# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - October 24, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 24, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3153 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3153?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-10-24 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 13,077 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 October 24, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor LFUCG Government Center, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Cravens presided over the meeting. The Commission considered five agenda items and took six votes, approving all matters brought before it. The meeting included two public comments from members of the public. The approved items included two final subdivision plans—PLAN 2013-108F for Grifftown, LLC Property and PLAN 2013-110F for Mapleleaf Subdivision, Unit 1 (Amended)—as well as a development plan for Ellerslie Place, Lots 2 & 2A (Midland Crossing). The Commission also approved a text amendment regarding the Flex Space Project in B4, I1, and I2 Zones and adopted the meeting and planning schedule for the following year. ## Attendance **Present:** Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Frank Penn, and Bill Wilson **Absent:** Eunice Beatty, Patrick Brewer, Mike Owens, and Carolyn Plumlee **Late Arrivals:** None ## Votes and Decisions All votes taken during this meeting passed unanimously with seven votes in favor and no votes against or abstentions. **Approval of Corrected Minutes** [timestamp: 0:10:00] The corrected minutes from the September 26, 2013 meeting were approved. Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Ms. Mundy. Vote: 7-0. **PLAN 2013-108F: Final Subdivision Plan for Grifftown, LLC** [timestamp: 0:14:32] Approval was granted for the Final Subdivision Plan for Grifftown, LLC property at 128-132 York Street. Motion by Ms. Blanton, seconded by Ms. Mundy. Vote: 7-0. The approval is conditioned upon acceptance and approvals from the Urban County Engineer (drainage, storm and sanitary sewers), Urban County Traffic Engineer (street cross-sections and access), Building Inspection (landscaping), Addressing Office (street names and addresses), Urban Forester (tree protection areas and street tree information), addition of utility and street light easements as required, and documentation of Division of Water Quality's approval of Capacity Assurance Program requirements prior to plan certification. **PLAN 2013-110F: Amended Final Record Plat for Mapleleaf Subdivision, Unit 1** [timestamp: 0:23:02] The amended final record plat was approved. Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Penn. Vote: 7-0. Conditions include approvals from the Urban County Engineer, Traffic Engineer, Building Inspection, Addressing Office, and Urban Forester, along with utility easement additions and Division of Water Quality documentation. The property must be developed in accordance with the approved final development plan. **DP 2013-80: Amended Development Plan for Ellerslie Place** [timestamp: 1:15:24] The amended development plan for Ellerslie Place, Lots 2 & 2A (Midland Crossing) was approved. Motion by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Mr. Wilson. Vote: 7-0. Numerous conditions were imposed, including multiple departmental approvals, plan corrections, and requirements that no building permits be issued for Units 36-46 until the mixed-use building on Lot 2A has been constructed. **ZOTA 2013-9: Text Amendment for Flex Space Project Use** [timestamp: 1:47:02] A text amendment to Article 8-21 creating flex space project use in B4, I1, and I2 zones was approved. Motion by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Mr. Drake. Vote: 7-0. Eight conditions were imposed, including limits on retail merchandise and food sales (20,000 square feet) and restaurants (4,000 square feet), and geographic restrictions on where the flex space project may be located. **Meeting and Planning Schedule Adoption** [timestamp: 1:49:42] The meeting and planning schedule for the next year was adopted. Motion by Mr. Penn, seconded by Ms. Blanton. Vote: 7-0. ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the meeting regarding the Ellerslie Place development plan. **Bobby Clark** [timestamp: 0:46:58] spoke on behalf of the Bell Court Neighborhood Association to express support for the development plan. Clark noted that the petitioner had been cooperative throughout the process and characterized the plan as a reasonable compromise. He highlighted two specific concerns that the neighborhood had prioritized: preserving the vegetative buffer and protecting the bur oak tree. Clark stated that the petitioner has committed to protecting both of these features. **Jim Griggs** [timestamp: 1:11:41] addressed the fence and tree agreement reached with the neighborhood. Griggs confirmed that 17 property owners along the shared boundary supported the development plan, contingent upon specific conditions. He noted that these property owners agreed to the plan based on the installation of an 8-foot privacy fence across five lots, which was negotiated and agreed upon with the developer. ## Contested Items The meeting included two significant areas of disagreement among commissioners and staff regarding development conditions. **Timing Condition for Mixed-Use Building Construction** Commissioner Will Berkley questioned whether it was appropriate to require the mixed-use building to be constructed before residential units could be built. Berkley cited precedent from other CC zones where residential components were never actually constructed, suggesting the condition might be unnecessarily restrictive. Staff defended the requirement, arguing that the condition was necessary to meet the inherent requirements of the mixed-use zone itself. This disagreement resulted in a split vote among commissioners. **Enforceability of Neighborhood Agreement Notes** A heated discussion emerged regarding the enforceability of private neighborhood agreements through development plan conditions. The dispute centered on whether specific provisions—such as fence specifications and tree protection requirements—that had been negotiated in private neighborhood agreements could be legally enforced as part of the development plan conditions. Staff expressed concern about the government's role in enforcing what were essentially private restrictions between parties, rather than public regulatory requirements. This disagreement was significant enough to warrant a recess in the meeting to allow staff and commissioners to work through the language and determine the appropriate scope of enforceable conditions. The goal was to resolve which neighborhood agreement provisions, if any, could legitimately be incorporated into the official development conditions. ## Final Subdivision Plan: PLAN 2013-108F - Grifftown, LLC Property [timestamp: 00:11:49] The Planning Commission reviewed the final subdivision plan for Grifftown, LLC, which proposes to subdivide one lot into three non-conforming lots located at 128-132 York Street. **Presentation and Key Speakers** Ms. Gallt and Randy Martin presented the subdivision plan to the Commission. Staff recommended approval of the final plan after the applicant satisfied specific conditions required for the non-conforming lot subdivision. **Conditions and Requirements** The approval was contingent upon the applicant meeting conditions related to non-conforming lot compliance. These conditions included: - Proof of separate utility connections for each of the three proposed lots - Demonstration of independent use capability for each residence **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the final subdivision plan for PLAN 2013-108F. The approval allows the Grifftown, LLC property to proceed with subdividing the single lot into three non-conforming lots, provided all stated conditions regarding utility connections and independent residential use are satisfied. ## Final Subdivision Plan: PLAN 2013-110F - Mapleleaf Subdivision, Unit 1 (Amended) [timestamp: 0:16:36] The Commission considered the amended final record plat for Mapleleaf Subdivision, Unit 1, which proposes to subdivide one lot into five lots. **Presentation and Key Issues** Ms. Gallt, Bill Sallee, and Nick Nicholson presented on this agenda item. The staff recommended approval of the amended final subdivision plan after the applicant resolved building-wall conflicts with the approved development plan. The applicant addressed these conflicts through a minor amendment to the development plan, bringing the subdivision into compliance with technical requirements. **Outcome** The Commission approved the amended final record plat for Mapleleaf Subdivision, Unit 1. ## Development Plan: DP 2013-80 - Ellerslie Place, Lots 2 & 2A (Midland Crossing) [timestamp: 0:24:15] The Commission reviewed and approved an amended development plan for Ellerslie Place, a mixed-use residential project located at Lots 2 & 2A in the Midland Crossing area. The project includes 46 townhouse units and a mixed-use building. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Mr. Martin, Bruce Simpson, Bobby Clark, and Jim Griggs. **Approval and Conditions** The Commission approved the amended development plan subject to 18 conditions. A significant timing requirement was imposed stipulating that no permits may be issued for townhouse units 36–46 until the mixed-use building has been constructed. This condition ensures coordinated development of the residential and commercial components of the project. Additional conditions address key planning considerations: - Pedestrian systems requirements - Tree protection measures - Neighborhood agreements **Outcome** The development plan was approved with all 18 conditions in place. ## Text Amendment: ZOTA 2013-9 - Flex Space Project in B4, I1, and I2 Zones [timestamp: 1:17:18] The Commission considered a text amendment to establish a new flex space project use within B4, I1, and I2 zones. The amendment was presented by Mr. Martin and Dick Murphy. The proposed amendment creates a flex space project use category designed to provide greater flexibility for small businesses operating in these commercial and industrial zones. The new use allows property owners and developers to accommodate diverse business types while maintaining zone integrity. Key provisions of the amendment include: * Requirement for a development plan review process for all flex space projects * Limitations on retail size to prevent excessive commercialization of industrial zones * Restrictions on retail location within flex space projects to control the character and use of industrial areas * Applicability across B4, I1, and I2 zoning districts The amendment addresses concerns about unintended commercialization by establishing clear parameters around retail components within flex space developments. The development plan review requirement ensures that individual projects are evaluated for compatibility with surrounding uses and zone purposes. The Commission approved the text amendment, supporting the creation of this new use category as a means to balance economic development opportunities for small businesses with the preservation of industrial and commercial zone characteristics. ## Adoption of Meeting and Planning Schedule for Next Year [timestamp: 1:49:42] The Commission adopted the draft meeting and planning schedule for the upcoming year. Mr. Penn presented the schedule, which had been previously distributed to Commission members and remained unchanged from the prior work session. The schedule was approved without reported concerns or debate. The adoption of the unchanged schedule reflected the Commission's acceptance of the planning framework that had already been reviewed during the earlier work session. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of corrected minutes from September 26, 2013 - **PLAN 2013-108F** — passed (7-0): Approval of Final Subdivision Plan for Grifftown, LLC property at 128-132 York Street - **PLAN 2013-110F** — passed (7-0): Approval of amended final record plat for Mapleleaf Subdivision, Unit 1 - **DP 2013-80** — passed (7-0): Approval of amended development plan for Ellerslie Place, Lots 2 & 2A (Midland Crossing) - **ZOTA 2013-9** — passed (7-0): Approval of text amendment to Article 8-21 to create flex space project use in B4, I1, and I2 zones - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Adoption of meeting and planning schedule for next year --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm sorry. All right. guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. I'd like to go on and call the meeting of October 24th, Planning Commission, to order. First on our agenda is approval of the minutes. Can I get a motion for approval? Second. Okay, are you moving to approve the September 26 minutes? Okay, we have a motion for approval and a second. Everybody vote. That motion carries. next do we have any postponements or withdrawals all right no postponements or withdrawals all right we'll just go straight into our final subdivision plans Mr. Martin Good afternoon. We're going to start on page one of the agenda. We're looking at Plan 2013-108F for Grifftown LLC property. This property is located at 128 through 132 York Street. The property is on the north side of downtown between Loudon Avenue and 7th Street and east of Lyme. The proposal is to subdivide one lot into three lots of nonconforming lot size and frontage. The subdivision committee had recommended postponement with the following conditions, one through seven, which are typical sign-offs, engineering, traffic, building inspection, addressing, forester, utility, and streetlight sign-offs, and documentation of water quality's approval of the capacity assurance. Condition number 8 and 9 can now be deleted because they have met the Article 4-5A of the Zoning Ordinance, which talks about nonconforming lots. If you look at the white copy that you have, this describes what a non-conforming lot and the subdivision to subdivide the lot further needs to have information that proves that these three dwelling units that are on the property do meet as three residents, and therefore we can further subdivide the property, even though the lots are now going to be non-conforming as far as lot size and lot frontage. If the Planning Commission makes a finding, we have a copy on the blue sheet which lays out the information as to what information we received from the applicant to be able to meet the information needed to show that these are three standing homes independently. Therefore, now the staff can recommend approval of this by deleting Condition 8 and 9 with your approval. Any other questions? Any questions? Okay. All right. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Yes, I'm Randy Martin, representing the client, and I would agree to the conditions and phase laid out. All right. All right, thank you. Thank you. All right, we'll turn it over to the Commission for a motion or comments. Go ahead. Move approval of Plan 2013-108F, Grifton LLC properties, with the seven conditions outlined by staff. And do we need to accept the findings? And accepting the findings for compliance with Article 4-5A of the zoning regulations. All right, we have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Second. I have a second by Ms. Mundy. Everybody vote. That motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, we're going to move to the next item. At the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2, we have Plan 2013-110F Maple Leaf Subdivision Unit 1 amended. This property is located at 3140-3150 Maple Leaf Drive. This is on the south side of Manowar at Todd's Road and just north of Palumbo Drive. The proposal of this is to subdivide one lot into five lots. The subdivision committee had recommended a postponement because there was questions regarding several conflicts between the building and the property line with the re-subdivision of this property. We had an approved development plan, and when they came in with the new lotting configuration, there were some conflicts between the buildings and the property lines. But since that time, we've received a new minor amendment development plan to allow the buildings to be shifted slightly, allowing the building and property line conflicts to be removed. If you look at your salmon color plan, we also received a revised copy of the record plat, and we were able to reduce the number of conditions on the plan. We have the standard sign-offs, engineering traffic, building inspection, addressing urban forest or fire, waste management, Division of Water Quality's approval of the Capacity Assurance Program. I agree this development plan was approved, but this is a new proposal. And then the last condition is to Oh, shoot. Wait a minute. Okay, I'm sorry about that. It's the orange copy. The building wall conflicts, to resolve the building wall conflicts with the proposed property lines and have this plan certified prior to recordation of the record plat. Bill is going to get up and give some information as to this last condition. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, good afternoon. We have rendered the minor amended development plan that has been submitted to the staff just to help explain the plat that's before you. The staff is not at this time referring the plan for your action, but we do want to show it to you as to what we have been doing the last few weeks involving this plat. the existing development plan for the property has a single building approved in this location closer to the frontage of Maple Leaf Drive and this minor amendment basically changes the height and the geometry and the ground coverage of three of the buildings and adds a fourth building so this is the amendment the staff has been reviewing since your subdivision committee meeting three weeks ago the submitted plat does not match the current certified and approved development plan for the property and that is why the applicant has submitted this revision the revision in the staff's view does not yet meet all of the requirements of a minor amended plat but its submittal is enough of an assurance to us to know that the applicant will resolve these conflicts between the proposed lotting and the buildings that are approved on the property to allow us to go from a postponement recommendation to you on this plat to an approval recommendation. So that is the reason for the eighth condition that you see on this sheet. There are more than one way to resolve these conflicts. Either the plat that is approved today potentially could be revised and the existing development plan met, or this minor amendment can be further revised and certified to eliminate the conflicts in that manner. So that's why we've rendered this minor plan, wanted to present it to you today, in the hopes that it would illustrate and help you understand where the staff's recommendation is on this. Either Ms. Galt or I would be glad to answer any questions from the Commission at this time about the plat that's before you. Okay, Frank, go ahead. Bill, help me understand the proposed conflict with the property lines. Is that the billing that's added? Where is that proposed conflict? The conflict was first identified by the staff with the existing development plan, which shows a single building generally in this location, and there are some minor conflicts with these two property lines and the current development plan. these conflicts are pretty easily resolved with this minor amendment. This is the area of concern to the staff today. That's why this plan has not been certified. Is the building in question too big? Is that the problem? It's too close to the property line? Well, there are really two problems in the staff's view with the minor amendment. It appears to us to occupy more ground area than the current plan, and it appears to have more floor area than the current plan. Neither of those are eligible to be approved by the staff. So they could either file a major amended plan if they wish to increase those, or they could revise this plan to keep it in the realm of a minor plan. Thank you. Okay, any other questions? All right, thank you. Thank you. Applicants. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant. Also, Greg Isaacs is here with me with Palmer Engineering. We are in agreement completely with the staff's recommendation, and we are going to basically change the calculations in order to make sure that this remains a minor amendment. We really do not see any issues with the staff's position and ours. All right. Very well. Any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, will anybody in the audience? My assistant chairman here has reminded me of things. Okay. Let's have a motion then. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. I move approval for 2013-110F Maple Leaf Subdivision Unit 1 as amended with the eight conditions as provided by staff. All right. We have a motion for approval, and we have a second. Frank Penn. Everybody vote. That motion carries. Thank you all. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, The final subdivision development plan issue on your agenda today, or I shouldn't say issue but just plan, is on page 2 of your agenda under development plans. Item A, it is DP 2013-80, Ellerslie Place, Lots 2 and 2A, also known as Midland Crossing. This is property located between Midland Avenue here in this location and Walton Avenue. This is not far from where Midland curves and turns into Winchester Road. And, of course, Walton continues up, crosses the railroad track, and then hits Midland slash Winchester Road up in this location. The Belcourt neighborhood is immediately here. At this point where Midland, in this access, there is, of course, a railroad spur that is still somewhat active. I believe it delivers newsprint to the Herald-Leader as its primary function at this time. The plan that you see before you is an amended plan. It's for a mixed-use zone. The previous plan that the Planning Commission approved had a series of multifamily buildings on the property, you may recall. This building is an existing building, professional office, primary use at this location along this access entrance. You have a proposed mixed-use building in this location. Now, this was on the previous plan, but it was more in this location. It has been shifted back. They've added parking in this location here. This plan is now dominated by the townhouses that you see here. There are 46 units total. These are two-bedroom units. They're approximately 21 by 42 square feet, multi-story. This building is 62,000 square feet of commercial. They have parking associated here, and they're going to have 28 one-bedroom dwelling units located in this mixed-use building at this location. You can see that they have parking distributed through the development to accommodate guests and overflow parking and that sort of thing. They have driveways along the access easements that they are proposing, and there will be garage parking. In fact, 57 garage spaces and 45 surface spaces are proposed for the townhouses. There will be some sharing of parking between Lot 2 and Lot 2A. These have been subdivided. They are actually two independent lots at this time. There's a large utility easement that runs through. There's a sanitary sewer existing. This line here is a large easement that does run through the property. And, of course, as you can see here, there is their proposed detention. This plan was postponed previously. Staff has had meetings with the applicant, as well as received several revised plans to address some of our staff's concerns. On the plan, we have handed out to you on a pink piece of paper the revised staff recommendations. The first eight, of course, are standard development plan sign-offs that go with every development plan that we generally review and present to the planning commission. There are some cleanup conditions. there's a need for them to add some information and make some adjustments to the plan. The first one you can see is denote the significant tree information and tree protection areas along the property line. And this is in this area. And this area already has conditional zoning and is a buffer zone intended to buffer the Belcourt neighborhood. just a short time ago actually it was brought staff's attention that a bur oak is located in this location we we've heard a lot about bur oaks lately and there happens to be one here they amended their plan this open space that you can see here was actually in this area as a result they've met in the field with the urban forester the neighborhood they revised their plan to provide protection for this significant tree staff would like for them to identify that in accordance with Article 26 as well as the tree protection area along the property line. The easements that you see here that will serve this development, and this is a preliminary subdivision plan and a final development plan, they will be able to subdivide these units. And the Planning Commission may very well see final record plats for these units. They need to denote the maintenance responsibilities for these private access easements. In addition, I might add, they have agreed to build these to public standard. I think that's important to the scope of this development and the fact that the access easements will ultimately be the frontage for these units should you see those record plats. We have asked that they delete note 20. That's just a redundant note that we'd like for them to delete. we have a condition 13 of complete the pedestrian system sidewalk. Now, 13 is a condition where we want to delineate the sidewalks from the system that we would like to see in the development to the units. And I'm going to address that in a little more detail with another condition, and we have an exhibit for you that will help explain staff's concern in that matter. and that is the next one is 14 denote divisions of fire and traffic engineering approval of a proposed gate again walton avenue midland avenue there is anticipation they'll be cut through traffic they are proposing a gate that will require our fire department's approval and then traffic's approval as well traffic did express some concern with people's inability if they're caught by that gate unaware of its existence how they might turn around but there's a slight concern there again it's something the applicant is proposing at this time they may choose not to utilize a gate that but should they want a gate again fire is going to have to approve it as always and traffic would like to weigh in on their concerns as well we have a timing issue under 15 on landscape islands on lot 2a this relates to the previously approved plan and some and this is an existing building there are landscape islands that are required that don't appear to exist we'd like to have that clarified denoted as when they're going to provide those in this area and this is primarily right through this area along this access easement into the property. We would like for them to demonstrate compliance with Article 28-6, and that's prior to plan certification. And that is one of several handouts and exhibits that are associated with this plan today. And we have passed this out to you. You may recall previous conversations about 28-6 of the mixed-use zone. The MU-3, or pardon me, 28-6 applies to all mixed-use zones. These are design guidelines and criteria that they must meet where applicable. Particularly important is pedestrian facilities, building facades, certain types of features that are required for a mixed-use project. They will need to demonstrate their compliance with that on this plan, and they have also provided an exhibit that shows you the townhouses they propose to build, which helps demonstrate the way they intend to meet the facade requirements of that article of your zoning ordinance. There are several other items, including lighting. There are some, again, very specific design criteria in that particular part of the ordinance that will need to be documented and denoted on the development plan. It's similar to what we required of the Red Mile plan. You may recall they had to meet the same requirements on a much larger scale, of course. We have 17, and this is, I'm going to put up an exhibit very quickly. Thank you. Conditions 17 is related to the condition I mentioned earlier about the pedestrian sidewalks to the units. and what staff's concern is is that a previous plan had a sidewalk system through the development which we think is very important to maintain connectivity to the public right away and the public sidewalks you can see it they have it here but then it stopped we would like to have that system back on the plan now they do have a walkway system through here a path. Now this relates to the 28-6 mixed use requirements where they have a pedestrian system as part of the mixed use. But we would like to see a public, not public, but a use by the public system that would help this area function safely. It's fairly obvious to staff and to other divisions that people are going to come through here and they're going to head that way when they walk. This, on the other hand, will be a nice feature for the residents and we're sure will be utilized by the residents. The issue that is addressed by the exhibit that we have for you is that they're going to need to adjust their townhouses in order to get a full-length driveway in there. Because if you see the typical building dimension without a sidewalk and then you add the sidewalk, which is the second one, you create a conflict with the parked car. So by adjusting their townhouses slightly and they have room, then they can remove that conflict. And we wanted to demonstrate that to you and explain why we felt that was important and that system, we believe, is important to this development. The final condition that you see on your pink sheet is number 18, and it states to note that no permits shall be issued for units 36 through 46 until the mixed-use building is constructed. And that's these units right through here. These units will not be permitted and not be constructed until the mixed-use building has been constructed. And this is because a mixed-use building is inherent to the mixed-use zone. It's part of it. And they need that to meet the zone. and we believe it is important that this be a part of the development and so therefore we felt like it necessary to attach a timing and threshold condition to the plan. This is an existing building. It's not a mixed-use building. And again, these residential units, you've got a mixed-use site but not a mixed-use building consistent with the requirements of MU3 zoning. So again, they've agreed and staff has agreed that's a good solution to just time construction of this prior to these final units. They can build these. That's not a problem. They can get their infrastructure in. Along with this, there's also a condition that they have met. They will be filing a minor easement plat to remove some conflicts that exist in here, some easement conflicts that exist. With that, those are the conditions that you see, and staff is recommending approval. Now, I would bring one other item to your attention that is not on your pink sheet, and that is there are a series of notes right down in here, and they're listed under the conditional zoning requirements that are attached to this land. These last few notes are not a part of that. They are notes that reflect conversations that the applicant and Bellcourt neighborhood has had. Staff has not been party to those negotiations and cannot speak to those notes at this time. We have passed out to you a letter of support. Staff received this at 1 o'clock this afternoon from the Belcourt neighborhood. And they are in this letter expressing their support for this development plan. They've also referenced several conditions that they would like to have included on this plan that they have negotiated with the applicant. But again, this is the first time staff has seen any specifics. We were aware that several of those notes were not associated with the conditional zoning. We wanted to bring that to your attention, and I'm sure that the applicant and the neighborhood will be glad to discuss those with you and explain how they arrived at those particular conditions in their agreement. And with that, if there's any questions for me, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Okay. Thank you, Tom. Will Berkley. Tom, item 18. I've got a question about that. And I realize mixed use, but we have our CC zoning, and I'm not aware of a situation, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, of where we have forced, as a part of the development plan, the residential component or one of the components to be constructed as a condition. I mean, I can point to a number of examples in the CC zone where the residential component has never been built. Why are we doing that here, I guess? The mixed-use zone requires a mixed-use building. It's an aspect of the zone. And without that, other zones may be more appropriate, and they perhaps should pursue a zone change on this property once again. And I would say Red Mile has some timing components to it relative to square footages and residential components. And that is a mixed-use aspect. It's not a CC zone aspect, no, but it is. Well, is CC, I mean, I would consider CC a mixed use zone as well. It is, but it does have different aspects to it and different requirements. Okay. The mixed use is a very urban zone. The CC is intended to mimic it to a certain degree, but in a different setting. Well, and I guess where I'm coming from, too, is that, you know, when you're developing real estate, you want to develop it as you have demand. I guess I have a little bit of an issue with forcing them to do something that there may not be demand for at the given time, but maybe make a condition where obviously you can't do anything else in that area other than a mixed-use building. But I just wonder, too, what it would do to the development if they were to build the building and there wasn't demand there and you have an empty building sitting there. And I don't think that's a good situation either. So that's my only concern here. Yes, sir, and that's a very legitimate concern. And staff would, again, make the point that if it can't work there and if the market is not working there, perhaps MU3 should not be the zone there and that they could pursue some change. All right. Karen Mundy. In looking at the sidewalks, and you're proposing to put them across the backs of the driveways, do you want those on both sides of the street? We had actually only envisioned them being on that one side. Okay, on the left-hand side. Yes. Okay. All right, very well. Any other? Frank Penn. Tom, that gate that comes out on Midland Avenue, where's the railroad track in relationship to that? It's down in here. Is that still used as a spur line? I believe it is still used for periodic delivery of newsprint. The Herald-Leader still does some printing on site. All right. Staff doesn't have any problem if they put the gate or don't put the gate? You don't have any preference to that? We really don't. It seems to be their applicant's concern about cut-through traffic. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Next, we'll hear from the applicant, Mr. Simpson. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, and Bruce Simpson. I'm here for the applicant. Brian Hanna is in charge of the project. As Tom has indicated, we have met a number of times with the planning staff to respond to their concerns about this project. This site, of course, has quite a history of attempts at development over the years dating back to the mid-'80s when it was going to be a grocery store, and then that didn't work. Then it was going to be another development, and that didn't get passed. And then there's going to be four or five-story buildings for condos before the recession in 2008, and that got changed around, and it's been changed a couple of times since then. There's been different owners along the way. We're now in a point where we have the opportunity to have additional residential units in downtown Lexington, which we believe is a good thing for the community. and there's more importantly, from the standpoint of the developer, a market for these townhomes. So we're pleased to be here. We're pleased that we've answered the staff's concerns and have a recommendation for approval. We've also had ongoing meetings with the Belcourt Neighborhood Association over the years through all of these different changes, and the additional notes on the development plan that Tom mentioned that were not part of the conditional zoning but our promises from the developer that he wishes to put in writing and therefore be enforceable on the development plan is what he referred to earlier. Bobby Clark of the Belcourt Neighborhood Association and Jim Griggs, also a member of that neighborhood association here today, to recommend approval. They can discuss the notes and the need for those notes in their judgment, and I believe they will confirm our cooperation throughout this whole process of getting this property up to development for approval today. We're in agreement with the staff's recommendations and its conditions. We still have some work to do, but this moves us further on down the road. There will be continued scrutiny, obviously, by all concerned, and we welcome that scrutiny. We've done a lot of work up to now, and we're ready to go forward, and we ask for your approval. All right. Very well. We have a question. Frank Penn. Mr. Simpson, in regard to Mr. Berkeley's question, the intent is to do the mixed use. That's why you're asking for that. Yeah. We won't be coming back later and doing a zone change to get away from mixed use, will we? Well, you know, I mean, the economy changes, as you know, Mr. Penn. And right now it's our intent to hold on to the mixed-use zone, and that's why we were in agreement to delay construction of those residential units to incorporate that element. Now, Mr. Berkley makes a good point that, you know, if the market's not there, it would be foolish to build and have an empty building that has no purpose. Should that happen, we would probably come back and get a zone change for the balance of the property. But zone change you're talking about, four to six months, they felt like they wanted to go forward on what had already been approved in zoning and test the market, and if it works, great. If it doesn't, we'd have to come back and have a whole round of additional hearings. To follow up on that, each one of these units is intended to be sold as separate units so it's a townhouse unit situation it won't be a rental situation well people are free to rent property I mean there's no preclusions on anybody renting but they're designed to be sold fee simple title to the owner that's what I wanted to know, thank you alright, very well any other questions for Mr. Simpson alright, thank you Yes. Did you all want to speak? Yes, please. Thank you. I'm Bobby Clark. Good to see everybody here today. It has been a long six or seven years. I'm former president of the Belcourt Neighborhood Association, and I'm here today as a resident along the property line and have helped facilitate on a volunteer basis the wishes of the neighbors along that property line. Mr. Hanna did, in fact, present to the Belcourt Neighborhood Association itself the plans, but they didn't take any formal action. They felt that this particular development really impacted those neighbors that lived right along the property line, and so I took it upon myself to help facilitate the discussions. And pleased to say that Mr. Hanna has been very cooperative in terms of the needs. We were not for that five-story development looking into our backyard, and the proposal that he has put in front of this commission today seems like a reasonable compromise. We were very concerned about the buffer. One of the plans is remove all the honeysuckle and brush. No problem with that, but we've got some trees. We've got a good number of trees there, and we found out recently about the bur oak. We don't want to come home and see those trees taken down, and he's assured us that that will not happen. If there's an issue about the health or a particular nature of the tree, then the property owners will be notified. So we have submitted a letter of support of the property owners. There's only one property owner that's not listed just because I just couldn't get her. I have talked to her. She seemed pretty supportive of the plan but did not include her here. But I do have e-mails and backup that I could use their name in this particular letter supporting this plan. I do want to note that there is one typo in the note. There was a transposition error of 579 Boonesboro, and it should be 597. So just to get that onto the record that it will be changed. So we are pleased with the progress that it's making. It makes me a little nervous about the zoning change thing. I know that hasn't been discussed. I don't know where that might go. But in terms of what the zoning is now and the plan, it appears to me, just Bobby speaking, no one else, that the compromise here of not building those eight remaining townhouses is a good incentive to make sure that the market's there to develop the mixed-use component to meet the zoning requirements. So we're in support of that. Any other questions, anything you want to add, Jimmy? Okay. Any questions from the Commission? Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mr. Griggs, did you want to speak? I'm okay, Mike. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. I'll turn it back over to the Commission for any more comments, questions, or a motion. Okay. Frank? I don't know whether this is a concern or not a concern. You've got a one-way in and out if you do the crash gate. I don't know whether that should be a concern or should not be a concern. Did Bell Court have any thinking about that? I guess maybe I'll just Bruce, too, about that. We like the idea of a gate, or at least one gate. There may be questions on the Midland side that's come up today. But we were very concerned from the initial standpoint of adding that much density and cut through traffic. A traffic study was done eight or nine years ago that showed there would be significant increase in cut through traffic on Boonesboro if this was just kind of open. And it's actually about 10 second or 15 second quicker to cut through Boonesboro to go Forest Avenue out instead of going to Main Street. So we like the idea, or let me just speak for myself, generally speaking, I like the idea of a gate. Whether it's one or two, that's really up to the city and the practicality of the two gates, but one especially. Bruce, could you respond to that? The concept of the gate was primarily a concern for the residents that live in this in development. It's not a public street. It's a private driveway area. So from the standpoint of assessing residents' monthly maintenance fee to take care of that property and paving it and fixing the potholes, obviously if it's opened up to the general public on a just come and go as you want, they don't pay anything for that, and it creates safety issues about that traffic that doesn't belong there. It's just going from Midland over to Walton or vice versa. And so we believe that it helped deal with a safety issue and quality of life for the people that are going to invest money to live there. So your all's intent is to put the gate there? Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments? I don't know if anybody has any comments about this item 18. What are your thoughts? My thought was if the people don't mind it and any of the applicants are willing to go along with it, I'd say fine. But they did set forth a warning to us. If things didn't go well on the townhouse situation, and they'd be back here looking for a zone change. But I'm okay. Okay. Yes, Frank, go ahead. From the Stash perspective, this agreement that they worked out with the Belcourt neighborhood, does that go on the development plan? I mean, what happens with this? Is this part of the approval? they are requesting that that be part of the development plan notes so that it can be enforced as a development plan note so part of our motion would be to include this yes sir thank you all right and i think it is appropriate for the staff to comment that we've not had advanced opportunity to look at these we may ask that only some of these go on the development plan you know private restrictions generally are not enforced by the government i think the majority of them look okay just at the first plans but perhaps all six or seven of them may not appear on the development plan in fact a private agreement may be referenced in place of that just wanted to put that on the record so what would be our process for doing this I think the parties have indicated that they're interested in putting this on the development plan. I think in concept, the staff is fine with that. We just didn't want to leave anyone with the impression that exact words will appear on the development plan. We may ask for some slight editing of these just to ensure that as a development plan restriction, we can enforce it. That's our primary concern. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. I think it would be reasonable to editing changes, but if something substantively was dropped from that plan, then this letter is really conditional upon the expectation that these notes would be on there. Again, if there's a word or two that needs to change, I trust, Brian, they're going to go through with what we want, but we don't want a situation or a scenario that something substantive was taken out of that because that was conditional on our support. I don't think the staff has any issue referencing a private agreement, but if there are issues in the government's enforcement of the development plan restrictions that are truly private restrictions, we don't want to commit to place the government in that bad situation today. Mr. Salley, with the fact that this letter is on the record, wouldn't it? Yes, sir. Clearly, on the record, all parties are in agreement with this. I don't think there's an issue other than whether zoning enforcement of the government would enforce versus private enforcement. My name is Jim Griggs. Bill, could you explain which of those notes to be added to the development plan that you're having problems with? Is it a fence along five properties? I have not seen these until we actually started this meeting. So, I mean, we have not had any opportunity to review those. If you'd like to give us just a couple of minutes, I think we could talk about them as a staff and report back to you if you'd like to include these on the plan. Would it give us a couple of minutes? We'd like to kind of know on the front end. All right. The chair will call a short recess, five minutes. Thank you, sir. I've got some issues, yeah. So they can get this down before some of them does. I see. I see. I see their problem is the tree that's on the development of a specific tree. and we're trying to alter it. That's the one that they're there. There's probably a point in question. Thank you. okay so who that problem is I think we would have to know if there are private researches on this problem. It's true. We're not talking about it. But there's no reason before it's been a problem. It's a problem. I can see what that goes. I can see what that goes. I can see what that goes. Forcing what it is. We can have it privately and we can have the same thing. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. is uh yeah i don't really know what they're talking about right now i have no idea what the issues while they're reading the letter what's in the letter this so they're not Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Staff is ready to give our initial review of these in terms of the development plan and how if the intent is for the public, meaning building inspection, planning, engineering, or whomever, to enforce these notes on the development plan, there would have to be some modification and clarification. I'll comment on each, and then we'll let the folks see where they think we are. The first item, to build fences on your property behind 597, 601, 603, 605, and 607, I'm assuming that's Boonesboro Avenue, with specifications noted in the development plan, it's certainly no problem indicating that there would be fencing constructed behind those. It needs to be tied to some event, like prior to issuance of building permit, And I would note that if there are no specifications laid out, if they came in and said that that would be a four-foot-high chain-link fence, we would have no reason to dispute that that is what was agreed to. So if there is some understanding of what type of fence that's to be, there needs to be some submittal of the specifications, and there has to be some determination whether those are in compliance with applicable ordinances. Number two, plans to incrementally clear brush every 150 to 200 feet as the townhouses are built. Again, that has some judgmental character. I assume that there would have to be a condition tied to a building permit to somehow visually indicate where townhouses are built and where the brush would be removed. and I'm concerned in that there is some note about trees as we go on to the next. In some folks' mind, what's brush and what's a tree can be a judgment call as well, so there's no indication who makes that judgment call. So there's some built-in potential for conflict there. Item three, speak to each Boonesboro Avenue proper nor in advance regarding removal of any mature trees after an arborist inspection. Again, there is no city permit for removal of a tree, so I'm not sure what and how this would even be precipitated in terms of government involvement in making sure that is done unless there is some... Again, I'm not sure how we get there, to be honest with you. Number four, fix past standing water and draining problems during heavy rain events behind 527, 529, 531 Boonesboro Avenue properties. Again, my question would be at what point in time prior to what precipitating event, to whose approval and satisfaction would it be determined that the problem had been fixed? I assume you could say that those problems would be fixed to the satisfaction of the urban county engineer prior to issuance of any permits or something like that. But again, what would constitute fixing the past standing water problem, depending on the nature, might be a little bit of a gray area. And five, providing opportunities for property owners to review and comment on engineering and landscaping issues. both the approval of any engineering approval for any improvement plans, if there are any associated with this, is an administrative function, not a hearing function of the Division of Engineering, and likewise approval of any landscaping that's required under the ordinance is a building inspection approval issue under permit. But certainly I think it would not be a problem to require that the developer provide some written notice to property owners, but they would need to specify which property owners. And at the time, anything is submitted to the urban county government. But again, these are, in other words, you submit your plans to engineering, the engineering review them. It's not a hearing setting like this. So, again, I think I'm very respectful of these, and I understand where the neighborhood is coming from. But in terms of these being translated into development plan conditions, there's a lot of clarification that would need to be done. Okay, so you're stating that these probably should not be on the development plan and that they can have this set. Not as is. Yeah, and they can have a separate agreement, and it's on the record here that if there was some conflict, they could refer back to say, well. They could have a separate agreement, or they could work to modify these into agreements to be put on the development plan that would be acceptable to the urban county government. We'd be glad to work with both sides to try to, you know, resolve that. And then this is a final development plan? Yes. So you've got a couple of weeks maybe to certify it and work it out? Yeah, they would have a year if the condition gave it conditional approval. And, again, you could make it subject to staff, and that would be capital S staff, including law and others that we might need to consult with. And if we reached an impasse that either side was not satisfied with, then we would come back to this body for final adjudication. Okay. I'm sorry for the confusion related to the letter. The water and some of those issues aren't even on the proposed notes. The tree issue was something that we took to the Planning Commission and the Council when the zone change was affected and was agreed to then. I think generally, and it's hard for me to speak because I have no official capacity, but I think generally if the staff wants to review and present language that is acceptable, that we would only want the opportunity to be able to work out the details of the private agreement that Mr. Simpson and Mr. Hannes already said we can reach on that. So whether it's conditional approval or whatever the legal language is, we understand your position. Plus, we've talked about these things before in terms of the water and stuff and general agreement that we would work something out, but today was the first time your staff as well as Mr. Hanna saw the detail, and I apologize for that delay. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Simpson. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I've seen these referenced in the handout material. The notes have been on the development plan for four or five days at least, but they're not reflective with this letter, and I think that's where a lot of the confusion is. So we're comfortable with the notes on this plan, and I would just suggest to Chris that if they have any reservations about the notes that are on this plan, we'll make an effort to try to get them worked out, and those that the government doesn't feel it can enforce, they would be deleted. We're obligated to work with the neighborhood on some acceptable private agreement on these other issues, and if that fails, they can petition to be heard by the Planning Commission on it. All right. Very well. And I'll just comment, we would fully support them working out a private agreement, and we have no objection to reviewing and having acceptable notes that would be enforced by government. on certain aspects of this being a part of the development plan, and we will be glad to work with both parties on that. All right. Frank? Chris, I guess I'll ask you and Mr. Simpson both this. Does this rise to the level of a postponement, or do you think we can do this going forward? It seems to me that both sides are generally agreeable with the concepts. We would be perfectly willing to go forward if the Commission is comfortable in letting us resolve this. And again, if we see that we have reached a situation where there's a substantial disagreement on some issue, we would bring it back to the Commission as a continued discussion item, and then you all would adjudicate the specifics of it. Okay. Mr. Simpson? We really don't want to postpone it. We postponed several times. So I think the neighborhood would say we've certainly operated in good faith all along the way, and I think we'll get this worked out. Okay. And if we can't, they have a right to come back and say that we haven't. That's on the record. All right. Mr. Griggs, you want one more comment? The conversations with the neighborhood of the 17 landowners along the shared property boundary were primarily about a continuous fence. And Bobby orchestrated a poll, and there were 12 neighbors that already had stockade fences, and there were five properties that had no fence or chain-link fence. And coincidentally, they were five properties altogether, those numbered 597 through 907. So with a meeting with Brian Hanna, it was agreed that he would erect an eight-foot privacy fence across the back of those five lots. And that agreement allowed for the letter of support to be endorsed by all 17 property owners. It all had to do with that 250-foot length of fence. And we promised everyone that that would be on the development plan, and it's an 8-foot stockade, privacy, whatever you want to call it, out of pressure-treated pine or some light material. And it's a pretty simple specification. It's on the development plan, and if it needs to be tweaked a little bit, but there are 17 property owners that are supporting this contingent upon that. Thank you. Again, if the specifications are on the development plan, then that's fine. Okay, so are they on the... They weren't in the language here, and we did not have time, obviously, to cross-reference the... All right. Mr. Martin, are they on the plan? There are notes on the plan. It does not speak, oh, pardon me, eight-foot-tall privacy fence made from pine or other comparable material. That agreement is there. And there are, it addresses the fence in two statements. It addresses repairing damaged fences. and it talks about some pine trees being removed. It's difficult. White pines and other comparable evergreens. But they have addressed that part of their conversations, which we were not party to. And then the letter, as you can see, is very different. All right. So, Mr. Simpson, you all agree to do what's on the development plan? Okay. All right. I'm going to close the hearing and turn it over to the commission for either more discussion or motion. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I'm a little confused, which is not unusual. Should this be on the development plan? I mean, there are some elements of this letter that are already on the development plan, but there are some other elements that are not. Okay. Here's what Mr. King, I think, just said. He said that the things that the city can enforce on the development plans, the other things are private agreements that the city cannot enforce. But the letter will be as part of this record. And I assume the applicants have agreed to. Have you agreed to this letter? You haven't seen it? Okay. All right. Well, it's going to be part of the record. All right. Mr. Will Berkley. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion for approval of DP 2013-80 with the 18 noted conditions. Revised? Yes, revised. Okay. We have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Wilson. Everybody vote when you can. The motion carries, 7-0. Thank you very much. No. No. No. No. No. Just a few seconds. I've been kind of working up my list. I was going to talk to Tracy today. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There's everybody, a lot of people have time to do. people I've talked to the ED. I'm complaining about the ED too. Good afternoon. Chairman Cravens, members of the Commission, our next item today is ZOTA 2013-9. This is a request by the Hauser Group LLC, and it's a text amendment to Article 8-21 of the zoning ordinance in order to create a new principal use in the wholesale and warehouse B4 business zone, and that carries forward to our light industrial and heavy industrial zones. Petitioner is wishing to create a new use called a flex space project. This item is found in your notebooks behind tab 1. The applicant has submitted a revised text. So we have a staff report, a supplemental staff report, the applicant's original text, and then their two-page text from yesterday. The text amendment is proposed in order to provide additional flexibility in the zoning categories, the B4, I1, and then I2, which the partitioner hopes to assist in growing small businesses without adversely affecting surrounding areas. The text that they're proposing originally, and then as the revised text also carries forward, is requiring a development plan that the Planning Commission must review in order to get a flex space project approved. In addition, it allows six new categories of uses, so the underlying zone uses would be permitted. And then they're proposing to add schools, libraries, museums, art galleries, and so forth, churches and private clubs, establishments for retail sale of merchandise and food, restaurants, offices, and health clubs, athletic clubs, et cetera. In addition, they are providing some, not really criteria, but considerations for the Planning Commission in evaluating a flex-based project. So the petitioner, in their justification, identified that there are, within Lexington, some areas zoned B4 or I1 that are underperforming in terms of job creation. And they believe that providing additional flexibility in terms of zoning would allow for more business incubation areas. So the applicant currently owns property in the Regency Road and Moore Drive area. And that area clearly has a mixture of zoning categories. It has B3, B4, I1, and also land uses. So within that particular area of our community, their businesses utilize warehousing, processing, storage and distribution, and some retail uses. The petitioner is of the opinion that the percentage of space used in each of these functions shifts over time for our businesses. So they may start out in terms of a wholesale business but then see an opportunity for retail at that location and want to grow that portion of their business. And the zoning ordinance oftentimes will restrict that. So the applicant identified that as businesses mature, they aren't necessarily able to stay in the same location or in the same zone with the existing restrictions. So the options there would be to conform to the zoning restrictions and not grow your business in that manner, move to another location, or simply close. Besides Regency Road and Moore Drive, the staff identified a few other areas within the community that we felt also was similarly situated in terms of having warehouse or light industrial zoning and also near retail. and specifically Fortune Drive here, and then Liberty Road at New Circle, which is Creative Drive. And then, of course, their property is near the Regency Road area. So you'll see the gray or purple uses, and then also in near proximity, the red, more retail uses. In terms of the applicant or the staff, I've handed out a staff exhibit which identifies in the B4 and I1 zones some of the other avenues of possible mixed use. specifically office uses have been permitted in the past to be mixed with our warehouse uses in some cases up to 75 percent of the space in addition we have adaptive reuse projects that are permitted in the zoning ordinance and then retail sale typically as an accessory use in these zones, but in some cases for particular products like lumber and furniture, retail sale is a principal use. The applicant's proposal didn't address this, but the staff alternative does. On the top half there where those four uses are shown, only one is restricted in terms of location, and that's the Adaptive Reuse Project. It's only permitted inside of our IR, defined infill and redevelopment area, and I think that is important. The 2012 goals and objectives do point to creating jobs and prosperity in terms of Theme C, and the applicant points to that as one reason, hopefully, why their text amendment is appropriate here, and they're hoping that this will support and encourage the growth of local businesses, which is identified as a goal in the 2012 Goals and Objectives. So in terms of the particular text that the applicant has brought in, When they first filed, the staff had some concerns and recommended postponement to the zoning committee. The zoning committee understood that the staff was in support of the concept, but did not like the particular layout and text proposed more in specific there. But the zoning committee did recommend approval of the application, knowing that the staff and the applicant were planning to meet before this hearing. So the staff met with the applicant last week, and they addressed some of the concerns that the staff had in terms of really more technical issues of where it's located in the ordinance and also clarifying some of the criteria or the considerations that the Planning Commission would consider. and the staff did do some extra research but found really that the applicant's proposal is equally as good as some of the other approaches that we could take to addressing the flex space issue. And after further consideration in the initial staff report, we said that perhaps it needed a definition and at this point the staff doesn't believe a definition is really necessary. the petitioner's revised text is shown on the supplemental staff report page one in looking at that there were a few tweaks the staff wanted to make but I would call out two more major changes the first has to do with the applicant believed that maintaining the building on the lot was important and the staff actually doesn't feel that that's as important but we do feel it's important that this be applied only outside of the infill and redevelopment area we don't want it to compete with the adaptive reuse projects which are inside the infill and redevelopment area so this would give adaptive reuse its primary location inside the IR and then the ability to do a flex space project with fewer uses but then less criteria and improvements to the property so in our adaptive reuse project you have to do pedestrian oriented improvements or public art and with the flex space project the applicant wasn't proposing to include that kind of improvements so the staff felt that we didn't want it to compete with the adaptive reuse projects inside the IR. We want that reuse to be encouraged, but outside the IR, redevelopment is, I believe, just as important as a reuse. So I think that's where we're coming from in terms of the building wouldn't necessarily have to be kept, but we do believe the location outside the IR is important. So those were the two major changes the staff suggested. the minor improvements we also suggest adding a small phrase to the intent of the zone and you can see that on page two regarding flexible use of sites outside of the infill redevelopment area we suggest limiting establishments for retail sale of merchandise food and other food products to 8,000 square feet the applicant had agreed to restrict restaurants to just 4,000 square feet and we've felt a similar restriction was important so that the use of the property doesn't just become a retail establishment in that case a zone change almost seems more appropriate and then the third change had to do with in item H the staff suggested instead of the applicant doing something that the planning commission consider something so it puts the focus on what the planning commission action is rather than on what the applicant is is bringing in but the staff is at this point recommending approval of our staff alternative and the reason for that is that this text amendment to create flex space projects in the b4 and i1 zones and by reference i believe the i2 will address a community need to promote promote flexibility of business uses in some appropriate locations outside of the infill and redevelopment area. And I hope that that answers all of the questions and concerns that the staff wanted to address in our report today. I know the applicant does wish to speak about our staff alternative. we just received their information yesterday and we got them our staff report earlier today so we haven't really had a chance to meet other than at the counter over here a few minutes ago so be happy to answer any questions that that planning commission has mr penn tracy i'm going to take comfort in the fact that the that the The zoning committee has looked at this, has reviewed it. I'm not on that committee, so the question I may ask is maybe redundant. Okay. The B-4 uses carry forward into the I-1 uses. Right. So I guess my question is, this is applicable to all B-4s except those in the infield and redevelopment. Is that right? Yes. Okay. So does that create a new B-4 or does it create a new I-1? It allows more flexibility in those areas, and if we look in depth at the criteria or the considerations that the applicant put forward, the staff thinks those are what will help the Planning Commission in deciding if a flex space project is appropriate, because they're going to have to bring in a development plan. It'll be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the staff. and some of the things that they are suggesting is that the project shall generally be located in an area of mixed uses and zones. That's not every before. Right. So if I'm hearing you right, they come in with a quote-unquote development plan to change the zone to a flex-based zone. Flex-based project, yes. Flex-based project. Okay. That helps me a lot. Thank you. And I can go in detail if we want to talk more about the considerations the Planning Commission needs to look at. All right. Very well. Any more questions? All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Looks like he's been sitting back there waiting. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm pleased here to be representing Hauser Group today, and the owners of Hauser Group are Woodford Webb and his mother. And Woodford is, of course, with us here today as well. Chaz Height from my office, who's a planner who assists me, is here as well today. First, I want to say we appreciate the staff who's been working with us over the last two weeks since the zoning committee met. As always, appreciate your work, especially this time we've been handing drafts back and forth. So I want to thank Ms. Wade and Mr. Selle and Mr. King for working with us on this very much. The background of this property, of this request, is that the Hauser Group owns a building on Moore Drive, 189 to 199 Moore Drive. It's zoned B4. As you probably know, Moore Drive is an amalgam of zones out there. there's B3, B4, and I1 all in very close proximity to each other. The building next to them, as a matter of fact, and the building across the street are both split by the B3, B4 zone line. And we have I1 just behind us or down the street. So if you drive down Moore Drive, Moore Drive is really sort of its own zone. It's a mixture of those three zones. And in this building, right now, there's the J&H Landmark Store and the Porter Paint Store and ReKid, which is a, they act as a warehouse for other stores, but they also sell retail at their store. It's pre-owned children's clothing there, and there are a couple of vacancies. In the past, in this building, there's been a shoe store, a religious bookstore, a radio station, a physical therapy office, and a patio store, all in the B4 zone. And in the general vicinity, right now there's a travel agency, hair salon, scuba shop, scuba diving shop, furniture store, a coffee wholesaler where you can also buy a cup of coffee. printing companies, home health care, fastener stores, gun shop, sewing store, interior decorating, a uniform and scrub store, wheelchair store, and a patio store. So it's a little bit of everything. But the thing they all have in common is most all of them are locally owned, and most of them are what I call a destination store. They're not a store where you'd go for impulse shopping or recreational shopping like Fayette Mall or Target. They're places where, like with J&H Landmark, if you think I need a particular piece of outdoor gear, you think, well, J&H Landmark probably has that. I'm going to go there. I'm going to look at them. Hopefully you'll look at them. You get it. You might browse a little bit, and then you go. You don't stay there four hours like you do at Fayette Mall and do other things as well. So the point I'm making is that the uses are sort of a conglomeration of uses, some retail, some wholesale, some storage, some processing, but it all works out there. The issue we've had out there is two. One is the limitations on retail sale in B4, and the other is the parking limitations. parking is there's a lesser standard for parking here but it hasn't been a problem because the hauser group has owned this for over 20 years probably 30 35 years never has had a complaint from any tenants about parking and that's because for places like jnh people come they're not browsing they're not doing recreational shopping they know what they want they come they get it and then they leave. So that hasn't been a problem. The problem has been somewhat the limitations on retail. We've had to get in things where we, the building inspection had always interpreted it, we have to move interior walls around to meet a certain percentage of retail versus storage versus wholesale versus office use. And that doesn't really fit a startup business. They may start up doing one thing, and then they find that one part of their business takes off, and they want to go in that direction. And an example of that is J&H Landmark, which we have here. This J&H Landmark right now has about 14,400 square feet in this building. They started out 20 years ago with about 10,000 square feet. They expanded once to add another store bay, and they're thinking of expanding again. And to do that, we have an issue with the amount of retail sales and that sort of thing here. But there's been no parking problem, no other issue that we've had with J&H, and they want to expand. and they're getting to a point where can they expand here? Do they have to move? Do we have to tell them no? And part of the success, we feel, of J&H has been the building. It's a good building. It's a great location for them. They don't need arterial exposure. They need to have a good store for destination shopping. And we think part of the success has been the building and the location that they have here. So we want to keep them. We think that's exactly the type of business that the economic development people here want to encourage, a locally owned business being able to expand. We don't want to have to say, sorry, we can't accommodate you anymore. You're going to have to move. I've been working on this for about a year, and the draft I submitted was a result of conversations I've had over the past year with Mr. King, Jim Duncan, the Director of Long Range Planning, and Mr. Sally and Ms. Wade. When I did the ordinance, I sort of tried to steal as many ideas from them as I could and put them in this ordinance and a few ideas of my own. But the thing I picked up, especially talking with the long range planners, was that this area had already been identified as a business incubator area, that maybe we could do something more for to encourage it to be more of a business incubator. They said this area and the areas that Ms. Wade identified had already been identified that before I started talking to them about this. So the question was, how do we do this? And the decision was sort of made that I thought maybe a comprehensive plan changed, and the staff said, well, we're not really doing that in the comprehensive plan this time around. Why don't you try the text amendment? So here we brought the text amendment to you on that. And so what we've done on this is that, and Mr. Penn, this maybe goes to the question you asked, I modeled this on the adaptive reuse section that you have. The adaptive reuse, you're allowed to do that in the I-1, I think, B-4 zones. You have to submit a development plan to you all so you all get a chance to review it. And if it meets the criteria, you all pass it. And you're allowed a greater range of use. You're allowed retail, office use, just like I'm asking for here. There's also an industrial mixed-use zone, which is similar. Submitting a development plan to you all, you all review it. This area wasn't eligible for either one of them because in industrial mixed-use, You have to have residential, which really would not be appropriate here. And the adaptive reuse, you have to be in the infill, inside the infill and redevelopment area, which we're not. So this, as I look at it, is sort of the adaptive reuse for areas outside the infill and redevelopment area. It's an older suburban location, which we need to do something a little different with. So I modeled it on that. and I'm not going to go through everything we have in here because I think Ms. Wade has done that. I did put criteria in here so you could look at it, especially to see if restaurant uses are appropriate because I understand that often they need additional parking. So there's some criteria you can look at when you have a restaurant use in there too. The one issue we had with the staff's response to my proposal was the limitation on retail sale areas of 8,000 square feet. I did not have a limitation of square footage in my draft because I thought that the fact that these would be located not on arterials in areas with a mixture of zones would take care of it itself. In talking to the staff, though, I told them the illustration of J&H Landmark like I did you. They already have 14,400 square feet. They want to add about 5,000 square feet here on this. So the staff asked me, well, what number do you want? And I said, I don't want any number. I don't want any limitation at all. And they asked me again. And I said, well, 20,000 square feet. So we thought we could live with 20,000 square feet, and I think the staff can live with 20,000 square feet on that. I think they said they would not go into cardiac arrest at 20,000 square feet. So I'm asking you, if you choose to adopt a square footage limitation, to make it 20,000 square feet on retail. That's in Section 5B4, which is in the top of page 3 of the revised staff report. to amend that to 20,000 square feet if you want to put a square foot limitation in there at all, instead of 8,000 square feet. And with that, I think we are generally in agreement with the revised staff proposal. I had a handout for you of my proposal and findings. I'm not going to hand that out because we're in general agreement with the staff proposal with that one quibble about the amount of square feet in retail on that. And as I said, we do appreciate the staff working on this, and we all have the same goal. I think everybody recognizes the need for local encouragement of local businesses. That's in the comprehensive plan. Big said that part of the goals of the 2012 goals and objectives is encouraging the local entrepreneurial spirit and encouraging local businesses to grow. And this is a very concrete way we can do that, and it has a very practical aid, assistance to situations like we have. And I think more drive cannot be a better illustration of the assistance this will give that area. So we thank you very much for your attention to this. We'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have about it. All right, Mr. Penn. Mr. Murphy, what does this do for the I-1? Does this create more commercial retail in I-1? Yes. This would be a principal use in B4 and would carry over to I1. It's similar to, let me get out my B4. There's one of those that does that right now in B4. Let's see, the adaptive reuse is a principal use in B4, and it carries over to I1 as well. So if somebody could come in in the I-1 zone with a proposal for a flex space project to you, and then you would look at the criteria, and we didn't emphasize those criteria for you, but they are listed in the staff report at the bottom of page 3. When somebody brings this to you, you've got six criteria you're looking at to see if it meets that. And first is generally not on a major arterial. Second, not in an area of mixed, generally in an area of mixed uses and zones. Third, in an area that has historically had a mixture of retail and wholesale. Fourth, and this may address what you're concerned about, projects shall generally be located in a B4I1 area which, due to small lot size adjacent uses or the nature of the roadway system, it would not be appropriate to construct larger B4 or I1 uses, such as truck terminals, manufacturing facilities, or large warehousing facilities. We put that in there so that this wouldn't be used to use up a big industrial area. You know, Moore Drive, you're not going to have a truck terminal or WC Young Storage coming out to Moore Drive. It's great here. but out where you have 100 acres of industrial land, it might not be appropriate out there. And this addresses that very concern. And the fifth was there's an existing building with substantial lot coverage that does not allow substantial expansion of the building or parking. And sixth, it's generally not located in a block front which has residential housing on there. So either B4 or I1, you'd have to review it under those six criteria. No. Okay. Now, my concern is that we put too much retail in our I1 as an unintended consequence. Yeah. But I thank you for your... I think we tried to address that, yeah. All right. Did you want to speak? Okay. Okay. All right. Any other comments on this? Do you have any, Mr. Berkman? No. I mean, other than, I guess, the square footage issue, we kind of need to work out. All right. Very well. Yeah. We talked about this in the zoning committee, and I stated that I'd had some property out in that area, and you get into a mix, and there's a lot of square footage trapped out there that can't be – you can't just expand your retail into it. It's a warehouse, and you've got to have a certain percentage of all of it, and it ends up trapped, and some of it just sits there vacant because you can't get a permit. But I think this is a good thing and well needed so that we can use all of our buildings. All right. So do we have a motion? Okay. Mr. Berkley? Mr. Chair, I will make a recommendation of approval of the revised text amendment, Article 8-21, Wholesale and Warehouse Business B-4 Zone, with the staff alternative text changing Section 5, Item B-4, from 8,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. Very well. Second. We have a second. Mr. Drake, okay, we're going to have some discussion. Frank. Tracy, is the staff comfortable with the 20,000 square feet? Yes, we're comfortable with 20,000. Okay, thank you. All right, any more discussion? All right, very well. Let's vote when the voting opens up here. All right. That motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you all. All right. Next, I'm just going to state that the Home Builders Association of Kentucky is in town for their fall board meeting. There's about 300 builders here in Lexington down at the Hilton. generally they spend money but they don't have any money this year but anyway does that mean we keep our women and children locked up a friend of mine is here from David Souters he's in the audience here couldn't find anything better to do I guess he's on Souters Company and he's from Bowling Green, Kentucky so he came down to see how we do this alright he doesn't need a round of applause or anything So what time is the happy hour? All right. Let's go to the adoption of the meeting and filing schedule. I guess that's next. Mr. Chairman, this is an item that we presented to you last week at your work session. I must apologize. We did not bring copies of that schedule with us today, but it is unchanged from what we presented to you last week. If you wish, we can go across the street and get copies if you'd like to go into closed session first. But it is to adopt the draft schedule that was previously distributed to the commission for your filings and your meetings next year. Frank. You have a motion? Okay, go ahead. Mr. Chairman, I move for adoption of the meeting and planning schedule for the next year. All right, we have a motion for approval, and we have a second. By Carla, everybody vote. That motion carries. Thank you. Seven to zero. All right. Next on the agenda, we're going to have a request for closed session. Karen Mundy. Mr. Chair, I move pursuant to KRS 61.8101C to go into closed session to discuss a matter of pending litigation. All right, we have a motion and a second. I guess we need to vote. Motion carries. So we will now go into closed session. Mr. Salas, you'll have to leave the meeting just after I introduced you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and get a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit Thank you. Thank you.