in the best way possible. Scott's done really well. He has learned manageable tasks that's allowed him to contribute right from the start and be a part of UK Dining and his team. Megan and his managers worked together to kind of identify the tasks that he was good at and they made those his primary responsibility. I'm Katie Wolf Whaley. I'm the project director of the Supported Employment Training Project at UK's Human Development Institute. So lots of people understand applying for a job that an employer has posted, there are people that would have a hard time doing all of the tasks of a pre-existing job description, and so that's where customized employment can really be a benefit to everyone. Customized employment is the idea of figuring out what the needs of a business are, what tasks might not be getting done the way that they need them done, how things can run more efficiently, and then matching that with a job seeker who has those tasks and interests and contributions to make a good fit that benefits everybody. Coming up after the break, a look at what's happening downtown. Give a little love. Go on and do it. You can't abuse it. Give a little love. Hello, I'm Detective Mark Thomas with the Lexington Police Department. You may also know me from Bluegrass Crime Stoppers. I'm here to talk to you a little bit today about a new texting system that we have available through any smartphone. In the body of your message, you can text LexPD plus your tip to crimes. When you're submitting anonymous information, we ask that you include several things that would help us conduct the investigations more thoroughly, such as a person's name, their home address, possible license plate numbers, any other people involved, or why you think that they're conducting the type of activity that you believe that they are. All of those things, no matter how small you believe they could be, are relevant to the investigation, so please include those. So remember, you can send your anonymous tip information either through text, you can call the Bluegrass Crime Stoppers Anonymous Tip line at 859-253-2020, or you can go online. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon, Commission members. I'd like to call the order of the Urban County Planning Commission's meeting on October the 13th, 2016. With that, the first order of business is approval of the minutes for September the 8th. Any additions or deletions? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move approval of September 8th minutes as corrected. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee and seconded by Ms. Mundy that we accept the minutes and approve the minutes for September the 8th. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please let it be known by voting. Okay, the ayes have its minutes have been approved. We go to postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. If we could turn to page 4. Bottom of the page, item H. Plan 16-24, South Elkhorn Village. Request a one-month postponement to the November 10th hearing. that's one month postponement for South Elkhorn Village right? Yes. Anyone in the audience would like to speak to this particular postponement request? Anyone on the commission? If not, I will entertain a motion then to postpone for one month. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLN MJDP 1624 to the November 10th meeting Okay, do I have a second for Ms. Plumlee? It's been moved by Mr. Penn that we postpone South Elkhorn Village for one month. Well, I see you all ahead of me here. You've already voted, and I see the day the ayes have it, the motion. It has been postponed. Thank you. Thank you. Any other postponements, withdrawals? Okay. Consent agenda items. Yes, sir, Mr. Salley. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I'm happy to report that about half the items on your agenda appear on the consent agenda today. We approve. Move right along. I'm glad to cover those items with you. There is, however, only one final subdivision plan on your consent agenda. It appears on page 2, item B of your meeting agenda. It is PLN, Major Subdivision 16-10, Grasmere Unit 6. This plat involves property with an address of 945 Bravington Way. However, there are six development plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee, which do appear on the consent agenda. The first is on page 2, item B. PLN Major DP 16-17, Chrysalis Village, also known as the Hope Center Recovery Program for Women. This is an amended final plan, development plan for property at 1524 Versailles Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 3, item C. PLN Major DP 16-18, Corporate Center Lot 8, also known as the Jockey Club. an amended final development plan for property at 821 Corporate Drive. On page 3, item E, this plan appears on the consent agenda, PLN Major DP 16-21, Highwood Center Lot 4. This property has an address of 440 West New Circle Road. The next item on your agenda, page 4, item F, is on the consent agenda, PLN Major DP 16-22, South Lexington Development Company, Inc., also known as Higby Creek. This property has an address of 1850 Old Higby Mill Road. On page 5, item I of your agenda, we find PLN Major DP 16-26, an amended final development plan for Hayden, Hawkins, and Rector property, with an address of 152 Burt Road. The final plan on your consent agenda is on page 5, item K of your meeting agenda, PLN Major DP 16-30, the Waller property, which is located at 1500 and 1502 North Limestone. Mr. Chairman, at this time, the Commission can consider approving these plans, as has been recommended by your subdivision committee, unless a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the audience, or one of the applicants would ask that a particular plan be removed to allow it to be further discussed. Thank you. Anyone in the audience would like to hear any other discussion on any of the plans that have been outlined and identified? Anyone on the commission? Hearing none, then I'll entertain a motion to accept the consent agenda. Mr. Chairman, move approval of the consent agenda. Okay, it's been properly moved and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson that we approve the consent agenda. Any other discussion? Hearing none, please let it be known by voting on your monitors. Ayes have it. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, I guess we'll start off with A. Kate in town, Kendrick properties. That takes care of a lot. While they're trying to get set up there, if the committee will approve without objection, I'd like to move to C on page 7, the performance bonds and letters of credit. Mr. Craven? Yeah, Mr. Chairman, move approval of the release and call bonds. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Craven, seconded by Mr. Penn, that we approve the release of bonds and letters of credit. Any other discussion? Hearing none, please vote. Ayes have it, and the motion carries. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the first item on your agenda today is on the first page. It is Plan MJSUB-16-8. This is Cadentown, the Bertha Kendrick property. It's Lot 1 amended, and we have distributed to you amended revised conditions, as what you see before you is a revised plan. this is an amended final record plat for a lot that is located on caden lane in caden town and if you go in this direction you would intersect liberty road off caden lane so this is a little bit to the interior of the property those of you who've been on the commission for a while may remember that Bertha Kendrick property was a larger piece of property that was subdivided several years ago. And when that happened, staff engaged in an analysis of the lotting pattern. And that is because, as you may be aware, this has an H-1 overlay, Cadentown does. And what's interesting about the Cadentown H-1 is that it was created with references to the lotting pattern, the historic lotting pattern. So the lots out there have a range that they fall into. And that's what we did when we originally approved the subdivision of Ms. Kendrick's property. Now, she subsequently has sold at least this much of the property. And now what you see before you is a proposal to subdivide the property. We reviewed our analysis. We reviewed these lots. They do match the overall pattern. There are square ones. There's rectangular ones. There's various lotting pattern that's historic to the area. A few have been modified over the years. In this particular instance, they are creating a 10,000 square foot lot in this location. The remainder is over an acre in size. The issue and the sole reason for postponement was that originally this frontage was less than 60 feet, which is the minimum required in the zone. Subsequently, they have revised the plan that you see before you today. Your staff is recommending approval. You can see the conditions that are pretty basic, increased font size, a cleanup condition. And we're denoting historic preservation's approval to this. We have reviewed it with them. They're aware of this. They've been working with the owner of the properties. However, eventually how this is developed with the house driveways and that sort of thing fall under their purview and the Board of Architectural Review in this area, so we have them as a sign-off on this plat. That's not a very common occurrence, but in this case, very appropriate. And then we have a resolve on the need for sidewalk improvements and potential dedication of right-of-way. And we left that on there to be sure we can clarify whether or not any additional right-of-way particularly may be needed. There have been public projects in this community, sewer, sidewalks across the street, that sort of thing. But as you all know, we're always interested in getting public improvements that we should get them. Now, in this particular case, we're more concerned about the possible need for additional right-of-way in case a public project would come through here again and upgrade the street system in this community. So that's a resolution item that we're recommending. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. Applicant? I'm John Hill, the surveyor of the project. Does anybody have any questions for me? Okay. And you want to have any questions for Mr. Hill? Do you approve all the conditions We do accept Very good, thank you Okay, I'll turn it back to the commission then for additional discussion and our motion I'm sorry, is anyone in the audience would like to speak to this? Okay, back to the commission Okay, Mr. Owens Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Owens, seconded by Ms. Plumlee, that we approve of the Catantown, Benita, L. Kendrick property. Any other discussion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. I'm trying to get you out of your front. Let's keep it. Oh, that's right. While we're here to do it. We've got two things here. We've got a waiver, too. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we're moving back towards town on Liberty Road. We're moving to an area of Delaware Avenue. This is Plan MJDP-16-5, Clay Ingalls property. And again, this was a postponed plan, and we have passed out on this pretty blue paper revised conditions for you. As I said, this is a proposed development, an adaptive reuse proposal on Delaware Avenue with Liberty Road just a few blocks in this direction with Delaware. And it's surrounded by the Clay Ingalls operation in this area and all around in this area as well with the Clay Ingalls brick and that work. This is an existing building. They're not offering any physical alterations to the building. And again, it's an adaptive reuse project. It is the Lexington pasta operation. I'm sure that you all are familiar with that. And what they would like to do is operate a restaurant in conjunction with their pasta operation. Now, in the existing zoning, you can sell and have a small retail operation with things that you produce on site. But again, that would be limiting in the sense that they produce pasta. So with the restaurant, they're allowed to complement their pasta and do more. And apparently there is considerable demand for that here in this operation and in this building. You can see parking along the front in this location, in the rear. And in kind of an interesting situation, they have an access and parking easement in this location. So they have parking here and access to the property, access through the rear. And then they actually have to come around because there's an existing building around the lot line. And they can exit this way as well if they need to. And I can tell you staff isn't aware whether it exists on the ground, but whether or not that's actually an easement, we can't speak to that. Perhaps the applicant could. But this is certainly right here. This is an easement that has been deeded, has been referenced. and we're asking for that to be submitted so we can put it in the files to document that. Again, you can see on the blue sheet we have our standard requirements for a development plan. We also have the typical condition that you'll have to make a finding that this does comply with the adaptive reuse criteria. We have distributed that to you. There should be a memorandum that's prepared along with the backup statement from the applicant. Very briefly, this is a 50-year-old building. It's located in the infill and redevelopment, and it's in an area where the comp plan does recommend reinvestment and redevelopment activities as well. So those are just a few of the criteria. They are providing bike racks and public art. Those are also a couple of criteria that we look for that are generally easy for an applicant to meet and really help with development of the area or redevelopment in that sense. There is residential across the street, and that's important. And we want to be sure you're aware of that because we want to point out a condition, number 12. To note there shall be no outdoor music permitted at this location. We've had calls. Neighbors have indicated that there has been music played. Apparently there is a certain amount of activity already going on in the facility with serving the food and people there and that sort of thing, and there has been music played. As you all are aware, in a B1 type situation, for instance with restaurants, it would be similar. Those things are conditioned, and we try to mitigate any negative impacts it might have for residential folks next to a restaurant or any type of activity such as that. So we just want that clearly denoted. They can have all the music they want inside, you know, piped in music for the restaurant, but we would not have any, we want it denoted there will be none outside to potentially disturb the neighbors. And that leads us to another interesting situation. You don't get this request very often, but you're being asked to waive the tree canopy requirements for this adaptive reuse. Now, it's only 10% in the I-1. It's an adaptive reuse, but that doesn't increase the tree canopy requirement. There is only a 10%. Now, this site is paved. It's built out with a building. It's paved. there's green over here but that's on the adjoining property this is an easement it's not theirs there's some green out in this area again it's not on their property now we have submitted to you their waiver request and in it they cite hardship and certainly being fully paved and developed in an older industrial area staff would agree that that there is hardship associated with providing an entire canopy in this location. However, they're before you today for an adaptive reuse, to do a restaurant, which is an increase in activity. It's a permission to do more than the original zone would allow. And in this area, we have a deck. And this deck is provided for patrons of the restaurant. But what staff is recommending an approval of the waiver, with one exception, we're recommending a 50% reduction. It would normally be four large trees will give them 10%. We're recommending that they install two in this area. And we believe they have enough room along this deck to provide at least two trees that over time would then shade this area where the restaurant patrons are going to be. And if, and we acknowledge again, they're going to have to tear up some pavement, they're going to have to do some work, put in an island, that sort of thing for a tree. If there's a problem, we are recommending as an alternative that they work with the urban forester to select a more appropriate location for two trees. We think there is room at least one. People out here are sitting. There's picnic tables, that sort of thing. Perhaps there's room there. That's where the public art display is going to be. But staff believes that certainly they ought to be able to install two trees on the site. And so with that, we are recommending approval of that waiver. Again, 50% of that waiver, we believe that it's reasonable to request that at least two trees be planted on the property. And we are recommending approval of the plan that you see before you as well. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, what's on the lower side of this lot? Anything? You know, it's interesting because when it was first brought in, this whole property was plaited and belonged to Clay Ingalls, but there was a consolidation plait done, and it separated this property. There's a building right here. Right here, there's a large building that Clay Ingalls uses, And it's right in here, and again, they have a fence, but there's pavement right up to that building. And as I said, there's a building here, and so the whole area is heavily developed. But this is the existing lot as has been platted and is a result of a consolidation plat that was fairly recent. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay. Applicant. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Rory Cayley of the EA Partners. Tom did a good job explaining all this. Pretty straightforward industrial area. Found a new use for an old building. And I believe we've met all the requirements until we got down to the canopy. The areas that you were asking about behind the building has highlighted there in pink is all paved. And then there's access through there to get to the spaces in another building. I don't believe that there's room in there for trees. What we're talking about is the requirements would have you go, even with staff's recommendation, go from four large to two large species trees. tearing out some asphalt to plant maples, oaks, whatever would go in there I think would be fine for the short term but we're talking about getting the canopy in there for large species trees and how much they grow and how much room they need and if you go behind the building you are surrounded by asphalt between two structures anything that would go in front of it would have a problem because A. you'd be losing the parking and there's overhead lines out in front of the building as well. I guess I stand on the fact that we believe the waiver down to zero is appropriate and the fact that the site is existing. We're not having any new infrastructure with this. Most we've got to do is stripe a few more parking spaces as opposed to tearing out the asphalt to haul in dirt and trees. Aside from the trees, I believe we've provided the documentation that we meet the ordinance as far as what adaptive reuse will be. We can add the note on there about the no outdoor music. EA is going to amend the plat that was recorded recently creating this. they did omit the access easement, which is on from a previous plat, one that was done recently to separate this off, does not show that. And that easement, this is part of a big Clay Ingalls property. And the easement runs, as they've got drawn in here, gets us access in behind the building to the rest of this and gets access to the rest of these properties back here that all use this access out into Delaware. Delaware itself starts to turn residential at this point. Sidewalks pick up on the other side. You've got mostly neighborhoods coming in this way. I know that the restaurant's been operating for a while, seems to be quite successful, and this just helps them get legal, I guess would be a way to phrase it. I'll try to answer any other questions you have. Mr. Penn, are you I'll follow up a little bit on that you've just admitted this is an ask forgiveness or beg permission type situation but my question to you on this is that the access easement going out toward Delaware this is all owned by Clay Ingalls including the restaurant? Yes So Clay Ingalls just rent the restaurant out this is a rental space? Yes I don't know since we did this plat or another firm did the plat. I don't know if the intent is then to sell the building and the parking there as shown to the pasta garage folks or not. But they created it as a separate lot and the access easement was recorded, platted, prior to creating this .56 acre piece. So it's been there to serve multiple uses throughout the Clay Engel property. But you talk about the access easement for the ingress. How about the egress on the other side of the building? Is there an access easement for that? No, it's a dead end. As you come in behind the building, you run into a fence and a different user. So we have to turn around and go back out? Mm-hmm. So there's not a way out? It does not go through. Okay, well, that wasn't shown to us on the Mr. Mark. Any other questions? Yeah, Mike, Ms. Bravens. Rory, on that back property line, is there any kind of trees and stuff growing in there? No. It is a chain link fence that separates these parking spaces from a building which is right there on that property line. Zero slot lines. There's some utilities in theirs as well. Let me clarify a couple of questions. you're not accepting the recommendation of the staff for the two trees on that patio area? Yeah, we're requesting zero canopy for this lot. Right now they have some planters out there. They've got picnic tables up for outdoor seating, and they've got six-foot shrubs kind of creating a little private area as you sit there. Those species do not count towards the canopy requirements. As a shrub, you have to have a large tree, small tree or medium tree. And to put larger trees out in front, you'd instantly get into the fact that you'd be under the power lines that run along Delaware. You'd be losing prime parking spaces. And there's a certain distance you like to plant trees from buildings. I think the ordinance calls for a 10-foot spacing. So anything you're pushing there, you're really getting the trees out into a sea of asphalt. Or in the front would be sidewalks with the curb and the parking spaces. Okay. Anyone else on the commission have any questions? Okay, thank you for the time being. Anyone want to speak to this issue in the audience? Okay, let me, Mr. Martin, I'd like to bring you back up here just for a few minutes. in light of the fact that they are not interested in the they want zero and you want 50. Yes, sir. I noted that you indicated trees, but you didn't indicate the size. Is that being any size that they wanted? I mean, let's put it this way. If you're recommending trees, are you recommending any particular size trees? No, sir. It's based on the canopy requirement, which in this situation, to meet it would require four large trees. So we're recommending two large trees. You can calculate it based on the tree size, but obviously multiple small trees need more room. So we recommended two. They did. You're right. They asked for zero, and we said about 50%. I just want to clarify. Mr. Penn has a question, I think. So, Mr. Martin, even though they don't have an easement going out to Delaware, you're still okay with the traffic flow? Ingress and egress the same way? As we understand the testimony, yes, sir. Now, the—and there would be—again, we think there is some room in there for them to maneuver. But they're going to have to get out. Yes, sir. and you couldn't have planter trees and planters instead of... Oh, they could certainly have planters and landscape and decorate the area, certainly. And really, as I pointed out, part of our support for trees is, again, a restaurant, the ambiance, that type of thing. They're going to have people out there sitting on the deck. You know, that's the type of thing you want to encourage in an adaptive reuse. Any other comments? Okay, thank you. Corey, just a minute. I'll give you another shot at it. As far as what you said, you said yes, they could have planters. If they put a tree in a planter and it eventually grows big enough, would that be any part of the tree canopy? I don't believe that would count as canopy. No, sir. I think they have to be planted in the ground. and be, you know, street trees, for instance, where required, and they're not required in its own count towards canopy. They have to be planted in the ground. Thank you, sir. Good observation, because that was one of the questions I had. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. Do you have any other? Yes, you may respond. I'll just try to explain why we're talking large species trees. You get a certain credit for your type of trees. I can plant two pin oaks. That gives me 1,500 square feet of canopy. If I wanted to do dogwood, something that was smaller that would grow under power lines and fit in here, I would have to have 15 dogwoods to equal the two oak trees. And that's how the ratios are broken up within the ordinance. And then the last thing would be if you do decide that we have to remove some of the asphalt area for trees, I just want it noted that would be reducing the parking statistics that we are showing so that as we go to certify this, there's not a problem when I bring in less parking than is approved today. Okay. Yes, sir. If I may, Roy, what's your estimate as far as what you'd have to, asphalt-wise, how much would you have to remove to get two pin oak trees to live? If we're doing it in the back, as they were suggesting, around the patios, it would probably be two parking spaces for each tree. That would give it essentially an 18 by 18 pit to go in so that it had somewhere to grow. Okay. Thank you, sir. Any other comments? Okay, I'll close this part of the hearing, and we'll work with this as a part of the commission. We've got a couple of things. First of all, just the approval of the plan, and then secondly, we've got the approval or discussion or disapproval, depending upon how you view it, related to the waiver. So we'll take them in parts, and then we'll keep it in the affirmative in a sense that the second part will be voting. I'd like the motion to be phrased either in favor of the staff. If the staff loses, then obviously Corey wins as such. First of all, the plan itself. Any other discussion or motion would be? Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move approval of the development plan 16-05. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Craven and seconded by Mr. Joseph Smith that we approve the revised plan. Yeah, the revised plan. Okay, with the revised Plan 13 conditions as outlined here. Any other discussion? Please vote when it comes up on your monitor. Okay, now we go to the waiver. Okay, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to move approval of the full waiver, I guess. I'm trying to say allowing them zero canopy. because I don't, I mean, they could force some trees in there. I don't believe they'd live. They'd back over them or the sun doesn't shine down in there or something. I think they'd just be a nuisance. Okay, the motion's on the floor to approve the full waiver. It's been second by Ms. Mundy. Any other discussion? Would you please vote when it comes up on your monitor? motion passes i should have turned it off Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, this is Item D on page 3 of your agenda. It is Plan MJDP-16-19 Lexington Self Storage. this is a proposal to create a self-storage facility on south broadway over across the road is sonic in that area and this is a long linear lot that you can see it's kind of been sitting up there hidden for a long time you don't even notice it i don't think a lot of times when you that's my route to and from work and you kind of forget that it's even there it was fenced off and for years and years and years it was parking. But there's an apartment in there, and then just right down in this area you get to the old gatehouse, the Ingleside Gatehouse. They have an access off of South Broadway, parking proposed in this area with an office. And you can see they're proposing the units down the property line in this location. And there is quite an array of units. These are small units. They vary anywhere from a large one of about 10 by 20 down to basically small locker size, very small. There's just quite a variety of smaller units here that they are proposing for folks' use and storage. They show pavement in here and underground detention, if necessary. They had variances associated with this on their landscaping and on, again, B4. It's a B4 zone. The openings violate that provision about being 100 feet away, and it really couldn't help that, really, this being a B4, and with the residential areas around them and with the multi-story. They have been to the Board of Adjustment, and those variances were granted. In addition, they agreed to place landscaping in the front because they got the 15 feet waived here. There is going to be a fence, but because they got that landscape buffer waved, they did agree to enhance their vehicular use area and their screening here. There is a baroque on the rear of the tree, and they're proposing this area to protect that baroque. During the discussion at subdivision committee, there was an item about this area in here where they show a tree canopy area and a protection area. Now, the trees in this area are all on the adjoining property. They're not on this property. The canopy does extend over in this area right through here. And they can count that canopy. That is something they're allowed to do, a partial calculation that takes in that canopy. Now, a lot of this fence row, like this fence row, there's a lot of honeysuckle and that sort of thing. It's grown up over the years. As I stated, this was a parking lot at one time. If you go back and look far enough on the aerials, the pavement was in good shape. Now it's just in very rough shape and virtually all gone. But again, there was concern expressed by the subdivision committee about the electrical service. And so that's why we're here before you today. That's why we distributed the email. The applicant has been communicating with KU about how to serve this property and the way they will serve this property. And I'm sure the applicant will elaborate on that if you have any additional questions. But again, with that, staff is recommending approval, and we believe that condition 10 can actually go away. We don't believe that this is going to have a significant impact on those trees that are on the adjoining property down through here. And I'll answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. Applicant. Mr. Commissioner, Planning Commission members, Morgan Dye with Palmer Engineering. I'd like to thank Mr. Martin. He clarified two of the items that we discussed last week during the subdivision committee meeting, that being the tree canopy coverage and the KU easement. There was a request that we provide written documentation from Kentucky Utilities. I have provided that documentation. Mr. Rodney Brock at KU has confirmed that we do have service that runs within the right-of-way Along South Broadway, there's an existing transformer that can be upgraded to a low single phase, and we can access to the front of the property. Therefore, we will not need an easement for the remainder. So, Andy, we agree to all of the conditions. Any questions for Mr. Dyer? Thank you. Thank you. Anyone like to speak to this in the audience? Okay, then I'll turn it back over to the commission. for a motion or discussion? I think we can go for a motion. Mr. Chair, I move approval of PLN MJDP 1619, Lexington Self Storage, located at 1089 South Broadway, with all of the conditions as recommended by the staff, deleting, however, number 10. Okay, you heard the motion has been made by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Ms. Mundy that we approve of Plan 1619, Lexington Self-Storage, with the nine conditions outlined by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors? Motion carries. Thank you. okay let's see where we go now thank you you got to help me out with my colors Okay, I don't see anything. Okay, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, this is Item G on page 4. It is Plan MJDP 16-23. It is Tuscany Unit 1A and it is Lot 161. And this is a townhouse development that is proposed out at Sir Barton Way and Carducci Street in this location. This lot was actually originally approved for townhouses on part of the overall plan that laid out a lot of the single family and that sort of thing. They have come back with this amendment because they've altered the layout and the parking from how that was originally approved. They are proposing 25 units that you can see. Again, access is off of Carducci into here. They have parking located in these locations. And then also the majority of the parking is going to be in garages in these units. So that is where the majority of the parking is. And so this will most likely be available for guests and that sort of thing in here. You can see a walking area and a trail and a sidewalk. We're out in Tuscany. And if you look here at this dash line, and there is a retaining wall in this location. and it's going to vary anywhere from possibly a foot to as high as six feet along this location. This is the gas easement, the 50-foot gas easement that runs through Tuscany and comes through here. And over here, we have a 25-foot floodplain setback line, and we have floodplain in this area where also there's some detention as well. This plan, as you can see, has been recommended for approval, And it has really one issue on this plan, and that's item 10 on your agenda, where it says identify lots will meet the R1T requirements or increase the building setback to Article 9. Very simply, this is an R3 zone. You can do a group residential. You can also subdivide. And when you subdivide, you can meet the R1T standards, and those lotting standards are different. in many ways. Significant for this, it would allow a 10-foot building line. However, if they're not subdividing, and this is a group residential, they're required a 20-foot setback. So they're going to have to, if they intend to stay a group residential and not subdivide, they're going to have to shift this another 10 feet and make adjustments in the interior. Now, again, and that's one of the reasons we highlight this in this area, is they're going to have to deal with those challenges on the site to accommodate that 10 feet and still get their drive aisles in and that sort of thing. Something they have indicated they believe they can do to staff. Condition number 11 was just a support condition to item number 10, which was discuss plan status. If they wanted to, this could be a final development plan and a preliminary subdivision plan if they did want to subdivide. And again, as I stated, the subdivision of the property requires lotting. It requires private open space to be indicated. They would have frontage for these units, but these units, you'd be making a finding on an access easement and that sort of thing to provide the frontage required. So there's a lot of other associated issues with subdividing the property. So with that, the staff is presenting it to you today. We have talked with the applicant. I'm sure they will elaborate on what they want to do with this property. It is our understanding that they're going to shift these 10 feet and meet the group residential and the R3 requirements. They're fine along here, by the way. It is just this setback on Carducci that we're concerned about. And, again, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Mr. Owens. Tom, purpose of the retaining wall? You mentioned floodplain. They'll have to elaborate on why they believe they need to grade it, but this is the floodplain. But generally, as you know, a retaining wall is because of the relief and the need to grade and provide the building pad. And I think that's also why it's going to vary, because of the site conditions. You have other questions? Okay, applicant. Good afternoon. Rory Cayley, the A Partners. Retaining wall is so that we don't go grading over the gas line. Other places of Tuskeny where we've developed, we've been able to cross the gas line at very close to the existing grade is how they've ruled that. So in this order to keep the grading off of there, we'll have a retaining wall there where the parking spaces end to keep that area at its current elevation. and then as you do townhouses, you get a little bit of step in the units, but you've got to grade pretty flat across there for the parking. We do intend on pushing them back from Carducci and not subdividing them. We will meet the Article 9 requirements. Okay. Any questions? Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular plan? Okay, back to the commission then for discussion and a motion. I have one clarification piece. Are we voting on 10 or 11 staff conditions? I believe you can delete number 11. You heard the applicant indicate that they will meet the Article 9 setback. Okay. Okay, any other discussion? Okay, then what about a motion? Well, for goodness sakes, don't they? Politeness will get you killed. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN-MJDP-1623 with the 10 conditions presented by staff. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Frank Penn, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve PLNMJDP 16-23, Tuscany, Unit 1A, Lot 161, with the 10 conditions outlined by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Motion carries. Thank you very, very much. Thank you. Good afternoon. You were looking at the final development plan for the Dozier property, which is located off of Harrodsburg Road. We saw a zone change not too long ago with this. This is just north of Palomar Center and Manowar Boulevard, Harrodsburg Road. We have some residential up here. We came in to rezone for P1 and B1. opposed to an office building and a commercial building restaurant. They brought us in a revised plan right before the subdivision committee, and we talked about that. And so we have now taken and reviewed this plan. We're able to come up with the revised conditions you see in front of us. They have the first ten are our typical sign-off conditions. Then we just had a couple cleanup conditions with the addition of the construction access, label the access easement from Palmar Center to the Harrodsburg Road property. To note variance granted by the Planning Commission for the subject property, during the zone change there was a variance for the setback from a 20-foot setback to a 40-foot setback. We just want them to denote that on the plan. additional the conditional zoning restrictions that were also set in that zone change and then resolve the internal circulation and parking to the approval division of traffic engineering is my understanding that the applicant and traffic engineering have been in discussion over this and I believe they've come to an agreement with this I'll let them elaborate I also need to make them I was asked to put this into the record we have an email from mr. Dave Baker speaking about the property. It is the understanding that there is still some discussion going on between the applicant and the property. They are leasing a portion of the property and they have not come to an agreement over the lease on the property. So there's still discussion as to when they're going to come to that so that they can move forward on development of this property. This is for the petitude being leased at the grooming area at the animal care office. So I need to put that into record. I was asked for that. Are there any questions? Could you pass that around, please, that letter, and then we can take a look at it. Thank you. Any questions? Okay, applicant. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Jason Banks. We're in agreement with staff for biased conditions, and we have gotten with traffic engineering, and I think we're very close, if not already there, with resolving their comments, and I'll let Casey speak to that if she would like, but we're in agreement with recommendations. Okay, thank you. I've been given a thumbs up from traffic. Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Banks? No, Ms. Mundy. It still bothers me, so I'm going to ask one more time. Is that dumpster still across the street from the property? Yes, ma'am, it is. It really bothers me. Okay. Okay. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this? Okay, thank you, Mr. Banks. With that, we'll close that part of it. We'll pull it back to the commission for discussion and our aim motion. This is a slow day, isn't it? Somebody. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir, Ms. Dillon. You asked for this to be passed around, you know. Yes, I did. If everybody's ready, I'll make a motion to approve plan MJDP 1628 Dozier property with the 15 revised conditions. Okay. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Owens, seconded by Ms. Richardson, that we approve Plan MJDP 16-28 Dozier property as amended with the 15 conditions outlined by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors? Motion carries. 8-1. Okay, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, at the bottom of page 5, DP 2016-12. That sounds a little out of place now, doesn't it, with our new numbers? A new system. This is the Loudoun Park Edition, Block 2, Lots 3 through 10. And we have distributed to you on a pink piece of paper some revised conditions as well. This is a plan for an adaptive reuse, which is located out on East Loudoun and Bryan Avenue. Bryan Avenue is that little street that cuts through from limestone, and here would be North Limestone in this location with the intersection with Loudoun. Here is another adaptive reuse that was approved where they're putting a restaurant in at this location. They've been working off and on quite a bit here and trying to get this ready to go. This plan that originally came to you, and one of the reasons for the postponement and a fairly lengthy postponement, was it had originally come in and included, you know, the large five-story brick building, very unique, very nice building, and a parking fenced-in area and all that. And that raised a lot of issues with parking, with access, with pedestrian vehicular safety, and the use of the buildings as well. As you all are no doubt aware, again, and you can see, this is a difficult intersection. Not only does it come in at an angle and across, it's offset. And, of course, that's a historical situation. It's been that way for a long time, being on Loudoun and North Limestone. As you all are aware, these areas were platted. many of them in the late 1800s and early 1900s so it is an older part of our community this is an existing one-story block warehouse building the uses currently they are doing some retail uses and they have some community space both of those are adaptive reuse uses so in that sense what is now happening in this building will be more in in compliance with requesting an adaptive reuse under the I-1 if it should be approved today. The other aspect of this adaptive reuse request is this little 786-square-foot little building right here. I believe it's been car repair, auto sales, different things over the years. They want to put a restaurant in here. Now, their intent is to maintain these uses for now in this building, certainly looking with an eye to the future that they would do additional uses in this. This is over 12,000 square feet. You all are no doubt aware, as I mentioned, we've had an approval here across the street. There's been some activity and some things approved as they're doing work in the area with the North Limestone, the Nolai. I know that this body is well aware of all the activities, the rezoning for the artist and resident and that sort of thing down in this area that was done. So there's quite a bit of activity in the area, a lot of challenges for these people to try to help bring this area back around. And so now they're back before us. They've redefined their proposal. There's 13 existing parking spaces here. They are leasing parking from the church across the street. That's going to help provide parking, particularly as things develop more in this area. This is going to be a patio area. And it is this area, along with Bryan Avenue, that was of some concern to staff and with traffic engineering. We met with the applicant. We wanted to be sure that this was safe, obviously, and that it be well delineated for folks. We want it very clear where the area is because this is just kind of open and has been for a long time historically because of Bryan Avenue, as well as on to Loudoun. You can see that there's going to be a crosswalk here to help with pedestrian safety. Just to give you an example, at one time we talked about it in other locations, but it was deemed this would be the best. Can't always encourage people to use it, but again, that's all part of our concern. We have distributed to you the findings that it does meet the criteria of an adapter for use. They are going to do bike and ped, as well as the comp plan recommendation. This is an older building, certainly over 50 years of age. It is in the infill redevelopment area as well. And then they're going to do public art. And that is something we want designated on the plan. Where is it going to be? Because that's really where is it is what dictates that it's public and accessible to the public. Along with that, we want to be very clear how access is going to be to Bryan. Again, for good delineation and for safety's sake, that's the big issue. And as I said, we met with them along with traffic engineering. So that is a condition that we placed on the plan as well. And I would add that there are ongoing talks with NOLAI and other interested parties about the possibility of closing Bryan Avenue, which would, I think your staff would agree that that would help spur the use of this area and the pedestrian accommodations. And as you know, they have the festival on Friday night since well attended and that sort of thing. So we think the types of activities that are being proposed here, it's all going in a very positive direction to assist in the redevelopment of this area. And with that, we are recommending approval of this proposal for adaptive reuse, and I'll be happy to answer your questions you may have for staff. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay. Thank you. Applicant. Thanks, Tom. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Mark McCain. That's Mark McCain, RLA. We're in agreement with the conditions. I think Tom kind of laid that out pretty well, and we'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Any questions of Mr. McCain? Wow, everybody's getting all real easy today. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone in the audience that has any issues with this particular plan on the commission? Any discussion? A motion then would be appropriate. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of DP 2016-12 Loudoun Park Edition Block 2, Lots 3 through 10, located at 720 Bryan Avenue. and with all of the recommendations from the staff, all the 15 recommendations from the staff. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Richardson, second by Ms. Mundy, that we approve DP 2016-12 Loudoun Park Edition, Block 2, Lots 3 through 10 with the 15 conditions outlined by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your monitors. thank you the motion carries Thank you. In addition to that particular motion, Ms. Richardson? Okay. We'd like to revamp the motion to... Chairman, I move the inclusion of the memorandum on the findings for the last motion. With the inclusion of the findings, is that okay with the seconder? Yes. Okay, then it is. Then we'll re-vote and just by, as they say, viva voca, voice vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. I oppose. Abstain. I have it. Motion should be modified as such. Sorry about that. All right, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. We've been in some interesting parts of town, and we've been slowly moving our way back in. We hit Loudoun, and now we're moving all the way back downtown. This is Plan DP 2015-111. This is Urban 221. And this has been brought back to you as a continued discussion. This is a plan that you did approve previously on November 25th or in November of last year. This, you may recall, was a large urban development, a proposed apartment building with amenities and parking below. And it covered the entire lot. It was five stories. Due to some significant financial situations and construction issues and that sort of thing that the applicant ran into in their effort to proceed with this, they have brought back to you a considerably revised development. And again, the original footprint virtually was this square, you may recall. Now you can see here's the proposed apartment building, surface parking in the rear. This parking remains from the original approval with access off of Corral. Again, here's North Martin Luther and Wycliffe Alley. There was discussion, and I believe this is still a valid situation that the applicant may well seek to have this street become a one-way to help with circulation. It may not be as important as it was. They have dropped this building by a story from 5 to 4 as well. It is now 95 units. There are 110 bedrooms. They have 106 parking spaces proposed with this revised plan that you see before you. There were variances associated that they received, you may recall, along the frontage in particular. This is B2A. It's a very forgiving zone. It allows quite a bit and very intense. It's a downtown frame zone. It does allow very intense development. You can see that we are recommending approval of this plan. We've deleted several conditions that are no longer germane because of the change in the development and the change of the size. However, there's one very important discussion item that remains with this plan, and that is the open space that they're proposing in the middle of the parking lot. Now, with the original plan, this was just a square. They really didn't delineate it. You can see open space in this location. There is open space available to them along the streetscape and some areas in the rear and some isolated areas. Now, they've given us a number that's a fairly large number on open space. Staff has a condition on this plan, and it remains that they clarify and clearly denote that open space. and that is because your vehicular use area and your islands, they don't count as open space. And they have to meet their open space number, and we want to be sure they do. We think they can, but it's difficult for staff to duplicate their numbers when it's broken up like this. Generally what happens is they'll submit an exhibit to staff that they've prepared from their CAD program, and we can verify the numbers. and this leads us again to our concern about this open space it's a nice size open space we think it is important to the development we as a staff just feel like that when it's in the middle of a parking area it's not really very inviting it's not going to really say to their residents come over here you know this is for you this is for your use this is for recreational purposes. Now they did try to further define it. These little islands, these little areas here are revised. The trees that they indicate are, they've shown a crosswalk from this open space over to here into this area. Again, upon review of this, if it is to remain in this location, staff would like to have it more clearly defined. We would like to have a fence or vegetation, something that formed a perimeter around it clearly we'd like to access will bring you here but you're going to have you got a tree you've got again conflicts here and and we would prefer that at least these two parking spaces and we know parking's a premium it always is to everyone the parking requirement here is very low so they have a high number but for their use it's not that high with 95 units and 106 spaces they're not over parked from a unit perspective they are certainly over parked from a zoning perspective but we would like to see this more inviting and more clearly delineated as usable open space now one one recommendation that was made by other staff members was that you take this space and put it associated with this space and certainly create a much more usable open space area. It was recommended that perhaps this nice patio area that I'm sure is the entrance to the building from the parking could be an area that could be enhanced and additional open space added. Now, they're going to explain this to you, and we understand there's going to be parking conflicts with the open space, and it is very important for them to maintain their parking. it is as important to staff's perspective that the open space be usable open space and and be well designed and inviting again to the residents so that's the nature of the discussion that that staff has had either enlarge create this space in conjunction with existing space again if this is going to remain, make it more accessible, make it more inviting, clearly delineate it as open space for the use of the residence. So with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for Mr. Martin? I have one. Are you recommending a 17th division? That's a discussion item. And that's what we want to discuss with you today and hopefully resolve or establish a direction where the issue of the open space can be resolved. Okay. Thank you. Applicant. Good afternoon. I'm Kevin Warner with Carmen. I'm a landscape architect, and I must admit that this plan probably suffers by comparison to the original plan. And I know there's some disappointment that was expressed at the subdivision committee. I was disappointed also, but I don't think any of us are as disappointed as the developer was. He spent a year and about a quarter million dollars trying to make the other plan work. He went to three different contractors and just ultimately could not get numbers that made this thing work with the way the construction environment is right now. We would all love this previous plan as something more cutting edge, but this plan is still completely within the requirements of the zoning ordinance. And I'll discuss more detail about the open space, but let me start with the parking. As Tom mentioned, there is an abundance of parking per the zoning requirements. However, there are 110 bedrooms in the proposed building, and we are showing 106 parking spaces. And so to be able to lease those bedrooms, we don't feel like just because the zoning allows us to have only a quarter of what you would normally have in a residential zone, the B2A, then to be able to lease those spaces we really need every parking space we can get right now we're actually four spaces shy of meeting that one per bedroom that tenants are going to look for when they rent these spaces so we have looked at a lot of different scenarios to try and get more meaningful open space out of this plan without giving up the parking that we need for people to want to rent these spaces. The space that is over here at the end of the building is approximately 3,000 square feet. That's a pretty significant outdoor space. The space that's in the center is around 1,500 square feet. And the connection that we've created between the two is much better than the plan that I think the subdivision committee saw where there was parking completely. We have eliminated a parking space from this edge in order to allow circulation into this space. Originally, the space was completely surrounded by parking, and we did so by actually adding a space up here and widening that drive aisle. But the amount of square footage we can document with a CAD file, As Tom mentioned, we can certainly provide an exhibit that shows that we're almost double the amount of square footage. And I think part of, if you look at all this green area, some of it cannot be counted towards that. You've got the perimeter screening requirement that you cannot. The islands that you need to meet the 5% requirement on your total VUA, we cannot use those. But there are islands above and beyond. This island in the center, for instance, is above and beyond what we need for the interior space. And we've got some significant setback, even though we have a zero setback variance that was already granted. We're actually pulling back off of that, so there's a six foot beyond the sidewalk on each side of additional green space. We see lots of opportunity for these extra areas for things that you need in an urban environment. dog walking areas, for instance. Bike parking has been mentioned as an option for this out here. It would probably be a canopy type of parking structure for bikes like you've seen probably on the University of Kentucky's campus here lately with some of their new residence halls. We've done several of those. Those kind of amenities are important to the type of tenants that we anticipate would want to live here. Yes, they want their car parking space, but a lot of them want to have that mobility with a bicycle to go just a few blocks downtown or go to campus for class or something like that where they know they can't drive to. The usable open space can be defined as simply a planting area above and beyond the minimum screening planting areas. But this entire space could be planted as a nice garden to look at, and it still meets the usable open space requirement. So I understand the staff's concern about being able to get in here and use this space, and it's not very inviting compared to what we had before with that roof deck garden, but it still meets the definition of a usable open space. And whether it becomes bike parking, dog walking, or a nice planted area to look at, it still meets that definition. So I'll be glad to answer any questions you have. Any questions? Mr. Warner. Mr. Owens. Mr. Warner, you mentioned several possibilities for that open space. What would you prefer? Well, I think the developer has mentioned bike parking as the first solution. And I think it's going to get to be determined based on what they see in the marketplace. They're continually monitoring that and seeing what other developers need as far as amenities. They've talked about a swimming pool on this property before, even when we were looking at the other one. I think it's pretty tight myself for a meaningful swimming pool. But a water feature of some sort is often an amenity that people like to see. If you look at the plan, it says a grilling area, a fire pit, outdoor type of amenities, an outdoor kitchen for folks to gather. All of those things, I think, are amenities that have been discussed and are yet to be determined the exact details of it. We had an extremely detailed plan previously on that roof garden. And I hear it's 3,000 square feet? 3,000 in that one area off to the north side of the end of the building. The center area. 1,500. 1,500, okay. I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Just for the record, you're in agreement with the 16 conditions here, right? I think two of them have actually been deleted. 10 and 16. It says number 12 also, but it's... 10? 12 and 16. I think 12 you were still wanting to keep at the Southern Business Committee to go back to the technical committee post-approval. So 12 is back in? Yes. So it's really 10 and 16? Yes. Okay, so you're in agreement with 14 of the conditions outlined back? Okay. Correct. Well, the 17 is the one we're going to talk about here. The discussion that Mr. Martin and the staff proposed, do you all have any reaction to that related to a more clearly delineated area of possible fenced or vegetation around the open space? Do you have any thoughts about that? Well, it's always difficult for me to say, yeah, that's exactly what we're going to do on a development plan stage. We've yet to do construction documents when we're going to determine all the very specifics of some of these things, the materials and all that. I think that goes a bit above and beyond what we normally would show on a development plan for an open space. All of these uses that I've discussed are within what the ordinance allows us to do in a usable open space. So I don't know how I can say we're absolutely going to do bike parking or put a fence around it. That's yet to be determined. It meets the requirements for usable open space as it currently stands on the plan. And so I haven't been given direction by the developer which one of those things that he ultimately wants to place there. Okay. Mr. Penn. given that's going to be in the middle of the parking lot if it's going to be public use it's going to be open space for public use i would say a fence would have to be there just from a safety situation whether they had grill out or public or whether they had dog walking or whatever when you've got traffic driving around there and you've got parking spaces around there unless there's some show calls why it doesn't need to be looks to me like it ought to be at these fence to where people just wouldn't walk in from every direction. Again, like I mentioned, it could simply be a planted area, something that you look at from the parking lot, and it still meets the definition of the open space. Well, if we don't do something for safety and we put an open area in the middle of a parking lot, I think we've neglected our responsibility here. Ms. Plumlee? Is this a final development plan? It is. It is. That being said, I'd like something specific. I think we need to, before we can vote, at least on my behalf, we need something precise. Okay. Ms. Mundy. Yes. You know, I appreciate your creativity there and the fact that it meets the requirements, but I flat out don't like it. I think it's a safety hazard putting a green space in the middle of a parking lot. So, you know, I'm with my colleague here. I think we need to know what's going to go there. We need a more specific idea of what's going to be there because if you're putting persons' bodies in the middle of a parking lot in a green space, I'm thinking of kids with Frisbees or whatever, dogs with Frisbees. I think it's a dangerous situation that's being created, and that's where I am. Okay, Mr. Owens. If I may, you know, Mr. Warner is offering, you know, landscape water features. You know, to me, that kind of sounds like it's a visual amenity as opposed to a pedestrian-type amenity. I don't know how you keep people out of it. but personally if I see a chain link fence around that it looks like a pin and very non inviting I understand the safety aspect of it but like I said it looks like a it's very non inviting you know I'm I would be game for a more of a visual type landscape water feature type amenity. Anyone else? Well, Mr. Warner, what are you going to do with all these comments? Well, I'll return to the original item that the developer actually expressed that it might be a bike parking. And I would say that a bike parking facility is a transportation facility just like the parking spaces around it. If you're putting, and I don't know how many children are going to live at this apartment, but that's not necessarily the market they're going for. They're going for more of the urban professional and students, college students. They park their bikes in a lot of different places that they shouldn't be and have to maneuver around a lot of vehicles. I think placing that in the center of a parking lot is not an adverse situation if you have a bike parking facility. So that or something visual, I don't think there's a huge safety concern with someone. We've provided two walkway aisles into that space that someone could walk their bike and place it on the racks or any other use to get in and out of the space. It's not like we're right up against the parking drive aisles. We're actually where cars are already pulled in and stationary or backing out. So I'm not sure that I fully appreciate that it's a major safety concern for someone getting run over by a vehicle when we've provided access in and out of the space. Okay. Mr. Warren, we'll give you another shot at it in just a minute. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this issue? Okay, then we'll go back to Mr. Martin. If I might make a recommendation, and in listening to the Planning Commission and to the applicant, and certainly you all have listened to staff's concerns, I believe that this is something that could be resolved as to the specifics prior to certification of this plan, and we'd be happy to continue to work with the applicant. For instance, if it was a water feature with plantings, I would fully agree. It would be a lovely amenity, and that would qualify as open space. I think staff's primary concern has been the usability and the access to it and the fact that it is uninviting to be used. Clearly, an amenity of water and plantings and that sort of thing doesn't necessarily invite people to go stomping around over there and that sort of thing, but it would be a lovely open space amenity. And we would, your staff would be, as you know, happy to work with the applicant to resolve the specifics prior to certification of the plan, if that is something that the Planning Commission is comfortable with. Okay, just a minute. Mr. Penn has a question. If that winds up being a bike parking place, does that still meet the open space? Racks and all that? I'm going to have to review that. That's a very good question. I mean, the applicant assumes that it is. I'd like to know what the staff is saying. I think you could possibly have usable open space and have bike racks there. I think that is a possibility. When you get into the lockers and that sort of thing, it may be a little different. It's not something we've actually dealt with in the past. So if we said just hypothetically that we added a 15th and said resolve that the safety issues surrounding the open space related to plan DP 2015. Is it 17? No, it's we deleted two. Okay. Okay, we're deleting 10 and 16. Right, so all I'm doing is trying to do a recommendation in total. And I wish I had pointed out to you the reason we want to keep review by technical committee, and I think we explained this at subdivision committee, this is such a large revision of the plan. We felt that it would be beneficial to have it go back to technical committee. Okay, so what I've recommended here just off the cuff to my colleagues is to put in there 15 to resolve the safety issues surrounding the open spaces as replies to the final development plan, DP 2015, et cetera, et cetera. Or is that the... I think, again, resolving that use will address the safety and any other issues that would be associated with that open space. So we simply say resolve the open space issue in the parking lot. And I think, again, it would be resolved the specific... I mean, what I heard today was we need more specifics as to the use of this space or its design and utilization. Okay. Mr. Warner, is that? Okay. You have anything else to say? Okay, fine. Then, Mr. Martin, thank you. Thank you. Okay. You've understand now what we've done. We've added 15 conditions as opposed. We've struck two, number 10 and number 16. We thought at one time it was striking number 12, but we thought that would be better according to the staff to put that back in, so we have a 15 total as it relates to this particular development plan. Any other discussion or a motion that would be in order at this time? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP 2015-111 with the 15 conditions. number 15 saying resolve open space issue in the parking lot. It's been probably moved and second moved by Mr. Frank Pinch, second by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve the 2015 111 Urban 221 with the 15 conditions as outlined by staff with the 15th condition meaning resolve the issues surrounding the open space area in the parking lot any other discussion on the motion if not please vote when it comes up on your monitor thank you the motion approves eight to one Thank you. Who are we looking at now? I'm not going to start this week. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Martin, go ahead. I know, I know. They're wearing the old man out. Now, the next plan on your agenda is item N at the bottom of page 6. It's DP 2013-43. This is Man of War Development, Unit 2A, Lots A18 and A19. And this is a reapproval request for a development plan amendment. is located out off Pleasant Ridge Drive at the intersection with Justice Drive. And of course, Pleasant Ridge takes you on down to Manowar. And this is the Manowar development that's known as Manowar in this entire area. And it's important to note that this plan in its entirety was approved as a preliminary and a final with Phase I and Phase II. and it's a B6P area and part of it was B5P. So it's been assessed over the years as a whole. But now this particular amendment is to add just a little over 1,900 square feet or so in this location on the back of the Malone's existing restaurant and a slight adjustment to the parking. Overall, there's 122,000 square feet in this area of the development. There's over 1,000 parking spaces that have been planned for this area. You can see there's a lot of parking, well in excess of 200 spaces in this location alone. The other purpose of this amendment back when it was originally presented to you, and again here for reapproval, was this area on these approved buildings that you can see here. This is where they are proposing 11,800 plus square feet on a first floor. But they wanted to add a roof patio area, a rooftop, of over 4,000 square feet. So that was the purpose of the amendment back when it was originally proposed to you and approved. And they have brought it back now seeking reapproval. And it's subject to the conditions that you see on today's agenda. In fact, I believe the only revision is that necessary revision due to the age of this plan that they document the Division of Water Quality's approval of the Capacity Assurance Program. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Applicant. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, again, my name is Jason Banks. We're in agreement with staff's conditions and the new additional condition and would request re-approval of this plan. Okay, thank you, Mr. Banks. Any questions of Mr. Banks? Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? We're dwindling fast here, so. Okay, then back to the commission. for our discussion and our motion. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. If everyone's ready, I'll move for recommendation and reapproval of Plan DP 2013-43 Mental War Development Unit 2A with the now 12 conditions. Okay. It's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve, we re-approve DP 2013 Days 43 Manal War Development Unit 2A Lots A18 through A through 18 and A through 19 as amended with the 12 now conditions outlined by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, we move to the commission items. I think we have a couple of staff things connected with the ZOTAs. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Salley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, members of the commission, good afternoon. This next item does appear in the middle of page 7. It is a public hearing on one commission item on your agenda. This is ZOTA 2016-6 and also SRA 2016-3. These are amendments to Article 19 of the Zoning Ordinance and Articles 1 and 6 of our land subdivision regulations. And the purpose of these amendments are to reflect recent changes to the urban county government's engineering stormwater manuals. This is a text amendment that has been initiated by the Planning Commission, and the text for this does not appear on the agenda, but instead on three handouts that you should have at your place, entitled Articles 1, 6, and 19. These changes were presented in concept to you at your September work session as part of a training session on the recent changes to the Stormwater Manual. Article 19 of the ordinance is the dominant part of the change, and I'll get to that in just a minute. But this change to the zoning ordinance and the subregs comes after about a one-year process where individual staff members of the urban county government met to review necessary updates to these manuals. And as a product of that, also identified these changes that were needed in our land subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance. Following that effort, there was also a conversation with about 25 stakeholders over several meetings over about a six-month period, wherein some of these items were discussed prior to the formulation of these text changes and their presentation to you last month. The primary changes to the land subdivision regulations involve two changes, one to a major definition in Article I to stormwater best management practices. If you look at that text, you can see that that particular definition is changing considerably, again, in keeping with recent changes to the engineering manuals. The change to Article VI of the land subdivision regulations, again, I should say the predominant change that's proposed there, is to no longer require habitable structures to be two feet above the nearby water level in a 100-year storm. That is a major change in that section. Article 19 has more significant changes, and again, in that document, there are two, again, fairly significant changes that the staff spent some time in our staff report going over. The first is to delete all references to what's called a post-development floodplain. That is a term that's been in our regulations for perhaps more than two decades, and those of you on the commission that have reviewed development plans and subdivision plans over the last few years will know that we have spent a lot of time discussing plans and changes to floodplain that involve the approval of FEMA, the federal agency, for dealing with floodplains. And often those changes are couched in terms of CLOMERS or CLOMER Fs, which refer to conditional letter of map revision or map revision with fill. And often you'll see a development plan either by an engineer or a landscape architect proposing modification to basically the edges of the floodplain, Rarely, if ever, the floodway. Those have not been involved in the types of changes you've seen more recently, but more edge issues. And this change will put more focus on the federal process than this concept of a post-development floodplain through our local ordinance. So that is a significant change to Article 19. The other significant change is to require the vegetative buffer strip from our floodplains to, in some instances, increase, in a few instances, decrease. The current regulation is for a flat 25-foot setback from the defined edge of the floodplain, and there is little, if any, variation in that requirement. The state of Kentucky, the staff understands, allows for an average of a 50-foot setback from the streams. And, of course, what that can mean is in a certain location, it could be reduced perhaps even less than 25 feet, so long as the average setback over a stretch averages at 50 feet. We also understand that this is consistent with the state regulations from the Division of Water in Frankfort, and also it parallels other changes to the north and south in Tennessee and Ohio for similar regulations. So certainly our engineering professionals and landscape architects that are familiar with those requirements, this shouldn't pose too much of a difficulty for them, we hope, by making this change. So that's why I couched it as, in some cases, an increase, perhaps maybe most cases somewhat of an increase. But in individual circumstances, it could actually result in a decrease, depending on the land, depending on the structures, and so forth. There are other changes proposed in the text. A lot of it is nomenclature, and you'll see that, I think, if you've examined the document or if you peruse it, a lot of just terminology changes. Again, I think to better reflect and match the language in the engineering stormwater manuals is the real purpose of making those other changes. Another amendment in Article 19 is to change the definition of a stream, again, to match that that is defined in specifically KRS 151.100. I'm not an engineer, so I can't espouse that definition to you off the top of my head, but I do trust that our engineering department has our best interest in mind in making that change. I have no doubt of that. The staff has concluded our report by saying that it is hoped that these changes will not only help better coordination with our engineering manual, but also help our community better regulate our floodplains and the lands on the edge of our floodplains here locally. There is one late edit that's been proposed since your zoning committee and your subdivision committee met on this last week, and we sent that to you late yesterday. It's on the legal size sheet that's dated November the 7th. That change is also to Article 19 of the zoning ordinance, and the entirety of these changes is twofold. The predominant one is to make the Floodplain Appeals Committee have membership by the Commissioner of Planning, Preservation, and Development rather than by the Commissioner of Public Works. For many years, and again, probably decades, the Public Works Commissioner has been a required member of that committee and often chaired that committee. This will change that to the commissioner who is over the Division of Planning and also the Division of Engineering. So with the current government structure, this is a timely change that does make some sense, given the divisions that report to that particular commissioner. Also, in Section 1912C, you can see the lowest opening is being taken out there. I think that was just, again, to coordinate the change and make sure it matches all of the others. It should come as no surprise to you, and I told this to the zoning committee last week, that the staff is recommending approval of the text amendment to both the zoning ordinance and the subdivision regulations for the three reasons that appear on your agenda. The first is these proposed text amendments will dovetail with changes approved to the LFUCG engineering manuals. Secondly, these changes will better allow for the vegetative buffer zone near our streams to match Commonwealth of Kentucky requirements as they currently exist. And thirdly, the remaining updates to these regulations will improve coordination of the documents used most frequently by the Planning Commission with those used by design engineers and landscape architects in the community. There may be others that wish to speak to these changes, but before they do, I'd be glad to try and answer any questions, either about our staff report or this latest edit that has come before you. Any questions? Thank you very much. Okay, anyone in the audience like to speak to these changes? Thank you. Now back to the commission for our discussion and our motion. We'll get a motion to whatever. Mr. Chair, if everyone's ready, I'll move for recommendation approval. ZODA 2016-6 and SRA 2016-3 for the reasons noted by staff and also recognizing the latest change, draft 10-7-16. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve ZODA 2016-6 and SRA 2016-3 amendments to Article 19 and subdivision regulations to reflect changes to the engineering stormwater manual with one additional change that was given to us related to public works and substituting planning, preservation, and development and a couple of other small minor corrections in Section C where it says, and the lowest opening has been taken out. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay, thank you. Next. Mr. Chairman and Commission members, the next item is item B on page 7, right below where we reviewed that text amendment. This is requesting your initiation of yet another text amendment to implement changes to our final PLAT procedures contained in Article 4-7 of our land subdivision regulations. You should have at your place a document that has got some blue highlighting on it. And again, I think that this is one that we sent you a few days ago to look over. These changes were presented in concept to the Commission two weeks ago at your work session by our Director of the Division of Engineering, Mr. Doug Burton. And these are changes that are primarily to acceptable sureties under the subdivision regulations. These changes will allow updates to the sureties and have a number of other changes as they are drafted. If the Planning Commission initiates this text amendment, of course we would have to notify all the registered neighborhood associations. And as you know, the staff will prepare a staff report, a comprehensive staff report on that, and report to your committees prior to this going on an agenda and being scheduled for a public hearing. With that, I'd be glad to answer any questions. I think, yes, Mr. Burton is here if you have questions about the specifics. But we'd be glad to also try and answer any questions you might have about this request. Any questions? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Salley, any other discussion related to it? If not, we'll have a motion to initiate this text amendment. Okay, Ms. Plumlee. Mr. Chair, move approval for initiation of a text amendment to implement changes to final flat procedures. Article 4 major subdivision plan procedures outlined by Mr. Salley. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee with a second of Ms. Carolyn Richardson that we initiate a text amendment to implement changes to the final plan procedures in accordance with Article 4 through 7 of the land subdivision regulations. Any other discussion on the motion? No. Hearing none, please vote when it comes up on your monitors. Okay, we have one other item, I think, on the... Okay, there you are. You disappeared on me. I knew I couldn't get very far away. There is one staff item. It would have appropriately also been listed as a commission item. It is the annual approval of your schedule for next year, and you should have at your place a document that looks like this and is entitled Draft Meeting and Filing Schedule for 2017. Again, we presented this briefly to you two weeks ago at your work session, but as I communicated with you earlier in the week, This has been amended from what we presented to you. Primarily, Mr. Sally, I don't think we have it at our point. Do you not have this document? No, we don't have the. Okay, it's the same. That's okay. Don't worry about it. You can just put it up on the overhead. I think there was one change you wanted to. Yeah. He didn't have any more meeting. No, well. No, he didn't. That's it. I can't read it anyhow. I apologize. I thought this had been distributed to you. I know we did send it to you, but I thought you had it at your place. The primary change from this document to the one that we looked at two weeks ago was the very good idea by senior planner Tracy Wade to separate the process for almost all of the zone changes you see from the very rare zone change you see to modify conditions for an ND1 overlay. The only thing really common in those two processes is your review by your zoning committee. Those go to the same agenda. But almost all of the other dates are different for those. and this is a very good idea to separate those out. With the Board of Adjustment schedule falling off this document for the first time since I've been a staff member, we have room to do that now. So as far as I know, none of the other dates changed. That was certainly not our intent to change any of the dates, but rather just separate the two out, which will help, we hope, us explain to citizens the process and also if they're looking at this document online to also figure that out. I'd be glad to answer any questions from the commission before you consider adopting your schedule for next year. Any questions for Mr. Salley? Just one request. When there's a meeting with my colleagues, please let me know what's going on, and I'll make sure I attend based on that. I can't read it. No offense to the staff. I know this is a very complicated activity that you put together, It's been done very, very well. The bad news for next year is almost every Thursday there's a meeting of some sort. That's the bad news. If there's no other discussion related to it, I'll bring it back to the Commission for a motion to accept the adoption of the 2017 meeting and filing schedule. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Mundy. Mr. Chair, I move approval at this time of the meeting and filing schedule for 2017 that's been presented to us today. Okay, do I have a second? Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Mr. Mike Owens, that we approve of the adoption of 2017 meeting and filing schedule. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your monitors. Okay, motion carries. I believe that's it. Now, Mr. Duncan, do you have some comments? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did want to acknowledge and welcome the reappointment of our three new members. Ms. Monday, Mr. Owens, and Mr. Brewer are all unanimously reappointed by the Urban County Council two weeks ago. They asked several questions and they put them on the spot, but ultimately they offered high praise for the work of the three that were being reappointed and of the Planning Commission in general. So the Council acknowledges your work and very much appreciates it. Maybe one day they'll offer you a parking space as well. I was going to get around to that. And, Mr. Chair, I also want to welcome our newest staff member, a third person named Chris in our office. Chris Bronsick comes to us. He's a graduate of the University of Kentucky, but he has lived and worked throughout the country, most recently coming to us from North Carolina. So we're glad to have Chris. He succeeds Kelly Hunter, so Chris and Cheryl now are our partner planners, and we're glad to have him here. We are delighted to have you. How many Chris's do we have now? We've got three now and one Christine, so we're doing pretty well on the Chris department. Well, welcome. Welcome. And to our colleagues, welcome back. Thank you for accepting the challenges that we have going forward. Is there anything else to come before this body? One other thing I think of important note, next week we do not meet, right? That's right. You all have off next Thursday, but we'll see you back here on the 27th for the zoning. And for those of you who would like to join me in a petition against the City for Parking Places, let me know. I'm just kidding. Without objection, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.