# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - August 11, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 11, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4034 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4034?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-08-11 - **Last revised**: August 11, 2016 - **Length**: 24,974 words - **Speakers**: Chad > ⚠️ **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 convened on August 11, 2016, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mike Owens presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed six agenda items during the session, with five receiving approval and one being continued to a future meeting. The commission took 11 votes throughout the proceedings and heard from 8 members of the public who provided comments on various matters before the board. The approved items included development projects such as Midland Crossing, Newmarket Property Unit 8, Man O' War Development Unit 2A, Skain Street, and the Kentucky American Water Booster Station in Jacobson Park, while the Atlas I, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Springhurst Subdivision Unit 2 was continued for further consideration. ## Attendance The meeting on August 11, 2016 had seven members present and four members absent. **Present:** • Mike Owens • Will Berkley • Mike Cravens • Frank Penn • Carolyn Richardson • Joe Smith • Karen Mundy **Absent:** • Patrick Brewer • David Drake • Carolyn Plumlee • Bill Wilson No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took eleven votes during the August 11, 2016 meeting, with all motions passing unanimously by voice vote with 7 ayes and 0 nays. **Procedural Votes** [timestamp: 00:30] Karen Mundy motioned to approve Mike Owens as acting Chair for the meeting, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The motion passed unanimously. [timestamp: 12:00] Frank Penn motioned to approve the Consent Agenda items, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The motion passed unanimously. **Postponements** Three items were postponed to September 8, 2016: - [timestamp: 03:00] PLN-MJSUB-16-00006 (Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, Lot 129), motioned by Mike Cravens and seconded by Karen Mundy - [timestamp: 06:00] PLN-MJDP-16-00005 (Clay Ingels Company, LLC), motioned by Karen Mundy and seconded by Carolyn Richardson - [timestamp: 09:00] PLN-MJDP-16-00004 (Newtown Springs, Lot 1), motioned by Carolyn Richardson and seconded by Karen Mundy **Approvals with Condition Changes** Four development projects were approved with modified conditions: - [timestamp: 20:00] PLN-MJSUB-16-00002 (Tuscany, Unit 2A) with condition #9 changed to resolve driveway access for Lots 31 & 37 on Pascoli Cove - [timestamp: 30:00] PLN-MJSUB-16-00005 (Green Property Holdings, LLC) with condition #18 modified to discuss street frontage and roadway improvements - [timestamp: 40:00] DP 2016-65 (Kaluski Property/Lexave Apartments) with changes to conditions #13 and #14 regarding water quality and fire access - [timestamp: 50:00] PLN-MJDP-16-00003 (Lexmark International, Inc.) with condition #19 changed to resolve A-U zone parking issues **Other Actions** [timestamp: 60:00] MAR 2016-10 (Atlas I, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Springhurst Subdivision) was continued to September 22, 2016, motioned by Will Berkley and seconded by Karen Mundy. [timestamp: 70:00] PFR 2016-1 (Kentucky American Water Booster Station in Jacobson Park) was approved without conditions, motioned by Frank Penn and seconded by Carolyn Richardson. ## Public Comment Eight residents spoke during the public comment period, all expressing opposition to a proposed zoning change and its potential impacts on their neighborhood. Joyce Winstead opened the public comment session [timestamp: 90:00], voicing concerns about how the proposed zoning change would affect neighborhood safety and character. She emphasized the importance of preserving existing green space and maintaining the quiet nature of the area. Katrina Kelly, identifying herself as a landscape architect, followed [timestamp: 95:00] with technical concerns about drainage and walkability issues that could result from the zoning change. She also highlighted potential negative impacts on the neighborhood's overall character. Beth Kelly presented research on local business saturation [timestamp: 100:00], reporting on the number and types of businesses already operating within a one-mile radius. She argued that the area is sufficiently served by existing commercial establishments and does not require additional development. Mark Ausreger focused on traffic safety concerns [timestamp: 105:00], discussing potential traffic increases from the proposed development and emphasizing safety risks for both pedestrians and cyclists in the area. David Lane addressed economic impacts [timestamp: 110:00], expressing concerns that the zoning change would negatively affect property values and diminish quality of life for neighborhood residents. Mary Margaret spoke about the area's historical significance [timestamp: 115:00], arguing that increased traffic and commercial development would harm the neighborhood's historical value and character. Loretta Haley emphasized accessibility concerns [timestamp: 120:00], highlighting the need to maintain a safe and accessible environment, particularly for residents with mobility challenges. Joel Harlan concluded the public comment period [timestamp: 125:00] by criticizing what he described as a lack of concrete planning from the developers. He urged the commission to reject the proposed zoning change entirely. All speakers expressed unified opposition to the zoning proposal, citing concerns ranging from traffic safety and environmental impact to property values and neighborhood character preservation. ## Contested Items The August 11, 2016 meeting featured one primary contested item that generated significant community debate. **Atlas I, LLC Zoning Map Amendment** The proposed zoning map amendment by Atlas I, LLC faced substantial opposition from community members during the public hearing process. Residents raised multiple concerns about the potential impacts of the zoning change on their neighborhood. The primary areas of opposition centered on: • **Traffic concerns** - Community members expressed worry about increased vehicle traffic that could result from the proposed zoning change • **Safety issues** - Residents voiced concerns about potential safety impacts to the neighborhood • **Neighborhood character** - Opposition focused on how the zoning amendment might alter the existing character and nature of the surrounding area The community opposition appeared to be organized and vocal, with multiple residents participating in the discussion of this agenda item. The nature of the concerns suggested that the proposed zoning change would allow for development or land use that differed significantly from the current zoning designation and existing neighborhood patterns. While the extracted data indicates there was significant community pushback against this zoning amendment proposal, the specific outcome of the vote or final decision on the Atlas I, LLC zoning map amendment is not detailed in the available information. The level of community engagement and the range of concerns raised - from traffic and safety to neighborhood character - suggests this was a substantive zoning proposal that would have meaningful impacts on the affected area. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this contested item discussion.* ## Midland Crossing [timestamp: 15:00] The commission reviewed the final subdivision plan for Midland Crossing under case number PLN-MJSUB-16-00001. The proposed development would create 12 lots within the subdivision. Bill Sallee served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting details about the subdivision plan to the commission members. The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed the Midland Crossing proposal and recommended approval, though their recommendation came with several conditions that needed to be addressed. These conditions focused on three main areas: • **Drainage requirements** - Specific measures needed to ensure proper water management throughout the subdivision • **Street access provisions** - Requirements for adequate vehicular access to serve all proposed lots • **Landscaping standards** - Specifications for green space and aesthetic improvements within the development The commission discussed these conditions and their implementation as part of the final subdivision approval process. The requirements were designed to ensure the development would meet municipal standards and integrate appropriately with surrounding areas. Following the presentation and discussion of the subdivision plan and the Subdivision Committee's conditional recommendations, the commission voted to approve the Midland Crossing final subdivision plan. The approval included the conditions previously outlined by the Subdivision Committee regarding drainage, street access, and landscaping requirements. The approval of PLN-MJSUB-16-00001 allows the developer to proceed with creating the 12 lots as proposed, provided all specified conditions are met during the development process. ## Newmarket Property, Unit 8 [timestamp: 25:00] The commission reviewed the final subdivision plan for Newmarket Property, Unit 8 (PLN-MJSUB-16-00003). Bill Sallee served as the key speaker presenting the item to the commission. The subdivision plan included several important conditions that were discussed during the review: • Drainage requirements and specifications • Street access provisions and connectivity • Tree protection measures for existing vegetation The commission examined these conditions as part of their evaluation of the final subdivision plan. The discussion focused on ensuring that the proposed development would meet municipal standards for infrastructure and environmental protection. Following their review and discussion of the subdivision plan and its associated conditions, the commission approved the Newmarket Property, Unit 8 subdivision application. ## Man O' War Development, Unit 2A [timestamp: 35:00] The commission reviewed application PLN-MJDP-16-00001 for Man O' War Development, Unit 2A, which proposed modifications to increase the floor area for a commercial building within the development. Bill Sallee served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The development plan was presented to the commission for their consideration and review. The commission examined the proposed changes to the commercial building's floor area as part of the Unit 2A development phase. The application underwent standard review procedures to ensure compliance with local zoning requirements and development standards. Following their discussion and review of the application materials, the commission voted to approve the Man O' War Development, Unit 2A proposal. The approval came with attached conditions, though the specific details of those conditions were not detailed in the available materials. The approval allows the development to proceed with the planned floor area increases for the commercial building component of Unit 2A, subject to meeting the stipulated conditions set forth by the commission. ## Skain Street [timestamp: 45:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-16-00006 for the Skain Street development plan. Bill Sallee served as the key speaker presenting the proposal to the commission. The development plan discussion centered on administrative requirements, specifically the need for proper signage posting and submission of an affidavit as part of the approval process. These procedural elements were identified as necessary components for moving forward with the project. During the review, the commission identified specific conditions that would need to be addressed as part of any approval. Two primary areas of concern emerged: • **Drainage requirements** - The commission determined that adequate drainage provisions must be incorporated into the development plan • **Fire service features** - Proper fire safety and emergency access elements were deemed necessary for the project The commission found the overall development plan acceptable but emphasized that these infrastructure and safety conditions must be satisfied. The drainage and fire service requirements were presented as standard development conditions rather than project-specific concerns. Following discussion of the proposal and the identified conditions, the commission moved to approve the Skain Street development plan. The approval was granted with the understanding that the developer would need to meet the specified conditions related to drainage infrastructure and fire service accessibility features. The commission's decision represents a conditional approval, allowing the project to proceed while ensuring that essential safety and infrastructure requirements are properly addressed in the final development implementation. ## Atlas I, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Springhurst Subdivision, Unit 2 [timestamp: 55:00] The commission reviewed agenda item MAR 2016-10, a zoning map amendment and development plan submitted by Atlas I, LLC for the Springhurst Subdivision, Unit 2. The proposal involves changing the current zoning designation from residential to business use. Chris Taylor served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The commission examined both the zoning map amendment request and the associated development plan for the property. Staff presented their analysis and recommended disapproval of the Atlas I, LLC proposal. The primary concern cited by staff was compatibility issues with the comprehensive plan. Staff determined that the requested zoning change from residential to business use would not align with the long-term planning goals and vision established in the comprehensive plan for this area. The commission discussed the staff's concerns regarding the compatibility between the proposed business zoning and the existing comprehensive plan framework. The comprehensive plan serves as the guiding document for land use decisions, and staff found that the proposed zoning change would conflict with the planned character and development pattern for this location. After reviewing the proposal, staff recommendation, and discussing the compatibility concerns, the commission decided to continue the matter rather than make a final determination. This continuation allows for additional review time and potentially provides an opportunity for the applicant to address the identified concerns about comprehensive plan compatibility before the item returns for further consideration. The continuation of MAR 2016-10 means the Atlas I, LLC zoning map amendment and Springhurst Subdivision, Unit 2 development plan will be revisited at a future commission meeting. ## Kentucky American Water Booster Station in Jacobson Park [timestamp: 65:00] The commission reviewed Public Facility Review PFR 2016-1 for a proposed Kentucky American Water booster station to be located in Jacobson Park. The project is designed to improve water pressure in the surrounding area. Traci Wade presented the review to the commission, explaining the technical aspects and purpose of the proposed water infrastructure improvement. The booster station would enhance water service delivery to residents in the vicinity of Jacobson Park by increasing water pressure throughout the distribution system. During the review process, staff evaluated the proposal against the city's comprehensive plan requirements and found the project to be in full compliance with established planning guidelines. The water utility infrastructure was determined to be consistent with the area's designated land use and development objectives. The commission approved PFR 2016-1 following the presentation and review. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this public facility review. The approval allows Kentucky American Water to proceed with the installation of the booster station at the Jacobson Park location as proposed. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approve Mike Owens as the acting Chair for the meeting - **PLN-MJSUB-16-00006** — postponed (7-0): Postpone Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, Lot 129 to September 8, 2016 - **PLN-MJDP-16-00005** — postponed (7-0): Postpone Clay Ingels Company, LLC to September 8, 2016 - **PLN-MJDP-16-00004** — postponed (7-0): Postpone Newtown Springs, Lot 1 to September 8, 2016 - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approve Consent Agenda items - **PLN-MJSUB-16-00002** — passed (7-0): Approve Tuscany, Unit 2A with condition change - **PLN-MJSUB-16-00005** — passed (7-0): Approve Green Property Holdings, LLC with condition change - **DP 2016-65** — passed (7-0): Approve Kaluski Property (Lexave Apartments) with condition changes - **PLN-MJDP-16-00003** — passed (7-0): Approve Lexmark International, Inc. with condition change - **MAR 2016-10** — passed (7-0): Continue Atlas I, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Springhurst Subdivision, Unit 2, Zoning Development Plan - **PFR 2016-1** — passed (7-0): Approve Kentucky American Water Booster Station in Jacobson Park --- ## Full transcript I wanted to sign up for this. Where do I go? Who do I call? What's the website? Great questions. So the CASA website for this event is www.lexsuperherorun.com. If you go there, you can register today. If you do not have internet access, you can contact the CASA office and we can get you a hard copy paper registration form. The phone number to the office is 859-246-4313. We're happy to answer any questions anyone might have, and there are a variety of frequently asked questions on the website as well, but the date of the event is Saturday, September 10th, with the 1K kicking off at 8.30 a.m., followed by the 5K at 9 a.m., and the festival runs until noon. Again, to participate in the festival, all you need to do is register for either the 1K or the 5K, and you'll wear your race number to allow free access to the festival. All proceeds do benefit Casa of Lexington. 100% of all funds go straight back into the community to provide advocates, Casa advocates, to abuse and neglected children in the Fayette County Family Court system. Again, registration rates for this, for the 1K, if you register early, are $15. The 5K is $25. And you get a t-shirt with the 5K. You get a cape with the 1K, both with local artwork from a local artist, which everybody really enjoys. And this year we've also added the option, if you would like a hooded sweatshirt with the artwork, you can add one of those on for $25. But make sure to register by August 10th to get the early bird pricing. After that, pricing is $5 additional for each event. That's fabulous, Melinda, and thank you so much for all of your work in organizing these events each year. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. I'm out. Thank you. The End The End The End The End Thank you. Our first item of business will be a motion from the commission, and I'll entertain a motion to allow Mr. Owens to chair this meeting today because our chairman is not here, and this will be the best way for us to operate today. Mr. Chair, I move that for today's session that Mike Owens be the chair of the session. Second. The vote has been made and seconded. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Thank you. Thank you. Thank everyone for coming today. kind of bear with us. Planning Commission's had a rough time over the last couple of weeks. There's no minutes for approval today. We'll move to postponements or withdrawals. Anyone in the audience have any? Yes, please come forward. Give us your name. Yes, I'm Rich Murphy with Abby Jones Consulting. Referring to page three of the agenda, item F. It's PLN-MJSUB-160006, Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, Lot 129. On behalf of the client, we'd like to request a 30-day postponement. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move postponement of PLN MJSUB 16,000 something six. 30 days. That would be until September the 8th. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made in second for postponement of Pleasant Ridge Subdivision 16-Quat 6, I think you said the other day, for 30 days until September the 8th. Please vote. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. On page 5, item E, Plan MJDP 16-00005, Clay Ingalls Company, LLC, request one month postponement to September 8th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members, if not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. I move for postponement until September the 8th of Plan MJDP 16 Quad 05 Clay Ingalls Company, LLC. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded by Ms. Richardson for postponement until September 8th, 2016 Clay Ingalls Company. Please vote. Motion passes. Thank you. Other requests? Yes, sir. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Tony Barrett on page 5. Just above that, Plan MJD P-16-4 Newtown Springs, Lot 1. That's for a 30-day postponement. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chairman, I move postponement for 30 days to September 8th of PLNMJDP-160004. Thank you. I thought I saw you reaching. I'll put it that way. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement of Newtown Springs-16-4 until September 16th. Please vote. Motion passes. Thank you. Other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Staff, do you have any? No? Okay. If not, we'll move to the consent agenda. Ask Mr. Salee to take us through the short consent agenda today. Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to. I do need to. First, I do need to ask Mr. Barrett if he has the affidavit. with one item. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we do have a very short consent agenda this afternoon. There are only five items on it. The very first one is one of the three final subdivision plans that have been recommended for additional approval by your subdivision commissioner. It appears on page one, item A, the Comedian Medical Center, major subdivision plan, 16-0-1-miss process. This is your property. This is your property with an address of 222, and you're worth it possible. Next item on your consent agenda is on page two, item C, of the community agenda, major subdivision plan 16-03, New Market property, Union 8. This property has an address of 1501, Deer Haley, Lex. The next item of the community agenda is also on the consent agenda, major subdivision plan 16-04, Lexmark Intermanius Incorporated. This property has an address of 740,000. In addition, there are two final development plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. First, the Senate Senate appears on page 4, item B, meeting and echo. Major development plan 16-01, manual development, unit 2A. This involves property at 1916, Justice Drive. Final plan on your Senate Senate Senate appears on page 5, item F, meeting and echo. It is major development plan 16-06, Scam Street, which probably, as I'm surprised, has a man dressed up for him in Scam Street. Before I began reading, I checked with Mr. Barrett. He does have the required data for the posting of the sign for this last item on Scam Street. We have the data that's signed up here to be in order. Also, before you go back to the insurance agenda, that same item should have a memorandum. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to pull and have any one of these items heard? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion for the consent agenda as read. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda as presented. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Ms. Richardson for approval of the consent agenda as read. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. I believe at that point we can move on to page 2. Item B is plan MJSUB 16-00002 Tuscany Unit 2A. Will let the staff set up? And in the meantime, Mr. Chairman, I have here the release and call of bonds. I want to move approval of those. Motion has been made and seconded for the approval of the release and call of bonds from the memorandum dated August 11, 2016. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Gall. Good afternoon. I don't think you turned on. There we go. Sorry about that. Oops. All right, we're going to look at the major subdivision plan for Tuscany Unit 2A. This property is located in the Tuscany area off of Winchester Road. We're off of Piscali Place. The property is zoned R3, and they're wanting to create 13 lots. With that, we had the first seven conditions as typical sign-offs, and then we had clarify the 20-foot utility easement on lot 27, which we have right here. It doesn't look complete. And then our discussion question on this is why I'm discussing driveway access to lots 31 and 37 on Pascale Cove. This is lots 31 and 37. We were just wanting to have them denote the location of the driveways. We've done this in other subdivisions because of this being placed on the curve, and so we wanted to know where the driveway locations were. Traffic would like to see it off of the Cove area. So we left it as a discussion question after the subdivision committee meeting. With that, if you have any questions. I'm not turned on. Questions for Ms. Gall? Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. The applicant. Hello. Again, Rory Kale with EA Partners. Only here for number nine to discuss the driveway locations. We'd like to request that it, number nine, I guess, be stricken, and we just go with what the ordinance states. You get a driveway distance from the intersections. If there's going to be changes to the regulations on how corner lots are reviewed and restricted, I think it should go through the subdivision regulations and not just be conditions tacked on at a final record plat. The subdivision plan has been approved with the lot layout with these corner lots not being restricted up to this point. If we're going to start restricting corner lots, I think it needs to be within the regulations instead of a case-by-case review at the plat stage. Questions for Mr. Kaley? Yeah, traffic? You might get your exercise in today. Can't wait. Traffic's opinion, kind of why this got raised, I think it's a little bit, for us, we also want to make the applicant aware. of these lots that they're creating on the corner, that there may be an issue. So for us, it was almost flagging it like our preference would be for the driveway access to be from the Cove. That's the local street. That would be our preference. Past Holy Place, there are other residential driveways that will access it. So in this particular situation, our preference would be for it to access the Cove. As long as they meet the subdivision regulations, if they come in and want to access Pascoe Place and they have enough frontage to keep the driveway out of the intersection, then we would be okay with that. So you're saying, for instance, on the lot that would be to the upper side, if the driveway were, as you're facing that lot, to the right, it would be okay? As long as the distance is there from the intersection. Exactly. They would be required to have the distance from the intersection. So as they're aware of that, I don't think traffic is trying to restrict anything more than the subdivision regulations say. But we do want to caution them that the preference would be from the cove because it is the local street. and when they're laying that lot out specifically, to try to come in and put the driveway close to the intersection would not be acceptable. Even, and again, I see what you're saying and I'm fine with that, but Pasquale Cove is a little bit different cul-de-sac than we normally see. It's got a real short neck going into it. So you've got to also think about Pasquale Cove. is going to be really crowded with those pie-shaped lots in there going in with all those driveways. So that's another, you know, when we talked about it in subdivision committee, that was one of the reasons it really bothered me is the fact that that is really going to be tight in there if you're trying to pull all those driveways in there. Right, and I think that's why in all those situations why we look at them individually is because, you know, there's multiple ways these plats come in. And so say the cove was going to extend, when we're reviewing it, we would say, you know, that's why we specifically look at those corner lots to try to flag them for the applicant to make them aware ahead of time going forward of the concerns. Okay. Other questions? Yes. Mike, are you saying that on both of those lots on each side of Pascoli Place, you'd want the driveway as far away from the cove as you could, not just the upper lot, but the lower lot also? I do. And what happens is for our signage, besides it's just the intersection, and although this is a cove, so the amount of traffic coming from that leg is really minimum, there is still going to be movement of traffic within the intersection. And when we go to sign, put our stop signs, our crosswalks, when we have a driveway, that creates a problem. Casey, do you think is this resolvable, I guess? It is resolvable. Is it, you know, if it says resolve driveway access location as long as they come and show you where they're going to put it? Yes, and Rory and I have discussed kind of as a procedural thing for us showing the subregs on that. And then if I or if traffic wants to bring it to you all because we're requesting anything additional, that's kind of how we could handle it going forward. But in this situation, I think if they just abide by the subdivision regulations, then it's resolvable. Is this number nine? Should it stay on there as a resolve, I guess, is my question? I think it could stay on there as resolved. Just to bring it to the attention? Okay. And then when we go through the sign-off process, we're aware that this was discussed. Okay. Very good. Mr. Martin, you got anything? I would just like to briefly respond to Mr. Cayley's comment about adding this sort of thing to the subdivision regulations as opposed to a case-by-case basis. We have brought this issue up a number of times, but not a large number of times in the last few years. It does tend to arise out of concerns on a case-by-case basis. And Ms. Mundy's comment about the depth of this particular cul-de-sac goes straight to that issue of a case-by-case basis. You need to be careful what you ask for. If you get a regulation, it could have unintended consequences. And it could change the depth, for instance, that they have to lay out on a cul-de-sac. There could be other things that could impact the configuration of a lot, for instance. And we would not like to see additional waiver requests, for instance, before this body for something like driveway locations because we've amended our regulations. Staff is very comfortable with just bringing these up and continue to review them and resolve them on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Mundy? I don't want to belabor it, so I just want to go on record, I guess. The way I'm looking at this is we're losing one more stick out of the bundle. And, you know, I talk about the bundle of sticks that we get when we buy property. So it really bothers me that then, even on a case-by-case basis, what the regulations say are what the regulations say. So it bothers me then when I see a builder or a developer, in this case, having to give up one more stick. by us regulating it away. And that's what we're doing if we start saying you can only put a driveway here on a corner lot. And I think about the gazillions of corner lots we have across the city. And I just don't want to see us start inhibiting. If I want to build a ranch-type house on that lot and there's room and I want my driveway off the front because of the lay of the land and it's a little flatter and I want my builder, Mike Cravens, to build that, I want to be able to do that. So that's my heartfelt thought about it. And staff understands that. We do, which is why we think a case-by-case basis is the best way to review it. You won't build me a house? Okay. Not going to be that way. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? If not, and if there's no other questions from the commission, I'll close this and open it up for any other discussion among commission members or a motion. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Does anybody else want to say anything before I pull the trigger on this? Pull the trigger. All right. I'm going to move approval of Plan MJSUB 1602, change number nine to resolve. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval, change number nine to resolve driveway access location. Any questions? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks. We can move on to page three, top of the page, plan MJSUB 1605, Green Property Holdings. You do have a proposed findings on a light gray sheet of paper before you. whenever you're ready, whenever Mr. Martin gets it pinned up. He's finished putting it up for me. Very nice of him to do that. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. As you said, we're on the top of page three. We're looking at a major subdivision plan for green property, which is located off of New Circle Road and Sunshine Lane. They come in. They have a proposal to subdivide one lot into two lots. with Sunshine Lane down here. The first portion of the Sunshine Lane is public right-of-way, and the remaining portion here is an access easement, and that's where it comes to the plan. See, the first seven conditions on our plan are just typical sign-offs, including asking for the cap approval. conditions 8 through 17 are cleanup conditions that need to be done to the plan and then our condition number 18 was discuss the street frontage to lot 2 and improvements needed to the road roadway easement this is where we were questioning whether they should do road improvements across the front of the property but since this is a private access easement the property lines go to the center line of the access easement. So they've asked not to have to do those improvements. And you'll see the finding that they have written for that. And they've asked that they do not have to do the improvements, but they would do curb and gutter along the frontage of the property. So with that, I open it to you if you have any questions. Questions from Ms. Galt? Nope. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm representing the applicant on this, and my main job was to address condition 18, which was the access easement. In researching this, I found out that Sunshine Lane was created in 1953, 63 years ago, as a private access easement. It has functioned that way for 63 years. We are adding one lot onto it, and right now it is paved very well. It's very well paved, at least well past this lot down to here. The curb comes down to about here, and the applicant has agreed to continue the curb and gutter on down the entire frontage of the property here. There's no sidewalk on Sunshine Lane now, so there's really no purpose in putting one right there. As you probably know, the road is barricaded when it gets back here. There's a residential road that comes into the back, but I understand the barricade's been there for as long as anybody can remember to prevent residential traffic and industrial traffic from mixing. So the issue, another reason to keep it as an access easement is that the property lines here go to the center of the street. So we don't have the physical ability to dedicate this and make it a public street because there are still owners on the other side who would have private ownership of Sunshine Lane. And because it's in good condition right now, the pavement is very good out there, and we'll extend the curb and gutter down here on the frontage of the lot. We felt that this was appropriate to continue as a private access easement. The findings that are on the screen there are ones that I drafted up and submitted to the staff. I think they've reviewed them, and hopefully they have found those sufficient to grant this if you so choose. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Mr. McAlpin indicated that he's going to find some help to clean these other conditions up. I guess he didn't implore you to do that? No, my drafting license had lapsed at that point. I'm sorry about that. All right. Mr. McAlpin, good afternoon. I've done some of the field work, but I've got to do a drainage study to set up minimum floor elevation, and I've just been hammered. Been hammered. Okay. Thank you, sir. I'll get it done. I'll obviously get it done before she lets me. Exactly. Exactly. We don't have it listed here. One other, we don't have it listed here. If we do go with the access easement and we approve that, we also possibly need to add a condition that the maintenance note for the access easement needs to be added to the plan. We're okay with that as long as everybody understands that we can only maintain the part we own of the access easement. The part that's inside the boundaries of the lot, which goes to the center line. Exactly. Okay. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Questions from the commission? If not, I think with a little help we might be able to change the language on number 18 to adapt these findings. Is that correct, Mr. Sally? It seemed like you were working awfully hard there. I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle of the pan. Thank you. very good questions from commission if not i'm ready for a motion yes sir mr chairman i move for approval of pln mjsub 16 quad 5 changing 18 to what's on the screen, discuss the addition of the plan, easement addition to the plan, and accepting the findings as presented by Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of Green Property Holdings Plan 16 Quad 5. Changing number 18 to read above and also noting the acceptance of the proposed findings. Any questions? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks. Next at the bottom of the page under development plans is Kaluska property plan 2016-65. Let's hope we won't have to hear this. Thanks, Gary. Yes, ma'am. Yes. Good afternoon. We are looking at the bottom of page three. We're looking at DP 2016-65, Kulaski property, the Lexington Avenue apartments. Last month, they asked for postponement. This is the plan that at the time we had presented, we had a one-way in, circular drive around to the rear, and then out to Lexington Avenue. Since then, they have come in and they revised the plan, and they have in and out on one access point to the rear for the parking, and they had presented to have a fire gate at the end here to go into the adjacent property. The property is on R5. They're wanting to put in 24 apartments. With that, we had between page 3 and 4, which goes around to page 4, we have nine conditions, our typical sign-off conditions, including approval from the CAP program. And then we have a couple cleanup conditions. condition number 13 is discuss water quality measures for redevelopment per the engineering manuals with this, this is in the infill area and less than an acre so they will have to meet the manuals for the redevelopment of the property and they haven't discussed with us as to how they're going to do this so hopefully they'll be able to explain condition number 14 is discuss how to see the fire access through the adjoining property. And you'll see our gave copies out. This morning I spoke with Captain Lingle before the, earlier this morning we talked, and it seems that the adjacent property, I don't know if you can see, Yes. The property to the bottom portion of the drawing here is where it's being redeveloped. And then the portion on the top is where they're wanting to have the access for the fire gate to go into the adjacent property. And after speaking to Captain Lingle this morning, there were some concerns with, you can see there's parking that has been painted on there in the access. and so there was concerns that this was not going to be wide enough for their truck to get through and go out that way. So we're not sure that the fire gate is actually going to be needed. And so you'll see on the memo that Captain Lingle sent that we're not sure at this time that that's going to be a requirement. If there's any other questions. I guess my question in regards to this, they're still asking for a 24-foot driveway on this property? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That way they'll have the driveway to get into the property, and it's 24 feet wide. The only concern is that they won't be able to get back out off of this property. And so the question is, do we need the fire gate? Because we're not sure that we're going to be able to get through on the other property either. So if they can't get back out, is it just going to be a permanent attraction or what on this property? No, they'll just have to park out front. They might not be able to get around to the back side. They would like to be able to have access to all sides of the building for fire reasons, but in this situation, it might not be feasible. They might not be able to do it. And then also traffic's e-mail, can you explain that? Well, she seems to be okay with it. Her concerns were also the dumpster, and she asked that a note be added to the plan that if they need to ask for city service, that they would have to revise the development plan because she still has some concerns about the truck being able to turn around on the property. So when you say a note on the plan, you mean a note on that plan? On the development plan, yes, sir. All right. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. Applicant. Any other questions? I'm sorry. Applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Jacob Walburn on behalf of the applicant. I'm actually going to let Mr. Cayley do most of the heavy lifting here and just hide behind him. But I do want to address one thing for the record as it comes to Ms. Cocker's email. We have a letter that I'll provide to staff for the record that indicates we are able to get private service on this lot. As we discussed during subdivision committee, in an infill area, sometimes the location of the dumpster can be a little bit difficult. In the past, I believe Solid Waste has handled this with utilizing roll carts that are brought to the street. That's a policy that they're trying to get away from. We understand the necessity for that. So that's why we're agreeable to that note that should we ever request city dumpster service, we're aware that we will have to amend the plan to do it. But we are able to provide waste service for our residents by virtue of this letter. As far as the fire gate goes, I do think it's important to point out that the property where the issue is is a property that's not under our control. It's an adjacent property. I think we do still intend to put in some kind of access to get through. I guess we could convert the cab of the stranded fire truck into an apartment, but I don't think that's our preference. We think, obviously, with the striped parking on the other side, in the unlikely event that we hope would never occur that a fire truck would have to come back there, if that level of access is provided to get through, presumably folks could move their cars so the truck could get out. That's still a 24-foot-wide driveway on the other side. It's just striped for parking. So I feel in the unlikely event that a fire truck would end up in the rear parking lot, we'd be able to get it out. As far as the water quality measures, that's where I'm going to let the experts take over and explain that to you. Not to practice engineering without a license, I'll just give you the generals. Sites where you have existing development and then you redevelop it, you run the amount of impervious area before and after, and that difference you are required to provide quality for 20% of that. Areas under an acre are not typically required to have quantity. As the site has been two buildings and a parking lot, I don't believe the addition or the redevelopment will be that much greater. The process that we're talking about here is all part of the construction plans. This gets approved. We submit storm sewer plans to engineering. They review it. We work with them until it's acceptable. It will probably mean an insert in catch basin as it leaves the site just for the quality. Questions? Everybody's saying no at this point. Thank you. Ms. Cocker? I just wanted to address you all over the dumpster. Traffic definitely had opposition to this plan because we had concerns with developing a light lot and doing a site plan that couldn't serve public dumpster. We still have those same concerns, and I guess I just want to make that part of the record, that in this specific situation, due to the infill aspect of this project and the fact that the applicant has provided documentation that a private hauler can serve this site, The request was made that on this plan there would be a note that if any time the owner of the site wanted to redevelop, wanted to go to the public service, then the site plan would have to be amended, the development plan would have to be amended, and come back to you all. We felt like that that was an acceptable way to handle it, But I definitely wanted to caution that it wasn't a precedent that we were setting across the board that we wanted to get into the habit of altering and not providing for the public services. Okay. Yep, Mr. Penn. I think you answered my question very well. My question would take it one step farther is that that will be a final development plan. Then they wouldn't be able to change to public. Exactly. The only way they could go back and request the city to provide them public dumpster service, they would have to come back and amend their development plan. And at that time, revisit the interconnectivity between the two lots or any other options or solutions they can come up with. But it would have to be approved prior to. So once the building is built, they're locked into private? Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions? No. Mr. Wahlberg, anything else to add? Only briefly to say that we are agreeable to that note. I do think there are a number of solutions that could be employed to solve this problem should we ever need to go to a public service. But we're agreeable to that note. which will lock us into private service with the full understanding that more than likely the easiest way to achieve it would be to have cross access with that other property. And so I think we're cognizant of the choice we're making. This is an infill project. If you'll remember the zone change I presented to you some months ago, one of the reasons the building was positioned in this way was to match the area around it. So I think this is kind of a – I understand traffic's concern. It's certainly well taken, but I think we've addressed it. I think this is not a precedential setting. item, and I think it works for this plan. We'd request your approval. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? No, thank you. Commission members, questions? Staff, anything else? No? If not, I'll turn it over to the commission. for their wishes. We do have two items that we need to focus their attention on for sure. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Looks like I was elected to make this motion. I want to move approval of DP 2016-65 changing number 13 to resolve and number 14 to resolving the fire access with 24 foot access on property and note on the DP says find traffic regarding dumpster service. We've got a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and seconded for approval with two changes to number 13 and 14. Any questions on motion? If not, I'll call for a vote. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. We'll move on to the next page, page 4, Lexmart International Incorporated. It's Plan 16, Quad 3. You do have a revision on a goldenrod sheet of paper. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, this is item C on page four of your agenda. Development Plan 16-3, Lexmark International. And as we have, staff has distributed revised conditions for you on this plan. We are located out on West New Circle Road with the Newtown Pike intersection just here off the plan. This is part of the campus, originally IBM and of course Lexmark campus, that is existing out there and is part of our community. With, again, shopping areas down this way along New Circle Road and the park area on the property in this area. We have a very large floodplain, as you can see highlighted here. There is a lot of floodplain on the property and it heads on out, part of the Cane Run watershed. This development plan reflects a lotting pattern that you've seen on the plat that you just approved on your consent agenda where they were creating lots on the Lexmark property in this area. This particular lot reflects, for the most part, what is on the ground. This is a very large, well over 300,000 square foot office building that is an accessory use to the old IBM and now the Lexmark operation. They are adding parking. They are proposing a lot of additional parking, close to 600 spaces. There are existing parking that serves the building in this area. As you all are aware, there's the long access point off of New Circle Road. Now, they are just reflecting what is on the ground primarily, with the exception, again, of this additional parking that they are requesting. This is a large KU utility substation in this location. This is the legacy trail as it goes on out and serves our community that you all are well aware of. The interesting, and it is interesting, situation on this plan is this is an AU piece of property. And this is I-1. Now, this is a reflection of the historic circumstances when IBM came in. And, you know, as you all know, just absolutely revolutionized our community with the impact and the things that IBM had and subsequently Lexmark. And, of course, they built their large campus and all their facilities. And this area, which has remained largely open and they built their park, was classified AU, which happened after merger. And again, here we have the I-1 function. So they're here today to ask for the approval of this plan for you. Now, staff has reviewed this submission, and they've cleaned up a lot of cleanup items. There are several issues that we discussed, and we met with the applicant and discussed this at length. And we have some conditions, new conditions on your plan. Very importantly is they are to denote that this area cannot be developed for the parking until there's a zone change. The staff has reviewed this very closely. We've discussed it with legal, and we cannot see any other path for them to accomplish what they need to accomplish with this parking. So that needs to clearly be denoted on this plan, that that cannot be permitted, cannot be constructed until that zone change is obtained. And that leads us to another important discussion, and it's a discussion that you're going to hear more about on other plans eventually in this area, and that's your recently adopted Winburn small area plan. And we would like to have it denoted on this plan as well that any redevelopment of this property will be reviewed for its compliance with the recommendations of that small area plan. And in this particular instance, that plan recommends a lot more development on this property. And hopefully someday the owner will be able to take advantage of that. I think you'd find staff would be tremendously supportive of such a thing. And in the zone change that happens here, it will be evaluated as well in light of that plan, taking into consideration, of course, that right now what we have in our community is an existing building that they intend to utilize, hopefully, to its complete potential and occupy it completely. we uh as i said we have some cleanup conditions and i would note that there's one number 14 that says denote use of existing building and clarify utility substation owner well they did that this is a ku substation and it is owned by ku and then over here there was a note that states that this is currently an office building and with uh this isn't necessary but it states there's some vacant areas in the building. But our intent was to have it clarified that it is an office use on the property. And with this revised plan and with the revised conditions that you see before you, staff is recommending approval of this plan. Rory, does this reflect the highway acquisition for the New Circle Road, this plan does. It takes that into... Other questions? Mr. Martin at this point? Thank you. Captain? Rory Cayley with EA Partners here with Tim Haymaker. We're agreeable through 18. With 19, we've got one request. As opposed to The word remove, we think resolve is appropriate. The deed that granted the trail location across the Lexmark property stated that the trail could be relocated at the owner's expense if needed. So we do not want to give away today that parking area where there is a conflict between the two without further investigating how we could find 600 or those parking spaces elsewhere. 600 parking spaces equals 600 jobs, and the potential user was very adamant about needing that number. How many parking spaces are in conflict with the trail? Probably 15 in the corner, and then there's a little spot where the access easement and the parking lot do cross as well. So we need to evaluate that in relation to their easement rights versus what we would actually be impacting and whether we had to move those spots or not. Other questions? No? Okay. Thank you, sir. Others that would like to speak? Yes, sir, Mr. Haymaker. Tim Haymaker, representing Lexmark. Well, I was told, we were told to instruct the engineers to exclude the right-of-way taking. And when I asked Rory, he's not sure if it happened or not. But since he was my engineer, I thought he would. So I think we'll have to clarify that, but it is taken into consideration for all the drawing, all the parking, and all those things. Whether it's physically taken off of this plat, I can't tell you. But everything has been based on that it's taken by the state. Yeah, where my concern was was on that frontage where that parking is shown, because I know there's an acquisition there, and then they're moving the bridge a little bit, too. They are. Yeah. And that's the state. That is the state. Private access beyond. Yeah. And they're, I don't know if they've made an offer yet to them or not, but that bridge does move, and I know there's a little bit of taking off the front. Yeah. Yeah, they have made an offer, and everybody's fine with it. So just in general, this is a really important deal. when we looked at this, there are two spots per thousand in parking. And whether it was demanded by us, by the staff, or whatever, we knew that we had to get up to four per thousand to meet what the buyer would require. People don't just come in and buy this kind of facility and have inadequate parking. So we made that provision long before, and it really doesn't show up on here as such, But we're adding it, and there are 622 parking spaces out there, and we're adding 605. So it's a really important deal for our community. I would ask your consideration of anything that you can do to help us expedite this, because we didn't early on anticipate having to need a zone change. but if we're going to have to do it for the small AU piece, we may as well do it for the campus and make it a P1 piece and do it all at one time. So anything that we can do to expedite that or you could help us would be appreciated. Anything else? Anybody? Any other questions from Mr. Heinemacher? Mr. Finn? Yes. Mr. Heinemacher, I appreciate your comments on that because I think that is the right thing to do. If we're going to do the AU, let's go on and get it where it needs to be. Talk to me a little bit more about relocating Legacy Trail, if you have to do that for parking space, because that is a public thing that's used a lot, and I'd like to head off the comments, if we could, about how that would work. I don't understand. Do you have property located on your property for that easement? Does the easement have to go on somebody else's property? Talk me through that a little bit. No, actually, it's only a minor corner. And the easement between the Legacy Trail and Lexmark gives permission for Lexmark to, at its own expense, to move the Legacy Trail if necessary for any reason. Because, frankly, you're probably going to see this several times if anything ever happens out on Newtown Pike as you get onto the other side of the road, because that's a long piece of legacy trail going right up the middle of that property. But for right now, this is just a small corner. We don't anticipate that it's really going to be a problem. We just want to have the flexibility of living up to the agreement that we have. And it certainly couldn't, as you would expect, it can't diminish the value of the legacy trail. Well, my reason for asking that is we've already had to do that where we put the treatment plant on coal string or on that development. My question on this was I just didn't want a public situation that said, you know, it was going to be cut there or whatever. If we get this on record, which you've already done right now, I think it will leave some of the public's concern about that. Believe me, that trail is used and used hard. Oh, believe me, we see the graffiti on all the walls. But, yeah, we know that would be very different. No, you really ought to quit doing that. My hands shake too bad to do it anymore. Okay. Mr. Haymaker, I'm sorry. I didn't hear the actual response as far as if you have to move the Legacy Trail, where will it go? Is it on somebody else's property? No, it's still all on Lexmark. Okay. It could possibly be. I thought it was about six spaces, but. It's all Lexmark. We're on the office area where it costs the same. Right. It exists at some point. So, okay. Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you. Any other questions? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, I can turn it over to the commission. Discussion and or motions. Yes, sir. Question? Yeah. So this parking lot up high, I mean, we have to rezone, you have to rezone the property to, are you asking us to approve it without rezoning it or what are you asking? Well, yeah, the condition, as it's written here. Yeah. This development plan, you would be approving it and we just could not draw permits for that area. until the zone change removing the AU was in place. If we could proceed with the other parking areas, we could proceed with the rest of the use of the building, but that parking area would have to wait until after a zone change. So you're okay with this sheet? Yes. Just wanting 19 to be resolved instead of removed. Okay. Other questions? Motion? Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of Plan MJDP 16-3 with the 19 noted conditions, changing 19 to resolve. Motion's been made and seconded by Joe Smith for approval, changing number 19 to resolve. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. We'll move on to page 6, zoning, Atlas 1, LLC, Zone of Mouth Amendment, Spring-Hurst Subdivision Unit 2, Zoning Development Plan, it's MAR 2016-10, and the associated ZDP 2016-49. You do have revised staff recommendations on the zoning and a revised staff recommendation on the development plan as well. Thank you. of the Commission, good afternoon. As the Chairman has called, this item is on page six of your agenda. Item I. It is MAR 2016-10. This is an amended zone change application for Atlas I LLC. The proposed change is from an existing R3 planned neighborhood residential zone to a requested B1 neighborhood business zone for just under one gross acre of property and a zone change from R1C, single-family residential, also to B1 neighborhood business, for exactly one net acre of land. These three properties have an address of 2090, 2094, and 2098 Harrodsburg Road. We, the staff, have received a number of communications about this zone change that we'd like to circulate to you at this time. We've received a petition from approximately 150 persons who are opposed to the zone change. And in addition, we have received a little more than a half dozen emails also expressing their concern about this proposal. We'll circulate these to you at this time. The staff has four items at your place. We have a revised staff report on the amended zone change application. This is the same report that we presented to those of you that are on the zoning committee last week. There is an amended application for the zone change. There is an amended ZOMAR plat for the property as well. and then you also have a revised recommendation on the zoning development plan for this application. Before I begin, also, I would point out to the Commission there was initially presented with this application a traffic impact study. The original application did meet the threshold for the requirement of a traffic impact study. However, their amendment has removed two properties from this application, And it's the applicant's assertion, and the staff believes this is true, that the application as it exists today does not hit the requirement for a traffic impact study. So that is only the case because the applicant has filed an amendment to their original application. To orient you to the location of the subject property, they all three have an address on Harrodsburg Road. And the closest cross street to these three properties is Lane Allen Road, which at this point is Rosemont Garden, and then transitions to Lane Allen in the Harrodsburg Road vicinity, extending on to the northwest. The subject property is three different parcels, all on the north and east corner of Springhurst Drive and Harrodsburg Road. For orientation, the entrance to Turflin Mall is directly across the street from the three subject properties. One property is zoned R1C, that is 2090 Harrodsburg Road, and that property has been in that configuration since at least the 1960s, if not longer. We traced back our zoning maps to the mid-1960s, and it's consistently showing that property is R1 and since 1969 R1C. Two properties closer to the corner are zoned R3, and they have had that designation just in the last decade. They were rezoned to allow Child Care Center to expand and locate on those two properties. The surrounding zoning is R1C on two sides, B6P directly across Harrodsburg Road, and B3 to the north and east of this location. The B3 properties were the former home to the Springs Motel, and as you know on the commission, and those have been redeveloped, and you have seen many of the development plans for those properties. There are a couple of restaurants and, more recently, a medical office building that has been completed and opened immediately adjacent to the subject property. Also in the area, we have Mitchell Avenue. I mentioned Rosemont Garden, and this is some distance to the west of Clay's Mill Road in this vicinity. I do have a few photos. We have one on the overhead that shows the location of the subject property from an overhead view. Again, we have 2090 Harrodsburg, 2094 Harrodsburg, and 2098 being the corner property. This is the same photograph, just with the zoning overlaid, where you can see the existing R3 zoning of the two parcels in R1C. of the 2090 harrodsburg road property also in association with the surrounding zoning this is an oblique aerial seen from the west we have springhurst drive here harrodsburg road here the redevelopment of the springs property i mentioned is at this location and the main mall entrance is here of course the mall has a number of outlots directly across the street as well. Final photo, it's just a close-up of the three subject property lots. Again, 2090 Harrisburg Road, 2094 and 2098 Harrisburg Road. Thank you. Unlike a lot of our recent staff reports, this staff report, both in its original form and in the amended form, spends quite a bit of time talking about the 2013 conference at plan. The petitioner opines that their request is in agreement with the 2013 conference at plan, and the staff from the outset has not reached the same conclusion. So I do need to spend maybe about five minutes just explaining to you why the staff reached that conclusion, and I'm sure you'll hear from the applicant as to why they believe it is in agreement with the plan. That may be one of the most debated issues this afternoon here at your hearing. One theme of the plan is to grow successful neighborhoods, and the staff does not agree that this development will be a well-designed neighborhood amenity. The staff believes this is more, once you review the development plan, more like an auto-centric development or commercial outlaw type of development. The plan calls for positive and safe places for social interactions, designed for pedestrians and various modes of transportation. And also, it is entirely possible in the staff's view that these sites are just too small to provide the types of amenities that are recommended in the 2013 plan. Another theme and objective of the plan is to provide for well-designed neighborhoods and communities. And there are three objectives of that theme that the staff has cited in this report that are worthy of mentioning. One is development should strive for positive and safe social interactions in neighborhoods, including neighborhoods that are connected for pedestrians and various modes of transportation. Another is that there should be minimal disruption for natural features when building new communities And finally, that we should promote, maintain, and expand the urban forest in existing neighborhoods. The staff has had a consultation with the MPO staff, as I mentioned, when they were beginning their review of the traffic impact study, and they agreed with the staff that the corollary development plan that you'll review with this zone change is not proposed as a pedestrian-friendly development. While promoting business expansion, improving quality of life, and providing services to the community, these needs in the plan all must be balanced with the community's need for this type of auto-centric development and its impact on adjacent low-density residential areas. Another theme of the plan is to create jobs and prosperity. The applicant is given very little justification as to how their proposal will meet that goal. In fact, very few of the uses are identified for specific users in the future. So it's very difficult to tell whether the jobs proposed with this commercial development will meet the plan's goal to attract fine jobs, encourage entrepreneurial spirit, and enhance our ability to recruit and retain a talented and creative workforce. The subject properties would be contiguous to about 70 acres of property that is already zoned business, either B3 or B6P, in the form of the former Springs property and the Turflin Mall property. And there is a number of buildings proposed on the Turflin Mall property that have not yet developed that could provide for the same types of uses as is being proposed with this zone change. Another theme of the plan is to improve a desirable community, and the development, being so auto-oriented with the amount of parking proposed, has very little connectivity to the existing sidewalk system in the area, and from the staff perspective will serve a very limited number of pedestrian clients. The final theme we cited in our report is that it should maintain a balance between planning for urban uses and safeguarding rural land. Of course, this will develop and redevelop a number of properties, but before the staff began receiving comments from neighborhoods, we did not opine that these commercial developments that are proposed on the properties would provide much support to the existing neighborhoods or make them more desirable. And from the staff's review, we are concerned about the remaining R1C properties on this side of Harrodsburg Road, as far out as Cardinal Lane. All of those properties are zoned R1C and front the same side of Harrodsburg Road. We worry that if this is cited as an example of context-sensitive design, that this may spread to those other properties at these other cross streets in this general vicinity. Because the staff does not believe that this zone change is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, we have looked at the other two required findings as to whether or not the zone change could be justified, either that the existing zoning is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate, or secondly, that there has been some major unanticipated change in the area since the comprehensive plan was adopted in 2013. In our report, we cite that we can find neither. Staff's opinion is that the R3 zone, which is about half of the property, might be the most appropriate zone for all of these properties. It can allow a conditional use, like the daycare center, or some higher density development that may not be out of character with the low density residential development immediately located next to it, and also might buffer the existing neighborhood from those commercial developments that I mentioned a few moments ago. Also, the only unanticipated change cited in the application is the increase in traffic on Harrodsburg Road. Staff does not believe that that is an unanticipated change since the comprehensive plan was adopted. As you know, the comprehensive plan has a transportation element, and it's estimated through our transportation planning efforts here locally that traffic will increase on all of our major roadways through the planning period. So we do not find that that is unanticipated by this plan or by our transportation plans. On page four of our staff report, we have cited a conclusion of two paragraphs in that the staff cannot support the current application, even as amended. We find that contrary to the goals and objectives of the 2013 comprehensive plan, even though there is now not a traffic impact study associated with the zone change. The staff from the beginning, our first staff report was back in April. We have recommended disapproval of this zone change. The first reason is that the requested rezoning to a neighborhood business zone is not in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan for four reasons. I have covered much of those four reasons, and for the sake of time, I will not dive into those, but we have provided lengthy findings under those four reasons for that recommendation. Secondly, uses with an auto-oriented commercial design may impact significantly the nearby neighborhoods, therefore making this B1 zone inappropriate. Thirdly, the existing R1C and R3 zones remain appropriate for the subject properties, because together they can more fully support the adopted 2013 comprehensive plan, goals, and policies. And then finally, there have been no unanticipated changes of a physical, social, or economic nature in this area since the comprehensive plan was adopted in 2013. Thank you very much. I will be glad to answer any questions from the Commission at this time or throughout your hearing, of course. And as mentioned, you will have a presentation on the zoning development plan for Mr. Martin in just a few moments. Thank you. Questions, Mr. Sally? Not at this time. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the plan that you have before you today is ZDP 2016-49. It is Spring Hurst Subdivision Unit 2. It is a preliminary development plan. You do have before you a revised plan that was submitted. This one was submitted on August 9th. Here, of course, you can see Harrodsburg Road. Here's Springhurst. The motel spring site development exists here in this location. You can see that they're proposing on this plan an interest off Springhurst into a parking area with drive-thrus around a building in this location. Interconnections between this lot and that lot in the parking areas. again with proposed building in this location as well in this area right here is the drainage area as you all may remember that is actually spring fed and then runs on under the road and there is a considerable change in elevation through the properties the plan that you see before you again is a revised plan and one of the most important things that they added on this plan is the tree inventory information that had previously been missing. And you can see we've highlighted some of the larger trees that have been added. This is a listing of all the trees. You recall the photograph, you can see that the site is heavily treed. There are several issues on this plan, and as you all are aware, and not everyone who's in this business or the folks that come down are aware of this, but we review the plan as if the zoning was in place. And I know you all are aware of that, so I'd like to make that clear. And in reviewing this plan, if it's B1, we have several issues, one of which B1 has a build-to line. And that build-to line is 10 feet off the right-of-way, which would be right in here, or 20 feet, which would bring it back in here. You can see that build-to line would have a tremendous impact on the layout of this property, the traffic circulation, the relationship to the street, the relationship to the neighbors, the surrounding property. This plan does not meet that, and they have not requested a variance to that standard. This was an issue that was identified when the plan was originally submitted to staff in March of this year. And with all these subsequent revisions, they have not addressed that requirement of the requested zone. And you can see staff has great concern should they modify that plan. Well, it changes the plan significantly and changes the relationships inherent in that plan. in addition we have a stated discussion item access right in right out this is an apparently a very important request to them we have a public street we have access here we have cross access provided but they've requested a right in and right out you may recall in committee we've talked about the fact there's a right in right out right down here on the springs and the distances involved and the difficulties in getting that right and designing it safely and the inherent conflicts, that has never been adequately addressed staff satisfaction. And last and not least, the trees that I've mentioned with the new tree information. These, as far as staff can determine, are speculative buildings. There have not been any identified users. This is a 69-inch caliper red oak tree. spoke with our urban forester prior to the meeting, and he has had the opportunity to inspect this tree, and it's a healthy tree. And we would like the opportunity to discuss a design that would hopefully protect this tree. And again, that might very well lead credence to any discussion of any variances. But again, we haven't had that opportunity to do so with the applicant. And because of that, and you can see from the handout that we've given you, staff is recommending postponement of the plan. However, should the applicant not postpone this plan, staff is recommending disapproval of the plan because it does not comply with the requested B-1 zoning or your subdivision regulations as it relates to land use access. And, very importantly, as you all are aware, we've not had the opportunity to evaluate the impact of this development on the significant trees on this property. And there's at least four, not the least of which is this red oak, that are significant trees under our ordinance. So I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Questions? Mr. Barton, you indicated that you just received this information on the tree inventory. When was it due? It's to do originally when things are filed with us. This type of information is due. So in March, when it was originally filed, that was noted that we needed the information. Okay, thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Ward? Yes, sir. That tree is right in the middle of that building. Is there any relief to remove that tree? It is, they can remove trees if it's worked out that that is the only option that exists for development of the site. It is not a tree preservation ordinance that we have. We have a tree protection ordinance. But we've not had any discussion on how to protect that tree or if it is possible or not possible. Other questions? Thank you. applicant? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. Jacob Walburn on behalf of the applicant, Atlas One LLC. I can see the concerned looks on your faces, so let me give you some good news. It's that all of the things that staff would like to discuss absolutely can be discussed at the time of a final development plan. I'm going to ask you to keep an open mind today. Is this plan up to snuff? No, it's not, and we agree with that. There are a number of reasons why that is true. Frankly, to be 100% honest, we've had some communication issues with our engineer. But the fantastic news is that I've consulted with both Mr. Sully and Mr. Martin, and he has advised that you are welcome to disapprove this plan, but we can still discuss the zoning piece of this today, which I think is very important for you to hear. I'm asking you to keep an open mind because this is appropriate zoning, and I'm going to demonstrate to you why this is appropriate zoning. And I think what you're seeing and evidenced in this plan and the discussion that you just heard is a substantial flaw in the zoning process when it comes to preliminary zoning plans. And it's for one simple reason. Everyone wants to know what you're going to build. But those of you that work in the industry and this board I know has heard it from me and every other attorney and every other engineer that appears in front of you ad nauseum. We don't know what we're going to build until the zoning is in place. You can't negotiate a lease with a prospective tenant until you have zoning in place. If you're aware of any tenants that would be willing to negotiate before zoning was in place, please let me know. I have very many clients that would be excited to meet them. So we will fully accept the decision of this body with regard to the zoning development plan. We can work these issues out at time of final development plan. Every single concern that has been raised has been valid, but these are merely conceptual buildings. I cannot tell you with a straight face that this is what we're going to build because we don't know who's going to come here. It's merely a conceptual plan. With that said, and if I could get the PowerPoint up on the board. You know I can't help myself with PowerPoints, but I think pictures are worth a thousand words in this scenario. And I'm really optimistic that when this presentation is over, you're going to understand the reasonableness of this use and why it makes sense at this site. Now, you know I have tremendous respect for the staff. I'd like to think that I work with staff very, very well. I admire their opinions, and I think they do hard jobs, and they do them very well. But in this scenario, staff has just gotten it wrong. This is appropriate zoning, and to suggest that R1C zoning remains appropriate along Harrodsburg Road is just an incorrect conclusion. And I hope by the end of it, you'll be able to see it from my perspective that this B1 zoning really does make sense for this site for the reasons I'm going to show to you today. Now, let's look at the actual subject properties, because Mr. Solis said some things about R3 that I think are going to be important for you to hear. The R3 property, the daycare property, cannot function as higher density residential. There are conditional zoning restrictions on it that should it ever cease to be a daycare, it must return to single-family houses. So R3 of the nature that's on the site now clearly doesn't even comply with Mr. Solis' contention that higher density residential is appropriate. The commission restricted that when it granted that zone change about a decade ago. I'd also invite you to look at 2090 and compare it to all of the other purple R1C lots that are around it. It doesn't resemble really any of them. It's larger. It's oriented differently. And I'm going to tell you an interesting story about why that's so. But first, I want to tell you how we got here. You may remember this application from back in April, where originally this contemplated two additional lots on the other side of Springhurst Avenue. This commission expressed through the subcommittee process that you all did not think that that was an appropriate choice to extend the zoning that far down. Now, I disagreed with you, but I heard your objection, and we tried to craft a proposal that we thought was more appropriate for the neighborhood, and that was to limit zoning at the edge of a block. Springhurst is a natural break. It can separate a commercial area from a residential area. As it exists right now, that break is in the middle of the block. You have a single-family house, zoned R1C, by the way, that butts up to a professional medical building. I would submit to you that that's not appropriate. That's unrestricted B3. That spring site is unrestricted B3. So there's some really high-intensity uses that would be permissible there merely with approval of a final development plan. Providing B1 gives you an opportunity to step those uses down as we move into a residential area. So the application that's in front of you today tried to take your concerns into account. It removed the two additional properties that we're concerned about. I think it's demonstrated a willingness by these applicants to work with staff and to work with this body to come up with a proposal that works. unfortunately, without knowing with certainty what we're going to build, we won't be able to satisfy every concern at this stage. But should you approve the zoning and should the Urban County Council agree, we'll have an opportunity to revisit all of these issues again. I think there's a way to save the oak tree. I think there's a way to orient the lots appropriately. I think we're going to have to seek variances from the Board of Adjustment. But to ask this body to grant a variance that we don't know for certain that we'll absolutely need seemed to me to be a waste of resources. So that's where we are today, and that's why I'm asking you to keep an open mind on this application. I think there are four principal reasons that you should rezone this property. Historically and presently, these properties are functioning as commercial properties, and I'll explain to you what I mean as we go through. The 2090 lot, up until recently, was a nonconforming insurance agency. The 2094 and 2098 lot, you just heard, is functioning as a daycare. In fact, it was going so well that that property was functioning so well as a commercial property, they sought a rezoning to expand their business. That's how appropriate this site is for commercial development. The recent development pattern of the neighborhood, the available commercial space that you heard about, has not been commercial in character at all. And I'll show you some photographs and documentary evidence of why that's so. The character of this area makes B1 appropriate. B1 is neighborhood business. This is a neighborhood. These are businesses that can support the neighborhood. Simply because we're unable to identify users at this point doesn't mean that we will not be supporting the neighborhood. It merely means we need to focus our recruitment efforts on neighborhood-supporting businesses. Now, why would we do that? Because we want the neighborhood to patronize our businesses. If we alienate the neighbors with a development that they don't care for, that doesn't function well with the neighborhood, they're not going to support the businesses, and the development will not be successful. We have incentive to select businesses that integrate well with the neighborhood. And finally, and as I mentioned at the outset, I think the idea that single-family zoning remains appropriate along the Harrodsburg Road corridor is a preposterous conclusion. And I'll explain why I came to that. First, I want to tell you a little history. Mr. Solis indicated that he stopped his search of the zoning maps in the mid-60s. Well, if he'd gone back a little farther, he would have found a very interesting tale. In 1956, there was an application that came before the fiscal court of Fayette County. This is pre-city-county merger, back when the county still maintained the fiscal court in an active role. There was a request to rezone the property, 2090, that is part of this application, from business to residential. So it had the zoning we want now, and it wanted to go to the zoning that we want. I think I said that backwards. Let me try that again. They were business. They wanted it to be residential. The fiscal court uniformly said no. Unanimously turned down that application to turn 2090 from a business lot into a residential lot. So how did we get here? Well, if you could smell the pages of this, I think you could smell the cigar smoke that was in the room back in the 60s when some of these zoning decisions got made. We know from records we obtained from the property owners, the Tuning family still owns 2090, by the way, and they're the star of this particular story, that they purchased the property in 1960, in large part because it had business zoning. They wanted to open a beauty salon on the site, which they did in February of 1961. But in 1963, something happened. A map amendment request came before the Planning Commission was ultimately ratified by the, at that time, fiscal court to change it from business one to residential one to provide for realignment of the zoning district line at 2090 Harrodsburg Road. The owners were not informed of this. They had no notice. They did not participate in the hearing. The amendment went through, and some six years went by, and they found out that their zoning had been changed without their knowledge or consent. So they started a letter-writing campaign to try to find out what happened, ultimately culminating in a November 1, 1969 letter to then Judge Executive Joe Johnson of Fayette County, where they expressed their mental anguish, time, and expense of trying to figure out what the heck had happened to their property. They never got any answers. Notwithstanding, for the next nine years, they proceeded on a letter-writing campaign to try to write this wrong, ultimately culminating in this letter of June 14, 1978, where the Kentucky Bar Association advised them there was nothing they could do. At this point, the tunings gave up. So I would suggest to you that among the appropriateness of this use, and the reasons why we'll get into this, you have a chance to right a 50-year-old wrong today. 2090 should have never been a residential property. It was zoned business. It went to residential without the owner's consent. But let's look at modern history, because that's much more relevant to the appropriateness of this zoning proposal. 2090 served as a non-conforming insurance agency for many years. Vacated the site a couple of years ago. The Tunings still maintain ownership of this property. Right now, their grandson is living with it, and we are assured this is not an appropriate property for single-family use, and he's only crashing there until he can find more appropriate accommodations. 2094 and 2098, as we've already gone over extensively, functioning as a child care facility quite successfully. In fact, if we look at the overhead views of this property, you can see if you were looking at these properties from overhead, you would not think these were single-family properties. They have substantial parking areas. They're largely paved. There's actually a portico that connects the houses at 2094 and 2098 into one kind of large agglomeration of a building. These lots aren't functioning as single family today. So to suggest that that zoning category remains appropriate I think is disingenuous. In fact, I took this picture, and I'm going to return to something. It's a point I raised in the subcommittees, and it's an issue you discussed today. We talked about Tuscany earlier today and Pascoli Place and whether we should put the driveway on one side or the other. We did not, but this area has been fenced off so the loop driveway no longer functions. So I just ask you to consider, if you have concerns about cars backing out onto a neighborhood collector street, and we don't have concerns about the appropriateness of cars backing out onto Harrodsburg Road, one of the busiest roads in Lexington, I think that alone demonstrates that the single-family zoning is no longer appropriate for these sites. We've mentioned Turflin Mall, so I want to talk about Turflin Mall a little bit. The red arrows are reflective of where our properties are in relation to Turflin Mall, so you'd be looking across the street at Turflin Mall. Here's the zoning plan that goes along with Turflin Mall. As you can see, it's a lot of B6P. What happened at Turflin Mall? Well, the mall got torn down. You can see from the picture, there's pretty large open space there. It has not yet been replaced. Now, I think this commission has seen several development plans for this site, and yet none of them have ever come to fruition. Why? Well, I'm going to explain to you why I think it happened. If you've read any publication that discusses economic issues, you've discovered that malls are a dying breed in this country. The age of the indoor mall is dead. As I joked with my clients last night, it's dead until about 60 years from now when it makes a comeback, because that tends to be the cycle of commercial development. But for now, the age of the indoor mall is over. In fact, I thought this article from Business Insider was very instructive, and it said that 15% of malls that exist today will fail and could be converted into non-retail space within the next 10 years. 15% of your mall property is not going to be malls anymore. It's going to go to non-retail space. Do we have an example of that in Lexington? Absolutely we do. When we look at the redevelopment that has actually transpired on the Turfland Mall property, we don't see retail coming in. We see professional office coming in. The significant change on this planned shopping center is that a medical facility has come in. We're not replacing this with retail. And I can tell you why I think that is. Because you do have some successful outlots on the Turfland Mall property, but the rear property hasn't developed in the same way. Why? Because retailers need visibility to be viable. And placing a retail store at that distance from Harrodsburg Road, hiding behind other buildings, is not a recipe for success. I think it's far more likely that you're going to see Turflin Mall redevelop as a medical complex than you are as a commercial complex. Now, if we look at the character of the area, we do have some commercial in the area. I'm not here to hide the ball. There's commercial function in the area right now. There are several things in the area right now. Several restaurants, a couple of big box retailers, there's a pharmacy, a gas station, auto care facility, and then the previously mentioned health care facility. But what's not over here? A lot of uses that we think are appropriate in the B-1 zone. These are principle permitted uses. We don't have any real estate offices or other small offices. We don't have small scale food and beverage like a coffee shop. We don't have smaller scale retail. We only have big box in the form of Staples and in the form of Home Depot. No self-service laundry. If somebody's washing machine goes out on Springhurst, they're going to have to travel a bit. There's no copy facilities. There's no grooming facilities. These are just a handful that I picked out. You can look at the list for yourselves. There's a number of uses that we don't see in this area generally that we think is appropriate for B1 because it supports neighborhoods. But I think the most compelling picture I can draw for you is this. I want you to imagine that you buy 2090 because my clients weren't able to develop it and it remains a single-family property. And in the morning, you go out onto your front porch and have a cup of coffee. That's what you're looking at. That's your view shed. I just don't think that that's appropriate as a single-family site. We wouldn't tolerate it in our other neighborhoods. The neighborhoods that develop these days don't develop that way. Properties that face significant arterial roads are much more appropriate for commercial use. In fact, if we look at the southeast side of Harrodsburg Road, you can see that there's a whole lot of residential properties backing to Clay's Mill and beyond. There's not a whole lot of business supporting that side of the street. Now, the answer is, well, just cross the street. Just go over to Turflin Mall. Hopefully, some of these Turflin plans will come to fruition and you'll have the services you need. We don't need to put in this B1. Well, if you're like my client, Mr. Johnston, crossing Harrodsburg Road can be a problem. If you're a cyclist, crossing Harrodsburg Road can be a problem. If you're a pedestrian, crossing Harrodsburg Road can be a problem. I submit that our development plan, as flawed as it may be, is still more pedestrian-friendly than the staff has given us credit for. But nonetheless, no one can argue that accessing that property on foot would be far easier than crossing one of the busiest roads in Lexington to get to commercial property. And that's what you're forcing for a good portion of southeastern Harrodsburg Road and back to Clay's Mill without providing additional retail space. Now let's talk about Herodsburg Road, because I think this is what makes the case. There are ten roads in Lexington that the Transportation Cabinet has identified as more important than any other. Those are their words, not mine. The most important road in Lexington is New Circle Road. The next nine most important are exactly the ones that you think they are. They're the spokes on the wheel, the significant thoroughfares that go out, that, as I tell people from out of town, if you want to know if you're on a main road to see if it has a city name, It's Winchester, Richmond, Versailles, etc. Those are the most significant roads in Lexington, among them Harrodsburg Road. In fact, if we look at a traffic count, and unfortunately this is not as visible as I want it to be, but if you could see that count, which is almost immediately adjacent to our property, 32,500 cars go by that site every day. Why is that important? because if you look at any of the other neighborhood connectors that are adjacent to it, about half of that goes through there. So in residential areas, we're not used to seeing this substantial kind of traffic, again, making it inappropriate for single-family residential. When we look at Harrodsburg traffic, you already remember the old days before the crossover when you couldn't get anywhere on Harrodsburg Road at the wrong time of day. So we actually looked this up this morning. This was the sixth double-diamond crossover in the United States of America, a very novel solution coming in to deal with a very serious problem of traffic on Harrodsburg Road at the New Circle Interchange. Now, I pulled this picture to show as a finished product, but I actually found it very interesting and instructive about why our request is appropriate. Look at how much traffic is still on Harrodsburg Road. Guys, this is just a very busy thoroughfare, and it's just not appropriate for single family. It's far more appropriate for commercial use. Now, I've done an analysis from Maxwell to New Circle. The reason I selected Maxwell as an endpoint was because that's the start of B2 zoning, downtown zoning, little different animal. So I looked at from the intersection of Broadway and West Maxwell to the New Circle-Harrodsburg Road interchange, how many residential lots do we have, and how are they functioning? I've broken it down into smaller segments so it's easier to digest, but if you take the first about three-quarters of a mile, that shall get you as far as Red Mile Road. You have three single-family lots fronting Harrodsburg Road and Broadway at that location, there. Two of them may be functioning as a single-family residential. I know one is for sure. The other is the former halfway house, and I'll be honest, I'm not sure what that's functioning at these days. Theoretically could be functioning as a single-family residential, but two out of three, maybe there's one vacant lot. If we go from Red Mile to Clay's Mill, we have two single-family residential lots and one split zone that has some single-family residential zoning in it, none of them functioning as single-family residential homes. Clay's milled a long view. This is maybe the most relevant for us because it's where our location is. There are 31 single-family residential lots. Now, five of them are not being used for residential purposes whatsoever, and only about 39% of them are actually owner-occupied. Why is that important? Because I speculate if the owners aren't living there, they've simply bought this up as potential investment property in the realization that one day Harrodsburg Road will be a commercial corridor. People aren't choosing to live here because it's not a really great place to live. Owners are not occupying the property they've bought. Now, there was an anomaly that came up when I got to the end, taking long view to New Circle Road. There were 15 single-family residential lots, and a lot of them were owner-occupied. And I thought, well, shoot, that kind of blows my argument. But then I figured out why. If you look at the properties at the end of Harrodsburg Road, there's actually an access road that allows these people to access their lots without having to go out on Harrodsburg Road. This is the solution they came up with to deal with the traffic nightmare of Harrodsburg Road, so they didn't have to try to back out into traffic. We don't have that at the other end. We don't have space for that at the other end. But that's how they got around this and why we have a higher percentage of owner occupancy along this area of Harrodsburg Road than the other parts of Harrodsburg Road. So if you look at this analysis in whole, 3.3 miles from Maxwell to New Circle, 53 lots only, 42 of which are functioning as single family, and 23 of them are owner-occupied. If you deduct the 11 lots that have the access, you're looking at 12 owner-occupied and 31 that are functioning as single-family residential. I think that's a pretty small number. Percentage-wise, it's less than 9%. It's a little more than half a mile and 6.6 miles of frontage. let's compare Harrisburg Road we acknowledge it's one of the most significant roads in Lexington to the other significant roads in Lexington let's look at how Richmond Road is developed now I've intentionally tried to select areas that are inside New Circle but close to the border because I think that's descriptive of our property and here we see how development typically goes in this area you have high density R4 style residential or neighborhood business fronting the road with single-family residential tucked in behind it, which I think is appropriate. People like to live near major thoroughfares so they can get places quickly, but they don't want to live on major thoroughfares because of the extreme traffic. That's the way development should go. It frankly makes a lot of sense. Let's look at Versailles Road. Same thing. See a lot of B1 clustered along. It's that tan color clustered along Versailles Road. Nicholasville Road, same scenario. Look at all of the tan on here that fronts Nicholasville Road. B1 is an appropriate choice to be fronting along these significant thoroughfares. Now, we tried to work with staff, and I respect staff's opinion that this isn't appropriate. I think they're wrong, but we did try to work with them. We did offer a few conditional zoning restrictions to mitigate what we thought could be some inappropriate uses in such close proximity to single-family residential homes. We are still more than happy to add those as conditional zoning restrictions to our application. We do want to integrate well with the neighborhood. Our goal is not to put a monstrosity that doesn't fit with the neighborhood. We're willing to take out the most intense uses from consideration. And I also have to speak for a moment about my clients. These are local Lexington citizens. They're both Lexingtonians. They're not coming in from out of town. And you might remember Mr. Johnston from previous applications. He has a track record of success. I think we would agree that some of the Cane sites in Lexington are just magnificent sites. He has a commitment to superior development. And I can evidence this with a letter that I'm going to distribute to you in just a moment. I've sampled a couple of them. This letter is from Valerie King. She owns the property that's immediately adjacent to the Springs development. She recommends approving this development because of her positive experiences with Tom, doing the right thing, and going above and beyond the call of duty. This isn't somebody who lives down the street. This isn't a happenstance beneficiary of a good use. Hey, there's McDonald's that opened up down the street. It doesn't really affect me, but great, I can get McDonald's in the morning. This is somebody who lives next door. Ms. King owns the property next door. Her daughter lives there today. She recommends that this development be approved because of Mr. Johnston's superior track record. Staff's given you findings for disapproval, so I'm going to give you some findings for approval. I'm going to go through these in brief, but I do want to address some of the things that Mr. Solis said with regard to why we're not in accord with the comp plan. First of all, I think the idea that single-family zoning along Harrodsburg is ridiculous. So I would recommend a finding that single-family residential zoning is inappropriate along an urban principal arterial roadway. That's how the road is characterized by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The southeastern side of Harrodsburg Road lacks commercial property to support the area population, and I have written findings printed out for you as well. In order to get significant retail, you have to cross Harrodsburg Road, and I think that's a real problem for some people who would try to access this development. Allowing commercial zoning along a major roadway actually enhances public safety. You don't have people trying to back out of driveways onto significant thoroughfares or trying to make alternative arrangements eating up their yard with pavement for turnabouts. Now, Mr. Salee attacked the four elements that we said we complied with in the comprehensive plan, so I'm just going to hit them briefly. Growing successful neighborhoods, successful neighborhoods are more than just single-family residential houses. They're the businesses that support them. When I think about successful development, I think about Townley Center, where you have an element of retail supporting the uses behind it. The people who live near Townley shop at Townley. I think about Metathorpe, single-family residential neighborhood with B1 in front of it, supporting those. You've got restaurants, stores, things that will support the neighborhood. So I think we do, in fact, grow successful neighborhoods. When it comes to creating jobs and prosperity, I think Mr. Salee said it best himself. We don't know what kind of jobs we're going to have yet. But I suggest to you that any job is positive. Creating jobs is positive. That's payroll taxes. That's ways to make money for this community. Now, are these sites going to support significant I-1 use? I know we're going to talk about ED land in a couple of weeks, so thinking about job creation has been on my mind. No, but these properties were never going to support those kind of jobs. If it's a medical facility that comes in and a B-1 appropriate use, I think we would all agree that those are great jobs. We just don't know what's going on in that land yet because no one will talk to us until the zoning is in place. But I think to conclude that it absolutely will not create jobs and prosperity, it assuredly will create jobs and prosperity. We just don't know how prosperous yet. Improving a desirable community, walkable, bikeable communities among millennials, very, very important. Find they want to live near their services, want to use their bikes. While this does have some auto-centric elements, again, this is just a proposed plan. It's not what's actually going to be built. And there are ways for it to be accessed by bikers, pedestrians, handicapped folks, folks of that nature. But finally, the planning for urban use and safeguarding rural land, I think, is most important here. Single-family is not going to persist in Harrodsburg Road. We're going to eventually have to recognize that these corridors are more appropriate for more intense development and that single-family homes are not a growing industry. In fact, we hear from, I remember Mr. Murphy making this point ad nauseum in a Dennis Anderson zone change, that older Americans and younger Americans both are looking to live in higher density residential areas near services. Well, we've got some higher density around here. Let's give them some services and let's redevelop this corridor and get away from single family. There's R5 across Harrodsburg Road. Doesn't exactly help the walkable argument. But we really need to reconsider the way we build around these urban arterials, and single-family residential is just not the way to do it. Can you wrap up? I'm on the happenstance. By happenstance, I'm on the conclusion slide. So I would, again, return to the four points that I have tried to principally make during this presentation, and that's that these properties are functioning as commercial properties today, effectively. They've been successful commercial properties. That the recent development pattern you've seen suggests that Turflin Mall is not the redemption for the needed retail in this area, that it's probably not going to go that way. That the character of this area demonstrates that B1 actually is an appropriate choice. It provides step-down zoning from the more intense B3 on the spring site and can integrate well with a single-family residential area. And that the Harrodsburg Road corridor is just a poor place for single-family houses. I do want to give my clients an opportunity to address you. I do promise you they'll be brief because I had to beseech them to do it, but I wanted to give them an opportunity to make a couple of comments as well, and then we'd certainly be happy to entertain any questions you might have. I appreciate you listening to me, and I ask you to keep an open mind on this. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Commission. Thank you for your time. I'm Alan Hovest, owner of Atlas One. And they're going to take your time for hearing our arguments and the reasons behind our proposal. I lived in Lexington for over 20 years, worked at Lexmark as an engineer. I'm committed to the community. My kids went to Fayette County Public Schools, graduated from the University of Kentucky. And I'm committed to the area. I have no plans to move. I have several other properties around town that rental properties and properties I may or may not develop. but this is just another project that I feel would definitely benefit the community and for all the reasons Jacob and everyone have said. So thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you all for taking the time to listen to all of us. I'll keep it brief. My name is Tom Johnston. Working with the development here, and again, appreciate your all's listening to all of us and going through all the details here. I wanted to make sure you understood, first and foremost, as the development on this plan, as a developer, we'll make sure we work with staff to make sure that all their concerns and issues are taken care of as it relates to the development plan. And I'm embarrassed, and I apologize to everybody here that all the details weren't taken care of beforehand, and I'll have that conversation with our civil team after we get finished. But again, I appreciate your understanding. we've done a lot of stuff around town developments that I've been involved with, even next door at the Springs property. Part of why we designed what we did and laid it out as we did was to try to keep some uniformity with where the Raisin Cane's, McDonald's, and Baptist Health are currently located with that parking area and open before you get to the building out front, and also to allow for the cross-connectivity that we felt like was important in between those two properties that make up a little bit over an acre and a half of real estate. But again, we want to make sure you all know that we will work with staff to make sure all the development plan information and details are, in fact, worked on and corrected to their satisfaction, but ask that you do please keep it separate in your mind as it relates to our request today for the zone change request. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayhem. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant at this point? I did also want to add, Mr. Salee mentioned a traffic study. We did submit a traffic study. Our traffic engineer is here. It actually did end up not being warranted for this particular zone change, but should you have questions about traffic, he's here. I'm also, while you're thinking of any potential questions, I'm going to distribute two items to you. One is a complete copy of the letter that I referenced in the presentation from Valerie King, who is our neighbor to the Springs development that Mr. Johnston was involved in. The others are proposed findings for approval of the zoning piece of this presentation. I think we do have a question for you. I know this is a generic plan, but couldn't you have drawn it generically more correct? I mean, you're asking us to rezone the property, and then you don't. You say, well, it's not going to be like this. It's going to be something else. And I guess it kind of skews your zoning argument, the fact that you haven't shown us something that actually works on there. And I appreciate that fact, and I'm certainly not going to throw anyone under the bus to the extent that I bear responsibility. I accept full responsibility for the legal requirements not being met on this plan. I can tell you that there were a series of communications that apparently went unheeded between members of our team. What I would suggest to you is I actually think this design came from a good place. We think it reflects the property that's adjacent to it at the Springs development. But without knowing precisely what we're going to build, I get into a situation where I'm asking for a variance and then I'm asking for a variance again. Because let's say I had asked for the setback variance here from you, and then I needed to increase it or decrease it or amend it in some way. Then I go to the Board of Adjustment and have to explain that to them. Absolutely think it could have been done better. Mr. Johnson did apologize for that. I apologize for that as well. But I think we're talking, when we talk about zoning decisions, I think we're looking at use more than anything else. And I think we've more than demonstrated that the uses that could be put on this site are appropriate for this site. I respect where the question comes from, and I wish I had a better answer. But that's just the hand we're playing. A couple other questions. Ms. Mundy? Yes, thank you so much for your apology and for the good information. My question is, since this is a preliminary drawing or whatever, is there any opportunity for connection from this site to that frontage road that I really didn't like that goes through in front of McDonald's? The reason I didn't like it was because of the backing out onto a parking. But is there any opportunity to connect this into that, to kind of tie that street together, that frontage street? Give me just a moment. And that's exactly what I thought the answer was going to be. I just didn't want to speak out of turn. The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that that property was actually physically sold from the entity that Mr. Johnston works with. So I can't assure you that that would be agreeable from Baptist Health, but it is certainly a possibility that we would like to explore with them, again, once we have an end user in mind. I think you'd see that that would alleviate some of the Harrodsburg traffic concerns. I did also want to address, I neglected to mention this earlier, with the right in, right out. There was a lot of discussion in subdivision committee about potential need for a deceleration lane. And Mr. Kirk can address this because he's the expert on it, but our findings reflect that a deceleration lane isn't needed for a development of this size. And he's had preliminary noncommittal discussions with the Transportation Cabinet, and I would say that generally they agree with us. but again would need to see the final proposal before they can make any determinations on that. They say as composed, a deceleration lane is likely not necessary. Mr. Penn? Yes, sir. I was going to hold this until I have to the audience comment, but being as Mr. Craven has brought this up, I'd like to suggest two things to you all. Number one is that you're asking us to do the zone change in good faith because we're going to trust you to come and hear something that works on B1. that's what happened in the 70s. And what it precipitated was people bought property, got it zoned, and flipped it. It became a whole business on its own. And that's the reason that development plans are very important. So I'd like for you to seriously consider a postponement here rather than asking us to go forward on zone change because of the consequences that happen if you don't get the zone change. So I really think we're not anywhere close to being able to do a zone change based on what we're looking at. And that's just my opinion. I was going to wait to the end to do this, but I want to give you all time to think about it because I think this is a bad precedent for us. It asks us to do stuff on faith, and we're dealing with people's homes and their lives and the whole deal, and we don't have the information to make the decision. So if we take a break or whatever we do, I want you to seriously consider that because right now I can't vote on a zone change because I don't have any idea what will fit or what won't fit there on a B1. And because you all haven't brought the information there, I really think the smart thing to do here is talk about postponement. But I can't speak for my other commission members. I'm just speaking for me. Mr. Berkeley? I'm going to echo Frank's comments. I think you need to think about continuing it, you know, doing a continuance until you've got a plan that at least conforms. At this point, I'd like to see a show of hands of others that would like to speak. See a show of hands of those that would like to speak regarding this plan. Okay. Prior to these two comments, I had plans of taking just a brief recess, and I think we'll do that before we proceed at this point in time. So I'll call for a brief recess for five minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End I'm sorry. The End The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Again, it will be a speculative plan that we will not be able to recruit end users in that time, but we will bring forward a plan that does function within the constrictors of B1 and pursue variances later if needed based on what actually develops. So in consideration of the Commission's comments, we are fully agreeable and would request continuance. Thank you, sir. Considering the fact that we did get this started and we do have other people that wish to speak, It sounds like for those that's in the audience, the applicant would be willing to ask for a continuance. I would surely hope that they would be willing to work with the neighbors in the spirit of communication to let them know what's going on in the meantime. But in the meantime, anyone in the audience wish to speak at this time? Yes, ma'am? I'm with the neighborhood. Yes, ma'am. As you probably remember, I'm T. Bergman, president of the Mitchell Avenue Neighborhood Organization. And the neighborhood organization is made up of Springhurst Avenue, Spring Grove Avenue, Mitchell Avenue, and the 2000 block of Clay's Mill. I'm telling you that just so you understand who is here talking about this development. Okay? We are here, obviously, to ask you not to approve this particular request in front of you. Very clearly, we do not want it approved, and that in particular, the zone change. We do not approve of this zone change as a neighborhood. The previous speaker, Mr. Womba, was very clear about what he's going to do, what the developers plan to do, what he thinks is best for Harrodsburg Road. Keep that in mind. That's their thought. We didn't have any input into that. Nobody has asked us, but they've come to us with a plan. At the August 4th zoning committee meeting when I was there, and a couple of you were there, one of you asked what is the long-range plan for this particular corridor, and staff reported that there is not a long-range plan. But if there is one needed, it would be the Planning Commission who would do the approving. Well, I say to you, if you approve this zone change, you have, in fact, changed the direction. You have influenced any kind of a long-range plan for Harrodsburg Road, because you have set in motion that corridor, corridor, changing it to B1. The petitions that you received, they are petitions all opposing the B1 zone, neighborhood to the B1 zone. We did this in a very organized process. We made sure we did not influence anybody as we went through the process. We listened to the plan as they presented it, and then we had a straw poll before we circulated the official petition. And that official petition included all five lots, done in March, but nothing has really changed. We are still vehemently opposed to this zone change. you received 143 signatures and they reported all of that so i don't think unless you have a question about the petitions and why people were included i won't go any further on that today several residents from springhurst will speak to you explaining how this zoning proposal will not improve or preserve their quality of life which is a key component of the comprehensive plan They will present information on the character of the street and what they value most about their neighborhood. They will also discuss traffic issues that they foresee, the data on the current small businesses in the area. One or two may exceed his or her three-minute time period, but we will not exceed our 30-minute time period. Now, I'm going to stop for just a second and ask you or make sure or tell you, I should say I tell you, you are considering at this point a postponement or a continuance, whatever language you're using. The neighborhood is opposed to a postponement. You have this plan in front of you now. That's what you're being asked to vote on. We will give you reasons why our neighborhood feels a B-1 is not appropriate. So if you want to proceed and hear our point of view on this, we will continue. Since you have come here, I would say yes, ma'am. Let's proceed. Let's proceed. All right. Knowing that a continuance could still come. Could still come. All right. Okay. One more thing I'd like to ask you to do. as you listen, think about it in terms of how is this benefiting the neighborhood, the individual people in that neighborhood. Just kind of keep a little tally in your mind. And also, how does it negatively impact this neighborhood, any neighborhood down the way? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Others, please come forward. Good afternoon. Can you hear me okay? My name is Joyce Winstead, and I have been a homeowner at 692 Springhurst Drive for 10 years. I chose this street when my son began high school at Lafayette for the quietness, location, and mainly the know-through access. Springhurst Drive originated from the 2,000-acre Kay Farm dating back to 1774. This farm evolved over the years and became an important part of the development of Lexington. Springhurst was named for the original spring house on the farm. The Kay Spring Pond still flourishes at the intersection of Springhurst and Spring Grove. It is supplied from the 40-feet underground spring. It is home to ducks and a blue heron. You'll occasionally see the ducks walking across the street to the neighbor's house and the blue heron enjoying the pond. Taking out the trees and destroying more green space in our area will drive out the wildlife. The Springhurst subdivision was established in 1950s and consists of 27 residents, including Spring Grove. Many of the original residents or their families still live on the street. There's little turnaround in this area as the residents choose to remain due to safety, uniqueness of the neighborhood, and vacancies are seldom on the market for a length of time. With the street being a no-through and low volume of traffic, it is desirable for families with children. Families feel safe with their children playing outside without the worry of through traffic. We have approximately 12 children, mainly elementary age, on the street. Grandchildren of the residents frequently spend time with their families for an extended time. The street is safe to ride their bikes and skateboards. The residents and guests are aware of the children and watch out for them when they're traveling on the street. People who drive down the street just to turn around proceed faster than 25 miles per hour. However, with the proposed commercial development at the end of the street, this could easily propose more turnaround traffic on our street if people think there's an exit at the end of the street, or if it bottlenecks at the end of Springhurst and Harrisburg Road, even though we have no through signs. There have been two incidents within the past six months between Springhurst and Springridge when cars traveling on Harrisburg Road into town. One person jumped the curb and hit a tree to stop the car from going through the front of a house. The second person hit the light pole, drove through a residence yard, and proceeded across Springhurst Drive through the daycare fence. The school bus stops at the end of Springhurst and Harrisburg Road. Because these two proposed businesses depend on auto-centered traffic, added congestion at this intersection will increase the hazard of children walking to and from home or more vehicle accidents. Very few people traveling down Harrisburg Road realize the uniqueness of our neighborhood. It is not the monetary value of our homes, but the safety, low crime, and closeness of our neighborhood. With all of the commercial zone property available in this area, why disturb our small area of life? As many neighborhoods have their own history, we classify ours as a hidden asset of Lexington. Please let it remain this way. Thank you. Thank you. Others? Please come forward. Hello, my name is Katrina Kelly. I was a resident on the street for 13 years. I moved there with my mother in 1996 when I was 10 years old. Just a little bit about my background. I graduated from the U.K. in landscape architecture, and we worked on the Scott County Master Plan, did a lot of projects with concerning planning in Lexington. I did the Fayette Alliance Citizens Planning Academy and the Progress Lex Fellowship. So I'm really passionate about planning and seeing good things happen with our city. I'm definitely opposed to this plan. in school as a landscape architect we look at all issues from drainage walkability zoning all those aspects blended into one i remember standing on that corner right there in middle school waiting for the bus and harrisburg was nowhere near the traffic it is now i felt safe in high school i had to start walking to Lafayette because there wasn't a bus. Thankfully there was a pedway at the other end of the street that I could cut through to go over to Spring Ridge but unfortunately the man who had that pedway closed it up a few years ago. So now our only option is to walk on Harrodsburg Road. Traffic already is very heavy through there and this man is asking to bring business into the street there is all kinds of potential for accidents both pedestrian and cars another big issue is drainage we know the drainage issue here in lexington i'm definitely i study drainage a lot as a landscape architect the two corner houses at at the end of Springhurst are low points of the topography map. These are collection centers for a lot of the drainage from Turflin Mall, the new development around the Springs area. These two low points are going to be, well, one of them now would be potentially a business. So do we need more impervious paving through here? We know we're in a low spot because we're near a floodplain, and we have a spring. And because of the development of the Springs neighborhood, we no longer have a creek, a natural creek that ran through there. That's why there's so many much more flooding problems now. When we have a 100-year flood, 200-year floods now because of our climate change, this area just floods so badly. Do we need more impervious paving from roofs and parking lots to infiltrate this area? Also, the trash that would be accumulated from these businesses would be brought onto the street. We have witnessed this with the New Springs area. There's broken bottles, Therafoam, food wrappers. Do we want this on our street? No. It feels a very big disrespect for our street, and it'd be brought onto right next to us. And so I'm definitely opposed to this for many reasons. I've written a letter to include this, and I've definitely been studying the drainage of this site. And, you know, you know the drainage problems Lexington has, so that's something else to consider. Thank you. Thank you. Others? Yes, ma'am. Come forward. Hey, my name is Beth Kelly, and I live at 670 Springhurst. That was my daughter. I am here to report my findings on the number and types of businesses located with a one-mile radius of Springhurst Drive. If I had extended my radius to two miles, the number of businesses would have exploded into a plethora of businesses that would have included Beaumont Center and Nicholsville Road. The parameters I use for my collection extend to St. Joseph Hospital, the Garden Side Shops on Lane Allen, Rosemont Garden Shops, and Southland Drive to the railroad tracks. Within this one-mile radius, there are approximately 200 businesses already with a wide variety of types. Some of the examples include there are over 25 restaurants, with the majority being fast food, 10 beauty salons, over 70 retail shops that sell guns, liquor, sports items, pet supplies, auto care, books, clothing, candy, groceries, coffee shops, office supplies, and there is a laundry in this area. The rest includes service stations, drug stores, home improvement stores, schools, bars, banks, and a long list of other. In addition to the commercial stores and services, there are professional offices for health and dental care, real estate, insurance, and tax preparation, and there's more. Out of these 200 businesses, approximately 30 are vacant. The empty storefronts range in size from large to small and are scattered throughout the area, some having been empty for over a year. one large building being right across the street, which was the prior Walgreens. In addition to the existing businesses, construction will begin in approximately four to six weeks on 20 new shops in the old Turflamall area between UK Health and Staples. This very large site is designed to accommodate foot and auto traffic within its borders and not affect neighborhood residents. It would be difficult for shoppers, clients, or employees from the Turfland Mall site to patronize these two businesses across the road. Crossing Harrodsburg Road on foot is challenging. If we are driving, they will probably be using Springhurst to enter into the business as there is an island that blocks from that side. After compiling the numbers and analyzing the types of businesses, the neighborhood feels we have an adequate number and variety of shops and services to meet our needs. If something is not available in our one-mile radius, it is not far away. We are being asked to support and accept this new commercial development into our neighborhood, but yet we do not know what the businesses will be. The developer has stated he has no client. We ask, what market data is being used to determine the need? It could be a duplicate of an existing business, remain empty for months at a time, be sold, or change constantly, causing anxiety with each change of what might come into our neighborhood. I'm going to end by asking one question. If you were faced with accepting this proposal into your neighborhood with businesses adjacent to your homes, would you support it or oppose it? Our position is to oppose it. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Others? Yes, sir. Hi. My name is Marcus Ruger, and I'm a resident owner of 595 Springer's Drive. and I would like to speak with you today concerning the potential traffic impact of the proposed development. But before I get started, I would like to mention that I'm a cyclist and I ride my bike everywhere. In fact, I rode it down here. It's parked out front. And I cross Harrodsburg Road all the time and I don't see how turning Harrodsburg Road into Nicholasville Road benefits cyclists. But anyway, the layout of the proposal effectively turns Springhurst into the entrance and exit of the business. Is this the one I use? So what we have here is this is the entrance and exit, and so Springhurst is effectively the entrance and the exit. This photo that I have up here shows inbound traffic on Harrisburg Road during morning rush hour as viewed from Springhurst. The first thing I would like to note is that the shade you see covering the entire road is provided by the trees on the tuning property, which is directly behind me. Can you go to the next one? It's those trees right there. The sun, the trees are so effective, the sun is right there. and the developer wants to, with this plan, wants to tear all those trees down and replace them with asphalt and turn it, go to the next one, turn it into this. This is the formal springs in, and this is what you see when you turn in in the morning, and there's the sun blinding drivers as they turn into the street. Go to the next one. And that's what's going to happen here when those trees are gone. Okay, go to the next one. So I zoomed in to Spring Ridge here. This is Harrodsburg Road coming down. And as you can see, you cannot see around the bend. So a mile down past this is New Circle Road. And when those lights turn green, it lets go of a flood of cars that come barreling down towards Springhurst. And this is the beginning of such a wave of cars as they pass through. And that wave can last fully two minutes, sometimes longer. The speed limit on Harrodsburg Road is 45 miles an hour at this point. Could you go to the next one? so cars have to slow in the right lane to turn on to springhurst and cars waiting to turn left have to wait for a gap and when you can't see what's coming and you don't know how long it's going to be you're going to some people who are not familiar with it will take a chance they might see a little gap like that and they don't know when the next gap is going to come because you you just don't know and uh so it just increases the likelihood of uh conflict at that intersection the springhurst just isn't designed for it um okay so go to the next one so this is moving down the street a little bit and uh what you see here this is a van that is pulling out from right here he's pulled out from here and he's right here and he's going to turn down here he's doing a two-step turn because traffic cleared on the outbound and now he pulled out in the median and now he's going to he's waiting for the inbound to clear the drive down and the reason i bring it up is because this creates even more conflict because as cars are slowing down to turn into here like say maybe this car might be doing if it was there, then vehicles behind them might switch lanes just as that van is pulling out. So it just increases conflict. It's not designed for it. Next one. So we have children on our street, and the bus picks them up in the morning and drops them off in the afternoon. To my knowledge, I believe that in a situation like this, a car can turn left in front, an outbound car can turn left in front of the bus down our street. So if there are businesses there, and the only way they can get to those businesses is right there, then they're going to see this as an opportunity to turn right then while kids are disembarking on the bus, off the bus. Okay, next one. It's important to note that the daycare center cannot be compared with the proposed business. The daycare center does not have 69 parking spaces and a drive-thru, all of which implies a larger volume of traffic, hence why we're here at all, for a zone change. This picture shows the entrance to McDonald's and King's with cars moving in every direction at the same time. This proposal creates the real possibility of moving Springhurst into this kind of entrance. From what I have read, the developers posit that because the location is technically within walking distance of Clay's Mill Corridor, the proposal adds to the walkability of the neighborhood. We disagree. The Clay's Mill Corridor is already well served by South End Drive, with restaurants, grocery stores, a coffee shop, and many other businesses within easy walking distance. It is clear to us that these proposed businesses are not designed to serve the neighborhood. They are largely designed to serve inbound Harrisburg Road traffic. Next one. I moved on to Springhurst 15 years ago. When I was looking for a home in Lexington, one of the things that attracted me to this location was the quiet neighborhood and the low traffic. One day, while in the process of buying the house I now call home, the previous owner and I stood out in the street and talked for fully half an hour, and in that time, while we were talking, one car came down the street. That's the neighborhood I bought into and that's the neighborhood it still is. I took this picture this morning during rush hour. I didn't have to wait for cars to clear to take the picture. I just lift my camera and press the button. One of my neighbors who recently moved in said of our street, it is the best kept secret in Lexington. I don't know what other secrets there are in Lexington, but Springhurst is certainly one of them. Please don't destroy it. Thank you, sir. Anyone else that would like to speak? How do you get that in there? Very good so far. Just don't be repetitive. I'm giving you all separate pictures because the PowerPoint's not as clear. I am David Lane, and the resident owner is 695 Springhurst Drive. You're looking at a picture taken from my back patio. On the developer's map, my property is right here. As you can see, if this B1 zoning is granted, both 699, the property to my immediate left, and my lot, along with the two lots on Spring Grove, will be drastically changed and not for the better. There could even be a drive-through window right beside 699. This will not maintain our quality of life as we know it. Right now, I read the morning paper on my rear patio. In the evenings, I enjoy a book and a cocktail on the patio. A zone change will probably forcefully off the patio and inside. There are over 16 trees that will probably be removed for this development. This number does not include about 36 trees that line the perimeter property line. These are very tall, mature trees that offer not only beauty, but shade and a sound barrier from the traffic on Herzberg Road for our entire street. They also offer home to numerous species of birds which provide very beautiful music in the mornings. A parking lot is going to offer unwanted noise, light, trash, and loud banging dumpsters when emptied early in the mornings. Parking lots that are not visible from the street, as the rear one of this is, seem to invite vandalism and vagrants. Presently, because our street is a dead end, vandalism is non-existent. A realtor with Bluegrass Sotheby's has told me that this development plan will not only lower our property values, but also have a definite negative effect on the marketability of our properties. Would any of you buy a house that backed up to a commercial parking lot. I have worked all of my life and my home is paid for. I retired the first of May. My perfect ranch style house in a fabulous neighborhood could be seriously altered by this zone change. I ask you to put yourself in our situation before voting. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, sir. It's about three minutes left on your 30 minutes. Anyone else like to speak? Yes, ma'am. Come forward. My name is Mary Margaret Heaton. I live at 608 Mitchell Avenue. I'm here to support the people in Springhurst. I used to play over there as a child. I'm the last of the original settlers that moved into that area. This whole area was built right after World War II to house the veterans coming home. It has some historic value. It doesn't have the tourists. It doesn't have the quarters. It just happens to be a nice little area. Now, these people really know what they're talking about as far as traffic and that type of thing. What's happened to Mitchell Avenue with the development with the CVS, the Canes, and the McDonald's has been horrendous. Granted, the developer gave money for speed humps, but the people coming from Clay's Mill Road and also coming up from these developments, to get to Clay's Mill or to Lane Allen, they have to really race between those speed humps. And, of course, if it's a company truck, they don't care. They just get airborne and land. But the traffic has become awful, and I hate to see that affecting this, as they said, this hidden jewel. I mean, you ought to go over there. You should see this pond over there for one thing. There is a forever spring. That pond never dries up, and it is fed out there behind where the canes is. It disappears, goes underneath Harrisburg Road, and it just loses sight over there at Turflin Mall. I used to go over there and play, so I know what it was. Donnie Dever and I used to go over there and play. I attended Lafayette High School along with Frank, and all I can say is that I know for a fact that what has happened on Mitchell Avenue puts these people at threat, you know, at threat. And I would like you all to remember we have bought into a way of life. I vaguely remember as a child my parents being outraged because Mitchell Avenue, they bought into a way of life. It was a dead end and no consideration, nothing. It was suddenly opened. And, I mean, there was almost like World War III back on, and these people knew how to fight a war. So, I mean, I'm just saying, please, look at this as a way of life people have bought into. And I happen to like it. I used to walk across the street to Home Depot when I was working there, across Harrisburg Road. Yes, it was tricky. But as a senior citizen, with the way things have been changing in Lexington, it's become very, very viable for older people over there because the houses are so compact. And we had a house just sell before the sign even went up. They put the sign up to say sold. So, yes, it's a very viable area. The houses that are owned by, that are rentals, those are eventually going to become privately owned places because this whole area is so desirable. And that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Thank you. So at this point, the 30 minutes has gone by the wayside. Anyone else would like to speak? They'd be limited to three minutes for any other information that hasn't been presented. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. me that is something I need, but also because the street is a dead end, and that's where I can get my physical therapy, because you're not going to see me walking anywhere else. And I just want you to know how important it is for me that that remains a very safe place to walk and a safe place to live. And also, I have a van that I have to open my ramp out, oftentimes onto the street, and my neighbors know this and are very careful if my ramp is open, but someone coming out of a drive-thru is not going to know that. And so that really, really concerns me as a citizen and as a resident of Springhurst Drive. And as Mary Margaret was saying, it is a way of life for us. It's a very quiet neighborhood. We look out for one another. I know all my neighbors. We enjoy time together. We see each other on the street. We can walk with our children, our grandchildren. And again, myself walking, it's very safe. And so I just ask that you really think about that. I mean, as Ms. Kelly said also, that it's really, really important. We bought our home there. And when the daycare came, they came to us and asked us, would you like us to be in your neighborhood? And one of the main things was that they were going to be 9 to 5. people were going to turn around in their parking lot there were going to be children there in our neighborhood so yes we wanted them there but i'm not sure i want to drive through there if i go anywhere i drive i don't have to walk i wouldn't even walk to mcdonald's from my house because i don't think it's safe and i definitely don't think a business at the end of the street it will be safe either thank you for listening thank you anyone else yes sir good afternoon my name is joe harlan i think the first question this panel should ask himself this whole proposal doesn't meet the litmus test we have a lawyer and a corporation here asking you to zone rezone three properties that they do not own since april they took the two properties that they do own off of the table because they've got an unfavorable report from the planning committee and they apparently felt that by taking the two houses at 2100 and 2104 all for the plan that somehow made it better than what it was in April. Mr. Penn pointed out happily, they do not have a plan that they're willing to tell you about. It's all smoke and mirror. What we want to do is all this great stuff for the neighborhood, but they don't know what it is. It's my opinion that this committee's decision is not to delay it and give them more time to come up with more smoke and mirror ideas, but to turn it down because there's nobody in that area that is in their corner and having this done. One of their presentations that was made was the retail or the commercial part for this area area is underdone for the neighborhood, for the population of that area. I might point out that in the last 18 months, we've got five new fast food joints, two new drugstores, two new medical centers, and a box that's sitting empty that Walgreens used to be in. We don't need any more boxes sitting in our neighborhood. with that ladies and gentlemen I hope you do the right thing thank you anyone else if not yes sir if not kind of in a decision here as to how to proceed actually I do have a question how long do you think it's going to take you all to come up with a plan to be presented. I think we'd probably request a month. I think that would give us the opportunity to go back through the subcommittee process, which I've expressed to both subcommittees I think is a very crucial thing. I don't know that we would necessarily return to zoning, But I think subcommittee with a substantially reworked plan would make some sense. So I'd say four weeks. Okay. So do we need to set a time or can we just continue it? Well, you know, obviously, and this is where I may look for legal to help me, Obviously, we're here, and if Mr. Wahlberg does decide to ask for continuance, we've got that option. And at the present, we still have the option to vote this up or down at this point in time. So those are the three options that we have available to us. if warranted, we should possibly continue with any questions and rebuttals before we get to the point of taking a vote. That would be my thought at this point in time. Does that sound appropriate, Ms. Jones? I think, well, let me say one thing just so we're clear. I'm not sure if one of your choices at the end of the day is to continue it, that you can go back through the committee process at that point because you're in the middle of a continued hearing. But, yes, I think those are the options you have available to you to approve, disapprove, or continue if they're agreeable to that. I don't think you have to have rebuttal or those things to continue, but if you're going to choose an approval or disapproval motion, you probably want to go ahead and have all that on the record. Okay. Let me clarify something. if you're saying if this is continued, they would not be able to come back with a substantially different development plan through committees? No, they could come back with a substantially different development plan. We're just trying to determine how that fits in with a continued hearing. Okay. And I more than happily can withdraw that. I mean, we don't necessarily have to go back through committee. I'm a big believer in the committee process, but if that would complicate the hearing, we certainly would still have an opportunity for a substantial staff review. I don't think that would be inappropriate. So we could still do that. And for clarification purposes, I'm more than happy to go through a rebuttal. If we're going to talk about this with a substantially amended plan, I think it would make sense to rebut a substantially amended plan. I obviously disagree with a lot was said, but I'm certainly happy to reserve my comments until we can talk about the plan that you all have asked us to produce that we will produce. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We might suggest that the commission decide now whether or not to continue your hearing, because it seems like a lot of the rest of what you might hear today or not is kind of predicated on that decision. if you do continue I do think that any revisions obviously as Mr. Walburn said we're glad as your staff to bring back to you including any new information that the staff has on that I think at that point you probably would want to entertain commentary on the revised plan and then of course finish out your hearing that would be our suggestion thank you yes sir would it make any sense to postpone it instead of continuing I don't believe you have that option at this point. You've progressed so far into the hearing. I think you have to continue. You're okay. Yes, sir, Mr. Pound. At the time I suggested that we postpone, we've gone far enough in this hearing right now that I don't think that's an option. Personally, I think that we have gotten to the point where we have two choices. because the best case that could have happened is Mr. Walbert come in here and say, I want to postpone because I'm not ready. I want to postpone because I don't have a development plan that meets the staff recommendation. Then we could have postponed. But as far as we've come down the road now, Mr. Walbert, I just think we either have to take this up or down now because the continuous doesn't work because we're at the rebuttal stage. What are you going to continue to? We can't rebut against something we haven't seen. So I don't think the continuance is an option. I think we've gone far enough down the road that we're going to have to vote this up or down. And that's just my personal opinion, but that's what it is. Mr. Chair, may I address that point? I've got a question at that point. for legal. My understanding is even if we continue, we can hear new information and consider new information. So I would not be in favor of going ahead and voting. I would be in favor of a continuance. You're correct. If you continue, you can hear new information. But that's why you can't postpone. I think continuance is really all we can do here, or vote. To clarify, I think Ms. Jones said, yes, we can hear new information. And at that point in time, anyone in opposition could state their case on that new information as well. Okay. Okay. Because of it being new information, can it not go through the committee process? You know, I'm not 100% sure of what I'm going to tell you right now because I haven't really dealt with the situation before. but you are in the process of a public hearing, and there's a specific outline of how that occurs in the ordinance. And so, you know, I'm not saying that we couldn't necessarily change our mind, but my gut reaction to that question is that it would not be proper to continue in the middle of a public hearing and then put it back through the committee process. I mean, I think ideally there's different ways this could have happened, but it didn't. And although it might be beneficial or seem beneficial to put it through that process again, under these circumstances it might not be the best legal thing to do, which sometimes isn't always the best beneficial thing. Let me ask you. What if we continue the zone change and disapprove the development plan? I'm just asking. Well, normally the development plan is – normally when things happen with the development plan and the zone change, they come in together. and you could potentially have some issues with continuing the zone change and not having a development plan. I mean, I think the goal here is you're trying to get to a point where you have a zone change application coming in that you're considering and you have some kind of preliminary plan to give you some idea of how the proposed uses might look on that property, even though that doesn't bind them forward from now on without a final development plan. Okay. One more question? No. No. I'm going to... Let me ask this. Mr. Wahlberg, are you still in the mindset of continuing this? We're more than happy to continue this. That was the request of the committee, and I think we can provide more information. I'll simplify life and say we won't do the committees. That way there is no legal dispute. And we'll work with staff, and we'll bring you a new plan. The continuance would have to be your request and not ours. And we certainly assent to that request. We request it. Ms. Bergman is behind you. She's already stated that she would like for us not to continue it, but I'll give her a moment to speak. Yes, I have suggested that you just be clean with it. This is a zoning request, as I understand it. Make it clean, either approve it or disapprove the zoning request. If they want to start over again with a new plan, with a zoning change included, they have that right, and I hope they will involve the neighborhood this time, because this came at us. So I would speak against a postponement, and I would say vote this up or down, and then let the developers start over. Thank you, Ms. Bergman. Okay. Are there any other questions? We've got someone ready to make a motion of Melissa's questions. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for a continuance of MAR 2016-10 for 30 days. Would that be with the Associated Development Plan? Correct. Okay. Motion is for continuance for 30 days. I believe that's 9-8, if I remember correctly, of MAR 2016-10 and the Associated Development Plan. Any questions? Seconded by Ms. Richardson. Any questions? If not, please go. Mr. Chairman, I believe that's your September 22nd meeting. Oh. I believe. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. No, it's not. It is the 8th. My apologies. Okay. Okay, so 9-8-2016. Motion was seconded if there's no questions, I'll call for a vote. That motion passes. So at this point, it is subject to continuation on 9-8 for substantially new information. We'll hear new information only at that point in time. Thank you. I believe I'm getting to the end. We have a commission item, I believe is next. It's PFR 2016-1 Kentucky American Water Booster Station in Jacobson Park. Thank you. so it's not evening yet. It's a long day, let's put it that way. We'll keep this short and sweet. This is PFR 2016-1 Kentucky American Water Booster Station in Jacobson Park. I wrote the report up. You all have your PFR report? Yes, we do. This is located at 3721 Richmond Road. which is Jacobson Park. They want its own AR for agricultural rural. They're wanting to put a Kentucky American Water booster station to increase the water pressure for the new expansion area and for the southern part of Lexington Bay County. I don't know if you can clear up these pictures just a little bit. I just was, the booster station is going to be located right inside the front portion of the park to the right next to the expansion area. And we have pictures I was trying to show you. They're proposing a building that is 50 feet by 15 feet. It's going to be a one-story building. It's going to look like a horse farm barn so that it meets part of what Fayette County is with the horse industry. That's what they show as a proposal going from Richmond Road. And the next slide shows it kind of heading back, which you can't see, looking back towards Richmond Road. And with this, it meets all the comp plans, comprehensive plans for the objectives and goals for the comprehensive plan. So with that, we find that the improvements for the public facility for the water booster would help increase for the urban service area and the expansion area, and we recommended approval for it. Any questions? Questions? Anyone else would like to speak in regards to this? You've been so patient. hanging around all afternoon. All is good. Thumbs up. Come say hello. That was your chance. Sorry. I was only here to add questions. I'm Brett Lavey with Stantex. I'm working with Kentucky American. I'm one of the engineers that's designing this. What we've got is basically if you take the slice of pie from Jacobson Park kind of around to Manowar, Richmond Road to Winchester, all the way out of town towards Polo Club and the other side of I-75. They're looking at establishing a new pressure zone to raise pressures in that section of town. And so that's what this project is primarily for. We've worked quite a bit with parks already to try to kind of meet their concerns and try to make it fit in with the park. And it is a critical piece of infrastructure for Kentucky American. If you want to see some of the renderings, I've got a hard copy if it's easier to flip through. But that's all I had unless anybody had any questions. Any questions? I think everyone's happy. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Seeing no one else in the audience, any questions from the commission? If not, turn it over to the commission. We need a motion that this is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Yes. So moved. So moved. So moved. Motion made and seconded for PFR 2016-2. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Any other commission items, staff items? That's quite enough, sir. We'll see you all on the 25th. I would like to say, I don't speak for Frank very often, but for Frank and myself, I would like to thank everyone, staff, commission members, and all who's reached out to us over the past couple of weeks. Thank you very much. With that said, according to our new chair, I don't need a motion, so meeting's adjourned. Thank you.