# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - September 24, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 24, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3777 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3777?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-09-24 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 31,102 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on September 24, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting. The Commission considered eight agenda items during the session, which included zoning map amendments and subdivision zoning development plans. The Commission took 18 votes and heard 3 public comments. Of the eight items presented, six were approved, one was denied, and one was postponed. The approved items included Cave Hill Townhomes; the Greer Land Company Zoning Map Amendment and Riddell Plaza, Lot 3 (Parker Property) Zoning Development Plan; the Continental Real Estate Zoning Map Amendment and Coons Property, Tract 1 (AMD) Zoning Development Plan; Greer Neck Road LLC Zone Change and Gibson Park Subdivision; William R. Embry, Jr. and William R. Embry III, DBA TWP Housing Zoning Map Amendment; and Journeys End, LLC Zoning Map Amendment and Leastown Heights Subdivision, Lots 2 through 7, Zoning Development Plan. The Capkey Bluegrass Properties, LLC Zoning Map Amendment and Story Business Subdivision, Lot 6, Waller Avenue, Self Storage proposal was denied. The Dr. Michael Gentry Zoning Map Amendment and Cadentown Subdivision Zoning Development Plan was postponed. ## Attendance **Present:** Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Carolyn Plumlee, Carolyn Richardson, and William Wilson **Absent:** Frank Penn and Joseph Smith **Late arrivals:** None ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included 19 votes, all of which passed unanimously with 9 ayes and 0 nays, except for one motion that failed. **Procedural Matters** Approval of minutes from August 27, 2015 passed unanimously [timestamp: 0:22:08]. All nine members voted in favor: Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Carolyn Plumlee, Carolyn Richardson, and William Wilson. The motion was made by Mr. Cravens and seconded by Ms. Richardson. **Postponements and Amendments** Postponement of MARV 2015-8 (Dr. Michael Gentry Zoning Map Amendment) to October 22, 2015 passed unanimously [timestamp: 0:23:44]. Acceptance of an amendment to MAR 2015-19 to rezone 1108 South Broadway from B-4 to B-1 passed unanimously [timestamp: 0:26:05]. Postponement of ZDP 2015-83 (Story Business Subdivision, Lot 6) passed unanimously [timestamp: 2:50:43]. **Development and Zoning Approvals** Approval of DP 2015-74 (Cave Hill Townhomes) with revised conditions passed unanimously [timestamp: 0:33:43], requiring revision of sidewalk construction along Cave Hill Lane. Approval of MAR 2015-19 (Greer Land Company Zoning Map Amendment) as amended passed unanimously [timestamp: 0:53:27]. Approval of ZDP 2015-79 (Riddell Plaza, Lot 3) with four conditions passed unanimously [timestamp: 0:53:57]. Approval of MAR 2015-20 (Continental Real Estate Zoning Map Amendment) passed unanimously [timestamp: 1:06:23]. Approval of ZDP 2015-81 with 10 conditions passed unanimously [timestamp: 1:06:57]. Approval of MAR 2015-13 (Greer Neck Road LLC Zone Change) passed unanimously [timestamp: 1:28:13]. Approval of ZDP 2015-62 with seven conditions passed unanimously [timestamp: 1:29:16]. Approval of MAR 2015-18 (William R. Embry, Jr. Zoning Map Amendment) passed unanimously [timestamp: 3:17:53]. Approval of a variance for ZDP 2015-80 allowing 15 parking spaces instead of 16 passed unanimously [timestamp: 3:18:24]. Approval of ZDP 2015-80 with 10 revised conditions passed unanimously [timestamp: 3:18:54]. Approval of MAR 2015-21 (Journeys End, LLC Zoning Map Amendment) passed unanimously [timestamp: 4:01:33]. Approval of ZDP 2015-82 with 11 conditions passed unanimously [timestamp: 4:02:10]. **Failed Motion** Approval of MAR 2015-17 (Capkey Bluegrass Properties Zoning Map Amendment) failed with 0 ayes and 9 nays [timestamp: 2:46:50]. Support for staff's recommendation for disapproval of the variance for MAR 2015-17 passed unanimously [timestamp: 2:49:36]. ## Public Comment Three residents provided public comment during the meeting, raising concerns about proposed development and safety issues in the area. **Bernitha Kendrick** [timestamp: 3:14:03] expressed concern about safety in the neighborhood, noting that the area experiences high crime, prostitution, drug activity, and has registered sex offenders. She questioned whether it would be safe to place affordable housing in this location. **Barbara Stucker** [timestamp: 3:39:12] opposed the rezoning of properties at 3092 and 3094 Lees Town Road. She raised multiple concerns about the impact of a proposed restaurant on the residential area, including potential decline in property values, increased noise, light pollution, traffic, and odors. She emphasized that residents expect peace and quiet in their neighborhood. **Olivia Escudero** [timestamp: 3:44:37] addressed parking and safety concerns related to the restaurant and nearby child care center. She noted that people park in the cul-de-sac to access these facilities, creating congestion issues. She also expressed safety concerns, referencing a recent fire in the area. ## Contested Items **Rezoning of 3092 and 3094 Lees Town Road for a Restaurant** Residents expressed strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of properties at 3092 and 3094 Lees Town Road to accommodate a restaurant. Community members raised multiple concerns about the impact on their neighborhood, citing potential effects on property values, noise, light pollution, traffic congestion, odors, and safety. The opposition was rooted in the proximity of residential homes to the proposed site, with residents worried about how a commercial restaurant operation would affect their quality of life and property interests. **Rezoning of Capkey Bluegrass Properties for Self-Storage** The commission was divided on the proposal to rezone Capkey Bluegrass Properties for self-storage development. Staff members and several commissioners recommended disapproval of the rezoning, citing insufficient market demand and concerns about compatibility with the surrounding area. In contrast, the applicant and at least one commissioner argued in favor of the proposal, emphasizing the economic investment potential and asserting that market need supported the project. This split reflected differing perspectives on whether the self-storage use represented an appropriate and economically justified development for the location. ## Dr. Michael Gentry Zoning Map Amendment & Cadentown Subdivision Zoning Development Plan **Identifier:** MARV 2015-8 **Type:** Ordinance [timestamp: 0:23:10] The Planning Commission considered a zoning map amendment and zoning development plan for the Dr. Michael Gentry and Cadentown Subdivision project. Richard Murphy addressed the Commission regarding this matter. The petitioner requested a one-month postponement of the item to allow time to file an amended application. The Planning Commission granted this request and postponed the agenda item to October 22, 2015. **Outcome:** Postponed to October 22, 2015 ## Cave Hill Townhomes The Planning Commission reviewed the final development plan for Cave Hill Townhomes (DP 2015-74), a presentation item [timestamp: 0:27:11]. **Key Speakers** Matt Carter and Ms. Gallt presented and discussed the project. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the final development plan for Cave Hill Townhomes. **Revised Conditions** The approval included revised conditions for the project. Notably, the Commission required the addition of sidewalks along Cave Hill Lane and a landscape buffer as part of the final development plan. ## Greer Land Company Zoning Map Amendment & Riddell Plaza, Lot 3 (Parker Property) [timestamp: 0:36:37] The Planning Commission considered a zoning map amendment and development plan for the Parker Property located at 1108 South Broadway. The proposal sought to rezone the property from B-4 (General Business) to B-1 (Neighborhood Business) zoning classification. **Key Speakers and Presentation** Matt Carter, Ms. Wade, and Mr. Martin participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Action Taken** The Planning Commission accepted the amendment to rezone 1108 South Broadway from B-4 to B-1 zoning. The Commission approved both the zoning map amendment and the associated Riddell Plaza, Lot 3 development plan. **Conditions** The approval included four conditions that the applicant must satisfy as part of the zoning change and development plan. **Outcome** The agenda item was approved. ## Continental Real Estate Zoning Map Amendment & Coons Property, Tract 1 (AMD) (A Portion of) Zoning Development Plan [timestamp: 0:55:16] The Planning Commission considered a zoning map amendment and associated development plan for Continental Real Estate involving a portion of the Coons Property, Tract 1. Kevin Rich and Ms. Gallaty were key speakers during the discussion of this ordinance matter. The Planning Commission approved the zoning map amendment and the associated Zoning Development Plan. The approval was conditional, with the Commission imposing 10 conditions on the project. These conditions included required revisions to parking and access arrangements for the development. The outcome of the vote was approval of the ordinance. ## Greer Neck Road LLC Zone Change & Gibson Park Subdivision **Case Number:** MAR 2015-13 **Type:** Zoning map amendment and development plan **Outcome:** Approved The Planning Commission reviewed and approved a zoning map amendment and associated development plan for Greer Neck Road LLC's Gibson Park Subdivision [timestamp: 1:08:02]. **Key Participants:** - Mr. Martin - Matt Carter **Discussion and Concerns:** The Planning Commission addressed concerns regarding access points and traffic safety during its review of the proposal. These issues were central to the Commission's deliberations before reaching its decision. **Approval:** Following discussion of the access and traffic safety matters, the Planning Commission approved both the zoning map amendment and the associated development plan for the Gibson Park Subdivision project. ## Capkey Bluegrass Properties, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Story Business Subdivision **Agenda Item:** MAR 2015-17 **Project Description:** The proposal involved a zoning map amendment and development plan for Lot 6, Waller Avenue, which would have permitted a self-storage facility as part of the Story Business Subdivision. **Key Participants:** Dick Murphy, Dave King, Mr. Emmons, and Ms. Wade discussed the proposal during the Planning Commission review. **Outcome:** The Planning Commission rejected both the zoning map amendment and the associated development plan. **Concerns Raised:** The Planning Commission identified several significant issues with the proposal: - **Neighborhood Compatibility:** Commissioners expressed concerns that the proposed self-storage use was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood character and existing development patterns. - **Lack of Demand:** The Commission questioned whether there was sufficient market demand to justify the proposed facility. - **Minimal Economic Benefit:** The proposal was found to generate minimal job creation, limiting its economic contribution to the community. **Discussion Timeline:** The discussion of this agenda item occurred approximately 2 hours and 36 minutes into the meeting [timestamp: 2:36:43]. The rejection reflected the Planning Commission's determination that the proposal did not meet the standards for approval based on land use compatibility, market justification, and community benefit considerations. ## William R. Embry, Jr. & William R. Embry III, DBA TWP Housing Zoning Map Amendment **Identifier:** MAR 2015-18 **Type:** Ordinance The Planning Commission considered a zoning map amendment and development plan for an affordable housing project proposed by William R. Embry, Jr. and William R. Embry III, doing business as TWP Housing. [timestamp: 3:17:53] **Key Speakers:** - Mr. Murphy - Bill Embry - Mr. Emmons **Proposal Details:** The applicants requested rezoning of the property from B1 (Business) to R4 (Residential) classification to accommodate an affordable housing development. The proposal included an associated development plan and a variance request for parking reduction. **Outcome:** The Planning Commission approved the rezoning from B1 to R4, the development plan, and the requested parking reduction variance for the affordable housing project. ## Journeys End, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Leastown Heights Subdivision, Lots 2 through 7, Zoning Development Plan **Identifier:** MAR 2015-21 The Planning Commission considered a zoning map amendment and development plan for Journeys End, LLC involving Leastown Heights Subdivision, Lots 2 through 7. The proposal sought to rezone the property from R1D to B1 zoning to accommodate a restaurant use. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Kevin Phillips, Brandon Green, Barbara Stucker, and Olivia Escudero. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the rezoning from R1D to B1 and the associated development plan. The approval included conditions for the project, notably requiring a connection to the Town Branch Trail. [timestamp: 4:01:33] --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of minutes from August 27, 2015 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Postponement of MARV 2015-8 (Dr. Michael Gentry Zoning Map Amendment) to October 22, 2015 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Acceptance of amendment to MAR 2015-19 to rezone 1108 South Broadway from B-4 to B-1 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of DP 2015-74 (Cave Hill Townhomes) with revised conditions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of MAR 2015-19 (Greer Land Company Zoning Map Amendment) as amended - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of ZDP 2015-79 (Riddell Plaza, Lot 3) with four conditions, changing #1 to B-1 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of MAR 2015-20 (Continental Real Estate Zoning Map Amendment) for reasons provided by staff - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of ZDP 2015-81 with 10 conditions (eliminating 11, 12, and 13) - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of MAR 2015-13 (Greer Neck Road LLC Zone Change) for reasons provided by staff - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of ZDP 2015-62 with revised staff recommendations (7 conditions) - **Motion** — failed (0-9): Approval of MAR 2015-17 (Capkey Bluegrass Properties Zoning Map Amendment) for reasons discussed - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Support staff's recommendation for disapproval of variance for MAR 2015-17 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Postponement of ZDP 2015-83 (Story Business Subdivision, Lot 6) for reasons provided by staff - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of MAR 2015-18 (William R. Embry, Jr. Zoning Map Amendment) for reasons noted by staff - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of variance for ZDP 2015-80 (15 parking spaces instead of 16) - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of ZDP 2015-80 with 10 revised conditions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of MAR 2015-21 (Journeys End, LLC Zoning Map Amendment) for reasons noted by staff - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of ZDP 2015-82 with 11 conditions --- ## Full transcript All night. All night. All night. All night. All night. Oh night, oh night, oh night Oh night, oh night, oh night, oh night Skipping rocks, skipping roads Laughing at all my best friends' jokes Things I loved when I was a kid Muddy roads, muddy feet I didn't live on no blacktop street Things have changed a lot But I never did And I don't want to think about tomorrow I don't need anything money can buy I don't have to beg, steal or borrow I just want to live until I die Living right, living in this little old town I grew up in But I still held on to my dreams Standing proud, standing tall Standing smack dab in the middle of it all I don't worry about things and I can't change And I don't want to think about tomorrow I don't need anything money can buy I don't have to beg, steal or borrow I just want to live until I die And everything around me Are things I dearly love And every night I get on my knees And thank the Lord about That I don't have to think about tomorrow I don't need anything money can buy I don't have to beg, steal or borrow I just want to live until I die I don't have to beg, steal or borrow I just want to live until I die I'm thinking about the times you drove in my car Thinking that I might have drove you too far And I'm thinking of the love that you laid on my table I told you not to wander around in the dark I told you about the swans that they live in the park Then I told you about our kid, now he's married to me I'm Before they bring the curtain down Just before they bring the curtain down Ooh, ooh, ooh Get up, lock it up We're talking about a girl that looks quite like you She didn't have the time to wait for you She cried away her life since she fell off the cradle Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh That's so hard to bear. You give me fever. When you kiss me, fever when you hold me tight. Fever. In the morning, fever all through the night. Sun lights up the daytime. Moon lights up the night. I light up when you call my name And you know I'm gonna treat you right You give me fever When you kiss me Fever when you hold me tight Fever In the morning Fever all through the night Everybody's got the fever That is something you all know Fever isn't such a new thing Fever started long ago Romeo loved Juliet Juliet, she felt the same When he put his arms around her He said, Juliet, baby, you're my flame And I'll give us the fever when we kiss it. Fever with that flame in you. Fever. I'm a fire fever. Yeah, I burn for soon. Captain Smith and Pocahontas Had a very mad affair When her daddy tried to kill him She said, Daddy, oh, don't you dare He gives me fever With his kisses fever When he holds me tight Fever I'm his missus Daddy won't you treat him right Go! Now you've listened to my story Here's the point that I have made Chicks were born to give you fever Be it Fahrenheit or centigrade They give you fever When you kiss them Fever if you live and learn Fever Till you sizzle, what a lovely way to burn What a lovely way to burn What a lovely way to burn What a lovely way to burn I love the colorful clothes she wears And the way the sunlight plays upon her head I hear the sound of a gentle wind On the wind that lifts her perfume through the air I'm picking up good vibrations She's giving me the excitations I'm picking up good vibrations She's giving me the excitations Good vibrations She's got my boots, so excitation Good vibrations, good vibrations She's got my boots, so excitation Please smile, she's somehow close enough Softly smile, I know she must be kind In her eyes, she goes with me to apply I'm picking up good vibrations. She's giving me the excitations. I'm bop bop, good vibrations, bop bop, excitations. Good vibrations, bop bop, excitations. Good vibrations, bop bop, excitations. Good vibrations, bop bop, excitations. I'm not taking care of me I want you later Gotta keep those love good Vibrations ahead and wither Gotta keep those love good Vibrations ahead and wither Gotta keep those love good vibrations Oh Good, good, good, good Vibration on my loose Excitation Good vibrations I'm strolling down the garden park I saw a flower glowing in the dark It looked so pretty and it was unique I had to bend down just to have a beat Hello old friend Hello old friend Really good to see you once again Hello old friend Hello old friend Really good to see you once again I saw you walking underneath the star I couldn't stop cause I was in a car I'm sure the distance wouldn't be too far If I got out and walked to where you are Hello old friend Hello old friend It's really good to see you once again Hello old friend Hello old friend It's really good to see you once again Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Good night. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I will call this meeting to order. It is September 24, 2015. Before we get started, I do want to make one statement. Recognition, I guess. Our director of planning is retiring at the end of this month after 43 years of service to the city. He has done an excellent job of taking care of the Planning Commission and the planning and development and preservation of Lexington Fayette County. So this will be, I believe, his last official meeting with the Planning Commission. So I'd just like to recognize him at this time and say thank you for the 43 years. And I think you deserve a round of applause. Thank you, Chris. On to the agenda. We do have minutes for approval from August 27, 2015. I have heard that there has been one correction that's been noted to Stephanie. If there are others, please let it be known now. Otherwise, I'll attend to, I'll ask for a motion for approval. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Move approval of the minutes, August 27th. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded. Seconded by Ms. Richardson for approval. As amended, please vote when it comes up on your screen. That motion passes. On as far as postponements and withdrawals Do we have postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda? Mr.. Chairman, I'm dick Murphy on page one the first item on your agenda Dr. Michael Gentry zoning map amendment in cadentown subdivisions owning map amendment plan which is MARV 2015 8 we're requesting one month postponement we have entered into an agreement with one of the neighboring property owners. We're submitting an amended zone change application, which we hope to have before you next month. So we're asking a one-month postponement. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Is that October 22nd, I believe? I think so. That would be for October 22nd. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none, commission members. If not, I'll entertain a motion for postponement. Mr. Chairman, I move postponement of one month to October 22nd, MARV 2015-8, Dr. Michael Gentry. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the postponement of Dr. Michael Gentry's zoning amendment until October 22nd. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Others? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you would turn to page 8 in your agenda, item 5, Greer Land Company Zoning Map Amendment and Rydell Plaza Lot 3 Parker Property Zoning Development Plan. I would like to request to amend the zoning application. I request your approval to do this. And what we would like to do is a portion of the property is B1. We would like that to remain B1. The rear portion of the property, we were asking B4 to B3, and we would like to change that from B4 to B1. So this way, all of the property will be B1. Thank you, Mr. Carter. So the request is to amend his application, which is MAR 2015-19, to now go to B1 for the entire property. Thank you, sir. And this would come up for discussion later. We would need a motion for that. Any discussion in regards to his request? Mr. Chairman. It might be a little easier for the commission if perhaps we go ahead and sound the agenda, and when this item comes up, whether abbreviated or not, perhaps right at the start of that, we have a handout exhibit we can show you. Okay, that's fine. Do we need a motion just for the amendment? Yes, ordinarily the commission does make a motion to accept the amendment. Okay, that's where I'm hearing. And that could either be now or at the start of the hearing. Okay, so we need a motion if that's the commission's wishes. Yes, sir. I move amendment to approval of the amendment for his zoning, MAR 2015-19. Okay, thank you. Motion's been made and seconded to amend this now 2B1. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes, and that's just for the acceptance to amend this. discussion will come later. Other requests for postponements or withdrawals? If not, I'll move on and let Mr. Sally sound the agenda to see if possibly we can have any abbreviated hearings on today's request. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is one subdivision item on your agenda. If the commission would wish to take that first, if not, I'd be glad to sound the agenda, whichever your preference would be. Okay. We'll move and take the one development item and then sound the agenda. It's shown on page one. It's DP 2015-74 Cave Hill Townhomes. You do have a revision for you. That's on a yellow sheet of paper. and we have received one letter regarding this plan. We don't have enough copies for the commission, but we'll distribute it. Ah, you may have it. Thank you. We do have one letter that has been passed out to everyone. So, yeah, Mr. Martin, we're going to go ahead. Yes, we're going to hear this now and then we'll move on to the zoning items. Maybe not. Good afternoon. As we have one development plan, subdivision item DP 2015-74, this is a final development plan. The property is located off of Cave Hill Place and Cave Hill Lane. We have Manowar over in this direction and Palomar Shopping Center down in this area. They're coming in to create the property zoned R3. And as I said, this is a final development plan to create nine townhomes. You'll see the revised conditions on the goldenrod sheet of paper. the first nine of our typical sign-offs, including the Division of Water Quality. We just have a few other cleanup conditions to add easements, give us information on the lot coverage and floor area. One of the questions that we have was discuss construction of sidewalks along Cave Hill Lane. This property, when it was originally rezoned with the rest of this, they had proposed to have sidewalks go through on the Cave Hill Lane side. The rest of this was all developed with single-family homes, and they do have a sidewalk along Cave Hill, but they never created the sidewalk along this portion of Cave Hill. There was one single-family home, so now they're replacing it with the townhomes. So we were just wanting to see that possibly happen with this development. Other than that, then we had to note the landscape buffer from the property because adjacent to the property is AU for agricultural. And so they had a, in that development plan, they had a five-foot buffer area, a landscape buffer area that ran along the property. So we'd just like to see that happen, too. If there's any other questions. Questions for Ms. Galt? Ms. Galt, you handed us this one letter from a neighbor. Yes, sir. Can you address those concerns? Well, I was hoping that maybe the applicant will get the water redistribution, because they have met with the neighborhood, and I feel like they might be able to answer those questions a little bit. That would be fine. Any questions for Ms. Galt? Nope. Mr. Carter. Again, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. We did meet last week with the neighborhood along Cave Hill Place. We had a good turnout. I felt like it was a good meeting. The lady who wrote the letter that you received was at the meeting, and I feel like we addressed her concern. and she was concerned about storm water running across Cave Hill Place. We informed her that we would be directing all of our runoff into existing storm sewers that are there, and we would drastically reduce the water that was running into Cave Hill Place. Another concern of hers was construction traffic and how we were accessing the site, And I think we can, let me point to, I think if we come in this side and keep our construction off this road, she was happy with that. um let's see as far as the sidewalk we're we're currently showing on our plan sidewalk down to cave hill place and we would we have no problem adding an additional side sidewalk down cave hill place across the front of the property so that's no problem we're in agreement with that. Other than that, I mean, we're in agreement with all the revised conditions, too. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carter. As far as construction sidewalks, you're okay with the language of resolving then? Yes. Okay. Let me ask, anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Okay. Commission members any questions for mr. Carter or anyone if not I'll entertain motion mr. chairman I move for approval of DP 2015-74 okay okay I would presume that's changing number 14 to resolve construction of sidewalks yes okay miss Richardson. Okay, with a second? Okay. Motion's been made in second and for approval of the revised staff recommendations DP 2015-74 change in number 14 to resolve construction of sidewalks along Cave Hill Lane. Any questions on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. We move to... Oh, sounding the agenda now. Mr. Salli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be glad to walk the commission through the remaining zone changes on your agenda. You have a very lengthy agenda today, so it may be easiest just to go through all of them. Item number one has been postponed a month. Item number two appears on page three of your agenda. This is a continuation of a zone change from last month. Are there, I guess the staff would ask if anyone is present for the item Greer-Nick Road 2, a zone change from an R1C zone to a B1 and a B1 neighborhood business zone to B3. Okay. Thank you. We have citizens here for that continuation. That's okay, ma'am. Well, we're just checking to see who would like to speak at this time. The item number three at the bottom of page four, that is recommended for disapproval by the staff, so that will require a full hearing. The next item appears on page six of your meeting agenda, item number four, MARV 2015-18, a request by William R. Embry, Jr. and William R. Embry III, DBA TWP Housing. This is a requested zone change for property at 220, 224, 226, and 228 East 7th Street and at 628 Maple Avenue. This is a zone change from a neighborhood business zone, B1, to R4, which is high-density apartment zoning. We would ask if anyone's present in the audience who wishes to object to this zone change requested on East 7th Street and Maple Avenue. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, we do have an objector. Okay, thank you. Not just yet. We're trying to figure out the ones that have no objection. I'm sorry. The next item that could qualify for abbreviated hearing appears on page 8 of your meeting agenda. This is the fifth application on your agenda today, MAR 2015-19, request by Greer Land Company. This is the item the Commission just accepted the amendment on. It is now a zone change request from a wholesale and warehouse business zone, B4, to a neighborhood business, B1 zone, for property with an address of 1108 South Broadway. Again, we would ask at this time if anyone's present who wishes to discuss or to possibly object to this proposed rezoning for 1108 South Broadway. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this can be our first abbreviated zone change of the afternoon. The next item on your agenda at the very bottom of page 8 and continuing on page 9 is MAR 2015-20, a zone change request by Continental Real Estate. This zone change involves property at 4251 Sarin Drive and is a request from an R4 high-density apartment zone to a B6P planned shopping center zone. Again, the staff would ask if anyone's present this afternoon who wishes to object or to comment on this proposed zone change at 4251 Sarin Drive. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this can be our second abbreviated item in the afternoon. The final item, which appears on the bottom of page 9 and continuing on to page 10, the staff understands there are objectors present for this item. So we have two abbreviated items, the first of which appears on page 8. We will set up and be ready to proceed in just a moment. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Selle. As he mentioned, we do have two that's going to be heard in an abbreviated fashion, and then we will return to the order shown on the agenda. And the first one being page 8, it's Greer Land Company, zoning map amendment, Riddell Plaza, Lot 3, Parker Property, zoning development plan, it's MAR 2015-19. There is an associated zoning development plan 2015-79 with that. Thank you. yeah Good afternoon, Chairman Owens. Members of the commission, our first item today is MAR 2015-19, a request by Greer Land Company. And this originally was a request for two parcels, and so my slideshow here at the beginning shows that the representative for the applicant and the staff spoke this morning, and we understood that they were agreeable to amending their application, so we did make some changes to the presentation accordingly. So this is for an amended application that the Planning Commission just accepted to rezone just 1108 South Broadway from its existing wholesale and warehouse business zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone. The subject property is located on South does have frontage on South Broadway for about 35 feet but its primary frontage is along Simpson Avenue just in this general vicinity we have South Broadway to the north, northeast is the intersection of Red Mile and Virginia Avenue. Further to the east of the subject property is a CSX railroad line. To the south is Waller Avenue and its intersection with South Broadway. So the subject property does, again, have frontage on South Broadway, but it's a very small, really, access point to South Broadway, with most of its frontage being along Simpson Avenue. Other uses in the immediate area include a small shopping center across Simpson Avenue, which functions along with a larger shopping center further to the northeast. There's a new AT&T store, which has frontage adjacent to this development plan along South Broadway. some professional office use on Burley, which is the parallel street to the southwest, adjacent to the southeast of the subject property is an additional warehouse in a B4 zone. And then as we move further to the east and south, this neighborhood is primarily single-family residential, but we have seen some change in that area to some R4 land use, which is our high-density apartment zone. Again, South Broadway, it's primarily a commercial corridor in this area with a mixture of business zones, B1, which is our neighborhood business, B3, B6P, and then some B4 use and zoning as well. this just denotes the handout that we submitted to the planning commission at the beginning of the hearing where the applicant has deleted the corner property which is already zoned b1 there's no need to then rezone it with the amendment to their application in looking at an aerial view of the subject property it does currently have a warehouse located there, which is approximately 18,000 square feet. Its rear side faces Simpson Avenue, and its access is on the internal side of their lot. Parking, et cetera, is on the inside side of the lot. Maybe you could adjust the lighting a little bit. The few photos I have of just the back property are a little hard to distinguish. On the right side, excuse me, the left side of the photo is the existing warehouse, and their parking runs along the frontage there. Between the warehouse and the tree line is a parking lot, and then there's a small creek that runs through that tree line, which is a tributary of, I believe, Wolf Run Creek. and this is the existing parking lot taken from inside the the property looking back towards south broadway and the day that the staff posted the zone change signs it was raining quite a bit and something that came up in the review of the development plan was some existing stormwater issues on this site so we wanted to go ahead and provide that in terms of documentation that there are some stormwater issues that will have to be addressed later with the final development plan. And then at the rear of the property, there is a small detention area associated with the creek, and it was very full that day with the rain that came. This is a view of the warehouse that's to the rear of the existing B4. And again, an aerial view of that site. The petitioner is proposing to rezone this property in order to develop a convenience store and gas station with frontage along South Broadway, and then two retail establishments in the same building as the convenience store along Simpson Avenue. The proposed B-1 zone does allow all of those uses, and in terms of the history of that location, the property was rezoned from a single-family zone in the 1970s 1976 to the existing B4 zone the 2013 comprehensive plan does not make a specific land use recommendation any longer nor does it talk in any great detail about switching from one business zone to another however the applicant believes that this is an agreement with the comprehensive plan and the staff is agreeable with the fact that it would be in agreement with two goals and objectives. First, the growing successful neighborhoods theme identifies a goal and objective which says our states identify areas of opportunity for infill redevelopment and adaptive reuse which is context sensitive to the area and the petitioner is now providing a neighborhood-oriented land use and orienting a proposed structure to Simpson Avenue as well. Secondly, they are providing job opportunities for people living in the general vicinity where this property is located near residential development. The staff believes they are meeting that objective as well. In addition, the staff's opinion that the B1 zone is more compatible and consistent in this area of South Broadway. B1 exists on both sides of the subject property, both across Simpson and then towards Burley Avenue. In addition, the B1 zone does provide a better buffer than a B3 would to an established neighborhood that's further to the southeast in this area. So the staff does recommend first withdrawal of the application for 1100 South Broadway, which I believe the applicant intended with their proposal for an amendment and also approval of a rezoning from a B4 zone to a B1 zone for 1108 South Broadway. And those reasons are listed on the cream sheet that the staff distributed. If we assume that the withdrawal was part of their amendment, finding number one is not necessary because it really speaks to the B3 not being appropriate and thus withdrawal being necessary. So finding number one would not be required if we assume the withdrawal was part of their amendment. So items two, three, and four, the staff is recommending approval of this request because it's in agreement with the comprehensive plan and it is appropriate land use and zone at this location. And we make those recommendations subject to approval and certification of the associated development plan. I'd be happy to answer any questions about our recommendation at this time. Any questions for Ms. White? Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the development plan associated with this unchanged is at the bottom of page 8, ZDP 2015-79, Riddell Plaza, Lot 3. Here you can see the South Broadway frontage for the subject property. Here is the Simpson Avenue frontage along this line. They are proposing to utilize this existing entrance into the property at this location, as well as an entrance off Simpson here and here. Now, this is a revised plan from the original plan that submitted, which had an access point close to the intersection. So they've modified that and moved it back in this location. Another several items that they have addressed that were of concern on the original plan was the orientation to Simpson. And that was a point that the staff made to your committees and would like to make again today. Now that they've gone to B1, the concern was the same with the B3. We like to see a good presentation of these businesses along Simpson Avenue. And one big step in that direction, of course, is making this a sidewalk area. You may recall on the previous plan it had a big turnout and looked like a loading and unloading zone in this location. So this plan has addressed that concern. And it's a preliminary plan. We will see. You will see a final development plan. And at that time, we'll be talking about the facades and that type of thing on the buildings. The total square footage here is a little over 13,000 square feet. Each of these retail spaces is over 4,000 square feet. Here's the convenience store with the associated canopy. This is the parking. There are 63 spaces being proposed. And again, this was not on the original plan, and this is proposed detention. for the development. They also changed the dumpster slightly to provide for easy access and out. Ms. Wade showed you pictures of stormwater. You may recall at committee that was discussed, the applicant is aware that there is a known stormwater problem in this area. The water flows from upstream, comes from UK and under the railroad and all of it down, And as it exits culverts here, it expands out into this area and floods. You can even look at the contours and you can see why that's been happening. That, again, will have to be addressed under our stormwater manuals with a design at the final development plan stage. This detention will help with this development, and they may or may not utilize it to help address this situation. They may have to do work. This is a large easement. I mean, that just remains to be seen from a detailed engineering study on how to address that problem. And again, our stormwater manuals require that known problems be addressed. So staff is confident in talking with engineering and water quality that that can be dealt with at the final development plan stage. With that, you can see from your agenda, there are only four sign-off conditions associated with this development plan. you will need to modify the first one of course to state b1 instead of b3 since they have amended their application and with that i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for questions for mr martin tom i guess the only one i've got you were talking about the sidewalk between simpson avenue and the buildings the way that's marked off now to me it kind of looks like parking lots, parking spaces? No, sir. It's labeled as a sidewalk. Okay. And it's a 20-foot sidewalk, which is obviously a very nice feature in an area such as this. Very good. Any other questions? Thank you. Mr. Carter? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, again, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. we're in agreement with the four conditions that the staff presented and at this time ask for your approval thank you any questions for mr martin thank you sir anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan seeing none if there's no questions from the commission i'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion yes Mr. Chair I'm going to make move for approval of MAR 2015-19 changing the B3 zone to B1 as we previously amended okay motion's been made and seconded for approval of the amended request MAR 2015-19 Mr. Berkeley I presume that's with the staff recommendations? Yes. Okay. Any questions on the motion? If not I'll ask for you to vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes and now the ZDP. And I move for approval of ZDP 2015-79 with the four noted conditions. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. Once again, Mr. Berkley, I presume that's changing number one to read B1? Yes. Okay. Agreed with Ms. Mundy who's seconded. So the motions for approval of ZDP 2015-79 with four conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. that motion passes thank you thank you mr carter we'll move on to the next abbreviated one at the bottom of page six i'm sorry bottom page eight it's number six continental real estate zoning map amendment and coons property track one amended a portion of the zoning development plan mar 2015-20 and there is an associated zoning development plan 2015-81 that follows on page 9. Yes, Chairman Owens, members of the commission, our next item is on page 8. The very bottom continues on to page 9, item 6A, and it can be found in tab 6 in your notebooks. This is a request by Continental Real Estate to rezone property at 4251 Sarin Drive. It's a portion of that parcel for approximately one acre. the request is to rezone that parcel from a high-density apartment zone which is our R4 zone to plan shopping center B6P zone from the area you can tell that the subject property has been vacant for obviously a long long time and across the street is an existing shopping center has a Walmart neighborhood market to the north is a shell station, also in the B6P zone. And then within that shopping center, there are a number of outlots. Further to the south, there is a child care center, and then mostly single-family residential. There's still some vacant property in the area along Chas Drive. From the arrow, you can see that. Some of that is under consideration for development in the near future for, I think, a medical office. The zoning in the area, again, B6P already to the north and the east, and then R4 for the existing subject property, and then property to the south and west. Immediately to the south is a greenway associated with the, I think it's the South Elkhorn, no, excuse me, West Hickman Creek. the applicant is proposing i think you need to really see the photos it's currently a staging area for the development of an assisted living center to the south the applicant is proposing to rezone this portion of the subject property primarily because it couldn't be incorporated into the assisted living site because of a drainage and topographic issue kind of right along where the zone change line is proposed here so they looked at other options for developing that piece of the property they are proposing the b6p in order to put in a basically an outlot for the shopping center across the street with a 4,000 square foot building I believe they also showed a drive through on the subject property in terms of the comprehensive plan again the 2013 comprehensive plan doesn't show specific land uses but the plan does suggest that compatibility is an important part of land use decisions and since the adjoining b6p is already in existence that was a something that the applicant and the staff agreed was consistent in the area the zoning committee when reviewing this recommended approval and the staff also recommended approval of the zone change and there's four reasons listed on the agenda as to why it is considered to be an appropriate rezoning it's located adjacent to and across from existing b6p properties the southern property boundary is defined by a significant watershed and drainage feature so it's a transition location. As a standalone track, the subject property is too small to be utilized for a multifamily or high-density apartment development. And then lastly, the proposed use and development is consistent with development within the area. We make this recommendation subject to approval and certification of the associated development plan. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Any questions from Ms. Wade? Thank you, ma'am. All right, thanks. Ms. Kahl. Hello. I was just going to give you the location. Tracy was talking about Saren Drive, and this is a portion of what we originally saw when they came in with the assisted living. So this is the small piece of property that they are talking about putting the retail and a restaurant. with that with that we have the first it says five which is the rezoning of the property also are just standard sign offs for different governmental agencies and we had a couple clean up conditions and also a couple discussion questions I believe we went into some discussion at the time at the subdivision committee We just did not have a submittal with a revised plan that met the five paper copies and the PDF. So at this time, we talked about those issues, but they were talking about the drive-through and the pickup window as for the restaurant. Also talking about the study that was done as far as the water drainage was in relation to number six, note number six, and then the dumpster location. They showed the dumpster on this plan as at an angle, which doesn't allow for the waste management to come in and pick up. So they've talked about changing the direction so they come straight into it. We just want to make sure on the stacking for the drive-through at this area here that we have enough. And then, as I said, the note was divisional water qualities requirements with the different waterway through here. With that, the staff had recommended approval. I didn't know if there was any comments or questions. For anyone else? So Ms. Gallaty's last three items, they have been addressed? Well, we've talked about them in the committee meeting, and we had a plan that they gave us at the time at the committee meeting, but they had not followed through with the PDF and the paper prints, so we did not have a true submittal for revision. They gave us one copy, and they did make those changes. As far as the note for number six, they had done a study for the whole property when they were redeveloping for the assisted living also. This gentleman here could possibly give you a little more information on the study itself. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, Ms. Gall? Yes, ma'am. So, just to show exactly what is number six, and where is the dumpster? Thank you. The copy that they brought in at the committee meeting, they showed the dumpster. So when you came in straight in this way, you went straight towards the dumpster. Right now they have it shown. This was the original submission that we received when they came in for the application. And it shows the dumpster at an angle. But like we discussed at the committee meeting, they had it coming in straight. So that would meet waste management's requirement for their distance for backup. As far as note number six, it's the water quality control requirements. And they had an analysis done. They had done a study for this whole development at the time, and they were able to meet all the requirements for that. Anything else? No? Okay. Thank you. I can't get that. Good afternoon. Kevin Rich from Rich Design Studios here on behalf of Continental Real Estate. We have no issues with any of the conditions that are being set. If you'd like, I could address the last two notes that you inquired. Okay, note six, again, is about stormwater quantity, a detention basin. We had done during the design of the assisted living facility, we had expanded our analysis to a watershed analysis to include the north property, because at the time the developer had the intention of potentially doing something there. So we had included more than enough impervious area in our calculations that showed we didn't need detention for the entire property. And so that's why we have no stormwater retention on site for the assisted living as well. I've spoken with Hillard Newman about it. We've talked. He doesn't, generally speaking, I don't believe he has an issue with the note. We've just discussed the terminology. And so we're going to have a revised note, but essentially it's the same thing. And then as far as the dumpster location, she's correct. We just changed the angle. It was minor. and then the drive-through yes we've had conversations with transportation and we believe we've addressed those issues as well okay you know this is the original plan and I'm hearing that they turned in does this show the changes no it does not no we when we were at subdivision we did turn in a plan. So why don't we have that before us today? We didn't provide five copies. That was my mistake. Okay. Any other questions for that one? So staff, I guess my question is, are you all happy with what's been turned in even though we necessarily can't see it here? yes you're nodding your head yes anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this plan no any other questions from Mr. Rich thank you Mr. Rich yes no other comments from the public questions no questions from the commission I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion Mr. Chairman Yes We'll move approval of MAR 2015-20 for the reasons provided by staff Second Okay, motion's been made and second for approval of ZDP Wait a second, I'm sorry MAR 2015-20 there's 20 questions been made in a second for approval there's no discussion on that motion please vote when it comes up on the screen a motion passes and then the CDP go mr. chairman I move approval of ZDP 2015-81 and are we gonna eliminate 11 12 and 13 is that your motion motion okay that's my motion Okay. Motion's been made for approval of ZDP 2015-81 with now 10 conditions dropping 11, 12, and 13. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. so now we will resume in the order of the agenda moving back to page three Greer Neck Road the second LLC Zone of MF Amendment Gibson Park Subdivision MAR 2015-13 this is a continuation I think Mr. Martin will bring us up to date I think we do have some new information. Mr. Chair, I was not here for the first part of this, so I won't be able to vote on this one. All right. Thank you, sir. As they are setting up, I will take note that this is a continuation from August the 27th. Those are minutes that we have just approved today and are before you, so that information will be considered today as well as the new information that will be presented. And what I would ask is that unless there's questions concerning last week, we limit our discussion to the new information here. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I will remind you quickly that at the last hearing, we handed out revised conditions on this plan. They were probably on a nice, pretty, bright color. What we've handed out to you today are the same revised conditions. They're just on a white piece of paper where we made copies today for you. At the time the plan was being discussed, and the reason it was continued, was the discussion of the access to South Broadway. We had covered all the other conditions on the plan, had discussed them. And again, as you all are aware, it's for Zaxby's Restaurant in this location and existing Thornton's. And we had highlighted, staff had highlighted for you a proposed access here on Pike. There was a proposed access, full access point into the Zaxby's. They have shared cross access. There's an existing full access point here, here, here, and here, and here for the Thornton's. the discussion centered on these access points in the intersection and to a lesser extent to these two that were side by side. And as you all may recall, it was turning into a we're going to design the plan discussion. The issue being Thornton's has been here for a considerable amount of time, and the fuel trucks utilized these two access points in order to safely serve the Thorntons. So at the time you all continued the discussion, the traffic and planning staff, traffic engineering planning staff met with the applicant. He demonstrated that they did in fact need these two access points. You can see highlighted here. And again, here's the proposed one. Here's the cross access. Here are the existing off Gibson. We grumbled about that one a little bit, but it's there. They combined these two. Again, the revision that you see is these two access points have now become one shared access point, and they still have cross movement. So we have improved the access to South Broadway, and staff is certainly willing, based on the new information, has compromised to allow trucks, the fuel trucks, safe access into Thorntons. This is a preliminary development plan on this part. This is a final, or a preliminary. It will be a final. at such time should we ever see a final if this area should redevelop these access points will be back on the table and we'll want to talk about them where we right now we understand the fuel trunks the trucks need them they utilize them and that's the safest solution at this time but again should Thorntons ever move go away whatever then certainly uh staff would want to reopen the discussion on these access points right here in the intersection. And that's where the discussion was left with you at your last hearing. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, sir. Mr. Martin, to use your term, what were the issues connected with this access point over here on the left that you indicated that there was a little grumbling in quotation marks? Here. Not there. Other than the fact there's three, and that creates conflict, and it just doesn't seem necessary. Had this been a brand-new plan, access would be a lot more controlled. This is existing. Traffic engineering and planning, we just weren't – it just seemed excessive. That's really all. It just seems excessive. Other questions? I guess I think traffic was weighing in on this are they satisfied at the present thumbs up in the back okay mr. Carter mr. chairman members of the Commission Matt Carter again with vision engineering. I'm happy to say that traffic and staff and the owner all met and did come to agreement on the plan as you see it, combining two of the entrances on South Broadway into one. With that, we are in agreement with the seven staff recommended conditions and ask your approval. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Any questions, Mr. Carter? Not at this time. Thank you, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this? And please come forward. Let me just remind you, this is a continuation and we do have the information that was discussed last time around. We do not need to reiterate that information. I'd love for you to focus on the new information that's been discussed today. Yes, ma'am. Your name. My name is Zicky Batska. I live at 1080 Duncan Avenue. And these two gentlemen were not at last time's hearing, although they're here about the same piece of property. Y'all have talked about the entrances, but the issue that I raised at the time and that has become even more important, seeing as how you just passed a B1 for the Simpson Avenue property, which is almost directly across the street from Pike Avenue. That the traffic coming out of Pike is still the problem, because you may be getting people in there. But over here, people will come out. The exit, y'all said, for the restaurant and the drive-thru was Pike Road. And Pike Road has on one side a historic gatehouse that you cannot see around. So traffic coming in and out and on Pike Road is still the issue for the neighborhood. Maybe, you know, if you could guarantee everybody played on South Broadway, we could just wait for them to have accidents there. But Pike Road remains the main focus for the neighborhood because you can't get out that way. We don't ever go that way to make a left-hand turn and rarely a right-hand turn. The map that y'all had up there a little earlier that talked about Simpson, that showed where Simpson Avenue came in, Pike Road was right almost directly across the street from that. So you have added two sets of traffic coming into South Broadway within 100 feet of each other. And there is no traffic light there. So, you know, I'm just, I'm looking at that traffic pattern and it doesn't, it doesn't speak well for everything. Robbie. Thank you, ma'am. First of all, I'd like to say. Your name, sir? My name is Robbie Phillips. I own the house on 506 Pike Road. Thank you, sir. All right. I'd like to just state, I love Zaxby's chicken. I would enjoy it. If I could walk there and grab me some chicken and walk back home, it'd be awesome. So everything she says is very true. Another thing they're leaving out is the entire subdivision behind it. It is going to create a traffic flow. People are going to be taking their shortcut off, red my road, going through our neighborhood. I mean, eventually that's what's going to happen. The gatehouse she mentioned. Take the microphone with you, sir. it sits right here it's a bad visibility problem i mean you i mean you can't see around it so that's the main thing she's talking about but behind it you know it's the entire subdivision and um you know we've always had problems getting out of there and that's all i've got to say thank you mr phillips Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Councilmembers, I'm Rich Cowden. I live at 1073 Duncan Avenue, and that's right around the corner. Let me have three of those that are in order. area as Robbie spoke of earlier there's a building that that sets actually much farther out into this pattern this lane here is almost a lane and a half where right now it turns into Thornton's and the stop sign says well back and I'll show you a photograph from there but But if you combine these two into one for an access to this property, I know for a fact that people will be taking a shortcut through the gas station to get to Gibson to come out at the light. This is almost impossible to get out of this as it is now with the building setting so close to advanced up in Broadway. but a lot of this other traffic will be if you have another access road here they're going to go up into the residential area there's only three streets in this neighborhood and they're all primarily single-family properties take this Gibbs Duncan and come out down here to light so you have all this traffic that came out of this exit that way the only other exit then would be the double exit. There's a traffic light right here. There's a road that comes in from across the street here. So that's a strange intersection. You have a drive-in restaurant, rallies here. This is proposed business, one. And on this side of the street is Simpson, another street that has no light. So the only light you have is here. today on my way here I came down pike and was going to attempt to make a left hand turn it's impossible almost there was a car in front of me and I had to go back and go around and go this way to get out at the light meanwhile this same car was still there I think these will stay up here but okay Excuse me. Oh, okay, that'd be great. These are a little curl up to this. well this represents where the building here is this is just a normal two lane when this street continues down to in front of this property this lane becomes another half lane almost almost two lanes not quite and absorbs some traffic that turns into to uh thornton's it's impossible to see around this building the only way to see around the building is to pull up to where your car is actually setting up here which now because of the way the street verge is out is sitting out in the road almost to be able to turn to make a left-hand turn so that that's a an impossible sort of situation the way it is now because you can see this is a lane and a half and to actually see out of this intersection to make a left hand or right hand turn because you can't see the oncoming traffic is to pull all the way out into here well past where you should be sitting with a car because most of the cars coming down this street they're ready to move over because the lane's getting bigger and if you're parked way out here where you can see around these steps in this building it's a very dangerous intersection so i would suppose that it would be the intended use of what this if it's going to be as axby's how much traffic they're going to have and where's all that traffic going to exit i don't see any problems with the entrance into that area but if traffic's leaving here they have a road across the Street, it's a stop sign. They have a drive-in restaurant here, traffic light here, and down here is another street that comes out this way at that light. And that would be my biggest concern to develop that property in that fashion would be the amount of traffic and where that traffic is going to come in and exit safely with the intersections the way they are now, especially with this building located there. and that is a very historic building it's uh used to be the drive through for the horse farm that was there but thank you very much thank you sir um miss cocker would you like to come and maybe address pike street once more i think we did but since this information came forward mr carter Do you have anything to add? Let me say, guys, she's coming forward. Anyone else wish to come forward and speak on this? No? Okay. Ms. Cocker? Good afternoon. First, the sight distance on Pike Street, that is an existing building. It's an existing situation. That was one of the ways that we addressed that was to maintain cross access between the two lots to provide an additional exit option. That also will eliminate drivers going into the residential neighborhood. Obviously, there may be somebody who goes through there, but there's no real reason to. They can, if they're on Pike Street and there's an exiting issue onto Broadway, then they can go through the gas station site and exit at the light on Gibson. Okay. Thank you. Any questions, Ms. Cocker? Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir. Is it not probably most logical that somebody coming through the drive-through at Zaxby's, they're going to go out on South Broadway, they're not going to circle back around and go turn out on Pike? Correct. And that was another reason that when we were evaluating the access points on South Broadway, they needed them for the truck deliveries, but it also provides an access onto South Broadway during the off-peak times. I did want to clarify, there are no new access points on the opposite side of Broadway with the plan they submitted. There's an existing access and it will remain, but there's not an additional one. Okay, thank you. Any other questions, Ms. Cocker? Rebuttal-wise, Mr. Carter, you have anything? Well, I would just like to add that it really is safer for people to exit the property from a street at an intersection than it is just along South Broadway. If you're exiting on the pike, you've got room to stack. You've got more time to make decisions. if you're exiting onto South Broadway and that's your only way in and out, it's just going to be a traffic nightmare within the site. So another thing I'd like to point out is on Pike Street, what's currently there, there's more entrances than you see on this plan, and so we're reducing the entrances to one. we're also pushing it back as far as we can on the lot which allows more room to stack on Pike Street so you know we're making it a safe condition thank you thank you Mr. Carter staff any sort of rebuttal I can't see you no sir okay thank you any further questions from the commission for anyone No? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion among commission members and or motions, noting, reminding that not only do we have the ZDP, but we do have the MAR 2015, the zone change request first, that starts on page three. Yes, sir? I have a question first. with the entrance on Pike Street, is that a high accident incident area? Or do we have records? Do we know? We do have records. It doesn't come up as I'm sure there are some incidents there. I haven't pulled up the recent, but it doesn't pop up on our top list or anything. That's what I need. Thank you. anything else from commission members if not i'll entertain a motion okay mr chairman yes sir i guess i'll step up and make this motion I'm going to move approval of MAR 2015-13 for the reasons provided by staff. Thank you. Motion's been made for approval of MAR 2015-13. Do we have a second? And seconded. Any discussion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And then for the ZDP. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move approval of ZDP 2015-62 using the white sheet revised conditions. The motion's been made and seconded for the approval of ZDP 2015-62 with the revised staff recommendations showing seven conditions. If there's no discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. That is a South Broadway always remains a tough decision. I think there is some improvement with the elimination of one access point, and we'll continue to work on it. Unfortunately, I don't think we can move that one building at this time. Moving on to page four. It's at the bottom. I believe we're ready for CAP, KY, Bluegrass Properties, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment, and Story Business Subdivision, Lot 6, Waller Avenue, Self Storage. It's MAR 2015-17. You do have revised staff recommendations on the ZDP. That's on a canary yellow sheet that is before you. Yes, ma'am. I have a few handouts for the Planning Commission, as well as an email from a neighbor in opposition to the request, which will enter into the record. Thank you. Thank you. The staff exhibit that I distributed are the existing zoning categories, both the existing P1, which is just a straight printout from our zoning ordinance, and then the proposal for B4, noting what the applicant has suggested in terms of conditional zoning restrictions. So the uses they were suggesting to be prohibited have been stricken. And I've highlighted in yellow the uses that would remain if approved. As mentioned earlier, I believe this appears on page 4 of your agenda. It's also behind tab 3 in your notebooks. Within tab 3, the applicant's proposal for modified conditional zoning restrictions from their original suggestion are also included in there. They distributed those at the zoning committee meeting three weeks ago. This is MARV 2015-17. Capkey Bluegrass Properties LLC is the applicant, and they are requesting rezoning of a property located at 353 Waller Avenue from a professional office zone to a wholesale and warehouse business zone. The subject property is located on Waller Avenue on the north side. And Waller Avenue is one of our collector, connector, arterial roadways that connects from Harrodsburg Road to Nicholasville Road. In the middle, it has the railroad tracks that provide a temporary barrier sometimes. The subject property is located in close proximity to the railroad tracks and then also Harrodsburg Road. It is bound on three sides by professional office zoning to the west, to the south across Waller Avenue, and then to the east. It also is adjoined by single-family residential to the north, which is part of the American Avenue neighborhood, and then also to the west a collection of multifamily buildings that exist on royalty court the petitioner is requesting this rezoning to a B4 zone in order to locate a self storage facility of approximately a hundred thousand square feet on the property this is a proposal for a mixture of one story and then one multi-story building. This is an aerial view of the subject property bound in yellow with the other existing structures in the vicinity. This is a view of the subject property from Waller Avenue. In its existing state, it does have several structures that were formerly the Kenton Health Care Nursing Facility. They remain on the site today, but would be proposed to be removed with the proposal to redevelop the site. This is a view along Waller Avenue back towards the railroad tracks and Nicholasville Road, and then a view down Waller towards Harrodsburg Road to the west. This is, again, a view of the existing structure on the site, more from the southwest corner looking back into the site and then from the southeast corner looking along the would be the eastern property line existing uses within the general vicinity are for the most part professional office with some multifamily residential and then the single-family to the rear so this gives you an idea of the character of the area larger multi-story buildings that are in some regards set back from Waller there is also a proposed variance associated with this request and these photographs just document the boundary where that variance would come into question the western boundary is on the left side of the photo there that would be adjacent to the multifamily residential and then on the right side of the graphic is the northern boundary, which is currently adjacent to our single-family residential neighborhood. The petitioner originally offered to prohibit two uses on the subject property, but as I mentioned, they did bring in a modified list of conditional zoning restrictions, which we've added to the notebook three weeks ago at the Planning Commission's Zoning Committee meeting. that list that we've kind of parred down for the Planning Commission to understand involves only keeping six of the B4 land uses from what's existing in the ordinance today. The property was the subject of a zone change in 1993 in order for the nursing home to expand, but prior to that it had been zoned R4 since 1969. In terms of the 2013 comprehensive plan, it encourages land use decisions to be made based on small area plan recommendations, policy statements, and also our goals and objectives of the plan. The petitioner is of the opinion that their request is both in agreement with the comprehensive plan as well as that B4 is more appropriate at this location than the existing B1 at this location. The Planning Commission must look to the Comprehensive Plan for guidance as to whether that proposed B4 zone is appropriate or supported by the plan at this location. First, the plan does encourage the consideration of how proposals relate to existing development in the immediate vicinity, which the staff often talks about is compatible with the adjoining land uses. The Comprehensive Plan also talks about protecting neighborhoods and residential areas from incompatible land uses. The goals and objectives encourage creating jobs and support infill and redevelopment that are respectful of an area's design and context. But beyond the goals and objectives, policy statements in the plan also focus on the need for development of land to have its most appropriate relationships, compatibility, and creating neighborhood nodes for commercial development or focal points. Waller Avenue has historically been a neighborhood node for the adjoining subdivisions and residential areas there, and primarily in terms of neighborhood-oriented uses. A self-storage facility, as proposed by the applicant, generates very few jobs. In fact, the applicant mentioned at our zoning committee meeting that it would generate three-and-a-half jobs on the property, which is approximately one job per acre. They also, well, although the applicant is contending that this is a community support facility, the staff opines that the comprehensive plan in terms of community facilities is really talking more about health care facilities, libraries, schools, the things that a community truly has to have, not necessarily a self-storage facility, which is considered more of a convenience use for citizens. the staff also believes that the proposed zoning category is not appropriate or excuse me compatible with the adjoining land uses or consistent with the nearby zoning in this corridor the staff therefore can't find that the proposal is in agreement with our comprehensive plan which leaves whether this proposal is appropriate and the existing zoning is inappropriate the petitioner does contend that professional office zoning is not appropriate at this location any longer primarily for two reasons first the property's been vacant for six years since the healthcare facility closed and sold their beds to other facilities in fayette county and second that there's been very few or very little interest or demand in redevelopment for the subject property the proposed self-storage units are intended well they believe b4 is appropriate because land use is, excuse me, the B4 zoning and land use are appropriate for the subject property because there's an unmet demand for warehousing or self-storage facilities within the urban core or inside New Circle Road. The proposed self-storage units serve residential customers as well as business owners. They also contend that the proposed use will have a lower traffic generation and generate less noise than what was previously at this location. In terms of doing a little bit of research, the staff found that currently Fayette County has 20 self-storage facilities, of which eight are located inside of New Circle Road. We would contend that New Circle Road is kind of that urban environment, which represents 40% of existing self-storage units within the urban environment. And the national average is 32% in an urban environment, 52% in a suburban environment, and 16% in a rural environment. And that comes from the Self-Storage Association International. We're also aware that two additional storage facilities are planned or proposed in the new future, which are both within New Circle Road and considered an urban environment. So the staff would contend that there is actually the right amount or maybe even more than the right amount of self-storage within the urban environment and that the demand that the applicant sees is possibly not as much as necessary. There are no B4 zoning. There is no B4 zoning that exists along the current corridor where Waller is. It's primarily a commercial corridor for neighborhood uses. Demand for the existing abandoned building, while it's been lacking, the staff is aware of several inquiries, at least to us, about future redevelopment of the site. So there is interest in redevelopment at that location. The existing zoning does offer several uses. I've distributed the P1 zone to you. It's not only office buildings, but there are also a number of other principal uses in P1 and conditional uses That could fit within this corridor and be more appropriate than the proposal for B4 uses Ultimately the staff finds that the existing P1 is not inappropriate at this location And it is in keeping with the existing commercial zoning in the area Lastly, we have determined that there's been no unanticipated changes of a physical social or economic nature within the immediate area that would constitute a change since the comprehensive plan was adopted in 2013. The zoning committee did refer this to the full commission for further consideration but the staff is recommending disapproval and there are three primary reasons or four I guess First, it's not in agreement with the comprehensive plan. There are three reasons listed on your agenda and staff report for that. Primarily, those three things include the goals and objectives and policy statements encourage consideration of how uses interact with each other. And in this case, there is no B4 zoning that exists along Waller Avenue, so it would be out of character. The goals and objectives do encourage creating jobs, but the proposed self-storage facility will generate very few jobs in support of that idea. And then third, the policy statements of the plan focus on the need for development of land in compatible relationships, and Waller Avenue has been a neighborhood node for services for neighboring residential areas for a long time, and this would disrupt that node. Second, the existing P1 remains appropriate at this location and offers land uses that are compatible with the character of the area as well as the neighborhoods. And while there's no demand for the existing building, there has been steady interest in redevelopment on the site. Third, the B4 is really not appropriate at this location for several reasons. We believe that there is already a right amount of self-storage within New Circle Road. there's no other before zoning in the immediate corridor and then lower traffic generation is not vitally important for a parcel along a minor arterial roadway which Waller is and then lastly that there's been no unanticipated changes in the vicinity since the comprehensive plan was adopted be happy to answer any questions about the staff's recommendation at this time any questions miss Wade Out of this time? Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change is at the top of page 6, ZDP 2015-83, Story Business Subdivision Lot 6. We have also distributed at your seats a set of revised conditions. And I'm going to take this opportunity to make a statement for the benefit of folks who may not be used to how we review our plans for a zone change that you all are well aware of. And that is your staff reviews a development plan as if the zoning is already in place. So with that in mind, here's Waller Avenue, this location. They are proposing to construct single-story storage units along the perimeter. Single-story storage units in this location. Here is a three-story proposed climate-controlled self-storage unit. This is 19,600 square feet per floor for over 58,000 square feet. In this particular building, as I stated, it's three stories. The site itself is a little over three acres. The total square footage for all the combined buildings is 93,700 square feet. It's a large facility. We have an access point here and here, and then again with landscaping and buffering in this location. There are some small detention areas located presently here, and they are proposing detention in this area for the property. We have standard sign-offs with this preliminary plan, and again, I would reemphasize that it is contingent upon it being rezoned before. We need some gate information to the approval of the fire department. It will be a gated facility. There are several items that will need to be considered should this be approved at the time of a final development plan. And you all may recall those from your committee discussions. One is the need for water quality improvements. It is a developed site. They are subject to the stormwater manuals under those provisions. Again, it's a large site, a lot of impervious area. There is some detention. Water quality issues will need to be addressed at the time of the final development plan, as would any increase in detention that may be required. Another item that would need to be addressed at the final development plan stage are architectural details associated with this three-story building. Again, staff would not want some large monolithic structure just to be sitting there without having some features that would make it more attractive with its orientation to Waller Avenue. And I believe there was a rendering shown at a committee meeting to show how they intend to address that particular issue. Of particular importance is the variance that they are requesting. And this plan tries to lessen the impact of that variance. But that addresses the location of the garage style doors, the overhead doors in a B4. As you all are aware, you've you've had you've talked about this recently. There's a 100 foot requirement that they be located away from residential neighborhoods. So that is the subject of the variance that Mr. Emmons is going to address with you, and that has obviously a significant impact on this particular plan. Another item that was a discussion item that you can see here, one that we haven't explored to any great extent with the applicant. It was briefly discussed. Staff raised the issue about whether or not there was any need for truck parking in the front of the building. They are just showing car parking and a limited amount of parking in this location. You can see through the internal circulation, they do have 30-foot drive aisles. There's plenty of room back in this area for cars, trucks, and movement. With that, I would say just one more time that your staff reviewed this in light of the B4 zone, and we are recommending approval of this revised plan to you. If you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to answer. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Nope. Thank you, sir. Mr. Emmons, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm briefly going to present to you the requested variants. At this time, at the original time, the variance request was from a 100-foot setback for the overhead doors associated with this self-storage facility from 100 feet to 25 feet. Based off of the applicant's revised plan, the closest of those overhead doors would now be at 55 feet. But that makes very little difference in the staff recommendation as it is on the report, other than changing 25 to 55. And I'd like to explain why. The majority of the variants, as it was originally requested, were for overhead doors that would be 55 feet away. There was a single door that was as close as 25 feet to a residential zone. That one has been eliminated, but it does not negate the reasoning for the staff's recommendation for disapproval. The staff is recommending disapproval of the requested variance request for several reasons. The first one, any time that you have a dimensional variance request, the first thing that you need to look at is what are the special circumstances that apply to this subject property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone or other properties in the general vicinity. And in this particular case, there are no special circumstances for the subject property. The subject property is a very rectangular piece of property. They're proposing to demolish and clear the site and build back new buildings. There's no reason why the subject property, it doesn't have any unique physical characteristics. or any, and it would be out of character with the general vicinity. Also, look at whether strict application of the zoning ordinance regulations would in some way hinder or cause an unnecessary hardship on the subject property. This property being about three acres and very rectangular in shape, it doesn't have any real reason why the property could not be redesigned to meet the 100-foot setback. More importantly, though, I want to remind the commission that dimensional variances, they don't go with the user. They don't even go with the use. A dimensional variance goes with the property, and once it's granted, it applies to that property for as long as that property exists and is zoned in the B4 zone. So it's very possible that if a variance was granted from the 100 feet to 55 feet, that a different user over time may come in, a user that might be more nuisance-oriented than the proposed self-storage use. It's possible that the applicants could come in with a final development plan that is different than the proposed preliminary development plan for this. All in all, just remember that if the dimensional variance is granted, that it goes with the property and not with the use or the user. Finally, the staff would just like to, you know, kind of put this in perspective also. So the proposed variance, even if the applicant does make a good argument that you should grant the distance variance from 100 feet to 55 feet, please do not let the variance be the tail that wags the dog. The very first thing that I would ask the commission to do is concentrate on the question of whether this property should or should not be rezoned. and then get to the question of whether it is or is not appropriate to grant the dimensional variance that is requested. The staff is recommending disapproval for the reasons listed in our staff report and on the agenda. If you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to try and answer those. Any questions for Mr. Emmons? No? Thank you. Thank you. we'll move on to the applicant. I will say the staff did a very good job, about 25 minutes. I'd truly love to keep all the applicants to about that time as well, and or opposition as well. But Mr. Murphy, good afternoon. I'll do what I can, Mr. I'm sure you will. Pleased to be here today, Dick Murphy. Chaz has some handouts he's going to be handing up. I've got to put one thing up on the board here I am pleased today to be representing Kepky Bluegrass Properties and the developer, which is Wentworth Property Company, LLC. With me today on the front row on the left is Corey Pence, who is the owner, along with his wife, with Kepky Properties. Corey's from Lexington. Next is Dave King. Dave came in today from Phoenix, Arizona. He is with Wentworth Property Company in Phoenix, and they will be the developer of this property. Of course, Rory Cayley is here, as well as our designer from EA Partners in Shaz High. And my law partner, Chris Clendenin, is still here, too. This property is the site of the former Kenton Health Care facility, as you all are well aware. It has been closed for six years. Kenton Health Care sold off the certificates of need for the bed. So it's a nursing home that can no longer function as a nursing home because there's no beds available for it. It's been vacant for six years. Corey has owned it for about a year. He's familiar with proposals on this property and has not had interest in this property for other reasons, for other uses, excuse me. We propose a very attractive three-story building on this property. I'm going to be describing that a little bit more as I go along. We feel it will be compatible with the existing offices and the business and commercial uses and residential uses on Waller Avenue. As you can see from the staff exhibit, this is an area of mixed zoning here. We have P1 in the blue or aqua. We have R4 in the dark brown. We have R1D in the yellow, and we have B1 in the reddish, which goes up this way. So we have four zones within the immediate area of the property. This will be a climate-controlled facility, and the target customer for this will be a professional person, the medical offices, legal offices, accountants, marketing people for samples, and all who need off-site storage. Most every law firm has off-site storage now, and there's a desire to have storage that you yourself control, to be able to come in, get records, not having it go through a third party's hands, and to be able to manage those records in an area near your office. The picture you have in mind of a, or I had in mind of a self-storage facility is not what we have in mind for this property. It's not going to be a place where there's a gravel driveway and a boat and an RV parked out there and a chain-link fence around it. That was the 1970s, perhaps, self-storage. If you, I don't have these in order, but if you could go to number five, we had some examples of what we're modeling this after. And most of these are in the southwest, number five in the handbook, the photographs there. There you go. These are modern self-storage facilities, which are aimed for the audience we're aiming for. where you can see the glass and the openness, the planting. These are designed so that it's apparent how secure they are, how architecturally appealing they are, that they're climate controlled, that they're attractive, and they're coming after the audience we are, the professional people that have records and samples that they want to store. We have a few other examples. Most of these are from California or the southwest. That's another example of a self-storage center. If you go on to page 7, there is another example in the southwest or Texas. I'm not sure. And next is landscaping. This is landscaping number 8 that Dave King's company has done. There is a storage facility in the area, but this is the type of landscaping his company does. I think the first picture we showed you was a facility that Mr. King has been involved with. But some of those had southwestern-style plantings, the low-slung, low-water-consuming plants. But they obviously can do planting the way we do it here as well. The final, the number nine, the next one, is the architectural rendering we showed you at the subdivision committee. As you can see, this is in the same style. It has, this is a three-story building. It has windows, glass. It's climate-controlled. It has architectural interest in it. And from a size and style, I guess the planners would call this massing and volume, we are compatible with some of the larger buildings in this area. We have a multi-story professional office building next to us. Here's our property right here, the old nursing home, which is a one-story building. Right here is a multi-story building. We have, I think, a three-story building across here. We have a two-story professional office building with exterior entrances. And we have two-story apartment buildings here. Those people are in support of our application, by the way. And we have some single family back here in Camden Avenue. And we have some professional across here. But size and massing and architectural-wise, we think this will be very compatible with what's in the Waller Avenue corridor right now. Wentworth Properties, Mr. King's company, is getting ready to spend $10 million to build this, $10 million to build a storage facility. This is not something they're doing lightly, but it's something they do after they have studied this and seeing what is their target audience and what is the market demand for their facility. They did a market study. Corey and Dave did a market study. And within one-mile radius of this property, there are no self-storage facilities at all. There's a population of 17,000 people within that one mile. and I would wager there's more than 17,000 jobs in a one-mile radius. Within a two-mile radius, we have two self-storage facilities serving a population of over 63,000 within two miles, only two facilities. Now, the staff used proportions. I guess if there were two facilities in Lexington and we had one in downtown and one out in the suburbs, They'd say there'd be 50% downtown, 50% suburbs that meets it. It's not the proportion. It's what the demand is and where the demand is. As I said, this is designed as a professional operation, and the reason for all the glass and the openness is to appeal to the people they want to come in, and that's the medical people, the professional people, the accountants. This will not necessarily be open 24 hours a day, but it will be open on a schedule that's convenient to the users. I wanted to talk a little bit about the comprehensive plan. I've got the excerpt from the comprehensive plan on page 11 in my handout. And I'm not going to read all those to you, but I want to emphasize a couple things. Now, the first one I am going to read to you. While the land use map served an important purpose in the past, reliance on the map may inhibit the kind of visioning that can lead to the best land development decisions in a constrained growth environment. Zone change applications should address the recommendations of the comprehensive plan as thoroughly as possible, not simply match a color on a map. The planning commission and staff should monitor how development is reviewed and implemented to ensure all needs are being considered. when we went away from the map-based plan, there was a mandate to have flexibility and to consider each use on its own merits. And we think on the merits of this, this should be approved. And one of the main reasons is the second one. We mentioned accessible community facilities and services to meet the health, safety, and quality of life needs of Lexington Fayette County's residents and visitors. There's a similar one down in six. I know the staff has mentioned six, which says it's libraries, hospitals, parks, and recreation. Two is not necessarily limited to that, but we feel that a storage facility is a service that is being provided to the professional offices, the B-1 here on Waller Avenue, and it's a service that needs to be located as close as possible to it. The last thing I've got of my excerpts are that this proposal will help reduce the carbon footprint of the city by supplying necessary services in areas close to where they are needed, which is goal B2. I think to say that we have enough facilities and that if you're renting a space in Waller Avenue, there's a facility two or three or four miles away that you can go to is missing the point. I think to support our businesses, we need to have the services near them, which we are providing here. The, I think the, if a person is considering renting space on Waller Avenue, this will be a plus. I wanted to also discuss, well, I'll finish up on the comprehensive plan. And as you know, there's a number in there that discuss the urban service area and the fact that we need to make use of and reuse lands and redevelop properties inside the urban service area to avoid having to expand the boundary of the urban service area. Consider infill and redevelopment, which we are doing. And obviously I mentioned the consent decree in here. This generates a lot less sewage, a lot less traffic than the previous use on the property. But I do want to discuss the demand and the professional office use in the area. If you could go back to my handout, we were just looking at the office space available. There's a lot of office space available in the Waller Avenue corridor on page one of the handout. the picture at the top of the page has space available in the property to the, I think that's the one next door to us here. Going down to the bottom of page one, it's one of the properties which is across the street has space available. If you go to page two, you can see that these are both on the other side of the street, The top one's at 366 Waller. I'm not sure the address at the bottom that's near us. Both of those have property space available. If you could go to the next page, the two more properties, one on the other side of the street, one next to us on this side of the street, have space available for P1. And then going down, this is on Broadway. If you go down to end of Virginia, turn left on Broadway, This is 33,000 square feet of professional office available. If you put this map up, we showed and we handed out as a separate one where these availabilities are that we saw in a brief area. There we go. We'll get it right side up in a minute there. There we go. So the properties around us, the six properties right around us are directly around us, the space available, and the 33,000 square feet is just located right there on Harrodsburg Road. So in this immediate vicinity, we have a great deal of professional office needed, and we don't feel after this property has stayed vacant for six years that there's a great demand for this property to be professional office use. However, we do think there's a demand and a need, as we showed you, and Mr. King will show you, discuss in just a minute, that there is a great need and demand for storage facilities, off-site storage, to serve the professional office use. I feel that if I'm looking for a professional office space in the Waller Avenue area, and I can see that I have modern, clean, convenient, secure off-site storage available a couple hundred yards away on Waller Avenue, and I don't have to drive two or three or four miles for it, that's going to be a plus in the column and my considerations of whether I locate on Waller Avenue. We think this will be a plus for the professional offices on Waller Avenue, and Nicholasville Road. We have the biggest medical area in the community on Nicholasville Road and on Harrodsburg Road, and we think this is ideally suited to serve those uses. We are here to serve others. As I said, the three-story and the architecture make this compatible with the buildings that are around us. We propose conditional zoning restrictions, and after the discussion, as the staff mentioned, we proposed additional zoning restrictions which we have on page 12 and 13 of my handout, in that we have restricted most other uses in the B4 zone. We still allow garden centers and maybe a couple others, but we'd actually be fine with just restricting it to this particular use. And that's because we want to reassure people that through conditional zoning restrictions, we're not going to have a truck terminal, not that one would be here anyway, but there would not be the truck terminals, service stations, shops of special trade, pawn shops, machine shops, and that sort of thing. But I want to also direct your attention to the last one on the list, which is on the second page, number 20, in which we restrict outdoor storage, in other words, no outdoor storage of motor vehicles, recreational vehicles, campers, and boats. So there would not be any of these things sitting outside at this property. I want to discuss the variance just a little bit because this is B4, and I want to show you the existing configuration of this property. We have residential from this point. These are five apartment buildings. from this point going up around to the north side over to here. Those are residential zones. In the B4 zone, we're required to have anything other than a pedestrian door has to be 100 feet away from a residential zone unless the variance is granted. So you can have unmovable windows and pedestrian doors within 100 feet, but you can't have any larger doors than that. We have redesigned this from what you saw at the subdivision committee and zoning committee to make this a solid building around the outside. And we're doing that to eliminate openings and to make sure that every overhead door is at least 55 feet away from a residential zone. Both here, this dimension from the front to the rear is 55 feet, as is this dimension. This may actually be a little more in the rear. But the important point is the wall around back, while it will have architectural detail, will not have windows and openings. So all sound, noise, and activity will be insulated from the residential and back by our landscaping and by our wall and by the building themselves. So when something goes on here, it's going to be very difficult to hear it. You won't see it and should not be able to hear it. and the residential next door to us. By the way, I think on page 10 of the handout, I have a letter of support from the person who owns three of these, this one, this one, and this one. And Corey has talked to the owner of the other two of these. These are the apartment units right there, all of whom are in support of our proposal today, by the way. But we're insulating this, and I want to, if you can look at the existing configuration, The existing configuration on the west side is very similar to what we have. Our setback here is the same as the existing setback. You can see the trees through there, except the only difference is, of course, in the Kenton Place they had windows and doors, and nursing homes are busy places. They have food service coming in. They have trucks delivering food. They have shift changes for employees. They have smoke break areas for employees. and there's a lot of activity going on. We have the same distance here with our building with no openings, so there'll be no activity over on that side. Similarly, in the rear, this existing parking area is actually only two feet from the property line. So when this was operating, they had parking back there, the doors opening, people coming and going. We will have, instead of parking spaces along here, green space, no parking. These lines you see are just where the parking spaces were before. They're not new. They'll be removed. So there's no parking through here. Solid wall. And all the activity will be 55 feet away from this residential line instead of 2 feet away from this residential line. Plus, we'll have the wall and insulate the sound there. So we feel it's appropriate because all the activity is directed inward. and with the walls, we're not going to have any impact on the residential properties around us. And Dave is going to address you a little bit, but in conclusion, I know that some of the professional office owners around may be here today may be concerned about change in the area, and that's obviously a common concern when we have a zone change presented. But this is a use which is designed, we think, you can see from our renderings, a design which is here because of the professional office uses in the area. We're not here to displace them. We're here to support them. We're here to supply a need in this community which has been demonstrated as a demand for Wentworth Property Management, who is experienced in doing this. And there's such a demand that they're willing to spend $10 million to build this building. This building is going to be a lot more expensive than a lot of the professional offices in which people have offices in. It's going to be well designed. It's going to blend in. The massing and the scale is going to be appropriate for this. And I know the staff can argue, well, it's not appropriate to have B4. We think the use here, which is what is designed to serve the P1 uses here, is fully appropriate to have uses here in a closer vicinity, closer area than is right now. We don't need more professional offices in this area, but we do need more facilities to serve the professional offices and to strengthen the professional office property that is here. I've proposed some findings for you, which are in the last two pages of my handout. Hopefully you'll look at those, and we'd like you to adopt those. But they basically follow the presentation that I've made to you. I won't go over those again. And obviously we'd ask you to adopt the conditional zoning restrictions, which we have at page 12 and 13. My findings do specifically adopt the conditional zoning restrictions. And, again, we are asking for the variance on this. So we're, I can't emphasize too much, we're here because of the office use in the area. We're not here to displace it. We're here to be a service to it. Dave is here, and I came from Phoenix, and I think he wanted to address you on it a few things, too. But we thank you very much for your attention to this, and I'm very pleased to be representing what I think is a very fine development for this area. Hi there. My name is Dave King. I'm with Wentworth Property Company out of Phoenix. We're an industrial office, self-storage, retail developer, primarily in Maricopa County, which is Phoenix. at the moment. Recently, I came aboard with them to help them grow in the self-storage and industrial and office and retail sectors. I was approached by Corey with this site probably six months ago or so. Interested in Lexington and especially the infill piece where this sits, we decided to explore it further. Dick hit on most of the things that I would be talking about, which would be demand and nationwide demand and Gen 1 properties versus state-of-the-art properties. All I can tell you is that we build for Northern Trust, Tesla, Vanguard, Shutterfly. We represent really nice, good tenants in everything that we do. And same would be true in this location. We would be building a state-of-the-art storage facility with what we believe would probably never have a higher and better use, thus our willingness to spend as much money and time and effort on this as we would. As Dick said, we intend on spending quite a lot of money on this property, and we believe that there is a need and a lack of competition within a mile and two miles and three miles and being as well located near campus and near a lot of single-family homes and then a lot of businesses that need storage. We would not normally come to a place like Lexington for a one-off property like this. I believe this is kind of our entry into the Lexington market for this and other things as we kind of get to know the community and get to know the market. As well as I think this property will do once we open it, I think it will open up our interest in coming here to look at other developments and using other pieces of land for other uses. I also represent Crow Holdings, which is an institutional family equity firm out of Texas, and we're the person that they partner with to put a lot of their money out, both their family money and their limited investor fund, to put out in industrial and office and retail and storage. So I can tell you they're very excited about the potential of this project and the potential of looking at other things in this area. I can tell you, you know, I'm happy to answer questions that are storage specific, but I think Dick kind of hit on it. And we are more than willing to work with staff and work with committee and work with the neighborhood. It's nothing that's new to us. We've had to do it on almost every project that we've built to work with them to make sure that this is a facility that is good for this property. And if I can step up here for a second, you know, Dick mentioned that we would be open to working on the variances. And I can tell you that although I'd like to take credit for this as a unique design, this was a design based on the lot being a rectangle. We wanted to put something very attractive, three stories with lots of different angles and aesthetic touches on the frontage on Waller Avenue. These are actually fairly tall buildings with pitched roofs, which would be able to house warehousing for businesses. You could put a boat in there. You could put a car in there, but protected from the elements. If necessary, and the 100 feet of variance that we're supposed to have for any roll-up door is something that staff just can't get over, I would be willing to reconfigure this entire site so that these became interior buildings, and we put manned doors along these parts, and we can change the front of this to more of a one- or two-story smaller building, and then we can do drive-up buildings in the middle here. I'm not stuck on this design. It was our thought that this would be well-received because of the aesthetics seen from Waller Avenue, enclosing it, all the business happening inside of the storage facility. But I can tell you we're more than happy to work with the neighborhood and work with staff on coming up with a design that is, you know, if you are to approve this pending a design review, we're happy to go back to the drawing board and restructure this and not need the variance. So we would just really need it to be the restricted B4 zone, and then we can go back and we can just change these around and change all the configuration. I think it'll be unfortunate to see a building like this go away because it's going to be a really neat building. But we are willing to work with everybody on that. And, you know, I'm sensitive to new development in an area like this where there's a lot of pride and of ownership and what's there and what's around it. But, you know, with that being said, I thank you for your time. And if you have any questions specifically, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you, Mr. King. I did want to mention just one item on the development plan. There was that one last discussion item, now number nine, discussed need for truck parking in front of the facility. And we have a good parking area, wide aisles. We think we've accommodated that. Trucks will generally not be parking out in front of the building. They would be admitted into the rear. So we feel we've covered that, but if we need to make that a resolve item with the staff, if they feel we need to set aside some area, just make that a resolve issue, and we'll work that out with the staff. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Anyone else want to speak in favor of this plan? Yes, please come forward. Come forward in favor of this plan. Okay, your name, sir? My name is Gene Lear. I live at 1324 Camden Avenue. That backs up directly to the north wall or north fence. And I just want to know, if you rezone this, is it going to affect my property there? Because I live directly behind it. As a matter of fact, there's an easement next to my house for the driveway for a number of houses that are new on my side of the street, and the parking is in the rear. Okay, well, it's not on there because that's an old picture, but I had to have an easement there to allow people to get in to park into their parking lots behind their houses up on our street. And I was wanting to know, is this going to affect, is it going to rezone my property? It will not rezone your property. Okay, one more question. Can they clean that fence row out back there? It's taking up half my driveway. I think that might be a discussion item later, Mr. Murphy. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, let's respond. There is, in doing title work, there were some easements along the back, along the side of these properties, just north of our property, that were all the way along here. Some of those have been closed by the city over the years. Some of them have not. I want to emphasize we will not be using any of those. We will not be using any of those. We will not use any of those easements in the rear. And, yes, I think it's quite possible that fence row should be cleaned out. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Anyone else wish to speak in favor of this plan? If not, before we proceed on, I think we'll take like a five-minute break and then proceed. Imperial Waller's building sits in this area. It's the immediately adjacent parcel. DKBB is the next, I'm sorry, Vicknell and Cravens is the next lot down. These two buildings kind of both sit back. They look like they're companion buildings, but they're actually under separate ownership. And then my other client is DKBB, which is directly across the street. That's the renovated building that I showed you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Walbert. Anyone else want to speak in opposition of this at this time? If not, I think what we'll do is move to rebuttal. and Mr. Murphy and then Mr. Walburn and then the staff, and we'll reserve questions for the end. Mr. Murphy. And we're still on time limits. Please. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, I learned when I was young, like Mr. Walburn is, I envy him for his youth. when I started out doing zoning at his age, I learned in representing you all and counsel that you can make a pretty good-sounding argument against any use, against any zone change. If you've got a restaurant, you can come in and say, oh, we've got 10 restaurants around here. We don't need another restaurant. If you have a job provider, people come in and say, oh, wait a minute, we're at 4% or 5% unemployment. That's full employment. We don't need any more jobs. We don't have room for them. We're going to create traffic here. If you want denser housing, you can come in and say, well, the average in this neighborhood is four and a half units per acre, and they're proposing six. That's not compatible with us. And here we're saying, yeah, we got vacancies. This property's been vacant, but we don't need this. We don't want it. What I'm saying is that if you've made up your mind in advance, there's a lot of arguments you can advance about not wanting uses. But it's all the same thing. You could defeat any use you have in front of you today by arguing, oh, we don't think there's a demand because we've shown that this and this and this. For instance, they make the argument that both that this is one of the densest population areas, and then they say, oh, but they're students. even though it's a very dense population, all of them are students and none of them are going to want storage units. Well, number one, most of our business is commercial. A lot of it is residential. They didn't mention to you that we're on the border of a census district which has single-family detached. We have a lot of single-family detached here which needs it as well. But I want to, and we get pictures of 1970s type storage facility and say, oh, that's what they're going to build here. This company that had a logo in one of the pictures you showed to try to show what were comparable things we were doing, that picture, that company with that logo bought another existing unit in Nashville and it doesn't look terrible. Well, we showed you what we're going to be building here. Then they say, oh, conditional zoning doesn't work. Well, we can say zoning doesn't work. Grant a zone change, you can always come back and ask for a change in a zone change. There have only been 17 times in 18 years when people have asked for changes and conditional use, conditional zoning restrictions, less than one a year, and most of those are pretty minor. But yes, people can come in and ask for a zone change in five years on this property or any other property in Fayette County, and people can come in and ask for a change in conditional zoning on this property or any other property in Fayette County. But for those of you, those, if you, I want to emphasize three numbers here. I'm doing this. The first number is six. Six years this property has been in, I guess what Mr. Walbur would call an unconstrained P1 without any restrictions on it, no users on this property. Yeah, we went through a recession, but we also went through one of the biggest economic expansions in the history of America, too, still unused. Six years, no use on this property. Second number is zero. That's the number of jobs this has created in the last six years. If we're going to judge everything on jobs, we should have all our residential in Jessamine County or Clark County or Georgetown and only allow businesses to be located in Fayette County. But the point is, we're going to have storage facilities in Fayette County, and those storage facilities are not great job creators wherever they are. The more relevant question is should we have them here, we're near where the demand is, where we're in the corridor that has professionals who use it and yes, we're going to be, we have a lot of sales representatives, we have doctors, we have accountants who use this, we comply with HIPAA laws. But zero, this has done zero except paid some taxes for the last six years and the last one is 10 million. and that's what the cost of this facility is going to be. That's pretty substantial, especially when the objectors point out that one of the owners has done a $2 million renovation in this area recently, and that's great. That's very good because that shows an investment in Waller Avenue. But what are we showing when we want, we're asking for the privilege of spending $10 million in building a state-of-the-art facility here to supply a need for people, not only in this area, but in this general area of the community. $10 million investment. This is not something that is done lightly by Wentworth. It's not something they just jump in and say, oh, there's something vacant here, let's build something here. This is something they've done a lot of study on. They have the customer base here, and they're going to have the best storage facility in this community, and they're going to attract users who will support this. And there's a lot of other specific things I could hit upon. Mr. Chairman is noting me that I don't have time to discuss all of them, but I hope you look at this in the big picture that I have. Zero, six, and ten million. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Walburn, comments on rebuttal? Absolutely, and I'll do my best to be very brief. I have tremendous respect for Mr. Murphy, one of the most respected zoning attorneys in Lexington and in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. But he just suggested to you that if I'm going to throw a bunch of information at you, well, you should just ignore that, that we should ignore the statistics that I gave you and look at a larger picture. I think that would be irresponsible. We've given you concrete information about what is happening in this corridor, what's working, what businesses are flourishing. P1 is flourishing here. With respect to Mr. Murphy's numbers, I'd simply point out I think we've provided numerous explanations about why this property has sat vacant for six years, and I would dare venture that it would not sit vacant for six more. But that's solely within your discretion to determine whether you think that this use is appropriate. Mr. Murphy suggested that this property has created zero jobs over the last six years, and that is absolutely true. But I would point out another number, three, or more accurately, three and a half. Would we wish to cap this three-acre property at three and a half jobs? Because that's all we're going to get with this development. And next to the $10 million, I would simply place a question mark. We hope that this development is successful. We hope that this deal goes through. There is no guarantee that that $10 million is going to be spent. You're asked to look at this from a global perspective. We've tried to provide you concrete information with which to do that, and we'd ask you to refuse this request. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Walbert. Yes, ma'am. Your turn. First and last, I have three points. In terms of even if there is, as Mr. Murphy suggests, too much office along this corridor, there are a large number of other uses in the P1 zone that could utilize a three-acre site and be successful and fit within this corridor. Second, the staff may be able to support change and redevelopment along Waller Avenue. In fact, I think we can, but not of this nature. It is so out of character with the corridor and would set, I believe, a negative precedent. Third, the threshold question, as Mr. Emmons suggested at the end of his presentation, is not whether they can rework their plan to eliminate a variance. The threshold question, or make it look good, is whether or not this use or this zone, I guess more importantly, fits along this corridor. And that's where the comprehensive plan comes in. That's where the Planning Commission has to make a decision about what is appropriate for our community in the long run. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Wade. So at this point, I'll close public comment and testimony phase, opening it up to the Commission for any questions for the applicant, opposition, or the staff. I don't have questions, Mr. Chairman, but I do have a comment. Okay. And in the interest of disclosure, my fellow commissioners should know that in our zone committee, I recommended approval of this application, and that approval didn't advance for want of a second. And we discussed extensively all of the things that have been discussed today, and I'm not sure we discussed any more, but certainly we talked about the economic impact or the job impact of being only three jobs. That's not the only economic impact. There will certainly be secondary and tertiary economic impacts of all kinds. As has been mentioned, the investment multiplier is very significant. The property has been dormant for six years, and there could be a variety of reasons for that. And we could argue about that ad infinitum. And the fact is that this is the first time in six years that there has been a confluence of economic forces that have brought a development proposal to us. I am often, well, I'm not accused. I am a progressive economist. I'm often accused of being a liberal economist. But in spite of that, I am not comfortable with usurping the market's determination of whether or not we have an adequate amount of a given good or service. That degree of central planning has an extensive history of failure. Many, many, many places. But above and beyond all of that, early in my career, I learned that economic, business, and cultural linkages with other areas can be extremely important. In fact, when I worked for governors Brethet and Nunn, we opened an office on the West Coast in Los Angeles to encourage those linkages. In more recent eras, governors have even worked to encourage international linkages. and in this instance we would establish a linkage with a company headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. That's not necessarily good or bad, but since the Zone Committee meeting, I visited Wentworth's website and I've got to say that I found what appear to be a number of very impressive developments And I found a management team with extensive experience. And I won't belabor all of those kinds of things, but I will say that for these reasons, unless some of my fellow commissioners find a flaw that hasn't been identified at the appropriate time. I intend to move approval of this application. Thank you, sir. Questions or we can take comments. So any particular questions for anyone? if people are ready for comments we can move to comments yes yes thank the presenters for their presentations today and in respect to my colleague i i think the question here has been addressed by the staff for disapproval and i would certainly support the staff because I think as far as economic reasons, we're going too far down the road in researching companies, and that's not the question here. The question is the zoning from P1 to something else, and the staff has suggested very well outlined reasons that we should not change the zoning, that it should remain P1. so I would definitely agree with that Ms. Wilson well first of all I can say that this has been really exhilarating I've heard really some excellent arguments from two fine and upstanding attorneys and I've enjoyed it, I really have with that said I know that as it relates to our planning commission we sort of boxed ourselves in a way with the infield development because we knew when we did this infield development activities we were going to have to put ourselves on a position to do a little wiggling, if you will. But based on the facts and the information that I've seen and received today, it seems to me there are two things that stand out in my mind. This is a prime piece of land, and it only produces 3.5 jobs. That is something that I think we definitively have to look at. I know that the property has been sitting there for six years, but I could quite frankly understand, no one mentioned it, But if I had a prime piece of property, probably the reason it would sit there for six years is because of the price tag that I'd put on it. Because if it's a prime piece of property, you have to pay premium prices in order to get it done. But I think that based on the corridor, based on the neighborhood, based on the information that has been presented here, I'm not really, I'm not conflicted by it, but I'm concerned about the number of jobs that's been presented. But let me say one other thing too, and this is kind of a footnote. I appreciate the interest that you all gentlemen have given to the city of Lexington. And whether this goes through it, we don't know. I don't know how those are going to come out. But I hope you will stick around and be able to think about some other things that we can do to improve and to keep moving our community along. Thank you. Other comments? Yes, sir. I guess I first need to start off by saying I don't have any financial interest or gain, you know, related to this zoning change. But I think when we look at basically spot zoning, which is what we're talking about here, I think there has to be some really good reasons. um what what i heard was that that the the office space that's in this in this corridor is 90 occupied i didn't hear any evidence or proof of of demand for the storage at all So I don't know how, you know, we have proof it's a long established corridor. It's a B1, a P1 corridor. I think the jobs thing is really big for me. It's, you know, three jobs for a three-acre site. And I think there are reasons why, you know, this property has not redeveloped yet. So what I would suggest is you all take a step back and look at other P1 uses. UK is advertising in that area all the time for office space. And so I will not be able to vote for this. Anyone else? Patrick. I just weigh in quickly that this, again, very compelling arguments on both sides. but when it comes down to me it's a simple decision of what's appropriate. I think the staff did an exceptional job of explaining why this is not appropriate and I would have to vote to disapprove the application. Anyone else? If not, let me say first a couple of my commission members have indicated that the arguments presented today is very professional, very compelling, and yes, we did hear on one side everything, including the kitchen sink, I do believe. I'm going to have to agree with Patrick and others in the fact that I think the staff did an admirable job. When I saw this in subdivision, and as Mr. Martin said, we looked at these things as if the zoning's already in place. it was like this is a nice facility. It looks good. It's very doable. However you start looking at the zone, it comes back to me as highest and best use, and I just don't think this is an appropriate place for this. I'd like to see it somewhere, but I just don't think it's appropriate at this location. So anyone else? If not, I'll call for a vote. I'll ask for a motion. Well, I promised you a motion, Mr. Chairman. There you go. I will make it as soon as I find the correct references. Yeah, page four. I move approval of MAR 2015-17. We've got a motion on the floor. We would have to have findings to go with it, Mr. Drake. Because there are the, I understand what you're asking me. I move approval for the reasons that I have discussed in my comments. I would say, I would acknowledge again, that the employment impact is small. The investment impact, however, is very, very impressive. And I talked about the importance of linkages. Certainly, this company will bring records management expertise in technology. Whether it's unique or not, I don't know, but it is obviously successful given their track record. and if they were or did have the opportunity to operate here in Lexington, they may find this area as nice as we natives think it is and they might invest another $10 million at some point down the road. So for those reasons, I move approval of this. Okay. Motion's on the floor for approval. Do we have a second? sorry mr. Drake appears there's no second I understand do we have any other motions yes sir I would mr. chairman move approval to support the staff's recommendations for disapproval based on the recommendations outlined by staff Okay, this is for MARV 2015-17. Sorry, I should have put that in there. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded to support the staff's recommendations for disapproval. Any questions on the motion? If not, I will call for a vote. That motion passes. We need a motion at this time for the variance as well. I would presume that would be disapproval. Mr. Chairman, let me see, what's the... I can't really say, do we actually need a variance? I've been told, yes, we do. Okay, then I move that we support the staff's recommendation for disapproval of the variance as to reasons provided by staff. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second? Second to Ms. Plumlee. Any question in regards to the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. And then we have ZDP that best would probably be a recommendation for postponement at this time. Yes, sir. That was the staff recommendation, wasn't it? Mr. Chairman, I would move that the ZDP 2015-83 Story Business Subdivision, lot number 6, Waller Avenue Storage Facility, we support staff's recommendation of postponement. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement of ZDP 2015-6. Oops, no, I'm sorry. I'm on the wrong one. That's it. ZDP-83. I'm sorry. This is for ZDP-2015-83, Story Business Subdivision. Motion was for postponement and second. And all of those in favor, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Sorry, folks. we'll move on to page six. It's number four, MARV 2015-18, William R. Embry, Jr., MARV 2015-18. And we do have revised staff recommendations on the ZDP, ZDP 2015-80. Yes. We have one letter of opposition to the next case, which I think you mentioned is MARV 2015-18. William R. Embry, Jr., William R. Embry III, and they are doing business as TWP Housing. Thank you. This is a request to rezone five properties at the intersection of East 7th Street and Maple Avenue and the North Limestone area northeast of downtown. The subject properties are 220, 224, 226, and 228 East 7th, and then 628 Maple Avenue. And the request is to rezone all five of these parcels from a B1 zone to a high-density apartment R4 zone. The subject properties are, I believe, all vacant, if not maybe one structure left on the site. The neighborhood itself of Maple and 7th Street is characterized mostly by some commercial and mixed use along 7th Street and then mostly residential along Maple Avenue. The intersection of Maple and Seventh is the intersection of two collector streets, and so that area does have B1 zoning as a primary zoning in that area. Look at the current zoning map in that vicinity, and you can see, again, along Seventh Street and then a little bit up Lancaster Avenue, there's the existing B1 neighborhood business. That would be a neighborhood business node. And then along Maple, and as you go out, it is R3 in that area for residential, but mostly single-family residential use. The existing site from that intersection, just looking back into the site, there was an existing facility located there some time ago, but it's been removed, and there's just kind of the remnants of a foundation. from Maple Avenue looking towards 7th Street. Again, there are also some trees along the streets. And then looking along Maple Avenue, the northwestern property frontage. And Kitty Corner from the site is an existing convenience store at that intersection of 7th and Maple Avenue. The applicant is proposing to rezone to the R4 zone in order to develop a multifamily development, really just one building. Their proposal is for an affordable housing project, which will include 16 dwelling units, and that equates to a density of 28.57 dwelling units per acre. Each unit is expected to only have one bedroom. In terms of the 2013 comprehensive plan, where we've established the themes, goals, and objectives to further the vision for Fayette County. The applicant contends their request is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, and they cited several goals and objectives related to housing for our county, specifically goals and objectives related to expanding housing choices to meet the needs for Fayette County residents, planning for safe, affordable, and accessible housing to meet needs of older and disadvantaged residents, supporting infill and redevelopment that respects the area's context and design features, utilizing vacant properties within Fayette County to encourage compact, contiguous, or mixed-use sustainable development to accommodate future growth needs. The subject property is also located within our central sector small area plan boundaries and specifically sub-area C. The applicant's proposal for affordable housing is also in compliance with two of the principles of the small area plan, specifically enhancing the urban fabric and providing adequate and equitable housing. Within sub-area C, there was a specific note in the small area plan about a lack of quality and affordable housing in this area. So the staff believes that this proposal also meets that specific statement. The staff does agree that the requested rezoning is in agreement with the comprehensive plan as well as the small area plan, and we recommend approval of the rezoning to R4. The zoning committee three weeks ago also recommended approval of this request. And the findings are listed on your agenda as well as in the staff report. Questions for Ms. White? Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan associated with this own change begins at the bottom of page 7. The conditions are on page 8, and we have handed out at your seats a blue sheet with revised conditions. the plan before you today is at the corner of seventh and maple here's maple in this location east seventh here there is an alley a public right-of-way alley called foster alley here on this side of the property as well these are this is the building they're proposing it is two stories, 16 one-bedroom units, eight per floor. They have exterior circulation, breezeways shown in these locations. There are balconies being proposed as well. There's access off of Maple Avenue into the parking lot. They're proposing 15 units in this location. This is a revised plan, and they've addressed a lot of the cleanup conditions and basic information staff was concerned about. They extended a sidewalk down to 7th Street from the property as well. Staff had one very large concern at the time it was originally submitted and that they document their ability to meet the open space. The building itself is, as I stated, two stories. The footprint is a little over 7,000 square feet. The lot coverage falls well within the R4, and the FAR does too. It's a small site, but the building does fit well on the site. They're not pushing the envelope too hard in that regard. The dumpster, you may recall, was discussed at committee at some point. It started out in this location with access to the parking lot. It was moved close to the building. right at this location. Now it is back here and is located off Maple Avenue. Now, again, this is a preliminary development plan. There will be a final development plan where those things will be considered in depth. They are meeting the open space based on the numbers that they've given us on this plan. They're allowed to utilize this area because it is a side street side yard under the ordinance. There are other areas as well. We do want the numbers in the areas to be clarified. For instance, if they're using the balconies, we'd like to be sure of that. Balconies don't always end up getting built on the final development plan. So we just like for them to clarify that number. And so we know exactly what areas are part of the open space calculation. Staff has reviewed this revision, as you can see on the blue sheet before you, and there is a variance that is required. Two, in fact, one is interior landscaping to the parking and then the number of parking spaces. There's a request to vary that as well on this particular plan. You can see also that we would like to consider parking along Maple and 7th Street at the time of the final development plan to see if that is impacted in any way by this development. With that, staff is recommending approval of this plan, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? All right. Thank you. Jimmy. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I will be very brief and present the requested variances for the subject property. There are two variances. The first is to the interior landscaping. And without boring you with the numbers, this parking lot barely requires an interior landscaping island. our our landscape review committee did when they met last did take a look at this they recommended approval of the requested variants there was a recommendation that this property have its street trees planted along 7th street and maple street and then talking with mr martin that will be a requirement at the time of the final development plan there was some concern about the overall design of the proposed development plan, but there was not any concern over granting the very slight variance to the landscaping island. The more significant of the two requests is a variance request to reduce the required number of parking spaces. In the R4 zone, apartment buildings have a either-or. It's one and a half times the number of units or .9 times the number of bedrooms. whichever is greater. The applicant has requested in this particular case to switch that up and asking the Planning Commission for a variance for whichever is less. They are asking for 15 parking spaces for the 16 dwelling units, which mathematically works out at 0.9 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The staff enumerated in our staff report and in your findings several unique circumstances of the subject property. I did want to hit on just a few of those. This area is very walkable. There's retail businesses catty corner to the subject property and also notably It's about a 10-minute walk to two different bus lines, the Eastland bus line as you go ahead towards Elm Tree Lane and the North Limestone bus line. We do feel that this area is very walkable. We also look at the parking need with parking variances. All 16 of these dwelling units are proposed to be one-bedroom dwelling units, And the Planning Commission has recommended to the Board of Adjustment on some residential developments that have requested that a one parking space per dwelling unit is sufficient when it's restricted to single bedrooms because the parking need is expected to be less. And finally, we also look at other available parking. One very unique aspect about the subject property, and you saw a picture of it in the slides, is that there are about 15 to 17 noncompliant parking spaces that pull directly off of Maple Drive. The applicant is proposing to remove those noncompliant parking spaces, restore the curb, and in our estimation that they would be able to restore another four to six on-street parking spaces on the subject property. So we do feel that there will be ample opportunity for on-street parking in the general vicinity of the subject property, especially considering that the applicant is restoring on-street parking directly in front of their property on Maple Avenue. Okay. The only bit of difference between the staff's recommendation and the applicant's application is that the staff recommended approval of a parking variance, but we recommended approval to 16 parking spaces rather than the requested 15. The staff felt that going to one parking space for dwelling unit, that's the lowest that we have recommended in the past to the Board of Adjustment. And I wanted to tell the Planning Commission what I told the Zoning Committee. For this particular project, it is so small with only the 16 dwelling units that there is not a significant difference between the 15 proposed spaces and the 16 spaces. Should the Planning Commission agree with the applicant on the 15 spaces, the proposed findings that are listed on your agenda would only need two changes, changing the number 16 to 15 and changing the proposed use at one space per dwelling unit to 0.9 spaces per dwelling unit. I wanted to just kind of put that out there. I know that it's getting late, and I wanted to make this as easy on the Planning Commission as possible. The staff is still very comfortable recommending the 16 parking spaces. That would obviously have an impact on the proposed development plan. They would need to reorganize their plan to show the last parking space and do the appropriate open space areas. The staff also does not have a, in this particular case, with all of the special circumstances of this project, does not necessarily have a difficulty in recommending also the 15 parking spaces at 0.9. Although that's not a, going less than one is not one that we are always going to recommend. Thank you, Jimmy. We always like easy. Any questions? Mr. Chairman, if I could just clarify one item. Mr. Emmons said the landscape review committee when they met and reviewed this did not have a quorum. Thank you. But the members present did express their support for this. They did not take an official vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Murphy? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After the last hearing, I want to emphasize we agree with the staff. I am very proud today to be here with Bill Embry. As you all know, Bill Embry is, I consider Bill an icon of the community, especially for affordable housing. He's worked on that for many, many years. He's dedicated many years of his life to that. And I've had the honor of working with you on a number of your ventures, especially Faith Community Housing Foundation. And Bill worked on St. James Place and many others. Probably the list is too long. So it's indeed an honor to be here with Bill Embry. And Bill Embry is actually Bill Embry, Jr. and his son, Bill Embry III, is also involved in this project as well. Their company is going to be called TWP Housing. TWP stands for Two-Way Prayer. And I'm not going to go over the comprehensive plan too much. Ms. Wade mentioned the comprehensive plan and that we do agree with it. I agree with her that we agree with the comprehensive plan. And the one thing I will mention to you is that the 2007 comp plan did designate this property for residential use. Even though it's zone B1, has been zone B1 for many years, the 2007 comp plan, when we did have the map, did designate the property for residential use. We think this will help reinforce the fabric of this neighborhood. We have residential on the east and south and across Maple Avenue. There are neighborhood services on the north side of 7th Street. There's a little market sort of catty corner from us. There's a hairdresser up here and some other community facilities. And we think our residents will support that commercial here and help support it. I did want to talk just a minute about the parking variance. We are requesting 15 spaces instead of the 16. We have 16 units here. They're one-bedroom units. Through Bill's experience in building this type of housing, he knows we're not going to have 15 cars here. Low-income people have a lesser rate of owning cars, obviously. But more important, as the staff mentioned, we're near two bus lines here. We're in the downtown area, which is a very walkable area. We have services, a little market right across the street. So we don't anticipate having even 15 cars here. We understand the need for that. We do meet the, that meets the 0.9 per bedroom criteria, which I think is like 14.6. But we don't see any reason at this point to pave more grass than we have to. And we think having a 16th parking space is just going to be paved grass, which we will not really have a use for. As the staff mentioned, too, there is parking. There will be on-street parking available on Maple Avenue. that entrance to us is probably about the length of a car, so you can sort of use that to gauge how many we'll have available along Maple Avenue, probably, as Mr. Emmons mentioned, probably four to six spaces along Maple. And we're very security-minded on this, too, and that's one reason we have the parking where we are, the eyes on the street concept here, having the parking visible is very important to us from a security standpoint in this area. So I have a lot more I could say, but I'll spare you from that and sit down. I think, Bill, you wanted to make a remark to you as well. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. and staff. I wanted to reply to the letter that you got from North Lyme Stone Group. I met with them about three weeks ago, and they told me then that they would prefer the parking to be in back. As a result, I had our surveyor give me a drawing of what it would look like. Our architect, however, saw it, and he was vehemently opposed to putting the parking in the rear. He said he He was affiliated with an apartment complex in another state. And they had parking in the rear, and it was a very, very serious security problem. So much so that the apartment complex was not operable. So we definitely want the parking in front. As far as the number of spaces, when I expanded St. James Place some 12 years ago, we went round and round on the parking needs. And the planning insisted upon a figure. We had to buy additional property in order to accommodate it. It's not used. These people don't have cars many times. Now, an apartment facility to have a higher percentage of cars and used to do at St. James Place, but there will definitely be people that cannot afford an automobile. Any questions? Any questions, Mr. Ember? No. Thank you, sir. I would just note that who he was mentioning, we do have an email from Chris Nunn with No Lie CDC in reference to that, that this email has been passed around to the commission members. Others that would like to speak in favor of this plan? Okay. In opposition? Yes, ma'am? Please come forward. Give us your name. My name is Bernitha Kendrick. I live at 617 Maple Avenue. And I'm not in objection to your plan. I think it's very nice that you're looking to do something for older, disadvantaged people. However, that area, East 7th and Maple, is a high crime, high criminal activity area that, to me, would put residents of that caliber at risk. there is prostitution, sex offenders, drugs, hustling, and begging right there on that corner. And I'm not sure if this is the forum where I address this at, but until that problem is kind of cleaned up there, I don't think this is a really good place for people to come and live, not on that corner. So I'm not an injection to what you're saying. and it's a great idea for low-income housing, disadvantaged folks. But it's the area right now that we're really having a problem over there. So that's all I had to say. Any questions for me? Any questions for Ms. Kendrick? No. The other thing was the parking. A lot of folks on that street used that area where old Jeter's used to be to park. So if you're proposing just enough parking for the people that there are, It might be some issue with the residents on that Maple 6th Street sign to where the people park. So I don't know. We've got a couple businesses down on the end. So I'm not sure if that's going to be an issue with the people that already live on Maple because it's a no-parking street. So I don't know if that's going to be included to where people can, you know, park or come and visit the residents. So how are you all going to bring it all together? But it should be looked at. And again, the prostitution problem in that area is really bad. So I'm not sure if this is the forum to address it or if you all can pass it to the police or whatever. But it's something that should be looked at before you want to put these people in that area. That's all I have to say. Any questions for me? Any questions, Ms. Kendrick? Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Kendrick. And not officially the area to address this, but I'm sure it can be passed along. and with you bringing it to attention, I'm sure it will be passed along. Anyone else wish to speak on this plan? Any questions from the commission members on or anyone? If not, I'll close it. Yes, sir? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for motions. We would need a zone change, variance, and a revised ZDP. Mr. Chairman, I do have one comment in regards to the lady there who spoke. And I think statistically she's absolutely correct on everything that she said. The one thing I took some consolation in is that this problem has also permeated other areas of our community, and the way we've dealt with it is by restructuring the community, by improving the community. First of all, in a bigger sense, Central Park in New York had the same issue with crime and all types of drugs and what have you. And the way they resolved the issue was getting more people into the area, more so than taking people out. But right here in Lexington, I'm very familiar with that area. I'm familiar with the Aspendale area. We had the same issues there. We had the same issues in Charlotte Court and what have you. And I think we, by restructuring the community, and I think that is something we need to kind of pass along to our officials and to see what's what. But in accordance with our small area plan, I think the affordable housing thing kind of strikes a real good chord with me. I like the idea of that, and I don't think you have an objection, but I agree with you, ma'am, wholeheartedly. We do need to do something in that area to make sure that the people who live there are safe. Yes, sir. Yes. Thank you. Yes. I'll make a motion if you're ready. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I want to move for approval of MARV 2015-18 for the reasons noted by staff. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of MARV 2015-18. If there's no discussion on the motion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. And then for the variance? Yes, I move for approval of the requested variance of the two items that are listed on page 7. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. 15 or 16? That's 15. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded, okay? Motion has been made and seconded for approval of the variance with parking reduction to allow 15 parking spaces. Any question on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on the screen. And then for the ZDP. Move for approval of ZDP 2015-80 with the 10 noted or revised conditions. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the ZDP 2015-80 with revised 10 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. I should have said, Ms. Kendrick, thank you for your patience to get to this point and for your comments. We will move to the last item, I believe, on our agenda for the day. It's at the bottom of page 9, Journeys End, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment, Leastown Heights Subdivision, Lots 2 through 7, Zoning Development Plan, MAR 2015-21, and there is an associated ZDP 2015-82. Thank you, Mr. Salley. I will take note. I think we have to be out of here about before 6 o'clock. If we cannot get done, we will move over to the Phoenix Building. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you mentioned, this item. Hold on now. Hold on. Hold on. We do have some people here. Mr. Salley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This item does appear on page 9, very bottom of the page, Page 10 of your agenda, MAR 2015-21, a request by Journeys and LLC for rezoning from an existing R1D, single-family residential zone, to a neighborhood business B1 zone. This zone change involves 64 hundredths of an acre, with the properties being at 3092 and 3094 Lees Town Road. Mr. Chairman, in light of the time constraints, I will try and make an abbreviated presentation of the staff's report. We have received two letters of opposition and four emails, and I would like to circulate those to the commission at this time. I hope you'll pass those around. The subject property has two addresses because it involves currently two lots. I'll just stand here and use the laser pointer. Two lots at the corner of Long Branch Lane and Lee's Town Road here. It's directly across the street from Masterson Station Park, which is in an AR zone. The dominant zoning in this area is either R1D or R1C. R1D along the frontage of the road, including the houses closest to the subject property, and R1E to the south, R1C and the Bracktown neighborhood to the west. The Bracktown Baptist Church is in very close proximity to the subject property, as we'll show you in just a few moments using the photographs. I do want to orient you well to the property using photographs. This is a view from the east looking to the west at the subject property. It is not all of the property at the corner of Bracktown Lane and Leestown Road, but it is the majority of that property as outlined here in black. It includes a former gas station that's been on the property for approximately 80 years. The zoning of the property as R1D has been in place since 1969, so this has been a nonconforming use for a number of years. The zoning immediately surrounding is R1C as well. You can see a very good view of the church property as well as the new subdivision that's been developed in the last 15 years to the south and to the east of this location. This is a view of the former gas station on the property. No canopy, no gas pumps. Most recently has been used as a minor auto repair business. A little closer view of that building. There is a road project underway, which the next few photos will show you. This is the area of Leestown Road that is transitioning from a two-lane rural section near the entrance to the federal prison. and looking back to town in this direction, this is where there is a median and a four-lane section being proposed at Long Branch Road. This is a view looking at a vehicle exiting Long Branch on to Lee's Town, and in the distance you can see houses in the subdivision, some of which front on this very small portion of Long Branch Lane. This is a view of Bracktown Road. The subject property does have frontage on its rear to this roadway as well. This is the former federal highway before the road was constructed several decades ago and a view of the building on the property. This is looking to the north and west into Bracktown. The entrance to the church is right in the center of the slide here. That is their main entrance off of this roadway. And as you can tell, there are a number of homes in Bracktown in this vicinity as well. You could rotate that. Thank you. Maybe a couple. Thank you. This is an exhibit from a small area plan that was done in the late 1990s. This small area plan allowed the Marshall property here to come into the urban service area, but it also addressed the needs of the Bracktown neighborhood. At that time, that area was outside of the urban service area, but predominantly had residential zoning. It did have business use and business zoning as well, as you can see by the red rectangle there right in the center of the yellow highlighted area. The subject property is identified there with a circle, and at the result of this small area plan, there was no change recommended to the zoning or the land use at this location. That, despite the fact that in 1997, a short time before this plan was adopted, there was a proposed proposal to rezone the property. That proposal was withdrawn and did not advance. In 2000, this property went before the Board of Adjustment because the owner asked for the addition of retail alcohol beer sales, pardon me, not alcohol, beer sales, and the sale of trees and shrubs. That application was an administrative appeal, and that was denied at this location. and that was considered an expansion of a nonconforming use. The applicant now wishes to rezone the property to convert it to a restaurant and include off-street parking. There has been off-street parking associated with this use for a number of years. The staff notes in our report that this property is somewhat different from many of the properties in the area because it has frontage on three streets. Most of the other lots in Bracktown are double frontage lots, but they're much more rectangular in shape, as are the new subdivision lots further to the south on what was the Marshall Farm or the Marshall property prior to that. The staff notes in our report that the highway expansion seems like the appropriate time to allow this property, which does have a history of commercial use, to finally be rezoned in a manner that would allow its expansion. We do believe conditional zoning is necessary if this property is rezoned B1 to limit a number of uses, and I'll cover that in just a moment. The zoning committee and your staff have recommended approval of the rezoning request to B1 in that B1 zoning is more appropriate than the existing R1D single-family zone for this site for the five reasons that appear on our staff report and on your agenda this afternoon. Our recommendation is made subject to your approval and the certification of the development plan that is to my right that will be presented to you in just a moment. The staff is recommending conditional zoning restrictions, A through J, under item number three on your meeting agenda, to prohibit a number of uses, including establishments for the retail sale of alcohol, specifically packaged beer, wine, and liquor sales, carnivals, miniature golf, indoor theaters, banquet facilities, drive-through facilities even as an accessory use, outdoor live entertainment or dancing, cocktail lounges and nightclubs, and extended stay hotels at this location. We believe, and we provided a finding at the very bottom of this item, that these are important restrictions to restrict the most intensive land uses allowable under the B-1 zone to provide for an adequate land use transition to the nearby residents, both in Bracktown and in the Marshall Property Subdivision. Thank you very much. As you know, I'll be available for questions later, but I'd be glad to answer any that may come to the commission at this time. Any questions for Mr. Salah at this point? No. Thank you, sir. Mr. Martin. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, at the bottom of page 10, CDP 2015-82, 82, Leastown Heights Subdivision, is the preliminary development plan that is associated with the zone change. Here you can see the Leastown road frontage. This little dash line here is the existing building, which they intend to incorporate into the new restaurant. They are proposing 5,000 square feet for the restaurant. There are 25 parking spaces proposed at this end of the lot. Sounded like, oh, there we go. All right. Want me to start over? No, I don't. They have an access into the parking here at Lee's Town. And, again, here's Blacktown Road as it comes in through here like this. Now, these orange blobs, splotches you see on the plan are because at the committee, the applicant walked in a revision. And he showed that this was going to be closed and this was going to be opened up. So your access will be through here to Bracktown. And this will be closed. They did not, however, submit to us an official revision and allow staff to review that and offer you any revised conditions, although I don't believe we would have necessarily revised the conditions that you see before you. They're very straightforward. This is a very straightforward, relatively simple development plan. It is a preliminary. There will be a final. One thing that we do want to resolve at the time of that final will be a connection to Town Branch Trail, which, as you all know, is a very nice, important feature to this part of town, and we would like to see a safe access provided for customers and people that would want to utilize the restaurant to that trail. Your subdivision committee has recommended approval of the plan, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? No, thank you, sir. Applicant? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm Kevin Phillips with Endress Engineering. You have witnessed polished presentations earlier in the day. I can probably say that this one will not be as polished or as prepared. I apologize for that, but I guess we do what we can. Again, I'm Kevin Phillips. We agree with the – I have some slides, but I think, Bill, they were just really meant to orient you to the site. The projector's not great, but they sort of start out large, get closer. You can see we're on the edge of the neighborhoods, edge of the McConnell's Trace neighborhood and the Bracktown neighborhood right on the arterial of Leastown Road. The staff has recommended approval. This property has been a commercial business for 80-plus years. and we want to continue that business use, essentially. We want to expand that use, and that's why we're here today to request the rezoning to a B1. We feel like that the neighborhood business, you can sort of skip to the last two, the zoning maps. The neighborhood business, I think, is just that, provide neighborhoods with facilities and services that are close to them. This shows that there is predominantly residential, of course, the large agricultural tract, which is the park across the street. And if you can go to that last one. The only, there are two, I'm sorry, that's okay. On this map, there are only two business-related zones on Leastown Road in the area even. One's the larger red outline just to the left of the Leastown Road label. That is a future commercial development that borders the Citation Boulevard corridor. And then the small red dot up and to the left of our site is the small historic business site that's the Frank Minifield Enterprises, which is directly across the street from the entrance to the prison. So I've sort of highlighted along the other arterials in this part of town that it is not uncommon for sure to see these neighborhood businesses, as you would expect, a scattering of business zone locations throughout residential neighborhoods, especially along these corridors. There are spots along the corridor that provide these services to the neighborhoods. So we are asking for the same here to provide those services to these nearby neighborhoods. So in general, we know what this development plan shows. Obviously, the B1 zone allows more uses than just cafes or restaurants. There are many other uses. They're all, again, neighborhood-related, of course, as the planning staff has laid out these uses to accommodate those needs. So it would be banks, offices, studios, nursery schools, daycares, beauty shops. These are things you would expect to see in a neighborhood business zone. In this particular case, we're proposing a restaurant. None of these uses, because of the restrictions that the staff has provided, the prohibited uses, and the one I see as being the most significant is the drive-thru facilities even for accessory use to the business. That is a major restriction to the property, which we completely agree with, but it fits with so many of the other things. The drive-thru facilities generate a lot of traffic. They generate a lot of traffic. Fast food restaurants depend on 80% of their business go through the drive-thru. We're not asking for that here. Banks the same way. A majority of their drive-thru business is the majority of their business. So even if this were a bank at some point in the future, it's not going to be the traffic generator that a drive-thru facility would provide. So we think that's a very important restriction that we have agreed to on this property. And again, in my mind, it's the most significant, possibly related to the rejection of the appeal in 2000, where they were asking for packaged liquor sales and plant sales. So A, which is the retail sale of alcohol and the drive-thru facilities, I think, are the major restrictions in our favor here. again we agree with the staff's recommendation and i have briefly reviewed the six comments that bill has received by mail and email uh reviewed those just before the meeting so i have a list of of concerns that i have compiled from those emails sort of the list of their complaints but i probably will address those in a rebuttal instead of sort of trying to preempt what they're going to tell you, I will let them present that case and present their objections to the case, and then I will rebut them with our ideas on the property. So with that, I hope less is more. I hope I can punch Mr. Drake's dance card this time and get him back on track. But I would leave it at that and request your approval of the rezoning. Thank you, Mr. Enders. Any questions for Mr. Enders at this point? No? Thank you. Others that would like to speak in favor of this plan? If not, we'll move. Yes. This is the applicant. He might have a few words. Sure. Thank you for your time. Your name, sir? I'm sorry. I'm Brandon Green. I'm the applicant. Apologize. No, you're fine. Go ahead. So, you know, like Kevin was saying, mostly I really wanted to rebut the issues that were brought upon us here against the opposition. And as you notice today, there aren't a lot of people here in favor of. But just to make mention, yesterday it was placed on Facebook. So we've had about 30 to 40 people who've already kind of liked it and they're actually kind of excited about it. And I think I've got about five or six people watching this right now who are excited about the project, too. So I don't know. Anyways. So sorry. Sorry. Okay. Like I said, the project has been in business for 80 years. It's really not conducive to the residential zoning that it has against it. so we hope we move forward with the B1 zoning I guess that's all. Thank you Thank you Mr. Green. Okay anyone else in favor of this? We'll move to those that's in opposition. Please come forward. We do want to hear from you. I just ask do not be repetitive whether it's whatever issue that you bring up we don't need to hear it five times or six times or seven times but we do want to hear from you so please be ready and come forward give us your name and good afternoon my name is Barbara Stucker and I'm not only the president of McConnell's trace homeowners association but I am a home homeowner that's going to be right across the fence the back fence from from this area from several of these people we have as he mentioned we have two homes that face Bracktown Road then there is the width of the trail and a cul-de-sac at the end of Long Branch Lane and there are four houses down that little piece of land what they have to look at right now is the trail and across the open space that the city owns our main concern is property values I don't know that anybody has ever gone to a realtor and said I want a home that is about 40 feet from a restaurant. I mean, not many people do. We're concerned about our property value dropping all along that area because so many of them are so close. I would estimate that probably several of those people are not any farther than the length of this room from this property. And we're concerned about things, first of all, like noise because I know they're asking to have, they're not asking for exterior entertainment, but that would not keep them from having inside entertainment. And we can hear things now from when they have events over at Masterson Station Park. And not only that, but you can feel the music. And we're concerned that when we're just that short a distance from that property, that we'd have that same problem in several of those homes. we're also concerned about light extra lights and things at night because there's none now it's all residential we're concerned about for one thing we're concerned about a future issuance of a liquor by the drink license and any problems that might bring for instance any problems with security or violence or problems outside that's still going to put that right in somebody's front yard. Less than in a couple of instances, like I said, less just the width of a two-lane road. We're also concerned about things like additional traffic, and I didn't know before about the change to have the entry from Bracktown. That's a real problem, because it's right now, there's not that much of a problem with traffic, but when they finish taking up all the barrels on Leavestown road, people are going to try to go 70 down through there, and that's right exactly where you merge into two lanes. We're concerned about the additional traffic there and that problem. We've been concerned that we'll have trouble with accidents where they merge back into two lanes right in front of our front entry to the neighborhood as it is, and with the addition of the restaurant down there, I think that would bring more traffic. we're also concerned with the aesthetics of looking out the front door and seeing what we assumed would be the backside of a restaurant and a and a dumpster back there and concerned that that dumpster might bring vermin and things around if it's not taken care of another thing we're concerned about in that area is food odors most restaurants when you pass them you can tell that you're passing a restaurant. And that's going to be there for everybody. If you sit out on your back porch, you sit out on your deck, that's what we're going to encounter because we are so close. So we're concerned about those things. We're also concerned that once this is passed, if it does pass, that if the restaurant doesn't manage to make it, and a lot of restaurants do not survive, that anything else goes. then. It's already rezoned and it's too late for us to do anything about it. I did have, like I said, I had letters sent to me to bring for them because a lot of the people, several of them were going to be out of town. A couple of them couldn't get off from work, but I had from all of the people, several of the people that lived down through both that two residents on Bracktown and down through that cul-de-sac. We're afraid, too, that people park on that cul-de-sac and walk to the restaurant because we have enough trouble with it parking up there now. And they have even been known to drive across the trail to get out or into that cul-de-sac. We're kind of concerned about that. And I have had residents tell me that they would not feel safe walking at night on the trail up at that end if this was approved. So, you know, we would ask in that case that you give consideration to the fact of how very close those homes are every one of those letters that were sent to me that I passed on and including mine mentions the loss of the peace and quiet that they expected to have when they bought there and that also goes to the to the value of the homes because nobody wants to buy a home on a busy street nobody wants to buy one that's 30 feet or 40 feet from a restaurant I mean it's really going to affect our property values so we would ask that you please turn this down thank you thank you miss sucker others that like to speak yes ma'am my name is Olivia Escudero and I live at 112 Long Branch Lane if you look at the cul-de-sac I am the second house from the trail there and from Bracktown and when I look at my front window, this will be the very first development I see is this restaurant in the parking. And my major concern, she's voiced several of them, but she did mention the parking, and I did just want to bring up the argument that there was a fire last Friday off of Leastown Road. There is a child care center at Bracktown Baptist Church, and when I left that morning, there were four cars parked in my cul-de-sac to be able to access the child care center there so people are aware of parking there they will park there to be able to access the restaurant if there is crowding there with the restaurant and that was really a major concern of mine So thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? If not, we'll move to the rebuttal stage. Mr. Endress. That's okay. Move right along. It's probably your work anyway. Go ahead. They have touched on the items that I gleaned from those same letters and e-mails. Some of the concerns don't seem as reasonable as others, I guess I'll just say that. The parking in the cul-de-sac and the notion that people actually drive across the grass from the cul-de-sac to get to Bracktown Road is not being exacerbated. But they're not trying to get to that lot now. And so that lot is not causing that issue since there's no business there now. But if people are parking there and crossing the grass, crossing the trail with their vehicle, it's not something that we can really address or condone, honestly. But it's not being caused by that property, and I don't expect it would be caused or worsened by the location of a restaurant on this property. I can only guess that people get trapped. It's sort of a dead-end sort of neighborhood. There's only limited numbers of ways out. But I can see that if you got lost in the maze somehow, you made it to that cul-de-sac, and you can see the four-lane road, and you say, hmm, this is my chance out, then I'm going to maybe take a chance and do it. I couldn't really hazard a guess as to why people are doing that. As I understand from some of the emails, that people park in the cul-de-sac to access the trail. That seems a bit reasonable. They don't walk the entire thing, but they want to enter the trail there, so that's the place they park. Certainly the street is the place to park, not necessarily clog the cul-de-sac, but there's nothing wrong with people parking on a street that's wide enough to be parked on. And if they want to access the trail, then there's no parking lot for that at this time that the city's provided. So the street is that avenue for them to enjoy the trail. So we can't really address that really beyond what's already been said. It's maybe a condition that's there, but this site is not creating that problem, nor will it exacerbate that problem. The odors of a restaurant, that may or may not be true. The only thing I can think about is when I drive by Burger King and I see this plume of smoke being shot out of the top of the roof, and you can smell that charbroiled hamburger for a mile away, it seems like. But that's a high-intensity restaurant use, certainly a restaurant with a drive-thru, and that's what generates that high-volume, high-intensity use in a restaurant is that drive-thru feature. And there is not ever going to be, or at least according to this zoning plan, there would not be a drive-thru at this location. So I don't think you're going to have that intensity. This is a small, this in particular is a small restaurant that's a family-run restaurant by Brandon and his family. It's a Kentucky Proud restaurant. It's not a fast food, it's not Long John Silver's, it's not McDonald's, it's not Burger King. It's not going to generate that sort of volume that's going to generate this plume of smoke or plume of odors that you might associate with a higher intensity use. the lighting certainly there will be parking lot lights here there's no question but as standard design they will be directed inward and downward they will not be directed out toward the neighborhood they'll only be directed down to the parking lot where they're intended to light they they are needed for safety pedestrian safety through the parking lot and and there's there's no doubt there will be lights there but again they will be directed inward and downward as required by the ordinances or by the design standards. Noises, we don't believe that's really a concern. Again, in this particular case, this is a small cafe restaurant. It's not going to have bands or loud noises out of the ordinary. It's not that you can't hear anything that goes on there. They likely will be able to hear things there. But I imagine you can hear singing in the church on Sunday morning as well. There are things you will hear, but we hope they are not offensive, and we don't think they will be excessive in any means. Probably the last thing, well, the one thing was the other businesses, one of the couple of letters mentioned that if the restaurant fails, then, as she said, you sort of opened up the gates and anything could be here. Well, that's not exactly the case. there are restricted uses in the B-1 zone, and we're further restricting them through the prohibited uses in this zone request. But again, if you look through the list of B-1 items, without the drive-through facility, it really narrows the uses down to relatively low-intensive uses for this property. If there are in the remaining list of uses in the B-1 zone that have not been prohibited, we would certainly entertain anything that they would see in that list that the staff didn't see. They may have their own particular concerns about what may become offensive or has the potential to be offensive, but we'd certainly entertain any further restriction of the zone. And finally, the viewshed from those houses. I do have a few pictures of those. earlier today I sort of stood in each of those driveways that are on that cul-de-sac head the very first one that she has planted very well like she didn't want to look at the garage so she has planted it very well so you can't see it at all So that's the view from the driveway of the very first house, from this house with the curved driveway, 108. She sends in a letter of opposition, honestly. We got letters from 307 Bracktown, 108 Long Branch Lane. 112 is here today in opposition. 116 wrote a letter. We have one way over here on Town Branch Road, 3017 Town Branch. And then the two ladies that are here today are on OC. I don't know how to pronounce that. This court here that is removed from the site. They live here and here. her and her mother live in those two houses. So I doubt very seriously whether anyone in this part of the neighborhood is going to be impacted by whatever goes on here. It's going to be probably these folks right here. They are the most entitled to complain about this development. The notion that they look across this cul-de-sac and see the open park is lovely. However, no matter whether this is zoned R3, R1E, or B1, the land is not likely to stay vacant. It's not a reasonable anticipation, nor is it obviously not the highest use of the property to be vacant. So something will be there, whether it would be as impractical as it might be, townhouses or single-family homes, which is completely not possible really. because you have to remember we don't control or own this round teardrop piece that's in the Bracktown Reign. It's a remnant of that Marshall Farm that is owned by the developer of this subdivision. So we can't do anything about that. There are three lovely pine trees. Maybe a couple of pictures later we'll see those pines. Well, you can see them in the background of that photo. There they are. So those three pine trees obscure completely the view of the existing structure. But again, we don't control those trees. We can't do anything with them at this point. At some point, maybe we will have control of that property. But as of now, we have no control over what happens with those trees. But they are a beautiful screen, and certainly if we got a hold of that property, we would continue that screening at least to the extent that it is now. when these folks bought their houses obviously this has been here 80 years it's not as if this has popped up and been unexpected to them that was there when they bought the property when all this was developed that was there 80 years of of time it's been there so it's it's it's not something that was created after the subdivision was developed it's always been there The traffic safety on Leastown Road, this will be in a transitional area where it's going from two-lane rural to sort of a four-lane urban. But the highway department has, in fact, already moved. They had two entrances designed into this property. And they partially constructed the infrastructure for entrances here and here between both of those various boxes. So they had designed two entrances, one here and one here, of substantial width. I'll say they were 30 feet plus a piece between those two. So at the applicant's request, we said, well, these aren't really going to work for us. We'd rather have it down here. So they have actually already partially constructed that entrance and abandoned those two. So I think this is helping. It gets it further away from the intersection for any conflicts there, and certainly we're reducing from two entrances to just a single narrower entrance there. so the highway department has already really approved the location of the entrance on this site plan and see no problems so I think that's all of the items that she has mentioned as well as the items that were in fact described in those emails and letters I'd be happy to take any questions or turn it over to them Thank you Mr. Andrews Let me do this. Ms. Zucker, rebuttal as far as any comments he just made. Do you have anything? Okay. all those people down that corridor there all the way down to the cul-de-sac most of those people sent me letters and every one of them mentioned the peace and quiet that they wanted to keep because when we moved there there was something there it was a car repair place and they might had five or six cars in there on a big day, so it was a quiet business. And when it closed, we didn't know if anything else would come in, but we had that, and that's what we moved in with. Yes, we knew it was there, but it was a business that brought in four or five cars a day. Secondly, we still think that there will be noise and problems there, and yes, we do think that people will park there on the inside of the cul-de-sac to get to the restaurant. And we're not saying that people don't park there now and that they shouldn't. We're saying we think it will increase to the point that it might be a problem. Sometimes people forget that people along in there need to get in and out of their driveways and that that also takes room for them to back up and get out. And in addition, the one thing that you couldn't address is the loss of property value along there. And we're just concerned that our property is going to go down because people are not going to say that they want a house next to a restaurant or something like that. And there is, over the fence, is where those of us own Hucoy Court, and we're not as far away from, our backyards are pretty shallow, so we're not talking that far away. I can hear the people talking in the next yard, so, I mean, they're within spitting distance of it, so they still are close. So all of those people that wrote do have something to say about it. We do have a reason that we object. And, again, especially with property values, we'd ask you to consider that. Thank you. Thank you. Staff, rebuttal? No, sir. No, no rebuttal. We'll close this part of the hearing as far as testimony, public comments, and open it up for any discussion, questions from the commission. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you to the neighbors who came down and spoke their concerns. The urban county government has a fine ordinance for zoning and for planning, but within all of those ordinances, there is no 100% guarantee for peace and quiet, which we all would like to have. As this project goes forth, if it does, hopefully your concerns will be addressed. The lighting, the dumpster, the landscaping, and particularly the prohibited uses. There are 10 that will not be there as your concern. So, again, thank you for coming and sitting through a very long meeting. Anyone else? Any questions? If not, I would just echo Ms. Plumlee's statements. One, thanks for your patience on today. And if I'm correct, staff, this is a preliminary zoning development plan. So there will be final development plans. There will be, if it goes forward, I'll put it that way, there will be the opportunity for some tweaking. And with the concerns that's been mentioned, if this goes forward, hopefully those things will be addressed. The biggest thing I feel like is the prohibited uses here that provide a lot of protection for that area. That is one area that I've known since I've been in Lexington for 40-plus years. always had some form of a gas station's auto repair or something there. And, you know, as much as we like to see things remain the same, change is inevitable at times. Anyone else? If not, I'll entertain a motion. We have a zone change request and a ZDP. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of MAR 2015-21 for the three reasons noted by staff. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. If there's no questions on the motion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And then the ZDP. move for approval of ZDP 2015-82, and I believe it's 11 conditions. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of ZDP 2015-82. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank everyone for coming. Do we have any commission items, staff items? Mr. Chairman, just a reminder, your committees meet next Thursday on the 1st. Subdivision and Zoning Committee. Thank you. There you go. Thank you. And, Chris, once again, we took as long as possible to just relish your company one more time. So thank you. Do we have a motion for adjournment? So moved. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Thank you, folks. Thank you.