The ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. If everyone take their seats, we'll get started here in just a minute or so. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I will call this meeting to order for February 26, 2015. I'd like to welcome everyone here. We may still be having a problem with our granicus, which will limit our voting ability, at least online. So we'll keep working on that, but we'll continue on in the meantime. But I would like to welcome everyone here. We do have minutes for approval dated January 29, 2015. They were emailed to the commission members this morning. I have not heard of any changes. If there are any, please let it be known now, or I'll entertain a motion for approval. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I'm going to move approval of the minutes for January 29. Second. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded for approval. please vote when it comes up on the screen I think it's coming up okay we're still working on that so let me let me ask for a uh all those in favor please say aye any any opposed motion passes thank you we'll continue working on that in the meantime uh any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda yes ma'am Hello, I'm Elizabeth Pitchford. I'm with Ruggles Sign, and I'm here on the matter of the ZOTA 2015-3 Amendment to the Article for the Multi-Tenant Listings on Freestanding Signs in the B6P Zone. And at this time, we would like to ask for postponement so that we can meet further with the Zoning Commission and go through some more extensive detail to present to you. And postponement until when? Until the next meeting. Is that March 12th or March 26th? I need to ask. 26th. 26th. Okay. Very good. Anyone in the audience, this is in regards to what is shown at the top of, no, I'm sorry, at the bottom of page 5, I believe, ZODA 2015-3. Correct. That would allow multi-tenant listings on freestanding signs. Anyone in the audience or any commission member want to discuss or go ahead and hear this request at this time? Maybe I should say anyone wants to speak in regards to this postponement might be more appropriate. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Ms. Plumlee? Move postponement to ZODA 2015-3 to 3-26. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded to postpone ZODA 2015-3 until March 26th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Mr. Chairman, the electronic voting is not working. Okay. Let me just ask all those in favor of postponement, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Okay. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? If not, okay, we'll proceed on. And let me mention, I was just corrected. But the commission members do have an amended agenda that is before them. It is in regards to the changes would be in regards to page 3 under item 2, Doug Charles, zoning map amendments. So anything from page four on the pages would be off from the original agenda that you received. So try and go with this one. First on the agenda today is DP 2015-6 Richardson property. This is a postponed development plan that we will hear first if the staff is ready. Thank you. before you on a white sheet afternoon we're looking at dp two thousand fifteen dash six richardson property This was asked to be postponed so that we could prepare the EAMP report. Okay, location of the property. This is Richardson, which is located out Richmond Road in our expansion area. We have Hayes Boulevard. This property majority of it's already developed. It's single-family homes. We have a middle school. but back in this area here we had proposed townhomes and apartments. They are coming in to remove 10 townhomes and put in 26 apartment condos in this area just to let you know that there are similar buildings in this area also. With that, we have our conditions. The first aid are just standard conditions of sign-offs from different utility companies and governmental agencies. We have several cleanup conditions, information for like a record plat designation, vicinity map, height of the building, square footage. This is in the expansion area, so we will need to review the exactions and verify that they meet divisional planning and correct the purpose of amendment statement. We also, as I said, have the AAMP report, which Tom's going to present to you for this plan. Is there any other questions? Any questions at this point? I'm seeing none. Thank you, Cheryl. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, as Ms. Galt stated, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to make a finding that this plan is in compliance with the EAMP. That report has been distributed to you, and you should find it at your seats. The plan in question, as you can see, is located out off Hayes Boulevard in this location. We have Childsburg Road, the old scenic highway in this location headed out towards Athens-Boonesboro Road. The area has developed predominantly in single-family homes. You can see how it's lotted. Here is the Edith Hayes School site. Here we have a townhouse area, and then down in this area of the amendment, we also have townhouses here, and then apartments and condominiums. And this is the building in question where the apartments are going to become condominiums. The net increase in units is 16 units, which is consistent with the density recommendations in the EAMP. EMP. This is EAR 1 and 2 zoned area, and those are residential areas. The design features and criteria primarily address the siting of the single-family homes on their lots in terms of setbacks, driveways, garages relative to the front of the house. Those are not being affected whatsoever by this change to the plan. The area that you see highlighted with the townhouses and apartments was added to this plan in 2005. And with the addition of apartments, townhouses, and you can see that the various area with the townhouses to the top of the plan as well. This is consistent with your EAMP in encouraging a variety of homes and home choices in the expansion area. So we now in this area have single family homes, townhouses, apartments, in condominiums. So that is also consistent with the intent of the EAMP. The infrastructure in this area is primarily Hayes Boulevard, which of course has been constructed and has been open and utilized and serving this area for some time now. The regional stormwater system is largely in place, and those basins that are designed to serve this development are in place. The sewer that is required has long been in place. So your infrastructure element is complete in this area. This plan does comply with your community design element. The primary design element in this area is the 200-foot setback off of Childsburg, which is a scenic rural road in your EAMP. And with that, staff is recommending approval of this plan, and we have distributed a report that states that this plan amendment does comply with the AMP. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? Seeing none. No? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Applicant, anything to add? Yes, sir. My name is John Barlow, and I'm the owner of Commonwealth Designs, and I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Any questions for Mr. Barlow? Mr. Chairman, if there are none from the commission, John, did you bring the affidavit for the signposting? I gave it to Cheryl yesterday. Let's enter that for the record, please. There are no other questions. I ask for approval of DP2015-6. Thank you, Mr. Barlow. I believe, Tom, you confirmed that you did receive it. Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this plan? Seeing none, if there's no further questions, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, just a moment, please. Let me, if you'll allow me to review this for just a moment. Okay. Thank you. It's in order. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Graven. Yes, sir. I'm going to move approval of DP 2015-6, Richardson Property. Second. And also making the findings in compliance with EAMP. Okay. And the second is Mr. Berkley. Motion has been, motion is for approval of the Richardson Property DP 2015-6, noting the EAMP compliance report. It was seconded by Mr. Berkley. If there's no further questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. We may still be having trouble, so let me ask for a voice vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Now we have three remaining items as far as zone change items, and I'll ask Mr. Salahe to sound the agenda for us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The zone changes may qualify for abbreviated hearings, although we see a number of folks in the audience who may wish to speak to some of these items today. The first item appears on the very bottom of the first page of your agenda. Most of that item appears on the second page. This is MAR 2015-1, a zone change by MIA Brookhaven LLC. This is a zone change from an existing B1 zone neighborhood business and proposing a highway service business zone for about 5.5 acres of property located at 2450 and 2434 Nicholasville Road. This time we would ask if anyone present in the audience wishes to speak to this zone change or object to this zone change proposed by MIA Brookhaven for Nicholasville Road. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this item we can take first in abbreviated fashion. Okay. The next zone change on your agenda appears on the top of page 3, MARV 2015-2, a request by Doug Charles for rezoning from a highway service B3 zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for less than one half acre of property with an address of 2100 Liberty Road. This plan does have now a recommended approval of the zoning development plan, so it does qualify for abbreviated hearing. if there is anyone in the audience not wishing to speak to this zone change on page 3 MERV 2015-2 for Doug Charles for property at 2100 Liberty Road. Does anyone wish to speak to this zone change request? Okay, seeing none, Mr. Chairman, we can take all three items in order as they appear in your agenda. Okay, thank you Thank you. So first that we would hear as an abbreviated would be at the bottom of page one, Brookhaven LLC, MAR 2015-1, MIA Brookhaven LLC, along with a ZDP which is shown at the bottom of page 2 uh 2000 zdp 2015-10 brookhaven subdivision good afternoon mr emmons good afternoon mr chairman and members of the commission My name is Jimmy Emmons. I'm pleased to present to you the zone change report for MIA Brookhaven LLC. And as you mentioned, it is located on your agenda on the first page, and the bulk of our recommendation is located on page two of your agenda. The subject property is a zone change request from a B1 zone, which is our neighborhood business zone, to a Highway Service Business Zone, or a B3 zone, for a property that is about five and a half acres. The property is best described as an existing shopping center. It is most of a block, and you can see the property highlighted in yellow. Accepted from this block is a Rite Aid, which is at the corner of Nicholasville Road and Malibu Drive, and a small strip shopping center, which is at the corner of Surfside Drive and Malibu Drive. the subject property a lot of people would probably know this former shopping center it was anchored by the circuit city in the rafferty's restaurant if i can i will run you through the slides the property is surrounded by a mixture of residential and commercial zoning the the primarily red areas that you see along nicholasville road corridor are primarily zone b1 and B6P. To the north, there is a small area of professional office buildings that are located along Malibu Drive, and primarily along Surfside Drive and to the rear of the shopping center on Malibu Drive, the areas in the brown are zoned R4, and they have existing apartment buildings on them. If we can run through a few slides of the property. First, I'd like to thank Tracy for putting up the sign and taking the pictures of the property for me. This is looking on the subject property, essentially standing with Nicholasville Road to your back, looking at the apartments and the one restaurant use that is located up across Surfside Drive. You can see that the property has recently been demolished. This is looking back at the existing Rite Aid and the sign formerly known as the Rafferty sign. You can see it's gone. That was my one big joke for this entire thing, and nobody laughed. Moving back into the property, this is standing on the property looking toward Malibu Drive and Nicholasville Road. And you can see the Rite Aid on the left side of the photo and the professional office buildings that come down Malibu Drive. Looking toward the rear of the property, you can see some of the apartment buildings that are on Malibu Drive. And you can see the small shopping center that's on the other side of the retaining wall. looking down surfside drive you can see the apartment complexes that are there and this is just a shot of the small b1 center that's at the corner of surfside drive and malibu drive and looking back at the apartments that are opposite of that and pulling back around until we're looking back at nicholasville road again the applicant wishes to redevelop this small shopping center and have the have the new development anchored by a hotel which is the reason why they are asked requesting the zone change from the b1 zone to the b3 zone the b3 zone does allow a hotel and the b1 zone does not As we look through here, the applicant submitted in their justification that the proposed redevelopment of this site does meet four of your goals and objectives of the 2013 comprehensive plan. The staff would like to highlight two of those that we think were particularly important. that on the first one being theme A, which is the growing successful neighborhoods, and those goals that indicate that we should look for opportunities for infill and redevelopment. In particular, the redevelopment of this site will give greater attention to the landscaping and the pedestrian amenities than the previous shopping center did. next i'd like to point out theme c which is creating jobs and prosperity according to the applicant there will be all in all about 200 jobs created with this redevelopment of this site but more importantly because of this site being in a walkable area and being in close proximity to residential uses it will give residents opportunities to live within working within walking distance of where they were. Finally, it was noted that it's quite obvious why a hotel would be looked at along Nicholasville Road, because Nicholasville Road is a logical choice for hotels due to the access to public transit and health care facilities, other types of shopping, and just general tourist activities along that corridor. In particular, because of the staff does recognize that the proposed hotel does support the health care and tourist industries that are already thriving in Lexington, and in particular, as you go down the Nicholasville Road corridor. The applicant has provided a list of prohibited uses that would not be allowed in the B3 zone. that they are recommending in order to try and keep the character of this B3 zone in character with the surrounding neighborhood. The staff did have one additional use that we are recommending, and that would be on the item H, and that would be to prohibit outdoor live entertainment when located 100 feet from a residential zone. This would have very little impact on the applicant's proposed development plan. It would essentially mean that they would not be able to have outdoor live entertainment in the parking lot areas here and here where it's closest to the residential apartments. They would still be allowed to have the indoor live entertainment. It would not affect their overall development plan. and areas like their pedestrian accommodation would be beyond the 100-foot restriction. So staff feels that that is inappropriate because that is one of the uses that would be, the live entertainment is one of the few uses that would be expanded from the B1 to the B3 based off of these conditionals, without the conditionals. All right, I've gotten confused, but it's basically the same is what I'm trying to say. The staff is recommending approval of this zone change request subject to the conditional zoning restrictions and also subject to the item number four, which is approval and certification of the ZDP that is associated with this zone change. This concludes my presentation. If there are any other questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them. Otherwise, I'll turn them over to our Mr. Martin. Any questions for Mr. Emmons? No. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, at the bottom of page two is the preliminary development plan that is associated with this zone change, ZDP 2015-10, Brookhaven Subdivision. Here's Nicholasville Road, the existing Rite Aid, Malibu Drive, as it comes down on the northern edge of the subject property, and here we have Surfside Drive. Access is being proposed in this location. There is access proposed, which is existing in this location. Here is an existing access as well, and here's proposed access in this location. This is a slight shift in the existing access, and then they are also proposing additional access here at the rear. This is the hotel for the zone change. It's sitting on the back of the property. It is 75 feet in height. Here we have a retail building, a little over 5,000 square feet, and they are proposing two restaurants in this location with a drive-thru associated with this restaurant here. They are a little over 4,000 square feet in size according to the plan. You can see the rest of the areas with the patios, patios, those associated parking areas associated with the hotel as well. This is a slightly revised plan from the original plan. It has addressed one of the most significant concerns that staff initially had, and that was parking. The original plan met it right on the money, and there was some concern, as there always is, about providing exactly what's needed when there's conflicts or possible conflicts on a plan. has addressed it they have a surplus of four not a large surplus but that was also tied into the fact that they had not included in their condition in their parking calculations patio seating that's a lesser standard but it counts it adds it would have impacted the plan so staff was concerned they wouldn't have enough parking once they added the patio in so they have done that They've recalculated it, and the parking does meet. There is one condition on your report about the dumpsters. This is a preliminary development plan, and Solid Waste does not sign off on preliminaries. Generally, it's just a final development plan where we need their sign-off. But they've offered these dumpster sites. The concern that does exist here is that they do not meet the clearance required by our Solid Waste Department is planning's understanding. So there is some concern about this placement. There is another condition that concerns a note on the plan. That note concerns the Ramsey sign. Obviously, Ramsey's is no longer here. That note is no longer relevant to the plan. It needs, should be removed. It's hard to see on this plan, but it's platted. and there's a dog leg that runs out in between these two lots. And that was done so Ramsey's could maintain their sign because it had been there for many, many years. That is one condition and one concern. Mr. Martin. Another concern. Oh, pardon. I think you're confusing some commission members. I'm sorry. Ramsey's or Rafferty's? Rafferty's. I said Ramsey's, didn't I? Ramsey's is across and down the road. Sorry. Rafferty's. Pardon me. The words just flow out sometimes. and at my age I miss the... Yes, Rafferty's. Pardon me. It's set back here. Not Ramsey's. They both start with an R, I guess. There we go. You'll see one condition here on your report about the conflict that we would like to have resolved. This drive-through with this access point with two-way traffic, that's a serious conflict that needs to be resolved on this property. So with that, staff is recommending, as did your subdivision committee, approval of the plan. You could, if you would like, delete number 10, which is include patio seating and restaurant parking statistics. They did that. And as I stated, the required parking and provided parking and lack of a surplus, there is now, as I stated, a surplus of four. and that's number 17 at the top of page 3. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. With that said, Mr. Martin, do we need number 17 still? They have addressed the lack of surplus. It's not a large surplus, but they have addressed it. Questions for Mr. Martin? Let me ask this, Mr. Martin. You were talking about the two accesses on Malibu Drive. the second one to the right. Is there a median? Is that the tail end of a median right there? No, sir. No, okay. All right. And there is a third one now in the rear. Okay. This one's slightly relocated from the exist. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? If not, does the applicant have anything to add? Good afternoon. I'm Chris Westover, representing the developer. With me today is Mark Yates. We agree with the staff report and recommendation and request your approval based on the conditions and so forth laid out. To clarify, there are some items on the preliminary zoning development plan that state resolve. I would request that the phrase be added at final development plan. this is a very normal typical type of thing that gets resolved then with that I will answer questions which one was that Ms. Westover the all the conditions that stayed resolve okay any questions from this west over no thank you mr. Martin would you be okay with that yeah okay anything else earlier there was no one in the no one else in the audience wanted to speak on this I presume that it's still the case anyone wish to speak on this plan Seeing none, if there's no further questions from the Planning Commission, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for a motion and or any discussion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move approval of ZDP 2014-10 Brookhaven subdivision. with the 17 conditions that the staff has recommended, although removing number 17 and removing number 10 and numbers 12 through 16 that state resolve adding to those at final development plan. Motion's been made and seconded for the... If I may, may we back up for a second and do the zone change? Sure. First, which is MAR 2015-1. Yeah, sorry. Mr. Chair, I move approval of the MIA Brookhaven LLC zoning map amendment, which is MAR 2015-1 MAI Brookhaven LLC, with the recommendations made by staff. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of MI Brookhaven LLC. It's MAR 2015-1. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And now may I ask you to repeat the motion for the ZDP. Mr. Chair, I move approval of ZDP 2015-10 Brookhaven subdivision, including the recommendations made by staff, excluding or removing number 17 and number 10 and adding to numbers 12 through 16 at final development plan. Thank you. And a second. And a second of it by Ms. Plumlee. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. You did that as well. so well the first time. I thought I'd let you do it twice. Moving on top of page three it's Doug Charles Zone Map Amendment and Pleasant Ridge Subdivision MARV 2015-2. We do have the zone change. We've got requested variances which is on the amended agenda and then also we do have a revised development plan that's on a yellow sheet before you along with a waiver that is on a white sheet with that development plan Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. This is MARV 2015-2, a request by Doug Charles to rezone property at 2100 Liberty Road, which is approximately half of an acre from a B3 zone to a B1 zone. The subject property is located on the south side of Liberty Road, about 350 feet from the intersection of New Circle Road and Liberty Road, and it's 350 feet east of that intersection. The subject property is bound on both the east and the west by other highway service business zone and uses. To the west is a auto parts sales store and to the east is an automobile or vehicular sales lot. Property across Liberty Road is zoned I-1 and there's a utility substation directly across from the subject property. To the south, you'll see from the zoning map that it is zoned R-1B. So that property line does require some zone-to-zone screening, which is one of the reasons this application switched from just a regular zone change to now one with a variance request. However, the property to the south, although zoned residential, has been used in terms of a commercial use for as long as the staff is aware, it's nonconforming. Just a view of the aerial of that property. The subject property is completely developed. There is very little undeveloped part of the property, and the applicant is proposing some modification to that. And again, Liberty Road is just to the north of the subject property, and Wilderness Road intersects Liberty to the east and New Circle to the west. Just a closer look of the subject property. the existing use or previous use of the subject property was for a repossession lot. So you'll notice that the property has quite a few vehicles parked there. And when we get closer in, there's an eight-foot chain link fence also on the property, and that was to obviously keep the property secure. This is a view of the existing structure on the property, which appears to be currently under some renovations. Again, as I mentioned, the eight-foot fence on the property, This is a view from Liberty Road looking back to the subject property. There is an access easement that runs along the west side of the property between this use or the proposed rezoning of the subject property and the auto parts store that fronts on the new circle. And this access easement does go back and connect back to Wilderness Road. This is a view from Liberty Road, really looking down Liberty Road out of town from New Circle. And you can see the automobile sales lot is visible there. This is the area that the applicant is asking for a variance for landscaping at the rear of the lot. And as I mentioned earlier, the nonconforming commercial use that occurs to the rear here, That's a residentially zoned piece of property, but there is some vehicle parking and a small commercial building located there. And again, the subject property just from the rear corner. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to a B1 zone in order to occupy the existing structure for an adult daycare facility. This is a relatively new use in our zoning ordinance. In 2013, the Planning Commission and the Council considered a text amendment to define adult daycare center and also to identify particular zones where that use would be permitted. In fact, a B3 zone is not one of the zones that was identified as a principal use zone for that use, but a B1 does permit it. So the applicant is asking to rezone to the B1 zone. I think the staff report indicates that there would be up to 24 persons allowed to be there in terms of being taken care of, and that's strictly based on the applicant's proposal on the development plan to have eight parking spaces. They would need, it's a one to four ratio. So the 2013 comprehensive plan we know doesn't provide any land use recommendations specifically anymore, but rather provides more policy guidance in terms of the goals and objectives. The applicant has identified really three goals and objectives that they believe are being met by their proposed application. first that they are growing successful neighborhoods by identifying an area or opportunity, an area of opportunity for infill, redevelopment, and adaptive reuse. And if the applicant is proposing to adaptively reuse the existing structure on the property. In addition, they believe they are creating jobs in prosperity, which is theme C, in terms of encouraging jobs near where people live. In fact, this subject property is very near several residential subdivisions, in addition to the commercial areas along New Circle Road. And then lastly, they believe they're utilizing an underperforming property for a new development, which can help to protect our rural service areas. The staff also believes that the B1 zone is appropriate at this location and the B3 is less appropriate. that is because mostly Liberty Road is a minor arterial, and highway service business is typically located on our major arterial corridors like Nicholasville Road or New Circle Road. And our B1 zones are typically located near our residential areas. So by modifying this zoning at this location, the B1 zone is closer to a residential area, and the street orientation there is more neighborhood character than highway commercial character. In addition, the adult daycare center will provide a service that can be used by the nearby residential areas, and the staff believes the B1 is a better transition between residential development and the highway service business on New Circle Road. The staff and the zoning committee both recommended approval of this proposed rezoning, and there are those reasons I mentioned provided on the agenda in our staff report. And I believe the last thing is that the recommendation is made subject to approval of the development plan, and granted it's certified within the required two weeks as well. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the proposed rezoning. Any questions for Ms. Wade? No? Thank you. Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm going to warn you that all week I've been confusing Liberty Road and Winchester Road in conversations with my fellow planners, and they've been having to correct me all week. We have a new plan in on Winchester near Liberty Road, and I've been switching them back and forth. So just warning you in case I say Winchester, I mean Liberty. The final development plan that you see before you today associated with this zone change is on page four of your agenda. However, we have distributed to you revised conditions on this plan. And it's on there. Here we have the Liberty Road frontage. New Circle Road will be right up in this location. Here is the existing building you saw in the photograph. This is an existing metal storage building on the site. This is the access easement that is also in this location along with that large utility easement. You saw the pole in the picture as well. That's a large KU transmission easement, and it's a utility easement as well. This building sits close to the property line here. You can see this is the area in the back where they need a buffer yard adjacent to this use. They are providing eight parking spaces. There's a little bit of encroachment into the right-of-way. to Liberty Road, which is state right-of-way. What you see before you is a revised plan, and it shows no real improvements to that access point. Now, the applicant has explained that that is due to conversations with the seven, Kentucky Department of Transportation District 7. We will receive, I'm sure, a verification of that. it is because they intend, of course, to improve that section of Winchester Road. I hope that bodes well that they're going to do it sooner than later. The initial concern that staff had and the reason for postponement on this plan were two items. One was the need for a variance to Article 18, which Mr. Emmons is going to present to you, And then a waiver to Article 26-5 of your zoning ordinance. That's a little different. That's your tree canopy requirement. And you don't see those often. Staff sometimes recommends them to applicants, but you rarely have seen one. In this particular instance, as you saw in the photographs, this site is developed. It has existing buildings, pavement. There's very little green space available. They don't intend to significantly redevelop the site. So in conversations with the applicant's landscape architect, it was determined that they could plant several trees, but not as many as it would take to meet a full canopy requirement. So you have a waiver report before you today, again, addressing Article 26-5 of the zoning ordinance. and it specifically requests a waiver from a 3,000 square foot canopy to a 900 square foot canopy. And they'll accomplish that by not planting large mature trees that at full growth will require a lot more area, but by planting some median trees and smaller trees that require less area. This will, of course, help them in their ability to survive and actually provide canopy. And staff would agree that some canopy is better than no canopy. So we are recommending approval of that waiver of the tree canopy. In conjunction to that, you can see on your revisions that we were concerned with, again, the highway encroachments in work. And we have a condition that prior to issuance of a zoning compliance permit that they document the approval of Kentucky District 7. With the building that is sitting, the storage building that's sitting in that large utility easement, and they will need, again, to document encroachments prior to the issuance of a zoning compliance permit. that will allow them to move forward with getting occupying this property and developing this property for its intended use. Encroachment agreements just can take some time, and we believe some time is warranted. In this case, they have been working with the appropriate groups. With that, staff is recommending approval of this plan. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, ma'am. So, number nine, the dumpster, where did it end? The dumpster? This is a final development plan. They're going to have to address how they're going to serve the property. I suspect there will be no dumpster. We will have to receive documentation that one will not be required. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thanks for the pre-warning of Liberty and Winchester. I think you only did that once. I did it once, did I? I knew I would. Applicant, anything to add? Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Emmons, yes. Sorry. Thank you, sir. I will be very quick presenting the variance request. They have requested a landscape variance along the southern property of the subject property. And if we can pull up the last two slides of Tracy's presentation, we have a picture of the subject property of the area. This landscaping variance request is to reduce the amount of landscaping that will be, not necessarily eliminate the landscaping. I think we can go on. I can take it from here. There we go. This is the picture of the southern property boundary where the landscaping is required. On the right-hand side of the picture, on the other side of the fence is a property that is zoned R1B, which is a single-family residential zone. And so there is zone-to-zone screening between the proposed B1 and the R1B zone. However, some of the special circumstances that surround this property is that residentially zoned property to the south is actually a used car lot. So you don't have a business to residential land use. You've got a business to a business land use. Another special circumstance along this property boundary, There's about 125 feet, linear feet, along this southern property boundary between these two uses. Only about half of that boundary is encumbered in one way or another. Part of it, you can see they share an existing access drive. The building is at its closest about a foot off of the property line of the existing building. And there is, as Tom mentioned, a large overhead utility easement that goes through the subject property. So when you look at the special circumstances that would justify granting the requested variance, you will see that the use is not residential. The land area is encumbered. And finally, the applicant pointed out that in planting the medium-sized trees, because of the existing amount of pavement between this property and the property to the rear, you don't want to put trees in there that are not going to survive. The zoning ordinance would require four trees to be planted along that buffer. They are requesting a variance to two medium-sized trees along that variance. The staff is recommending approval of the requested landscaping variants for those special circumstances, reasons that I've elaborated in our conditions, I mean our reasons that are listed in your staff report and on the agenda. The staff is recommending this approval subject to three very typical conditions for any type of variants that goes along with a zone change request. If there are any questions for me, I do believe this concludes all of the staff presentations. We'll be happy to answer questions as you have them. Questions for Mr. Emmons? For anyone else? Thank you, sir. Now, Mr. Kaley. Mr. Chairman's member of the commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. We're in agreement with all the staff has presented. Clarification for number nine, we do have a contract with a private hauler. there won't will not be a dumpster located we've got correspondence with solid waste and we'll turn all that into planning any questions mr. Kaley no thank you sir as earlier indicated I do not believe there's anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan is there no okay if there's no other questions from the Commission I'll close this part of the hearing open it up for a motion and or discussion we need motions for the zone change three separate motions zone change variants and then the ZDP or final development plan as it is with the associated weight waiver yes sir mr. Berkeley mr. chair I'm going to make a recommendation of approval of MARV 2015-2 with the recommendations of staff thank you do we have a second motion has been made in segment for the approval of MARV 2015-2 with the five reasons noted by staff please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes and then the variance yes recommendation of approval of ZDP 2015-11 variants. Let's take the, well, variants associated with MARV 2015-2. It's printed wrong. I'm sorry. It says 11. Okay. It is 2015-2, so I apologize. Okay. And it's the tree canopy standards recommendation of approval based on the staff's two recommends. Okay. Motion's been made in seconds for the approval of the variants associated with MARV 2015-2 for the reasons noted by staff. Is it two or is it 11? There's two items. There's a variance request. There's two items. there's two items in the middle of page three well there's two variances but then there's also a tree canopy waiver request so the the waiver will go with the waiver can be yeah the waiver will go with the zdp so what i'm asking for now is just the way the variance that requested associated with marv 2015-2 apologize okay let's check it and start over Yeah, just for clarification, yes. Okay. Mr. Chair, I make a recommendation of approval of the requested variances for MARV 2015-2 with the two noted conditions. Second. Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of the variances associated with the MARV 2015-2, Doug Charles. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And then for the ZDP with the associated waiver. Yes, recommendation of approval of the waiver for ZDP 2015-11 based on staff's recommendations. Okay. Motion's been made in second and for approval. Mr. Berkeley, you said for the waiver you included, you're including the ZDP as well? Yes. Okay. Revised staff recommendations? Yes. Okay. 11, the 11 reviled. Okay, thank you. Motion's been made for approval of ZDP 2015-11 with the revised staff recommendations and the associated waiver. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Then we move on to Thistle Holdings, LLC. It's a MARV 2015-3 Thistle Holdings. and then we'll also have the ZDP 2015-12 Thistle Station. The staff is handing out some material and then there's also on a tan sheet of paper a staff report that is before you labeled Staff Report for B-1 Form-Based Neighborhood Business Projects. Thank you. I'm kind of presuming most of the audience may be here for this and not the associated text amendments or the text amendments that would follow. Let me just take a quick show of hands and see where we are on this. Anyone in favor of this plan? Show of hands, please. Anyone opposed? Okay, thank you. Ms. Wade, you may continue. This next item is found in the middle of page 4. It is item 3A, and information can be found in your notebook behind tab 3. It is MAR 2015-3, Thistle Holdings LLC is the applicant, and they are requesting a rezoning of property on Newtown Pike between West 3rd and West 4th Streets. It's between 3 and 4 acres from a light industrial zone, which is our I-1 zone, to the neighborhood business B-1 zone. I'm going to go to the map for this one. The subject property has frontage along Newtown Pike, a small bit of frontage on West 3rd, and then also frontage on West 4th Street. The subject property is entirely bounded by light industrial zoning, with the exception of across West 4th Street, where BCTC is currently constructing their new campus and other uses in the general vicinity. Although light industrial is the most common zoning in this area, there are quite a few either non-conforming uses or adaptive reuses in the vicinity. The subject property most recently was occupied as a lumber yard and also a vehicle storage yard. Both of these uses, I believe, together are part of a notice of violation that we've had on the property, but hopefully with a redevelopment, those issues would be taken care of. As you can see, the property has been occupied as an industrial use, and I guess that's about it. The property at the corner of West 4th and Newtown is currently an automobile repair shop, and then there's another industrial use at the other corner of 4th Street and the railroad that aren't included in this. They're included in the block, this triangle block, but they're not included in the zone change. Just another aerial view looking towards the north of the subject property with the BCTC campus. to the right in this photo and Henry Street is in the foreground this is another aerial looking to the south which is more towards downtown Newtown Pike on the right West 4th coming and intersecting Newtown in the foreground of the photo in terms of the subject property on the ground this is a view looking down Newtown Pike out of town towards West 4th Street and there's our few existing structures that are still on the property this is one of them that's located it says 310 in the front there but I believe the PVA address is actually 308 Newtown Pike this is a view from a route West 3rd Street looking down the railroad tracks which run along the southeast edge of the property towards 4th Street. From that same corner across these railroad, this is the CSX railroad tracks which are fairly active in this area. Across this railroad is the Lawrence Brewer and Son building, which is obviously a historic building. It's currently occupied in an adaptive reuse project as a brewery. And then this is a view from 4th Street looking back towards 3rd Street, and you can see some buildings associated with the vehicle storage yard. A view from 4th Street of the existing vehicle storage area. Another one. um fourth street has recently been that quarter's recently been improved with sidewalks and curbs and also some bicycle lanes painted and this is a view of down fourth street towards jefferson street you can see the new improvements as well as transylvania's new athletic facility that was constructed there in the last few years and then this one's looking back towards new town also from 4th Street and again the new improvements along the corridor and across 4th Street you can see the BCTC new building on campus. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from I1 to B1 in order to do a mixed-use development at this location. They're proposing two buildings. One would be a signature building on Newtown Pike with approximately 200 dwelling units and about 20,000 square feet of retail space, and then a second building that would front onto West 4th Street with about 8,000 square feet of retail space, and that would be a two-story building. And with the B1 zone, one new option that became available a few years ago when we had a lengthy text amendment in that zone is something called a form-based neighborhood business project, And that project allows an applicant to sort of do a context and character study and then use that information to develop the yard requirements and other development standards that they would like or think are appropriate in a location based on their context and character study. The applicant has performed the area study and submitted that with their application. They have been very cooperative in doing that and provided a great deal of information that the staff thought was very helpful, and we've prepared a separate staff report on that. In terms of the proposal for rezoning, the applicant opined that it was in agreement with the comprehensive plan and then support the staff in our research felt it was supported by several small area studies or, well, plans. First, the comprehensive plan in terms of theme A and theme E. They cited goals and objectives related to those. In theme A, growing successful neighborhoods, there were six goals and objectives that they cited that were related to expanding housing choices and emphasized mixed use and higher density development, which they are proposing on the property, supporting infill and redevelopment, with a focus on being context sensitive. Again, that's supported by their form-based project. And then the third one related to Goal 3 had to do with three of the objectives, is providing well-designed neighborhoods through mixed use, developing a multi-molder transportation connections, and then minimizing disruption of natural features when building a new community. And then in terms of theme E, which is maintaining the balance between urban and rural land, they believe they're utilizing, proposing to utilize underutilized land, and then also building in a compact, contiguous, and sustainable manner. the staff does believe that those goals and objectives are being met with their proposal in addition the property is located within our down Lexington downtown master plan although this plan and the fourth street zoning study are not binding the staff believes they do inform the Planning Commission's decisions in terms of the comprehensive plan and it being in agreement with the comprehensive plan. So the downtown master plan has 15 general recommendations, two of which the staff believes are supported by this application, maximizing density and then creating urban entrances. The applicant's density is about 50 units per acre on the property. That is certainly maximizing density. So those are the two graphics related to that. And then in the downtown master plan this property is located within the downtown edge west precinct and within that write-up there's a recommendation that the area has or not a recommendation but a statement that the area has the potential to be a true mixed-use neighborhood with retail offices and residential as a signature entryway to the downtown the staff does believe that that is very much in keeping with what the applicant is proposing and i'll just point to their area here within the that downtown master plan the fourth street zoning study is a more recent study that the LFUCG participated in with Transylvania University and BCTC to look at the area between Newtown and Jefferson along mostly along 4th Street and looking at really what the redevelopment potential was there in association with BCTC in Transylvania. And a few of the recommendations that came out of that were related to this property. First, it did identify the area as part of a focus area. And you can see on this slide on the right, there's really a red highlighted box where an urban mixed use zone is proposed to be, or suggested to be appropriated this location. and the subject property falls directly within that. So their proposal for an urban mixed-use development seems to be in line with that proposal as well. The last thing is that the petitioner does contend that the B1 zone, accompanied by the form-based neighborhood business project, is in agreement with their 2013 comprehensive plan for several reasons. I mentioned the goals and objectives the staff also evaluated these two zoning study in the downtown master plan But also because the b1 zone does permit a mixed use With the dwelling high density dwelling units The staff does agree that the proposal for b1 zone at this location is in agreement with the comprehensive plan the zoning committee also agreed and But we both recommended approval of the requested rezoning There are two, in addition to the development plan presentation that Tom will do, there are two reports, the form-based assessment and then also the transportation or traffic impact study that you'll hear a little bit more about as well. So the staff is recommending approval, and there are four reasons listed on your, like three reasons listed on your agenda. And the staff did also recommend conditional zoning restrictions at this location to prohibit primarily four uses, and those would be automobile repair, service station, and gas pumps, automobile and vehicle refueling stations, which are the compressed natural gas equivalent to a gas station, animal hospitals or clinics, and then drive-through facilities. And those were recommendations that came from the Fourth Street study, but they will help to keep this area compatible with the vision proposed for in the area in terms of a mixed use urban development. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the staff's recommendation. Any questions for Ms. Wade at this point? Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan that is associated with this zone change is on page 5, item B, ZDEP 2015-12, Thistle Station. Here is Newtown Pike with the frontage of the project. Here along this, here is the L&N Railroad right of way which exists. This is an active line. Here we have 4th Street frontage in this location. You can see that they are proposing full access and full movements off of 4th Street. They are showing right in and right out off Newtown Pike. You can see the parking is primarily to the interior from its frontages contained within the site. this is the proposed retail residential building. 16 stories in height. Here's a cross section you can see of the building with open space, patio areas and that sort of thing. Here, oriented to 3rd Street and Newtown, this area. And then it steps back. We have commercial on the first floor, residential above. And again, you can see that it steps back in this building, in this location. This is a proposed two-story retail structure on 4th Street. The plan that you see before you is a slight revision from the original plan, where they have, at staff's recommendation, improved their pedestrian access through the site and tying it particularly to 4th Street. There are going to be improvements done along Newtown Pike frontage. for pedestrians, bikes, and that sort of thing to help improve those facilities. They show an area of proposed underground detention. Now, this is a redevelopment site, and quite often under redevelopment, they don't have to literally meet detention, but they have to meet water quality provisions. And what we're seeing more and more often is the use of this type of feature to satisfy water quality, and they also will use it for detention as well. To meet the requirement of the form-based zone, it has to be over an acre, and this is a site that is over three acres in size. The subdivision committee recommended approval of this plan. You can see there's your basic recommendations on a preliminary development plan. There are several cleanup conditions. One is to denote the existing and proposed easements on the plat. This is, as you are aware, an older part of town. There is an old plat on this property. There is a large easement that runs through it. There's a large drainage stormwater line that does run through this property, as well as a sanitary sewer line that runs through. They need to clarify their parking statistics, including their parking deduction. the parking on this plan is not correct they used a higher generator than they had to so they need to clarify that staff has done an analysis come up with what we believe is the correct parking required and if they utilize the allowable transit and bicycle reductions they will meet the parking on site. Not by a lot, but they will meet it. So they need to revise that. They need to denote the existing and proposed zones as it's I-1 and they're requesting B-1. We have several resolution items. and these to a great extent go to the form-based zone that they're requesting under the B1 under your special provisions and it's very much tied into the study that's been distributed to you that they are required to do and that Mr. Sally is going to give the report on that. The resolution of these items that you see, the location of supplemental landscaping requirements along with public space requirements. These are items that are specifically mentioned as an aspect of coordinating a form-based development with the surrounding neighborhood and its orientation. You will be, by your action, incorporating that report today in those renderings. And we want to be sure that they resolve on this development plan the ability to do what you're going to see today in terms of public space, what uses. As an example, in your adaptive reuse, they have art, public gardens with art and that sort of thing. Well, there's public space required here. And it's not just, we're not talking about private space. They're going to provide private open space. So we'd like to resolve the types of public uses that are being recommended in the public space that they're going to provide. The supplemental landscaping means just that, supplemental, additional. additional. We want to know exactly where that's how that's going to work on this plan relative to your report and the renderings that you're going to see along with the fact that there's trees and it's hard to see on the plan but there's trees on the site and if it's possible are they going to try to integrate existing tree canopy into that supplemental landscape. excuse me and i will add for you uh very quickly this is a seven thousand six hundred and fifty square foot building there's over one hundred and seventy one thousand square feet of residential proposed with two hundred and two units and two hundred and thirty eight bedrooms for the residential the total square footage of the retail is in excess of twenty eight thousand square feet on the site, and they are providing 264 parking spaces. And as I said, staff has evaluated the parking, and that will meet the ordinance requirement as long as they avail themselves of those parking reductions under the ordinance. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have on the development plan. Questions for Mr. Martin? No, not at this time? Okay, thank you. Mr. Salley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Good afternoon. I am presenting two items to you this afternoon. The first is one that we distributed right at the start of your hearing. It is a memo from our Metropolitan Planning Organization staff about the traffic impact study that was required to be submitted with this zone change. I'll cover that at the conclusion of my remarks. The other is a brand-new type of staff report that we've prepared that's on a cream sheet. It's titled Staff Report for B-1 Form-Based Neighborhood Business District. This is the same report that we submitted and presented to you at your subdivision and zoning committee meetings three weeks ago. This report analyzes and reviews this area character context study, which is, as Ms. Wade mentioned, one of the new requirements in the B-1 zone for this type of development. We do have extra copies of this in our development plan file, and I'll ask Mr. Martin and Ms. Galt to distribute those to you at this time. If you don't, ah, I see some of you do have that. Thank you. Do have that at your places. As to the staff report on the form-based code, we do have extra copies in front of Ms. Rackers for anyone in the audience that would like to review that report. The character and context study, we have included one excerpt of that study on the overhead, a very good rendering of the proposed building that matches the development plan that Mr. Martin has just described to you. This building is supposed to be 16 stories at its peak and will have a fairly short setback from Newtown Pike to create what the applicants have called a more friendly front yard. I think meaning that that would have room to allow vehicles and pedestrians safe movement off that arterial highway at the main entrance to the building. This study looked a lot at height of buildings, not just the building that they are proposing, but also the height of other tall buildings in the urban service area, even including some in the downtown area. Only about two-thirds of the building, as the rendering indicates, is to be 16 stories in height. And referring to the development plan, it will have a stair step, if you will, from south to north. Again, this is 3rd Street here, the railroad line here, Newtown Pike here. This portion is one story. Portion of what we'll call the South Tower is to be 6, and the bulk of the building will be at a 16, pardon me, 16-story height here. This is a partial description of the side of that building or the southern portion here matches that. The building itself as the rendering indicates really has three design themes. The first being the first floor level of the building which will be non-residential in character. the midpoint or the middle of the building where it will change really from a six-story orientation at that level where the building is wider than the seventh through 16th stories where it continues to the very top where it has a different treatment as well. This will be the tallest building in this immediate area, although a short distance, a block or two away on Henry Street, there are some taller structures, but no buildings obviously of this height. The study identifies that open space will be provided primarily in two locations, one on the top of the six-story portion of the building, the other on the ground level as Mr. Martin has indicated on the development plan. Supplemental landscaping is a requirement and it is mentioned in the form-based code section of the B1 zone. And there is not a lot of detail on the development plan about that. There are some identified tree areas on the development plan, but in just a moment I will discuss that in a little more detail. In conclusion, the staff believes that this study that you're looking at has made a strong effort to address the intent of the form-based project provisions in the B-1 zone. This is the first one we've reviewed, and obviously this is the first staff report for this type of review. The height of the main building will allow for significant residential density at this location, and of course that is one of the themes of the current comprehensive plan that we have that was adopted in 2013. In the staff's view, as we stated in our report, the proposed architecture will, and the varying building height, I should say, will be respectful of its neighbors. The staff does have three recommendations that appear on the overhead regarding this study in the context of the development plan. The first is we believe there should be a little bit of additional information provided to the development plan about the varied heights on the southern end of the building. This is identified as one floor. This building is identified as floors 2 through 16, as is this one here. this indicates the pool deck and the rooftop open space at the six-story height. This first recommendation we think can easily be obtained and resolved by just labeling that this diagram is, if you will, for the South Tower, something along that line, just a labeling issue. The second recommendation is that either a preliminary landscaping plan for the site or additional information about what trees are expected to be remaining on the site be provided. And then the third recommendation is for additional detail to the improvements or the uses proposed outdoors in the vicinity of the retail area. And that's primarily in this portion of the property, the southernmost triangle, if you will. Again, some additional labeling or additional information, we believe, can resolve that recommendation from the staff. We would ask you to consider these three recommendations as additional requirements for the zoning development plan. And if you will, perhaps condition 13, 14, and 15. That would be a logical way to incorporate this report into necessary changes to the preliminary development plan that Mr. Martin presented to you just a few minutes ago. Before moving on to the traffic study memo, I would be glad to answer any questions from the Commission at this time about our staff report on the form-based neighborhood project. Any questions for Mr. Selle? Go ahead. Thank you. Moving to the traffic impact memo, this is a four-page memorandum, again, from our transportation planning staff. I would like to touch some of the highlights of this memo to you. The first is that the report under item number one, this impact study was prepared by Mr. Brad Johnson, who is a professional engineer with CDM Smith. Moving to item number six, the study anticipates that this project that you're reviewing this afternoon would have full build-out in the year 2017. That's significant for transportation planning purposes. Under number 10, the very bottom of the first page of the memo, site trip generation is almost expected to be 2,000 trips per day for this development. In that, the peak hour in the morning is expected to have about 230 trips, cars coming and going. The primary number being those exiting the site, presumably residents leaving to go to their jobs or other places. In the PM peak, almost less than half of that number, 124 coming to and from this site, with about a 50-50 split of those coming to the site and those leaving the site. Moving to page two, under item number 11, the trip distribution is expected to be about 70% of the traffic utilizing Newtown Pike and that entrance point versus 30% of the traffic utilizing the 4th Street access point. Under number 14, the MPO staff has two recommendations that they've placed in their report. The first really will require work of the bicycle and pedestrian planner who is on staff with the MPO, who you sometimes see at your subdivision committee meetings. The second recommendation is that there be some coordination in the future with LexTran about their transit routes and any possible changes that would be logical for the bus routing to and from a development of this scale. The conclusion at the bottom of the second page of the report is that this traffic study is in conformance with the zoning ordinance and specifically the Article VI requirements. On page three of the memo, you see five recommendations that were contained in the traffic impact study report. And at the bottom of that table, the box, if you will, is a very important sentence that if these five recommendations are followed, all of the intersections that were studied with one exception are expected to operate at level of service D. There is one that is expected to operate at level of service E. And that is in the PM peak hour only. And that is the intersection of Newtown Pike and 4th Street. This is a preliminary development plan, so obviously we'll share these with the Division of Traffic Engineering, and they can begin reviewing these recommendations between now and possibly the time when a final development plan would be submitted for the site. In closing, noting that I have less than a minute left of the staff's presentation time, the final page of the report is a detailed analysis of the level of service for all of the turning movements for this development. Mr. Hammonds is present. Should you have any questions about the content of this memorandum? But I believe this concludes the staff presentation, unless the Commission has any other questions of any member of the staff. Any questions for any member of the staff or Mr. Hammonds at this point? No? If not, thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Before we proceed on, I think we'll take just a brief recess for about five minutes, and then we'll resume. Thank you. I'm going to see you next time. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. If everyone would find their seat, we'll resume here in about one minute. Thank you. If I can have everyone's attention, I'll call this meeting back to order and resume with the applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Simpson. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here today on behalf of the Thistle Group. The Thistle Group is a group of citizens that have substantial roots in our community, including John Sirigliano, Tim Terry, Tanya Phillips, Jackie Morrison, Zach Davis, Todd Ball, and Ben Chandler, all of whom are here today, in addition to the people that have been working for them, including myself, Matt Carter of Vision Engineering, Brad Johnson of CDM Smith Traffic Engineers, and Graham Pohl Architect with Pohl Rosa Pohl. Ordinarily, in light of a pretty comprehensive and detailed staff report recommending approval on all of these concerns that are the zone change application, not concerns, I usually will just come up and say we agree and sit down and let you vote approval. We did have one person raise their hand that wanted to speak in opposition to the request, and certainly that's what this forum is for. I will say that prior to coming today that this project is a three-year work in progress, starting about three years ago, looking at the property, examining it, doing research on what could be done on this, what most people would agree has been a blighted part of our community on a major gateway entrance to our community for far too long. And the development proposal was arrived at, and then we spent probably a year working on it, and vetting it with the planning staff. We met with the planning staff probably about two hours twice before we even filed the zone change application. After we did that, we met with the leadership of the three nearby neighborhood associations, the Georgetown Area Neighborhood Association, the Historic Western Suburbs Neighborhood Association, and the Northside Neighborhood Association. two of those neighborhoods have historic designations. We met with the leadership, and then we met with the entire neighborhood prior to filing the zone change request. And then after the zone change request was filed, we had another meeting of all of the property owners within the notification area to, again, be available to respond to questions or concerns. And I think that that effort that was undertaken to inform the staff, work on the project, meet with the neighborhood leaders, meet with the neighbors over this extensive period of time is in large part why we have a significant project, a very important project for this community, with only one person to speak against it. given what we're proposing to do, even though it is on blighted area, and the resistance that, as you all well know, most people have to changing anything, even though there may be a compelling argument that it's a good thing, it's rare that we have the little opposition that we do have. But in any event, we can go into a great deal of detail. I don't think that's necessary. I think I'll rely simply upon what the staff represented and address the staff's, some of the questions that they raised in connection with the development plan and on the form-based zoning. What I would ask you to keep in mind as you consider this our request is that the development plan in a zone change is a preliminary development plan. And that's really important in this case because this property has been neglected for a long time. There are a lot of easements on the property reflecting sanitary sewer lines, storm sewer lines, some of which, at least in consultation with the Division of Engineering, they have questions whether they even exist, whether they function, whether they've been abandoned, or what. So the reason that there needs to be additional information on the development plan that the staff has talked about is that we have to go through the zoning process to justify spending more money on engineering work to find out where all these sewer lines and water lines are, and then work with the Division of Engineering on what will be the new lines and granting and delineating on the site plan all the various easements. And because of all that underground activity, much of which is uncertain at the present time, it would be very much premature to come up with a proposed landscaping plan when it may have to be changed because of the location of some of these features. And so it's a preliminary plan. It's a conceptual plan that simply means that once the zoning is approved, it would come back before this body for a final development plan, which, as you know, you get into the meat of the matter on the details of the site plan, landscaping features, pedestrian features, open space features, the use issues that Bill talked about, and everything else that anybody else wants to talk about. Once the zoning has been approved and the banks say, okay, we'll finance your project, go forward and spend additional dollars doing this cleanup work, it has to come back before this body. So it's a constant kind of vetting, if you will, on this project to make sure that it's done in conformance with the B-1 zoning ordinance that allows for a form-based zone change. This is the first one. So it is important that it be done correctly. We're mindful of that. And that's exactly why the Thistle Group engaged the services of poll rolls of poll. Graham Pohl in particular as a leader to design the project to make sure that it fit within the context of the neighborhood. So we believe that we've come up with that proposal. Before you is a very detailed character study of this project as relates to the neighborhood. I think the person that will speak in opposition will talk about a house they're renovating that's in close proximity, and she'll certainly share her concerns about that. But the overwhelming feedback that we've obtained from the neighborhood in general through two major meetings and the meetings with the leadership of the neighborhoods independently has been very favorable. And they believe this will be an important benchmark for the Newtown Pike corridor for other developers to come in and take advantage of the opportunity to do something as nice as what the Thistle Group is proposing to do here. You know, we're meeting with every single principal that you all adopted in the comprehensive plan for an infill project, including connecting up with the Legacy Trail and the Town Branch Trail in terms of our development for all the property that we can control. We're certainly mindful of the importance of Lex Trend. This is a downtown project. Our traffic study is very conservative because it did not subtract any reduction that could be taken for an infill project. Brad Johnson's here, and he will tell you, confirm what I'm telling you. In fact, the study says this, that they looked at it as if this was a suburban project with no reduction for pedestrian use or bicycle use, which they could have taken under the zoning ordinance. They chose not to do it. And so it's very conservatively estimated. And the other principal benefit of our study, we believe, is that the recommendations which we've adopted, which will be initiated by the developer at a very reasonable to minimal expense, would actually, if instituted today, improve the current traffic situation and will certainly improve the traffic for this particular development. But obviously residential development downtown, it's not like living in the suburbs. You don't have a sea of parking. It's limited to, it's oriented to make people walk. And our project in connection with the 4th Street study recommendation that Tracy referenced in her presentation is a very important study. I don't believe it's actually been presented to you yet, or if it has, it hasn't been adopted. But that study, over nine months, looked at the impact of existing industrial zone property in this area from Newtown Pike all the way to Broadway and said how should it look. If the area is going to change, what's the best way for it to change? and what we are doing with this proposal is exactly in line with the study recommendations that were instituted at the same time we were undergoing review on what we were going to propose to the Planning Commission. And so we matched up with those recommendations. And so to the extent that which is the case, that the comprehensive plan, the 4th Street Study, the downtown master plan, the principles of the B-1 zoning ordinance that guide how developments are supposed to occur in this particular area. We're in agreement, and we're in full compliance with all of them. Now, I would like to share with you, Mr. Chairman, just a three-minute video of what this property looks like. So Rhonda Cloyd actually is a neighbor in the Georgetown Area Neighborhood Association. She lives over on Douglas Avenue. And I will say we got very lucky that we met Rhonda because she helps to narrate in this three-minute period a very concise description of what's being proposed. We shared this video with all the neighborhoods that we met with and all of the leaders of all the neighborhoods to give them an idea of what was coming and what we're representing to you today, that the cleanup items that were talked about by Bill and Tom will be cleaned up at the final development plan stage. They'll be resolved. And so I would simply ask that all of those conditions be resolved at the final development plan. But if we have the video teed up right now. And community member. It is an exciting info project that houses a diverse group of people who seek simplicity of life and individual outdoor space in a convenient yet conscientious manner. My name is Rhonda Cloyd, and I have been in Lexington, Kentucky for 23 years. I'm originally from Stanford, Kentucky, and I now live in the Arbors on Douglas Avenue, and I've been there for 11 years. Working with Lexington's 2013 Comprehensive Plan, Thistle Station rests on four-plus acres of land at the corner of Newtown Pike and West 3rd Street. As a gateway to Lexington's urban core, Newtown Pike connects that core with I-75 and I-64 and with the University of Kentucky, Bluegrass Community and Technical College, and Transylvania University. From what I have seen so far, from the Legacy Trail, where people are able to get out with their children and walk and bicycle, and the YMCA, and from where Loudon has built new buildings, and now BCTC has beautified the area as well. So I can only see positive things happening with this new development coming. I traveled Newtown every morning to go to work and coming home. And quite frankly, I've just blocked it out because it was just something that I just didn't want to look at. Thistle station planning improves with input. For this reason, neighborhood meetings are being held to both inform and to garner suggestions. The Thistle station team is prepared to work with both planning and zoning and the surrounding communities to ensure the best result receives approval. When you bring that to someone's attention and you ask their opinion and you ask how they feel about it, that's telling them that you care. So the feedback that you get, you're going to know that everybody is probably going to be on board with having this, you know, to beautify our community. I mean, not only is our property value going to go up, it's just going to bring the community together. Upon completion, Thistle Station will comprise some 200-plus apartment homes, along with on-site retail and food that is tuned to the diverse needs of the Thistle Station community. An infill project, Thistle Station displaces no residents, as the site will have been converted from a former industrial site to positive, productive residential and commercial space. In addition to a location within walking distance of educational, business, and entertainment districts, residents and retail patrons enjoy on-site parking, security, and a sense of connectedness with the proximity to the Legacy Trail and direct access to Lextran. But this is another thing for the young people and the middle-aged people to be able to come and just sit and be able to relax in a different atmosphere. The eyesore that we have now, we're not even going to remember it once this whole development is here. So it's going to be something special for all ages. Thistle Station is about community, comfort, and connectedness. The Thistle Station team is made up of individuals who care deeply about this place that we together call home. We are here to meet and get to know you. Together, we can achieve something great for our community. Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, that concludes our presentation. Obviously, we have the folks that helped put the project together here to respond to any questions. I will say that we try to be responsive to every single person that called. I actually did. Her husband actually used to be a law clerk with me at a McBrayer firm when I was with them and had called me about it. And I was going to call him back. My sister took ill about three weeks ago, and I've been out of the office quite a bit, and I simply forgot to call him back. We're certainly willing to continue conversations about whatever within our power to do to address concerns of anybody along the way in connection with our proposal. We have demonstrated that commitment significantly well before this meeting. And as I say, this project has been approved by the zoning committee and the subdivision committee, the technical review committee, your planning staff, the issues that the staff has identified that they would like to see further information on or discussion about, we can take care of at the final development plan stage. once we find out what all is underneath this property. But I firmly believe that this is really an important part of doing what has been longed for and hoped for and planned for, for really beyond the current comprehensive plan, but the comprehensive plan back in 2001, and that is the values that our community adopted, that the agricultural community preserving that land as it is because of what it's done for the state, what it's done in particular for Fayette County, is extremely important, needs to be protected, and that we're going to start growing up and not out. But along with that, we're going to require good design, sensitivity to the existing neighborhood, and requirements that we reach out and mitigate any potential harm to the extent that we can for affected neighbors. We believe we've done that up to now. We will continue to do that, and we ask for your recommendation for approval. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Simpson at this point? Shall we continue with what we'll do? If there's nothing right now, we'll continue with others that would like to speak in favor of the plan, and then we'll get to the opposing side. and in the interest of keeping them moving I would like to ask everyone to try and stay within three minutes as far as your presentation. Anyone that would like to speak in favor please come forward, give us your name and I would just ask not to be repetitive. Anyone? No? Yes? Are you going to let Mr. Simpson go with it? We're good. Okay, thank you. Move on then to the opposition. Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Marlee Bauman, and as Mr. Simpson referred, we are currently renovating a home on 3rd Street, and my main concern goes to the parking of the proposed plan. with the 264 spaces and 238 rooms, as well as store frontage, with no overflow parking available on 3rd Street due to the existing businesses on 3rd Street. I'm just concerned that parking is going to run out and become a serious issue. There's no street parking on 4th Street that I'm aware of, and the limited parking on 3rd Street would affect the other businesses on 3rd Street if there were to be overflow. I'm kind of confused as to why the height is suggested to be the 16 stories where I think the next closest building that's of similar height was 12 stories perhaps. I'm not sure the exact height of that building, But with a 16-story building, it doesn't seem to be in character with the area. But I think the height mostly comes to an issue with the parking. If you reduce the height just a little bit, it reduces the number of rooms, which in turn reduces the required parking. that could assist with increasing the green space. That would seem to be an issue, that maybe there wasn't enough green space. So those are really my main concerns. I have a few others, but they just kind of relate to, you know, just how it will come to fruition. So I don't know if that's really relevant for today. If it's relevant, we're willing to hear it. But, you know, I don't know what you're wanting to speak to. Some of my concerns relate to will the development be able to fill the rooms? Are they going to build 238 rooms and have a third of it rented out, and then it starts to degrade over time from lack of rental activity. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Bauman? No? Thank you, ma'am. Any questions from the commission at this point for anyone? Yes, sir? Could Tom, would you want to make any comments about their request to defer some of these items to final development plan and then maybe just run over the parking thing again? The special provisions in the B-1 for form-based require this body to adopt their study. And it goes on to say that any billing permits should match what you've approved. That obviously is difficult on a preliminary plan when you build off a final development plan. Now, I think they could obviously amend the report, the study, and show very specifically at the final development plan what they intend to do. I think that is possible. The staff's concern, though, is, again, because you're required to adopt this study as part of your approval, that we be as accurate as deemed necessary at this time, of course. As to the parking, I did a calculation that was handed out, I believe, at one of the committee meetings. Very simply, the applicant used an excessive parking requirement when they initially figured out what they needed. This is the staff's calculation. It utilizes the maximum reduction of basically 15% to give them 241 required spaces. They have 264 on the plan. They could use a 10% reduction, which would be easier for them to obtain, and they would still have nine surplus spaces on the site. So, I mean, they're close. I mean, they are, but that is the requirement, and they can meet it. Also, Mr. Berkeley, if I could address your question. A lot of these conditions, there probably is no harm to defer them to a final development plan, but not all of them. If we could look at the list on the ZDP, for instance, beginning with number six and seven, Number six, existing easements ought to be on the plan. I understand that proposed easements at this stage, given the uncertainty of the underground issues, may be a guess. But certainly existing easements ought to be on this plan. Um, number seven, the staff generally does not like to have a development plan where the parking numbers don't make sense. So I'm not sure that's a good one to defer either. Um, number 11, um, has been an issue for the staff from initial review, and it was mostly trying to assess, um, primarily perimeter landscaping. The video that we saw a few minutes ago really did not indicate any tree preservation. It showed a landscaping concept of entirely new landscaping material. Again, if the commission wishes to defer that issue, given the unknowns of the underground situation on the site, there is some validity to do that. But that's why this is on this list from the staff. We were mostly concerned about perimeter. there may be easements and work needed on the perimeter. It's hard to know today. Number 12, if I could go to the plan for just a moment. There's no note on this plan that mentions anything about the study you have in front of you. we think there needs to at least be a no. We would ask you not to defer that. The other three items on the report that I presented to you earlier, again, I'm not sure there's any harm in deferring those. So I appreciate you letting me go over those individual ones. We would not be in favor of deferring all of these items to a final development plan. Just a point of clarification. We have to adopt the study with the zoning So the item number one where there's a discrepancy, that needs to be done now? Or is that a something? Recommendation number one? Yes. We view that as simply a labeling issue for this plan. That seemed to be the easiest condition of all from our standpoint. Thank you. Let me ask you one thing. You know, this is a preliminary plan. Yes, sir. If they provided some sort of landscape plan, and you've got a preliminary landscape plan, it would be subject to change as well, depending on what's found later. It would, and that's why, again, in my earlier presentation, I said a preliminary landscape plan or information about tree preservation. Again, our concern was primarily tree preservation along the property perimeter. It may be that they don't wish to preserve any. It may be they don't know if they have to get in there and remove items to serve the property with sewer and utilities and things of that nature. These are ordinary development issues, not only in infill but in suburban areas. So that is an issue you probably want to consider there. It may not be possible to preserve all the perimeter trees. We certainly understand that. Okay. Thank you. At this point, I think, yes, sir. Just if I could respond to it. I was getting ready to say we'd go to rebuttals. The, I asked to put up the B-1 zoning ordinance, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. there's nothing in the methodology of getting a zone change for a B-1 form-based zoning that requires that you all adopt this character study at this point. What the ordinance provides for under B-1 is listed, underline the relevant part. A form-based neighborhood business project may be approved by the Planning Commission on any site over one acre. in size, which we certainly meet that with nearly three, a little over three. And here's the critical part. For any such project, a final development plan shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of any building permit. The rest of the descriptions and the narrative and requirements follow that sentence. That's why we believe with a blighted property where we don't know what all is underneath it, even under the junk that's on there now, which has been cited for not compliance with the billing code, rather than spend an endless amount of money correcting what we believe are technical issues on a preliminary development plan, that all of these be taken care of at the final development plan. And I will certainly commit on behalf of the applicant that the general framework and design of this project and the character study that's been done by Graham Pohl, that we intend to comply with those provisions as part of our application. Now, that's not required anywhere in the zoning ordinance, but we didn't do it all for nothing. We did it because we were serious about coming forward with the first form-based zone change and doing it the right way. which is why we engaged Graham Pohl to do it. So we've got to come back to you. If there's something that we're representing that's inconsistent with the final development plan, which has to be approved by you guys before we can go to the next step, which is start development, you're going to catch it, and you're going to hold us accountable, as you should. So I think all of these technical issues, some of these we could correct, we could label the stuff on. That's no big deal, obviously. But, you know, the landscaping plan and stuff that's going to require additional work, it's a preliminary plan. You don't spend thousands and thousands, tens of thousands of dollars on a preliminary application when the zoning is in doubt. I mean, nobody does that because, you know, it's a risky proposition. If you don't get the zone change, then you spend all that money for nothing. We believe we've complied with every provision of the zoning ordinance, the comp plan, 4th Street study, and the downtown master plan legally to get this zone change. If we're inconsistent with anything that I've tendered to this body, that I've said to this body, when it comes to the final development plan, you will hold me accountable. But we're going to comply. And the appropriate thing to do is to resolve all of these things at the final development plan because that's what the ordinance says. For any such project, meaning a form-based project, a final development plan shall be approved. It doesn't say preliminary development plan, that all this has to be on a preliminary development plan. talks about a final development plan, which is what we're going to come back to you if we get to zoning. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to ask the commission to let me back up just for a second. After Ms. Bauman spoke, I failed to ask if there was anyone else in the audience that wanted to speak in opposition. Yes, ma'am. Brevity is of interest here. My name is Amy Clark, and you may know that I live at 628 Castle Road, the other side of town. So I have rather little to say. I would like to bring the perspective of the other side of town onto this very interesting and valuable, promising development Great that it's high-density housing. Great that it's trying to mix a use with retail. You see before you the zoning ordinance, the intent of the zone. Which kind of a zone is it? Have we got a high-rise here? Have we got neighborhood business? Doesn't seem to sound like it's fulfilling the intent of that zone. Or are we really aiming at mixed use? And it seems pretty clear that mixed use is what's aimed at here. It's a question of whether this zone is right for it, and that's what a zone change is all about. Our experience in our neighborhood around the University of Kentucky, and this is, of course, very near a community college. If I could have the next two picture slides, please. Is that in these mixed use developments that are very ambitious, we've had real difficulty mixing that use. You see before you Center Court, which by the Realtors, this is from the Realtors advertisement on the web, stands with its ground floor 43% vacant at this time. And the next slide, that was Center Court. The next slide is the Lex on Broadway. Center Court is on Upper. Its ground floor stands on the web by the advertiser's message at 66% vacant retail. It's a challenge to put retail in a high-density apartment in a congested center city area. I like a lot about the thistle development. It looks like the way we want to live. It looks like the way we want our neighbors to live. I know the parking numbers have changed. There's some scrutiny of the parking count. On the plan that was on the web, could I have the next slide? Yes. The numbers looked like this. You have 202 apartments of different numbers of bedrooms, 202 dwellings, and 211 net parking spaces required. There's also nearly 30,000, 28,000, 5,000 square feet of retail space. To my eye, it looks like you're going to have nine parking spaces for the retail. Who knows how this is going to work out? If it's housing for the elderly who have given up their car, if it's affordable housing, possibly you'll need fewer spots. The numbers have changed. The plan statistics have changed some. But if we wished we lived this way and we don't yet, it may not be prudent to approve a zone change and the development of this character. You may recall that recently there was a zone change in our neighborhood, and when the development plan came back a month or two later, the parking requirement had doubled. The intensity of use had doubled. So it's a very real problem that we do see sometimes a zone change with one plan and then an actual final development plan later that doubles the intensity of the parking need, for example. It puts the staff in a difficult position. It puts you in a difficult position. I really believe that the time to judge what's about the right size and shape for a development is when you judge whether this zone is right for this development at this location. Finally, I want to add, and I'll just put this on the overhead. This is three addresses of a brownfield site, and if you could just kind of zero in on those three addresses where I've circled, you'll see that I think it's some 68,000 of city dollars have already been spent simply ascertaining that it is a brownfield site and worthy of further work. This is significant public money for an important public problem. I think it's great that we need some brownfields clean up here, but our money is on the line. Our public money is on the line, and that's part of the larger picture. I would say, too, that I share the concerns about tree canopy. I always do. It looks like the plan needs something like $30,000 in tree canopy. It's got something like $30,000 in retail. There's no way to say that they just swap out that way. But let's have some central city downtown important developments hospitable to good living that still keep their trees lots of these trees are a foot and a half in diameter thank you thank you miss Clark anyone else at this point yes sir I was going to go there I just want to make sure we had everyone covered in rebuttal sir yeah I thought I'd done all the rebuttal well let's not repeat it but let's go for it well I I mean, obviously, Ms. Meyer raised some issues. I think her principal objection was questioning the business judgment of the people that I represent in Thistle Group as to whether or not the project would be successful in terms of renting it out or the use of the retail space. Obviously, with any applicant that comes before this body to build anything that needs approval, from a garage to shopping center to apartment building or residential development. Risk of loss is on that person that's putting up the money. In this particular project, we've not sought any government assistance. We've not filed for any TIF approval. In our country, you take a chance on being successful or a failure. Now, the folks that I represent have done a lot of work, spent a lot of money, done a lot of due diligence, and are prepared to spend a lot more because, in their judgment, collectively, from very qualified individuals, they believe it'll work. But you know what? If it doesn't work, it's on them. It doesn't cost this government one penny. The Lexington-Fayette-Uberman County government has not spent one dime on this property. I don't know what the figures Amy's talking about, but they haven't spent any money cleaning up this site. I'm sure the three neighborhoods that we shared this with would love to have seen it, but it didn't happen here. We're going to clean it up, and it's not going to cost the taxpayers a cent. This is not a suburban location. people aren't going to drive from miles and miles to shop in a 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 square foot commercial space, or even a 10,000. This is a neighborhood oriented primarily for those people that live in the building and in the surrounding neighborhood, these commercial uses, to provide some goods and services that are within walking distance. Eventually, we'll have enough density downtown to have a grocery store. We're not there yet. We can't attract a grocery store downtown because they say they need more rooftops. They need more people living downtown. With this project, we're increasing density with a design that's compatible that will further the goals that you and your predecessors really initiated 14 years ago in the 2001 comprehensive plan. This is a rare and precious opportunity. for this community. And I urge your adoption of our proposal with a recommendation that we resolve all the issues about the development plan at the final development plan stage. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Okay, now at this point I'll close unless there's questions from the commission members. Questions for anybody? Oh, I'm sorry, we need yes. Yes, sir. Mr. Martin, rebuttal from the staff. I just want to clarify something for you. The parking calculations that were shown to you previously that staff did, I want to be sure that the commission knows staff has done the calculation. They are required 283 spaces. If they avail themselves of the reductions, which they will need to do because they have 264, they can meet the required parking on site. They won't have much of a surplus, but they can meet their parking if they utilize those allowable reductions. I just want to be clear because there's some more parking numbers got thrown up there, and I want to be sure that the commission understood our position on the parking numbers. Thank you. Mr. Sallate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for clarification, I think the staff for this plan can really reduce this list down to six items. I've tried to put that on the overhead for you. The first three, one being rezoning. Second, preliminary concept approval from the Division of Engineering. Thirdly, the traffic engineer's approval, the parking and circulation layout. Number six, denoting existing. We can even scratch and propose, just denote existing easements on plan. Seven, clarify the required parking statistics, as Mr. Martins just mentioned. And then 12, addition of a note or notes regarding supplemental information. I think all the other items in pink, the staff has absolutely no objection to deferring those to a final development plan stage. Thank you. Mr. Salley. Yes, sir. Number one on your staff report. The separate staff report? Yes. I've labeled those as 13, 14, and 15 here. Okay. So you'd be okay with that going to the final? Given the discussion, yes, sir. All right. Okay. Mr. Chairman, just to further things along, we would be in agreement with what Bill just suggested in terms of making the changes. We can make those changes tomorrow and file it with the staff before it goes to council. Thank you, sir. We've been in rebuttal, so I'm going to close this part of the hearing. thank everyone for coming, those that spoke and those that didn't. This is always a challenging thing, seeing change and sometimes some new stuff. So what I'll do at this time is open it up for any discussion from commission members and or motion. Yes, ma'am. First of all, I'd like to thank you for coming down and Amy for coming down so that we could hear your comments and your thoughts on this thing. First of all, I'm pretty excited about this. I've seen a lot of this down in North and South Carolina that has been very successful. I think we've got to get into a new mindset in Lexington, Kentucky. We've got some property here that we need to do some infill on, and I think my personal opinion is this is a good concept. I like that we've got some residential and some commercial stuff maybe pairing together. one thing that gives me a little bit of heartburn and it's because I'm thinking down the road is it seems like our railroad access continues to dwindle and that concerns me in this community but this piece of property I think is prime for this project it clearly is an eyesore and in my mind Newtown Pike is the gateway to Lexington if you're at the horse park if you're coming in from the interstate if you've been at the Marriott if you're coming into town And I think this, I like the look of this, and I like what I'm hearing. So I'd just like to say I'm very much in favor of this project. Others? Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am, first. I'm sorry. No, no, you're first. I want to thank the girls for coming down. It's good to have dialogue. And to Mr. Simpson about the landscaping, I just personally want to say that it's kind of like being on notice because I think we really expect supplemental landscaping for this property, and we just want to keep that on the drawing board. And as the soup commercial says, we'll be watching. Mr. Wilson. I can't top that at all. A commercial. I, too, would like to thank all the parties for coming in. I share our chairman's perspective for those people who didn't speak. I appreciate that. And for those people who did, we appreciate that. I'm here to speak in favor of this particular project. I've walked that corridor I don't know how many times because I used to go to school and back and forth. And quite frankly, it is an eyesore. But no one mentioned this particular issue. But I cannot help but think, with all the things that have been said, no one mentioned the fact that I believe, and I have nothing to prove it, that property values would increase as a result of what we are going to see as a result of the development activities. The fact is that right now, that is much of an ISO, and I share my colleagues' opinion about the gateway coming into town. So I just want to let you know that I appreciate your comments and your thoughts related to parking, but I stand in favor of the project. Anyone else? If not, we'll move to a motion. Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. It's okay. I'll take a stab at this. Let's see. Don't change first. That's the ZDP right now. Okay. Okay. I got it. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the zone change for MAR 2015-3 Thistle Holdings LLC as presented by staff. Motion made and seconded for approval. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And then the ZDP. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of ZDP 2015-12 Thistle Station with the recommendations by staff, including number 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, and adding from the form-based neighborhood recommendations by staff, adding those three as 13, 14, and 15. Is that wrong? Okay. It's your motion. Do we have a second? Okay. Apparently not. So we need a new motion. Let me clarify something to ask Mr. Selle first. Was, as far as supplemental information, was that 9 or 12? That was number 12, Mr. Chair. Okay. All right, then. Correct there. Okay. So can we have a new motion? Just to clarify, the staff was agreeable to deferring the other items to a final development plan. Okay. That's where I should read that. And that included those three on the form base? Yes, sir. Okay. Try one more time. That's a significant difference. Thank you. The question is, from the parliamentary perspective, is that enough? Since that motion did not pass, is this a significant difference in the eyes of the parliamentarian? Yes. Okay. So go again. Go again. All right. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of ZDP 2015-12 Thistle Station. including the recommendations by staff of number 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 12 and deleting the remainder of those. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval as read of ZDP 2015-12. Questions at this point? I have one. Are we deleting 4, 5, 8, 10, 11? And none. Or just... Was that what the staff was recommending? Or just defer to the final development plan? I think the latter was our comfort level, but we certainly understand As far as deferring until the development plan? To the time of final development plan. Okay. Along with the other three. Yeah, along with the other three. Can I amend? You can if you would like to. So I'll amend my motion to defer item 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and the three recommendations on the staff report to the final development plan. The motion has been made and seconded for the approval of ZDP 2015-12 Thistle Station. As read, I'm sure all commission members are cognizant of what that was. If not, please speak up now. If not, I'll call for a vote. Please vote when it comes on the screen. That motion passes. Once again, thank everyone for coming. We appreciate it very much. And as Ms. Plumlee did say, we will be watching. So we got it. Well, she did it on 13, 14, 15. She added 13, 14, 15. Getting those three on the conditions all. Okay, move on to Zodatek's amendment 2015-2. It's an amendment to Article 17-7B-5 to allow a second freestanding sign for churches and schools on corner lots. And I think it's on page 6 of your amended note. It's midway down the page on page 5. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This next item, as you mentioned, is on page five of your agenda. It's item under B, public hearings for text amendments, item number one, ZOTA 2015-2. this is a proposed amendment to a portion of Article 17 of the zoning ordinance to allow a second freestanding sign for churches and schools on corner lots. This is a text amendment that has been filed by the Lexington Christian Academy. And as you know, they are a private school located in the southern portion of the urban service area on a corner lot. I do have a couple of photos to put on the overhead. The first is a picture of the campus for their main high school. The school is situated near the roundabout that most everyone is familiar with in the Wellington development at the corner of Keyshire Drive and West Reynolds Road. Reynolds Road, of course, having a very major intersection with Nicholasville Road, in this view, way off the top of the photograph. So the school building primarily is a former tobacco processing facility, and a lot of their parking were formerly large warehouses that stored various stages of the tobacco that were there back in the 50s and 60s and 70s. The school currently has a sign on the West Reynolds Road frontage, We put a small red circle in the upper left photo of this photo to indicate their existing sign. But you can see they also have a major entrance on the collector's street of Keithshire. And what's prompting this text amendment is their desire to also have an identification sign letting motorists on Keithshire know that this is the school property and this is kind of how you get into their parking lot. That's what's prompted this particular text amendment. Their text amendment to the provisions of Article 17 for primarily our single family and our two residential zones would add language with two very important stipulations. It would require for a second type of identification sign for a school or a church that it be a very large piece of property, and in their proposal, five acres or more in size, and that there be a second stipulation that the property have two street frontages. We do have some properties that are larger than that but are not corner lots in particular. The staff met with the applicant before they filed the zone change, and the staff has met internally since the filing of the zone change to discuss it as well. We do think there is some justification for an additional sign in these large school and church facilities. Over the past few weeks, the staff made a recommendation to your zoning committee that there be an additional stipulation placed in this text amendment proposal. And that is, on any property that would have two such signs, that those signs be at least 250 feet apart in terms of their spacing. And this is to prevent a school or a church from combining two signs or placing them in very close proximity, one to another near the corner. That's the theory behind why the staff is recommending that. For those of you on the zoning committee, you will recall that there was also a discussion about adding this type of signage for schools and churches in the agricultural urban zone. and we do have a staff exhibit about this that I failed to pass out at the start of the hearing. My apologies. This staff exhibit is email communication between Mr. Dick Murphy and myself about one such church that is located in an AU zone. If we can flip to the photo on the overhead to the one underneath. This happens to be a photo of that particular church. This one is on Harrodsburg Road, very near Military Road and the Palomar Subdivision. And that church also, at the bottom of the photo, you'll see a red circle, has a freestanding identification sign for their facility that's mainly oriented to Harrodsburg Road. However, they also have frontage on a collector's street in the top part of the photograph. and there is also a portion of that street that's not yet constructed, although planned, out to a signalized intersection at Harrodsburg Road. So the church is interested in also having the ability to have this type of signage on their corner lot. They are not in a residential zone. They're in an agricultural urban zone. So the staff exhibit that you see is in addition to the signage requirements in the AU zone that would basically allow this very safe type of sign with the staff's recommendation of the 250-foot spacing in an agricultural urban zone. And on the back part of this, sorry, we have copied the wrong page, it's important to note that where this sits in the zoning ordinance applies to all agricultural zones. So the important language in what you see in the box on the bottom of the page is that this type of sign is only allowed in the AU zone. It will not be allowed in our other agricultural zones. The staff is agreeable to adding this, if you will, to the proposal by the applicant. That would make it available in our AU zone, all of our R1 zones, and our R2 zones for churches and schools that are on five acres or more property on a corner lot with one sign per street frontage. So that is the crux of this text amendment. The reasons that the staff is recommending approval on the agenda for the staff alternative text are not changed, as they appear in our staff report that we presented to the zoning committee and as they're listed on the agenda. That is, firstly, that schools and churches have multiple entrances and a need to help identify these entrances with freestanding signage. Secondly, a finding that staff alternative text will ensure that this addition to the sign regulations will not result in unintended sign clutter. That's because of the spacing requirement. Before I conclude, it is important to note that staff sometimes does get letters and emails about different text amendment proposals, and we have received one in this case that I'll circulate to you. This is from the First Church of Christ Scientist located on 606 East Main Street. That church has been in existence since the 1930s. They are in favor of this proposed text amendment, and as this email indicates, they believe that this will affect their location. Although they are on a corner lot, they do not meet the five-acre provision, so unfortunately they will not be able to avail themselves of the signage, but we will circulate this to you for your review. With that, I'd be glad to answer any questions before you hear from the applicant. Any questions for Mr. Salley? Let me ask you this. Do you know, do you have any number as to schools and churches that this might affect? I don't know of a number. We can estimate that there are several churches in the Tates Creek Road corridor that would benefit and be able to have second signs. A number of the Roman Catholic churches in town, because of their size, would be able to have this. No doubt there are probably maybe as many as 20 churches in the community that might meet all of these requirements. And then, as you know, there are a number of private schools here in the county as well. The Lexington School, there are several that also may meet these requirements. So I think we are looking at, you know, a number probably somewhere between 20 and maybe even 30 or 35 properties that might avail themselves of these additional signs. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? If not, others I'd like to speak. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. My name is Bob Bourget, Facilities Director at Lexington Christian Academy. Your time is valuable. I won't go through anything lengthy. We started this because we're in an area that was redeveloped, if you will, when R.J. Reynolds converted, Myers came in. And so we are bordered by Shelton Park on one end. It's residential. We kind of took a shot at this ordinance, realizing that there may be some other groups that have legitimacy in needing signage on both roads. We put in five acres. We actually have 75 acres. Key Shire is probably our busiest entrance and has no sign. You go by there on a Saturday and you'll see hundreds of kids playing soccer that are not LCA families. That's public use. We have visiting teams from all over the state coming to our property. It just makes sense to have a sign on a road instead of having to force them to drive through the roundabout, which can be dangerous. And so I think our attempt here is to say that probably in the original wording of the signage and the intent to not have clutter, probably a 75-acre site with two significant streets was probably not considered. So we're asking for reconsideration based on what we are. We're certainly flexible on the acreage based on the number of people that it may apply, or you may have the inclination to say that it makes sense for everybody. So our interest is in the amount of traffic we have, which is significant, the public use that we have, and the major roads and the size of our property. It just seems to be compelling that we have adequate signage. We have the elementary school a few hundred yards from us, the New Wellington Elementary School. we want it to be clear who they are and who we are when people drive down Keyshire Road. The less traffic confusion there is I think the more safe the roads are as cars slow down and stare and wonder is this where I need to go I think causes a traffic hazard clear signage I think helps that so urge for your recommendation and glad to answer any other questions or any other perspective. Questions? Thank you sir. others that like speak yes sir thanks mr. chairman I'm Dick Murphy as Bill Selle mentioned I'm representing here my own church South Elkhorn Christian Church at 4343 Harrodsburg Road I had coincidentally been asked about six months ago by the chairman of my board if we could put a second sign up had to tell him no this this would impact us positively we have frontages on two streets heritsburg road and a collector we right now have no way of identifying ourselves to the collector which is the neighborhood behind us we'd like to be able to do that so I'd proposed that the identical language apply to churches in the AU zone as well AU is only inside the urban service area there are maybe a couple other churches in our same situation we are we've never had to get a zone change from AU to the residential zone because churches are a conditional uses in both AU and the residential zone so there's been no reason for us to do that and we were concerned that we'd alarm our neighbors if we came in with a residential zone change just to get a sign so we feel this is very helpful full we're in full support of it and as I said we'd just like to extend this identical provision to the AU so thank you any questions mr. Murphy no thank you sir anyone else like to speak on this if not no questions I'll close this part and open it up for any discussion and or motion we've got staff alternative language along with an additional request. Yes, sir? I'll go ahead and make a motion if you're ready. I think so. Okay. I want to move approval of ZOTA 2015-2 with the staff alternative text and also how would I include this bill? And also continued into the AU zone as written. The motion has been made and seconded for approval. Zota 2015-2, staff alternative, as well as the language provided for the AU zone. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks, for coming and being patient. Thank you. Next, we have mixed-use zoning categories. tax amendment ZOTA 2015-4 alternative building features in an MU mixed use zone I think you do have a white sheet that's before you that's got some yellow highlighting on it if not no you will have soon I'm sorry I was privy to it a little early Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Chairman Owens. This is item Zota 2015-4. It's on page 7 of your agenda and behind tab 6 in your notebooks. This request was filed by Bayer Properties. They are asking to add some flexibility and variety to our mixed-use zone, Article 28.6C in this case, to allow for different options in terms of articulating the building facade within the mixed-use zones. In addition to that, they feel that will also positively impact the pedestrian experience in the mixed-use zones. The applicant submitted this graphic, and I'm not sure that that one's clear or this one is, but the intent of this is to indicate how their proposed language is being met with an example of a mixed-use building. And in this case, the example is one of the buildings that's proposed on the Fritz Farm property for the summit, I believe. I don't think it's... This is an actual example. So the existing zoning ordinance in Article 28 was first written in 2002 and defined our new, at that point, the mixed-use zones. But it also brought in a section, which is 28.6, that outlines requirements for all the mixed-use zones, including this section, which has to do with building features. the building features are meant to give a building its character that includes window requirements door locations bump outs also something like a setback coming in a front porch those are the things that building features are meant to help a building in terms of its look and feel for the pedestrian mainly. The existing regulations that are in place were proposed by our infill and redevelopment study, and they were adopted almost verbatim from that study. The zoning ordinance requires a change in depth along the frontage of both the primary face and a side face of five feet at a length of eight feet, which equates to a 40-square-foot area that is projected out from the building. The applicant, as they were going through their design for the Fritz Farm and their mixed-use property, found that that was rather onerous, and they felt that there might be some options for other, I guess, a secondary option in terms of addressing the same intent of the zoning ordinance, that is being creating a character along the wall, the front and the side wall, so it's not just a long blank wall. They brought forward a text amendment for the Planning Commission's consideration that does that in terms of providing a second option. So along the front of a building or the side of a building, the applicant proposes that there be a second option, and that second option, option B, I'll call it, you have to pick two of the four ideas. And those four ideas are to change the height of, excuse me, I'll start with the first one, change the depth of the building at least eight inches, change the wall height at least 16 inches, change in exterior material type, style, color, finish, or orientation, and then the fourth option is to do a minimum of 20 percent of the ground floor facade being transparent glass, including windows and doors. That was the proposal by the applicant. In addition, they also are proposing a fifth option for treatment of entrance so that an entrance can be recessed as well, and that would meet a requirement of the ordinance. In proposing these alternative options, they felt it would address or provide some flexibility in addressing the intent of the regulations, but they also felt that it addressed one major concern, which was the pedestrian feel of a property when you have a 40-square-foot bump out that that can break up the pedestrian frontage along a building. So they felt although an eight-foot bump-out was much more accommodating, obviously, to a pedestrian. The staff is in agreement with the flexibility of this proposed text amendment, but the idea that an eight-inch bump-out and only a 16-inch height difference, we felt that that created still rather a flat facade for a building, so we suggested that those dimensions be increased slightly. and also to more round numbers so that the bump out be required at a one-foot dimension so that that could be calculated fairly easily and that the height change be at two-foot change. In addition, the staff felt that color and orientation alone weren't enough to provide an effective change that could be seen by the average person or understood as a really a good effective way to change the view of the building. So we suggested striking color and orientation from the list of basically that those alone weren't enough to create an articulation in a building. And then we also suggest in a staff alternative that three of the four options be used, not just two. The applicant reviewed the staff's proposal in terms of modifications to the text, and they were in agreement with those changes. One thing that since the zoning committee met that came up in discussions with the applicant and led to the alternative text that you have in front of you today was a conversation about how high or how much has to happen, And those two questions really apply mostly to how much exterior material needs to change and how far up a wall does a projection need to occur. In the example they've provided, the projection here, and I don't have my pointer, really kind of occurs with that little bit that pops out with the windows on the first story, the first floor of this really one-story building. and it creates that that dimensional change but the ordinance the draft text amendment doesn't indicate that that needs to happen for any length or height the same is true for material changes i'm going to go back one when a material change happens for instance on the brown brick building at the end of this graphic that they provided the concrete piece in the middle is a material change but it happens within that first story, and then up it changes back. The staff, in conversations with the applicant, felt it was important to clarify that those bump outs and material changes needed to be at least one story in height. So this was the example that we found that kind of went against that. There is a height change here, and there is a projection of the entrance, But the material change that happens is only about three feet off the ground as you enter the, well, maybe seven feet off the ground as you enter the building there. It doesn't follow up the entire structure. And I think the staff felt it took away from the articulation of the building. It felt a little flat, a little uninteresting. So in terms of adding this one-story requirement, we felt that it, in agreement with the applicant, that it clarified that that needed to occur for the height or for the bump out as well as the material changes. The staff is recommending approval, as did the zoning committee three weeks ago, and there are three reasons on your agenda as well as in the staff report. The first is the proposed text change to Article 28-6 will provide more flexibility to meet building feature articulation regulations, and the existing language will be retained, so that option will still be available to developers and architects. But the proposed amendment allows for more creative solutions while still visually meeting, hopefully, the same idea. Second, the proposed change to the zoning ordinance will minimize the encroachment into the pedestrian walkways and also reduce the possibility of blind spots and possible security concerns. The applicant brought that up. And then third, the staff alternative text will slightly alter the petitioner's proposal in a manner that's more consistent with the original infill and redevelopment study that originally prompted this section of the zoning ordinance. I'm happy to answer any questions about this proposed tax amendment. I have a question. Yes. I'm looking at Forever 21 there. It pops out in the front. So they could have just left that stone off and they'd have been in better shape to do that? I think they probably do meet three out of four in that example. but if it didn't pop out or if it didn't have the two-foot height requirement, they would have needed to do a material change. In the staff's opinion, that was more significant in that example. This probably does meet. I think the staff felt it did meet the requirements because it met the other three, not the material change requirement. Okay. I'm just thinking cost of materials on something like that. I mean, if you leave that little bit of stone off there, you're saving some money there, and you've got the pop-out already there, so you wouldn't have to put the stone, and that would save the developers some money. Other questions? If not... Go back to their pretty pictures. Mr. Nicholson, thanks for your patience today. Before I step away from the microphone, sorry, Nick, We did have a letter of support, so you want to hear about that, from Fayette Alliance for the text amendment. Since my co-worker, Mr. Simpson, took most of your time, I will not. We're in complete agreement with the staff. We've been working with them to kind of craft the right language here. getting at Mr. or Ms. Mundy's kind of point. We didn't want to use this, which meets all of the requirements when we're crafting the text. We want to think about what the evildoer would do. We didn't want one line of stone at the very bottom of a building to count. We want it to be of substance to make sure that we do break up the long, kind of, you know, uneventful walls. So that's kind of where the at least one story came from is we wanted to make sure that the evildoer couldn't get by when this gets applied down the road. I'll take any questions, but we're in complete agreement with the staff and would appreciate your recommendation of approval. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Nicholson? Anyone else like to speak on this? Tracy, I guess your thought is to go with alternative text number two. That's what the staff is recommending. The staff would recommend that you adopt alternative two. Yes, Mr. Kravitz. How tall is one story? Well, that would vary for each building. I know. I mean, I think it's a good catch because you could have said, well, it's got to go all the way. We'll feed or, yeah. All the way, two-story or however high the building is. I think it's good to limit it. Okay. Very briefly, I think we wanted to make sure it was clear for building inspection when this kind of goes to building inspection that they have guidance on how to do this. And so for building inspection, when you bring the plans in, you've got to go for the one story. And it would be pretty obvious for each building that comes into play what one story is for that building. Any other questions? Any other questions, if not? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I move approval of ZOTA 2015-4 Amendment to Article 28-6C, the alternative building features in the mixed-use MU zones, and that we approve this with using the, as recommended by the staff, the alternative text number 2. Thank you. Do we have a second? The motion's been made and seconded for approval. Zoda 2005-4 with staff alternative text number 2. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. One more item, PFR 2015-1. Staff reports should be before you for LFUCG fire station number 2 replacement. Good afternoon. This is on page 9 of your agenda, and it's item A, under Commission Items, and PFR 2015-1 is a request made by the Urban County Government Division of Fire and Emergency Services for a replacement station. They want to build a new station to replace station number two at 1276 Eastland Drive, which is behind Eastland Shopping Center. This is the property right here, Eastland Drive, Murray Drive, Eastland Shopping Center, Winchester Road is down below there, and here is New Circle Road. The property is a little bit less than three acres in size, and it's Zone B3. and there hasn't been a recommendation, a land use recommendation for the property since the 2007 comprehensive plan. That was for retail trade and personal services. And that was because of the zoning of the property, the B3 zoning, and because it was formerly part of the Eastland Shopping Center property itself. It's been subdivided since then, but it was part of the Eastland Shopping Center property. It was purchased in January 2008 with the idea of putting a new station on this property. and as I said it will replace the New Circle Road station which is station number two which is on East New Circle Road close to Bryan Station Kroger and that site will still be used as administrative space at least temporarily until they can get it all in the budget to move everything to this site but the New Circle Road site will be used for that purpose for a while this site will provide easier access to New Circle Road if you could put the site plan up there Bill please it's got two access points and you can't see it here is Eastland Drive here and this is Murray right here and they have access here and access here staff parking will be back here but they have a provision for the trucks to be able to pull through the station like they do out on the Harrodsburg Road Station a lot of the stations they still have to back in and block traffic so this is going to make it a lot easier And hopefully it'll also, its location and the access to Eastland Drive and to Murray Drive will provide easier access to New Circle Road. And that will cut down hopefully on response time, which is critical in an emergency situation. Right now they have to, when they go east on New Circle Road, they have to cross over the west lane of traffic. And I think that would probably be difficult. but they're going to they do have a traffic signal at east linden new circle and so hopefully that the double access plus the traffic signal will help with that situation they'll have a much larger space here the one that they have now is about 5800 square feet and they have outgrown that space and the property has structural and infrastructure problems they will have a space that'll be about 14 200 between 14 200 and 14 700 square feet Station number two is one of the eight stations of the 23, between 23 and 25 stations that we have in Lexington that has a ladder unit. And because there are so few ladder units compared to all of the rest of the stations, they have a larger service area or a larger radius that they service. And so the access and the response time is even more critical in that situation when you've got a ladder company because they do have a bigger service area and they do have to be able to respond more quickly. The architect for the project has said that 2009 LEED certification standards and practices as well as the 2012 energy code will be followed in both the construction of the building and the development of the site. That supports the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, and several apply to this and either support or are supported by the project, and those are all listed on pages 2 and 3 of your staff report. Construction is set to begin in July, and they hope to have it completed within 12 to 13 months, which would make it operational by either next July or August. both the comprehensive plan and destination 2040 address quality of life and its role in making lexington a desirable place to live and the provision of public facilities and the kind of government services that contribute to our safety health and welfare they all go into one element that has to be present as far as as far as what is said in the comprehensive plan and destination 2040 as to what makes Lexington a desirable place to live. This project falls right in with that, and it's supported, therefore, by both documents. We find this to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and the replacement station, this replacement station was actually mentioned in the 2013 Comprehensive Plan in the Facilities Chapter. We only have one recommendation, and that would be that the parking area be screened such is required by Article 18 for most or all other commercial projects and development, the vehicular use area should be screened. We have several people here. Architects from Branstad or Carroll are here. Joyce Thomas is here from General Services, and Assistant Chief Hoskins is also here in case you have questions, any kind of questions, they can all be answered. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the staff report. Questions for Barb? Nope. I don't think so. Thank you. Thank you. Anything to add from applicant or anyone here in support of? Anyone else that would like to speak in regards to this? If not, if there's no questions from the commission, I'll entertain a motion. The motion would be, this is in compliance with the comprehensive plan and then staff has one recommendation. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I move, if it's appropriate, approval for PFR 2015-1, the Lexington-Fayette County, Arapin County Fire Station to construct a new station to replace the currently outdated one. And we do so with the staff recommendation related to the parking area being screened in the appropriate manner. Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and seconded for compliance of PFR 2005-1 with one recommendation. please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thanks to everyone. Any other staff items? Commission items? Audience items? If not, I guess, let's see here. Our next meeting is, can we go with something next week or not? Committee meetings next week, Mr. Chairman. Yes, committee meetings next week. Okay. Okay. Otherwise, we've got a motion for adjournment. Do we have a second? All in favor, please say aye. Thank you, folks.