In the vision for Lexington Fayette County, it states that the built areas of Lexington are a collection of diverse neighborhoods. Each neighborhood has a unique identity, and together they form the building blocks of the entire community. And it's through these neighborhoods that we experience an uncommon quality of life. The challenge of our planning efforts is to sustain the pattern of development, to preserve the quality of life, and to allow for the redevelopment of the built environment. So we believe that the creation of the TIF development area and the implementation of the proposed project fit this vision, and they'll help to implement the Small Area Plan as well as the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, noting that the improvements to the sanitary and storm sewer systems are designed to comply with the consent decree that we have. And if you have any questions about the staff report, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Mr. Ferris is here from the Economic Development Cabinet. All the applicants are here for Summit Lexington, and Ms. Westover is also here to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions from the Commission? Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this? Seeing none, thank you, Ms. Recker. Thank you. And I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion and or motion from the commission members. Anyone? Motion? Yes, please. Ms. Plumlee? Go ahead. I move that we forward the TIF to Council. Is that the correct procedure? That would be close enough. Okay. Second. And let me. That it is in compliance. Okay. I need to read this? No. Okay. Just noting that it is in compliance. Okay. Okay. That this TIF is in compliance and we may forward, and I moved it forward to Council. Thank you. Second. The motion has been made and seconded for approval. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. For those that still remain, I appreciate the patience in taking something out of order. It just seemed appropriate since we've been discussing that corner for three hours. We do have a remaining item. which I can find my page on the agenda. It is MARC-2013-6. You're welcome. MMA Management, LLC. Thank you. Zone map amendment. We'll let the staff set up. It is on page four of your agenda. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. by counsel that I should abstain from voting on this case because I'm a property owner in that park and a part of the neighborhood association. Okay. Thank you. So you get to leave? Can I go away? I'll write a deed right quickly. She wants to buy a part of your property. I'll lease it to you. Mr. Saleh, when you're ready. Yeah. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you mentioned, this item is on page 4, item A of your meeting agenda. This is MARC 2013-8, a zone change request that's been made by MMA Management, LLC. This is a requested zone change from a light industrial I-1 zone to a heavy industrial I-2 zone, although a significant number of conditional zoning restrictions are requested as part of this application. This zone change involves 20 net acres of property and just over 22 gross acres of property, being a portion of 1100 Alexandria Drive. I would note that the staff has received three communications about this zone change. One is from the Fayette County Neighborhood Council, one from the Saddle Club Subdivision Homeowners Association, and an email earlier this afternoon from the Beaumont Park Neighborhood Association. We'll distribute these to the commission at this time. These are letters of opposition. The subject property does have an address of 1100 Alexandria Drive. Alexandria is a collector street that intersects at Old Frankfort Pike to the north. There's an at-grade railroad crossing, this location, and then an overpass of New Circle Road at this location of Alexandria. And a short distance east is a three-way stop at Viley Road. Viley and Alexandria then continue to the south of this location, both having intersections to Versailles Road. Of course, there is an interchange at Old Frankfort Pike and New Circle Road as well. The subject property is currently accessed either along its frontage on Alexandria, a very narrow point here where there is an existing driveway serving an agricultural piece and a farm, and in addition, through Enterprise Drive, which has a signalized intersection with Old Frankfort, and then Enterprise Court, which is a local street, crossing at grade that same railroad track that Valley Road crosses and then terminating at this location into the subject property. This zone change is just slightly over half of the entirety of the property that is 1100 Alexandria. It is 20 acres. It is the northern half, if you will, of the property. The southern half, being this area, is currently zoned I-1 and is not part of the proposed rezoning. I do have a few photos to also help orient you to the location of the property. This is a view looking from the south. Again, we have New Circle Road. Old Frankfort Pike is here. The subject property is at this location here. A zone change here does front on Alexandria, this location. It is adjacent to a mini warehouse development here and a number of light industrial developments that have taken place on Enterprise Drive in the Enterprise Business Park. A little closer view of the subject property from the opposite direction. Again, we have its access point here at Enterprise Court, the rail line you see here, the mini warehouse, and New Circle Road. This is a closer view of the area proposed for rezoning. There are currently some agricultural buildings on the property along with some former paddocks. This slide shows the access to the subject property from the signalized intersection at Old Frankfurt along Enterprise Drive, and then the local street of Enterprise Court, which serves the property, also serving the mini warehouse development, and there is a cell tower located adjacent to the subject property. We'll come back to that one in a minute. Okay, thank you. Under the petitioner's application, I mentioned that there are conditional zoning restrictions proposed. The only uses that would be permitted in this I-2 zone under their application are the principal permitted uses in the I-1 zone, which carry over to the I-2 zone, automobile assembling, rebuilding, and reconditioning, gas storage either above or below ground under a number of conditions, vehicle storage yards, and adaptive reuse projects as set out in the special provisions of that zone in the zoning ordinance. The staff understands that about 15 or 20 employees are proposed for this use. We passed out to you a portion of the text of the 2007 comprehensive plan. And in looking at the comprehensive plan, again, to orient you, we have New Circle Road, the interchange at Old Frankfort Pike here. This is Enterprise Drive serving the industrial development and the subject property being located here. The land use element recommends light industrial use for the subject property, and as we pointed out in the handout and in our staff report, generally this anticipates establishments that assembled finished or semi-finished materials, food preparation, publishing, communication, construction materials, or establishments or repair services that may present a moderate nuisance to adjacent properties. The purpose of handing out the text of the plan, other than to communicate that to the Commission, is also to differentiate the difference in heavy industrial uses from light industrial. In a nutshell, those are generally that heavy industrial uses have a higher potential for nuisance than do light industrial uses. They are more likely to manufacture items from raw form, and they often involve unique or somewhat rare land uses. The proposed use of the subject property is somewhat unique. There are only about 25 in the country operated by this petitioner, and the staff could only find one remotely similar use that we're aware of here in the urban county currently, and that's the last photo that we have on the overhead. This is, I believe, either now or formerly known as Bluegrass Auto Parts on 7th Street, and this is a location where you can go, go to the building up on 7th Street, go in and remove parts from cars that are no longer operable. And that's the aerial photo that you're seeing here of that facility. The staff cannot find that the petitioner's proposal to do an automobile recycling facility at this location is in agreement with the comprehensive plan and the light industrial land use recommendation at this location. And in addition, in evaluating the appropriateness of this request, the staff noted that there are not a large number of new jobs being proposed with this amount of acreage, less than one job per acre. And knowing that we have somewhat limited industrial land in the community, that was also a concern of the staff upon our initial review of this application. The staff thought that it would be more appropriate to have greater job creation with our vacant industrial land. The staff could not identify any unanticipated changes in this particular area since the comprehensive plan was adopted, and we thought that the I-1 zoning, we could not say that it was inappropriate in that in this area, all of the surrounding zoning, with the exception of one parcel, is light industrial as recommended by the comprehensive plan. As the staff reported to your zoning committee several months ago, we have recommended disapproval of this request for the reasons that appear on the agenda in our staff report. To briefly summarize, they are, although this property is proposed to be significantly restricted, the requested heavy industrial zone is not in agreement with the 2007 conference plan. The land use element of the plan recommends light industrial future land use at this location. No assembly of finished or semi-finished materials is proposed, nor food preparation, publishing, communications, construction material, or repair services are proposed. And thirdly, heavy industrial uses are for uses that are somewhat unique or rare, and the proposed use in the staff's conclusion is somewhat unique and rare. Secondly, the existing I-1 zone is appropriate for the subject property in the staff's view and would permit uses that are in keeping with the comprehensive plan's recommendation. And then finally, there have been no unanticipated changes in this area since the adoption of the plan in 2007. You will also have a staff presentation on the preliminary development plan that's been submitted and the conditional use request that's been submitted, but I would be glad to answer any questions at this time or, Mr. Chairman, at the conclusion of all the staff presentations, either one. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Sally at this point? If not, we'll continue on with the staff presentation. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change is at the bottom of page 5 on your agenda. It is ZEP 2013-21, the Huffman property, lot 1, and you will find with the material handed out to you today a pink slip, Oh, a pink piece of paper with your revised, fast revised recommendations on the pink handout. The preliminary development plan, as you can see here, here's Enterprise Court, where access will be provided to the site. They are proposing to extend Enterprise Court to this location. This is the 20 acres in question where they're going to have their entrance, their associated parking. Here is their main building with inventory control and clerks and that sort of thing. Then they control access back into this area where the cars are stored for their use. This is a process building which is involved in processing the vehicles after they've been utilized and that sort of thing. This is the proposed extension of Enterprise Court. It is not a part of this plan per se. Now, when this plan was reviewed, we do have standard conditions on the plan, typical of a preliminary development plan that you can see. We do have two conditions that are important to note. One is to resolve the timing of the construction of the detention basin. This is back in this area here. Originally, when we saw the plan, the detention basin spanned the property line. That raised some concern for staff. Secondly, we also believe it's going to be necessary to talk about whether or not this is going to be built and when, at the time of the final development plan, We'll have a better idea about the layout of the display here, and that's relative to this area here. They are proposing detention up here. However, staff wants to be sure at the time of the final development plan whether or not that's necessary, what it's going to serve. Since it was split, there was some issue about future development, and it drains this way and what would be necessary here. So it's just a matter of getting that resolved at that time. Perhaps of greater concern was the extension of Enterprise Court. And we spent considerable time working with the applicant and talking to him about it. You can see this 20 acres requires a lot of frontage on Enterprise Court. And our concern was, well, when are we going to get this? Now, primarily, it will serve the rest of the development, which the preliminary plan before showed lots in this area and lots back in here that are served by the extension of Enterprise Court. A related concern that we had was with this very controlled entrance right here, whether or not it would be appropriate to have an emergency entrance back here into the yard in the case that there was some sort of medical emergency and that sort of thing, and yet this was blocked, difficult to get through. staff and our public safety folks like to see some sort of emergency access if necessary. That would require some additional frontage. We think the timing of the construction, additional dedication, and those related issues can be determined at the time of the final development plan. Again, should you approve this zone change, this is a preliminary development plan, and you will be reviewing a final development plan on this project. Your subdivision committee did recommend approval of this plan, and I will add just quickly once again for those folks in attendance who may not know, the subdivision committee reviews these plans as if the zoning is already in place. So that's why you can have a recommendation of approval on a plan but a disapproval recommendation on the zoning. And I just want to be sure to explain that. If you have any questions for me. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions for Mr. Martin? I've got one, Mr. Martin. When you say processing building, can you elaborate? It's staff's understanding that they process the cars and ship them off-site after they've been utilized for parts. I'm sure the applicant can expand on that, but that's staff's understanding. All right. Thank you. Anything else? No? Oh, no, I'm sorry. Mr. Emmons. Oh, I didn't know he was here. Don't praise him too much more today. Okay. All right. All right. I believe Mr. Lear's true purpose on that is that if things go wrong, he can blame me. along with this zone change request is a conditional use request for two uses, a yard for storage of dismantled or partially dismantled automobiles and a junkyard. Both of these uses are conditional uses in the I-2 zone. The applicant is proposing a vehicular recycling facility. We do not have that use spelled out in our zoning ordinance. These two conditional uses are the two uses that are most similar to the applicant's proposed use. I'm going to echo Tom in that when the staff reviews the conditional use request, we review this request as if the requested I-2 zoning were in place. That certainly does not mean that we recommend one way or the other on the zoning recommendation. The two recommendations are separate from each other. Certainly it's the Planning Commission's job to think about whether this is the appropriate zoning first, and then, if it is, then look at the conditional use that is requested. In looking at that, and I had mentioned this a little bit before, But when the Planning Commission is reviewing a conditional use, you take on the roles and responsibilities of the Board of Adjustment. And the standards that you look at in approving a conditional use are different than the standards that you look at when you are looking at a zone change. In particular, those standards are, will the proposed use cause any adverse impacts to the subject property or the surrounding properties? Is there adequate public infrastructure to serve the conditional use? And are there any special circumstances with this conditional use that need to be taken into account? I have mentioned that the two conditional uses that are being requested are the ones that are most similar. I will draw for the record the complete definition for a junkyard by our zoning ordinance is listed in the staff report. However, a junkyard includes more than what the applicant is proposing to do. A junkyard, not only can you have the automobile wrecking and not only can you have the processing of the automobiles, but they can take in lumber and other types of construction materials and all sorts of scrap materials. That is not what the applicant is asking for. They are asking for it simply for the processing of the automobiles, that portion of the property. With that, I do not have any PowerPoint slides for you, because this being a conditional use, we're really talking about the use and not so much the property. Tom's already talked about this, but in our staff report we talk about three distinct areas on the subject property. The first area is the customer service area with the parking lot that will be paved, looked just like any other parking lot, the building that all of the customers come through. The majority of this property, of this 20 acres, will be in the storage of the vehicles. In the rows, you saw the pictures. One of the things that was important to the staff, this area will be in some sort of gravel, not an asphalt or a paved area. And then finally, the area that was described as the processing, It's the staff's understanding that this is where it will be an employee-only area. And that's where they will drain all of the cars. This is where the crushing of the cars before they're shipped off. Those types of things will happen in there. So your most intense use is located in this portion of the property. It's this portion of the processing that the applicant needed the conditional use of the junkyard for. In looking at this, whether it would cause a nuisance to the surrounding properties, the staff focused on the fact that the most intense uses are happening in this processing area. This area is about 1,500 feet away from the nearest residential property. It's surrounded by other industrial uses. It's located along the railroad. As far as we were looking at it, the most intense uses are on the most central, most well-buffered portion of the entire property. The staff did have one concern about the environment for the overall property. There isn't an existing pond, which appears to be spring-fed, on the overall Huffman property, but outside of the zone change area. Still, there is concern. This whole area is the type of soils that they have there are primarily well-drained soils. And the fact that we were going to have vehicles sitting over gravel, we just want to make sure that the applicants do hire an environmental specialist prior to the approval of a final development plan should this be approved. to make any recommendations in order to ensure that the water quality and the groundwater quality in particular will be protected with the proposed use. If you'll look in on the last page of the SAF report or on your agenda, you'll see that the staff is recommending approval of the requested conditional use for the vehicular recycling center, which is most similar to the two uses that are noted there, a yard for storage or dismantled or partially dismantled automobiles and or a junkyard, because the amount and type of traffic anticipated with this use can be handled by the extension of Enterprise Court, and that we have not found that the proposed use could be a nuisance to the surrounding industrial uses. The staff is recommending approval subject to eight conditions. Normally, with a conditional use, you're used to me seeing three typical conditions, and those are the first three, and those are provided that the property is rezoned and that all necessary permits are issued, those types of things. Four, five, and six are insurances that the proper engineering and traffic studies, traffic engineering approval will be done for the subject property, primarily with the fact that in an industrial area is one of the few places where you've got a little bit more wiggle room on whether you have gravel or paved parking areas, we just want to ensure that also considering that 20 acres of this site will have some sort of imperviousness to it. Some of it will be gravel, and typically we do not recognize gravel as an impervious surface in our regulations. So we just want to ensure that all of the engineering and traffic engineering details are handled should this be approved. Number seven is that the approval of this junkyard at this location is limited to the processing of automobiles only and does not apply to other materials that are mentioned in the zoning ordinance, such as lumber and other scrap materials. I think it's also kind of important, since the time that I originally wrote this staff report, I've learned the difference between a car crusher and a car shredder. Car crusher, they crush three to five cars at one time depending on the crusher, and it creates the stack of crushed cars. A car shredder is a much more intense use. It's something that actually puts in and tears up the car and starts separating out the types of metals. That is not a part of the applicant's application. They have made it clear that they are not asking for a shredder. I do not think that we needed to get that into the specific conditions, but I did want to get it onto the record. And finally, condition number eight is prior to approval of the final development plan, a qualified environmental professional will make a recommendation on the type of surface that should be used for the vehicular storage area and provide information on possible storm drainage impacts on the spring and other groundwater. areas. Unusual in our staff reports, we have made provisions for this one that should the Planning Commission not approve the zoning, we have also recommended conditions for disapproval of the requested conditional use. Because in one way I started off my presentation, this is like the development plan. We review it as if the zoning were in place. But unlike the development plan, conditional use can only be acted on by the planning commission at the time of the zone change hearing. So the staff is recommending if you do not approve the I-2 zoning, you would also need to disapprove the requested conditional use. This does not stop the applicant if the zone change were to go on to the urban county council And if they were to approve the I-2 zoning there, it would not stop the applicant from coming back to the Board of Adjustment. But based off of how the law works, this hearing is when you have to make a decision up or down on the conditional use. I believe after we've written these findings, they're very technical in nature, not about the substance of the request. and I will keep those in my zoning ordinance in case we're ever at a public hearing and we're in that same hearing because these findings can be portable for those type any time this situation comes up. Thank you very much. That concludes my presentation on the conditional use, and I believe that is the last of the staff presentations. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Any questions for Mr. Emmons at this point? Ms. Plumlee? Yes, on number six, should the Department of Environmental Quality find there is a problem, what happens then? If they say, no, we can't approve this. I don't think it's so much of a matter of they can't approve this. I think it's under what circumstances can they approve it. It's kind of like the, you know, I'm sure that there would be an engineering solution to any type of stormwater prop concerns that would come up. It's a matter of how expensive is that particular solution. Does that make you feel better? Other questions? Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Thank you. Before Mr. Simpson gets started, anyone in need of a break or do we continue on? We continue on. Mr. Simpson, any chance you can be as brief as you were a little bit earlier? That's a cheap shot. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I'm Bruce Simpson, and I'm here today on behalf of the applicant known as Pull Apart, which is a company that's headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Been in the business for a number of years. I'm here with Steve Levitan, their executive vice president. Al Gross of EA Partners is here. as the owners are here. Bill McAlpin is one of the owners. Rena Wiseman is representing the other half of the ownership of the entire 40-acre parcel. And we're pleased to share our application with you and respond to the staff's report, noting that they've recommended approval on our conditional use request but disapproval on the zone change because we don't comply with the land use recommendation for a heavy industrial. As will be pointed out to you a little bit later, since 2001, there has not been any heavy industrial land that's been recommended for future development in Fayette County. So we're going on 12 years where that particular kind of land use has not been available. On the other hand, this particular parcel of property, this 20 acres of the 40, including the whole 40, has been recommended for light industrial development since 1969. So the sum of our justification is that, and I'll explain this a little bit later too, is that the kind of use that you're about to hear Steve Levitan detail for you and share with you in terms of information, that that kind of use, that, in our judgment, low-intensity use in terms of industrial uses, is really equal to or less than some of the existing uses in the light industrial zone, and I'll share those with you. But we believe that the property is situated surrounded by industrial users, coupled with our intensity, low intensity of use, in comparison with other higher intensity light industrial users in the enterprise industrial part, is a significant compliance with the comprehensive plan. In the absence of any heavy industrial zone land anywhere that's available, 20 acres in size, for Fayette County, coupled with Pullapart's track record of being exemplary environmental stewards of its property, and you'll hear more about that with Steve Levitan's presentation. I want to get Steve's part in first because obviously when you file an application and you have to use the word junkyard as part of the application, you would anticipate people are going to be concerned. And Steve and his company of professionals have encountered this kind of resistance in a number of locations around the country. They have 25 of these locations. And in point of fact, it is a very professional company. It is a company that has taken an enterprise that has a very negative connotation and has turned it into a totally green business where you recycle automobiles. Cars are brought in. The fluids are drained before they're ever put out on the vehicle storage yard. the power of steering fluid, the oil, gas, all the fluids, all those are recycled. The cars are people come in and pull apart, if you will, and when they're there for 60 or 90 days, they are actually flattened in a flattener three cars at a time, very low noise, and we'll get into that as well, and hauled off. It's a very low-impact kind of industrial use, certainly lower than some yield that I'll be talking about. In any event, it is really a state-of-the-art. It is a highly professionalized business. They have an exemplary track record of taking care of their property and also being good neighbors. And in this case, we have reached out to our neighbors. We've reached out to first the industrial neighbors at Enterprise Industrial Park, met with them back in March, answered their questions. We next met with Calumet Farm, not surprisingly enough, Calumet Farm, which is on the other side of Alexandria Drive, about 900 feet away from our fence line, which I'll share with you in more detail in a minute. But we met with Calumet farm representatives. We have met with the neighborhoods. We invited them to a meeting and shared with them our proposal and what we proposed to do and asked for their feedback, what they would like us to do to make it more compatible, more comfortable, if you will. We received some feedback, but we were hoping for a little bit more in terms of suggestions to make it more compatible. Because this is what Pullapart, again, they face this kind of stigma based upon what junkyards used to be, and in some instances still are, in the past, which they are not. But trying to explain that to people and convince them of that takes some time, obviously. So we've invited people to visit the facility in Louisville, which Pullapart has. to go unannounced or to go with a designated representative so you can go behind the scenes, so to speak, and see how these vehicles are processed in and that sort of thing. For safety reasons, the general public is not permitted back there, but upon authorization from pull-apart representatives, that certainly has been made available to every person that we've spoken with. My point in saying is we have reached out. We've tried to be as transparent as possible because there's nothing to hide. and they have a very professional track record of doing the right thing. I'm going to have Steve come up now. He's got a PowerPoint and one or two videos for about 15 minutes, and it'll give you an introduction to what pull-apart, their origins, and where it is today. Steve Levitin. Thank you, Bruce. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Steve Levitin. I'm Senior Vice President of Pull Apart. And I'm going to try to be quicker than 15 minutes. I know it's been a long day already for you. But it is important that you see who we are, what we are, what we do, and just as importantly, what we don't do. As Bruce mentioned, there is a stigma attached to this industry. We are paying for the sins of our fathers. And I hope you'll see that we are not what people's image of this industry is. First of all, what is Pull Apart? We're a world-class, do-it-yourself discount used auto parts retailer. A lot of words, but that best describes what our business really is. We have 25 locations. We are in 12 states now. We started in Atlanta, and it's important to note that we are a family-owned business. the family that is the primary owner of Pull Apart started in business in Atlanta in the recycling business long before the word recycling was ever coined in 1915 my family started in Atlanta in the same business in 1919 so we were the newcomers at the time we've got a long history of being in business continuously and being in this business and being in this business in a responsible manner. I want to give you a brief video. This is one of four segments that will give you a better view of what we do and how we do it. Cars. Millions of cars. 17 million new cars hit America's road each year, and 13.5 million cars a year reach the end of their useful life. It's a nationwide environmental problem with the potential to contaminate streams and groundwater with millions of gallons of old fuel, oil, mercury, and freon. It's a nationwide economic drain for cities who are forced to spend tax dollars to remove abandoned vehicles from roadways and public property. When cars go bad, there is a good place they can go. Pull Apart is the environmentally friendly used auto parts retailer quickly becoming a welcomed addition in every community we serve. Our attractive, state-of-the-art facilities solve many problems that surface when cars reach the end of their useful life. They're leaking fluids. They're contaminating the environment. Pull Apart provides an alternative. We provide a market for those vehicles. Pull Apart turns the labor-intensive effort of recycling cars into an efficient, community-friendly, environmentally sound solution. Our award-winning process solves many of the major issues involved with car recycling. Concerns about increased traffic, industrial waste, and pollution are completely managed by the pull-apart process. The end result is a vehicle useful for parts, not part of the problem. We're setting the standards in many places that we're going on how a used auto parts facility can run. We care for the surrounding communities because we live here too. Pull Apart's high quality standards often exceed local regulations and move similar businesses to raise their own standards to compete with Pull Apart. Our goal is to become a valued and contributing member of every community we serve. Our hope is that everyone will benefit from the opening of a Pull Apart. Our customers, our neighbors, our associates, and our communities. So we get satisfaction not only out of running a good operation for Pull Apart, but we also get satisfaction over how it impacts the overall community. Our proven track record of excellence in creating jobs, supporting the local economy, providing a much desired service, and positive environmental impact has helped expand Pull Apart locations tenfold in less than a decade. We are confident that once you learn more about Pull Apart, you'll be pulling for us to become a part of your community. Again, a little bit different image than you saw in the photograph earlier of what was described as a similar business to ours. Again, you've seen the location. This again shows the portion of the 40 acres that we're talking about. We're talking about 20 of the 40 completely surrounded by the industrial use. The entire facility is surrounded by a solid 8-foot steel wall, both for security but also for visual purposes. And you'll see, you saw in the first video, and you'll see in upcoming video clips, more examples of that. I've told you we're different, and what makes us different is the fact that we do make a commitment to our site, to the design of our site, to the environment, to our customers, and to the community, to each community in which we're located. Probably the biggest question we get, and we heard a lot already about this, are environmental concerns. You've got all those cars. How do you protect the environment when you've got that many cars? Well, we've won a lot of awards at the national level as well as local for our environmental practices. This next video clip will get into some of those. But we take great pride in doing the proper things for the environment. And from the very beginning of the process, bringing those cars in onto our property, getting them off the street where they are leaking fluids, and making sure that all of those fluids are properly removed. and are recycled. A car contains a lot of fluids and materials that negatively impact the environment. At Pull Apart, taking care to ensure those fluids and toxins don't become an environmental hazard is our top priority. Every car that enters a Pull Apart facility is inspected, and all fluids are drained into above-ground tanks that are stored under a protective roof. Gasoline, oil, antifreeze, brake fluid, CFCs, and free-on-from-air conditioning units, as well as all batteries, are taken away for recycling at approved off-site locations. Pool Apart's procedures not only meet, they exceed all regulatory compliance standards for the handling and recycling of all fluids and materials. In fact, Pull Apart has won numerous citations and awards for its positive environmental impact. We're very, very concerned about doing it, not only to protect our own investment in the land, but because it's just the right thing to do. We've helped write ordinances in a number of locations, and we've even been used as training facilities by environmental regulators. Giving cars a second life as valuable used parts also plays an important environmental role by clearing streets and yards of abandoned vehicles. Over the course of the year, we're probably buying 8,000 to 10,000 cars out of that facility. That has a tremendous impact on a city's abandoned car problem. Every year, each pull-apart facility recycles more than 50,000 gallons of fuel, automobile fluids such as oil, and antifreeze. we properly and safely dispose of toxic substances such as mercury switches and freon. Without pull-apart, often these substances would end up seeping into the ground and polluting our waterways. So again, roughly 50,000 gallons of fluids each year at each one of our facilities are drained and recycled. A car contains a lot of fluid. You saw at the end of that clip a mention of a mercury switch. Vehicles up until 2003 often contained one or more mercury switches to turn the lights on when you raise the hood or raise the trunk. It's a tiny switch about the size of the tip of your little finger. It's got a gram of mercury. A gram of mercury is enough to contaminate 132,000 gallons of water above EPA drinking water standards. We remove those switches. We're part of a national program I serve on the steering committee with EPA on the National Vehicle Mercury Switch Removal Program. And our facility was chosen, our facility in Atlanta, one of our oldest, for the commemoration of the removal of the one millionth mercury switch nationally, at which we had the EPA administrator from Washington, a cabinet member, come to our facility to commemorate that. So in terms of environmental processes, we're willing to have the highest environmental regulator in the country come visit one of our oldest facilities. We do things the right way. Environmentally sustainable design, sustainability, it's one of those words we overused a good bit now. But I think we really are a case where that word is correct. Every facility has a stormwater permit, an NPDES permit, for our operation, not just for the construction. We have spill prevention plans, and we have stormwater pollution prevention plans. This is an example of one of our plans. This is Louisville. Each one is individually engineered for the site. I know there are some specific issues that we're concerned about with this site. we will have the proper folks go through this. We will not build if we can't do it correctly and safely. So how are we with our neighbors? Well, we're surrounded by industrial uses. There are some residential neighbors. How do we impact them? This next clip, you'll get to hear from a number of our neighbors. and hear their opinions. Being a good neighbor has always been one of Pullapart's primary goals. We want to help improve neighborhoods, and our clean, well-landscaped modern facilities do just that. We take great pride in our efforts to become contributing members of the community. We were just blown away by how well organized and how clean that operation was. And that's when we discovered this isn't a salvage company like we have around here. This is more a recycling company. And with that emphasis, all of the environmental procedures that they do, we discovered full parts in a whole different category. You're always skeptical with anything new coming, but we actually took a trip with our neighborhood association to Nashville to see it before it was built here. And we were all very impressed with what they had there. I see now that it's everything and more than we expected. And I'm just happy to have them here as our neighbor. When choosing a site for a pull-apart location, we determine the impact our facility will have on the entire surrounding area. The nation's largest commercial real estate valuation company, Integra Realty Resources conducted research that found that Pull Apart had no negative impact on resale or home values. Often, our fully fenced and screened facilities leave a much better impression or no impression at all, because our storage areas are so well maintained. Noise is never a factor. A variety of independent monitoring studies have found that noise levels from Pull Apart are less than a normal outdoor conversation. There's no noises, no nothing. It doesn't bother me at all. I don't see why it shouldn't be there. It is quite unique compared to the other places. It's much cleaner, got the big fence, and know that the safety factors for our community is very important to us. Pull Apart spends a great deal of time and money planning and planting extensive landscaping throughout our facilities. We want Pull Apart to be a pleasant place to go and to see. I went to Atlanta and I was surprisingly excited over what I saw. And I couldn't wait to come back to tell my community and the entire city of Birmingham about this new concept. When it comes to overall safety within the neighborhood, several law enforcement departments have endorsed Pull Apart as a business that actually reduces crime. The crime here is less than the surrounding area. We hardly ever have anything. I believe myself it helps reduce crime in the community. There's nothing I can recommend Pullapart do differently. They've met and exceeded every one of the recommendations we've made for crime prevention. When we talk about an industrial use, the intensity of that industrial use, one of the concerns obviously is noise. You heard from one of our neighbors that lives literally 300 feet from us. No noise. We've had noise studies done at our facilities. We're at 71 decibels, 40 feet from the flattener. And again, it was a good point earlier. We're not going to have a shredder on the property. It's not even a crusher. That's really an inappropriate word. When you think about a crusher, you think about James Bond, Goldfinger, that sort of device. This is a hydraulic machine that slowly compresses the vehicle into a flat that is then put on a trailer for transportation. There are no loudspeakers. There's no outdoor lighting of the facility, just security lights at the building itself. You'll see some pictures here showing a number of our facilities. This is one in Norcross, north of Atlanta. The neighbor that you heard talk about not being any noise lives 300 feet from us. This is Cleveland, Ohio. And in this case, we're less than 100 feet from residential and have not had a single issue, a single complaint since we opened six years ago. This is the type of building that we build. This happens to be Cleveland. You see also the tree islands, the landscaping that we do. This is Indianapolis, also in an industrial park, not dissimilar from what we're looking at, also along I-75. And this is Louisville. And I want to point out the... Mr. Leflin, Mr. Simpson, you all have about six minutes left. Got it. This is the stormwater retention area. You saw it in the video. We put that it's a 12-and-a-half-acre wetland, And you saw the heron and the egrets that live in there. This is one of our Atlanta facilities, Lithonia. We provide jobs. We will create about 20 jobs directly, a number of indirect jobs as a result of our facility. Full medical benefits, matching 401K. And finally, we do provide solutions to the community. And this is the last video clip. And it'll get into some of those that we do. At Pull Apart, we're not just in the business of providing quality used car parts. We're here to be good neighbors and make a positive impact and support the needs of every community we serve. Pull Apart uses its unique resources and facilities to also help local police and fire departments improve vital hands-on training in car rescues and search procedures. This tremendously helps us in trying to better speed our response times and speed our efficiency in getting our patients out. It's all about time. Everything they said they would do in developing this project, they did. And that's, like I say, that's a pretty rare thing to have happen to you. You know, it's the cleanest facility that's around. No one, no one on the face of the earth would be surprised for the same item in any auto salvage yard anywhere on earth. Pull Apart is much more than just a retail location for used auto parts. We are a valuable addition to each and every community we serve. We build well-designed, clean, organized facilities. We provide good-paying jobs, maintain high environmental standards, and place a strong emphasis on being a good neighbor. We care and want to improve the look and safety of every area we touch. Pull Apart will play a key part in improving the life of every community we serve. Let Pull Apart play a part in the solution for you and your city. I am a very strong proponent of this company. I've never seen a company that was so gracious and so efficient in doing what they say they do. This is an outstanding company and we need more companies like this. It's just organized all the way from start to finish. You can walk the lot, find what you need. It's clean. It may be salvaged all the parts, but you know what? You couldn't run it any better. We love being the standard barrel. We love doing it in the best way possible. It's a point of pride with us and it's something that we challenge ourselves to get better at every day. It's just so neat and well done over here. I think it provides a service to the community myself. I would think it would be a good business for any place, anywhere. We were skeptical at first, but this is definitely not a junkyard, and it would fit nearly in any area of town. Pullapart is a good neighbor for us and probably would be for anybody else. We're going to spend roughly $5 million, between $4 and $5 million, to develop the facility. We'll generate about $2.5 million in taxable sales annually. Again, the location you've seen. We've listened to neighbors. Bruce is going to get into some issues that we think will address a number of the concerns that we've heard from them. I hope you've seen that we are different, and we're different because of those commitments that we make to the site, the way we develop the site, to the environment, to our customers' high level of customer service, and to the community in which we're located. These are just some of the awards we've won over the years. And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to answer any questions at the appropriate time. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Levitin right now? If not, Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, I know I have a 30-minute time frame. This is a new concept. Many of these folks are hearing it for the first time, and I would just ask the Chair's indulgence respectfully for 10 minutes to let me go through some, I think, features that I think the neighbors would appreciate in understanding what we're doing and the protection that we're going to afford them with this plan. If you can, be concise and try and do it in about five minutes. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is what we are not. This is a junkyard over on 7th Street. As you can see, it's in the absence of a clear-cut definition. That's what most of us think about. Most of us fear, and I suspect that's why many of the neighbors are here, because that's what they fear. The next slide is what we are. That's an aerial shot at Nashville. The next one is from New Orleans. And I ask you to pay attention to the way the cars are lined up, because the next one is from Commonwealth Stadium here in Lexington. We look no different in terms of how it looks from the air than the cars at Commonwealth Stadium. As I mentioned, we believe that the kind of uses that we have are less intense than some of the uses in Enterprise. And I want to show several slides now, Barb, that illustrate that. This is not to be negative about any of the neighbors in Enterprise Industrial Park, but if you just kind of go through quickly, Barb, we have school bus parking all these slides are in your handout material we have a porta potty facility over there and also a 22 acre concrete business, cloud concrete is in enterprise, this is light industrial all these are light industrial uses, more of cloud concrete This is right next to Alexander Drive with the heavy trucks hauling the preformed concrete from this 22-acre site. Bill referred you to the comp plan, and I would refer you to the same thing. I would also refer you to tab number three in the material, which defines light industrial uses. And the very first sentence provides that this zone, light industrial, is intended for manufacturing industrial and related uses not involving a potential nuisance in terms of smoke, noise, odor, vibration, heat, light, or industrial waste. We certainly fall within the intent of that ordinance. And if you look down, I've kind of highlighted some uses that are allowed in the existing light industrial zone, asbestos manufacturing. Most people would probably be surprised that that's allowed. I would suggest to you we're certainly less intense than that. Likewise, on down there, auto parts rebuilding, building materials and sales. Rental storage yards were very similar to that, I would submit. Crematoriums, probably less intense than that. Storage of inflammable underground liquids, less intense than that. And in the light industrial zones, a railway or truck terminal and a stone monument works. I believe that what Steve shared with you is less intense than that. And that's why we believe, really, even though it's set out in the heavy industrial zone, we are more of a light industrial use. And that's why in the application we've restricted the heavy industrial zone to just operating this facility. Nothing more. We're precluding every other use in the I-2 zone except for what Pull Apart wants to do. So we can operate in the light industrial uses, but all the heavy industrial uses have been excluded. The neighbors were concerned about several things that we found out. Obviously, they were concerned about property values. A junkyard is going to destroy that. Well, we're not a junkyard, and as Steve shared in his video under tab number seven, Integra Realty, a worldwide company that does appraisals, assessed the impact of Pullapart's proposed operation in Louisville. I've got that report under tab number seven, and found it did not have an adverse impact on nearby property values. The next objections, obviously, is, well, I don't want to see it. I don't want to hear it. I don't want to see it. Well, as Steve shared, the decimal levels at the edge of the property are like 71, 72. I've got conditions on our property that deal with that question. But I want to now share with you and to the neighbors as well, because this is for their primary benefit to understand who we are and what we propose to do. They didn't want to see it. And we had Ted Hardbick, who teaches landscape architecture at the University of Kentucky, look at every possible viewpoint that anyone could look at this site in terms of what they could see. And I want to share that with you and share that with the neighbors real quickly in terms of what you can actually see, which is the cars that you saw like at Commonwealth Stadium and the two other models that we had in New Orleans and in Nashville. So Ted, can you pull up the slides and we'll go through those very quickly. These are also under tab number 8 in your handout material. Be quick, Mr. Simpson. I've got some handout materials I can use. All right, here we go. Very quickly, this is just to illustrate the location so that we can point to the various view sheds we're talking about. And I'll do this for the benefit of the neighbors so they can see. This is our site. It's 40 acres. It's zoned light industrial, the whole 40 acres, and it's situated next to Enterprise Industrial Park, which is 273 acres light industrial. So we'd be completely surrounded. Ray Ball and Bill McAlpin own the balance of this and the company. Obviously, they have great concerns that if we were going to be a bad neighbor, they wouldn't sign a purchase contract with Pullapart, and they clearly have endorsed our proposal. Our native lane, some folks I'm sure over here from our native lane in this area and over here there are some houses. The entrance to our native lane is 2,000 feet away, and the first house is around 2,300 feet away. The houses over here on the other side of New Circle Road, Kelsey Drive, range from about 400 or 500 feet to 700 feet. They can't see it at all because New Circle Road slopes up this way. and in point of fact it won't be seen really with our screening that we're going to talk about from any point around Enterprise Industrial Park, any point on Alexandria Drive, any point on our native lane, out 2,300 feet into Calumet, and again, certainly not over here. Next slide. This is something you all approved, 34 lots. This is on the books right now. It's been approved for a preliminary subdivision plan on this entire 40 acres with access to Alexandria for light trucks, automobiles, and emergency vehicles. That could be built on today. Next slide. This is our plan. We showed these conceptual industrial buildings around how it might work out with our site here completely enclosed by this eight-foot fence. Next slide. This is, I mentioned viewshed points. We went, all these points that you see at all these different distances, looking at the topographical information supplied by the EA partners to see what could be seen. We wanted to make sure that we were aware of what people could be seen, because what you see is how you react. And so this is the effort we undertook to ascertain what could be seen. In terms of what could be seen with our 8-foot fence that we initially planned, most of it still can't be seen. The distance is where you can see some tops of the vehicles, calumet at about 2,400 feet, and these six houses on our native lane. You can see where it's in red. There's about eight houses on our native. You can see some portion, but you're looking at from half a mile away or greater towards this area. So we've come up with an enhanced greening proposal, which is around this area of the property here, we're going to build a 10-foot berm, and on top of the 10-foot berm, another 10-foot tall fence. The fence will be painted to match in with surrounding properties. This is all going to be graded up. It slopes now, but it will be graded up so it's level. And because of that, it will blend in with the existing terrain, and it will not be seen by anybody on our native lane. Calumet won't see it over here at its highest point. It can't be seen now by the folks that live on Kelsey. Don Hurt was gracious enough. He lives on our native lane, 2,900 feet away from the site. We went out, looked at his property. What could he see from our facility? This little orange area is what he could possibly see from our area. Again, you're talking more than a half mile away. And we did a worst-case scenario, took out all the existing foliage, nothing, just completely barren, and with the 10-foot berm and the 10-foot fence, can't see a thing. Same thing with the entrance to our native lane. You can see just a little portion of it here from 2,000 feet with the Berman fence nothing. Right now, our native lane and the houses over here that could see this from our half mile away, 130 feet away is cloud concrete, and this is what they're seeing right now. And we did measurements from, you know, they're much closer to this potential use, which is a lot of industrial use, which could also be on the 40 acres that we're talking about, 20 of the 40 acres they're talking about, today on our zone change because this is 22 acres. A competitor, if they chose to, could take this same use under existing zoning and put it where we are. And they could still see it and they wouldn't have to put up any screening because it's already zoned for this use. We're going to screen everything. This is what's been approved, the 34 lots. We wanted to show if we wanted to come in and develop out this whole thing as it has currently been approved by the Planning Commission. Then the next slide shows what people could see. In lieu of the pull-apart site, you would see all these industrial buildings. You've seen what's inside pull-apart, the porta-potties or the concrete plant. Any of those uses can go in there. Not bad uses is industrial, but it won't be screened. And with ours, it will be totally screened. I think that's it. By way of commitment, we also, under tab's number, to show you how close we are around the country, under tab number 9, the distances of all the pull-up park facilities average about 600 feet away from residential developments. I've got all of those under tab number 9. Under tabs number 10 and 11, I've got documentation about the lack of industrial land upon which to build anything in Fayette County. Under tab number 12 are the permits we've had to obtain in the other states, similar to this. in tab number 13 are the commitments that we're making to this body. And these are the commitments we made to Calumet Farm. And because of the commitments we've made to Calumet Farm, which we're making to you, which everybody in the community gets the benefit from, Calumet Farm does not oppose our application. We've added a number of different conditions. principally as they're set out in my letter there. The only I-2 use would be to operate as our vehicle recycling center that we've described in our application, prohibited from any other I-2 uses or any of the available conditional uses. We're eliminating all the prospects for even applying for another conditional use in the I-2 zone. We'll have the eight-foot fence surrounding the entire property, except for the entranceway and the parking lot, except for those areas which I've outlined in the exhibit under 14 for the berm and the 10-foot fence. In those instances, it will be 20 feet. Again, we'll completely screen the vehicle storage yard from any viewpoint that I've illustrated as far as almost a mile away. we've limited the flattener which is if you went to see one the decibel level as Steve pointed out is very minimal it'll be enclosed also by an 8 foot steel fence we've put a limitation at decibel level at the edge of our property of 80 we're satisfied we can certainly comply with that we've limited the lighting of it as set forth in paragraph F we're going to build a new road enterprise court and limited how high anything can be stored on the property. And then on the conditional uses, we have set forth one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine different additional restrictions on the conditional use, setting forth the kinds of plans we have to have in place, Our operational procedures about containing fluids and the like, the vehicles, how they're going to be treated when they're taken off-site, a preclusion against any shredder, any noisy shredder cannot be used on-site or be on the property whatsoever. We have to go and get all the permits from every permitting agency before we'll be allowed to operate. all of these different things committed to in writing as a condition of the zoning and as a condition of the conditional use request over and above what the staff has suggested conditions be, which we're in support and agreement with. And their staff report for approval of the conditional use is under tab number 15. I've got findings of fact for approval on the zone change under tab number 16. The point of all this, as Pullapart has done throughout, they want to be a good neighbor. And they want to eliminate anybody's perceived problem that this is going to be a problem. You're not going to be able to see it. You're not going to be able to hear it. And finally, through agreement with Bill McAlpin and Ray Ball, they have agreed to restrict access to Alexandria Drive, should this zone change get approved to emergency vehicles only. So there wouldn't be any access drive of any trucks, small trucks or automobiles, to or from their property on to Alexandria Drive. As an additional kind of protection to address the concerns of the neighbors of traffic coming to the Full Apart site using Alexandria Drive, Full Apart doesn't want it, and Ray Ball and Bill McAlpin, who's here today, They have agreed, should the property be zoned as we've asked for and the conditional use be approved, they will limit access in terms of future development of the property, including pull-apart sites. So we try to do everything that we can, as they've done, to be a good neighbor, Mr. Chairman, and I believe we have done so. I believe this is a better arrangement than leaving it I-1 with no restrictions about how tall the buildings could be. They could go up 75 feet. There's no requirement for the kind of screening they're proposing under the existing zoning. You could have 34 industrial buildings, many facing the rear toward our native lane, all of which could be seen, which we believe would be much worse of a viewshed issue, even though it is a half a mile away, than what Pullapart would present. But we've screened Pullapart. Based on all of that, Mr. Chairman, the efforts we've undertaken, we've tried to be a good neighbor. We believe our use is more consistent with some of the I-1 uses that I've mentioned, and we'd ask for your approval of the zone change subject to the voluntary conditions we've set out, commitments we've made out here today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Appreciate the extra time. Thank you. important information, I will say that, no matter which way this goes. At this point, I would ask for anyone who is in favor of this to please come forward if they've got any comments that possibly hasn't been said already. And with the length of time here, be brief. I will be. I'm Steve Collar. I'm a real estate developer here in town. I and my partner develop Enterprise Park some 80 acres originally, and we thought that we did a quality park. We have more landscaping, more setbacks, more masonry requirements than most parks in town, and we have a recorded set of restrictions that we think they'll be subject to. I still own several buildings in the area. I'm in favor of this application. I think they'll be good neighbors, and I see no reason not to approve it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the commission, I'm Bill McAlpin. I own a portion of this property with two partners. We were apprehensive at first when they came to us with a request to purchase 20 of our actual 41 acres. My partner, Ray Ball, went to Louisville, looked at the whole facility, looked at the whole process, came back to me and said, Bill, these would be great neighbors. We need them in here. We've sat on this property for seven years. Gibson Company has tried to market it as I won. We think this would kick it off and we could go with it. And so we think we're happy to have them. We think they'd be a great neighbor because we're the most affected neighbor because we still own 21 acres right next to it. So we respectfully ask you approval. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McAlvin. Anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of this? One thing I forgot quickly. Five years ago, the city of Lexington entered into a lease with this company. for land that they owned on the old Frankford Pike, which was a brownfield, an area that had been reclaimed, and had signed lease and was prepared to go ahead, and the state environmental would not allow anybody to break the cap on that particular site, and it failed. It met the city council's requirements at that time. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? if not I'm going to ask for just a very brief recess and we'll say three to four minutes and as soon as we get back we'll continue Thank you. I will do that. Thank you. members back. Ms. Westover, are you ready to lead the charge for the opposition, I presume? Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Chris Westover. I represent the High Point Neighborhood Association. There are other neighbors here that I don't represent. There is myself, there's Jason Morgan from our office. After Jason and I finished our presentation, I will talk about the zoning. Jason will talk about the conditional use aspect of things. Some of our neighbors in High Point would like to speak, and there are certainly other neighbors here who would like to state their concerns about this proposal. So the first thing I need to say is, as appealing as Mr. Simpson makes this sound, the fact is we are bound as a matter of law by the statutory requirements set out in KRS 100.213 that govern the granting of a zone change. I'll just ask Barbara to put this up. As you all know, you are not required to grant a zone change, but if you do, you must adopt one of three required findings. There has been no evidence presented tonight that there have been major unanticipated changes since the adoption of the last comprehensive plan. That's the third one. There's been no evidence of that. there's been no evidence that the existing zoning is inappropriate. In fact, Mr. Simpson is arguing that it's more like light industrial uses. And so since he can't prove both appropriate and inappropriate, he can't use that finding. The first finding is agreement with the comprehensive plan. As the case law shows, the most important element of the comprehensive plan is the map. The color on that map is light purple. That's light industrial. And Mr. Salley has read to you the definition of light industrial and heavy industrial. As a matter of law, this proposal does not meet the requirements that would allow you to adopt a finding that the zone change can be granted. Let me just show you some of the uses that are permitted in the I-1 zone under the existing zoning. I'll just hand this out to you. Okay. Give me to Bruce. Thank you. Uh-huh. And in the intent section, it says the zone is intended for manufacturing industrial and related uses, not involving potential nuisance in terms of smoke, noise, odor, vibration, heat, light, or industrial use. And there are mainly industrial-type uses on there. It also assumes all the uses that are possible in the B4 zone, which is the warehousing-type zone. And so those are the kinds of things. They're mainly interior-type uses, but there can also be uses that are conducted outdoors. And some of the uses in the I2 zone are permitted by right, but they are only conditional in the I1 zone. And that is because it's so important to study particular properties to see whether they have the characteristics that would allow that conditional use. So that's the I-1 zone. And if you look at the heavy industrial zone, which is what the zone change would have to be by law if this zone change were to be granted and the use to be done, You will see that these uses tend to be much more intensive, noxious, noisy, and unfortunately for the applicant, junkyard is defined. The proposed use meets the definition of junkyard, and junkyard is allowed only as a conditional use in the I-2 zone. It is ranked up there with the category of conditional uses in the I-2 zone that are probably the most potentially noxious that we can do in the entire urban county. Now, the applicant attempts to argue through conditional zoning that this application is substantially similar to light industrial uses, but this is simply incorrect. The uses that he originally proposed listed all the I-1 uses, the B-4 uses, and so forth. I won't even show you what they are because at the last minute now we see this changed application that shows that he's eliminating a number of uses. But this, in my opinion, makes it more like a heavy industrial use than a light industrial use because he's eliminating all the possibility of the other light industrial uses that can come through into the I-2 zone because he's saying the only principal use that he's asking for for the I-1 zone is a vehicle storage yard. And that in the I1 zone is only permitted as a conditional use. So it's not at all like the kinds of uses that are allowed in the I1 zone. And then he's saying that the only conditional use he wants is what I'll call the junkyard use. That's what this use falls under as the only allowable conditional use. Well, this looks like an I-2 use, and it is not at all in substance form or any other description an I-1 use. This zone change is in disagreement with the comprehensive plan. It disagrees with the land use element and by the very wording of our zoning ordinance that classifies land uses. There's precedent for dealing with junkyards and this type of thing and putting it in the I-2 zone. And back in the early 80s, there was a Board of Adjustment decision that basically a junkyard would be permitted in the I-1 zone. There was litigation about that, and as a result, there was a text amendment that clarified that junked vehicles, and I think we can all agree that the vehicles in this place are not operable, they're junks, are only permitted in the I-2 zone as a conditional use. Let me pass around this letter. This letter was written by the attorney for a neighbor by one of these uses that was concerned that a junkyard, in effect, would be permitted in the I-1 zone. You'll be getting this letter here, and I direct your attention to page 2 of that letter at the bottom. And this letter writer's concern, Bill Lear, was concerned that if this text amendment were allowed to go forward, that his client's property would then be next to this noxious junkyard use and not a vehicle storage yard. And he states in here, the proposed ordinance would set the precedent of legitimizing an illegal use which may have been permitted wrongfully by the building inspector's office. If the ordinance can be bent and shaped to allow a heavy industrial conditional use to be either legalized after the fact in a light industrial zone or downgraded to a use permitted in the I-1 zone, then such reclassifications may occur throughout the zoning ordinance. Remember that conditional uses in the heavy industrial zone are reserved for the most noxious businesses which are permitted to operate in Fayette County. One look at a lot upon which are stored hundreds of wrecked automobiles reveals why the framers of the current ordinance thought it appropriate for such use to be placed in the I-2 zone, and even then, only with a conditional use permit. And so this proposed use, even the way it's presented, meets the definition of junkyard. And when you rezone property, you have to think about the consequences not to that particular property, not to that particular applicant, but you have to see the global significance of this. If you make this finding here for this junkyard, then what other uses can use the same rationale? And it puts planning on its end, and it puts zoning ahead of planning. And I submit to you that this is not the proper way to plan first and zone later. One of the things that the applicant relies on very strongly is that he will limit this by conditional zoning, that that will be a protection, that they will eliminate all the uses in the I-2 zone except for vehicle storage yards and junkyards, therefore limiting it to two uses. Well, unfortunately, conditional zoning restrictions are much easier to remove than the standard is different than to rezone property. And all somebody needs to show to get a conditional zoning restriction modified or removed is that there were major changes unanticipated since the condition was imposed. That's it. And so thinking about this, I thought about other very controversial zone changes that were done in this community that were caused by the imposition of conditional zoning restrictions, and then a change circumstance, and then a desire to remove the conditional zoning restrictions. And I'm not sure how many of you in this room are familiar with the Walmart case, the Miss Lake Plaza on Richmond Road. I know some of the staff is. I know, coincidentally, Mr. Simpson is because he represented some opponents there. But in that case, a year or two before the big Walmart zone change, the applicant for this property at the corner of Manowar and Richmond Road asked for B3, that's Highway Service Business Zoning, but with one conditional zoning restriction only, that it be used as a so-called auto park. I think it was like an auto mall type thing. And there was a need for this at the time and so forth. Well, just a few years later, the applicant came back and said, well, no, auto parks don't work anymore. It's just not, I guess, a viable concept. and that's when the property was rezoned over the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial to B3 without restrictions, and that's why we have the Walmart there today. We can debate forever whether that was a good idea or a bad idea, but my point is that when you impose a conditional zoning restriction, it can be removed much more easily than the original zoning, and to the point that Mr. Simpson is offering tonight, that zone change was for one use only, the auto park. That's the only zone. And it was, in a way, easier to remove that conditional zoning restriction because if you couldn't do an auto park, nothing could go there, and therefore there wouldn't be any reasonable use of the property. So I would urge you to exercise extreme caution with imposing conditional zoning restrictions on this property in disagreement with the comprehensive plan that changed the whole character of uses and limited it so narrowly that it would be relatively easy to take it off again. I've given you another example here, and this was kind of an interesting one. The library out on Tates Creek Road was originally rezoned to professional office in disagreement with the comprehensive plan. There were environmentally sensitive areas, steep slopes, and so forth, trees. And so a conditional zoning restriction was imposed. First, let me say the planning commission recommended disapproval. There was a hearing at the council, and the council imposed conditional zoning restrictions limiting square footage of the buildings and parking in furtherance of protecting the environmentally sensitive areas. That happened in, I have it here, in 1998. Two years later, the public library came back and said, well, we need more space. The conditional zoning restriction was modified for the library, and it was recommended both at the Planning Commission and at the Council. Then, just a couple years after that, one of the other lots in the development said, well, I would like to have increased square footage, and I need more parking. And the Planning Commission recommended disapproval, but the Council approved it, and so more square footage was approved and more parking spaces were approved. Then, just a couple years after that, another lot owner in the development came forward and asked for increased building square footage, and that was granted. And do you know what the reason was? Because the two previous conditional zoning restrictions, the square footage was modified twice earlier. Therefore, that was a major change. So it doesn't provide much protection. And as I thought about this the other day, I went over to planning, and I looked in the planning record books, and from the year 2000, like January of 2000, through the end of 2012, here you see all the conditional zoning restriction applications that were applied for to be modified or removed, and not one, not one was disapproved, none. And there may be a conditional zoning restriction application out there somewhere that was disapproved and it stuck, but if it is, it wasn't between those years, I don't know what it is. So that doesn't provide much protection. And so this really brings me to the history of the property itself. It's illustrative, I think, of this dilemma. I think Barb can just put that on the screen. This is a history of the Huffman property, and this history is almost like the undead because it rose up in 1967. The property was included in the urban service boundary. The comprehensive plan later recommends residential uses. There was a rezoning application in the early 1980, 1979, in disagreement with the plan. It was denied. There was another rezoning application for I-1 in agreement with the comprehensive plan in 1996. It was denied. Then they came back. There was a request for rezoning to residential uses. It was denied at the Planning Commission, and then I think it was withdrawn. Then, finally, in 2007, this property came back, and it was for a rezoning in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan to I-1 uses. And I think you're going to be hearing testimony from some neighbors that I don't represent, in the other neighborhood that said they worked out an agreement with the property owners that they would not oppose the zone change. And in fact, there were no opponents at that zone change. They worked out whatever they worked out, and it was passed. That was in 2007. But now we're back again for rezoning this property in disagreement with the comprehensive plan. And the question has to be asked, is this going to be the end of it? Because since they're limiting it to only vehicle storage yards as a principal permitted use in the I-1, are you going to be hearing another application? Well, maybe we need one more I-2 use, or maybe we need another conditional zoning use, and go through that again. or maybe to go to the Board of Adjustment to modify the conditional use permit that if you all granted it for this junkyard use. There's never any rest. And you have neighbors who live around there. They are entitled, and the law says, that they can rely on the comprehensive plan to make their decisions. And in this case, it's the most important financial and emotional investment they're likely to make in their properties. Are they going to be coming back in two more years, in three more years, when, for whatever reason, the very restrictive conditional zoning that was imposed won't work and needs to be adjusted? When can the neighbors say, put it to rest? They agreed to the I-1. There's only one conditional zoning restriction on the I-1, and that's for signs, because you can have billboards in the I-1 and I-2 zones if you're by a road. So I ask you to think about that. Finally, I ask you to consider Kentucky zoning statutes strongly prefer planning over zoning. I mean, you are called the Planning Commission. It's the Division of Planning. It's the Department of Planning. And the idea is that you study an issue, you plan for it, so that you can make the adjustments that you need to so that everybody can participate in this process and not suggest major uses that can have major impacts at the last minute on the day of the zoning hearing. There's a quote from one of my favorite zoning cases, the City of Louisville v. McDonald. It's short, but I'll read it to you. In the Fritz case, that's not the Fritz we heard about in another case. We invalidated a zone change because the action of the legislative body was found to be arbitrary. In that opinion, we made the following significant comment. An examination of the multitude of zoning cases that have reached this court leads us to the conclusion that the common practice of zoning agencies after adoption of an original ordinance is simply to wait until some property owner finds an opportunity to acquire a financial advantage by devoting his property to a use other than for which it is zoned, and then struggle with the question of whether some excuse can be found for complying with his request for a rezoning. The result has been that most of the rezoning cases reaching these courts, there actually has been spot zoning, and the courts have upheld or invalidated the change according to how flagrant the violation of true zoning principles this has been. It is to be hoped that in the future, zoning authorities will give recognition to the fact that an essential feature of zoning is planning. This statement made in 1961, the court said, has had little discernible effect. That is precisely why we have a comp plan. That is why we have a staff of professional planners to study this sort of thing. That gets me to another issue related to the comprehensive plan. This proposed use is a land eater. It's 20 acres, and they're talking about maybe 20 jobs, like one job per acre. Let me show you the goals and objectives for the 2007 comp plan and for the 2012 comp plan. And as you know, you adopted that just last year. And if you look at the 2007 comp plan, I've underlined, it talks about employment. Employment, high-wage business development, new job-creating capital investment. employment, employment, it's all about jobs. If you look at 2012's adoption, and that's what your soon-to-be-adopted comp plan's going to be about, it's creating jobs and prosperity. It talks about the skilled workforce, reducing joblessness, large employment sectors, jobs, jobs, jobs. And so then that brings me to the next very important point. We have an urban services boundary, as you all know, and we have made this policy of putting reasonable development within the urban services area so we don't put pressure on the rural services area because what is the most precious and finite resource we have in Lexington Fayette County? It is our land. It is our land. And this chart, it doesn't show very well at all. It's the way the comp plan was. but basically we have 54,619 acres of land within the urban services area. Now, this is in 2007, and it appears that we have a total of almost 9,000 acres of undeveloped land. That was in 2007. That has changed. But the point is, is this a rational use of our scarce, precious, finite land to put 20 acres aside for a huge junkyard, parking lot, whatever you want to call it, that creates 20 jobs? As you know, not too long ago, this planning commission and the Urban County Council adopted residential infill policies. And the point of that was that there was finally a realization, at least for residential development, that what we needed to do was to have more compact, contiguous development, smaller lots building up and so forth. Well, perhaps the time has come for the Planning Commission as part of this comprehensive plan or to do a separate element of the comprehensive plan to study economic development, jobs, and that whole issue in terms of rational and sound land use. What kind of jobs do we want to create? What kind of businesses do we want to encourage? If you look at the I-2 zone, which is the zone that's being— Ms. West, you're down to about four minutes. Okay. Thank you. But I would respectfully request, since you told Mr. Simpson that he could have 15 more minutes. I did. Yes, sir. I'm finishing up, but then Jason needs to talk about the conditional use permit. That it would be appropriate to, I don't remember what I was saying now, But we need to study that and maybe come up with an economic development infill policy. If you look at the I2 zone, you see things like lamp black manufacturing and explosives manufacturing, sperm oil and candle manufacturing. And is it maybe time for us to really study whether these things are even something that anybody even does in Kentucky, in this country? I don't know, but that is something for the Planning Commission to look at, to study that on how much land to set aside. And I would urge you all, instead of granting this zone change in the conditional use permit, to study that issue and come up with a sane and appropriate economic development land use policy that focuses, as your goals and objectives state, on creating jobs. The adjoining and enterprise park has, I'm not sure how many lots, Jason may talk about that, but probably hundreds of jobs there on not too much larger acreage. And ask yourself if this isn't a wiser planning type use for this property. Finally, I will just pass out some relevant land use cases on the fact, for example, that you need to look at adjudicative facts that are site-specific for this property upon which to base your decision. And I respectfully submit that Mr. Simpson's findings are inadequate as that as well because he talks about goals and objectives, but that is a legislative thing, goals and objectives. What there's not much of is why is this particular property, by its special characteristics, entitled to this relief. So I think that I will stop here. Let me just finally say one thing, too. I'm sorry it's been long for everybody. But in Mr. Simpson's commitment on the conditional use and so forth, he said that, well, if this is done and if there's not an appeal taken to circuit court, that the applicant and the other property owners will not punch through access to Alexandria Drive. Well, I hate to say it, but that's not ultimately his decision. It's development occurs. That's the Planning Commission's decision. That's a governmental decision on where there's access, whether there's access, what kind of access. And it's not for an individual property owner to say that there won't be access when there's further development. I will just pass out to you some quotes from relevant cases that you might find useful in making your decision. And in the end, I would urge you to disapprove this rezoning. It doesn't meet the requirements for the statute, and to disapprove the conditional use permit. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Westover. We'll let Jason go and reserve any questions for later and hope that Jason will be brief. I will, Chairman Omens. I would thank you very much, and ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission, And just to kind of echo what Chris was saying a little bit about the land use and the land eater type argument, I just did a brief review of the PVA website just so I could familiarize myself with Enterprise Park a little bit more about how much land is in the park versus the 20 or so acres that they're proposing to rezone. And I came up with a little over 90-some acres. And then I was talking with John Van Noggle, who's here from Advantage Lennon, about how many jobs are in the park as far as this employment-type analysis. So I can't really – it's horseshoes and hand grenades. I can't really hit it specifically. But we believe that somewhere in the park there's at least 200 to 500 somewhere jobs in that 90-plus acres. So when you compare that to the 20 acres of potentially 15 to 20 employees, and I would suggest that likely it's going to be some part-time employees, it's really not an efficient use of that parcel of land from an employment analysis. But with respect to the conditional use permit application from the applicant, I just want to go back. And Jimmy did such a good job earlier, and when he opened this up, he talked about the standards, because the Planning Commission here is sitting in the shoes, the stead of the Board of Adjustments. So when we look at the definition of what a conditional use is, and also importantly, what is required of a Board of Adjustments, and now the Planning Commission, to grant a conditional use, it's very important, that standard. Okay, so looking at the definition, essential to would promote the public health, safety, or welfare in one or more zones, but which would impair the integrity and character of the zone in which it is located or in adjoining zones. Also, and I just read a part of that, but also sub-7 there, to grant a conditional use permit, this body, okay, has to come up with a statement, a factual determination, as Chris said, adjudicative facts. specific facts, not broad, normative, aspirational, we're going to do this or we should do this, but today, specific adjudicative facts. And the burden is on the applicant to come here today and present those specific facts. So looking at that standard as a matter of law, I would suggest that you can't grant the conditional use permit application that the applicant has submitted. And here's why. Now, even in, and I'm going to go ahead and show you the staff report, I've underlined just a few sections. There are several statements in the staff report that gives me pause for concern on whether or not, and maybe we could slide the Elmo, can't read upside down, slide it down just a little bit. they have concerns okay for instance the single access point so there's going to be a single access point there's a railroad there they know that there's going to be increased traffic and there's going to be heavy trucks hauling in these junk vehicles multiple vehicles for stripping of parts and then hauling the compressed vehicles out. So the staff noted that that single access point for some type of development like this is out of the ordinary. So that's a pause for concern. Has the applicant satisfied its burden to bring forth to this body specific adjudicative facts that says, okay, this is going to promote safety, but here we've got an out of ordinary single access point. So I think that's something that this Planning Commission should really think about. And actually, there's a case out of northern Kentucky. I'm not going to pass out a copy of it, but it was Murphy v. Key West Crossing, LLC. And that was about a conditional use permit for granting and developing a golf course. And the problem with that, and it went up on appeal, Well, the problem with that was there was an access point by a railroad that there was some safety concerns. And there wasn't that specific adjudicative fact that the applicant put forth and then went up on appeal, and the appellate court said, no, wait a minute. You didn't satisfy your burden that the safety issue is going to be addressed on that access point by that railroad. Well, it's very analogous to what we have here. We have a railroad. We have a single access point that our own staff has said is out of the ordinary. So that's a problem. The next problem, the staff has down at the bottom here, it says the staff has one concern regarding this use as it relates to potential pollution. Now, what you've seen so far tonight is the aspirational, the marketing materials from the applicant about their stewardship, about how they want to protect the environment. And I think that's great. I don't mean to take anything away from that. But we have a spring-fed pond on this property, or adjacent to the property. We're 1,000 feet away from the Wolf Run watershed, correct? Okay, so the staff has a concern. It says, what about this potential pollution issue? And they even suggest as a condition, which I believe is the last condition of the report, that they need to, right there, prior to approval of a final development plan, a qualified environmental professional will make a recommendation. Okay, that's an issue. They should have tonight before you, so you can make that specific finding, that professional environmental report as it's going to affect the spring, as it's going to affect the Wolf Run watershed. They haven't brought that tonight, so they fail on their burden to produce that adjudicate fact. There's also one other issue in there that I will suggest is a non-delegable duty, is that the staff talked with the fire department about that single access point. And I believe the staff's report said something to the effect of, well, we've consulted with the fire department. We think that the single access point is okay. That's actually not a delegable duty. You guys have to find specifically a judicability that you can grant this conditional use permit on what's before you tonight. So the applicant's burden would be okay. We can present you evidence that from an emergency utility vehicle standpoint, this single access point is going to be okay. So I suggest to you as a matter of law, you can't even grant this conditional use permit based upon what's been presented to you tonight. Also on that pollution issue and the single access point, in that crossing case on the golf course, The one thing the court said was you cannot remedy the burden of proof on a safety issue or this environmental issue after the fact. There can't be a subsequent determination. So even if the applicant comes in after you make a decision tonight and says, okay, here's our environmental report, that doesn't work. That doesn't empower you to create the factual findings that are required by the statute and by our case law. otherwise what i would suggest to you simply is that there are some issues with okay what conditions are we going to impose and just as chris said the applicant can come back to the board of adjustments at a later date and modify those conditions so it's very nice again aspirationally that they want to limit uh the types of uses that they're going to have under this permit, but again, it can be modified. So it's wonderful to say it now in the beginning process of this, but what if in a year or two years later they come back and amend, and again, the landowners who are here, the neighbors who are here who have relied on that say, wait a minute, you said two years ago you weren't going to do that use, but now you're back here asking again. So I say to you, the applicant's not satisfied their burden there. And then I just want to turn back to integrity and character. The applicant spoke about Calumet Farms. We don't represent Calumet Farms, but looking at the surrounding neighborhoods, High Point, Residential, the Enterprise Park, I-1, Calumet, our most revered farm, I would suggest that this use is not in keeping and is going to damage the integrity and character of the current existing uses of the adjoining parcels. And so what I would like to do is, in objection to the Chairman to this conditional use, is we can have Mr. Von Noggle, who is here from the park, and some of the neighbors who are here from High Point Neighborhood Association, come up and talk about why they don't believe this particular use is in keeping with the integrity and character part of the statute that you need to review to grant the conditional use. So after you hear that, I would suggest you deny the conditional use permit. Okay? Thank you very much. Thank you. Any questions right now? And I'm sorry, I do have proposed findings, which I would pass out when appropriate. Thank you. If no questions, we'll proceed on. And by all means, any citizens that wish to speak are more than welcome to. There will be a three-minute time limit. We've heard a lot of testimony here. Yes, sir. We've heard a lot of testimony here. And I would simply ask, let's not be repetitive and stick to the facts. And any new information, we're welcome to hear. Yes, sir, your name? I know it's been a long day, and I apologize for making it longer still. I'll try to be brief. I don't think you've been responsible for most of it, so go ahead. I'm Todd Strecker, and I live at 1404 Parterre Place. I live just off of Valley Road, and so we're within a reasonable shot of the property that's involved. We've been concerned about this, and in fact we've had kind of extensive communication with Calumet Farm right up through Mr. Kelly, who is the newest owner. And in fact, his farm manager was supposed to be here today, but I got a call from him saying D. Wayne Lucas showed up, you know who he is, and he couldn't leave. He was stuck. Or he would have been here to say whatever it is that Mr. Kelly wanted said in terms of what their policy position is. I can't address it. They have to. I wouldn't begin to do that. I have two letters, and I will be brief. I promise I will be brief, and I will. One you may already have. I don't know, Bill. The one from Saddle Club, did you? Okay, I was going to give you a copy of that one. The other one is from me, and the easiest way to do this is just to kind of quickly go through and let you know what it says. This letter represents the many contacts I have had through small group meetings and phone calls to me from residents within our neighborhood association area near the property under consideration since posting of the proposed zone change on a portion of the 40-acre tract located at 1100 Alexandria Drive. All calling me as Neighborhood Association President have expressed strong opposition to proposed zone change from light industrial to heavy. Their concern that this will depress property values in the area, that seems to be the greatest concern, and that it's going to reach way beyond the immediate properties all the way across New Circle Road to the properties on Kelsey Drive, which Bruce pointed out appear to be not within view shot of the property, but in fact, once the leaves drop, probably they can see it even with the screening. Here's the other thing that popped up. A widely expressed objection is that rezoning to I2 would remain in place beyond the time when the vehicle recycling operation may be present, opening the door to other I-2 businesses to locate on the track. It doesn't seem to me that's been addressed. They say they're going to be there forever, but it doesn't seem to work that way. And first thing you know, we have heavy industrial over there immediately next to the light industrial existing park and the light industrial that Mr. McAlpin has for sale. That concerns us. Now, because the business sells auto parts to the public, there is substantial concern over the volume of traffic to and from the property. In other words, how many customers are they going to have, all of whom have got to come through the industrial park? This, numerous residents pointed out, will create pressure to open access directly onto Alexandria Drive from the track, and you heard that referred to by several folks. Mr. McAlpin said he would limit that to emergency vehicles and you were told, I think, he can't you all have to make that or the city has to make that determination in terms of what access it's going to be so we feel immediately exposed beyond this, many believe the operation will create a negative presence visually and you've heard plenty about that including a less than desirable impact on travel think about this for a minute travelers are arriving by aircraft since the property is below the northeast approach departure flight to Bluegrass Airport. I know that because I live there, and I see these planes go over. So they're going to be looking right down on it. And even if you light them up in straight lines, with hoods up, it's clear that it's not a parking lot like it was over at the Commonwealth Stadium. That's not what we got. We got junk cars lined up. Mr. Sturker, your time's up. Okay. I'll stop. We request this application for a zone change to I-2 away from I-1 be denied. That's it. Thank you, and I hope I was brief enough. Thank you, Mr. Strickland. Others that would like to speak, please come forward. Your name, sir? Hi. John Van Naugle with Advantage London Incorporated. We're a tenant of Enterprise Park. I just want to make it clear I'm in no way against business or no way against pull-apart. I think they have a fine operation. I like what they're discussing. My biggest concern is cracking Pandora's box. Being a property owner in the Enterprise Park, I just want to make sure that if a zone change does occur that's next to us, that's not going to crack the box to change the zone in our park. Once it kind of starts, then it kind of goes forward. And I personally am just worried about that's my business. What I own is my investment. I don't want to see anything like that change in the future. I think we have a unique and very nice medium-to-light industrial park that's close to the city with wonderful access. I'm not going to lie to you. I think that in terms of use of land, it's using a lot. But business is business, and I understand this. But I really just want to make sure that the council is aware that a lot of us in the park just don't want Pandora's box to be cracked. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Mr. Van Nagel. Others, please come forward. Don't be bashful. If you're going to do it, let's do it. Yes, ma'am. My name is Georgia Cruz. I live at 1171 Kelsey Drive. I am not opposed to development at all. I am completely in favor of development, but I believe this development needs to be right for the community and for the neighborhood, and I don't believe that this development is appropriate for our neighborhood. It is a junkyard, and you can put as much lipstick on that pig as you want to, but a junkyard is still a junkyard, and I don't believe it's appropriate for the neighborhood. I think it's an attractive nuisance. I believe it invites vandalism and other undesirable qualities. I believe there's a more efficient use for that property where there will be more employment and it will be more fitting with the other businesses that are currently in that development. And I please urge you to deny this zoning change. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Cruz. Yes, sir. My name is Kirk Tina. I live at 1166 Kelsey Drive, and I'm here to oppose the zoning change. One thing I did on some research is, is there criminal activity around any of the pull-up park sites? My answer is there is yes. They seem to be a magnet for car theft, stolen cars, and such as research. Jackson, Mississippi, Columbia, South Carolina, Augusta, Georgia, Akron, Ohio, Nashville, Tennessee. And they all would have people who would have their cars stolen from the highways, from alleyways, from interstates. These cars would be taken into a pull-up park, sold for an amount of money. Before the owner could get there, the car would be empty of fluid, seats would be taken out, they would be crushed for a short period of time. The problem seems to be that Polipart and other companies may require less than a car title to prove ownership. They may have a bill of sale. In one place in Columbia, South Carolina, they said, we accept people at face value that a car is not stolen. In Texas, Mississippi, they said, well, we take an affidavit from you. Is this car stolen? It's an affidavit. It's working. You say, no, it's not stolen after you have just stolen it. The problem here is not just the car fails. It's who the people are who are stealing them, and they are corrupt criminals. They are people who are convicted of cocaine possession, leafing scene of an accident, criminal impersonation, gambling, grabbing a revoked license, felony in possession of equipment, DUI, drug possession. These are not people that we really want going through our neighborhood, and they're not going to care if we go off of Alexander to a pull apart or not. In one place, somebody went into a pull apart in Augusta and so-called catalytic converters over a weekend. Somebody else went into one in Akron Ohio, stole copper pipe, radiators, metal doors and stuff. Now, pull apart is talking about 15 to 20 employees at each site. I went online to a thing called Who First and another one called Reference USA. I've had a data and do stuff. At most of the locations I looked at, we had less than five people per employee. Also, it is mentioned that Polar Park will spend $4 million, $2.5 million on different projects in the city here in Lexington. They mentioned Louisville. This is the same amount that was mentioned in Toledo, Ohio in January 2008. Things have changed since then, but the amount they're saying they will spend, $4 million on investment, $2.5 million in taxes, retail sales, hasn't changed in over five years. Things have changed. And I'll host the application. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Good evening. My name is Michelle Katina, and I live at 1166 Kelsey Drive. I wish to, since discovering the zoning request, I have been doing some research. I wish to support what Ms. Westover said about jobs. I have a report by the Kentucky Workforce Development Cabinet naming the 50 fastest-growing occupations in this region, and occupations concerned with laboring in a junkyard or used in auto parts are not on this list. The report projects job and industry growth by category through 2018. The number of laborers and freight stock and material movers who would be working in places like Pull Apart are projected to decline by 2018. Used auto parts, according to the Federal Department of Labor, are a wholesale business. As of 2010, latest data available, wholesale jobs in Fayette County amount to less than 4% of total non-agricultural employment, meaning the jobs in junkyards are appreciably less than that figure. In short, junkyards are a waning industry, and we do not need to sacrifice 20 acres of land to a declining industry that at best can only add 15 to 20 jobs, if that many. Many other industries, including ultra-small molded components, biopharmaceuticals, telecommunications services, to name just a few, would create many more jobs per acre. And according to Lexington's Chamber of Commerce, are currently expanding. I agree with Chamber of Commerce and where they say our economy is expanding. We should play to our strengths, not waste our time on industries that will not pay us back. The pull-apart site located in Louisville is located in an entirely different environment than the Alexandria site. Louisville's site is on National Turnpike, set within an industrial wasteland. Its nearest neighbors are scrap yards, and the entire area is surrounded by heavy industrial uses. Stormwater disposal is not a problem in the areas outside the 100-year floodplain. I agree that locating a pull-apart operation in that area is appropriate, not here. We have a no-through-trucks designation in the neighborhood of Alexandria, of the Alexandria site. However, nothing in the submitted rezoning request indicates the trucks bringing in junk vehicles will be barred from using Alexandria Drive or confined to the old Frankfurt Pike route. In fact, a question has been raised by the traffic engineers concerning the limitations of Alexandria. I spoke to a traffic engineer, Jeff Neal, April 25, 2013, and he explained to me there would be an open entrance to the junkyard on Alexandria Drive not only for emergencies but for all traffic except large trucks. He said that the Enterprise Drive entrance to the junkyard involved vehicles driving over railroad tracks and that planners were worried about the tracks. I find it ironic that railroad tracks are more important in a stable residential neighborhood. And even though we have a no-through-trucks designation, large trucks still occasionally drive through our neighborhood, even without a business at 1100 Alexandria to tempt them. An Alexandria Drive junkyard entrance will attract trucks even if it's against the rules. And the reason my neighbors agreed to the I-1 rezoning in 2007 was the promise made by the owners and developers to have no access from Alexandria Drive except emergency use. The applicant should not be negotiating on this point. And I say that the proposed pull-apart site for Alexandria Drive will be an aerial eyesore. A 20-foot fence won't shield a junkyard from the sight line of incoming aircraft. And this will be going on seven days a week. And I cite their website as to their hours, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Please wrap up, Ms. Kenting. I understand. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. I'm Carolyn Raybould. I'm from High Point Farm Neighborhood Association. And, again, I apologize for taking people's time, but I figure since I've been here almost seven hours with you guys, you won't mind two minutes from me. So, anyway, I have a picture of our property, which is very difficult to see. That's a little better. But this is from the entrance of our neighborhood at our gate. And the foreground, I don't have a fancy laser pointer, but I will tell you the foreground is Calumet property. The tops of those buildings is on the Hoffman property or whatever you want to call it. It's very, very low. Just common sense tells me there's no blind that's going to sit down that low anywhere and block 15 to 20 acres of junk cars on a gravel lot. I don't care how. It's just, I don't think it's possible. But anyway, I'm not going to take much time because I really think everybody's made up their mind already. And I have two more pictures I just want to show up. And this is just on a website from the pull-apart junkyard. And I noticed they had close-ups of the porta-potties and close-ups of the other things. So I thought we'd show a couple of close-ups of the junkyard, which we've only seen at a distance as compared to Commonwealth Stadium. So anyway, that is the junkyard. And please, Planning Commission members, please vote no. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Joey Williams, and I live at 1155 Kelsey Drive. I have the pleasure of knocking on over 200 doors. My knuckles are sore, but the people did say they wanted me to relate to you. we don't want this in our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Hi, my name's Mike Markland. I live at 1298 Viley Road, about a half a mile from the proposed junkyard. Was the petition submitted, Todd, with the 200-something signatures? Yes. Okay, thank you. I'm a pilot, and I keep my airplane based at Bluegrass Field. Flying over this proposed junkyard, you're going to see the cars. Will they look? Can you tell they're junk? I don't know. Probably from that height. Probably not. I think they make a good point. I plan on going to Commonwealth Stadium this fall, hopefully watch the Cats play, and I sure hope they don't turn it into a pull apart. comparing the pull apart to commonwealth stadium just because these junk cars are neatly parked is not a good comparison it's a junkyard one of the biggest concerns that i have is the cars coming into this junkyard they're going to be brought in on with wreckers i presume wreckers rollbacks that type of thing but these vehicles will come in full of fluid the batteries, all the things will come in. And it sounds like Steve's got a really nice operation there. Before a junkyard, it sounds like they're doing a pretty good job. But nonetheless, I think you said some 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles a year. On records, on New Circle Road, old Frankfort, how have they come in, hauling all these vehicles in to drain the fluids, strip them apart, people coming from all over the community and out of the community to get a hood, a fender, a bumper, throw it in the back of their truck, and come down Valley Road where I've raised my family, or Old Frankfort or New Circle. What regulations, what restrictions can we have with the people coming to and from this facility? That's something we haven't addressed a whole lot. I mean, people that go to a junkyard are good people. Probably just need to save some money trying to salvage some parts. We have no control over that. I wish Calumet Farm was here. I don't know what their statement on it is. I dealt with Neil Hyatt years ago when we dealt with another Delta development. But I just can't imagine a junkyard adjoining Calumet Race Farm. When I fly in to Runway 22, I look down for just a brief minute. If I'm flying a plane, I probably shouldn't. But I look down at Keeneland and that beautiful approach. And I fly all over the United States. And I've flown in Atlanta and places. It's a mess. We're not Atlanta. We're not Louisville. We're not Cincinnati. We're not an industrial town. We are a town built on horse farms and families, and it's just a beautiful approach. So I would hate to see the junkyard there. So in summary, I know it's awful late. I sure appreciate your time, and I would ask you to uphold the staff's recommendation for denial. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Others? Chairman Owens, I would just go ahead and tender the proposed finding as a fact that I've prepared, which I believe have the appropriate adjudicative facts to deny the conditional use. And then also, Commissioner Plumlee, I wanted to note something. I'll tell you what, just sit tight. Okay. Let us get finished, and you'll probably have a minute. Yes, sir. I won't take very much time at all. I've been here before today. My name is Donald Brown. I live on, I've been here so long I don't know where I live. I'm a member of High Point Farm Association. If you see what I brought here, it's something that I know you're very well aware of. It starts with Town Branch and that issue that you deal with regarding all the wonderful things you want to do with that and clean it up. And you come down here to the point where there was a flood this morning or last night because of stormwater. Then you come back up Wolf Run and you get into the subdivisions here and then you know what kind of issues you've got with that water. and then I've put the proposed site on, I just drew it on there, right down at the mouth of Wolf Run. We've got some real issues here if any of this contained substance in these tanks and in the overflow that they have designed gets loose in here. We've got enough problems with this area here with water quality and cleaning it up, cleaning Lexington, Town Branch in particular, cleaning it up, that I just don't think it's worth the risk. And as to the jobs aspect of it, and this is my last word, we spoke here briefly, and I come to find that I can't see how there could be 20 jobs in a day shift operation because the people go, it's a do-it-yourself. They go out and pull the parts off the cars themselves. So the only people that are going to be employed there are going to be in that building. And I can't see what you'd do with 20 people in that building. Someone else has done the headcount. But I thank you very much, and I frankly enjoyed my day here, believe it or not. You're welcome back any time. Anyone else? He has a low-level entertainment, I'll say. If not, Jason, you had one thing you wanted to add? I wanted to just finally say that with all due respect to Jimmy, you did a wonderful job with the Fritz property, but his staff report does not enable you with the exceptions and the concerns that they have about flooding, or excuse me, about pollution and so forth and the single access point to grant the conditional use permit. And the findings that I've prepared for you do have those specific adjudicative facts for denial. And, Commissioner Plumlee, when you asked Jimmy, you said, well, what if they deny the stormwater plan? Well, it's too late. You've already granted the conditional use by that point. So that would be a problem. You couldn't go back and fix that. That's that subsequent remedial stuff. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? I think we're pretty much running out of people. I'm going to close the testimony part and open it up at this time for rebuttals, closing statements. Mr. Simpson, before you get to that, let me ask the Planning Commission, any questions at this point from the Planning Commission members to anyone before we get into the rebuttal? No? Okay. Mr. Simpson, five minutes, rebuttal, closing statements. Mr. Chairman, I've got to rebut quite a bit. You've got five minutes here. Well, I appreciate that, but in fairness, I think we're entitled to at least ten in light of the extended issues that were raised that under the law we're entitled to rebut. And I would just ask the Chair to indulge us. We've got time limits, though, Mr. Simpson, so please stick with five minutes. Mr. Chairman, I will say Steve Levitin can respond to the undocumented forensic report from the gentleman. I don't think that's necessary. I think if it was a valid criminology study, something would have been passed out and certified about some kind of criminal activity. In fact, the only evidence that's about criminal activity at a pull-apart was the one we had the police officer in Louisville that said that it was actually reducing crime. So, you know, I understand people's fears of change and the unknown. And I believe that you all appreciated the sincerity and the factual basis of our application for this zone change and the conditions upon which we're going to be obligated to perform as a genuine overture to finally do something with this property. The reality of this site is that it's been in the urban services boundary since 1969. It's been recommended for light industrial development since 1969. It's been 44 years, and there's not a single job on that property. It got zoned in 2007, six years ago, and there's not a single job on that property. The people that own the property believe that this will be an impetus for more jobs to come. It may be only 20. It may be 10. It's going to generate over $2 million in net profits tax to the urban county government from its operations. So there's a reason that this property hasn't developed. Nobody wants it developed. It's kind of just stuck. and I will say this about Calumet. Calumet, if you look at the record, has shown up for every zone change impacting its property since applications for this property were filed. They're not here today, and I'm telling you because I've talked to Mr. Middleton who represents Calumet Farm, and he says, Bruce, we have no objection to your zoning. The conditions you've offered are very serious and are most appreciative. The farm manager was never going to show up. I don't care about Dean Wayne Lucas coming to Calumet. He was never going to show up here because Calumet evaluated our proposal on the merits, on the facts, and the promises to this body by way of conditional zoning. Now, the opposing counsel spent all of their time arguing as if you all were the Court of Appeals, arguing about the application of the law and how good is conditional zoning. Conditional zoning only applies in urban county governments. There's only three in the entire state of Kentucky. We're blessed to have it. We can fine-tune zone changes, make commitments like we're making to be enforceable. To remove a condition, you've got to file a zone change request. You've got to go back to the Planning Commission, back to the Council. Now, I ask you, do you really think we're going to come back here at some late date with this record and the promises we made and say we want to remove one of the promises? If we did, how successful are we likely to be? The truth of the matter is, once we make them, we're stuck with them. And you've got to go through a zone change procedure to remove them. They talk about adjudicative facts. I mean, the truth of the matter is it's legislative facts. The law has changed in the Hilltop Mining cases. It made zone changes altogether different from what they used to be under previous court decisions. But, you know, those are arguments for the court. They're not arguments for you. The truth of the matter is, as Ms. Westover kept talking about, we need to plan, we need to plan. Let me ask you, the undisputed evidence in this case is, where's the planning for heavy industrial? The undisputed evidence from the planning staff in my book, there has not been any heavy industrial recommended or set aside for this kind of use since 2001. And I submit to you, if you look at the photographs from cloud concrete, you can have an asbestos factory on this property, you can have a battery factory on this property. those are much less intensive uses than what Steve Leventon has illustrated for you. Now, we're more like a recycling kind of operation, but we have to qualify legally under this definition of a junkyard. And that's what sets everybody off, and I understand that. But the reality is this, and you know this in terms of precedent, who's going to restrict themselves like we are? There's no way with this record that any planning commission or council is going to come in there and lift all these restrictions. It's not going to happen. And to be clear, as I set out in my commitments here, we're eliminating all of the specific heavy industrial uses. As I indicated to you, we're not eliminating the existing I-1 use that's there, But all those specific heavy industrial uses, but for the pull-up part operation, we're taking off the table. You can't do it. Now, Mr. Simpson, five minutes are up. Please wrap up. All right. Mr. Chairman, we can talk about a lot of anecdotal legal history, and the truth of the matter is this. You all have been through conditional zoning changes for a number of years. They are clearly enforceable. We have clearly introduced compelling facts that we qualify to be in substantial compliance with the comprehensive plan that's recommended industrial zoning since 1969. It's a good project. These are good people. They've got a good track record. And we've got commitments that they can be held accountable to. And more than anything, at the end of the day, which separates this from a zone change, it's a conditional use. If we breach a single promise, a single promise, the Board of Adjustment can revoke our ability to operate. You can't do that in a regular zone change. Once you get zoned, you can do whatever you want to do as long as it's consistent with that zone. If you've got a conditional use permit, that Board of Adjustment will say, you know what, pull apart, you made a promise, and now you're breaching it, your permit's revoking, you're out of business. Thank you. They have a completely good track record of compliance in those 25 other cities. I ask you for your approval. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Ms. Westover, anything to add at this point? Jason's already been up here once. No. It's in disagreement with the comprehensive plan. They don't have the findings to support it. And we just ask that you disapprove both the rezoning and the conditional use permit application with Jason's findings for disapproval. Thank you. Thank you. Staff, rebuttal? Mr. Salley? Tracy Jones? Have you looked at what they're presented as far as their findings? I don't know which way this is going, but just to try and be ahead of the game here. Oh, yes. Mr. Salley? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have two very brief rebuttal points. Mr. Simpson mentioned in his primary presentation, also during rebuttal, that this area had been recommended for industrial since 1969. The staff believes it's been since the 1980 conference of plans, so just to clear that for the record. And the other point, it relates to the information under tab number 11 provided to you by Mr. Simpson. There's communication there from our long-range planning staff to Mr. Simpson. During his rebuttal, he said there wasn't any land recommended for heavy industrial. There is some land recommended for heavy industrial. It's in the very dark purple on the map. It's not as much as it used to be granted, but in this e-mail, there is some opportunity identified by long-range planning for underutilized heavy industrial. Just wanted to point that out to the Commission also. It's not available. That's the point. It's not available. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Saleh. Questions from Planning Commission members? Ms. Beatty, Dr. Beatty. Yes, ma'am. This is probably for Mr. Saleh. You were pointing out that the dark purple is for heavy industrial? Yes, ma'am. And is any of that dark purple available? I didn't hear what you were saying about that. I don't believe any of it is vacant. The staff doesn't analyze whether land is available, technically. And is there any other heavy industrial zoned areas in Lexington that's available at this point? Again, I can't speak to availability. There is one other area that's two other areas that come to mind beyond this portion of the community where we have heavy industrial zoning. There is some out in the Avon Rural Activity Center that is zoned heavy industrial. And there is a smaller area in the Gold Rush Road, a Dove Run Road area off of Stone Road, very near the North-South Rail line. What I would generalize very much is the Nicholasville Road corridor. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Mundy? Probably what I have to say isn't real relevant except for the fact that I have been a customer of Pull Apart in another city. And I have to tell you, to call it noxious and some of the terminology that's used, it's a business. It's a necessary business, I think, that is part of our nature or whatever. Would I want it necessarily in my backyard? Probably not. However, if I lived close to an industrial area, I would rather have probably a pull-apart facility there than a plant that's going to have employees going in and out and shifts and that sort of thing. But from my experience, it was a well-run, very neat, very organized operation. It wasn't just a pile of cars and parts and junk. There weren't rats and snakes running around, and I have been in those kind of junkyards too. We restore old cars. And so I don't know that that really has anything to do with anything, but I wanted to share that, that I am familiar with it. if you've not visited one of the facilities, it might be something you might want to do. Thank you. Let me say this first before we get into comments. Let me ask for any other questions specifically from anyone. That's okay. That's all right. Mr. Wilson. Ms. Mundy, I did have a chance to get to Louisville to have a chance to look at the pull apart, and I'm often reminded that one person's junk is another person's treasure. And so it's a matter of perspective on that. But I was impressed with the professionalism that I saw. I had a chance to get out and I was trying to determine how intrusive this might be for the community. So I got in the car and rode around. It was raining that day, but it was very well run. It was very professionally run, and I was impressed with that. The other question was, how did the neighbors feel? And I did have a chance to chat with one of the neighbors who also was a council member, and she indicated that at the beginning that many of their neighbors, too, were concerned about pull-apart. But then they went to, I think, Nashville, Tennessee to have a chance to look and to view what was going on, and then they came back with a new assessment. When I went down, I went down, I didn't tell my invitees this. In fact, I voted against it the first time because when I went down, I kept thinking, well, they can call it what they want to, but it is a junkyard. But when I got down there, I was impressed with the fact that it is recyclable. And I kept thinking, what would happen with all that oil, gasoline, Freon, and all the other stuff if somebody responsible that we couldn't trust that was under-managed, under-management, could deal with that particular activity. So these people have found a way to make a business out of the mess that we've made as a society. So I simply offer that as an observation. Okay. Now that we've had a couple of comments, I think what I'll do is just close this part of the hearing and go officially into the comments and discussion among commission members. So other commission members' comments, thoughts from anyone? Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. I still believe there's no real evidence that I-1 is inappropriate. And if we're going to I-2 and have to have conditional uses, I think personally conditional uses can be tarnished. And we should stick to just straight keeping this I-1 as it is because the other thing that stands out with me is the one job, one acre. I think we could do better to this point. Maybe we haven't, but I think we could still do better. I'm concerned about the environmental impact with the staff. I think that that should have been clearly approved before it came to this point. I just think down the road that there might be the potential for something that is more undesirable than what this is. And I'm not saying this is undesirable. I'm just saying that the potential is there down the road for something that would be more offensive. And as the ordinance states, I-2 has the potential to be more of a nuisance than I-1. So at this point, maybe it's not a nuisance. But down the road, maybe we've got the nuisance with the capital N. Thank you. Other comments from anyone? Ms. Blaine? I have to say that I'm really torn about this. I think you all made a great presentation. I think it's a great business. I'm concerned about the lack of jobs. But the neighbors, I think, need to understand the reality of what they're living near is that from a visual perspective, from a truck perspective, from an environmental perspective, this is zoned by industrial. All of those issues are going to be issues that you will have no matter what locates here, unless nothing locates here, which is what's been happening for the past 20 years. So I'm kind of going in circles with myself about what is the right thing to do. And as Ms. Mundy alluded to, the traffic is going to be much worse for you if a factory goes in and they're running three shifts with 100 workers for each shift. That's not going to be something that you're going to enjoy either. So really what I think it comes down to for me is whether this is the best use of land or not, because I think all these other issues are important, but they're going to be issues that you're going to face because you live near an industrial zone. Mr. Penn. I'm concerned that it's a one-spot zone for an I-2. If you were coming down and wanted to zone the rest of the property that you had there in I-2, then I wouldn't have near the concern I've got over that than whether you want to go in there and do an I-1 and then you want to come back with the rest of that property either an I-1 or an I-2 and so I think you've got to decide whether you want the rest of that property to be an I-1 or an I-2 and if you've had trouble doing it as an I-1 and it's set there all that time what's to say without the rest of that property is going to be a zoned I-2 And so, Mike, I don't have any problem with the pull apart. I just have a problem with putting an I-2 in an I-1 zone, and then you've got the opportunity to do both of those with the rest of the property that you have. And so, you know, I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm just telling you that's my concern. Can I respond to that? Well, I didn't direct it towards you, but. Well, you were looking at me. Well, I'm sorry. You're the most attractive guy in the room, maybe. Mr. Cravens I own some I-1 property and there's cars parked all around it I don't know why I-1 didn't allow for this type of thing I think that's probably the problem more than I-2 because he's taken an I-1 use and in order to do it he has to rezone it to I-2 and put a condition on it. Well, it looks like to me it ought to fit an I-1. I mean, out there at Blue Sky, we're on this property. I mean, there's thousands of cars sitting around out there. I don't know what they'd do with them, if they'd bring them in and auction them, or there's even wrecked ones out there behind a metal fence and all that. And that's an I-1. And so I don't know why I-1 doesn't allow for this type of use. And then, you know, where do we send all of our cars that we drive? We get done, well, at least mine, but I'm turning back in. But the old cars, I mean, where do we send them? We've got to send them to another county like we do everything else. So that could be of some benefit there. And then the land has been vacant since I got out of high school in 1969, 44 years. I mean, that's a long time to not have anything done with your land. And it hasn't created any jobs. And I think what happens is activity usually breeds activity. In other words, once they put this in there, there may be some I-1 uses, you know, located all around it because of the use. So I'm going to support it. Ms. Beatty. Dr. Beatty. I'm a little concerned about the difference here of trying to get my arms around the land use versus land development. And I'm not so much for changing the zone, and I'm also a little confused or concerned about the use of, and for the lack of a better term, old terminology. I mean, we're used to the term junkyard, but this certainly sounds to me like more of a recycling. and in that light, I think that is all good and positive and we can't say enough about that. So it's a respected, valuable business that we probably need to have in our city. Where it needs to be, I'm not sure. From what I hear, it probably could be in an I-1, but it doesn't allow for that because it doesn't fit the terminology. It doesn't fit how the text is written, and so maybe we need to revisit that at some point. I know that's not why we're here today, to revisit the text on trying to update it, but maybe that's something that needs to be done. If the land has not been developed for, whether it's 1969 or 1980, I think Mr. Salee referred to, we don't have a lot of land to develop. We want economic development, and to me, whether it's 20 jobs or 200 jobs, those are jobs that would put someone to work here in Lexington, and so that's all good. all good, whether or not I would think about taking 20 acres when land is so valuable for such a few jobs, that also brings about some consternation. But nevertheless, that's what land is there. I'm not saying what type of business that should be there. But it does cause me a little bit of, it's a delicate balance on this one. I do fully understand and appreciate what the residents are saying. However, I do agree with my colleague that said you are in a light industrial area, and so at some point we're hoping that something else develops there. and whether or not you would agree or disagree. This does sound like it's more light industry, but I don't know that it fits the way everything is the text is written now. I'm really torn on this one. I'd like to see us have this kind of recycling emphasis in our city opposed to just cars sitting. I think we can drive all around Lexington and see that kind of thing. Maybe we could initiate more recycling. Thank you, Dr. Patey. Mr. Penn, did you have any other comments? Yeah. I guess in my mind I'm wondering why we don't look at a tax amendment to allow recycling of cars and change the term than we do of trying to rezone a peace prop to I-2 and limit everything they can do in it. And that's just a rhetorical question. We can't solve that today, but it goes back to planning versus the other. And I'm just to the point right now where, you know, you've got a lot of other land out there that you want to use. And so I don't know whether I-1 or I-2, but obviously I-1 is what's there. So to go to I-2 just to make something fit, you know, it's almost like putting a square peg in a round hole, but that's what I have to do to make it happen. And I really don't know why we didn't do a text amendment to allow recycling of automobiles and then limit that than what we're doing now. So that's just a comment. That wasn't directly to you, Mr. Simpson. That's just a comment. Other comments? Comments? I think you raised a good point, Mr. Penn, a couple of good points. One, the spot zoning issue, which is a concern. On the other hand, and Dr. Beatty, we're going back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. On the other hand, what other options are available to them? There don't seem to be. There doesn't seem to be any available I-2 land, and we've told them they can't be in I-1. So your question of the text amendment, can that be written tightly enough, narrowly enough, that we get those kind of businesses in I-1 versus the 7th Street business in I-1? If you're directing that at me, I would just say that the text amendment is a better venue. and the reason for it is you don't open the rest of that land to I-2 that would even create more problems for the neighbors than they have now. And so, you know, I can cite examples, but we don't need to get into that. But tax amendments can be more narrowly drawn than zone intents can be. And that's why I think maybe that's the best way to go here. I know the applicant doesn't want to hear that, But in response to your question, that's my answer. I guess it's my turn to weigh in. One, I was on the Board of Adjustment, I believe, when they got conditional approval for the old Frankford New Circle Road site. Exactly what happened there, fellow government or whatever, I don't know. I wasn't involved with that. That's what's been said today. I have been to the 7th Street site. I do remember that when it was literally a junkyard. They are attempting to make it similar. I'm not going to say like this, but similar. And what Pull Apart is wanting to do, I think, is a viable business and needs to be somewhere. I've got serious concerns about this location, economic development, job creation, or whatever. That's where my concern is. We're taking 20 acres of a 40-acre site and trying to change it, and I think that's going to hamper the other 20 acres as well as far as job creation and jobs are concerned. It's setting empty. A lot of people fussed and complained about Cold Stream. Different situation, but they said nothing was going on there. It's happening. It's starting to. There's development going on there now. As land gets tighter, or available land gets tighter, I think you'll see more stuff start happening with it. Yes, I am conflicted, but at this point in time, I'm in support of the staff. I've sat out in the audience before on zone change issues. I've been up here on many situations, and the one thing I hear is the burden of proof. Is it in compliance with the comprehensive plan? Has there been a substantial change in the area? Is the current zoning inappropriate? I can't support this plan here today for those reasons, simply put. I appreciate everyone coming. we've been going at it for a long time and we've still got some more work to do but I appreciate the concerns of everyone and what the answers are I don't know which way this is going to go but what the answers are going forward I'm not sure I hope it works out somehow, somewhere, somewhere down the road but at this point I cannot support the zone change so Any other comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Wilson? Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion, but before I do that, I would like to say that I do this with the deepest amount of respect for the people who've shown up and the people who expressed their concerns and issues today. I also do so, and I say this in regards to the staff because I respect the staff and I respect the work that you do. But I'm just for the fine. I don't know which way this is going to go either, but I'm going to move for approval for MARC 2013-8. Oops. Okay. MMA Management LLC based on the following. The applicant's proposed use with proposed restrictions is similar and less intensive than some of the existing IU uses and is compatible with the uses in the surrounding industrial zones, and thus it is on substantial conformance with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. Two, the application is also consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2007 and 2012 Comprehensive Plan and encouraging economic development and new employment. And third, also including conditional zoning restrictions listed in Mr. Bruce Simpson's June 27, 2013, letter to Mr. Mike Owens, Planning Commission Chair, and outlined as letters A through H. Thank you, Ms. Tracy. We do have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? I'll second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval. Are there any questions in regards to the motion? If not, I'll ask you to vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion fails five to four. Thank you. So, hold on just a second. We're not done, I don't think. Are we done yet? Yeah, we are. We need a motion for the conditional use, yes? Okay, on the... Okay, well, then I'll make a motion. that we do the conditional uses for disapproval as defined by the staff in their recommendations here. Second. Okay. To clarify, the motion is for disapproval of the conditional uses as with staff recommendations. Okay. Agreed, Ms. Plumlee? Okay, motion has been made and seconded for disapproval of the conditional uses with staff recommendations. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. You can't do a motion to disapprove once you've asked. You can't do that. In the parliamentary law, you can't just change one word and then have that go forward. It's disapproving. I mean, it's disapproving. Well, I thought that's what we just made. No, you're on the conditional use right now. You know, your original mention is for approval. Why do you have to do a disapproval on the bill? Okay. Tell Mr. Cravens that as it relates to parliamentary procedure. For the conditions. We're working on it. Yeah, we're working on it. Mr. Wilson. I'm now moving that we, I'm going to withdraw my motion on the conditional uses as proposed earlier. Is that it? We'd have a second. And that's okay with Ms. Plumlee? Yes. Okay. Now to try and get back to the original motion, we need a motion to disapprove subject to the findings. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we disapprove, well, by parliamentary law. His point is well taken, except for the fact is when the body itself agrees that that's the most appropriate way. So the body can overrule any parliamentary procedure that takes place that would be inhibitive to the process of the thing going forward. So if the body itself agrees, they could do that. That's my ruling. Mr. Penn? I don't want to get between the man and Robert Sula order, but let me move that we approve the status recognition for disapproval for the two reasons provided by staff. No. No. That go over to Antarctica. She was whispering to my ear, Frank. She can whisper in mine. That's all right. I got it. Okay, I got you. We've all been here too long. Mr. Pim. Yes, sir. I move for disapproval of MAR 2013-8 based on the recommendations of staff. Thank you. Do we have a second on that motion for disapproval? Yes, Ms. Plumlee seconded the motion for disapproval. Are we any discussion needed on the motion? If not, I'll ask everyone to vote when it comes up on the screen. Mr. Chairman, it will not come up on the screen. Okay. I will ask for a show of hands for the motion for disapproval of MARC 2013-8 for disapproval. Those opposed? Aye. That motion for disapproval passes. Mr. Chair, just for clarification, under normal parliamentary procedure, you're not allowed to change a motion unless it's significantly different, and it is significantly different from what we proposed initially. So by parliamentary law, we're still straight. Thank you, Mr. Parliamentarian. Do we need to have a motion on the conditional restrictions for disapproval now? Yes. Mr. Penn, continue on. Mr. Penn, I got it in the right order now. Okay. I move for disapproval based on the two findings of staff on page 5, B, for the conditional uses. Staff recommendation of disapproval for the two reasons. Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and seconded for disapproval of the conditional restrictions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Yes, she's coming. Motion for disapproval passes. Now I think we need a recommendation or a motion for the ZDP 2013-21. And probably, not to put words in anybody's mouth, but for a postponement. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of ZDP 2013-21 as presented by staff on the pink sheet. Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion has been made and seconded for postponement of ZDP 2013-21. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. We appreciate everyone coming, all the comments and testimony, and look forward to seeing you again. We do have some remaining business. We do have a, I believe next, Mr. King, a resolution would be for the digital submittals. Oh, no, I'm sorry. Text amendments. We have two text amendments. I'm sorry. Jim, we will try to get this. Text amendments. Sorry, Mr. Murphy. Sorry. That was true. Yeah. If everyone would go ahead and take the conversations outside and let us continue. We appreciate you've been here, but it has been a long day. We do have some remaining work to do. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Thank you. We appreciate you all patience and waiting around for this. Ms. Wade. Hello. The next item on our agenda is on page 7. It's ZOTA 2013-2, Hospice Facilities in the ED Zone. This is a request by Hospice of the Bluegrass to amend the Economic Development Zone in our zoning ordinance, which is in Article 23. I have submitted, for the record, a letter from Fayette Alliance in support of this text amendment, and I believe it's going around. Hospice of the Bluegrass has filed this petition to amend the text of the zoning ordinance in order to define hospice, to add hospice facilities as a permitted use in our economic development zone, and also to put forth parking regulations in that same zone. The ED zone was created after our expansion area master plan was completed in 1996, and the expansion area plan has been adopted in our most recent comprehensive plan, so it remains in effect. Hospice of the Bluegrass currently operates their operations out of a hospital setting where they provide medical and palliative care to persons who are in the final stages of life as well as their offices and pharmacy services, and that all occurs out of our St. Joseph Hospital here locally. Hospice of the Bluegrass also does go to individual residences in order to provide services if that's desired. The petitioner now... Okay. The petitioner wishes to construct a stand-alone facility to better serve clients and families in the area, and they have found some available land in the economic development zone. So currently the ED zone does permit medical clinics, but medical clinics are defined in our ordinance in Article 1, and they do not permit overnight inpatient stays, which is something you would find a hospital to do. So the hospice facility cannot fall under a medical clinic definition, And then the ED zone currently permits a regional medical campus, which has to be an integrated complex of medical services and providers of at least 50 acres. Unfortunately, the hospice facility also wouldn't need 50 acres in order to operate. and there's a specific special provision in our ED zone that prohibits a medical campus from being within 1,000 feet of our urban service boundary. Unfortunately, the hospice facility that's planned doesn't fit within the concept of our regional medical campus and nor could it meet the spacing required from the urban service boundary based on the site that they have found. So these circumstances have led Hospice at the Bluegrass to file their text amendment. The intent of our ED zone is to provide land within the expansion area for employment opportunities that are compatible with our overall character and development, as suggested in the expansion area master plan. The hospice facility is similar in nature to a hospital and has historically been permitted as part of a hospital use, but the hospice care facility is more similar in scale to our medical clinics or office buildings in the community. Therefore, the staff believes it is an appropriate use in our ED zone and can meet the intent of the zone. The staff has no issues with the proposed definition of hospice, but we did have some concerns about the parking generation that the applicant suggested, and they initially suggested one parking space for every four beds plus one space for each employee on the maximum shift. And the staff suggests that that be altered to one space for every two beds, which would double the parking based on beds, but still one space for each employee on the maximum shift. And the staff feels that that would be a more appropriate parking generator for this use. It is slightly higher than what we require for our hospitals in the community, and the staff felt that was appropriate because typically palliative care, which hospices provide, would have a greater number of visitors because people are at their final stages of life. And I believe the applicant was agreeable to that change. And one other suggested change by the staff in terms of an alternative text text is to include the word hospices in the accessory use related to pharmacies in the ED zone. So typically in our ED zone today, a pharmacy is only permitted if it's accessory to specific uses like a medical clinic, the regional medical facility, and the staff felt it was important to also list hospices in that list so they can have the pharmacy necessary to operate their facility. The staff is recommending approval, and the zoning committee did likewise three weeks ago. For two reasons, the text amendment would define hospice, create the parking generator, and permit the use in our ED zone, which will expand the opportunities for employment in this area. And second, the hospice facility is very similar to medical clinics and hospitals, which are currently permitted in our ED zone. Therefore, this is a timely update to the zone required here. That's it for me. Happy to answer any questions about the staff's recommendation. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Mr. Murphy, what would you like to add? Very little. Thank you very much. I promised you I'd be quick, and we will. I'm Dick Murphy, representing Hospice of the Bluegrass. And with me are Susan Swinford, our Vice President of Administration, and D.D. Byrne, Chief Clinical Officer of Hospice. We agree with the staff recommendation. We agree with the staff's proposed amendments to this regarding the parking requirement and the pharmacy. We are very thankful for Fayette Alliance. They put a letter of support in for us on this proposed use, and we thank Fayette Alliance for doing that. I know Ms. Van Dongle was here earlier and obviously couldn't stay. But we have found through the hazard facility that a freestanding hospice facility is very well accepted by patients, families, and the staff itself. It even serves to focus the mission of the staff. And so based on that experience, we'd like to have the possibility of doing a freestanding hospice. I think when the ordinance was done 15 years ago, there wasn't a concept of a freestanding hospice. We just need to sort of fill in the gaps here. As Ms. Wade said, you could do a medical clinic-type use on this property. This is much lower intensity than that. And other than that, we'll sit down and be happy to answer any questions you all might have. I'm quicker than a Bruce Simpson rebuttal here for you tonight. Yes. And even his first presentation. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? No. If not, I would presume no one else in the audience wishes to speak. We can move on if there's no questions. Ms. Blandon? Yes, ma'am. Are we ready for a moment? Oh, sure. Move approval of ZOTA 2013-2 with the staff alternative text and for reasons outlined by staff. Thank you. I think Ms. Mundy beat everybody to the second. All those in vote when it comes up on the screen. I'll put it that way. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you. Sorry to keep you here all day and half the night. Ms. Wade, you got one more thing for us? Yes, sir. on page 8 of your agenda Zota 2013-3 this is an urban county council initiated text amendment to allow mobile food unit vendors which are food trucks as an accessory use in the warehouse business are B4, industrial, I1 and I2, and the P2, and then economic development zones, our ED zone. This text amendment was initiated by the council earlier this year. I guess the impetus has been that food trucks be permitted more widely in the community. Currently, a mobile food unit vendor is permitted in any zone where a restaurant is first permitted, which would be like our B1 or B2 zones, but not explicitly permitted even as an accessory use in our industrial and business warehouse zones. So the council felt that perhaps that would be a good idea. So currently, I guess I should explain the current ordinance permits in our I-1 zone the ability to have an accessory food service for visitors and employees of a certain location. And the proposal is to expand that for a food truck to come to the property and locate there temporarily for the same purpose for employees and visitors and to do that in multiple zones. In reviewing this application, the staff felt that there were a few areas within Lexington that are primarily warehouse, business, or industrial that could benefit from this idea of food trucks being able to come as an accessory use. And this text amendment would permit additional options for employees and businesses in those areas with minimal impact. That would avoid possibly incompatible land use decisions that have been suggested for some of those areas of our community in the past. The staff did suggest one change to the initiated text. Rather than referring to the ordinance number, we suggest referring to the section of the code of ordinances in the zoning ordinance. The staff and the zoning committee both recommended approval of this proposed text amendment. The map on the overhead is showing locations, zoning permitting, mobile food units. Currently the red would be where they would be permitted by right. Restaurants are permitted there. The purple or bluish color would be where they would be permitted as accessory uses with this text amendment. Questions? Questions for anyone? No? I don't think we've got anyone in the audience. If we can move on. Do we have a motion? Ms. Blanton. Move approval of ZOTA 2013 mobile food unit vendors as accessory uses in the warehouse, house business, industrial, and economic development zones with the alternative text and for reasons recommended by staff. Motion is amended and seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. King, do you have something for us as far as this resolution that we need to act on for digital submittals? Yes, Mr. Chairman. in order to align the Commission's requirements with the new policy that we have on digital submittals. We're requesting that the Commission pass a resolution that was distributed to you that essentially, and there's an attachment that goes with that as well, it will make sure that everyone is officially notified of this new requirement. It's a process that we've been working on as a staff for the last couple of months. It was vetted with the development community, the engineering community, and also with our partners on the technical committee. And we respectfully request that you adopt this resolution and the blue attachment that Bill is passing out to you right now. I believe everyone has, while Bill is passing out the blue sheet, everyone should have the resolution in front of them that we need to act upon. Are there any questions? Give everyone a chance to take a look at it. When is it effective? Is it effective? I'm sorry, when is it effective? Well, this resolution will be effective upon your passage, but we are implementing the program as of July 1st. Next week. I had a quick question. We're still requiring a lot of paper copies. Is it reduced or is it the same number? It's the same number because, again, our technical committee partners, not all of them have the wherewithal. But this is where we're aiming to go as paperless, reduced paper requirements, and this will help us do that. Any questions? Otherwise, we need a motion to pass this resolution. Move approval of the resolution of us to go digital. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for passage of this resolution. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Any other commission items? Mr. King? Mr. Chairman, you mentioned is there going to be an amended report of the nominee committee before we go to closed session? Yes. I believe everyone knows by now, Carolyn Plumlee and Bill Wilson have been reappointed, waiting confirmation, which should take place very soon. Dr. Lynn Roche-Phillips did not get reappointed. We have a new appointee that I believe has got paperwork and confirmation and so forth to go through. However, the purpose of this today, nominating-wise, we still need to. We've made recommendations so far. However, with Lynn not coming back, we need recommendations from the nominating committee for a new secretary. So that's a long version of what's going on. Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, do you just want to do secretary or do you want to do president and vice president? I'm sorry. You were not here the other day. That got taken care of the other day. In a work session? Yes, sir. We're not voting on it. It's just a recommendation today. The nominating committee would recommend Carla Blanton to take Mr. Phillips' place, Dr. Phillips' place, as Secretary of the Board. Okay. Any discussion on that? No? Okay. The vote will take place. when our first official meeting in July, which will be in two weeks, I guess. Okay. Any questions? No. Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, the staff would request that the Commission make a motion to go into a closed session for a discussion of a pending litigation and would acknowledge that we will probably come out of that if the Commission will take a public motion after the closed session. Okay. Do we have a motion to go into closed session? Go ahead, Mike, if you want to do it. We've got a motion to go into closed session. Do we have a second? Second. And second. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Okay. Motion passes. So there we go. I presume TV cameras off and so forth and so on and so on. That sign has not been on all day. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, I'll do those two if it doesn't cover the link. All right. You all three. Who would be the third one? How about appropriate representatives of your county government? Okay. The Planning Commission is now back in public session, and I think we have a motion on the floor. Well, not a motion on the floor, but we're getting ready to have a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Planning Commission authorize the Department of Law to initiate injunctive relief against the 8291 property at Old Richmond Road. Second. Yes. And the Board of Adjustment. Second. Motion's been made and seconded to authorize the Board of Adjustment and the Department of Law to have authorization for injunctive relief for property of 8291 Old Richmond Road. following any board of adjustment action on 628. If there's no discussion on motion, we'll vote when it comes up on the screen. Is it 8291? Am I abstaining or a cue? Is the address right for the motion? Yes. 8291. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank everyone. I think that's second. Do we have one? I'm sure. Yes. All those in favor, please stand up and you can leave. We appreciate everyone today. Thank you. Thank you.