# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - November 19, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 19, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3834 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3834?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-11-19 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 8,054 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 November 19, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Mr. Chairman presided over the meeting, which included six agenda items and resulted in six motions and votes. The Commission approved the minutes from the previous meeting, deferred action on postponements and withdrawals, and approved three substantive items: PLAN 2015-118P for Patchen Place Subdivision, DP 2015-111 for Urban 221 (A Portion of), and MARV 2015-22 concerning H&J Properties of Lexington, LLC, and TLJ Properties of Lexington, LLC. The meeting also included five public comments from members of the community regarding the matters under consideration. ## Attendance **Present (19 people):** - Will Berkley - Mike Cravens - Karen Mundy - Frank Penn - Carolyn Plumlee - Carolyn Richardson - Joseph Smith - William Wilson - Jim Duncan - Bill Sallee - Barbara Rackers - Jimmy Emmons - Traci Wade - Tom Martin - Stephanie Cunningham - Andrea Brown - Casey Kaucher - Captain Greg Lengal - Lieutenant Joshua Thiel **Absent (3 people):** - Patrick Brewer - David Drake - Mike Owens **Late:** None recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **MARC 2015-24: Larry Luttrell, Jr., Zoning Map Amendment & Lane Allen Park Subdivision, Lot 4, Zoning Development Plan** [timestamp: 00:05:30] Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Karen Mundy to postpone this item. The motion passed unanimously with 8 ayes and 0 nays. **PLAN 2015-118P: Patchen Place Subdivision (FKA Dallas Plaza, Unit 1) Preliminary Subdivision Plan** [timestamp: 00:26:44] Motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Carolyn Richardson to approve the preliminary subdivision plan. The motion passed unanimously with 8 ayes and 0 nays. All eight members voted in favor: Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Carolyn Richardson, Joseph Smith, and William Wilson. The approval includes two conditions: no building permit will be issued for Lots 4 & 5 until a Final Development Plan is approved by the Planning Commission, and access to Gribbin Drive from Lots 4 & 5 must be resolved at the time of the Final Development Plan. **DP 2015-111: Urban 221 (A Portion of) Development Plan** [timestamp: 00:42:34] Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Frank Penn to approve the development plan. The motion passed unanimously with 8 ayes and 0 nays. The approval is subject to 25 conditions addressing various technical requirements including approvals from the Urban County Engineer, Traffic Engineer, Building Inspection, Addressing Office, Urban Forester, Bike & Pedestrian Planner, Division of Fire, Division of Waste Management, and Division of Water Quality. Additional conditions require review of variances, clarification of plan details, compliance with zoning ordinance articles, and discussions regarding pedestrian street improvements, open space requirements, building height limitations, and parking lot screening. **MARV 2015-22: Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Office (P-1) to Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone for 1400, 1402, and 1412 North Broadway** [timestamp: 01:02:03] Motion by Mike Cravens to approve the zoning map amendment. The motion passed unanimously with 8 ayes and 0 nays. The approval includes prohibited uses and is subject to certification of ZDP 2015-22: Fairlawn Subdivision Lots 19-22 within two weeks of Planning Commission approval. **MARV 2015-22: Three Landscape Variances** [timestamp: 01:02:03] Motion seconded by Karen Mundy to approve three landscape variances for MARV 2015-22. The motion passed unanimously with 8 ayes and 0 nays. Conditions include installation of a typical dumpster enclosure unless Waste Management has operational reason not to, and approval is subject to certification of ZDP 2015-22 within two weeks. **ZDP 2015-103: Recommend Approval Eliminating Condition #11** [timestamp: 01:02:40] Motion seconded by Karen Mundy to recommend approval of ZDP 2015-103, eliminating condition #11. The motion passed unanimously with 8 ayes and 0 nays. ## Public Comment Five speakers provided public comment during the meeting. **Chad Meredith** [timestamp: 00:05:00] requested a two-month postponement of MARC 2015-24 to resolve septic system issues and finalize plans for the rehabilitation home and subdivision. **Kevin Phillips** [timestamp: 00:17:38] requested modification of a condition denying access to Gribbin Drive. He asked that the condition be revised to allow resolution at the time of the Final Development Plan, citing the early stage of the project and the need for grading permits. **Jacob Walburn** [timestamp: 00:36:25] expressed support for DP 2015-111. He highlighted market research and community support for the project and introduced the developers and landscape architect. **John Carman** [timestamp: 00:38:44] addressed fire code and open space questions. He confirmed compliance with fire code, addressed emergency access, and confirmed that the project meets open space requirements through balconies and a central area. **Peter Brown** [timestamp: 01:00:21] expressed support for MARV 2015-22 and the associated variances. He agreed with all staff recommendations and confirmed cooperation with all conditions, including landscape variances. ## Contested Items **Access to Gribbin Drive for Patchen Place Subdivision** The board debated whether to permanently restrict access to Gribbin Drive or defer the decision until a final development plan was submitted. The disagreement centered on balancing traffic impact concerns against the need for flexibility in future development planning. No single outcome is specified in the available records. **Landscape Variances for MARV 2015-22** Staff and the applicant engaged in a heated discussion regarding landscape buffer requirements. The dispute involved the adequacy of proposed hedge buffers compared to required fences. Staff prioritized safety and visual screening considerations, while the applicant emphasized topography constraints and access needs as justification for the variance request. The specific resolution of this disagreement is not documented in the available records. ## Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the LFUCG Government Center [timestamp: 00:00]. Mr. Chairman presided over the session and welcomed attendees to begin the proceedings. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:04:28] A motion to approve the minutes from the September 24, 2015, meeting was presented. Ms. Carolyn Plumlee made the motion, which was seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy. The motion carried unanimously. ## Postponements and Withdrawals [timestamp: 00:05:30] The Commission discussed the postponement of MARC 2015-24 during this agenda item. Key speakers Frank Penn and Chad Meredith addressed the matter. The Commission unanimously voted to postpone MARC 2015-24 to the January 28, 2016 meeting. The postponement was granted to allow the petitioner additional time to resolve septic system issues associated with the proposal. ## PLAN 2015-118P: Patchen Place Subdivision [timestamp: 00:07:35] The Commission reviewed and approved the preliminary subdivision plan for Patchen Place. Key speakers on this item included Tom Martin and Kevin Phillips. The approval included revised conditions addressing two primary matters: * **Access to Gribbin Drive** — The plan was modified to include revised conditions regarding how the subdivision would access Gribbin Drive. * **Development plan requirements for Lots 4 and 5** — Specific development plan requirements were established for these two lots as part of the approval conditions. The Commission voted to approve the preliminary subdivision plan with these conditions in place. ## DP 2015-111: Urban 221 (A Portion of) [timestamp: 00:27:58] The Commission reviewed and approved the development plan for Urban 221 (a portion of) during this agenda item. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Tom Martin, Jacob Walburn, and John Carman. **Outcome** The Commission approved the development plan with multiple conditions. **Conditions of Approval** The approval included requirements related to: - Landscaping - Fire access - Open space - Technical review ## MARV 2015-22: H&J Properties of Lexington, LLC, and TLJ Properties of Lexington, LLC [timestamp: 00:43:06] The Commission considered a zoning map amendment for properties on North Broadway owned by H&J Properties of Lexington, LLC, and TLJ Properties of Lexington, LLC. The proposal sought to rezone the properties from P-1 to B-1 zone. Key speakers on this item included Traci Wade, Tom Martin, and Peter Brown. The Commission approved the zoning map amendment with conditional restrictions. The approval included prohibitions on certain uses within the B-1 zone designation and required certification of a development plan for the properties. These conditions were incorporated into the final approval to address the specific characteristics and context of the North Broadway location. The amendment was approved by the Commission. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone MARC 2015-24: Larry Luttrell, Jr., Zoning Map Amendment & Lane Allen Park Subdivision, Lot 4, Zoning Development Plan - **PLAN 2015-118P** — passed (8-0): Approve Patchen Place Subdivision (FKA Dallas Plaza, Unit 1) Preliminary Subdivision Plan - **DP 2015-111** — passed (8-0): Approve Urban 221 (A Portion of) Development Plan - **MARV 2015-22** — passed (8-0): Approve Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Office (P-1) to Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone for 1400, 1402, and 1412 North Broadway - **MARV 2015-22** — passed (8-0): Approve three landscape variances for MARV 2015-22 - **ZDP 2015-103** — passed (8-0): Recommend approval of ZDP 2015-103, eliminating condition #11 --- ## Full transcript We're on our way back home Oh, no, it's home What you need, what you need to feel alone Oh, yeah, we gotta see Ooh, you gotta get a feeling Oh, yeah, come along too Come along too Come along, come along, come along Yeah, come along too Sending loose Come along too Come along right Come along with See you here tonight I hear you just got married Took him a long, hard and long. And you lost smiles at the wedding. And you cried when you kissed the girl. I got no invitation. I guess the mailman didn't bring it to me. But I see the whole thing in slow motion. Every night as I try to sleep. My buddy John said you look real pretty And you acting like you were a liar He said the preacher asked for objections And he thought about standing up I told John he must have been crazy Cause you were just about to say I do He just gave me a wink and said all he could think Cause it could have been me Thank you. Good afternoon. We want to call the meeting to order for November 19th and We will start with approval of the minutes Mr. Chairman move approval of October 27th and Planning Commission me at minutes Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval of the minutes October 22nd everybody vote motion carries next we'll move on to postponements and withdrawals do we have any of those good afternoon uh chad meredith on behalf of larry luttrell this is this is larry luttrell jr zoning map amendment and lane allen park subdivision lot four zoning development plan to the bottom of page three. When we were in front of the subdivision committee earlier, an issue about the sewer and septic tank issue came up. We're working to resolve that issue, but we don't have definitive answers yet, so we would ask that this be postponed until January so that we can get those answers and figure all that out. Okay. If we could postpone the development plan and the conditional use permit and the zoning until January. all right is there anyone in the audience would you speak to this okay c9 i'll turn it back over to the commission mr chairman we would note your meeting in january is on the 28th for zone okay all right very good mr chairman i move for postponement of the very little pro uh until january january the 28th i guess that would be zdp 2015-103 and the uh zoning until January 28th meeting. All right. Very well. Postpone the development plan and zoning until January 28th. We have a motion and a second. Everybody may vote. Sir, does that include the conditional use permit, too? That includes all of the development plan. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I do you correct. It's MAR 2015-24. Very well. It's postponed. Thank you. anyone else have a withdrawal or postponement all right seeing none we'll start with our development plans i guess Thank you. First item on today's agenda is on the first page. It is item A. It is a preliminary subdivision plan 2015-118 for patch-in-place subdivision. No. How are we doing? There we go. All right. This is property out off Richmond Road. It is the old majority of it. It's the old Conrad Chevrolet site out off Richmond Road. Gribbon Drive is here in the back. Patchen Drive is about 1,000 feet in this direction. Mount Tabor Road would be 800 or so feet in this direction, those two intersections. Super America is located up over in this area along Richmond Road. the plan that you see before you is a proposal to subdivide the property into five lots this lot's just over an acre this is just a little over acre as well this is almost one and a half acres this is almost two it's 1.9 and this lot they're proposing here is just over two acres in size they're proposing a cul-de-sac in this location to serve the lots and that little area i'm going to jump to here in a minute this plan was reviewed by staff and presented to your subdivision committee and was recommended for postponement the primary reason for that was the cul-de-sac and the street that they're proposing in the location on the property. We have handed out to you revised conditions. The plan that you see is a revised plan, and on this pretty pink sheet you have revised conditions. The issues facing this property boil down primarily to access, frontage, and those types of issues. In this particular area, along the service road, there's an interesting set of circumstances on Richmond Road, and that is in some places the service road's been dedicated it's public and there are places where it's not public and it so happened that in this area it was not public so that was an issue of much discussion with staff the applicant and with the committees with this revised submission they are dedicating this part of the service road this part's public this will now become public It will provide them with frontage on public right-of-way. That also answers the question of their compliance with the Richmond Road ordinance, which is a condition on the plan. And they have added a note on the new plan, and they will have to comply with the Richmond Road ordinance. That ordinance is contingent upon frontages on the public right-of-way of Richmond Road. So with this revision, those issues have been addressed. There was an additional issue of extending this street through to Gribbon and concern about whether or not, again, as I stated, you've got 1,000 feet up here to this intersection and over 800 feet to Mount Tabor. Sadaf wanted to discuss putting a public street through here to serve the properties and help with our network, our transportation network. The applicant was concerned about steep slopes and a relief problem along this part of Gribben, particularly in this area that we've circled for you and then down through here. They came back with the revision and said we really would prefer to go with the cul-de-sac. What that has evolved into are some conditions that you see today that staff is recommending on this plan. first and foremost on lot four we're recommending that there be no access to grib and drive and again they have very little frontage that frontage is located in the area that they have identified as having a relief problem so therefore there should be no access and staff's opinion to grib and drive here can't put a public street through because there's an act there's a slope problem well we don't see any reason to have a driveway in us and an existing situation there as well now lot five's a little bit different and it's a little a little bit unique we have this situation around town in a few places but lot five in this area that we've highlighted for you in orange these stripes is actually governed by development plan now the rest of this property is not. And this body, nor your staff, will necessarily see a development plan on any of these properties. And therefore, that takes us back to our original concern with this street and this cul-de-sac, because we don't know who's going to use these lights. We don't know what the impact's going to be. And this is B3. We could have tremendous traffic impact generated by the users, and we're not going to get to evaluate that impact without a development plan. So staff has come up with some conditions that we think will help mitigate that impact and help us address it now while we can. That is, for the cul-de-sac, it needs to be a private street, not an access easement, and built to public standards. Access easements is what they're proposing. They're not held to public standards unless this body imposes it on them. Staff believes it would be appropriate, and they are showing the width of the cul-de-sac to meet local standards. The right-of-way, the width that's being proposed is adequate. We believe this needs to be a private street and built to public standards to deal with whatever impacts of the development that we have on these proposed lots. Now for Lot 5, and again with our concern about access to Gribbon Drive and the impact on Gribbon Drive as well, we are proposing that this lot not be developed until there is a final development plan for the entire lot. As I said, we've already got it on this part. They'd have to amend that, and they would have to address that. But we are just proposing that a final development plan restriction be applied to Lot 5. That will allow the staff and in this body to evaluate whether or not whoever that user is, whether or not they should have access to Grib and Drive and whether it would be appropriate. So with that, we believe that answers the questions that we had on the appropriateness of the connection and then access to Gribbon Drive. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Yeah, Tom, one of the reasons that the subdivision committee for not extending that street is the applicant might have a user that would want to use both lots. So when you're restricting lot five to the development plan for lot five, if it was a development plan for lot four and five, would that still be the same restriction? Or was it if they had a user that wanted to use lot four and five, would that still be subject to the same conditions? Well, lot five would only be subject to that condition. So it would need to be extended to lot four. They did report to the committee they thought they might have an end user, but what you see before you today are two lots. Okay, so I have a little problem with that. They were to put both lots together and have one user, but we'll just have to deal with that later, I guess. I would add that Lot 4, even if it was part of Lot 5, would be facing the same restrictions it currently faces, both with slope and a lack of frontage on Gribben. Tom, I know you said that the first three lots up front would not be subject to development plan. And then you said to mitigate that, you all have proposed that to be a private street. Yes, sir. How does that mitigate it? It is built to public standards so it can deal with the impact of the traffic that those uses will generate. Okay. So if it were private or public, it would be built to those standards both ways, right? They are built to public standards both ways, yes, sir. So we're just not going to take it into the public street system, and that's the mitigation? Building it to public standards is the mitigation of the impact, the potential impact. He's going to build it to public standards, but it's not going in the public street system. At this point. They could dedicate it if they build it to public standards. Okay. They come back with a record plan. They could choose to dedicate it. Okay. All right. Any other questions? All right. Thanks. Good afternoon. I'm Kevin Phillips with Interest Engineering here for Wheaton-Ladenberger today. Of course, we started out discussing the need to connect this street to Grubin Drive, and it sort of came up in the committee meeting as well. There was a sort of contradiction of wants and desires about whether there was to be a street connection straight through from Richmond Road to Gribbon, or there was to be, or if we have a cul-de-sac, then they wanted to completely eliminate all access to Gribbon Drive. I still don't quite understand that difference. But at any rate, this project is very early. They are just now demolishing the old Conrad dealership, and it's coming down to the ground. The users and the potential development of those two bottom large lots is still in some question. What we believe now is that we are going to have a singular user for those two lots, so one of those lots would be eliminated and joined together. Not knowing the exact shape or breadth of this singular development on the two southern lots, We would prefer to sort of defer any judgment or restriction of access to Gribbon Drive until we do have a development plan that would cover both of those lots in place. And I think at that point everybody would have a better handle on what that access would be used for, if there is any. I also believe that the owner has this triangular piece under contract now as well, so that gives them much more frontage on Gribbon Drive. And I know we talked about a hotel user that would probably make a connection to Gribbon Drive out the back, and the only circulation would be sort of in this public drive. And if somebody wanted to cut through, they'd have to cut through the entire, you know, hotel or development to get back out to Driven Drive, but not a street per se. So in that regard, we would just ask that any, I know that the staff has recommended, what did they say exactly? Number nine. That's the discussion item. Right. So it's a discussion and then in brackets is denote no access to agreement. And that's the part we would not like to do at this point. Maybe that's what happens when we get further down the road is that that's restricted that way. but so early on, not knowing exactly what that configuration is, I mean, this is a preliminary subdivision plan, not a development plan, nothing final. They really need to get this plan in place so they can continue grading. They're at a very restricted permit right now as to what they can do, and basically they can just tear down the building. They're not even allowed to start bringing in material and start making these fields that are necessary to make these usable. So that's the real push and the crux of this plan is to be able to pull grading permits for this site. So again, if there is consideration and a desire to limit or restrict access to Gribben, we prefer to do that on the next go-around, whether it's the final record plat stage, because this is a preliminary subdivision plan. There will be a final record plat and an amended development plan for what will probably be both of those southern lots and not just one that they've noted. ones controlled by that plot would be incorporated into the development plan. So I think at that time is when, again, you would have a better look at what the development looks like and how you think things would flow through the property. And so I think that's a better time to look at restricting or eliminating access to Gribbon Drive. So I guess we would say no. On number nine, I guess I would propose to revise that condition to say access to Gribbon Drive from lots four and five to be resolved at the time of the final development plan. I think staff would be comfortable with the statement to the effect that there would be no access to Gribbon Drive or development of lots 4 and 5 until such time a final development plan is approved. so that would is and this was going to be my question earlier to you condition eight so we would extend the development plan to lot four and you you all would be fine with changing condition eight to say lots four and five yes that makes sense it'll probably be one lot at that point anyway. All right. Yes, I'm Frank. Yes. Mr. Phillips, what about the building, that cul-de-sac to the standards that Mr. Martin was talking about, and would that be done prior to your final development plan on four and five? That street would have to be built prior to any occupancy, certainly a 4 and 5, because they wouldn't be able to sell or convey lots 4 and 5 until a final record plat is on record. And the final record plat can't come about until that street is constructed. The only thing you can bond, you can't bond 100% of that construction. You can bond the final course of asphalt. So that street would be in place prior to any conveyance of those lots. So presumably that would be prior to the development plan. So my problem with that is that once you do that, you've eliminated the possibility of making connectors through there. So then you come up with a development plan that wants access to that, but there's no street through there. so Mr. Martin's point about being too steep for a street our point's going to be it's going to be too steep for a friend in egress and ingress you see where I'm going with this if you build that street to public standards with a cul-de-sac and then come in with four and five and say to us well we've got a different user we're going to do this and we need access to Griffin Drive we've eliminated all possibilities of having a street through there I don't think there's any plan to extend the street as a street from Richmond Road to Gribbon Drive. Any access that there would be to Gribbon Drive would be simply driveway access or parking lot access. It would not be a street per se. So there's not going to be any bending of the street and wrapping it around any future development on 4 and 5. I mean, it would, the only access there would be would be sort of ancillary accessory access and not principal access from that cul-de-sac street. And you're not extending that street because you want the right to be able to build across those property lines there, right? Correct. Okay, somebody needs the whole width. Correct. Right. Right. Okay. So do we have some new language for number nine? And four and eight covers. Tom said something for number nine. I thought it was. We would want it noted there would be no access to Gribben until a final development plan is approved for four and five. That's right. Yeah, just there we want to tie that access to the final development plan for both lots Okay, is there any? Discussion anybody else? We'll try and put some language up on the overhead for you to look at see if we've captured that Let's see if I can read that for you. That would be number eight, change to add lots four and five, building permits. And then condition nine would read the note, no access to Gribbon Drive from lots four and five. let's also strike the note note where that just reads access to Gribbon Drive from lots four and five to be resolved at the time of the final development plan that's what case so you need to take number nine out maybe I'll mark those other two words off there yeah all right let's have a motion all right I'll make it go ahead Mr. Chair I'm going to move for approval of plan 2015-118P changing condition number 9 to denote no billing permit will be issued for lots 4 and 5. And then the noted change that staff has recommended for item number 9. Okay. Alright. We have a second. I changed that. a second i have a motion for approval all right everybody may vote looks like it's unanimous thank you very much Thank you. members of the planning commission. The next item at the bottom of page one of your agenda. Item B is a development plan. DP 2015 111 urban 221, a portion of this is property that is located on Coral street at Martin Luther King, North Martin Luther King Boulevard. And I believe the reason you are seeing this development plan today is that This is a B2A zoned area, and they are by right allowed to build three stories in the B2A. Anything above three and up to ten has to be approved by the Planning Commission on development plans. So what you see before you today is a proposal to redevelop this lot. There are lots that are located, again, with frontage on North Martin Luther King, Corral Street, and Wycliffe Street in this area. It is a five-story building. They're proposing parking on the first floor. In fact, along with the surface parking lot that you can see in this location, there are 38 required spaces, and they're proposing quite a few over that. They're proposing 150-some spaces to serve the 151 dwelling units that are going to occupy the four floors above this first floor area. There is over 145,000 square feet in those residential units on the fourth floor. The applicant is also requesting several variances that will go to the Board of Adjustment that impact their orientation to the street and their setbacks. When you have a residential development in the B2A, you do have parking requirements. B2A has virtually no other parking requirements except when there's a residential. It's a minimal. It's 25% of the least where it's first required. So that's why 38 spaces is actually all required. But they are putting in 151 units, and they're going to have, as I stated, a first-floor garage at the pedestrian level. This is the entrance that they're proposing off of Corral Street. This will be two ways in and out at this point. That's what they're proposing with the building. This is a revised plan that you see before you, and again, you have been handed out a lovely lavender purple sheet with revised conditions. They cleaned the plan up nicely and addressed many of our concerns. They do still need to denote their open space requirements. They have stated what is required on the plan. and we want it denoted exactly how they're meeting that. I'm sure they're going to be happy to elaborate on it, but they're going to utilize balconies. And then we've seen some renderings that indicate that they're going to have a large central area on the first residential floor, a very large open area, and I'm sure they're going to be happy to elaborate on you, with you, or for you on that issue. At this location, on the surface lot, they've added a gated emergency entrance. at the request of our fire department so they can get ambulances into this surface lot if necessary. And that's what you see in that location. Another issue is landscaping, which they've agreed to do to landscape this area along Corral Street. They've added some profiles here, little cross sections, to show the streetscape. The pedestrian facilities and the streetscape was discussed at length in several meetings with the applicant and staff, as well as with the committees, and the concern that this development be very, very pedestrian friendly. It's downtown. It's important. Staff feels that all our developments downtown recognize the need to have good pedestrian facilities and good pedestrian connections. And as I stated, we met with the applicant on several occasions to discuss the issues. And you can see again, we've handed out these revised conditions. We have standard conditions for a final development plan that you can see, our first nine. The tenth one being the Board of Adjustments approval of the requested variances. Those are all setbacks relative to the streets so that they can be allowed to expand the building right up within several feet of the street. One of those variances also applies to open space. They have to meet open space for the residences, and they have the ability to do that, as I stated, with balconies and with other amenities. However, when you go above on a residential development of B2A for every floor above three, they have to add 1% at ground level. So that will be a subject of a variance before the board of adjustment as well that they will need to, of course, address with the board. It's a late plan. It'll have to go to your technical committee for review. It has been distributed, and the members of that body, it's out on the web, and they can see it. and they have seen it, so we anticipate a fairly lively discussion at technical committee. And then again, you can see that we have several remaining conditions that they denote compliance with the open space requirements, the vehicular use screening that I mentioned on the plan, and then as well as the gated entrance. The entrance on Corral will be gated. That will have to meet the requirements of our fire department as well. and then a very slight cleanup condition that you can see on the edge of the buildings. The original plan did not have much detail, and they have articulated it much better and allowed us to evaluate the proposed building envelope than before. This little area right in here doesn't show any articulation like the rest of the building, so that's a small item that they just need to correct when they submit this final development plan for certification. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Tom, by having all the units above the parking lot, or a majority of them above the parking lot, does it— They're all above the first floor. You've got some surface parking lot there. But they do have a surface parking lot, and in the interior is a parking garage. Now, there is going to be some space for some amenities for the residents on the first floor. My question is this. Is there a different fire code to the building, that building, because the parking's underneath the building like it would be at home? I cannot answer that question. I'm sure the applicant can or our fire department. I'll ask that to him. And then you didn't address the fire gate, the crash, the... they will have an emergency access to the surface lot. The interior entrance to the parking garage will also have to meet fire standards. Okay. Because that was a discussion item at our subdivision committee. Yes, sir. And they will have to meet those standards. Thank you. Tom, is that a six-foot sidewalk around there, the dimensions? We have a six-foot sidewalk at back of curb on Corral and eight-foot on Martin Luther King. All right. Any other questions? Okay. Is the applicant here? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. Jacob Walburn on behalf of Urban 221 LLC. Very pleased to be here today. I do want to introduce the developers who have also joined us here today, the Calgill family who is seated in the back here. This is a family project and a very, very exciting family project at that. Will not rehash a lot of what Tom said. This is 150 approximately market rate apartments, four stories of residences over one story of parking. And this is a development that's going to be geared towards young professionals. The developers have done a lot of market research on what the young professional community in Lexington desires in a place to live. So this is going to be a very pedestrian-friendly development. It's going to be a very bicycle-friendly development and a pet-friendly development. These were all needs as identified in the market. This project represents a substantial investment in a corridor that has not redeveloped like some other areas of downtown Lexington. In fact, we're very optimistic that this development will spur further development along the Martin Luther King Corridor. We do appreciate the staff's assistance. As Tom mentioned, we have met with them on numerous occasions. We're very pleased today to be able to present to you an approvable plan. I do want to enter for the record two letters of support that we have received. The first is from Sayre School, who describes this as a welcome addition to the neighborhood, and from Central Christian Church. The Board of Trustees have unanimously expressed their support for this project as a worthy addition to the neighborhood. These are our two principal neighbors to the property, and I would enter those for the record. I do want to take an opportunity to introduce John Carman, who's here and has worked on the site plan. he can address some of the specific questions that were raised regarding fire code and open space. I am pleased to report, however, that we will be meeting the ground-level open space requirement and we'll be withdrawing that variance request tomorrow. So the only matters in front of the Board of Adjustment tomorrow will be with regard to front and side yard setback. Good afternoon. My name is John Carman, representing the applicant. To address several of the questions that were asked with regards to the fire code, the building will be compliant. Typically, these buildings have fire protection on all levels, including the parking deck or the podium area, with a sprinkler system and with particular fire protection of the structural components. Of course, we would have to meet the Kentucky Building Code, which is the international building code, before we could get a building permit. With regards to the emergency access, I have met with Captain Lengel. We've worked out the details that are reflected on the emergency access point. this will be a remote emergency gate open close for emergency vehicles only in compliance with with the fire department's standards just mentioned that we are meeting the open space requirements both on ground level and there'll be a significant amount of open space for the residents and it'll be more than adequate for the market and open space was part of the market survey stakeholder groups that were conducted we have worked out the the sidewalk wits with folks the planning commission scott thompson has weighed in on this with the sidewalk widths on both Corral Street and Martin Luther King, taking into account the amount of pedestrian activity in these areas. So I think we have adequate pedestrian means for this plan. If there's any other questions with regards to the site layout or the building, I'll be glad to address those. Any questions? Yes. Yes, I have a question about the surface parking lot. Could you elaborate a bit on the screening? Right. Thank you. We have not specifically showed screening, the detailed screening. There will be landscape screening for that that would be in compliance with the Article 18, and that will be one of our sign-offs that will be required. It will be a protected parking lot, secured and protected with probably an ornamental fence in compliance with the zoning ordinance, which I think is six foot in height, in addition to the secured emergency access gate. Did that answer okay? All right. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. It's time for the commission to act. Does anybody in the audience wish to speak to this? Okay. Let's have a motion then. Mr. Chairman, I recommend approval of DP 2015-111 Urban 221, located at 221 Coral Street, with the 16 recommendations from the staff. All right, we have a motion for approval. We have a second. Second. Second by Frank Penn. Everybody vote. That motion passes. thank you all right i guess we're going into our one zone change is that right good afternoon chairman craven's members of the commission the next item is on page two of our agenda it's item 1a and should be behind tab one in your notebooks as well it's marv 2015-22 This is a request by J&H Properties of Lexington, LLC, and TLJ Properties of Lexington, LLC. The request is to rezone properties, three properties, 1400, 1402, and 1412 North Broadway, from professional office to our neighborhood business zone. And then points to the zoning map a little bit first. The subject property is located on the east side of North Broadway between Loudoun Avenue generally and New Circle. It is directly across from the Whitaker Lexington Legends ballpark. The adjacent zoning in this area is B1 across Withers Avenue and P1 across Paris Avenue. So it is consistent with the existing zoning currently, but as proposed as well. To the southeast of the subject property is the Fairlawn subdivision, and it's single-family residential, both in zoning and use. And just generally, in terms of the character of North Broadway in this area, in the immediate area, it is generally commercial. But if we do look from Loudoun to New Circle, it does have a mixture of both residential, professional office, and business uses. there are currently three structures on excuse me four structures on the three properties that are all being used under the p1 zoning there is some vacancy within one of the buildings and the applicant is asking to rezone not to modify or do any new construction on the property but in order to request different uses or new uses with the b1 zone to be available to these three parcels the the one larger property at 1412 north broadway does have some for rent signs which indicated to the staff some vacancy and some likelihood that they those units might be filled if the rezoning were approved there are also some dimensional variances being requested with this application that mr. Emmons will cover related to landscaping between the commercial which is there currently and also proposed with the rezoning and the existing single-family residential areas the 2000 let me actually just show you a few photos of the properties this is the corner of Withers Avenue and North Broadway and it is 1400 its existing house but it is being used as a professional office use a social club I believe with parking to the rear and that is a view along Withers towards the entrance to the Lexington Legends ballpark the middle property 1402 North Broadway is currently a veterinarian's office clinic and they do have an accessory structure in the rear. And then the third parcel which is a larger L-shaped professional office building this is its view from the corner of Paris and North Broadway so it is being utilized. There's also a second kind of basement level from the rear you can see it the grade changes of the property and also that there's kind of available space that's accessible from the rear. And then a view down Paris Avenue. So the subject properties comprise the entire block between Withers and Paris, and at Withers is the entrance to the ballpark, and there's a signalized traffic signal there. Again, a view down Paris Avenue. the 2013 comprehensive plan as the Planning Commission is aware is more aligned with general land-use policies today than a land-use map as it was in the past but we do have the central sector small area plan boundaries that this subject properties fall within it's within sub area D the small area plan provided a little bit of guidance to the staff there was some information in the guiding principles section about encouraging redevelopment and investment, which rezoning and possibly redevelopment could do at this location. It also recommended sidewalks improvements along North Broadway, which the applicant is proposing with their development plan as well. In terms of the goals and objectives of the 2013 comprehensive plan, the applicant opines that they are in agreement with those for basically two reasons. They are supporting adaptive reuse and commercial activity, which is in line with theme A and goal two of that theme. And then also that existing neighborhoods would benefit from the local businesses at this location, where residents could walk to the businesses or employment opportunities at that location. The staff also found that retail uses along, which are typical in a B1 zone, along North Broadway directly across from the ballpark would be appropriate, given that the ballpark, Lexington Ledges, is a major tourist attraction within our county. And then third, the staff did consider that a B1 zone, similar to a P1, would remain a good buffer between the higher-intensity ballpark across North Broadway and the single-family residential to the south, as long as there were some conditional zoning restrictions put in place. we recommended restricting or prohibiting five land uses on the property generally related to something that might generate excessive noise or light that would disturb some of the residential areas so the staff and the zoning committee both recommended approval of the proposed rezoning generally because it's in agreement with the comprehensive plan appropriate be one's appropriate at this location on a major corridor and with conditional zoning restrictions it can be or remain a good transition between higher intensity use and the residential area. So the five prohibited uses suggested for the site via conditional zoning are automobile service stations, miniature golf and putting courses, car washes, outdoor live entertainment, and drive-through facilities. The staff is making those suggestions contingent upon certification of the associated development plan as well. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the staff's recommendation. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. The bottom of page three is where you have the preliminary development plan that is associated with this zone change. The property in question is, as Ms. Wade stated, located out on North Broadway between the intersection with Withers Avenue and Pierce Avenue at these locations. Of course, the ballpark is across the street. We have the large existing two-story building in this location, building here and here, the residential appearance, and in this building in the rear of the property that you can see in the photographs. You can see the existing parking lots that have. They do have access in two locations here off Paris. There is existing access currently kind of across the frontage here, and this was one condition. This is a revised plan, and one of the issues is they need to constrict and make this a more efficient and safer access point, and that is a condition on the plan that they denote when that shall be done. There are a few cleanup conditions as well. We handed out the sheet. You can see them just to add dimensions to this building, clarify the interior plantings, and denote them on this plan. And they added a few, but we still need some additional work done on that. And then there are variances that Mr. Emmons is going to discuss with you, and those variances are relative to the landscaping, the perimeter landscaping on the property, particularly as it relates to these residential properties. It is a built environment. We did discuss with the applicant the possibility of it being a final development plan because so few physical changes are being proposed. However, prior to the meeting, they discussed that with staff briefly. So number 11 on your green sheet, it's staff's understanding that they're going to maintain this as a preliminary development plan. So they will be coming back to this body with a final development plan on this property. So if they verify that, as staff anticipates they will, you'll be able to strike number 11 from your conditions. and then with that I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for me all right any questions mr. chairman members of the Commission if we can bring up the the requested variances are all landscape variances they're located on your agenda at the top of page three there are three landscape variances that are proposed that's it so for the subject property Tom and Tracy have done a good job of describing the overall property and of course the zone changes for three properties the variances are for three property boundaries. Number one is a request to eliminate the zone to zone screening along the property at 1400 North Broadway, which is at the corner of Withers. Request number two is to eliminate a zone to zone screening on the property at 1412. And the third request is to substitute a different screen along the majority of the property line on 1412. Staff would note that the middle property, it meets the required landscaping, and there is not a landscape variance for that particular piece of property. To start with number one along North Broadway, you've seen the picture of the property at here. At first, I would just kind of like to point out to you on this picture this is a picture of standing on the subject property looking at the parking lot and the staff would just like to point out if i can find the pointer on this property here the adjacent property you can see the top of the car in the driveway and that's because there's a grade difference between the subject property and this property of about two to three feet. And that's, that played into the part of the reason why the applicant wants to eliminate the zone to zone screening, which would require a six foot tall fence. They are proposing to keep and put in the vehicular use area, the parking lot screening, which would have a three foot hedge around there. In conjunction with the change in the topography, the staff does feel that this would be an adequate buffer. These that I put in here are supposed to be shown to kind of illustrate that it would be an adequate buffer. And as you can see, you can no longer see the top of the car when the three foot hedges are in there. It's not really intended to be photo realistic, but to give you an idea. Number two is along the back property. You've seen this picture in Tracy's presentation. On 1412, there is one property line here, and I wanted to kind of get this is looking from Paris Avenue through the parking lot back at that boundary, because from this picture you don't get a very good sense of where that's at. But the existing boundary along and through there, there is zone-to-zone screening required along that area where you see the fence and the vegetation. All of that vegetation is on the residential property adjacent to here. The applicant opines that because the building is 20 feet from that property line, and it's very desirable, not just for the applicant, but also in our technical committee and subdivision committees, the fire department has expressed the desire to keep that access around the building open. and at 20 feet that's about the minimum that you can get. We do believe that the applicant opines that it would be a hardship if they were required to put in the landscaping along that boundary and cut off that access or at least narrow down that access. It might not cut it off but it would definitely alter it. And the last and probably the most significant of the boundaries is at the back of 1412. This is a picture of the parking lot as it exists today looking toward Paris Avenue. And what they are proposing, what would be required, what would meet the requirements of Article 18 is a six-foot-tall fence and trees. The amount of landscape buffer area that's required is already existing. What the applicants are proposing to do instead of a six-foot-tall fence, they wish to put in a six-foot-tall hedge. They are also agreeing to go ahead and put in the required trees and would have the six-foot hedge. So once again, just to try and illustrate that this would be an adequate buffer, it would be a softer buffer than a privacy fence would afford. The applicant is showing both the existing trees and existing vegetation and also their proposed landscaping on their development plan. And in general, for each of the three, staff is recommending approval of all three requested variances for slightly different reasons on each one. But in general, they all will provide an adequate landscape buffer to kind of substitute for the zone-to-zone screening. And in all of these cases, it will be better screening than what is there today. The staff has recommending approval subject to four conditions. The first three are very typical of any variance request with a zone change. The last one is out of the ordinary. During our review, we noticed that there is a dumpster back in this corner that does not have the typical dumpster enclosure that you would have, the wooden enclosure. The staff is recommending, especially considering granting landscape variances to the zone-to-zone screening, unless the Waste Management Division has an operational reason why they cannot install that, the staff is recommending that it be a condition of the approval of the variances that they go ahead and install the typical buffer there. That concludes my presentation and the presentation, I believe, of all of the staff. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to try and answer them, and staff will be available during your hearing. Any questions? That's a very good digital presentation, Jimmy. Thank you very much. We have a few new tools available. The whole staff presentation was good. Okay, applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. My name is Peter Brown. I'm here on behalf of the applicants. I want to thank you for your service and thank Ms. Wade and Mr. Martin and Mr. Emmons for their presentation. By looking at those slides, you can tell the property is going to be much improved after all the landscaping was planted. We're in agreement with all the recommendations of the staff. Note that the staff's recommended approval. And I'm not sure if these folks here are objectors or not or want to speak. But we're going to agree with all the staff's requests. And if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them or have our landscape architect answer them for you. All right. Does anybody have any questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this? All right. Seeing none. any rebuttal okay that's on the agenda to ask that alright I'm going to close the hearing and turn it over to the commission for motions or comments whatever yes are you ready? go ahead you want the variance together? I want the variance separate okay please mr. chair I'm going to move for approval of some change request for MARV 2015-22 for the reasons cited by staff all right we have a motion for approval and a second. Everybody may vote. That motion carries. And I'm going to move for recommendation of approval of the four variances as cited by staff for MARV 2015-22. All right, we have a motion for approval. Second. We have a second. Karen Mundy. Everybody may vote. And then move for recommendation of approval of ZDP 2015-103, eliminating number 11. Is that the revised sheet you're talking about? Yes, on the revised sheet, yes. Okay. All right, we have a motion. Do we get a second? Second. Second. All right. Everybody may vote. That motion also carries. So zone change is approved. Thank you very much. Do you have something? Sure. I think that's all of our agenda. All right. We will see you all in two weeks at committee. on Thursday the third. Until then, we wish you a Happy Thanksgiving. All right. Thank you.