I have no fear Bernadette! Bernadette! You're the soul of me More than me You're the plan to me Bernadette! You mean more to me No woman was ever meant to be I'm But what you know It should be easy Well this could be the last time This could be the last time Maybe the last time I don't know Oh no Oh no Well I'm sorry girl But I can't stay I don't feel like I do today There's too much pain and too much sorrow Cause I feel the same tomorrow Well, this could be the last time This could be the last time Maybe the last time I don't know. Oh, no. Oh, no. This could be the last time This could be the last time Maybe the last time I don't know Oh no Oh no Well I told you once and I told you twice Someone have to pay the price Here's a chance to change your mind Cause I've been gone a long, long time Well, this could be the last time This could be the last time Maybe the last time I don't know Oh, no Oh, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around, I get around I get it round, I get it round, round, round, I get it round. I'm a real good friend, I get it round, round, round, I get it round. I get it round, round, round, round. We always take my car cause it's never been beat And we've never messed yet with the girls we meet None of the guys go steady cause it wouldn't be right To leave the best girl home now on Saturday night I get around, round, round, round, I get around I get around, round, round, round, I get around I get around, round, round, round, I get around I get around, round, round, round, I get around Round, round, get around, I get around Yeah, get around, round, round, I get around Get around, round, round, I get around Someday I'm gonna be famous Do I have talent? Well, no These days you don't really need it Thanks to reality shows Can't wait to date a supermodel Can't wait to sue my dad Can't wait to wreck a Ferrari On my way to rehab It's when you're a celebrity It's Adios reality You act just like a fool People think you're cool Just cause you're on TV I can throw a major fit With my latte And just how I like it They say I've gone insane I blame it on the pain The pressures that go with Being a celebrity I get to cry to Barbara Walters When things don't go my way And I'll get community service No matter which law I break I'll make the supermarket tabloids They'll write some awful stuff But the more they run my name down The more my price goes up Cause when you're a celebrity, it's adios reality. No matter what you do, people think you're cool just cause you're on TV. I can fall in and out of love, have marriages that barely last a month. When they go down the drain, I blame it on the pain and say it's just so tough. Being a celebrity So let's hitch up the wagons And head out west Into the land of the fun and the sun We'll be real world bachelors Jackass millionaires Hey, hey, Hollywood Here we come Yeah, when you're a celebrity It's adios reality No matter what you do Even think you're cool Just cause you're on TV Being a celebrity Yeah, celebrity Oh, where's my car? Are you lonesome tonight? Do you miss me tonight? Are you sorry we drifted apart? Does your memory stray To a bright summer day When I kissed you And called you sweetheart Do the chairs in your parlor Seem empty and bare Do you gaze at your doorstep And picture me there Is your heart filled with pain Shall I come back again Tell me dear Are you loved so To love I wonder if You're lonesome tonight You know someone said The world's a stage And each must play a part Fate had me playing in love With you as my sweetheart Act one was where we met I loved you at first glance You read your lines so cleverly And never missed a cue Then came act two You seemed to change You acted strange And why I've never known Honey, you lied When you said you loved me And I had no cause to doubt you But I'd rather go on hearing your lies I dream that love was a crime Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Excuse me. Minutes for approval from March 26, 2015. I believe they were emailed to the commission members. I've heard of no changes or corrections. If anybody has any, please let it be known now. Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move approval of the minutes for March 26, 2015. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of those minutes. please, folks, when it comes up on the screen. Excuse me. Postponements and withdrawals. Do we have any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda? Seeing none, we do have one commission item. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we approve a work session for Thursday, June 18th. Thank you. Do we have a second on that? Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of work session June 18th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. We'll just take a voice vote on that. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes and then also we need one continuation. Mr. Chair, I move for a continuation of the Zoda to June 25th of 2015. The motion has been made and seconded for the continuation of the Zoda Recreational Text Amendment until June 25th, 2015. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Mr. Chairman, before we can put that up on the screen, we did not get the second on the motion to that motion. We did the prior motion. Thank you very much. So, okay. I'll just take a voice. It's coming up, I think. We'll just take a voice vote on that as well. All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Any other postponements, withdrawals? Seeing none, we'll move down. Take the rest of them in order. The first one is shown on page one. It's Boston Road, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment, and Ted Osborne, Thomas Wood, Property Mill Pond, Unit 1B, Section 1A. It's MAR 2015-5, Boston Road, LLC. the commission members do have a revised ZDP that's on a blue sheet before you as well. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. This item appears on page one of your agenda, but it's also behind tab two in your notebooks today. MAR 2015-5, a request by Boston Road LLC. This is a requested zone change to change from a professional office, our P1 zone, to a planned neighborhood residential, which is the R3 zone, for approximately 1.3 acres of property along Boston Road. The subject property really only has about 50 feet of frontage on Boston Road, and it's a triangle-shaped property. here's the frontage and the triangle in white. It is bound by R3 on two sides, and then the other side to the northeast is B6P, our shopping center zone. Generally, the Boston Road area is mostly characterized by residential development with the commercial to the north in the Mill Pond Shopping Center at Boston Road and Man of War Boulevard. this as i mentioned subject property only has a little bit of frontage it is bound on the two sides by r3 both of those sides are currently vacant there is a residential structure on the subject property but it is sited within the p1 portion as it stands today within the area the willow oak neighborhood is to the south and the high plains subdivision is located across Boston Road to the west. This aerial does show that the subject property is mostly treed. There's quite a bit of tree coverage on the property, and you can see that the B6P zoning to the northeast is actually a detention basin that serves the Willow Oak subdivision, and they also consider that part of their open space for the neighborhood, and in fact I've heard several of them mention it as a park location. Also from the area you can see Mill Pond Road is to the northeast, sort of parallel to these other local streets, Mill Pond, Mill Ridge Road and Old Mill Lane, and it is the divide between the commercial side to the north and the more residential side to the south here. The petitioner is proposing to rezone the subject property in order to develop townhomes on the site. They are also proposing to complete the cul-de-sac on Mill Ridge Road with two single-family residences, and then within the P1, what's currently P1, and proposed for R3, and additionally the rest of the frontage on Boston Road, they propose to develop 25 townhomes. Collectively, although they're rezoning 1.3 acres or proposing that, the site itself is about 2.8 acres. So the density of the total site is slightly less than 10 acres, 10 units per acre. In terms of the site itself, this is a view looking at the subject property. approximately, it's hard to tell in the field, where the property becomes adjacent to Boston Road. So it's very near the pond that Willow Oak utilizes for their stormwater. From Grassy Creek Drive, which is opposite of the subject property, tees into Boston Road. This is a view more towards Manowar Boulevard. and then this is a view more towards the county line, really up the hill along Boston Road. From the driveway into a portion of the subject property, again looking towards Manowar Boulevard, just gives an idea of some of the residential across from the site. There are townhomes as well as single-family residential within the area. And then I mentioned there's two lots that exist along Mill Ridge Road, which is the cul-de-sac sort of behind the applicants proposing to complete the residential development along that cul-de-sac. Currently, there is a driveway that there's a driveway from Boston Road to the existing single-family residence, but there's also a way for you to get through that property and exit onto the cul-de-sac currently. So that's a view from the cul-de-sac. As I mentioned, the detention area to the northeast of the subject property, this is that detention pond looking from the Boston roadside and then looking from Old Mill Lane, which is a sort of a hammerhead cul-de-sac to the south of the property. the applicant is proposing this zone change again to develop residential development at this location in terms of the 2013 comprehensive plan the applicant has identified the four goals and objectives that they believe are directly related to their request specifically or more generally theme a which has to do with growing successful neighborhoods and then more specifically objectives that deal with or speak to expanding housing choices within the urban service boundary that address market needs for residents, encouraging infill development throughout the urban service boundary as a strategic component of growth, identifying areas for opportunity in terms of infill development that respect the area's context and character, and then providing well-designed neighborhoods. So the petitioner contends that this proposal is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, and the staff would agree with that contention in terms of the goals and objectives cited. But in addition, the staff believes that the professional office zone at this location is no longer appropriate, and that the R3 zone is appropriate. And there are a few reasons why. First, the P1 zoning is disconnected from any other viable commercial uses in the area. Second, the R3 zone proposed, because the site is already partially zoned R3, the staff believes that that's compatible and certainly appropriate. In addition, the P1 zoning that is currently there, it does, as I mentioned, has a very limited frontage along Boston Road. So if it were to be developed as it stands today, access into the property would be extremely difficult and or it may impact the floodplain that exists just to the northeast. And then lastly, the higher density development along Boston Road, because it's a collector street, does create a good transition between the single family to the south and the commercial further to the north. So the staff and the zoning committee also recommended approval of this proposed zone change, principally for two reasons. First, it's in agreement with the comprehensive plan for the reasons I mentioned in terms of goals and objectives earlier. And then second, because the professional office zone is no longer appropriate at this location, but the R3 zone is appropriate. The last thing is we recommend approval contingent upon the development plan being signed, certified within two weeks of the Planning Commission's action. Be happy to answer any questions about the proposed rezoning. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Yes, ma'am. Tracy, I guess I'm lost on this thing maybe, and that's strange for me. I am seeing what is in our book that is the area that is outlined that you have outlined there. Yes, ma'am. Then on the map, the colorful map, I am seeing that it goes all the way to Boston Road. So is the area that is on the map in yellow, is that the only area that we are looking at the zoning on? Yes. So a portion of the address, 3900, is already zoned R3. And that portion is what is along Boston Road. Here, that's already zoned R3. So the rezoning is only a portion of the property. Okay. Then I have another question. You just made a statement that if it were to remain as it is, that the access would be very difficult. But it appears to me that the access wouldn't change. The access that's there is the access that's there. Generally, the Planning Commission and the staff don't recommend commercial access through a residentially zoned property. So if the frontage along Boston Road remains R3, and we use this site plan as an example, even though a professional office building could be located in the back, they would have to access it through the residentially zoned area, most likely, unless they did a very difficult, I think, access where the frontage exists. Does that make sense? Yeah, thank you. Other questions for Ms. Wade? No. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan that is associated with this unchanged is on page two of your agenda. And, of course, we also have distributed a blue sheet, which has the revised recommendations on the plan as well. and someone walked off this mic. Don't have it. There's no microphone. Go ahead. This is going to prove interesting. I know you can hear me. I'm not sure how they may record me. Is he good? Oh, you got it? There. How we doing? Yeah, we are. There we go. All right. Thank you. here is the proposed development for the property. Here's the Boston Road, north this way. Here is the detention or retention area that you just saw the picture of with the shopping center up in this location towards Manowar, Grassy Creek here. Of course, going out this way, we would be headed towards Jasmine County, out that way towards Windham Hills and that direction. Here is Mill Ridge, Cul-de-sac, as well as Old Mill Lane in this location. The total site is well over two acres, a little under three. The rezoned portion, and here's the line that you were asking the question about, and we've tried to highlight here, this is the P1 portion, and this is the current R3 portion. Of course, if it's rezoned, of course, it will be developed as R3. They are proposing 25 townhouses. These townhouses are two stories, three bedrooms. They're 1,760 square feet apiece, 25 feet in height. There are two single-family homes being proposed here. They are a little over 2,000 square feet, and they have over 4,500 square feet, actually over 4,600 square feet proposed in this lot. This lot is over 6,600 square feet. There are 75 parking spaces required, and they are providing 75. That's based on the bedroom count of three bedrooms per unit. the plan that you see before you is a revised plan the applicants design professionals interacted with the staff considerably in developing this plan that you see before you there were some considerations and concerns early on that staff believes they've done a good job of addressing One of those, of course, as always, is access. What you see before you is a modified access. They originally had two full access points proposed. Staff, as this body is aware, likes to see things lined up for safety purposes. Traffic engineering was out, visited the site, determined that this had poor site distance. That this actually, being offset, had much better site distance. So we are proposing to maintain two-way access at this location. This has been modified to one-way in and one-way in only. And this is to help with our emergency vehicles, fire access, ambulance access, as well as solid waste service. So it helps them circulate through the property. But it will not create a problem with people exiting where there's poor sight distance. Another issue that staff had was landscaping. Again, with the odd P1 and the R3, although you could have zone-to-zone screening here where they develop P1 and R3, R3 to R3 has no zoning requirement. Staff was concerned about landscaping adjacent to the areas that have developed as single-family homes. The applicant has addressed that with a development plan note. where they are proposing an eight-foot fence along the perimeter as well as shrubs and bushes within a landscape buffer to help mitigate their impact on single-family homes. There had been some discussion about pedestrian access. Again, as you all are aware, staff likes to try to encourage pedestrian access and other access points and connections. However, with this property, two issues. one was trying to get access here to the single family with this redevelopment. It didn't seem really practical to try to provide any kind of access through these private lots. The other problem that arose, although there's a walking trail over here in the HOA, there was some concern about that HOA, about sharing their facility, as well as this is the 100-year floodplain, and this is the heavy, this is the purple line here. This is the 25-foot setback, and this is a building setback off the floodplain. Trying to provide any sort of constructed access into the floodplain also involved the floodway, and that has a very heavy regulatory requirement to it. Just didn't seem like a good idea for several reasons. So we're not getting the pedestrian access, but that was an issue that was investigated at staff's request. Here is the proposed detention in this location that you can see. And this is a preliminary. You will see a final development plan. This revision and the blue sheet that you see before you has basically reduced the approvals to nothing but sign-offs, with the exception of item 7, which is to denote that 761 Mill Ridge will require easement releases to become buildable. And what that relates to, and there's a note on the plan that addresses it in these areas. I didn't want to color them up because this plan has a lot of information on it, but there are utility easements, there are drainage easements, and access easements in this area of the property that impact this house on this lot, these townhouses, and this bank of townhouses. So they'll have to deal with getting those easements released prior to actually constructing any of this. And, of course, that would be appropriately done at your final development plan stage. So that's the purpose for number seven. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions? Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. I'm on it today, I guess. So they're going to redraw the lines on lots 781 and 761 because the way I'm looking at it, it doesn't line up straight like the lot line you've got there right at the cul-de-sac at Mill Ridge. They are going to realign them as you see them, yes, ma'am. Okay. And then my next question is, you can't get to the trail yet on this map that we have in our book. It appears that that trail touches this property on the back side there. and you've got it there too, right in that green space. Yes, ma'am. Well, again, with the agreed-upon buffer and the fencing and the trees and shrubs along with the floodway impact on that trail, we didn't feel it would be a good idea to make the connection. And number two, it was our understanding that the HOA was, again, reluctant to share their facilities with people that wouldn't be supporting the maintenance of those facilities. Okay. I think that could be addressed by these people being part of that HOA or inclusion in that HOA in some point. But anyway, if we're supposed to be getting connectivity. That may be something we can revisit at the final development plan if progress is made. Okay. All right. Other questions for Mr. Martin? No. If not, thank you. Thank you. Applicant? Mr. Simpson? Before Mr. Simpson starts, let me just ask others in the audience that wish to speak on this plan. Just a show of hands. Anyone on this plan? Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here today on behalf of Boston Road, LLC. The principal of that particular development is Brian Wood, King Offit as well. King is here today, as is Jeff Pearson, who is the architect of the project as well as the site planner. I won't duplicate what Tracy and Tom have said relative to compliance with the comprehensive plan and meeting the subdivision regulations as well as the zoning ordinances. Suffice it to say that this particular application has already been vetted through the subdivision committee, through the zoning committee, through the technical review committee, and we have received unanimous recommendation for approval at all three of those prior levels. before we even got to the point of that level of review, which is, of course, required in every zone change case. Prior to coming before these various committees, we had two meetings with the neighborhood. We had the first one back in March and the other one in April to discuss our proposal. and I'm going to just briefly share with you what happened in connection with those meetings. And just to be clear, we'll put up my first slide there, kind of dim the lights a little bit. As you can see from the overhead, all of this property is already zoned R3. This property in here, the property that we own is outlined along this line. This is already zoned R3. This is the property that's actually subject to the zone change, about 1.4 acres. Professional office, the detention basin is actually zoned shopping center, B6P. But that's what the starting point was when Brian and King were looking at developing this remnant portion of the Boston Road residential commercial development that was approved many, many years ago. So we're focusing in on 1.4 acres of land today. As you see on that slide, the existing zoned R3 property, which is all that property that's outlined at the Purple Line, Dark Line, along Boston Road up to the cul-de-sac next to the green P1, we could have put 16 housing units on that property based upon the current zoning and not had to go through any kind of zone change or anything to come in with a development plan. plan, go through the requirements of having that approved, but we would not need to have anything re-zoned. We'd be entitled to 16 units. The P1 portion that zoned, we could file a development plan without a zone change to have approximately a two-story professional office, a business development of 17,000 square feet, which would include all the necessary parking requirements. So that was what the existing permit by right to be in compliance with the zone we were entitled to go forward with based upon the current zoning. The next slide, of course, indicates some of the uses that, as you all are very familiar, that could go into the P1 use. Tracy talked about these being compatible with a nearby neighborhood, which I would agree. If you're talking about funeral parlors and urgent treatment centers, hospitals, other kind of businesses, it could be open many different hours during the day and night, would not be compatible with existing residential development. So we came forward with the next proposal, was our first proposal, and as Tom has indicated to you, the initial proposal was we felt like before we met with the neighbors that the folks along Mill Ridge Lane would probably not want access from this street here, Mill Ridge right here, into the development. So we proposed initially to close it off and to build 28 townhomes. We met with the neighbors at the church. It was a very well-attended meeting. We got some feedback at that meeting that there were other concerns they would like to see addressed, including not only limiting access onto Mill Ridge, but also they didn't want to have any access from the development toward their Neighborhood Association Park, which is located over here, which they recently acquired from Ball Homes. They now own that. And the Willow Oak Neighborhood Association actually charges fees, and it's in their deed restrictions that the folks that live within the confines of that subdivision that are subject to those restrictions have to pay certain monthly fees or quarterly fees, whatever the case may be, to help take care of the common areas. And so they're going to have a lot more land to take care of. And we weren't part of that association. This property was not included with Willow Oak and those restrictions. And so we've agreed to limit access from this development into the neighborhood amenities this way. And with the eight-foot fence and the subsequent supplemental landscaping that will go a connection with that fence, in addition to other parts of the development, away from single-family houses. So we made that change. The other change that the neighbors really wanted was to finish out the cul-de-sac right here. with single-family homes rather than townhomes. So the next plan that I'll show you as part of our exhibit is also in the material that I've provided for you. And it shows that now we have two single-family homes on those lots that complement the existing, finishes out the cul-de-sac in terms of single-family homes. And then behind the single-family homes, we would have 25 townhouses, 1,760 square feet at a minimum each. Rather than 28, we now have 25 townhouses. The townhouses are also larger than what we'd initially indicated to the neighbors. There's 1,760 square feet minimum, except those along the detention area will also have walk-out basements with another 800 square feet that could be finished for additional living space. So they're going to be pretty good-sized townhouses. But they wanted to finish the cul-de-sac, have two single-family houses. We agreed to do that. We've also agreed it's not a requirement of the zoning. But we felt like it was appropriate to make these two single family houses that we're creating, to make them part of the Willow Oak Neighborhood Association. They're going to be neighbors on the same street. And so we're going to work with the neighborhood to amend the restrictions to bring these two lots into the association, and they will be assessed monthly maintenance fees or quarterly, whatever it is, to help contribute to the common area. So we're not required to do that as part of the zoning, but as an accommodation to the neighbor's request, we've agreed to work with them, and I'll prepare the necessary legal documents to see that that's instituted. The final plan that we submitted was really in response to discussions with a division of engineering, traffic engineering, and the fire department. But the original two access points off of Boston Road that we put in would allow ingress and egress at both points. When traffic engineering looked at it a little bit more closely as we were going through the process here fairly recently, they indicated that they would prefer just to have an entrance-only location right here and full access a little bit further up so that people would actually just leave the development right here. They could enter and exit here, but only enter right there to deal with the recommendations of traffic engineering. So this is the third change, the last one being just the ingress and egress on the Boston Road to accommodate the recommendations from the fire department and also Division of Engineering. We believe that we have come up with a proposal that has addressed all of the major issues and concerns that were identified at the neighborhood meetings relative to what would be needed to make this more compatible than what we initially showed. But obviously we have some folks here that still take issue with our proposal. But I think the first neighborhood meeting we had about 120 people attend. We had about 45 at the second proposal. And the feedback that we got at the end of the second meeting was that we'd come a long way. And with the commitments that we had placed on the development plan in terms of notes, we can't conditionally zone property that's already zoned which is half the property being R3 but we've placed notes on the development plan that really we aren't required to do as Tom pointed out there's no zone to zone screening between R3 and an adjoining R3 piece of property but we put up the 8 foot fence we have a note that can be enforced by building inspection that that has to be there at all times It will be a, we'll have our own homeowners association. We'll charge maintenance fee to take care of that fence. In addition to that, we've put in the supplemental landscaping that's not required for R3 to R3 zones, which we have here next to these single-family houses. We've instituted supplemental landscaping all along the fence, which also can be enforced by the Division of Building Inspection. And we've put some additional screening next to the single-family houses. here and here, over and above even what the fence and along the fence, that's greening. And we've specified that in a landscaping plan that's attached to our development plan that can also be enforced by the Division of Building Inspections. So there's no question we've gone over and above what we're legally required to do. We've done it at Brian and King's insistence to accommodate to the maximum extent possible neighborhood issues, concerns, and still have a very successful townhome development with plenty of access that's safe and it functions well off Boston Road. We believe, as the Subcommittee on Zoning found, we're in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Our application set forth a basic justification that we were in compliance with the comprehensive plan. And if you note, the staff went one more step in terms of the criteria that you could justify zone change under Kentucky law. And that is they found that the existing P1 zoning, the property that we're really rezoning, the staff also found that they believe that the existing P1 zone is inappropriate and that the proposed zoning, R3, is more appropriate. And that's an additional justification of the law, of course, for you all to approve this zone change. So certainly we endorse the staff's additional justification in terms of the evidence, in addition to being in compliance with the comprehensive plan. But all total, we think we have gone the extra mile to meet with concerns and gone over and above what you all could require us to do to have an approvable development. and we believe it's worthy of your consideration in a favorable manner. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Jeff Pearson is here. Our architect can respond to any questions that you have as well. Fred Eastridge is our engineer. He's here to respond to any questions. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Any questions for Mr. Simpson? Doesn't look like it. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this plan? If not, we'll move on and take those that would like to speak in opposition of the plan. Yes, sir. If you could, please give us your name and address. I'm Michael Talby. I live at 741 Mill Ridge. It's the street that would be finished at the end. I'm sorry, your name? Michael Talby. Talby. Okay. Thank you. I want to start by thanking you for allowing us to come speak on this matter. One of the issues that keeps coming up is what's required, that they're going above and beyond what's required. And they have. They have worked with us more than maybe they need to. I think one requirement that they haven't addressed is why the change isn't necessary. What about the current zoning would mean that 25 townhomes fits anything within the neighborhood? If the demand is there, I don't think it is. It doesn't fit with the current scheme. All the houses around there, there are three condos or townhomes on Boston Road. Other than that, everything else around there in the immediate area is single-family residence. It doesn't fit with the scheme. The office buildings that it's currently zoned for across Mill Pond, the shopping center, Kroger is over there. There's also several, I'm not familiar with all the zoning terminology, but I assume that they're the same type of zone as what it currently is. It is small office buildings. I know there's a dental office over there. I saw that on the list of what the current zoning is, so I'm assuming it would be the same type of thing. The overcrowding that we would get by this I don't think is necessary. It puts an undue strain on traffic patterns, on overcrowding in the schools. The park area that our neighborhood association recently took over has had issues in the past. People coming through and using it, leaving trash that we continually have to clean up. People that don't live in the neighborhood that aren't respectful of the area. This puts an additional 25 homes with, I assume, up to 75 people with three bedrooms approximately that I don't think the park in that area can support. It's an area that our neighborhood goes to gather and enjoy and kids go and play and it doesn't have room for that many more people, that many more townhomes. I imagine our property values in the area because it doesn't match up would go down. When we moved into the neighborhood, part of the reason we moved was it's one way in, one way out. There's a lot of families there. It's single home. It's established. You don't get turnover that you do from, that you're more likely to get from townhomes. There are townhomes up near further to the northwest, the next street up after Mill Pond, if you turn left, basically near Boston and Manowar. Those are frequently for sale. They don't seem to stay full. I don't know where the demand for this would come from when there's similar-sized townhomes nearby that stay empty. I drove through the other day, and I think I saw three for sale signs up there. There's also a newer development on the corner of Winthrop and Manowar that is apartments. Those are having trouble getting filled. The demand for this multifamily scenario in this area just isn't being met. It doesn't seem reasonable to change it. We'd love to have. I understand that it's a vacant property that the owner wants to do something with, and we respect that. We'd love to have put an office building in, one that's going to be used during the day and vacant at night. We would be fine with that. It just doesn't seem like there's the demand for it. And if they continually spread out, you know, you can make the argument, why would we stop there? Our neighborhood, at some point along the line, before I moved there, it's been there 20-plus years, someone came in and set deed restrictions to stop this kind of thing so we could have continuity in the neighborhood, that we wouldn't have mismatched setups, houses, townhomes, apartments. along the line they set that up so it wouldn't progress further. I would encourage you to do the same here, that it's not necessary for this change, that it doesn't fit the scheme of the neighborhood and it puts undue stress on the area that we would have trouble correcting. Thank you. Questions? Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Talby? No? Thank you, Mr. Talby. Others that would like to speak? Yes, ma'am. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Holly B. Bout-Talby. I live at 741 Millridge Road. The one point I would like to make, I know it was said earlier today that there's no need in a neighborhood for a medical office building, but if you look at the Lexington Clinic Veterans Park area, there's a park, there's a medical office there, and it's surrounded by homes. So I don't see how a medical office building would be a bad idea. I know the community and everybody around there, they enjoy having a medical office there, somewhere they can take their kids. It's close. It's close to their neighborhood. I feel like that's a good thing. I know we're also concerned just with overcrowding of schools and the fact that we are surrounded by multiple different homes, townhomes, apartments, what have you, and they're going vacant. So I just can't wrap my head around the need for building more homes if what is around us isn't being occupied. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Tauby. Others that would like to speak? If not, we'll move to any possible rebuttals. Mr. Simpson? I appreciate what Mr. and Ms. Tauby had to say. I have put, however, just for clarification again, in the event that it's needed, the original slide that I had used to illustrate that this is Mill Ridge right in here. The Talbys live over in here. All of this property here, right, this is, we could have townhouses today without a zone change. I mean, there wouldn't even be a hearing about our zone change because it's already approved. So those 16 units that could be built there now in terms of permitted by right based upon what the existing law allows, we're talking about changing the zone from the P1 further north of this property to make it compatible with what we believe the residential corridor that Tracy alluded to in her staff report that's more indicative and more compatible with the homes on Boston Road, Grassy Creek, and also Willow Oak. Obviously, with any infill development on remnant parcels, we know that there's some opposition and some people want to leave it as it is. One of the consequences of leaving this property as it is, as it has been for the past 20 or so years, that it's been the source of attractive nuisance. Kids come in there at night. All sorts of wild and sundry things take place. They recently did kind of a cleanup along the banks of the property and close to it, and the stuff that they found would not be acceptable or suitable for any residential corridor. So by having people live there that are taking care of their property, we're going to eliminate that site as an attractive nuisance, which will make it even more compatible than it has been for the surrounding neighborhood. it. This is not a big increase in density, but it is an important zone change in the sense of continuing with the policy that you all established with the 2013 plan and your predecessors established even in several plans before that, is to take these vacant sites and use them. We're going to be accepting a little bit more density than we used to, 10 or 15 years ago because we've recognized the fundamental importance of preserving the agricultural area of Fayette County. I mean, that is of preeminent importance. This zone change furthers that policy. It furthers the 2013 comprehensive plan and the previous plans. And we believe it's even more sensitive than would otherwise be required, which is why we're asking for your all's approval. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Tobey, Ms. Tobey, any sort of rebuttal with that? He brought up the cleanup that we've recently done with the items found. It was all along Boston Road. We've recently cleared out some of those trees. It's not in the park area that we found that kind of stuff. We walk that park every day. We have a dog and a young baby that we take down there. And the items that were cleaned up, it was basically a drug paraphernalia that we found. And it was along Boston Road, which is indicative that it's coming from people using Boston Road, not the park. So the townhomes wouldn't necessarily correct that part of the problem. I'm speaking of things like just walking along and finding Cheetos wrappers and things of that sort. Also, the property itself is on a fairly steep incline. I know that there's been much more planning involved in all of this. I would hope that that's been addressed as far as the construction. We're having trouble working on fixing the pond itself. I would hate to see during construction wash out from that, get down into the pond, and lower the water levels there even more. I would ask that that's in this considered somewhere. I know that there was a retention basin shown on there. I would just worry that with it being so close to the pond that it would, as construction happens and trees are cleared and dirt is moved, that it doesn't come down into the pond and fill that up even more, making the park more unusable than it potentially could be. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Tobey. Staff, any sort of rebuttals? Nothing? Okay. I'll close this part of hearing and open it up for any questions from the commission members at this point in time. Questions? I can make a motion. If there's no questions, okay. Yeah, I think this is a good fit for that remnant property, so I'm going to make a motion to approve MAR 2015-5 Boston Road for the reasons provided by staff. I'll second. Thank you. The motion's been made and seconded for approval of MAR 2015-5 Boston Road, LLC. Discussion? You want us to discuss it? Discussion? Yes, sir. I think we need to realize that this is the third plan we've seen, and the two homes that are put there to fill out the Bill Ridge Road site was a major concession, and that will do a lot to help some of the concerns that you have because it won't be as dense right in front of your house. And so as we look at this, the subdivision committees looked at this, I don't know, two or three times, and I've seen progress with all three plans. So I'm going to support this motion because I really think that it's better the way it is now. I think they've made a lot of concessions. I think they've addressed a lot of issues, and I don't see any reason not to vote for it at this time. But I want you to understand that we've spent a lot of time looking at this and the traffic situation has been addressed on several fronts. Thank you. Any other discussion? I would just simply concur with what Mr. Penn said. I appreciate you coming and voicing your concerns. And it does seem like that the applicant has worked hard to... I would think meet most of those concerns. The fencing and the buffering, the townhomes are going to access going out on the Boston Road. They're not going to come out the other way. So I think this is a very good plan. And at this point in time, it's set empty as far as P1 is concerned for a long time, and access is difficult. I think this is a better plan. So anybody else? If not, I'll call for a vote. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks, for coming. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. We do have a ZDP. I'm going to move approval of the ZDP 2015-25, the revised staff recommendations. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of ZDP 2015-25. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you once again for coming. We can move on to our next item, which is on page 2. It's MAR 2015-6, No Lie CDC Corporation Zone and Map Amendment for property at 128 Eddy Street and also 128 through 174 York Street. It continues on page 3 of your agenda. And you also have revised staff report on a vanilla sheet of paper that is before you as well. Ms. Weiss. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the commission. This is behind tab three in your notebooks if you're looking for additional information. I believe the revised staff report is also in there on a cream sheet, as well as the applicant's site inventory packet. I don't believe we had handed that out previously, so that's also in your notebook. This is MAR 2015-6, a request by No Lie CDC Corporation to rezone 19 properties on York and Eddy Streets from an R3 zone to the new PUD 2 zone, which is the LuaGuard Planned Unit Development Zone. The properties, as I mentioned, are on York and Eddy Streets, but they are within the area designated by the PUD2 zone to be available for PUD2 zoning. There's one property on Eddy Street on the southwest side, 128. Then there's really five groupings of properties along York Street. There's a large grouping near the water tower, then another four properties, and one more on, again, the southwest side of York Street, and then three more properties on the northeast side of York Street. Everybody see that? And again, that is 19 properties, 18 of which are currently owned by the CDC, and one which they have a contract on. The area is generally characterized by narrow residential lots with a mixture of smaller shotgun and cottage style homes, which were constructed prior to 1935. In addition, the Luegarde area does have business B1 zoning up along North Limestone, and that area is beginning to be populated by neighborhood businesses in that area. And then lastly, the other boundary for the Luegart area generally is the railroad line, the R.J. Corman Railroad line, and a few larger I-1 parcels. And within that area to the north of the subject properties is also historic building the Luegart and Harding Malt Factory. neighbor I mentioned that the whole Lua Gart pud area is also within our infill and redevelopment area so the applicants proposing to rezone these 19 parcels in order to establish a live work district and oriented towards art artists and makers many of the shotgun and cottage style homes have code violations, and so this will allow them to be renovated and or in some cases removed and replaced with similar buildings that are hopefully within character of the existing area. That's the intent. Although the concept of live work has been around for a long time, our zoning ordinance hasn't really allowed that mixture in very many places. In fact, No Lie CDC found several years ago when they had this conceptual idea that our zoning ordinance was really more of a barrier to the project ideas that they had. So they proposed a new zone, the PUD2 zone, in order to accomplish that. In 2014, the PUD 2 zone was implemented, and so that's been on the books for about five months now. And the applicant is proposing this first round of zone. What they see is the first round of zone changes to that zoning category for the properties that they control. But they are still willing to assist other property owners within the area as time goes on, as they committed to several months ago. The Lua Guard zone, as it's laid out in Article 22B of the Zoning Ordinance, its main aim is to support infill and redevelopment, encourage entrepreneurship and creativity, preserve affordable housing, and increase economic activity. With the 2013 comprehensive plan in mind, the applicant provided a justification that they are in agreement with the comprehensive plan and the staff would agree with that assessment. First, because five of the six themes of the comprehensive plan are in line with what the applicant is proposing to do in regard to growing successful neighborhoods, protecting the environment, creating jobs and prosperity, improving a desirable community, and then maintaining the balance between urban and rural land. These themes are furthered by the applicant's proposal and more specifically their work, because they're maintaining affordable housing, creating an environment ripe for entrepreneurship, breaking down our traditional zoning barriers, which have not allowed that in the past, facilitating the creation of new jobs, and then creating jobs where people live. Similarly, the applicant's proposal is in line with the Central Sector Small Area Plan, which was adopted in 2009 by the Planning Commission. Two of the guiding principles are to enhance the urban fabric and to provide adequate and equitable housing, which, again, the staff believes the applicant is working towards those two guiding principles with this proposed rezoning. No development plan is required with a PUD2 rezoning, but the applicant is required to provide a site inventory and analysis, and that is what is the blue packet in your notebooks today. So they've provided that information, and the staff and planning commission, when a development plan will be required, will utilize these recommendations to evaluate those site plans. The staff is supportive of the petitioner's request to rezone these 19 properties, and we are recommending, along with the zoning committee, approval of the proposed rezoning for two or really for one reason that they're in agreement with the comprehensive plan but in line with the three aspects of that the themes and that they're furthering that with their work and then the central area small area plan is also being furthered which is part of our comprehensive plan happy to answer any questions about the rezoning and following that I will speak a little bit more to the site analysis and recommendations that the applicants prepared. Any questions for Ms. Wade at the present time? No? Okay. Continue on. Before we move on I guess I skipped over some photographs. These are the, this is existing housing stock within the area. And one more. I believe this is the Eddy Street property. I just grabbed a few of the sheets. There's, I think, 20 to 25 sheets that they've prepared of information within their site analysis. And I grabbed a couple that I thought were relevant in terms of or provided more information, I guess, for you to view. The site analysis encompassed not just the area, but it also provided more information about tree inventory, drainage, impervious surfaces, information that the Planning Commission would consider if a development plan were brought forward. So that's generally the lay of the land here with an aerial photograph. They also provided more in-depth information about the character of the area in terms of lot widths. You can see quite a few of the properties within the area are less than 40 feet wide, and a good number are even less than 20 feet wide. Building heights, a majority of the buildings within the area are one story, and so this starts to create the character of the area that we know when they do bring in a development plan. The applicant also provided photographs of all the structures within the area as documentation of the character. And then a change since we saw this at zoning committee, the applicant did do a tree inventory of all their existing trees as we would normally see on a development plan. They provided information about the species and the size of all these trees When we compared this to Article 26, we noticed that there are four significant trees within the area, and they are all on the, I guess, southeast side of York Street. Three of them exist on 137 York Street, that property. Two, I believe two burr oaks and an American elm. And then in the backyard of 151 York Street, there's a very large silver maple. So those were brought to our attention. And with the review of their site analysis, the applicant provided a list of six recommendations that they felt were appropriate based on the information that they had gathered. The staff reviewed those and agreed with those six, but also recommended two additional kind of guiding recommendations. So let's go through those. The first three are listed here. preserve the historical fine-graining of the neighborhood by maintaining the narrow lot frontages that characterize the neighborhood. They might not all stay 20 feet in width but I think the applicants intention is that they would remain narrow. Design new structures to be sympathetic to the vernacular historical building forms material and expressions as indicated in the site analysis. Preserve and rehabilitate one or more existing structures as their structural integrity allows to provide for examples of that history of the neighborhood reduce the amount of pervious area as little as feasible in development areas that is don't require over parking for these uses install street trees were not present in term and meeting the LFUCG requirements for spacing and then their last recommendation was with new services no lie would convert power and communications to underground service. The staff in reviewing that thought that there might be two more we should include. First, to design accessory structures and uses to complement the primary structure in terms of scale, massing, and architectural features so that they continue to create and build on that character. And then second, to protect the significant trees that do exist within the area. At this point, we have information on those 19 properties, So those four trees, I believe it's important to protect those. And if they can't be protected, that there be a mitigation plan brought forward in terms of developing that canopy again. The staff then has two findings for, I guess, acceptance of this site analysis and the eight recommendations. The applicant has provided the documentation for the Lewigart PUD 2 zone. as required in the zoning ordinance, and this information has been utilized to draft those guiding recommendations. And then the six recommendations, in addition to the staff's two, will help ensure that changes planned in this area remain complementary to the remainder of the neighborhood. I'd be happy to answer any questions about that analysis, and the applicant is here as well to speak to their application. Mr. Wilson. Yes, Ms. Wade. I think we've covered this a little bit in our subcommittee on the zoning, but I just want to get clarification on it. Those properties that were in code violation, they're already owned by this no-leak CDC corporation? Yes. Okay. And for those people that are in those homes that might be still renovated, additional living spaces would be provided for them while they're renovating that particular area? Is that your understanding? Yes, they have a plan for if a particular structure is in place and there's someone living there, that they would provide a new or rehabbed structure. They wouldn't move someone out until a new structure was in place or available for that person, if they were willing to stay in the area. And the one thing I forgot to ask at the other meeting is that if a person is moved out and then is moved back in, how will the financing take place? If they already own the home that they have, how does it work? I don't think, again, these structures are all owned by the No Lie CDC. All of them are. Right. So with one exception, which they have a contract on. Marty Clifford owns that one. So they're currently in either rental or vacant. I see. So they're not owner-occupied. Let me follow that with one other quick question. And if it's a rental situation currently, once these homes are modified, is there the assumption that the rental fee will go up? I think they are working to maintain it utilizing the grants. Okay, good. Thank you. Other questions? Yes, sir. This is just what is the soil map in this area? What's the reason for that? That's something that's required by the ordinance. We asked for a soil map if a development plan is required. At this point, there's no development plan required. That was my point. So the staff just asked if it was available, and so they found the historic soil maps for this area and provided them. They did comment that really this area has been modified over the 200 years. It's an urban environment, So the historical soil, while it might have that characteristic, there are things that have happened over the last 200 years that probably have modified the soil. I'd say a lot of things have modified the soil. My question was why now, because I don't see this as a development plan. Maybe at some point it gets to be, but to read it. Yeah, well, right. Typically our development plans do have soil information on them, usually for engineering purposes. Thank you. Other questions? If not, thank you, Ms. Wade. Thank you. applicant good afternoon mr. chairman and commissioners and staff and everyone my name is Brandon Cohn representing no lie CDC and with me here today is no lie CDC executive director Richard Young our Louie Gart makerspaces project manager and architect Chris Nunn and no lie CDC's two interns Kelly Moore who's a a rising senior at UK, and Jake Pernod, who is a rising junior at Alford State in Buffalo, New York. I don't have a lot to add to Tracy's presentation today because we talked a lot about No Lie CDC and the organization's mission and sort of the bigger vision and other associated projects for this project when we went through the text amendment process last year. I just wanted to add a couple of details to some of the things that Tracy mentioned. at the time of our text amendment no lie cdc represented to you all and other city officials that we were going to come back and try to seek rezoning of our full property holdings as soon as possible at this time and so tracy mentioned we have 19 qualifying properties that we're asking to have rezoned today 18 owned by no lie cdc and one owned by marty clifford of the 18 properties that we own, 14 are currently vacant, four are non-owner occupied, and we just now have the first family who has successfully completed their financing arrangements with our partners Community Ventures in order to go ahead and be the first family to move from non-owner occupied to occupied owner status. And then obviously whether people want to choose to remain renters or owners is up to them in every case. But there are 171 total properties that qualify within this Louis Guard area for potential rezoning. Tracy mentioned that we committed, and you'll remember that we committed to helping other property owners who weren't sure whether they wanted to have rezoned their properties or not to go through this process. And, Mr. Penn, part of the reason for including even the soil maps is we wanted to include in our site analysis and recommendations as much information as could be helpful to future applicants and then, again, to ourselves in the future and subsequent rounds. But we commit to come back at least every six months or as sort of economies of scale allow if people want to come back and rezone however many properties at a time just so that we can make the amount of fees that we have to pay reasonable for the organization. Also, at the time of the text amendment, we expressed confidence that this project and the PUD2 creation and rezoning would result in other positive developments for the area outside sources of investment. And not only has the Knight Foundation awarded $550,000 to No Lie CDC for work in areas adjacent to and right next to the Louis Gard Makerspaces project, you're probably familiar with that news. And they awarded that in part due to what they thought was so innovative about this project. But the Knight Foundation has now also extended a 0% revolving line of credit to $200,000 for the organization to build homes. So we're really pleased with the investment that we've seen thus far in the project. we agree with staff's new two recommendations that appear in today's staff report and have no issues with any of those and Mr. Wilson if you had questions about the transition process or some of the home ownership programs Richard and or Chris can answer those for you but unless you have any other questions we submit our application as it stands thanks thank you Mr. Cohen any questions for Mr. Cohen? You're good? Okay. Okay. Did you want to ask? I got the answers, I think, from if you agree with what Ms. Wade's answers was, then I'm okay. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Others that would like to speak in regards to this? Let me see a show of hands real quick. Anybody like to speak? Okay. Looks like it's a small group, so please come forward. Please give me that. My name is Georgia Cohen. I live at 145 York Street. We need you on records. You started a little quick. You're up to the microphone now, so go ahead. Start again. That's okay. My name is Georgia Cohen. I live at 145 York. And my concerns is that a lot of them, they wouldn't let tear down the houses and rebuild or do a whole lot of things to them. Okay. Now, they let these people come in here and buy these houses up real cheap, which I'm not, you know, trying to knock anything. But then they can get the zone changed. And we don't need something tore down like some of these houses, which I know if they're in bad shape, they need to be maybe. But all by the same token, we don't need a park down there for attics to lay around and all that kind of condition. Because we've got enough problems over there as it is. And that's why I got to say. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Others that would like to speak? Anyone else? No? Yes? Come forward if you'd like to. Hi, I'm Joseph Cole. That was my mother. We've resided over here my entire life. I think, you know, really we're just, we're kind of, we're wondering where this is going, like, with, like, why would you want a merchant, you know, like, to be able to be, to sell goods out of your house? You know, this is, there's not really a lot of parking there. You know, we have trouble with, you know, drug dealers and, you know, all this stuff has been going on for years. You know, this is, it's a bad area. But this is just, you know, like, concerns that we have of, you know, where this is going and if there's hidden agendas behind it. And, you know, because there's not really, it's never really been like that, you know, like, because this is for a merchant, right? Do you understand what I'm saying? Yes, sir. And let us, you know, what I'd offer, let us hear from you. And I would ask Mr. Cohn to come back and provide a brief statement. But do you have anything else, Mr. Cohn? Nothing I can think of, no. Okay. I don't really. All right. Hold on just one second, Mr. Cohn. Anyone else that would like to speak? No? Okay. Yes, Mr. Cohn. Well, and I'll just, you know, take note. We are moving to the rebuttal stage at this point. Okay. I'll try to address the issues that I thought I heard. I heard the first speaker ask a question sort of about demolition versus renovation of existing structures, and also a question about sort of the economics of the housing and will rents be affected. I'm going to ask Richard in a moment to talk about the homeownership program that goes along with this and ask Chris, our architect, to talk about when we can renovate existing structures versus when they are better off to be redesigned and rebuilt to look like newer versions of what's consistent with what's been there historically. And then the second speaker, I think, asked about sort of the nature of commerce in and out of homes and how that relates to maintenance of the neighborhood as it sort of looks and feels and acts and functions today. And I think that to address the last issue first, and it touches on the first couple issues, the intent is not to transform the look and feel and characteristics and flow of this historic neighborhood, but to preserve them and to renovate them and to reinvest in them. And so in terms of maintaining the feel and the live-work commercial nature of the properties, part of the reason that there's no new big parking lots and that we're trying to preserve the built environment in the form that it exists so that a big store can't easily come and plop something down in the middle of the neighborhood, it's to really limit the nature of commerce that's going on there. the businesses that exist along limestone now is where you'll see anything that's of any sort of significant intensity for the most part in terms of commerce and maybe if you guys want to come talk about the things that I asked you to talk about respectively if you want to talk about why don't you talk about the built environment and then you can talk about the home ownership program introduce yourself thank you Chris Nunn with NOLI CDC to speak specifically to Ms. Cole's concern about tearing down versus renovating. I'm sorry? Go ahead. We've sort of learned the hard way that renovating these houses is a big money-losing adventure. The way that they were initially built, many of them were built with scrap materials and things that basically whatever they could get their hands on. And so when you get into these structures and start looking at their soundness, most of them are compromised, if not condemnable. So we renovated one structure, paid a premium to do so. And so in order to maintain affordability, our approach moving forward is to deconstruct, salvage, and build new structures that will meet those affordable criteria. So that is the process that if we want to achieve those affordability goals, that is the approach that we are committed to in terms of providing well-built, energy-efficient structures. And in terms of the, I just wanted to speak a little bit more about the nature of the community. And just in talking to people on York Street, on Eddy Street, there are a lot of people who do have entrepreneurial ambitions. And the goal with this is to reduce the barrier to being able to do that, to be able to work from your home, to be able to bring employees into your home as opposed to having to have a separate office space, having to have a separate retail space. These are all things that we discussed during the text amendment. But that is really the intent to respond to the historic character and augment the number of options that the community does have within that framework. And then I'll speak a little bit to the home ownership. Give us your name real quick. Oh, sorry. My name is Richard Young. I'm with the Northamston CDC as well. So in regards to rentals, prices increases, and homeownership, affordability is one of the main goals of this. We've been in conversations for an extended amount of time with the Affordable Housing Trust Fund about trying to work with them to try and help keep the prices of these properties low. As Chris mentioned, we found out the hard way that renovation can be expensive and new construction can be expensive as well. So trying to ensure that these properties are at a value where someone's monthly mortgage is around the same as rent prices. And so we're looking to sort of aim for construction in the $65,000 to $75,000 range at the price of sale. And we're actively working with the tenants that we already have and tenants that we inherited from previous property owners to work them through programs with United Way and with Community Ventures Corporation so that they can have the chance to own one of these properties new. So really trying to transition people that were renting at the time that we acquired the properties and transition them into homeownership. And we've been sort of walking them through that process all along. And also if people don't want to own the house, that's fine. and we are working with some methodologies to help get the rents down so that it is, again, a very affordable and accessible price point. Okay. Did I add one other thing? Yes, sir. One of the things I did want to point out is Richard mentioned the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and the way in which we are projecting to impose deed restrictions on these to maintain affordability is something we feel is very important to this overall plan. So while obviously the zone change is a critical component to it, there are a lot of other moving parts that come together to sort of meet that overall goal of affordability. And also to Mr. Cole's point, I want to point out that the residential component is maintained within the PUD 2 zone and that all of the other uses are above and beyond and are not necessarily permitted without meeting other accommodations in terms of egress, exiting code requirements such as that. So effectively switching from the R3, converting from the R3 to the PUD2 zone maintains the residential nature as the baseline and then adds other permitted uses to that. So I wanted to just point it out to Joe that we had taken that consideration as well. Thank you. Yes, sir. In closing. I just want to make sure that we're answering their questions to the best of our ability. I believe so. I talked to Chris several times. Come to the microphone. Yeah, I believe so. I've talked to Chris. I've talked to him several times. It's not that we're wanting to stop development. I think that's a good thing what they're doing for the neighborhood. I can see a change and then air about it. but in the same token, you know, plenty of people work out of their home with their laptop or whatever but don't need a permit for it. You know, I'm sure you work it out of your home. I do too. I mean, everybody does to some extent. So whenever you have, you know, whenever you want to change the zoning for this, to me it shows like, you know, you've bought all this property and it makes you wonder, you know, is there some type of intent behind there other than what's really been spoken? You know, that's, you know, just people's concern. You know, like I say, you know, it's not, you know, so much as, you know, I do think that they're trying to do something good with the neighborhood. I think it needs that. And it needs, you know, the facility of somebody new and fresh coming through. But, you know, but yet, you know, there's people who have been there their whole lives. And, you know, this is, you know, that's what they have. Okay. Yeah, I think we understand where you're coming from, and I think the Cones and New Guard people do as well. So thank you. Mr. Penn, you've got a question? Yeah, I wanted to ask the Cone. Yes, sir. As we go forward with this, and I salute your project. I think it needs to be done. I think it's a visionary. It's a way to go with this. At what point do we know, do we have the infrastructure to support the rehabbing of these houses? Is sewer and water adequate there? Is the city going to have to step up at some point and help you with this as far as infrastructure? Do you see that coming down the road? Well, I think that there's the vital infrastructure, the utilities and such that my understanding is completely provided. We don't need help with those sorts of things. But in terms of streetscape improvements and the sort of, I don't want to call them cosmetic because too often they're only thought of as cosmetic, but some of those more placemaking streetscape improvements. Do you want to talk about what's? I can narrow this a little bit by saying to you, are we just as committed to making this a viable, working, useful neighborhood and putting in the infrastructure that it takes to make that? rather than just rehab one home at a time. And I see this PUD thing as giving you the vehicle to do that. I just want to be sure we're all on the same page because you have neighbors down here that have some concerns, and change is not easy for anybody. Right. Yeah, and, in fact, if you want to talk about – I know we're not here to talk about any of the other NoLive CDC projects, what's going on at the Water Tower and such forth, but if you want to maybe briefly touch on that for Mr. Gold's benefit or for anyone in the audience included. Well, Mr. Penn, to address your first point, I think because of the small-scale nature of the recommended uses, the anticipated additional strain on the infrastructure is going to be fairly limited. Just because we're not just, if you look through the principally permitted uses list, there's not anything that's going to be very intensive in terms of strain on water service, storm sanitary, things like that. That being said, the infrastructure in that area is very dated and it's already very outdated. And I think regardless of how that is used in the future, that's going to have to be addressed on a city level. Hopefully our emphasis on that area can spur along some improvement in that area. But I would say that at this point, regardless of how it's used in the future, that's going to need to happen. I don't want to believe it. The only reason I brought this out was that when I first saw this, when you all first started this, I thought, man, this is a great idea. It's got about a 20% chance of being successful. Now I see 19 coming in there. I see neighbors that are questioning this. And I want everybody to understand that this is a pilot program. This is a program that really we haven't done a lot in Lexington that could be a very good model. but you want the neighbors to buy into it just as much as you want us to buy into it. And I think to that point we've had a lot of discussion about seeing as believing, and I think there's a lot of conjecture right now about what it's going to be and how it's going to function. What we tried to do is work with Tracy and the planning staff to develop a framework to allow flexibility, but the reality is that there needs to be this first wave of buildings and uses within the PUD definition in order to demonstrate how that's going to work so that Joe and Georgia can look at it and say, that's what they're talking about. Because I know that any time you propose something different and something new, there's always apprehension about it. There's apprehension about the negative consequences of it. And we try as we might to avert all of those things. It is a concern that we understand is very real. So I think that what we are trying to do with the 19 properties that we own is to provide a sample section that will demonstrate how that can work, and then, you know, from there, hopefully get the community buy-in based on that demonstration. Thank you. Any other questions? We'll move on as far as questions from the commission at this point. No? Thank you, sir. Thank you, folks. If there's no further questions, then I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motions at this time. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. That works too. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of MAR 2015-6, no lie, CDC Corporation. You need a second motion, don't you, for the red zone? Yeah, we'll take them one at a time. I can decide analysis. Okay. Okay, motion's been made and seconded for approval of MAR 2015-6, no lie, CDC Corporation. Any discussion? Yeah. Yes, ma'am. I have a little bit of concern, I guess, as I'm looking at this thing. We've got pods of properties together, and then we've got random properties out here. What we're doing here is spot zoning, and that's really bothering me. When we change zoning normally, like what we have done previous today, it has been a large quantity of land or whatever, but I just have a real problem spot zoning these little outlying properties. So I just wanted to go on record and say that. And the other thing I'm real concerned about is keeping prices low, keeping the property prices down, what's that doing to the property values of the other property owners there that may find that they maybe, I don't know, win $100,000 in the lottery and they want to stay where they are and they want to improve their property. You're holding down the property values, and that gives me some heartburn of holding down property values and trying to keep them down in the area. And I understand we need to provide affordable housing. I don't have a problem with that, but I have a problem when we start spot zoning, and then we start messing around with the economics of a neighborhood. So I just have to say that. Other discussion? let me let me just say that what miss mundy brought up was a concern originally during the text amendment um i believe in that discussion you know i hate to say there's a leap of faith here but there you know uh this is a new concept for the most part the concept isn't new but it's one of the first times we've seen it here in the area. And I think it's got to start somewhere, and it would be nice to have all 18 or 19 contiguous, but that's not always possible. I think this will get the ball rolling, and there will be watchful eyes. And I think, you know, this will be contagious, so to speak. And, you know, they mentioned the fact that hopefully every six months we'll be seeing them with an increase in what they're doing. And the spots, the vacancies will fill in at that point in time. So, other questions, discussion? If not, we do have a motion on the floor for approval. And I believe it was seconded. Was it not? Yes. And it was seconded. This is for MAR 2015-6, no like, CDC Corporation. I'll ask for a vote at this time. That motion passes. Now we do need one as far as a revised staff report for the approval of the site inventory. Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am. I move that we approve the site inventory and site analysis review, including the site analysis recommendations and the staff recommendations. Thank you. The motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Wilson for approval. Any discussion on this motion? If not, I'll ask for a vote. Please vote when it comes up. That motion passes as well. Thank you, folks. Thank you, neighbors and friends, for coming down. we'll move on to to what's that? You want a brief recess? We're being asked for a brief recess so we'll take just a five minute recess before we move on to our 2015-5 it's an amendment to the text and regulation of day shelters I believe Whoops, I thought I saw Miss Wade here. Oh, there's Miss Wade. She will lead us through this. I was almost reminiscent of my wedding day. Everybody's watching me walk down an aisle. Sorry. Sorry, you all don't compare, though. Sorry. Okay. Our next item is on page four of the agenda, and I believe it's in tab four of your notebooks. This is ZODA 2015-5, a text amendment initiated by the Urban County Council to articles, changes to articles 1, 8, and 23 of the zoning ordinance. at your seat. The staff report is going to be in your notebook, but there are two items that Ms. Cunningham put at your seat. One is the full text, which we talked a little bit about last week. And as you go through that, if you look through it, we've highlighted in pink where those changes are. There's not going to be a change on every page, but they are highlighted to kind of draw them out for you. And then there's a one-page summary which states how is it currently regulated and how is it proposed to be regulated, it being day shelters. So the proposed text amendment is to modify the definition of day shelter in Article I of the zoning ordinance and then to adjust regulations to that use to be permitted in additional areas of our community, And those are the changes in Article 8 and 23 of the zoning ordinance. The text amendment proposes for day shelters to be regulated in a similar manner to how community centers are currently regulated in the zoning ordinance. And the Planning Commission, because this was a text amendment initiated by the council, has 60 days to review it. So if it's not acted on today, we will have to, or the Planning Commission will need to act within two weeks. Currently, a community center is permitted in several zoning categories and is a principal use in several of our business zones. But day shelter, which in some cases is serving the same clientele, is more restrictive. Prior to 2012, day shelters, those uses were considered community centers. But in 2012, we had a text amendment that came to the Planning Commission, also initiated by the council. And then when it was forwarded from the Planning Commission back to council, it changed. The changes resulted in two definitions, one for adult daycare center, which you probably remember that discussion, and the second was for day shelter. When the council looked at it in committee, they decided to split those two uses apart from each other and regulate them differently. They made the adult daycare center principal uses in the five zones, P1, P2, B1, and our B2 zones. But they made day shelters a conditional use in those five zones, so they made them more restrictive. the issue comes up where oftentimes those two uses a community center for overnight care happens in some cases and the day shelter for day care or day support for individuals would be co-located on the same property so that's where it has become an issue or the idea of it has become an issue in terms of co-location of services for people who perhaps are homeless. The Department of Law began reviewing and scrutinizing both the definition and regulation of day shelters when a complaint was filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development regarding the way community centers and day shelters are defined by our zoning ordinance. that review by the law department has resulted or the HUD complaint has resulted in it being forwarded to the Department of Justice. And that has spurred a little bit more action in terms of addressing those inconsistencies. So the complaint basically asserted that the current ordinance was a violation of the Fair Housing Act, which provides some level of protection for our nation's homeless population. A community center would permit overnight accommodations, but a day shelter would provide the day services associated with the same group of individuals. So even though they're serving the same population, they're currently regulated in a different way. The proposed text amendment, its aim is to reconcile that and to make day shelters similarly situated or similarly regulated as the community centers. That would make a day shelter a principal use, just like a community center, in seven of our zones, and they're all business zones. the professional office, neighborhood business, downtown business and downtown business frame, office, industry, and research park zone, planned shopping center zone, and the expansion area community center zone. And then it would, in addition, make day shelters a conditional use in four zones. The three higher density residential zones, our three, our four, and our five, and then our light industrial zone. And again, that's consistent with community centers. where we say it's a principal use, that means it's by right. If it's a conditional use, it needs Board of Adjustment approval, and there's mailed notice that occurs with that to 500 feet property owners. The text amendment also proposes redefining day shelter, and one of the aims was to remove the term homeless. So the day shelter definition really is aiming towards the same concept, but it's a different way to say it without addressing particularly if someone might be homeless or not. Although no new day shelters have been requested in Lexington since the adoption of the previous text amendment, it is still, in the staff's mind, appropriate to modify this text to address any of the perceived inequities with it. It's logical as well for day shelters and community centers to be treated or regulated in the same manner. In addition, that will allow for the co-location to occur in a more, I guess, easy way. If you need a conditional use for the day shelter, you also need it for the overnight stay. And again, if it's principal, same treatment. The staff believes that this is in compliance with at least one of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, which is under theme D, improving a desirable community. And that has to do with providing accessible community facilities to meet the health, safety, and quality of life needs of all of our citizens or residents and visitors. So the staff is recommending, and the zoning committee as well, recommending approval of the text amendment. For two reasons, the proposed text amendment will regulate day shelters in the same manner as our community centers, which will facilitate co-location. The amendment will also more clearly define a day shelter. And the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance are supported by the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. I'm happy to answer any questions. And if I'm not able to, I know our legal counsel or director will help. Any questions for Ms. Wade or anyone? No? Thank you. Thank you. Others that would like to speak in regards to this text amendment? No? Okay. We can move on. And if there's no questions, no other discussion, we'll move to the motion phase, I guess. Yes, sir? Mr. Chairman, I move approval for ZOTA 2015-5 Amendment to the Definition and Regulation of Day Shelters. Motion's been made and seconded for approval. I'll be zoned at 2015-5, amendment to the definition and regulation of day shelters. Any discussion? I guess I should say that would be with staff recommendations. Okay. No further discussion. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Commission items? I think we've taken care of that. Staff items? Yeah. We're coming to it. Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah, one way or the other we're getting to that. I don't think we need that. Ms. Rackers, you're next. And this would be on YouTube. So our one and only commission item today is PFR 2015-4, and that's a request by Fayette County Public Schools for property at 2000 Winchester Road, which is on the south side of Winchester Road, and that is their purchase of the property and the construction of a new high school. We have property is outlined in black right here. This is Winchester Road, Sir Barton Way. Patch and Wilkes Drive is along here, and Meeting Street comes down along here, and it ends about right there, and then it's projected to come down along the school property. And I assume that it's going to eventually connect to Sir Barton Way, but I'm not sure. This is Tuscany subdivision here, Patch and Milk subdivision over here, and then there's a residential development over here. The executive office park is there on that side of the street. What they intend to do is to build a two-story structure that will contain about 286,000 square feet. it'll accommodate 1800 students and they'll also have athletic fields and tennis courts the 2013 plan as we know has no land use recommendations anymore for specific properties and so we look to the 2007 plan a lot of times to see what the land use recommendation would be the last recommendation was for medium density residential and that has been in place for at least 19 years this This was originally part of a larger tract. It is vacant right now. It's 65 acres, and it's zoned R3. It was part of a larger tract that was rezoned in 2003 from AU to P1 in R3. The R3 was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and the P1 was based on appropriateness. That was where the YMCA, the new YMCA, was going to be located, but that has since been moved further south along Sir Barton. In the 2013 plan in the community facilities chapter, it discusses Fayette County Public Schools, but the 2001 and the 2007 plans give more detail and more background information as far as the school system's needs. Each plan also states Fayette County Public Schools' intent to provide more schools at all levels, elementary, middle, and high schools, in all of Fayette County. And the 2001 plan identified a proposed high school on the eastern portion of the county, in the eastern portion of the county. It was more northeast of here, though. It was in the expansion area on the outside of the interstate. This is the property that was purchased, though. It was purchased from Mr. Haymaker, who is the developer of a lot of the residential in the area. And then in the 2007 plan, there was a map of existing and proposed high schools. And the 2007 plan indicated a lack of coverage in the western and the eastern portion of the county. The students from those portions of the county, in addition to the northern portion of the county, all attend Bryan Station High School. And that has led to a situation of overcrowding. And these two are the only high schools, well, this high school and the one that's going to be over close to UK are the only two high schools that are proposed for right now. They don't have another one proposed, and that is not even under discussion. They have been discussing redistricting for the last several months, and busing and overcrowding are two of the factors that precipitated those discussions. And all of the schools, both existing and proposed, have factored into the discussions for redistricting, and they have led to a final recommendation. If you would put the map up there, Chris, the next, please. This is the redistricting latest map that they have. and the dark lines are the existing school districts, and then the shades of green up there are the new proposed districts. So this will be, well, okay. This will be Henry Clay. Actually, this, yeah, this will be Henry Clay's district. This will be the proposed high school district, which will come all the way and take some students, lots of students from Bryan Station High School. It'll take some from Lafayette, and it'll take several from Henry Clay, but not as many as from Bryan Station. That should help with the busing situation and the overcrowding situation that they experience. In all three of the comprehensive plans, 2001, 2007, and 2013, there is nothing but support in either the goals and objectives or in the text. And the 2013 goals and objectives are on page 3 of your staff report. One of the recommendations that's been stated in the 2013 plan in the community facilities section is that we should support Fayette County Public Schools' proposal to build two new high schools, one new middle school, and four new elementary schools. And all of those schools are in the process at one stage or another. Then in addition to the comprehensive plan, the Greenway Master Plan, which is an adopted element of the Com Plan, discusses schools as they relate to access to and from residential neighborhoods, There are two goals and one objective that are applicable there, and those are on page four of your staff report. And as I showed you, the residential developments, there are single-family and multifamily in the area of the school, or the proposed school site. And if you could put the last one up there, Chris, please. There is a sidewalk connection from the building to Meeting Street. Actually, there are two. It's kind of hard to see. but there is one over in this area here and there's one down in this area here and then winchester road does not have any sidewalks yet but there is a it looks like a sidewalk connection that could be connected to winchester road up in the top portion and i can i get this thing to work up in this area, that will be if sidewalks are ever put on Winchester Road, then that could be probably connected. It could be extended. Destination 2040 is another document, and it has several goals and action plans that relate to this that support the construction of the new high school. And the construction is scheduled to begin in June. They just had the bid date in May, and construction is scheduled to begin in June, and they plan to be open and operational by August of 2017. One of the school system's goals is to become a world-class school system by 2020, and they intend to do that by providing safe, aesthetically pleasing, and state-of-the-art facilities for their students. And that is part of the new construction. It's part of the renovations that they've been doing. An objective in the 2013 comprehensive plan that speaks to this is one that refers to green building technology and use of energy star materials, sustainable development. Both the architect and the landscape architect, who are both here today, said that they're not going to pursue LEED certification, but there will be use of green technology and energy star materials, and that will enable the site and the building to meet sustainability goals that reflect the LEED gold and silver certification criteria. The medium density land use recommendation of the 2001 and the 2007 plans reflect the current zoning, and the current zoning allows a school for academic instruction as a conditional use, which means that it has to go to the Board of Adjustment, and with appropriate conditions, it can be as acceptable and appropriate in a residential zone as residences can. That, in conjunction with the goals and objectives in the text of the plan and the Greenway Master Plan and Destination 2040, also provides support for this project. and we find this to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. There are four recommendations. Those are listed, hopefully, in your agenda. That would be that the design of the building and the site remain true to energy and sustainability goals that reflect LEED's silver-to-gold criteria, in order that the school site will be as energy-efficient as possible in its construction and function as an educational institution. Second is there are only two small areas that appear to be designed for stormwater detention, And although there's a regional stormwater management system in place implemented by the developer of much of the area, it should be verified by the Division of Engineering that the stormwater management system is adequate to accommodate the addition of the school site. Three, should sidewalks ever be implemented along Winchester Road, the pedestrian walkway that adjoins the parking area in front of the school building be continued to provide pedestrian and bicycle access to Winchester Road. This will help to implement the Greenway Master Plan, which is an adopted element of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, carried over to the 2013 comprehensive plan. And then lastly, that off-street parking areas be landscaped and screened as much as topography and underlying geology will allow to be consistent with vehicular use area screening requirements of Article 18. And I've been told that there is a lot of rock in that location where the parking area is, so they may not be able to do as much as we would like, but they will do as much as possible. And if you have any questions about the staff report, I'd be happy to answer them. Chris Howard is here, who is the landscape architect. Susan Hill is here, who is the architect for the project. If you have any questions about the site or the building construction. I think Mr. Cravens has a question. Is that the only plan we get to see right there? Yes. I can't see it very good. Is there any way you can make it dark, Chris? You didn't bring one, did you? I can bring it up and should. Does it go out on Winchester Road? I can't see anything about it. Bill has it for you. If I remember, Ms. Rackers, there's not access out onto Winchester Road, is there? No, it'll be from Meeting Street. Right. Well, there actually will be access from Winchester Road. There will be? Yeah. There's a parking lot up between the school building and Winchester Road, and then there's a parking lot that's over closer to Meeting Street. Is that a full access, or is it right in, right out? First. Chris Howard with Carmen. What was your question there, Mr. Craig? Well, I was on a plan. I can see this one. But does it, the access that on Winchester Road, is that a full access or is that a right in, right out? No, it's full access. We're currently working with District 7 and traffic engineering, going through a traffic study on how that intersection will be signalized and kind of what the return lane requirements are going to be. It is anticipated right now that will be a signalized intersection with both deacceleration lane right turn into the property and a left turn into the property. So is that for the school buses or are they coming in the other way? No. The school buses are off meeting. It's the last access point on Meeting Street on the southeast side. That is the only, that is the access point for schools by season. Do they come in? They will. I forget the name. They will come in off Patchen. Patchen, they come in. And actually, from what Ms. Rackers said, that regarding Meeting Street, there is an agreement in place with the developer that Meeting Street will be complete to Sir Barton. prior to the opening of school. So that will be, so that gives some relief off Patch and Wilkes that Meeting Street will go all the way to Surbarton. So bus traffic will be both Patch and Wilkes and Surbarton. They won't really stagger everything into one location. And to kind of finish up that vehicular circulation, and parents and students will also enter off of Meeting Street. That's the encouraged location. Just on the way the site lays out is that the Meeting Street is the most direct route to drop-off pickup and student parking, and that primarily the Winchester Road access point is primarily for visitors during special events. Other questions? Thank you, Mr. Howard. Thank you. There's no other questions. We can close this part. And as you all know, this would be just a finding, a motion for finding that this is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. And noting the recommendations from the staff. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I move that the Planning Commission has reviewed this and finds that it is in comprehensive plan and that we approve this based on the recommendations of staff. Thank you. Motion's been made in second and four approval of PFR 2015-4. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Any other commission items since we're in commission items? Any other staff items now? I think we took care of the work sessions coming up in June. Obviously, committees are next week. And audience items, we don't have an audience left. So I think we've completed everything. I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Thank you, folks.