# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - December 18, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 18, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3540 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3540?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-12-18 - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 22,516 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 December 18, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. 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 five agenda items, took eight votes, and heard eight public comments during the session. All five items on the agenda were approved, including three zoning map amendments with associated zoning development plans, one subdivision plan, and one property acquisition for a new elementary school. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on December 18, 2014: - Will Berkley - Patrick Brewer - Mike Cravens - David Drake - Karen Mundy - Mike Owens - Frank Penn - Carolyn Plumlee - Carolyn Richardson - Joe Smith - Bill Wilson - Chris King - Bill Sallee - Barbara Rackers - Traci Wade - Tom Martin - Cheryl Gallt - Janice Westlund - Chris Taylor - Meghan Jennings - Stephanie Cunningham - Tracy Jones - Andrea Brown - Hillard Newman - Casey Kaucher - Greg Lengal - Joshua Thiel Patrick Brewer arrived late to the meeting. No attendees were absent. ## Votes and Decisions **PLAN 2014-96F: Glen Creek Subdivision Final Record Plat** [timestamp: 00:10:40] Motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Karen Mundy. The revised final record plat for Glen Creek subdivision was approved unanimously, 11-0. Approval is conditioned on acceptance and approvals from the Urban County Engineer, Traffic Engineer, Building Inspection, Addressing Office, and Urban Forester. Additional conditions include documentation of Division of Water Quality's Capacity Assurance Program approval, notation of private utility providers, clarification of the access easement on Lot 66, and discussion of required access to proposed lots on Unit 3. **MAR 2014-21: Zoning Map Amendment at 435 Redding Road** [timestamp: 00:29:06] Motion by Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Patrick Brewer. A zoning map amendment from R-3 to B-1 for property at 435 Redding Road passed 10-1 on roll call vote. Voting in favor: Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Carolyn Richardson, Joe Smith, and Bill Wilson. Voting against: Carolyn Plumlee. **ZDP 2014-96: Watts Farm – Tract 4 Zoning Development Plan** [timestamp: 00:29:44] Motion by Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Patrick Brewer. The Zoning Development Plan for Watts Farm – Tract 4 passed 10-1 on roll call vote. Voting in favor: Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Carolyn Richardson, Joe Smith, and Bill Wilson. Voting against: Carolyn Plumlee. Approval is contingent on Urban County Council rezoning the property to B-1 and includes conditions for engineering, traffic, building inspection, and urban forester approvals. **MAR 2014-23: Zoning Map Amendment at 2380 Fortune Drive** [timestamp: 00:40:26] Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Joe Smith. A zoning map amendment from I-1 and B-6P to B-4 for property at 2380 Fortune Drive was approved unanimously, 11-0. **ZDP 2014-105: Brock McVey & Barry Dotson Property Zoning Development Plan** [timestamp: 00:40:58] Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Joe Smith. The Zoning Development Plan for Brock McVey & Barry Dotson Property, Unit 2A, Lot 7 was approved unanimously, 11-0. Approval is contingent on Urban County Council rezoning to B-4. **MAR 2014-19: Zoning Map Amendment at North Limestone Street** [timestamp: 02:41:34] Motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. A zoning map amendment from R-1C, B-1, and B-4 to MU-2 for properties at 1001, 1003, 1011, 1015, and 1021 North Limestone Street passed 10-1 on roll call vote. Voting in favor: Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Carolyn Richardson, Joe Smith, and Bill Wilson. Voting against: Patrick Brewer. **ZDP 2014-94: Headley Subdivision, North Broadway Park Addition** [timestamp: 02:42:05] Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Joe Smith. The Zoning Development Plan for Headley Subdivision, North Broadway Park Addition passed 10-1 on roll call vote. Voting in favor: Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Carolyn Richardson, Joe Smith, and Bill Wilson. Voting against: Patrick Brewer. Ten conditions were imposed including stormwater management, park improvements, and LEED certification recommendation. **PFR 2014-6: Elementary School Property Acquisition** [timestamp: 02:54:30] Motion by Mike Finn, seconded by Karen Mundy. Approval of property acquisition for a new elementary school at 2441 Huntley Place passed 10-0 on roll call vote. ## Public Comment Eight community members provided public comment during the meeting, raising concerns about traffic, neighborhood character, safety, and development density. **Traffic and Infrastructure Concerns** Ann Wesley, representing Aintree condominiums, expressed concern about increased traffic from a proposed drive-through restaurant, citing congestion at the intersection with Tates Creek Road and limited exit access for residents [timestamp: 00:21:45]. Carmen Norris raised additional concerns about inadequate parking, narrow streets, and lack of sidewalks, which would make it difficult for residents to safely navigate and increase the risk of accidents [timestamp: 02:07:24]. **Community Engagement** Drew Shackelford, president-elect of the North Limestone Neighborhood Association, criticized the developer for poor communication, lack of early notification, and failure to address community concerns during the process [timestamp: 01:46:35]. **Zoning and Scale Issues** Roy Cornett challenged the project's suitability for MU-2 zoning, arguing the non-residential component is not essential and that the development is too dense and high-rise for the neighborhood [timestamp: 01:50:56]. Joe Gobler argued that the proposed four-story building is too tall and out of scale with the neighborhood, which is dominated by two-story structures [timestamp: 02:09:35]. **Safety and Neighborhood Character** David Todd Singleton expressed concern about the impact of the development on children's safety, citing existing traffic incidents and the lack of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters on North Broadway Park and 10th Street [timestamp: 01:56:41]. Donnie House warned that approving the project would set a precedent for high-density development along North Limestone, potentially destroying the area's charm and historic character [timestamp: 02:05:42]. Ron Bradley stated that the neighborhood already has high density and that the project would be excessive, especially given the existing affordable housing in the area [timestamp: 02:11:12]. ## Contested Items **Mixed-use Zoning for North Limestone** Community residents raised significant opposition to the mixed-use zoning proposal for North Limestone. Concerns centered on traffic impacts, public safety, project scale and density, and insufficient community engagement in the planning process. Residents argued that the project would negatively affect the neighborhood's character and safety, with particular worry expressed about proximity to Arlington Elementary School. **Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts** A heated discussion ensued between multiple residents and staff regarding the adequacy of the traffic study and its findings. Disagreement focused on the project's impact on North Broadway Park and 10th Street. Residents highlighted specific infrastructure deficiencies, citing the lack of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters as safety hazards that would be exacerbated by the development. **Zoning Change for Redding Road Property** The Commission voted on a zoning change for WMM Properties on Redding Road, approving it by a vote of 10-1. Commissioner Carolyn Plumlee cast the sole opposing vote, citing traffic concerns as her reason for dissent. This split vote reflected a division within the Commission regarding the project's potential impacts on the surrounding area. ## Plan 2014-96F: Glen Creek (Dove Creek, Unit 3-B, Section 3, Lots 66-75) [timestamp: 00:08:30] The Planning Commission reviewed a revised final record plat for the Glen Creek subdivision during this agenda item. The presentation focused on updates to the subdivision plan for Dove Creek, Unit 3-B, Section 3, covering Lots 66-75. **Key Presentation** Cheryl Gallt presented the revised final record plat, which included updated access easements and addressed multiple development requirements. **Conditions and Requirements** The revised plan incorporated conditions related to the following areas: - Stormwater management - Traffic considerations - Landscaping requirements - Utility approvals **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved Plan 2014-96F with nine revised conditions. The approval of the revised final record plat allows the Glen Creek subdivision to proceed with the specified requirements and easements in place. ## MAR 2014-21: WMM Properties, LLC – Zoning Map Amendment & ZDP 2014-96: Watts Farm – Tract 4 [timestamp: 00:12:09] The Commission considered a zoning map amendment and development plan for a portion of property located at 435 Redding Road. The proposal sought to rezone approximately 1.5 acres from R-3 (residential) to B-1 (business) zoning to permit construction of a standalone fast food restaurant with a drive-through facility. **Key Speakers and Presentations** Traci Wade and Bruce Simpson presented the proposal to the Commission. **Staff and Committee Support** The zoning amendment and development plan were supported by both staff and the Zoning Committee, indicating alignment with planning recommendations. **Concerns Raised** Despite overall support, concerns were raised regarding: - Traffic impacts associated with the proposed fast food restaurant use - Intersection spacing considerations for the drive-through access and site circulation **Outcome** The Commission approved the zoning map amendment from R-3 to B-1 and the development plan with conditions. The conditions were intended to address the traffic and intersection spacing concerns raised during the review process. ## MAR 2014-23: Mark Saunier – Zoning Map Amendment & ZDP 2014-105: Brock McVey & Barry Dotson Property [timestamp: 00:30:20] The Commission reviewed a zoning map amendment and development plan for property located at 2380 Fortune Drive. The proposal sought to rezone the property from I-1 (Industrial) and B-6P (Commercial) zoning to B-4 (Commercial) zoning to align with the surrounding commercial corridor. **Key Speakers** Traci Wade and Tom Martin presented and discussed the proposal with the Commission. **Proposal Details** The zoning amendment was intended to create consistency with the existing commercial development pattern in the surrounding area by consolidating the property under a single B-4 commercial zoning classification. **Outcome** The development plan was approved with eight conditions. These conditions included requirements for utility approvals and traffic approvals, ensuring that the proposed development would meet necessary infrastructure and transportation standards before proceeding. ## MAR 2014-19: Nicol Development Co., LLC – Zoning Map Amendment & ZDP 2014-94: Headley Subdivision, North Broadway Park Addition The Commission reviewed a proposal to rezone five parcels on North Limestone Street from their current zoning designations of R-1C, B-1, and B-4 to MU-2 (Mixed-Use) to accommodate a mixed-income, mixed-use development project. **Project Details** The proposed development includes: - 76 residential units - Preservation of an existing church structure - Stormwater management improvements **Key Speakers and Presentations** The following individuals participated in the discussion: - Traci Wade - Tom Martin - Chris Westover - Bruce Nickel - Van Meter Pettit - Holly Wiedemann - Chuck Gutenson **Process** The Commission heard extensive public comment on the proposal before rendering a decision. [timestamp: 01:41:18] **Outcome** The zoning map amendment and development plan were approved. The Commission attached ten conditions to the approval, which the project must satisfy during implementation. ## PFR 2014-6: Acquisition of Property for New Elementary School at 2441 Huntley Pl [timestamp: 02:43:11] The Commission reviewed a request from Fayette County Public Schools to acquire property located at 2441 Huntley Place for the development of a new elementary school. **Key Speakers:** - Barbara Rackers - Marcus Heil **Presentation and Analysis:** The property is zoned P1, which permits schools as an allowable use. The Commission determined that the proposed acquisition and school development were consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the applicable zoning ordinance. **Outcome:** The acquisition was approved. --- ## Decisions - **PLAN 2014-96F** — passed (11-0): Approval of revised final record plat for Glen Creek subdivision - **MAR 2014-21** — passed (10-1): Zoning map amendment from R-3 to B-1 for property at 435 Redding Road - **ZDP 2014-96** — passed (10-1): Approval of Zoning Development Plan for Watts Farm – Tract 4 - **MAR 2014-23** — passed (11-0): Zoning map amendment from I-1 and B-6P to B-4 for property at 2380 Fortune Drive - **ZDP 2014-105** — passed (11-0): Approval of Zoning Development Plan for Brock McVey & Barry Dotson Property, Unit 2A, Lot 7 - **MAR 2014-19** — passed (10-1): Zoning map amendment from R-1C, B-1, and B-4 to MU-2 for property at 1001, 1003, 1011, 1015, and 1021 North Limestone Street - **ZDP 2014-94** — passed (10-1): Approval of Zoning Development Plan for Headley Subdivision, North Broadway Park Addition - **PFR 2014-6** — passed (10-0): Approval of property acquisition for new elementary school at 2441 Huntley Place --- ## Full transcript The Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome everyone here and wish everyone the happiest and merriest holiday season possible this year. I will call this meeting to order. First on the agenda are approval of minutes from November 20, 2014. They were emailed to the commission members. I have not heard of any corrections. If there are any, please let it be known now. Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of the November 20th minutes. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of the November 20th minutes. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, we did not get the second on that. Oh, Carolyn, I'm sorry. Motion passes. Next on the agenda would be any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Are there any? Seeing none from the audience. Mr. Martin, do you have any? No? Okay. with the commission's approval i may take a couple of items out of order however i will ask mr sally to sound the agenda to see if there's any abbreviated request today mr chairman we do have one land subdivision item if you wish to dispense with that ahead of the zone changes. If not, I'll be glad to sound the agenda for zoning items. Why don't you go ahead and we'll see what's available. Very good. There are two items that may qualify for your consideration this afternoon as abbreviated hearings. The first one appears in the very top of page three of your meeting agenda. This is MAR 2014-21, a request by WMM Properties, LLC this is a zone change request from an R3 planned a neighborhood residential zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for just under one-half net acre of property located at 435 Redding Road at this time the staff would ask if anyone is present here in the audience who wishes to comment or to object to this proposed zone change at 435 Redding Road Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this can be our first item, and it can be dealt with in an abbreviated fashion. The next item on the agenda on the bottom of page 3, number 3, MAR 2014-23, a zone change request by Mark Saunier. This is an amended zone change application from a light industrial I-1 zone to a B-4 wholesale and warehouse business zone for a very small piece of property. And the more substantial zone change is from a B6P planned shopping center zone to a wholesale and warehouse business zone involving just over two net acres, with our property having an address of 2380 Fortune Drive. Again, at this time, we would ask if anyone's present who wishes to comment or to object to this proposed zone change for Mark Saunier at 2380 Fortune Drive. seeing none mr. chairman this item also can be reviewed by the commission in abbreviated fashion thank you thank you mr. sally so if with the commission's approval what we will do is take plan 2014-96 elf glenn creek first and to let everyone know we'll move to page three and take WMM properties second and and then Mark Sonier third, and then we'll come back to nickel development after that. So first on the agenda, as mentioned, is Plan 2014-96F Glen Creek, located at 201-1145 Appian Crossing Way. You do have a revision, which is on a tan sheet of paper before you. No microphone. I'm going to say no microphone. Ms. Galt. Hello. I was going to say, this property for Glen Creek was located off of Appian Crossing. This plan was postponed from last week's meeting at the subdivision meeting. We had an issue as far as an access easement to be able to access these individual lots. They're coming in to create 10 lots here. Since that meeting, they've come back and they've brought us in a revised plan, and now we have an access easement that goes around to come across the front so they have access to each individual lot. with that with that we have the typical standard conditions one through seven with the seven being the division of water qualities approval of capacity we need to have the private utilities provided on the record plat they're not listed here and then we have the last condition which is labeled the nine-foot future access easement to the north of these proposed lots they put a 15-foot access easement across the front of these lots when per the development plan there was a 24 foot so therefore that's why we're all wanting them to just denote the other nine foot on the rest of the property so that we have clearly outlined 24 feet for the access easement and that'll come in the next time they come in with another plaque with that now the staff can recommend approval of this plan thank you miss god anyone have any questions from this call it's happened here and would you be in agreement with the conditions yes okay your name sir my name is Tony justice with Trinity survey okay thank you sir anyone else wish to speak to this plan seeing none If there's no questions from the Commission, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion for approval of Plan 2014-96F with the nine revised conditions. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2014-96F with the revised nine conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. I have motion passes. Thank you. Moving to page three, item number two, WMM Properties, Zone Map Zoning Development Plan. It's MAR 2014-21, property located at 435 Reading Road. Thank you. yes ma'am good afternoon chairman owens members of the commission cases mar 2014-21 the request by WMM Properties, LLC. And as Mr. Owens mentioned, it's a request from an R3 zone to a B1 zone. And it is for just a portion of property at 435 Redding Road. It's two small slivers to the rear and side of the existing buildings on the lot. For orientation purposes, Tates Creek Road runs in this area generally north and south. And Redding Road is a collector street or minor arterial that connects here with Tates Creek Road, just to the east of the subject property. And the entirety of 435 Redding Road is generally directly across from the intersection of Walden Drive and Redding. And it will help to show, I think, the aerial photograph of this area and get a little bit better orientation. There are two buildings on the subject property. One has the appearance of a small strip shopping center, and the other is a bit more of a standalone building. The area proposed for rezoning today is, as I mentioned, to the rear and side of those buildings. Currently, that land is occupied by a parking lot and service area for the small strip shops. and then the triangle piece sort of to the northwest portion of the property is actually a stormwater basin feature. So these two pieces are what's proposed to go from an R3 to a B1 zone. The rest of the property is already in a B1 zone today, so it is a split zone parcel. The applicant is asking for that zone change in order to redevelop a portion of the property. They plan to remove a piece of the small strip shops and build a standalone restaurant with a drive-thru. The reason that they need the zone change for the rear piece, because obviously this parcel has functioned with split zoning for at least 25 years, is because the drive-thru and the order points will cross into what is currently an R3 zone. so those need to be in a B1 zone because they're part of the principal use whereas in an R3 zone a standalone parking lot is a permitted conditional use the applicant then is seeking to rezone those those three are those two pieces in reviewing the zone change this are the applicant does contend that they're supported by two of the goals of the comprehensive plan specifically that deal with small neighborhood centers and those being supportive of adjoining or supportive to adjoining residential areas and in this case this small shopping center area is surrounded by higher density residential and does provide support services to those households in addition the staff found that the split zone of the property really is already, or the rest of the property that's currently residential is already being used in a commercial manner. So making it commercial in nature really doesn't change the use of this parcel significantly. In addition, the shifting the zoning boundary from the rear of the building to the rear of the property won't impact the adjoining property owner since it is in also a residential zone but a commercial use it's an extended stay hotel and that's the rear of their property as well where there's a kind of a standalone parking lot and lastly the residential use of either of these two small pieces is nearly impossible partly because half of the the triangle piece is already encumbered by stormwater requirements that are facilities that are required for the property and the rest of the parcel is being utilized as the service area for the shopping center so utilizing that for any kind of residential use is not very viable in this case so the staff and the zoning committee did recommend approval of the zone change and there were five supporting findings related to why the B1 zone is appropriate at this location and the residential R3 zone is inappropriate at this location and the this recommendation is made subject to approval of the joint our associated development plan as well be happy to answer any questions about the requested zone change any questions for Miss White yes ma'am will we see another plan before this goes forth I believe it's a final development plan this is yes okay so this would be no right correct you won't see another plan any other questions thank you miss wade before i um pass it over to cheryl i did have one letter i would characterize it in opposition or concern related to traffic in the area no give it to patrick Good afternoon. We are on page three, ZDP 2014-96 Watts Farm. We have seven conditions listed, with the first one being approval of the zone change, and then we have several sign-offs from different governmental agencies within the city. And then we have just a couple cleanup conditions, But the addition of Reading Road cross-section plan to the plan, we need to have that. Condition number seven, it says discuss the note number nine from previous plans in reference to official stormwater retention. There was a study done back in 1992 about stormwater on this property, and they were able to study it, and they found that between the detention basin on the property and the detention back behind, they can meet the stormwater requirements. And so therefore, with condition number seven, I believe we can now remove that because they have met with the stormwater study. Any other questions? Any questions for Ms. Galt? Yes, ma'am? You were thinking no? Go ahead. I have a question about the traffic, as that seems to be a rather congested area, particularly the distance from Tate's Creek and Armstrong. That is a very major intersection. The distance from Tate's Creek to Walden is how many feet and what is the minimum standard for that. And if I could, I'd like to direct it to Casey. You'd like to have Casey step up? Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. Casey, Traffic Engineering. I believe the question was regarding the spacing. Right. And what is the minimum standard and what is the distance there from Walden to Taints Creek? The minimum is 500 feet. There should be a minimum of 500 feet between Tates Creek and Walden. The existing situation is there's 320 feet. So it's below our standard guidelines. Other questions? Mr. Chairman, if I could add to that, the when this street was originally developed there was quite a discussion that the Planning Commission about that and ultimately the original developers proposal was adopted but there were some discussions about whether that spacing should be farther back and it's very early stages quite quite a long time ago So the short of it is it's been working good or bad for quite some time. Okay. Other questions? If not, thank you, Ms. Cocker. Any other questions? If not, anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Yes, ma'am. I actually my name is Ann Wesley I work for Assurance Realty and Property Management we manage the Aintree condominiums which is located at 421 Reading Road I kind of thought this would be the preliminary plan for this so I wasn't planning to speak today but I will say that most of the owners of that association are concerned about the traffic that this drive-through restaurant will create. They realize that there's already been a restaurant there, a dine-in restaurant, but the community at 421 Redding Road has one entrance in and one entrance out. That exit entrance is located right almost at the corner of that triangle that you see. So right now, when people try to exit that property, if it's at 3.30 in the afternoon when they're trying to pick their child up from school, like at Tates Creek High School, traffic is already backed up way past the entrance to our property. So the concern is from the homeowners there, what is a drive-thru restaurant? How is that going to impact the amount of traffic that's created at that intersection? A lot of those owners currently now have to try to bypass and go around Walden just to bypass the intersection altogether because it gets backed up there. And there's not been a drive-thru restaurant there. So that's just basically the concern of those homeowners. There's 124 units there in that property. So I appreciate them taking a look at the traffic aspect of that. Thank you. If you could maybe get with Ms. Rackers over here on the side and just point out the entrance to Aintree. Ms. Wesley, come over here and get with Ms. Rackers. Oh, it's not on there. I'm sorry. Okay. So you're saying the entrance is what, at the lower corner of the triangle? It would be. Tracy do you know where it is it would be about right here okay the upper corner okay thank you Others that like speak applicant I miss you first How did I bypass you first? I'm sorry. My feelings are hurt Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I'm Bruce Simpson I'm here today on behalf of the applicant. As Tracy has shared with you, our zone change request is in conformance with the most recent comprehensive plan, and the staff has recommended approval, and the zoning committee recommended approval. The development plan went through the subdivision committee, which also recommended approval. So as we are here today, it's come through the filtering of two different committees. The Technical Review Committee, which recommended approval of the development plan, and both committees of the Planning Commission have recommended approval, and the staff has recommended approval. This property was first zoned commercial more than 20 years ago, and that's where the location access from Tate's Creek was established. It's not anything that we're asking for in connection with this zone change request. We're living with access pointing to the shopping center that was determined before even the current owners purchased the property. With respect to the traffic, obviously, you know, as Lexington grows in place and not in the suburbs, we're going to have more traffic. It is part of our plans that have been adopted in this community since 2001. With respect to this particular piece of property, we actually believe that the traffic circulation, which we're proposing with our plan, will even be an improvement over what's there now. There's currently two drive-through windows for businesses on the current site. What we're proposing is to eliminate one of the existing drive-thru windows and have a drive-thru for the Zaxby's, but it will be further apart than the two existing drive-thrus, which currently cause some traffic conflict. We're also directing our traffic internally in terms of how we've designed the project to direct our traffic away from the Thorntons gas station to minimize conflict at that point. So we believe collectively that what we're proposing will be an improvement over what exists now. We have vetted this through Division of Engineering. Casey and her staff have seen this numerous times. We've discussed it, and it is my understanding that certainly they have recommended our adjustments as being acceptable with the vision of engineering and can recommend it to you today for approval as well. And so based upon the various subdivision committee meetings, the zoning committee, the technical review committee, the staff recommendations, the compliance with the comp plan, we're not changing anything that hasn't been there for more than 20 years. We believe we have a project that's actually better than what's been there. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Simpson? Yes, ma'am. So if I'm hearing you correctly, you do intend to try at least to encourage the traffic flow coming out of that drive-thru window to go up the hill and out the other exit? Yes. as you will, the traffic islands are kind of curved so that when you come out this way or you come through the drive-thru, they're actually as directed up to this one rather than have to come out and kind of bend around and come around and go that way. Well, I know we can't totally control what people do, but encouraging them I think is helpful to try to get them away from that busy intersection. Any other questions? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am. I recommend approval of MAR 2014-21 WMM Properties LLC with the recommendations as presented by the staff. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of MAR 2014-21 WMMM Properties, LLC. If there's no discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes for the ZDP. Yes, I move approval of ZDP 2014-96 Watts Farm Track 4. Second. A motion has been made and seconded for approval of ZDP 2014-96. Ms. Richardson, there was discussion as far as number 7 possibly being deleted. Yes, I recommend the deletion of number 7. Okay, thank you. And who's seconded that motion? Patrick, you okay with that? Okay. So the motion has been made and seconded for the approval of ZDP 2014-96 Watts Farm with the now six conditions to lead in number seven. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion also passes. Thank you. Next on the agenda at the bottom of page three is Mark Sonier, Zone Map Amendment, Brock McVay and Barry Dotson property, MAR 2014-23 for property located at 2380 Tortune Drive. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. Our next item is MAR 2014-23. This is on page, the bottom of page three, and it continues to page four of the agenda. It's also in your notebooks behind tab three. This is a zone change from a planned shopping center zone and a light industrial zone to a wholesale and warehouse business zone, which is our B4 zone. The subject property is located on Fortune Drive, actually at the intersection of Fortune Drive and Trade Center Drive. And New Circle Road is to the west. It runs generally parallel to Fortune Drive in this area, and the subject property is located, again, at the intersection of Trade Center and Fortune, and Trade Center then connects over to New Circle Road. In this vicinity, generally, Fortune Drive is zoned B4. The exception is a few I-1 pieces in this area, but you'll note the subject property is primarily B6P, and there's a small triangle of I-1 zone at the northern tip of the property. Previously, the subject property was part of a larger track that fronted on New Circle Road, and sort of a general history was that it was rezoned several times. the last time in the 1990s as part of that larger tract where Sam's Club is currently located. So that B6P that's sort of in an island there of other more intense uses is where Sam's Club is located. So this parcel was part of the Sam's Club parcel, but they didn't utilize the entire lot when they built, and that left this piece to the rear. since the sam's club was built fortune drive was extended and connected and that really severed the b6p piece from the rest of the b6p in this area the applicant did construct a building on this lot about a year and a half ago they started the process and they have been able to identify tenants in this area that could utilize a b6p zone but now that they've got to this point in the process they have a few new users that are more interested in a B4 type use rather than an office or retail sales use which is typical in our B6P zone. So the applicant is proposing to rezone their entire parcel to B4 which is consistent and compatible with the rest of Fortune Drive in this area and as I mentioned it is an existing structure in this aerial photograph it was under construction so that was last a year ago march of 2013 and in the aerial photograph i would just note that patch and wilkes drive is nearby and it looks like it's aimed at the subject property from the north but it it the gray lines are indications of new streets that have been either built or platted since i guess built since the aerial photograph was taken so there will be residential and there is residential adjoining the subject property that will come near the rear of the of the property there's a different view which shows the adjoining tuscany development and vacant land this is the existing structure on the property and it is again partially occupied and the planning commission i would note that this does appear to be more of a warehouse wholesale type building rather than a typical building you'd see in a retail shopping center it also does have rear overhead doors which are typical of a b4 type building and then adjoining the property which appears to be part of the property but is actually on its own track is a Columbia gas distribution facility. And along the rear of the property, there is a significant gas easement that is marked, but it also will keep the residential development from getting actually too much closer to the subject property than it already currently is platted as. So Trade Center Drive is planned to continue into the adjoining Tuscany development and actually intersect with Meeting Street near where the new high school is planned. But the residential development is not planned to come any closer to the subject property. And I mention that because those overhead doors with a zone change will become nonconforming because of the adjoining residential zone to the B4 zone. But the residential development, because of those gas easements, will not be coming any closer to the development, to this development. The planning commission's zoning committee, as well as the staff, did recommend approval of the requested zone change. And there were three reasons that the staff cited in our staff report about that. First, the fortune drive is characterized mostly by warehouse and wholesale land use. and the applicant is asking for a warehouse office use on the subject property, which is permitted in our B-4 zone. Second, the structure and site can accommodate this proposed office warehouse mixed use, and none of the uses would become nonconforming in this location. And then third, although the adjoining residential zoning is there, there is the buffer that won't impact this property and nor any of the residential development in the future that could occur so the staff recommends approval because the b4 zone is more appropriate at this location than the existing b6p and small piece of i1 be happy to answer any questions about this proposed zone change questions for Ms. Wade? No? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the final development plan that is associated with this zone change is on page 4, item B, ZDP 2014-105, Brock McVay and Barry Dodson property. It is an existing structure, as Ms. Wade explained. It is 24,000 square feet. You can see an access point in this location on Fortune, as well as one in this location on Fortune. Circulation is provided around the entire property with parking throughout the lot. There is a large utility easement and the gas easement is up in this area and does continue down through here. There is a considerable 50-foot gap. That easement is 50 feet in width. You may recall that discussion with the Tuscany Residential Development. So there is a considerable buffer between the existing building along with the parking, the green space, and that easement. So it will serve indeed to buffer any Tuscany residential development that may happen in this area. There was a condition on your handout, on your agenda, talking about the B6P setback. That was on the original plan when they were going to split zone the property, split zone the building. And as you all recall, staff had considerable concerns about that. So with this plan, having just the B4 for the entire property, that B6P setback is no longer an issue, obviously, because as you may recall, it's based on the zone line, and that would have created a very interesting set of circumstances within the building itself. That is on your agenda. That is condition number nine, which it can be removed. It is no longer relevant. The other conditions that you see are minimal, and it was recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Any questions for Mr. Martin? No. Thank you, sir. Afternoon, anything to add? No. You're in agreement with everything? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion and or a motion. Mr. Chairman, if you're ready for a motion, I'm ready to make one. I think so. I move for approval of MAR 14-23 for reasons provided by staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Seconded by Mr. Smith. please vote when he comes up on the screen that motion passes and the zdp yes sir i move for approval of zdp 2014-105 with the eight conditions deleting number nine thank you and seconded by mr smith yes sir thank you um please vote when he comes up on the screen that motion passes also thank you now we'll thank you Andy will return to the bottom of page one for nickel development company LLC zone map amendment and Healy subdivision North Broadway Park addition it's mar 2014 19 for property various properties located on North Limestone Street I guess as staff's getting ready, let me just mention this. There very well could be time limits imposed today. they're listed on the agenda and we want everyone to have a chance to speak maximum time is going to be 30 minutes for the applicant and or opposition representatives let me say there's been a couple of people ask about that it sounds like Ms. Westover may have opposition as far as three collective members they will have the same amount of time that miss west overtakes anyone else more than welcome to speak we will be limiting those citizens to three minutes and they will be no yielding of time today but miss wade can you get us started i sure can before we get started i do have some correspondence that the staff received i would characterize there's six items four in support and two in opposition if we can get one set back to two copies of the same information so the petitioner is requesting a mixed use to neighborhood corridor mu2 zone for the subject property which includes about two and a half acres the three zones where they're proposed to go from are single family residential R1C, neighborhood business B1, and then wholesale and warehouse B4 zone. The subject property is comprised of five parcels. And the primary parcel I would characterize as 1015 North Limestone, which is what currently embrace Methodist Church is located. They also own three of the other parcels included in the zone change. 1003, which is where a parish house is located. 1011, which is part of the B4 piece of the request, which is at the rear of their property, but also at the rear of the adjoining mobile home park, as well as 1021 North Limestone, which is a cross North Broadway park. The fifth piece of property is 1001 North Limestone, and that is owned by the applicant. So it is five tracks that comprise the subject property. North Limestone runs sort of a north easterly direction and southwesterly, and the intersection of Loudoun Avenue is to the southwest, and then New Circle Road to the northeast. So this portion of North Limestone is characterized by a mixture of residential and commercial uses. Probably the most notable thing would be the Lextran facility currently at the intersection of Loudoun and North Limestone. Directly across from the subject property is Arlington Elementary School. Tracy, sorry to interrupt before you go farther. Show where the church, there's a church there somewhere. Sure. Show where the church is. On the development plan, building C is the existing church. Sure. 1015. it is right at the intersection of limestone and North Broadway Park generally in the area as I mentioned it is a mixture along North limestone but directly across and along limestone in this area is the single-family residential zone and that continues on North Broadway Park and 12th Street as as well as the streets that run towards Bryan Avenue in this area. The commercial is primarily just along North Limestone. The proposal for the applicant is to, sorry, let's look at a few pictures before we move on to that. The existing use of the property is for the church with the parish house. Primarily, much of it is covered by asphalt for parking, but there is some green space areas that have been utilized naturally, I think, for some stormwater controls. To the west is a mobile home park that is nonconforming. And again, Arlington Elementary School across the street, which has recently been renovated and then primarily single-family residential in the adjoining neighborhoods and then the the lextran facility i mentioned here at loudon and limestone here just a few views of the ground level here on limestone this is the existing church and in the foreground of that picture you can sort of see the single-family residents but there's a closer view of that. It was formerly a parish house for the church. This is the view of what is 1021 North Limestone, and it's owned by the church as well. It is adjacent to some more commercial as you move up limestone, but it serves mostly as a parking lot for the church use. And then back to the aerial view. So the applicant is proposing to redevelop this property. They plan to maintain the church and build two structures along North Limestone and then utilize the properties, the area to the rear, for surface parking. Within that development plan, they are proposing, I believe they've modified their plans lately, 76 dwelling units for residential. and about 5,000 square feet of non-residential space, mostly on the first floor of these two new buildings. The plan is to locate the buildings along the north limestone frontage and, again, with parking to the rear of that location. In terms of the comprehensive plan and studies for this area, there is a small area plan that applies or covers this subject property area, and that's the Central Sector Small Area Plan. That was adopted in 2009. when the Planning Commission included it as part of an amendment to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. The small area plan covers an area between Georgetown Road, Winchester Road, New Circle, and 2nd Street. So it is a fairly large area. And this plan broke the area into sub-areas. So the subject property falls within sub-area D of the Central Sector Small Area Plan. that small area plan provides details about this particular area in terms of recommendations it all it identifies North limestone as a neighborhood connector Street with and suggest significant streetscape improvements for that area in addition it identified North limestone as a focus area for more redevelopment or improvements and then one of the priorities for sub area D is to and this is a quote from the from the plan retain unique character of North limestone as a traditional neighborhood retail corridor the goals and objectives of the central sector small area plan also provide some guidance for the Planning Commission in considering this zone change this central sector plan identifies four guiding principles enhancing the urban fabric promote and prepare for redevelopment and investment, provide adequate and equitable housing, and lastly, preserve the cultural and historic heritage. Specifically, the small area plan has many more goals and objectives, but the staff found these four to be specifically applicable in this case or related to the proposal. First, encourage affordable housing. Second, utilize best management practices for stormwater improvements. Third, preserve structures with historic and cultural value. And fourth, offer goods and services for local residents. The subject property now has the opportunity to meet some of those goals and objectives within the central sector small area plan. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan also has several more goals and objectives that are relevant to the application before you today. Expand housing choices. Support infill and redevelopment. Encourage green infrastructure. Support creation of a variety of jobs. Encourage the entrepreneurial spirit and race diverse and inclusive community. Build a multimodal and comprehensive transportation system. enhance and protect our cultural and historic resources and lastly uphold the urban service area concept so the applicant in their justification identified many of these goals and objectives as being supported by their application the staff would agree that this proposed mixed use to does meet many of the goals and objectives of both the comprehensive plan as well as the small area plan specifically for this for this area the staff is pleased also to note that the provisions of the zoning ordinance related to mixed income housing are being utilized by the applicant we believe for the first time even though they've been on the books for several years and that seems also it also seems important to note that they're preserving the historic church which is a vital part of the North Limestone corridor and neighborhood. The staff recommends approval and I believe the zoning committee also recommended approval several weeks ago of this proposed zone change and the findings are within your staff report and on the agenda and I can go through those in more detail if you'd like but staff recommends approval and primarily because it's in agreement with the comprehensive plan in central central sector small area plan for this location thank you Tracy any questions from this way thank you thank you mr. Martin Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, at the bottom of page two is the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change. I know you've seen two final development plans today. This is a preliminary development plan, and you will, should this be approved, this zone change, you will see a final development plan before any actual development of this property will take place. The ZDP is 2014-94, Headley Subdivision, North Broadway Park addition, and Car Builders. Here is the subject property. This is North Limestone. In this location, the elementary school sits here. This is a little parsonage lot. They'll develop their apartment building, the existing church. Here's the proposed building on this lot. Here is North Broadway Park in this location here. And this is the little stub of 10th Street that exists right down here. This is a little section of right-of-way that was created quite a long time ago in the 1920s, I believe, when this area was originally platted. They are proposing building B, which is over 46,000 square feet. It is three stories tall with a fourth story that's been set back. They've tried to demonstrate that in this insert here. These areas right here will be patio areas with units on the fourth floor, only five units on the fourth floor. Building A is 18,000 plus square feet. The first floor will be primarily commercial or non-residential. This area on item B, or building B, pardon me, is the non-residential area. You can see they're proposing parking in the rear, access at this location. This is the primary parking lot with access shown back here off this easement. It's an extension of 10th Street. This is not right-of-way. They also have access to the existing church parking in this location. They'll be building parking back in this area. There is underground detention being proposed in this location as well as this location. And that's how they will deal with the stormwater related to the development as well as hoping to where they'll have to address some of the existing problems as well to the best of their ability. Of course, that will all be determined in detail at your final development plan. Building B will contain studio apartments and one-bedroom apartments. Building A will also contain studio and single-bedroom apartments as well. So there will be a mix in each building building of the different apartments. There are 76 units total. 126 parking spaces are being provided, just slightly over the requirement once they take the deductions that they are allowed to take under the ordinance. The buildings are roughly 54 feet in height. The fourth story will be 54 feet in height here. This building will be 40 feet in height, building A. The church itself is approximately 54, 55 feet in height. Of course, there's a steeple that'll give you some sense of the height proportion among these buildings. There were several conditions, resolved conditions. One is, of course, stormwater detention, which will be handled, as I pointed out, in the underground detention basins, which are very common nowadays, particularly on limited sites. The improvements to North Broadway Park, 10th Street, are also something that can be handled at your final development plan, and they have agreed to those. That was a topic of discussion among the developer and staff, the need to improve these streets, and we're talking full improvements, the curb, gutter, and sidewalk would be the nature of the improvements. There was discussions about Article 28, that's your mixed use chapter in your zoning ordinance. At the time of your final development plan, they're going to have to address considerable design elements in their architectural, their pedestrian facilities, and those lighting and those types of things at the final development plan stage. We also have a condition on your plan about the front yard setback per Article 28-4. they have indicated a 15-foot setback. Now, Article 28 allows the first floor to have a 5-foot setback. But second and third and on up has to be 15 feet back. Now, the significance of the 15-foot yard setback is twofold in this instance. It allows an important area for the presentation to limestone and its relationship to limestone. And it also addresses some open space that would be beneficial to the development. And again, that will be fully fleshed out and examined at your final development plan stage. There is a floor A ratio requirement under the mixed use. And for this building to meet that, they will have to consolidate the lots in order to have enough lot area to meet the floor A ratio for this building. And again, that can be done at your final development plan prior to its certification. They would need to consolidate these lots in order to meet that. There is a condition where we want them to resolve the timing. Again this is an Article 28 condition and that one is specifically 28-4H. That addresses the mix of residential and commercial property and the timing of that under Article 28. And again, that is to prevent a mixed use development going all the way residential or commercial. We would like to have it resolved how they intend to ensure that they can meet that particular mix that's called for in the buildings. I believe as It was explained to you this is the church, the existing structure. And this plan was reviewed by your subdivision committee. It was recommended for approval. And if you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Tom, just real quick, for Building B, all the parking, whether it's commercial or residential, is in the back? Not all of it. They are proposing a few spaces right here along 10th Street. And by the way, they're allowed to share the commercial parking in a mixed use and residential. So they are proposing a few along North Broadway Park as well. This is existing. This will be new. This is existing. That will be new. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? No. Thank you. we'll get to that part here in a little bit. Hang with us. Applicant. Good afternoon. My name is Chris Westover and I have the great pleasure today to represent Nickel Development Company in this mixed-use, mixed-income project. As Tracy said, this is the first one to be proposed for development under the mixed-income guidelines since the text amendment was adopted five, maybe seven years ago. And the purpose of that text amendment was to encourage more diversity in housing. With me today is Bruce Nickel, the developer, Van Meter Pettit, the architect, Matt Carter from Vision Engineering, Gregory Pettit, who's also working on the project, and Holly Wiedemann, who is the consultant on financing. Chuck Gutenson is also here. He's been the liaison with the church and is very familiar with the project and can talk to you about what this project means for the church that is going to stay there in place. I think first, if you don't mind, I have some handbooks. If you could distribute them. Sorry about that. the property that we are proposing to develop except for the church itself which will remain is vacant underutilized parcels of property one of the properties has a significant stormwater problem that cannot be developed in and of itself it has a major problem the church experiences flooding the b4 lot in the back there abuts a large trailer park the b1 lot in the front there has been vacant and undeveloped for many years to say that this site has development constraints is an understatement 10th street and north broadway park lack curb gutter and sidewalk 10th street really looks like a driveway and i guess in effect that's what it is for the entrance into the trailer park rather than a street. Since you've received the booklet, you might turn to Exhibit 2, and I want to take you through some of these photographs here. The first one is an aerial of the property, and you can see that the area that we're trying to develop runs back there behind the trailer park and behind the church. But the buildings, though, are going to be right up on North Limestone. That's both for the independent B1 lot as well as the other property on the other side there. And that is to give it the more urban streetscape that Ben Mead or Pettit will talk about in a little while. The rear part, the B4 part, we intentionally tried to minimize any impact on neighbors by putting the parking back there, which will be permeable paving, and to keep the neighbors from having to look up and seeing other people in the development looking down into their backyards. So we have really tried to minimize the impact of our project on the single-family residential neighborhood. The next picture I think is very significant. It says excess water ponding on the lot at 101 North Limestone. You can see there's a reflection of the big dumpster in there. This is a major hole in the ground. It's a big mud hole, and it takes some of the stormwater from the church that's pumped in there. And this lot was acquired by the urban county government about seven years ago. The house was demolished because of stormwater problems. Mr. Nickel, the property was declared surplus. Mr. Nickel submitted a bid and purchased it. And this lot cannot be developed unless and until we can satisfy Greg Lubeck and the other folks in water quality and engineering. We're going to put the detention underground, and we can resolve this stormwater problem, which, as you can see, is not very attractive here. The other shots show, looking back, you're looking at an overgrown lot. You're looking at a parking lot that doesn't get much use, and it's truly vacant, underutilized property. The one shot there shows on a day in November, I took this shot, and it just shows the water accumulating on North Broadway Park. The reason it does that is there's no curb and gutter to take care of the stormwater. So that is the existing situation for this property. There's another photograph of the trailer park, which would be our next-door neighbor. So that's the current situation. We're proposing a mixed-use, mixed-income project. Twenty-five of these units will meet the definition in the zoning ordinance for mixed-income housing. And in addition, in conformity with the zoning ordinance, they will be deed restricted to make sure that this affordability factor carries on in the future. um what that means is mixed income housing is that the rent will be no more than 30 percent of the renter's income and only households that do not have incomes that exceed 80 percent of the median income adjusted for family size for lexington so you're talking about um a truly affordable housing here the entire project though is planned and intended to be not only affordable but also environmentally sustainable the price range will be roughly 400 to 900 a month the 900 units are the ones on the upper floor of the building that's closest to 10th street there and all utilities are included we have met several times with the neighbors most recently we've met twice since we were we postponed this zone change back in november and we are very grateful for having had the opportunity to meet with the neighbors because as a result we feel we have a much better plan obviously with the people in this room here we were not able to address all their concerns but we truly made a good faith effort to listen and respond to the extent that we could. As a result, we added more landscaping to the rear of the property on the building that's closest to Arlington. And in your exhibit book, there's a photograph of some trees that we're going to put there. We flipped the buildings. Now the three-story building is the smaller building there, Building A, and the larger building is the other one. Plus, we terraced that larger building so that now there's a rooftop terrace and there are smaller units. One of the reasons we did that was the neighbors expressed concern about people in the building A having to walk across Broadway Park and then park back in the rear of the property there. And so now with flipping the building, there are fewer units in Building A, so it's not as tall, and there are fewer units in it, and all the parking for that building is available on that particular lot. So that is how we try to address the neighborhood concerns. Before I go any farther here, I'd like to call up Bruce Nickel and ask him to give his statement on what his vision for the project is. Thank you for this opportunity to articulate why I'm committed to the Arlington Studios development on North Limestone, which represents a $5.4 million investment in the area. I'm Bruce Nickel, Jr. of Nickel Development Company. I'm a Lexington native, and my family has been in the building material business for over 90 years. My family and I have owned and managed affordable housing units for decades. I am passionate about providing clean, safe, well-managed, sustainable, and affordable housing here in Lexington. First, this development answers a growing and unmet market demand. Second, it helps the city and the neighborhood achieve goals they have explicitly set out for its future. And third, it helps embrace Methodist Church, an anchor institution in the area, achieve financial security that will enable it to make overdue repairs to its structure and continue to provide essential community services. We see this project primarily as an answer to a significant market demand that is going largely unmet. Our submitted research shows there is an existing deficit of 2,500 affordable rental units in Lexington today. At the same time, we are seeing growing demand locally and nationally for rental housing as demographic shifts continue in our population. The U.S. Census anticipates that nearly 90% of household growth over the next 10 years will be comprised of one- and two-person households. Moreover, the Brookings Institution predicts that these smaller households have a demonstrated preference for downtowns and other urban neighborhoods where denser housing types typically predominate. That demand will be fueled largely by the two biggest demographic segments in our population, downsizing and retiring baby boomers and the group known as the millennials, those born in the last two decades of the 20th century. This generation's preferred locations are downtowns and inner ring suburbs, walkable and bikeable neighborhoods. They seek diverse communities, and they value location and community over owning homes. They own fewer cars, drive less often, and are more prone to take public transportation. In the Fayette County market, nearly 40% of households rent, but there are few options. Nearly half of these Fayette County renters pay more than a third of their disposable income on housing. They are overburdened households, not because they want to be, but because they do not have a choice in the marketplace. place. Arlington Studios addresses this market. The majority of our units will have no income restrictions. 25% will be individuals making 80% of the area median income. Think about the full-time minimum wage earner in retail who should only be paying $450 a month in rent, or the full-time waiter at Dudley's or the new 21C, or the new college graduate who has to pay rent and service student loans on entry-level pay. They can take the bus or bike to downtown or New Circle Road from Arlington Studios instead of driving in from cheaper markets outside Fayette County. We believe that more affordable housing options mean residents who are no longer paying more than they can afford on housing. We believe these individuals will use their greater disposable income at existing neighborhood establishments and attract new businesses. There's no question that a renaissance is taking place in the North Limestone Corridor. We believe this location is important because Arlington Studios provides safe, sustainable, affordable rental housing in a growing neighborhood where very little of such housing exists today. After construction, Nickel Development will continue to own and manage the property on site, as we have in other locations in Lexington, where our managers have been recognized for the quality management they provide. Including utilities and our rent has led us to use LEED-inspired construction. This requires us to remain owners and managers for the long term to see our return on the high-quality construction investment. We also believe that market demand for these units will enable us to achieve a stable and a high-quality tenant population. It will also allow us to employ restrictive lease covenants to prevent the possibility of uses that are inappropriate in the area and to control the number of residents in each unit. Residents will also be required to use assigned parking spots. Lexington's Master Plan and the Small Area Plan developed with substantial input from residents and the North Limestone Neighborhood Association. Both call for more quality affordable housing, improving the neighborhood's infrastructure and stormwater issues, and sustainable investment. Arlington Studios addresses all these issues. This development also displaces no existing residents. It will transform two eyesore locations that turn into lakes after each rainstorm while generating no tax revenue into a productive development that led vibrancy to the corridor and generate over $40,000 a year to the school system and mass transit budgets. Finally, this development provides a much-needed lifeline to embrace Methodist Church. The funds this development will generate for the church will go to much-needed repairs and to fund the essential community services that you will hear about in a few moments in more detail. We've made numerous good-faith efforts to hear neighbors' concerns. and have made substantial changes to our development plan in response to their suggestions. While for now they have decided to end our dialogue, we will continue to welcome their input as we proceed to final development. We discovered this property because there was a for sale sign posted in the vacant lot. Under the current zoning, construction for a warehouse in the back of the church and a gas station mini-mart out front could begin in early 2015. We believe our proposed zoning change will produce a far more desirable outcome for the city, its renters, and the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you. And now I'd like Van Meter Pettit, the architect, to come forward and talk a little bit about some of these issues as well. Ms. West, I would just let you know there's 15 minutes left on your presentation. Thank you all very much. Van Meter Pettit, architect. In the interest of everyone's time, I've actually printed up my notes and a principal graphic to share, and I'll be as brief as I can be. there's a saying that I did not originate that life's purpose is the intersection of your greatest passion and the world's greatest need and I can tell you sincerely that this project represents that for me and for Bruce Nickel and for the outstanding team that he has assembled to achieve this purpose. As Ms. Wade has said, there's quite a bit of overlap between what we propose to do and the multiple comprehensive plans, housing studies, and the small area plan. It leaves the excerpted text largely highlighted in many cases, and she's already touched on that, so I will move on. But what I want to share with you, so that you kind of understand why we're doing this and what's unique about it, is that there are four key principles that we have followed in the architecture of this, and they are interlocking puzzle pieces that make a coherent whole and allow us to provide a product for the community and for this neighborhood that we believe is woefully deficient. It is sustainability, density, safe by design, and urban infill. And I will just very, very briefly go over these. Sustainability is about using your resources very wisely. That leads to great economic benefits. That is using the land, which is quite finite in Fayette County, as wisely as possible so we don't have to eat up any more farmland. It means using this existing site as carefully as possible, making our housing units as efficient as they can optimally be, and then basically building with a technology that makes them as energy efficiency as possible. And when you look at urban infill, as has been stated previously, this site is so valuable for future residents because whether you're on bike or on foot or on bus or you do take a car trip, almost anything you possibly could want is within an incredibly close radius. So just like I walk down here today because I live and work within walking distance, people can make a convenient life without a car in this location. And when you're a family or a couple, each one of those cars is $5,000 a year. You're putting money into the pockets of people who are trying to pay off college, and they're getting places without a car. This is an ideal location for that. And it's also ideal because Embrace Church is such an excited partner for what we're doing. It's wonderful to see that they're going to be able to invest in this beautiful church. When it comes to density, the numbers speak for themselves. We are trying to optimally use the land. With the number of units that we've proposed, it allows you to have on-site management, which means that you have more propriety over your project, and you can basically keep it in good shape and make sure things are operating well. When it comes to safety by design, our approach has been the sort of iconic symbol of a happy neighborhood as a front porch. Well, instead of having internal circulation, these lonely corridors where people are kind of looking out of their door, we've turned the thing inside out, and the whole thing is a front porch. and we've created really generous terraces that are circulation so that, as Jane Jacobs says about an urban community, there's a shared sense of propriety, and people know one another by sight, and they know, and you share social spaces. That creates the opportunity for community. That creates the opportunity for eyes on the street, which creates a safe neighborhood. That's the goal and the objective of the design. when it comes to urban infill as as i've said this is this is the way that we keep our world-class landscape safe and green for as long as possible thank you we are going to try very hard to maintain the 30 minutes but we have some important testimony um we're going to try to do it, but please just try to bear with me. Right now, I'd like to call Holly Wiedemann. As you all know, she's a prominent developer of infill housing. She's done mixed-use housing and affordable housing. She's done Artec, Midway Bakery. I would like her to speak briefly as well. Hello, and thank you so much for letting me be here. And I will be very brief because there are really only three points I wanted to make. I have been in the business of developing mixed income, mixed use, housing, and multifamily for, it's hard to believe, 25, 30 years now. I'm a native Lexingtonian, and I remember when Boss's food market was not too far down the street. I don't know if any of you all remember that. But what I wanted to mention just very briefly is that every project that we have developed in the history of AU has increased property values around it, every single one. despite whether they're affordable, whether they're market rate. The reason why is because they're well-built, they're well-designed, and they're well-managed. Midway School Apartments, which was one of our first developments, was an abandoned school and just a liability to the community because no one paid any attention to it. Today, it is, as it has been for the past 17 years, mixed income housing, 24 units, and it includes the Midway Bakery, which if you haven't been there, it's a great place for holiday treats. But it also is a wonderful mixed use approach because the residents have the opportunity of enjoying what happens there during the day on a commercial basis, and they're there during the night as well. The other project that among the 25 that we've done across the state of Kentucky and West Virginia includes our tech, which was in a neighborhood that was having fringe reduction of values, of property values, because of shootings that occurred on Old Georgetown Street, which is now where our offices are. and the historic building that faces Old Georgetown, which had been the American Legion building. That project, 36 units of housing, is what really was the impetus for the whole Jefferson Street corridor and turnaround, and you've seen the positive developments that have occurred there. Since we brought on, which was courageous, it was a pioneering effort. Since we brought that on in 2008, $155 million of development has occurred, which is pretty dramatic. Right now, we are under construction at Parkside over in Gardenside area. That project has also resulted in significant property value increases in that area, and that's 100% affordable for families. The remarkable thing about this project is that this is not utilizing any of the normal tools that I use for infill and housing, which are tax credits. This is utilizing a typical commercial loan so that it is not, there aren't the income restrictions that I operate under in the majority of my developments. And it is a qualified census tract as well. But I just wanted to tell you how much I am unconditionally for the development of this project. I think the neighborhood will be thrilled because it will be an asset to the neighborhood, and it will be an asset to Lexington, which is my hometown. So thank you very much, and I heartily endorse this. Thanks. Although we were not required to do a traffic study, the neighbors raised traffic concerns. So as a result, Vision Engineering performed a traffic summary. And I'd like to call Matt Carter up here to very, very briefly provide his conclusions. I'm sure Matt will be brief. Let me just remind you that you're down to about six minutes. I'll be very brief. As you know, currently the site, other than the church, sits vacant. So based on the zoning that was there, we came up with what we thought could go in there right now without doing a zone change. And what we came up with is the rear lot could be developed as warehousing. and the lot to the right of the church or to the north of the church we felt could be developed as a convenience store. These could be done without going in front of the planning commission with the current zoning on it. We would have to just submit plans to build an inspection and then they could go build this. So based on these assumptions, we came up with the current trip generation with warehousing, the church, and a convenience store would be at 155 trips during the a.m. peak hour, which is from 7.15 to 8.15. And what we did is we looked at it when the school was people were coming in the morning from 7.15 to 8.15 and then we looked at it in the afternoon from 2.30 to 3.30 and what we found is that comparing what we're proposing to what it could develop as there what it could develop would be 155 trips in the a.m. and 185 trips in the p.m. In the afternoon, developing this as an EMU zone, the trips would go 75 in the morning to 74 in the afternoon. And both of these we're proposing is a considerable reduction, almost half the traffic that could be generated from this site. So based on this, we feel we're in good shape. We did a level of service study for it, both morning and afternoon, and the level of service is A on this road. And as you all know, level of service is kind of like a school grade, A good, F bad. So in the mornings and the afternoons, level of service, either way it develops, it's going to remain a level of service A. So we feel it's pretty safe. Just a little bit over three minutes, Chris. I want to call Chuck Gutenson. He is the liaison with Embrace Church to tell you about what this means to the church. Mr. Chairman, Council Members. I disassembled your microphone. While you've heard from a number of voices about the benefits to the central sector, I want to comment briefly about how this project will put Lexington at the cutting edge of how urban renewal can be coupled with the renewal of faith communities. In the 1950s, the average size house was around 1,100, 1,200 square feet. Communities with houses of that size and larger were considered solidly middle and upper middle class. Those areas then were ideal for locating faith communities, and thousands of them were built across the United States in areas just like where Embrace United Methodist Church is located now. These churches were built in the late 1940s and early 1950s. They were large, they were beautiful, and they were traditional in design. Built in the days of low energy costs, they were also not very space or energy efficient. Now, fast forward through the next few decades, and we pass through rapid growth in energy costs and the phenomenon of urban flight. The consequence is that churches, which were flagships to the denominations in 1950s, have become very costly to maintain and power. Further, urban flight has left them with a decaying giving base that is increasingly unable to support them. Today, we have those thousands of faith communities struggling to stay alive, often attempting to maintain their ministries by balancing their budgets on deferred maintenance. Consequently, the buildings are frequently in serious need of repair and updating, but the size and financial strength of the corresponding congregations are often inadequate to the task. This has led congregations to close down the ministries in those local areas, to sell their properties to whomever they can, and in often cases, either relocate or dissolve altogether. The Arlington Project is an example of a highly desirable and viable option to those outcomes. The need in the North Limestone area for secure, cutting-edge housing that is affordable has been well documented and addressed by speakers before me. In addition, we've also talked about the fact that the project will provide a much-needed economic shot in the arm for the area. However, the issue I want to make sure is not overlooked is the extent to which the Arlington Project can become a model of urban renewal, which breathes life into struggling faith communities. The sale of the embraced property will provide working capital that can be utilized by the church to upgrade its outdated, struggling physical plan. Additionally, the demographic to which Arlington Studios is most likely to appeal is an ideal demographic for reconstituting a healthy and growing ministry base. I've been involved with this project from early on, and I grow increasingly persuaded that the development of the Arlington Studios will become a model that we can deploy across the country, helping faith communities and urban areas to enjoy renewal through collaboration. I've also been involved in teaching the next generation's ministers for more than 15 years now. And as I discuss this proposed project with past students, they inevitably see the potential for their own local communities. I think it would be a great thing if we could say to some of those pastors, come on down and see what we're doing in Lexington, and let's see how we can put those to practice in your own areas. I believe this project will be a win-win for all involved, and I encourage the council's approval. Thank you, sir. Ms. Westover, your time has expired. Can you wrap up in about two minutes? Yes, I think I can. Thank you. No, I'll have the opportunity to rebut the appropriate time. Just some housekeeping items. Here is an additional letter of support from George Brooks. I'll introduce that into evidence. and another from another one of the church elders, Chip Singleton, who's also here today. And I am introducing my exhibit book into evidence. And then my exhibit book shows, it references some affordable housing reports. And I have the full version of those that I'm submitting into evidence. the Commonwealth Economics Report from two years ago, the Urban County Government's Own Housing Market Study, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Commission Report, and the Human Rights Commission State of Fair and Affordable Housing Report, all of which state that we have a critical need for more affordable housing of all sorts to provide additional housing sources. If we don't provide this additional affordable housing, then there is a trend, and it's documented in these exhibits, that more of our citizens are going to have to move to Scott and Jessamine County. As an economic development and social policy matter, this is something that's of critical importance that both the council and the commission need to pay attention to. We ought to provide it here. It's more sustainable here. In addition, I've got the traffic summary that was performed by Vision Engineering, and I will also introduce that. and with that I will sit down and listen to what the neighbors have to say if you have any questions please let me know thank you any questions miss West over right now no thank you let me ask this anyone in the audience wish to speak in favor of this project one if you would come forward you'd have three minutes And I think after that, we're going to take a brief recess before we get started. Hi, Chip Singleton. I'm a trustee at the church. So we'll have no legal responsibilities or relationship after the sale. But we do believe that this can be kind of a kickstarter for the area. Chuck mentioned how, you know, churches like ours have struggled. So I'm not going to go back over that. And you have my letter of support. But I'd make just the point that I think it could be a kickstarter. There's a lot of other vacant properties, so maybe some of the money from the folks that come in here, you know, they'll need their services. They'll have a few bucks to spend, so maybe it's other opportunities to infill some of the vacant space. For the church directly, as he mentioned, the capital dollars, we'd like to start having weddings and doing some nicer things there, but we don't have the money to refurbish the inside. And frankly, the third point is just what Nickel Development and his team will do to make their property work well is going to help us because we have what I call Lake Embrace in the back, the picture you saw, and then in the front, on the sidewalk at Broadway Court, there's always water there. So to try to talk to folks about heavier wetting here, you know, with it looking like this, it's just untenable. When they go to fix the streets and make things right for their property and go with the underground storage for water, I'm a trustee, I deal with this water all the time, so I just think it's good for that overall area to get the water taken care of. That's it. Thank you, sir. Anyone else wish to speak in favor of? Yes, sir. Thank you. My name is Mark Davis. I'm a pastor theologian at First Presbyterian Church with more than 20 years experience in urban ministry. Vital congregations are a part of a vital community, regardless of one's faith perspective, agnostic, atheist, whatever it may be and echo Chuck's comments. There are cities around the country that are facing difficulties with development because congregations buildings are falling apart and that creates a real problem for the community. After the church closes, the city maintains and still has a significant issue. So to find a vital, creative, and well thought out way to revitalize communities by these kinds of multilateral partnerships offer a lot of potential for a community. And to see it happening here, I think, can provide a real possibility for other cities and other communities. These properties, when they fall apart, they create a problem for everybody. And that's the long-term destiny for a lot of these congregations because of the process that's been mentioned. I was also on the steering team for the Mayor's Homeless Commission, and this fits extraordinarily well with a lot of opportunities and a lot of work that's been done in a lot of places. Thanks very much. Thank you, sir. At this point, I think we'll take five-minute recess and resume after that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. It's possibly three that might share as far as okay yes anyone else I'd like to speak more than welcome to so let me have those first three first thank you mr. chairman and thank you zoning committee for a brief bit of your time I'm gonna keep this brief to allow the rest of the citizens to voice their concerns because I know I know that there are quite a few of us here to voice these concerns. And your name, please. My name is Drew Shackelford. I'm the president-elect of 2015 year for the North Limestone Neighborhood Association. So my task as neighborhood president is to listen to the concerns of my fellow residents, North Limestone, and to see that these concerns are addressed. Our neighborhood association has approached me with serious concerns about this proposed zoning change to mixed use, too. and in specifics that mixed use two is inappropriate for our current way of life and what we feel are deliberate efforts to minimize and marginalize our involvement within the zoning and development process. With respect to the zoning committee's decision to hold this meeting at 1.30 on Thursday, quite a few of my constituents could not be here due to prior work engagements. I do, however, have with me here a petition with nearly 100 signatures from community members who maintain that the Nichols Development Corporation has not been a good neighbor to our community during this development process. Pages 100 and 101 in Chapter 7 of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan states, include neighborhood groups early in process. The developer notified some, but not all, individuals within the neighborhood less than a month before they requested having this zoning committee. Several residents mentioned that they received nothing in the mail in regards to this zoning committee meeting. They have thus far, in our opinions, avoided addressing specific important concerns of ours that we have presented directly to them within these meetings. And to their own admission, they have not addressed all of the concerns. Page 101 of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan states that infill and redevelopment should, quote, help a neighborhood achieve a mix of use that supports and enhances a citizen's daily life. We feel that the lack of communication from the Nichols Development Corporation of their own admission doesn't respond to our concerns for quality of life, and that's very alarming to us. One of the many concerns you'll hear today from our community members about North Lyme is about traffic, and in particular, the traffic on North Limestone for our children. Since the development is proposed to take place in front of Arlington Elementary School, where 80% of our children walk to and from school every single day, during the last community meeting, I specifically asked them if they had any independent third-party studies developed for traffic, and they replied to me that they had their engineers doing a study, which I learned later from my community members, that that study at that time was composed of them counting cars on the street. They're three separate times. And this traffic study that they had mentioned in this meeting today was never brought to us. Even though our lines of communication have been open, they do have our information to contact us with our concerns. In particular, I brought that up because I, in addition to being the president of the North Limestone Neighborhood Association, I'm a mother of a young son that does attend Arlington Elementary, and I do walk him to and from school every single day. And I see the traffic guards out front struggling to deal with traffic, the congestion in the first place for the kids crossing to school. So my concern is that with the development of these 80, I guess it has been reduced to 76 at this point, with these 76 units that the traffic will be incredibly increased. so that said basically they did mention last Mr. Nichols did mention that we had cut off dialogue that is not the case we've requested non-stop dialogue we've requested dialogue be something that they have with us so that we could create something that both they and the community can enjoy but we feel as though their lack of concern and not addressing our specific concerns has been very detrimental to the process and we're pretty upset about that. So in conclusion for myself, I'd like to go ahead and turn this over to Mr. Roy Cornett to address the specific zoning concerns and to the rest of the members of my community so that they may address their individual concerns. Thank you for your time. Thank you. She must be from the mountains. I'm only referred to as Cornett in the mountains up here. It's usually Roy Cornett. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, thank you all for your time. You're going to hear many of my neighbors express many of the other concerns, but in the interest of time, I want to spend my time focusing on just one concern in particular. And is the proposed development appropriate for a mixed-use II zoning classification? Article 28, Section 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the 2013 Comprehensive Plan specified that the mixed-use classification is created to provide for and promote five main intents. First one, provide neighborhood-based employment opportunities. Two, provide support services to enhance the livability of the neighborhood. Three, revitalize established neighborhood commercial center. Four, promote quality infill and development. And five, promote pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. Three of those five intents deal directly with the non-residential component of a development. So, is the non-residential space of this project, which barely meets the minimum percentage required by the ordinance, an essential component to the viability of this project? Or, is that the non-residential space just there to be able to construct a far higher density residential space than would otherwise be permitted by law here in Lexington? In the less than month and a half since the neighborhood's been aware that this project's been in existence, it's become very obvious that it's the latter. At the very first meeting, I asked the developer, what will be the market for the non-residential space in this development? Who's his prospective tenants? The answer was, I don't know. We want to find out from you what you want there. At the next meeting we had, when the concern was raised that since he had no plan for the non-residential space in this project, there was a fear that the space would be left vacant and become a blight on the neighborhood. The response then all of a sudden became, well, I'll use it all for my office. At the next meeting, it was back to, what do you all want there? It's clear that the non-residential aspect is not an essential component to this project. And it certainly isn't promoting the three intents directly related to non-residential spaces in a mixed-use classification called for in Article 28, Section 1. And this project very well could be hindering the last two. And this isn't an unbased fear. Look at the Lex on South Broadway, which is a mixed-use zoning classification. Over 90% of its non-residential space is still vacant years after its development. You know, Lexington Fayette Urban County government hired Winter and Company several years ago to study how to do responsible infill and redevelopment in the city. On page one of that report, it talks about the need to be concerned about the incompatible scale of mixed-use multifamily housing in a traditionally single-family area. 300 and 400 square foot dormitory-style housing is incompatible with the predominantly single-family nature of this neighborhood. We're opposed to the proposed zone change because this particular development would negatively impact this community. It's too drastic a change, one that would harm the character, the charm, and the livability of the neighborhood. You can ask almost any one of my neighbors here. We're not against higher density. We're not against infill. We're not against development in the neighborhood, but we want it to be responsible. We want it to be respectful for what the neighborhood is. Tom Eblen of the Herald-Leader has a great quote that I want to paraphrase here. When city officials and residents make it clear that mediocre design is no longer good enough for Lexington, developers will listen. If the city wants design excellence and context-sensitive infill, then we must insist on it. Well, we're here today to insist on it. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. My name is Don Bolton, and I'm one of the neighbors in the neighborhood. And I hope you all don't allow this to happen to our neighborhood. It will destroy the character of our neighborhood. They're talking about this traffic study. They're not talking about North Broadway Park or 10th Street. They're talking about limestone. This project leads out onto Broadway Park. That traffic is going to go up North Broadway Park, and it's going to go up 10th Street. There's where the traffic study should have been done. How many people, how many walkers up our street where there's no sidewalks, no curbs or gutters for people to walk up the street without having to walk in the middle of the street? You can't let this happen. The safety of these people, even in this complex, are going to be at jeopardy here. sorry I'm really emotional right now we just don't want this to happen did you have any of the neighbors come to testify for their behalf all the church wants to do is get rid of a piece of property and most likely rent one of these units and put something in there for their self and we really don't really want to see we really don't want to see something like that happen So please don't let this happen. We're begging you. Please. Thank you, sir. Yes, others? Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is David Todd Singleton. I live at 107 North Broadway Park in the property in the fourplex adjacent right to what is considered building A. When we first saw this plan, Mr. Nickel proposed it was four stories after a couple meetings. It looks like they've conceded and taken the story off. Unfortunately, what they would like you to think is that a green space is going to be highlighted here and enhanced, which they're actually taking away the only green space left in the area. Yes, it needs new drainage, it needs improvements, and it needs infill, but not at the mercy of throwing all of the character of this entire historic, quite fought for and much traction and momentum has been gained in taking back the streets from drugs that have been happening in here, staying with the Fayette County Police Department and myself for 16 years, as a connector corridor from the mobile home park and through we've had the Hope Center gentlemen come up north limestone. They're all quite well-mannered and maintained. We have them twice a day. 400 Hope Center gentlemen walk this sidewalk here. This school, Arlington Elementary School, unfortunately, is 21 feet from the proposed both buildings because Arlington Elementary School's property is here and goes all the way to here. So both buildings are 21 feet from the children. 85% of them walk to school. We already have incidents of children being hit by cars in the last 16 years. We have 107 police reports. I would like to mention this. I wasn't going to bring this up. What they would like you to think is that this beautiful, embraced church, which we used to attend, is a vital part of this corridor. I would love to be able to say that. Unfortunately, they're not. It can be sourced through public record. The police department and myself have retrieved the church bus three times after being carjacked between the Kentucky and Tennessee state line. They have no responsibility with the programs. They haven't maintained control of the outreach programs that they've done. their parishioners that come on every Monday night are allowed to pour into the street in front of our building here. They come out the side door and a hundred of them gather here until they can either wander away or the small bus can take them to various parts. So this becomes a standing room only street. Twice a day the school lets out and I have a video I'd like you to see that I've submitted for official record. It just can display. It was eight and a half minutes long. We know time is valuable. I've cut off four minutes. So we're gonna begin basically in the middle of it. But you'll see the property, you'll recognize it. And this is when school's letting out. A very unsafe place for children. And the character of the neighborhood would be forever changed. This is how, as the children are being let out of school here at the elementary, that the parents line up to come retrieve their children. This is the crosswalk that will be used by the children. And you can see, this is the proposed site that will rise high into the sky right here of a four-story building with high-density apartments in them. Most of them government subsidized with no parking there. And this elementary school that has been just renovated and has really improved the nature and character of this corridor. You can see the children. You can see on the corner of North Limestone and North Broadway Park How these cars on North Broadway Park Will line up and wait here for their children This is where the children come As you can see here They're all letting out All of these children will be walking by a four story High density It's three stories now, bud This building in the middle of this otherwise quaint and quiet neighborhood, that's my building, and that is the highest structure in this entire corridor. Take it down. Mr. Nickel. So he has amended that building from four to three, but it's too much high density for this area that has made ground already within the existing corridor. these streets cannot and will not be widened. If this proposed development of high density, which he's taking advantage of, he's actually not sensitive to the needs of, he doesn't care about this, he's not sensitive to the, he never was sensitive to the needs of this actual area, but found these infill needs met a couple criteria who would love you to believe that this is all an asset. Actually, unfortunately, it is not an asset. It's actually a deal breaker. And let's not have it be a deal breaker at the expense and lives and safety of these elementary school children. It would also be different if Kim Lippert, the principal of Arlington Elementary, could tell you that she was more than happy and open to have maybe extra parking happen on the back of the school. She's already said that's already a problem, and that can't happen. So twice a day, Arkamy Street going up the side of elementary school, the elementary school, where am I? Here, here, Arkamy here and Avon here. Somebody said on the, commented on the upload of the video that you just saw a portion of, well why don't they come over here and do, over here, they are, this is quadruple parked cars all the way to Castlewood Park twice a day and all the way here. And then this is where the actual walking and pickup, the buses are here. This is where all the parents come here and they have no other choice but to park up here. They park here, they use Andy Sloan's building which is at 1035 North Limestone. they park wherever that they can. When all this is shut down, and these are large, tall, the tallest structures for half a mile that are residential, with under the misconception that the mixed use is really going to be for the mixed use. It's really to pack in as many as we can here and here in an already overstressed corridor, unfortunately for them and hopefully not with your proper consciousness for these to literally throw them under the bus. These school children that have already had incidents and accidents here in these crossing guards that try to get them safely to here. The setback is at minimal. The parking they've allowed back here is at minimal. Yes, they're to the letter. Are they being sensitive to the neighborhood? Did they let us know as early in the actual development and planning of this development? No, they actually waited until the very last second and really didn't even intend for us to know about that. It doesn't sound like good faith to me. It certainly doesn't feel like a plan that is being sensitive to the neighborhood. And unfortunately, I am really concerned, as you can tell from the video, about these children. As I've been there for 16 years, I've seen many things. Those front balconies on the fourplex, I have seen many things. We have made a lot of ground in this corridor. It is a connector corridor, but it connects to, well, you can see here. I mean, look at the passion and the love that is here. Everybody's concerned, not just for themselves, collectively. Why would that be? So thank you for hearing me today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Singleton. Others that would like to speak, yes, please come forward. We're trying to pretty much stay with the three-minute limit. This will be less than three. Hello, my name is Donnie House, and I've lived at North Broadway Park for 26 years, presently serving as secretary-elected to the North Limestone Neighborhood Association. Bypassing the previous stated reasons for granting a mixed-use zoning, my biggest concern is that every retail area, empty, or corner lot will apply for mixed-use status also. What will this do for the entire corridor of the North Limestone? The proposed development calls for a four-story structure the same height as the condo downtown known as Rose-On-Main. The granting of this mixed-use status would possibly allow a dark, on-the-street corridor of multi-story buildings that could be detrimental to the charm and the nuances that make the North End so special and unique to Lexington and Fayette County. Arlington Elementary School and Epworth Methodist Church have both been the heart and the pulse of the North Limestone neighborhood. With mixed-use status granted in the nickel development, both structures would be dwarfed and the church would be, in a sense, hidden by the development. Our beacons to a lower-class neighborhood would then be shadowed by density. As for development and density, I am on board, but this project is maximum density. Speaking of density, our neighborhood is surrounded by several high-density projects already. Northland Shopping Center, Legends Ball Field, Imperial Trader Park, Arlington Elementary, Upworth Methodist, Arlington Christian, 12th Street Apartments, Ballpark Apartments, Biscayne Apartments, 1412 Broadway Shopping Center, and Parkway Apartments. If I only ask you to use caution in your decision making, I'm sorry, making your decision because of the precedent that it could set could possibly destroy the character and charm that is North Limestone. Thank you, Ms. Trouse. Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Carmen Norris. I live at 130 North Broadway Park. and you know when I heard affordable housing I was so excited for this project because I'm really that's something I feel passionately about. This project is not thoughtfully done. I don't think it gives a lot of respect to the people that live in the building. I know that they say that there's a trend that people want to live in 300 square feet apartments but I don't know my bathroom is 300 square feet and I don't think it gives a lot of respect. I don't think it's going to bring long-term people into the neighborhood. Also, as a resident on North Broadway Park, if there's a car parked on the street and there's two cars passing, it's almost impossible. So like the idea that there's going to be more people parking, you know, we already have when there's something going on at the stadium, people park along there. And my car personally has been almost totaled, like parked on the curb. So there's already like, and I was almost hit taking the trash out the other day because two cars just can't go down that street very comfortably, especially if there's other people parked. And if there's people parked on both sides of the street, I'm going to say that it's impossible to actually make it down that street. And then there's no place for pedestrians in that equation either. Also, it's in front of a school, but it's going to be single occupancy. So I don't understand, you know, like if you're going to be in front of a school, you think you'd want children to be able to live there easily or freely. And that's not going to be the case. So, you know, it's saying that baby boomers, sure, there's no elevator. I don't know, you know, like my mom, grandma, everybody's had to have knee replacements. I don't know if that's the target audience. I don't know how far that's going to go. And with driving, I live up there and I would much rather sleep the extra 45 minutes than walk in the morning on some day. So I don't see that there's going to be a significant reduce in traffic even for people that work downtown. And that's all I have to say. Thank you for listening. Have a good day. Thank you, Ms. Norris. Others, please. Hi, my name is Joe Gobler. I live at 126 North Broadway Park, and I'm opposed to this project for a lot of different reasons, but specifically what I'm going to talk about is I got my master's in historic preservation from the College of Architecture UK, and I say this to say that. Scale-wise, this doesn't fit at all in my neighborhood or really anywhere in the limestone corridor in that area. This is from the small area plan. And it says North Limestone and Bryan Avenue are more reflected of neighborhood scale. Well, neighborhood scale, the largest buildings there are two stories. Even the school across the street from where they want to build this one building is only two stories. And it's the biggest thing around. So scale-wise, when you've got a four-story, which is going to be taller than the steeple of the church. When churches were built, the steeple was supposed to be the highest point because it was supposed to be reaching to God. Well, now we're going to have this giant apartment building filled up predominantly about 80 to 90 percent of it is going to be the 300 square foot. They call it a mixed income, but the reality is 90 percent of it is 300 square foot apartments. I mean, we already have, if you look at the trailer park, we have 20 some acres of affordable housing right there. I mean, this entire neighborhood is all affordable housing. We don't need more affordable housing in this area. so that's all I have thank you mr. governor brothers no yes sir council members thank you for hearing us today my name is Ron Bradley I live at 107 North Broadway Park I've lived there for 16 years plus just to let you know that when we the two lots in question that everybody talks about and shows the pictures of the water drainage we are all highly aware that yes it's an eyesore and yes it does need to be addressed when we first heard that someone wanted to develop that part and then to take over that everyone was extremely excited that there was going to be something new in the neighborhood that it was going to handle the water drainage issues then as we got a little bit of wind of what was proposed everyone just basically freaked out it's not a good idea for the for the area for the neighborhood for the historic look of the neighborhood for the feel of the neighborhood if you drive the north limestone corridor from new circle road to downtown the highest building is three stories and until you get down to short street or or uh third street where grats park inn is everything in the area is nothing is taller than two stories and the original plan the building a sits right on the other side of the fence to my backyard at first they proposed four stories with limited parking to where their premise is that, oh, parking's not an issue because most of our tenants aren't going to have cars. What is the demographic of who they're looking for to live in a 300-square-foot dormitory-style apartment and not own a vehicle? But they sound like they're wanting to do a positive for our neighborhood. All they're intending to do is to pack in as much density as possible. Our area doesn't need that. There's already been studies done, and I don't remember the person who was with our group that had the information, that the North Limestone corridor, we already are well above the high density versus income as far as for the entire city of Lexington. We don't need more high density. If these units were proposed, these buildings were proposed to be two-story, regular density, fair market value, everyone would be behind this proposal, but as it is now, we are all opposed to it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bradley. Anyone else like to speak? If not, we'll move at this point to the rebuttal stage, and then we'll, I think, move to questions after the rebuttal. Yes, ma'am, you'd be first. Thank you. Just a few things. In regard to reducing the density, at one point we had heard the neighbors did not tell me directly this that if the density were halved in other words go from 80 units to 40 units that this might be better but that's not possible to do to develop on this site for one thing to do that we would require a third building and we'd have to put it back there on what is reserved to be possible use by seed leaf for gardening and the pervious pavement, and we'd be covering more of the land for the building in order to have that density by reducing those other buildings to that degree. Also, to have the density, to reduce the density significantly would impact our ability to manage on-site. In order to have on-site management, we need to have an economy of scale. Similarly, for this project to work we need an economy of scale we need to have a certain number of units and so that's why we're proposing the density that we are now in in response to some of the comments made about the height i would like to call van meter up briefly i want to ask bill selly to show this this this exhibit that you're going to see shows the heights of the various buildings and i would like van meter to talk about the height of these buildings in relation to our project in terms of how would the height and the scale of our building fit in to this Yes, we are still operating as a schematic design contingent upon the zone change to advance to further design. But we are having made the change that we have made to scale the, I'll say, the smaller building on Broadway Park to make it more compatible with its parking footprint and with the immediately adjacent multifamily beside it. It will be at about 36 feet in total height. And that building, I think, is 27. So it'll be nine feet taller than that structure. And it'll be about, I believe it's about 70 feet from the other building. Building face to building face about 70 feet away, which is much more than is required. And we waited a full year to acquire the flood lot at the corner of 10th and Limestone in order to keep the building mass at North Limestone and to not cast shadows on the single-family residences behind. And in massing, actually, we will not exceed the church. And we took mass away from Broadway Park and put it on the building on 10th Street. We had initially tried to keep the scale to the church low. At the request of the neighborhood, we scaled down. Broadway Park and added only a portion of a fourth floor on the building next to the church so that standing across the street or standing in front of the church, the fourth floor is actually set well back, about 30 or 40 feet, so that in essence you won't even really see that additional story from the streetscape. You would see it maybe well down limestone driving north. You would see a fourth floor, but it really will not at all, it will be below the top of the church. There were some concerns raised about traffic. One of the citizens spoke in terms of traffic accidents in front of Arlington and about the traffic impact on North Broadway Park and 10th street i'd like to get matt to come up here for a second and talk about that that's what i saw we all got about one minute left on rebuttals um i guess i would comment that we did look up the kentucky state lexington police report for the accidents in this area they looked at a point mile stretch of North limestone and there was 39 accidents within the school zone area there was only five and based on the state average this is 50% below average for accidents for this road and briefly in terms of traffic impact on North Broadway Park why would anybody from our development drive down North Broadway Park whoa whoa whoa whoa excuse me excuse me let's maintain some order here thank you we based on our traffic studies we saw a lot fewer movements going down north north Broadway Park everything was going up and down limestone I mean the majority of the movement so we feel there there's really not going to be a lot of traffic going down North Broadway Park. There's not a street light at the intersection of North Broadway and North Broadway Park. If somebody went down there, if they were going to turn left, they would have to turn across traffic. So it would be easier to leave our development and then drive down North Limestone and make that change. There's very little reason to drive up North Broadway Park and turn right unless you're trying to go, I guess, on the interstate. And really the traffic would be negligible. And in terms of the difficulty of traffic being parked on North Broadway Park and traffic, the through traffic, I believe that North Broadway Park, although the right-of-way looks like that's the, the road looks like that's the full right-of-way, I think the right-of-way for North Broadway Park is quite wide. Ms. Westover, you do need to wrap up on your rebuttal. Anything else? I just want to remind everybody that two of these parcels, one is B4, and right now with a building permit, somebody could come on here and do major truck repair, minor truck repair, a warehouse, a truck terminal, any number of things. And we think that the MU-2, with the housing that's sustainable, that will be part of the community fabric, is a much more appropriate use of this property and lends itself much more to the character of the neighborhood. Similarly, the B-1 lot today could be developed exactly as we propose with the non-residential on the first floor. That's not hardly rebuttal. Let's move on. Mr. Chairman. Hold on. you'll have a chance to rebut anything else we just request your approval as submitted thank you okay thank you as far as opposition you have the same chance for rebuttal this is rebutting comments that you just heard okay I understand but you need to be at the microphone the reason why there was an outburst when they said that nobody that North Broadway Park there would be no impacted traffic. The reason is because of building A, the point of ingress and egress for the entire parking for that entire building is off of North Broadway Park. That there is no ingress or egress onto limestone. Everybody that lives in that building and parks in there has to ingress and egress on North Broadway Park. That's that one. And as of, you know, the only, the concerns that, you know, our president addressed on the lack of being good neighbors, which is, like I said, everybody in this neighborhood was in favor of it. They didn't address that at all. The aspects that I addressed, is this an appropriate use of mixed use too? She didn't rebut any of those. The only ones they did is on the height, which, yes, okay, it's now, it's one foot below what the minimum requirement is. The rest of it, I believe the neighbors have spoken for themselves. Okay, thank you. Other rebuttal comments? You know, we can't have 20 people coming up here, but rebuttal comments, let's not be repetitive. My name is David Singleton again. I just wanted to also draw your attention to, I think there was a laser pointer up here at some point. I don't see it now. Back, yes, so this is the actual only egress and ingress of this entire building here. I don't know if everybody can see me. So building A, so of course now Apple, I mean Whitaker Bank ballpark here and all the other already high density and income appropriate housing that's already oversaturating it, along with the mobile home park, this whole parking that they plan to do here at the bare minimum, all of this comes through here to also North Broadway Park. So this comes to North Broadway Park, this comes out to North Broadway Park, so it's kind of an underside to say that North Broadway Park would never have anybody turn on it. Now doesn't it seem a little silly? So what we get here is we get them backed up to here, No, there is no light. That might be a problem, too. So there's a lot of infrastructure that they're not actually, they would like you to ignore it. However, it is not in place, nor is the width, the expansion of this corridor to handle the influx of new 200 new cars. We don't want to say that nobody's not going to have a car here because then we would be throwing them all into government subsidized type income, which they're saying, of course, this isn't, but they would like you to think this is not going to have an impact and it's going to break us again. I wanted to reiterate that. So let's not say that's not going to have an impact. They're going to be all down our residential streets. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other rebuttal comments? There's about two minutes left. Again, I just want to reiterate. You need to take the microphone. I need a microphone. You're going to, you see here, there's no sidewalks, no curbs or gutters for the people to walk on. and these folks here who are going to be going to the grocery store, which is over here and over here, are going to have to go this way or up 12th Street or through the trailer park to get to the shopping center. Okay? No curbs, no sidewalks on all of Broadway Park or 10th Street. I just want to emphasize that. Okay, thank you, sir. One more. I'd just like to say in response to what Mr. Van Meter Pettit said about the height, I mean, all these residences are one and a half stories. I don't see how you could think that a four-story and a three-story building scale-wise would fit into this neighborhood. And it's a historic neighborhood, and they're actually going to be tearing down a historic bungalow to build this structure. But, you know, from my perspective, if it doesn't fit scale-wise, you know, then it shouldn't be built. Thank you so we'll go to staff now this way I have three quick points first the notification that was sent was per KRS and our zoning ordinance locally so it was sent as our typical procedure is once filed we review applications we send the notice as soon as it is corrected and prepared which does give most neighborhoods about a month prior to the hearing to have that that information so there were 100 and over 150 notification letters sent and three neighborhood notices sent as well second point would be that sidewalks will be constructed by the applicant for the frontage of this property as well as along 10th street they're proposing to make improvements to those those street frontages and I can't remember my third point I'm sorry I think that's it um anything else right now until you remember Mr. Ben do you have a question uh wait a second hold on thank you Tom reminded me um this application for the mixed use two zone does meet the locational criteria of the zoning ordinance and all of the stated requirements in the ordinance there are no variances being requested for this either okay thank you and now at this point we'll go to questions from the commission yes sir what about the uh you said they would have to put sidewalks to infrastructure on 10th Street what about their part of North Broadway Park on both sides of the street yes yes they're making those improvements as well okay thank you on their frontage so the rest of the right-of-way either along limestone or North Broadway Park any other public streets that would be incumbent on the government to make those improvements if there's no sidewalks okay thank you the comment the the statement was on their property for north broadway park for north limestone and for 10th street they will be sidewalks okay we cannot ask them to go on down north broadway park on property they do not own correct so okay uh other questions uh from the Commission? Yes, sir. Just a quick question about what could go in there, and I've forgotten all the zoning acronyms and what have you. If this did not go, what else could possibly go into this area? The lot, it's labeled Building A. That lot on North Broadway Park and North Limestone is zoned B1. So our B1 zone allows restaurants, general retail, offices, medical-type uses. those kind of general business uses. The R1C zone is a single-family residential zone, so single-family homes typically. And then the B4 zone, which is where the parking lot is proposed at the back of the mobile home park, is the warehouse and wholesale business zone, or wholesale warehouse business zone. And that would allow mini warehouses, shops of special trade like plumbers. I'm trying to think of what else. Those are the top ones, storage, distribution. Okay, I've forgotten who mentioned this, but someone said something about an auto repair. Yes, in a B4 zone, automobile repair. Truck terminals? That would be unrealistic there, but yes. It's possible. Yes, Mr. Drake. Related to that, Tracy, what's the approximate width of the B-1 tract? Their development plan shows it has 125 feet of frontage along North Limestone, and then it appears to be 145 feet deep along North Broadway Park. Okay, what about the parking lot over here? This, back here? No, over here. It is 100 feet wide and 284 feet deep in terms of this area. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Other questions? No? Thank you, Ms. White. any other questions on either. This is a zoning development plan, and I can't see Mr. Martin, but I believe he did say is it preliminary? Yes. So it will be back before us. Frank, do you have other questions? No. I'm sorry, I cannot access the grant to remove those that's punched in. If there's no other questions, yes, I'm sorry, Ms. Plumlee? Sorry. One of the residents referred to the occupancy of the apartments, how that will be limited and will you control that? yes the the number of occupants in the units will be controlled by the lease similarly the lease will control the parking residents will be assigned designated parking spaces so there are also other criteria in the lease to assure that the people that live there will be good citizens and good neighbors. And a second question. There was an allusion to the retail usage. Are you progressing on that? Because there was a question about whether it would really be retail. The MU zone allows for non-residential professional office and B1. And right now, Mr. Nickel is going to, at a minimum, have some of his offices in there. And it is quite true that he threw open to the neighborhood what would you like to see out of a desire to make sure that what he put in there would be suitable for the neighbors. And we talked earlier about whether, you know, a bakery like the Midway Bakery or a coffee shop or a small restaurant or something. And in addition, because you're asking, if this zone change goes through, there are additional deeds of restriction that will be imposed because the church wants to make sure that any use here will be a good neighbor, not just for the church, but for the whole residential area. And one final question. You referenced landscaping under TAPE. Yes. Where do you propose to put those? Let me see. I will ask Van Meter here. There are some trees in there, some photographs, but Van Meter can talk about that. I think you can see in the development plan there are some graphics that indicate that the areas where the project is adjacent to single-family homes, there will be evergreens planted to provide a vertical screen, visual screen, to the project. Thank you. Other questions? If not, I'm going to ask Ms. Cocker to come back down for a moment and speak to traffic, since traffic has been mentioned on several occasions here. Traffic and a couple of questions from me as to parking. I thought I was going to make it. I was back there holding my breath. As far as traffic, North Limestone primarily, what have you what's your thoughts on that traffic has looked at the plan we don't see any concerns with the development our linkedin elementary is there there is current school signage there is current flashers there's a marked crosswalk and they do have crossing guards that cross the kids I don't want to say that, you know, we're not concerned about the children, but that is an existing situation that we are handling currently. I don't see an impact from the development. Question as far as parking on North Broadway Park. Tom mentioned that there was a few parking spaces on the street. Is that parallel parking? and then similar question to 10th Street, particularly with North Broadway. Any concerns there? We have talked to the applicant. They're currently showing on North Broadway Park, on what I would call the east side or the side closest to Building A, they're showing parallel parking. And then on the other side of that, they're showing, if you kind of want to say perpendicular parking. And we have requested on the development plan a note saying that on the final development plan, there'll be some final. Traffic's concerns are vehicles backing on to the right-of-way. That's not something we typically permit. It's an existing situation, but this is a chance for us to improve it. So that's something we have talked to the applicant about, and they know that's a concern traffic. They're going to have to work with us. Okay. I guess same thing on 10th Street. Yes. Now, on 10th Street, they're just showing the parallel parking, which doesn't concern us. We have made sure that they've looked at their distance from North Limestone to make sure we have enough depth from the intersection. So if this goes forward, parking, North Broadway Park and so forth, will be revisited? Yes. the on-street parking will definitely be revisited. Okay. Mr. Berkeley, do you have a question? In regards to the traffic study that's been presented, the way I understand this, the types of uses that could go on the B4, that could go on the B1, it's safe to say that those would be much higher traffic generators than what is proposed. Is that correct? Yes. Now, I didn't do the traffic study, but it's definitely not going. They're comparable. I don't know that I would want to say much higher. It's comparable. Anything else? If not, thank you. Any other questions from the commission? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing, and we'll move to a motion first, and then any comments after a motion? Mr. Berkley? Mr. Chair, I'm going to make a recommendation of approval of MAR 2014-19 for the reasons cited by staff. Do we have a second? Second. The motion has been made and seconded for approval of MAR 2014-19. Any discussion? Yes, ma'am. I just need to say thanks to the neighbors for your comments, and we do listen, we do hear, and there are considerations that we must abide. And again, thank you for taking your time to come here and to discuss your needs with this body. Thank you. Mr. Penn. Yes, sir. I have two concerns about this project, And one of them is the fact that it's a 300-square-foot project, which I think is way too high density for the lot. My other concern about this thing is the residential part, is the commercial part, because I drive Broadway and I see the lakes. And I know how long it's been there, and I know there's very little in there. I know there's one or two things, but it certainly doesn't contribute to any economic vitality of the neighborhood. I support EMU thing because I think infill is very important. It's a matter of scale, and it's a matter of whether it does what it's supposed to do. So I'm wrestling very hard with this right now because of those two issues. Other comments? Anyone else? I'm going to offer this. You know, we always look at infill and redevelopment very seriously, and we need to utilize the land that we have. This, I think, is doing it. How is it? Is it overboard? I don't know. There was a lot of concerns here. I appreciate everybody coming here and expressing those concerns. I think most of them were resolved, but there again, as Mr. Penn just said, this is high density, and it's something that each one of us has to wrestle with. What is appropriate? Where is it appropriate? I'm a fan of mixed use. I'm not sure what the problem is at the Lex, but I think it's something that we should consider and look at. And, you know, I think you're going to see more of it. But I would like to say thank you for coming. It is important that we hear from the citizens of Lexington. So with that, anyone else? If not, I'll call for a vote. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of Nickel Development Company, MAR 2014-19. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. We need a motion for the ZDP. Mr. Chair, make a recommendation of approval of ZDP 2014-94 with the 10 conditions. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for the approval of ZDP 2014-94. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you once again for coming. We do have some other business. I think next on the agenda, if I'm not mistaken, is the staff report, PFR 2014-6, the acquisition of property for new school elementary or new elementary school construction located at 2441 Huntley Place. Folks, thank you, and if you would, let us continue our business, take your conversation outside. Thank you, sir. Thank you. May I approach you? May I approach you? Ms. Rackers. Yes, sir. This is on page four of your agenda. item A under commission items and it will be the last staff report that I have to do for you this year. Thank you. I'm sure you like that too. Yes. PFR 2014 this 6th and it is a review of Fayette County Public Schools request or their acquisition of property and their request to construct a new elementary school at 2441 Huntley Place which used to be a part of 2250 Georgetown Road. this is the property right here we've got georgetown road this is spur road that comes across here and then this is huntley place that will provide access to the property it also provides access into this residential area the coventry subdivision and bill if you would put the next one up please the zoning of the property is p1 which is professional office and you can see again right there. That allows, as a principal permitted use of school for academic instruction. And the surrounding zoning is a mix of residential, commercial, office, and agriculture. We've got Coventry subdivision here, that is in R3. We have an R4 zone here, planned shopping center zone here, B3, which is highway service business here, and agricultural urban here, and then there's a little bit of P1 that bounds the subject property. The 2013 plan, as you know, is policy-based, and there are no land use recommendations for specific properties with this plan, but we can look back to the 2007 comprehensive plan, and the land use recommendation from the 2001 plan and the 2007 plan was for professional service and office use. that category generally includes uses that are within the confines of an office such as a medical building banks and that kind of thing it also allows as a principal permitted use a school or a church and you often find those in the in the professional office zone the property itself is 14.99 acres and the building that they're planning is close to 74,000 square feet in size and if you put the site plan up Randy please thank you I'm hard to see but this is the entire property again there's Georgetown Road spur road is over here Huntley places here the school building is this right here we've got two parking areas both of which will be accessed from Huntley Place this area will probably be for staff and maybe overflow parking and contain 46 parking spaces, then this is where the bus drop-off and the parent drop-off will be, as well as parking places. There are 84 parking spaces there. We've reviewed the 2013 comp plan, including the 2012 goals and objectives regarding this construction, and the 2013 plan contains some discussion regarding Fayette County Public Schools, and then the 2001 and 2007 plan provide more detailed background information regarding their needs and their future plans. the 2001 plan contains a lengthy discussion as far as provision of schools within fayette county and that is relevant to this this proposal it discusses the schools and busing the busing that occurs within the schools and that is relevant to this property and there is a short excerpt that i'd like to read to you the need for busing plus large numbers of new students in specific parts of the community builds a case for constructing new schools even though overall enrollment increases may not be great. The imbalance between underutilized facilities needing extensive renovation in older parts of the urban area and the underserved areas of new growth indicate that new construction at a new location might better serve the community than extensive renovations to older underutilized schools. The provision of new schools was also discussed in the 2007 plan and then all of the schools that were proposed at the time the 2001 and the 2007 plans were adopted are open and operational. And then it was also discussed in the 2013 plan, and their plans now that were discussed in the 2013 plan are for two new high schools, a middle school, and four new elementary schools, and this is one of the four new elementary schools. All of those are in the pipeline at one stage or another. And then with regard to the goals and objectives, there are only five goals and objectives in the 2013 plan that really pertain to this proposal. Two of them provide support for it, and the other three only are relevant, and those are all on page three of your staff report. In the community facilities section of the comp plan, which is in Chapter 2, it says that a desirable community must possess quality public and semi-public services, and a school is one of those quality services that we have. It also says that it must be accessible to all citizens, and providing these services helps to improve Lexington. Currently, we have 34 elementary schools and they serve 16,500 students, which is kind of hard to believe that there are that many kids in the school system. And those are just the elementary schools. And that number is projected to increase. And the public schools district facility plan calls for additional elementary schools. And that is supported by both the comprehensive plan and Destination 2040. Destination 2040 has a statement that says, if certain elements are not present for a community to be viable and a desirable place to live, people will move elsewhere. And again, one of these elements is the opportunity for and the provision of education. This property is in a portion of Georgetown Road where there are both existing and newly developing subdivisions. And this school will likely serve both of those parties or whatever you want to phrase that or term that. But they're in the process of redistricting, too, and this school has come into play as far as that redistricting program that they have. And I don't know how it will come into play as far as busing or anything else, but it is part of the conversation. Construction is scheduled to begin in March, and the completion date is anticipated to be July or August of 2016 so that it will be open for the school in the fall. And the construction plans are nearing completion. There wasn't any indication, though, in either the written description or on the site plan as to what kind of materials are going to be used for the school, other than concrete and asphalt for the walkways in the parking area. It does say that best management practices will be used when they're grading, so that will be for erosion and sediment control. and it is our hope that they'll pursue some level of LEED certification, which they've done with the other new school construction, but it has not said there's no statement made about that, so I don't know if that's the case or not. According to the most current comp plan, since 2001, the school system has invested over $117 million in new construction and renovation projects and over $23 million in site improvements. this is one of several new build projects that will help bay out county public schools to attain their 2020 goal to be a world-class school system and we find this to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan as well as the zoning ordinance it's zone p1 where a school is a principal permitted use it's supported by both the comprehensive plan and destination 40 and their discussion of public facilities and community services we have four basic recommendations one that they adhere to the best management practices that they said they were going to use with regard to all parts of the construction, that they pursue some level of LEED certification, that they provide a plan for stormwater management to engineering, and that they provide a landscaping and screening consistent with what is contained in Article 18 of the zoning ordinance regarding zone-to-zone screening because we've got the residential zoning next to the professional office zone, and consistent with vehicular use area screening, which also includes internal parking lot screen. And if you have any questions about the step report, I would be happy to try to answer them. Questions for Ms. Rackers? I think we have somebody here to talk about it. Would you like to add anything? No. No? Yes? No? Love to get you on record. Yes, Mr. Wilson? Okay. Well, good afternoon, and thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Marcus Heil. I'm the project architect. Also with me is the landscape architect for the project as well, Mr. Boggs, Ben Boggs. I think a couple of things you had asked about. The nature of the project is a masonry load-bearing construction with brick veneer, typical of most elementary schools, pitched gable roofs. The finish will be metal. we also have I think we've designed for 14 buses to be staged to front at the direction of Fayette County Public Schools we've minimized the imprint on the site and we also I think one of your comments was you didn't have enough information but we do have a water retention system and it's being provided under the front parking lot these plans have also already been submitted and in fact we meet next Tuesday with building inspection. So we've already received positive responses back from each of the divisions in advance of that meeting. Thank you. Question? Yes. Is it a lead project? No, ma'am, it's not. We do have provisions for construction and waste management, though. I'll follow up on that. We have seen some, like Clay's Mill maybe, or there's been two or three. Sure, I think. You know, what? The Locust Trace. Yeah, Locust Trace is totally, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, self-sufficient. Close to net zero, actually. Yes. Why? Why wouldn't this one be? One of the reasons would be cost involved. We do design to a high standard at any rate. so the extra provisions and coordination involved in that were part of the consideration. We are in excess of the energy codes, the new energy code that just went in effect last month, well, in October. But we are not pursuing LEED at this time, at least unless Fayette County decides to change that. We do have commissioning requirements as part of the new energy standards anyway, which are similar to those in the LEED process. the only difference would be we don't have as much commissioning requirements throughout the whole project scope okay I'd dearly love to see more more of North Locust Point take place given the opportunity so anything else if not I believe we just simply need a motion as to whether this is in compliance or not with the staff recommendations. Yes, sir. Mr. Finn. Mr. Chairman, I move that the PFR 2014 Day 6 is in compliance with and support the staff's findings. Thank you. Seconded by Mrs. Mundy. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you all for coming. Sorry to hold you up most of the afternoon. I don't know when you slipped in, but I appreciate you being here. Any commission items? Any staff items? If not, Mr. Penn has a motion. Are you on a motion for adjournment? If so, ready. Yes, sir. I would like to hold that until after our work session. Okay. So if you want a motion to go into work session, I'll make that. Okay. I move adjourn this meeting, go into work session, reserve my time for later. Okay. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded that we close this part of the hearing and move into a work session. I guess we need to vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry we didn't get a second on that. Thank you. Any opposed? Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you.