# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - December 15, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 15, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4135 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4135?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-12-15 - **Last revised**: December 15, 2016 - **Length**: 26,151 words - **Speakers**: One Question > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** The transcript on this page is the Granicus stenographer's live closed-captioning track, captured at the time of broadcast (typos and broken sentences common). Speaker labels come from the same track. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Verbatim wording and speaker attribution 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 December 15, 2016, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with William Wilson presiding as the presiding officer. The commission addressed 10 agenda items during the meeting, with a mixed outcome of approvals and deferrals for various zoning map amendments and development proposals. The commission took 11 votes throughout the meeting and heard 4 public comments from attendees. Five agenda items were tabled for future consideration, including zoning map amendments for Ball Homes Inc.'s Peninsula project, Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen's Queen Estate, Lexmark International Inc.'s corporate property, James D. Baker's Bluegrass Executive Park Unit 1-C, and proposed amendments to Article 8-24 for the Office, Industry and Research Park (P-2) Zone. The commission approved five items, including zoning map amendments for Webb/Lexington Venture's Joe Montgomery Property, Haymaker Development Co.'s Beaumont Farm Unit 3-B Lot 1, Cowgill Partners' Yellman's Subdivision, and D & D Realty's Whistle Stop project. Additionally, the commission approved an early rehearing request for Anderson Bridgewater, LLC. The meeting demonstrated the commission's ongoing work in managing urban development and zoning decisions for Lexington-Fayette County. ## Attendance The following members were present at the December 15, 2016 meeting: **Present:** • William Wilson • Will Berkley • Mike Cravens • Karen Mundy • Mike Owens • Frank Penn • Carolyn Plumlee • Joseph Smith **Absent:** • Patrick Brewer • David Drake • Carolyn Richardson No members arrived late to the meeting. Eight members were in attendance, with three members absent. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on eleven items during the December 15, 2016 meeting, with all eight members present: William Wilson, Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, and Joseph Smith. **Administrative Actions** The commission unanimously approved the minutes from the November 17, 2016 meeting on a motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Karen Mundy (8-0). **Postponements** [timestamp: 00:00] Five items were postponed unanimously: • **PLN-MAR-16-00016**: Ball Homes, Inc. zoning map amendment & The Peninsula - postponed to January 12, 2017 (motion by Carolyn Plumlee, second by Mike Owens) • **PLN-MAR-16-00020**: Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen zoning map amendment & Queen Estate - postponed to January 12, 2017 (motion by Mike Owens, second by Carolyn Plumlee) • **PLN-MAR-16-00012**: Lexmark International, Inc. zoning map amendment - postponed to February 23, 2017 (motion by Mike Owens, second by Carolyn Plumlee) • **PLN-MAR-16-00018**: James D. Baker zoning map amendment & Bluegrass Executive Park, Unit 1-C - postponed to January 26, 2017 (motion by Karen Mundy, second by Joseph Smith) • **ZOTA 2016-7**: Amendments to Article 8-24 for the Office, Industry and Research Park (P-2) zone - postponed to February 23, 2017 (motion by Mike Cravens, second by Karen Mundy) **Approvals** [timestamp: 00:00] Four zoning map amendments were approved, all subject to approval and certification of associated development plans: • **PLN-MAR-16-00024**: Webb/Lexington Venture – 108, Ltd & Joe Montgomery Property (AMD) - passed unanimously 8-0 (motion by Will Berkley, second by Frank Penn) • **PLN-MAR-16-00017**: Haymaker Development Co., LLC & Beaumont Farm, Unit 3-B Lot 1 (AMD) - passed 7-1 with Carolyn Plumlee voting against (motion by Mike Cravens, second by Will Berkley) • **PLN-MAR-16-00019**: Cowgill Partners, LP & Yellman's Subdivision - passed 7-1 with Carolyn Plumlee voting against (motion by Mike Cravens, second by Karen Mundy) • **PLN-MAR-16-00023**: D & D Realty, LLC & Whistle Stop - passed unanimously 8-0 (motion by Mike Owens, second by Joseph Smith) The commission also unanimously approved **EFR 2016-1**, an early rehearing request for Anderson Bridgewater, LLC (8-0, motion by Mike Owens, second by Karen Mundy). ## Public Comment Four community members addressed the board during the public comment period, focusing on three separate zoning map amendment cases [timestamp: 00:00]. **Ball Homes, Inc. Zoning Map Amendment** Nathan Billings spoke on behalf of area neighbors regarding the Ball Homes, Inc. development proposal. He expressed concerns about the timing of revisions to the development plan and formally requested that the hearing be postponed to January 26, 2017 [timestamp: 00:00]. Tom Krugel also addressed the Ball Homes matter, requesting that the hearing be postponed until January 27, 2017 [timestamp: 00:00]. **James D. Baker Zoning Map Amendment** Prakash Maggan commented on the James D. Baker zoning map amendment case. While he expressed concerns regarding the proposed zone change, Maggan indicated he did not object to any requested postponement of the hearing [timestamp: 00:00]. **D & D Realty, LLC Zoning Map Amendment** Barbara Grossman spoke in opposition to the D & D Realty, LLC zoning map amendment proposal. The proposal involves a gas station and convenience store development. Grossman stated that the neighborhood does not need these types of facilities and expressed her opposition to the project [timestamp: 00:00]. The public comments reflected community engagement with multiple zoning matters before the board, with speakers requesting postponements for two cases and expressing direct opposition to a third proposal. No other members of the public addressed the board during this comment period. ## Contested Items Three zoning map amendment requests generated disagreement during the December 15, 2016 meeting, with two resulting in split commission votes and one facing community opposition. **Haymaker Development Co., LLC Zoning Map Amendment** The commission approved this zoning map amendment in a 7-1 vote, indicating one member dissented from the majority decision. The specific nature of the disagreement among commissioners was not detailed in the available materials. **Cowgill Partners, LP Zoning Map Amendment** Similar to the Haymaker Development request, this zoning map amendment also passed with a 7-1 commission vote. One commissioner voted against the proposal, though the reasons for the dissenting vote were not specified in the meeting documentation. **D & D Realty, LLC Zoning Map Amendment** This proposal for a gas station and convenience store faced opposition from community members who attended the meeting. Residents expressed their concerns that the neighborhood does not need these types of commercial facilities. Despite the community opposition voiced during the public input portion of the meeting, the commission's final decision on this zoning amendment was not clearly indicated in the available materials. The split votes on the Haymaker Development and Cowgill Partners amendments suggest these items required more deliberation among commissioners, while the D & D Realty proposal highlighted a disconnect between community preferences and the proposed development plans. ## Ball Homes, Inc. Zoning Map Amendment & The Peninsula [timestamp: 00:00] The commission considered petition PLN-MAR-16-00016, a zoning map amendment request from Ball Homes, Inc. for properties located at 478 and 480 Squires Road. The petition sought to rezone the parcels from Agricultural Urban (A-U) zone to a combination of Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zone and High Density Apartment (R-4) zone. Key speakers during the discussion included Nick Nicholson and Nathan Billings, who presented information regarding the proposed zoning changes for The Peninsula development project. The commission ultimately decided to postpone consideration of this zoning map amendment ordinance. The item was tabled and rescheduled for the January 12, 2017 commission meeting, allowing additional time for review and preparation of the proposal. No specific details about the nature of the discussion, concerns raised by commissioners, or reasons for the postponement were provided in the available meeting materials. The zoning change would have allowed for higher density residential development on the agricultural properties if approved. ## Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen Zoning Map Amendment & Queen Estate [timestamp: 00:00] The commission considered agenda item PLN-MAR-16-00020, a petition for a zoning map amendment submitted by Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen for the Queen Estate properties. The proposal sought to rezone properties located at 411 Chair Avenue and other parcels from Light Industrial (I-1) zone to Highway Service Business (B-3) zone. Jacob Walbourn served as the key speaker presenting information on this zoning amendment request. The petition involved multiple properties within the Queen Estate development area, representing a significant zoning change that would shift the permitted land uses from light industrial activities to highway service business operations. The Highway Service Business (B-3) zoning classification typically allows for commercial activities that serve travelers and the motoring public, such as gas stations, restaurants, hotels, and automotive services. This represents a substantial change from the Light Industrial (I-1) designation, which permits manufacturing, warehousing, and similar industrial uses. Following the presentation and any discussion, the commission determined that additional time was needed to properly review the zoning amendment petition. Rather than proceeding with a vote on the ordinance, the commission chose to postpone consideration of the item. The zoning map amendment was tabled and rescheduled for the commission's January 12, 2017 meeting. This postponement would allow commissioners additional time to review the proposal, conduct any necessary site visits, and consider the potential impacts of changing the zoning designation from industrial to highway service business use for these properties along Chair Avenue. ## Lexmark International, Inc. Zoning Map Amendment & Lexmark International Corporation [timestamp: 00:00] The Planning Commission considered petition PLN-MAR-16-00012, a zoning map amendment request from Lexmark International, Inc. and Lexmark International Corporation. The petition sought to rezone properties located at 740 W. New Circle Road and 1180 Newtown Pike from Light Industrial (I-1) to Professional Office (P-1) zoning. Rory Kahly served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. However, the commission did not proceed with a full review or debate of the zoning amendment request during this meeting. The commission ultimately decided to postpone consideration of the Lexmark zoning petition. The item was tabled and rescheduled for the February 23, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, allowing additional time for review and preparation before making a determination on the proposed zone change from industrial to professional office use for the two Lexmark properties. ## James D. Baker Zoning Map Amendment & Bluegrass Executive Park, Unit 1-C [timestamp: 00:00] The commission considered petition PLN-MAR-16-00018, a request for a zoning map amendment involving properties located at Thunderstick Drive and Call Drive. The petition sought to change the zoning designation from Professional Office (P-1) zone to a Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zone for the Bluegrass Executive Park, Unit 1-C development. Rory Kahly served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. However, the commission did not proceed with a full review or debate of the zoning amendment request during this meeting. The commission ultimately decided to postpone consideration of the James D. Baker zoning map amendment. The item was tabled and rescheduled for the January 26, 2017 commission meeting, allowing additional time for review and preparation before making a decision on the proposed zone change from professional office use to planned neighborhood residential development. This postponement suggests that either additional information was needed, stakeholders required more time to prepare their presentations, or scheduling conflicts prevented a thorough examination of the petition during the December 15, 2016 meeting. ## Amendments to Article 8-24 for the Office, Industry and Research Park (P-2) Zone [timestamp: 00:00] The commission considered petition ZOTA 2016-7, a proposed zoning ordinance text amendment to Article 8-24 that would allow additional uses in the Office, Industry and Research Park (P-2) Zone. George Ward served as a key speaker for this agenda item, though the specific details of his presentation and the proposed additional uses were not elaborated in the available materials. The commission ultimately decided to postpone consideration of this zoning text amendment. The item was tabled and rescheduled for the February 23, 2017 meeting, allowing additional time for review and consideration of the proposed changes to the P-2 zone regulations. No further details were provided regarding the specific uses being proposed for inclusion in the P-2 zone or the reasons for the postponement. ## Webb/Lexington Venture – 108, Ltd Zoning Map Amendment & Joe Montgomery Property [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed petition PLN-MAR-16-00024, a zoning map amendment request for property located at 3735 Palomar Centre Drive. The petition sought to rezone a portion of the property from Professional Office (P-1) to Planned Shopping Center (B-6P). Key speakers during the discussion included Traci Wade and Cheryl Gallt, who presented information regarding the Webb/Lexington Venture – 108, Ltd proposal and the Joe Montgomery Property component of the amendment. The zoning change would allow for expanded commercial uses on the property beyond what is currently permitted under the Professional Office designation. The Planned Shopping Center zoning classification typically accommodates retail, service, and commercial establishments in a coordinated development. Following the presentation and discussion of the petition details, the commission voted to approve the zoning map amendment. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with development plans that align with the B-6P zoning requirements and permitted uses. The item was processed as an ordinance-level matter, reflecting the formal nature of zoning map amendments that require legislative action to modify the official zoning designations within the jurisdiction. ## Haymaker Development Co., LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Beaumont Farm, Unit 3-B Lot [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed petition PLN-MAR-16-00017 submitted by Haymaker Development Co., LLC for a zoning map amendment affecting property at 3101 Wall Street. The petition requested a change from Highway Service Business (B-3) zone with existing conditions to Highway Service Business (B-3) zone with modified conditions for the Beaumont Farm, Unit 3-B Lot 1 (AMD) property. Key speakers during the discussion included Traci Wade and Cheryl Gallt, who presented information regarding the proposed zoning modifications. The amendment maintained the same underlying B-3 zoning classification while seeking to alter the specific conditions attached to the property's zoning designation. The Highway Service Business (B-3) zone typically accommodates commercial uses oriented toward highway and automotive services. The petition's focus on modifying existing conditions rather than changing the fundamental zoning classification suggests the applicant sought to adjust operational parameters or development standards while maintaining the property's commercial character. Following the presentation and any discussion among commissioners, the petition was approved. The approval allows Haymaker Development Co., LLC to proceed with their development plans under the modified B-3 zoning conditions for the Wall Street property. This zoning amendment represents a relatively straightforward administrative adjustment, maintaining commercial zoning while updating the specific regulatory framework governing the property's use and development potential. ## Cowgill Partners, LP Zoning Map Amendment & Yellman's Subdivision [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed petition PLN-MAR-16-00019, a request from Cowgill Partners, LP for a zoning map amendment to change properties located on Blackburn Avenue from Light Industrial (I-1) zone to High Rise Apartment (R-5) zone. This rezoning request was associated with Yellman's Subdivision development. Key speakers during the discussion included Traci Wade and Tom Martin, who presented information regarding the proposed zoning change. The petition sought to convert industrial-zoned land to high-density residential use, which would allow for apartment development in the area. The commission considered the merits of transitioning the Blackburn Avenue properties from their current industrial designation to residential use. The High Rise Apartment (R-5) zoning classification would permit multi-story residential buildings and higher density housing development than other residential zones. Following discussion of the proposal, the commission voted to approve the zoning map amendment. The approval allows Cowgill Partners, LP to proceed with their plans for residential development on the formerly industrial-zoned properties as part of the Yellman's Subdivision project. The successful petition represents a shift in land use for the Blackburn Avenue area, converting industrial property to residential use that will accommodate apartment housing. The approved zoning change enables the development to move forward under the High Rise Apartment zoning requirements and regulations. ## D & D Realty, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Whistle Stop [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed petition PLN-MAR-16-00023 submitted by D & D Realty, LLC for a zoning map amendment at 362 Newtown Pike. The request sought to change the property's zoning designation from Light Industrial (I-1) to Neighborhood Business (B-1). Key speakers during the discussion included Bill Sallee and Tom Martin, who presented information regarding the proposed zoning change and the Whistle Stop development project associated with the property. The zoning amendment would allow for neighborhood business uses on the Newtown Pike property, representing a shift from the current light industrial designation to a more commercially-oriented zoning classification. The B-1 Neighborhood Business zone typically permits retail, office, and service uses that serve nearby residential areas. Following the presentation and discussion of the petition, the commission voted to approve the zoning map amendment request. The approval allows D & D Realty, LLC to proceed with their planned development under the new B-1 zoning designation. The item was processed as an ordinance, indicating it required formal legislative action by the commission. With the approval of PLN-MAR-16-00023, the property at 362 Newtown Pike will be rezoned from Light Industrial (I-1) to Neighborhood Business (B-1), enabling the proposed Whistle Stop project to move forward under the appropriate zoning framework. ## Early Rehearing Request for Anderson Bridgewater, LLC [timestamp: 00:00] The commission considered Early Rehearing Request EFR 2016-1 submitted by Anderson Bridgewater, LLC for a zone change from EAR-1 to EAR-2 for property located at 425 Chilesburg Road. Key speakers during the discussion included Bill Sallee and Dick Murphy, who presented information regarding the rehearing request. The item involved a request to change the zoning designation from EAR-1 (Employment Activity Region-1) to EAR-2 (Employment Activity Region-2) for the specified property. The commission reviewed the early rehearing request and ultimately approved EFR 2016-1, allowing Anderson Bridgewater, LLC to proceed with the requested zone change for the Chilesburg Road property. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of the minutes of the November 17, 2016 meeting - **PLN-MAR-16-00016** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Ball Homes, Inc. zoning map amendment & The Peninsula - **PLN-MAR-16-00020** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen zoning map amendment & Queen Estate - **PLN-MAR-16-00012** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Lexmark International, Inc. zoning map amendment & Lexmark International Corporation - **PLN-MAR-16-00018** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of James D. Baker zoning map amendment & Bluegrass Executive Park, Unit 1-C - **ZOTA 2016-7** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of amendments to Article 8-24 for the Office, Industry and Research Park (P-2) zone - **PLN-MAR-16-00024** — passed (8-0): Approval of Webb/Lexington Venture – 108, Ltd zoning map amendment & Joe Montgomery Property (AMD) - **PLN-MAR-16-00017** — passed (7-1): Approval of Haymaker Development Co., LLC zoning map amendment & Beaumont Farm, Unit 3-B Lot 1 (AMD) - **PLN-MAR-16-00019** — passed (7-1): Approval of Cowgill Partners, LP zoning map amendment & Yellman’s Subdivision - **PLN-MAR-16-00023** — passed (8-0): Approval of D & D Realty, LLC zoning map amendment & Whistle Stop - **EFR 2016-1** — passed (8-0): Approval of early rehearing request for Anderson Bridgewater, LLC --- ## Full transcript  and it's vital important to the neighbors. Two weeks of a project of this importance to fayette county really doesn't seem to be a big delay to make sure that we make a good decision and day good design option for what really could be a premier project for fayette county. >> anyone else want to speak to this particular issue that is not between these two attorneys here? Okay. Let me can my commission members what do you think? Have you got a question? >> is the development plan going to materially change from what we sawte at the subdivision committee? >> there will be some changes, yes, but I do not expect a drastic change at all. These are minor tweak as this the point. >> has the stove got that now or will it come before us on the 5th of January. >> >> we have sat down with them with a drawing but have not received the officially development plan. We should be receiving that very soon. >> thank you. >> any other questions? >> I have a recommendation to that it until -- [Not audible] >> any other from the commission, any other thoughts? Between the 12th and the 26th. Okay. Then I'll make the decision or I'll make the recommendation. I move -- I wouldn't move but i would propose that we do the 26th. Someone else make the motion. Someone else make the motion. >> Mr. Share, I move that the hearing be heard on January 26th. >> okay. Do I get a second? It's been properly moved and second that we would postpone -- >> you're all's lej counsel brings up a very good point. The 26th will run kind of, I with the 90-day limit, which the planning commission is required to act. We would reiterate, we would request the January 12th date. It's within that timeline, and, again, this isn't our first postponement. We've been working on this plan with staff for a while. The additional 14 days we just do not believe are necessary. >> Ms. Jones? >> I think you could have a problem if you extend it beyond the 90-day period without the applicant's agreement. >> okay. Then in that case we need a revised -- >> you're not going to get the 90-day date anyway, but you're going to get -- they can extend beyond the 90 days if they agree to it. >> if they agree. >> if they agree to it. >> okay. Then upon legal advice we will back and up have to go with January 12th. >> thank you. >> I'll entertain a new motion at this time for the postponement to January -- hang on just a minute. >> I just want to clarify that the applicant is saying they will agree to extension past the 90 days but they only want a nine-day extension past the 90 days, not a three-week delay. >> it's their call. >> that's correct, as I understand it. >> it's their call. Pay new motion, then, that we would postpone until January the 12th. Yes, sir, Mr. Berkeley. >> I'm going to move for postponement of plan mar -- let's see. 16-16 until January 12th. >> 16-yeah. It's been properly moved by Mr. Berkeley and seconded by Mr. Penn that we postpone ball homes incorporated zoning map and peninsula until January 12th. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Most carries. Sorry for the delay operator error, you know. Any other postponements? >> Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission I'm george ward with the university of kentucky. We would like to postpone zota 2016-7 it's a p2 zone until February 23rd, please. >> what page are we on? >> page 10. >> 10. >> anyone like to speak to this in the audience, this agenda item? If not, I'll turn it back to the commission, then, for discussion and/or a motion. >> Mr. Chairman. >> yes, sir, Mr. Graham. >> I move postponement of zota 2016-7. >> second. >> I forget how many days he said. >> how many days do you want? >> February 23rd meeting, please. >> February what? >> 23rd. >> until February 23rd. >> okay. >> 2017. >> been properly moved and second that we postpone zota 2016-7 to February 23rd. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors. Motion carries. Thank you. >> good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. If I could turn your attention to page 7, item 6, bernard jeffrey and patricia m. Queens owning map amendment property located on south broadway. We would like to postpone to the January 12th meetingable though that meeting is a little less desirable now, but we're going to shoot for that as well. >> is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this agenda item? Seeing none, back to the commission, do you all -- any discussion on our motion to postpone to January the 12 in the. >> are in chair, I'll move for a postponement of plan mar 16-20 bernard jeffrey and patricia queen and the associated development plan until January 12, 2017. >> okay. Mr. Plumbley. Mr. Mike owens moves, Ms. Carolyn plumlee seconds that we postpone plan many bernard jeffrey and patricius you m. Queen to January 12th. Any other discussion on the motion is if if not would you please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. >> thank you. >> Mr. Chairman, rory kahly with ea partners. I've to get a couple to postpone. The first one is on page 2, item b. That's the development plan for lexmark, and the bottom of page 1 is the mar 16-12 development plan 16-27. We request a two-month postponement to the February 23rd meeting for the heat index mark plan. For the lexmark plan. >> anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Seeing none, then they would like postponement until -- what's your date? >> February 23rd. >> -- February the 23rd. I have a mowing. >> Mr. Chair, I'll move postponement of lexmark international plan mar 16-12, and the associated development plan until February 23, 2017. >> okay. Do I have a second? >> second. >> okay. Well, Ms. Plumlee beats you to it. Mr. Myco went moves and Ms. Carolyn plumlee seconds that we post pomona pln mar with its associated development plan of 16-27. Any other discussion on the motion? If not would you please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion chairs. Thank you. Most carries. Thank you. >> and on page 4, item 4 james d. Baker, and it's mar 16-18, and the zdp is 16-43, request a one-month postponement to January 26th. >> anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Yes, sir. >> thank you, sir. >> your name. >> first name prakash magian and we own three parcels of property in this subdivision that's attempting to be rezoned, and I would like to give some comments on our opposition landowners in that complex. >> well, first of all, the motion is a postponement. Are you indicating that you do not wish it to be postponed or do you just wish to comment? >> I just had some comments regarding the proposed rezoning. >> at this time we're only taking the postponement. You're still capable of making those if the postponement passes to January 26th, we'd invite you back. At that time you'll be given ample opportunity to express whatever concerns you have. >> okay. Thank you. >> anyone else? All right. back to the commission, then. The request is for postponement to January 26th. Do I have a motion, please? >> Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of pln mar 16-18 james d. Baker until January 26th 2017. >> second. >> okay. Ms. Munday moves. Mr. Smith seconds that we postpone pln mar 16-18 james d. Baker until January 26th. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. All right. The motion -- so January the 26th is when we'll be hearing that. Any other postponements? Withdrawals? Floor is still open. [Laughter] >> okay. Then what I'd like to do, we have one abbreviated hearing. I think Mr. Sallee will take that one first and that's on page, I think it's on page 9. >> yes, Mr. Chairman. We think this is the only item that May qualify for abbreviated hearing it is mar 16-24, a request by webb lexington venture number 108 limited. This is a zone change request from a p1 professional officestone a planned shopping center b6p zone for just about one-quarter of a net acre. Property having an address of 3735 palomar center drive. It's a portion that of property. Staff would ask at this time if there is anyone in the audience who wishes to either object or speak to this proposed zone change on palomar center drive by webb lexington venture. Is there anyone present wishing to speak to this? Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, we can take this in abbreviated fashion. We will set up and be ready to begin in just a moment. >> garn Chairman Wilson, members of the commission. Our first item does appear on page 9 of the agenda and it should be behind tabbal 8 in your notebooks today. This is pln mar-16-24, and it's a request by webb lexington venture 108 limited. The petition ser asking to rezone a portion of 3735 palomar center drive, actually it's only about a quarter of an acre of that parcel from a professional office zone to our planned shopping center zone which is our b6p zone. To orient the planning commission to the subject property, the palomar shopping center is locked at the intersection of man on war boulevard and harrodsburg road in the northeast quadrant. The subject property within that shopping center does border hazard berg road and along the internal access drive for that shopping center, palomar drive. The subject-shot shopping center is board to the northeast by professional office zoning and to the northwest and southwest by the planned shopping center zone. Other parts of palomar shopping center do also include some neighborhood business zoning along wellington way, across from -- my pointer is not working -- across from the subject property is the plantation subdivision in an r1c zone on the opposite side of harrodsburg road. And then across man of war there is a church, I believe it's owned by the methodist church. As this is an aerial photo of the subject property. I think the planning commission can see that generally in vicinity you have the main shopping center building and several out lots that run along harrodsburg roadway few more to the northwest near lyon drive. The subject property itself that quarter area, is currently a detention baines for the shopping center. The applicant wishes to rezone that portion of the shopping center in order to make that lot developable. They wish to build a small restaurant, and a starbucks coffee shop and it is associated off-street parking. In 1988 -- let me real quick, that's a view of the detention baines. In 1988 the palomar center shopping center was rezoned as a whole. Part of the joe montgomery property. There was considerable controversy at that time about this requested rezoning, and the development plan that came to fruition was a mixture of professional office and planned shopping center, so the p1 zoning that's currently there along ahead road harrodsburg road is what was planned at that time. There have been -- sorry. The zone line at that time, and you can see bye based on the detention baines, really has no impact where it runs through the middle of the detention baines, but when the applicant wants to redevelop this parcel, that does come into -- become a problem for them in terms of locating a use on that part of the property. There have been some questions posed by the staff fighter applicant making this proposal and submission. They probably visited us more than a year ago to discuss the possibility of rezoning this parcel, and some of the engineering constraints obviously were mentioned to the ap and an they've been working through those with their engineer. The staff obviously can see it's a detention baines but it also became -- basin but there have been sinkholes or a sinkhole on this property and they are having to work around both the detention issue and reworking that on the site as well as mitigating or making sure that the sinkhole remains in good standing, I guess. The applicant is asking to do this, but they are arguing that it's -- their zone change is in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan. The staff could not come to that same conclusion. Rather, we feel that the proposed rezoning is appropriate and the existing zone is inappropriate at this location. The professional office zoning is no longer appropriate because several professional offices have already been developed in this location and land uses are no longer desirable in this area of the shopping center. In fact, some of the other p1 zoning in this vicinity has been yup zoned to the neighborhood business zoning. The b6p zoning is appropriate in that the detention basin is currently part of the larger shopping center and it is a facility that supports the shopping center. Although the applicant is proposing to intensify this location, whether it's ultimately approved based on the engineering issues, the small fraction of an acre being rezoned to b6p from the p1 will have little impact to harrodsburg road road, adjoining neighborhoods or the workings of the shopping center. The b6p zone is also appropriate at this location because it's compatible with the adjoining zoning and land uses, particularly the restaurants and banks within the sprint. For the these reasons, the staff felt comfortable recommending postponement -- I'm sorry -- we just talked about so many postponements -- recommending a improvement soap change and the zoning committee also recommended approval for the staff's recommended -- because of the staff's recommendation. We were also recommend this approval subject to the approval and certification of the associated development plan. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the safe's recommendation on the zone change. Staff's recommendation on the zone chain. >> tracy, have you seen -- I know we haven't seen the final plan on this or whatever yet. Is it going to have a drive-through? Is it going to be a walk-up? >> it is going to have a drive-through. >> okay. Thanks. >> Mr. Penn. >> so you recommend approval of the zone change and disapproval of the variance. >> no. The applicant did request a variance to the setback. There's a 50-foot setback for b6 manyp zoning which would fall within tear where they're proposing the building, and at the zoning committee we recommended I believe postpone postponement, and the reason for that had to do with a lack of a justification provided, and the applicant has since provided a justification to the staff of, and we have revised our recommendation. Mr. Sallee will present that in a few minutes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any other question for Ms. Wade? Okay. Is tom around? Mr. Martin. We're going to take the development plan before we get to the variances. Oh, you're going to do it, Ms. Gault. Okay. >> if you all -- the applicant has brought in a revised plan since ya'll's meeting, and so we want to turn to the yellow copy, you should have. As tracy pointed out, harrodsburg road, man o' war boulevard, we have r arby's and a bank and this is the area of development she. She spoke about having a restaurant with a drive-through. They are looking at the detention, they are looking to put some underground detention to be able to meet that, and they also -- the location of the sinkhole is over closer toward the edge of the parking lot. So with that, the subdivision committee reviewed this plan and we had originally 18 conditions but they've been able to revise the plan, so we have the first four, including the zoning from the council, the first four are just sign-offs from the different governmental agencies. Then we had just a few cleanup conditions. As we spoke about the detention and the sinkhole, condition 6 says to note the submittal of geo tech report. We want to make sure there's a note stating that there was approval of the geo tech report for the division of engineering and environmental quality prior to plan certification. We'd like the-to-correct the total square footage to the shopping center, break out the restaurant from the total square footage is what we're looking for, remove 19 from the title. This is now a preliminary so this is going to be our first plan. Relocate transit center shop on palomar center drive. There was a note with this revision, and I missed, and there is a note that outlines it saying that there is location for the transit center. They put a note on the side, and then they have a number marking, the transit center to be located across from the restaurant. Are there any other questions? >> any questions? Thank you. Mr. Sallee with the variance. >> thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Good afternoon. The staff report for our variance should be directly behind the zoning report that Ms. Wade presented to you just a few moments ago. We have revised our staff report for those of you on the zoning committee that saw our original report two weeks ago recommending postponement of this request. The request is to reduce the minimum perimeter yard from 50 feet to 15 feet for this new restaurant. Article 12-8v of the zoning ordinance dealing with the b6p zone requires a minimum of a 50-foot perimeter yard for all properties along the v-6 p zoning boundary. Using the development plan for reference, again we have the frontage of loar, palomar center drive -- harbored which provide access to the subject brought and to the other out lots in front of the shopping center. The subject property having a quarter of an acre being on this half, if you will, what will be a new out lot. About three-quarters of this basin is proposed to be filled and reengineered to allow this new out lot to be develop. The building is proposed to the northern portion of the property, only slightly more than 15 feet from this property line. Again, the b6p zone rarely buildings to be a minimum of 50 feet from tall property lines so that is the variance they are requesting. The question arose is the drive-through. It is on the northern side of the building and will separate the building from this p1 property line. The distance between this proposed building and the existing pank is in the range of 90 to 100 feet. And the staff in our revised report takes that as very significant to this proposal. As Ms. Wade told you a few moments ago, the applicant has revised their justification from that which those of you on the zoning committee reviewed two weeks ago. A improvement their request will not result in an unusual circumvention of the zoning ordinance because of this 100-foot distance from the nearest bank building. In addition, the 15-foot setback that will result if the variance is granted will not be aatypical of other commercial building setbacks throughout the community, primarily in other commercial zones either b1, b3 or the like, so the staff does not find that this will result in an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance. Further, strict application of 50-foot setback in instance would require the new building to be located either closer to or in very close proximity to the former sinkhole area on the subject property. The staff finds in our revised report this could pose a financial hardship to the applicant due to added construction costs that May be likely for that closer relationship. The staff is recommending approval of the requested variance based on the applicant's revised submission over the last two weeks, and we have provide necessary findings for you in our revised staff report. The first is that the variance is requested to keep the proposed building out of a formerly environmentally sensitive area on the subject property. Secondly, granting the requested variance will not result in an unreasonable circumvention of the ordinance. Thirdly, the special circumstance that applies to this property that generally does not apply to other properties zoned b6p is the location of the previously mitigated sink hotel southern portion of the subject property. Fourth, strictly applications of the requirements of the zoning ordinance would create an unusual financial hardship to the applicant due to added construction costs that are expected. And finally, no development is commenced on the property, and the need for the variance was recognized and discussed during the normal pre-application conference between the applicant and the staff on this request. The staff is recommending also three conditions be tied to your consideration of this variance. I would categorize them as all typical. The first is this is provided subject to the urban county council rezoning the property to b6p, otherwise commission approval to be null and void. Secondly, should the property be zoned it will be developed in accordance with this development flash flood an amended development plan that May result in the future on the property. And thirdly a note shall be placed on the development plan noting the planning commission's approval of this variance if it is granted. Before you hear from the applicant, I'd be glad to answer any questions about our revised report and recommendation to you on the variance. >> Mr. Penn. >> Mr. Sallee, you speak of a mitigated sinkhole. Was that done when the property was developed the first time? >> I believe it has been done in between the original development of this center and the present time. I think this has been done perhaps in last, I would estimate, 15 years. The applicant May have more clarity for you on that. The sinkhole area is generally here, and it is identified on the development plan. It's a little hard to see at this scale, but it is recognized and identified, and it was discussed at some length through the traditional technical review process. >> okay. Thank you. >> Ms. Plumlee. >> yes. Is there room for screening on the oth side, landscaping? >> between the drive-through lawn and the bank? >> yes. >> yes, there is, and that is a requirement generally that that vehicular area be screened to the adjoining property. >> any other question for Mr. Sallee? Thank you. >> thank you. >> applicant. >> Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, bruce simpson on behalf of the applicant. As tracy and cheryl and bill have indicated, it's been about a year-long work-through with the staff, various levels of the government to get everybody's -- get everybody educated. We have had two gee own technical studies done on the property. Geo technical studies done on the property. We have satisfied any concerns anybody has which is why we got approval from the subdivision committee and the zone committee and today from bill with our request for a variance, and so we would ask for you all's approval as well. >> thank you. What we will do, because this is an abbreviated and everyone is seemingly in agreement, we then can move on to a discussion from the commission and the motion, and in in this case we would like three motions. We're going to do the motions in the order in che this appear on your gender, that is, the zoning first, the variance, and then the plan third. So yes, sir. mr. Berkeley. >> I'm going to move for approval of pln mar 16-24 for the reasons noted by staff. >> second. >> okay. It's been moved by Mr. Berkeley, second by Mr. Penn that we approve pln mar 16-24 webb/lexington venture-108ltd for the reasons identified by staff. Any other discussion on the plosion? Please vote when it comes up on your monitors. >> and I'm going to move for approval of the requested variance for plan mar 16-24 for the five reasons noted by staff and subject to the three conditions noted by staff. >> second. >> okay. Again, Mr. Will berkley has moved and Mr. Frank penn has seconded that we approve the variances, that is for pln mar 16-24, and with the conditions as well as the identification -- for the conditions approved by staff as well as the -- well, the conditions as approved by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors. >> and move for approval of plan mjdp-16-52 with the nine conditions, revised conditions noted by staff. >> second. >> it's been properly moved bean by Mr. Will berkeley, second I boo Mr. Frank fenn that we approved mjdp-16-52 joe montgomery property as amended with the nine conditions as identified wy by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen. Ayes of have haveit. Motion carries. >> thank you. >> we now will move to -- back to the order. I think the next one on the order was haymaker development company that's at the bottom of the page 3 3. It. It starts on page 3 and goes to page 4. Page 4, then. Ms. Webb. >> our next advertisement today as mentioned on our agenda starts at the very bottom of the page 3 but it's only the heading, so if you look to page 4 that's where our recommendations appear. >> I'm getting old. >> that's okay. This is the case ask pln mar 16-17, and it's a request by haymaker development company. The subject property is located at 3101 wall street, and the applicant is asking to modify conditional zoning restrictions, in this case for a property within the beaumont farm development. These conditional zoning restrictions prohibit several uses, including surface parking lots and/or parking structures as a principle use. Conditional zoning restrictions were first put in place in beaumont in 1990, however, restrictions applicable to the subject property were first established in 2008 when it was rezoned to the b3stone, and then later modified recently in 2014. B3 zone. The subject property is located at the intersection of three streets. Lake crest circle, which crosses sort of from northwest to southeast. Beaumont center circle witness the collector street in this vicinity and, of course, goes in santeramo oval and connects to much of the commercial development within this area. Beaumont center circle has frontage along that. As well as wall street, which is a private street, and it borders the subject property to the rear, so it does have frontage on three sides. I would note on the zoning map you see here that b3 zoning is located to the east, south and west, and then professional office zoning is located to the north. Although wants we go through this, you'll see the -- as we go through this you will see the beaumont area as changed fairly frequently since 1990. The aerial view from earlier this year shows that the subject property is vacant, and they are proposing on their associated development plan a small building and off-street parking. There are a few other vacant parcels that still remain in beaumont from this view just a few within the middle of the circle. The applicant is hoping to have a bit of timing associated with their development. They wish to build the parking lot on the property first, and then later come back and construct the structure, although they really can't confirm for the staff what timing that would take, whether it to be six months, two years or four years. They could not commit to us what a temporary parking lot might be. So the applicant actually filed for thisstone change earlier this year, this -- this zone change earlier this year, this summer. They did not file it with a justification at all so they postponed a month and subsequently withdrew the application before the planning commission even knew it was filed. Then in October they re filed the same zone change, again with this time a very short justification which the application is in your notebooks. When the staff reviewed their justification, we have to review it under different standards than a normal zone change. Typically a zone change is proposed to you and the first thing the staff does is evaluate whether it's in agreement with the most recently adopted comprehensive plan. When an application comes in to modify kennel zoning restrictions, though, article 6-7 of the zoning ordinance applies and krs 100 as well. Article 6-7 of the zoning ordinance really gives the authority for conditions and how conditional zoning restrictions are put in place, and then also how they're mod nide. So the staff provided an exhibit that really highlights some of the areas of the ordinance that are pertinent to the question at hand. Article 6-70 ordinance requires that a finding be made by the planning commission and ultimately the council that there have been kind of broken down into three pieces, unanticipated changes of an economic, physical or social nature in the immediate area, they have to have been since the conditional zoning restriction was put in place, which in this case this particular restriction was a authorized by the applicant in 2014, so two years. And they have to have substantially changed the basic character of the area. Otherwise, the staff or the planning commission and the council cannot approve a change to a conditional zoning restriction. There's no backup. It's appropriate or not appropriate. This is the only finding the planning commission has and council has to make. When the staff looked at this proposal, beaumont oftentimes we get calls about what is permitted in our b3 shone, and beaumont, and it's changed many times so we always have to do a little extra research. In 1990 beaumont was originally rezoned. At that time the circle itself was entirely professional office, and the b3 zoning was really along harrodburg road, between harrodsburg road and beaumont circumstance. In 2005 there was a rezoning, and when that occurred, about a third of the center of the circle was rezoned from professional office to b3 and conditional zoning restrictions were put in place in that case as well. This is, of course, some of the verbal zoning has changed, too, and we didn't really highlight any of that with this. In 2008 the applicant came back and asked for a zoning swap. They wanted additional b3 zoning along neurosurgeon road where they wanted some hotels, and they -- new circle road, and and switch p1 for b3, just swap. When that happened, the subject property was rezoned from p1 to b3. And 19 land restrictions were listed, is on they prohibited 19 uses. And when they do that, sometimes it's lots for the establishment stale of autos and it's kind of a long list that covers a lot and sometimes it's one use, like hotels. But 19 uses bull edit out. In 2014 the applicant came back and said "we have eight lots that still haven't developed and we'd like to reduce the restrictions on those." just b3 properties. And when they did that, they kept five of those 19 restrictions. They deleted 13. And they modified one related to signage, and they added four new restrictions. The applicant offered four new restrictions, one of them including this one, which is prohibit stand-alone parking lots and structures. Stow the applicant has come back two years later and said "we believe that this restriction should nit say parking lots and structures so that there is an outright prohibition but rather to prohibit commercial parking lots for pay." and from the staff's perspective, it's not -- it's really the same use, whether someone's paying or not, it's still the land use is a parking lot. There's no other principle use on the property. Stow that's not really to us something that needs to be clarified. It should either be prohibited or permitted. There's not really a need to clarify. This graphic really just shows for us when we pull up our gis mapping the colors are similar to what we show you on our maps. The red highlights where the b3 zone is currently so, again, along harrodsburg road and new circle and partially with inside the circle pd the dashed lines wok see those, indicate every time there was a conditional zoning restriction change. So there's a lot of areas that have those changes. There's been a lot of changes in beaumont. I would guess in the neighborhood of eight or nine zone changes. The applicant did not provide a justification for the staff when they filed. They provided a paragraph stating what their intent was, but it did not meet the requirement of the zoning ordinance, which if we go back, has to address these issues, what's changed, how did it substantially change the character of the area, and what's the evidence you're providing. In fact, part of article 6-7 specifically says "the burden shall be on the applicant to establish said finding by a clear preponderance of the evidence." and they provided none to the staff. So the staff to the zoning committee recommended disapproval because the applicant has not provided the required information. The applicant generally, we think, will try to ask the planning commission today to consider different information that we have not reviewed. The applicant's klain claiming-show, though, we feel that removing this restriction is the appropriate, and that means that a stand-alone parking lot in this suburban commercial development is appropriate, which the staff cannot come to that con can collusion. And these are kind of the salient points we think that it's note really appropriate. Two years ago by their own request this condition was ooh ha proved. I think that's something had to weigh. Stand-alone parking lot would be out of character in this area with the rest of the office park and commercial development. There's a safety concern who are individuals hoboken would be parking in the parking lot and traversing loose the circle to get to beaumont health. And the staff believes there could be a poor precedent for amending additional zoning restrictions without a proper justification. So for those reasons, the staff does recommend disapproval this requested zone change, which is a change to conditional zoning restrictions, for the following two reasons. In that cord answer with article 6-7c zoning ordinance, there have been no unanticipated changes of an economic, physical and/or social nature in the immediate area since this conditional zoning restriction was imposed and authored by the applicant in 2014. That has substantially changed the basic area, of the area. And the applicant has provided no evidence to support the requested modification to conditional zoning restrictions, again which were just offered by them two years ago. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the staff's recommendation. >> any questions for Ms. Wade? Thank you. >> thank you. >> is tom going to -- Ms. God gault, I'm sorry. Come right in. >> sorry. >> we're take can his paycheck today. >> okay. If you turn to page 4 about midway down we have the major development plan, 16-00044 beaumont farm unit 3b. This plan, as tracy had explained to you, they have come in with a zone change some months ago, so you saw this layout previously, and that's when they withdrew the zoning, but the development plan went forward and they had this approved. Now, they're coming back to revise it, the conditional zoning. This looks very similar to what we recently reviewed and approved and it was signed, so with this plan here, we have -- we look at the development plan as if that zoning is in place, so we're not looking that it be against it. So we have just five conditions, five conditions. The council approval, governmental agencies, and then we just want to make sure that we clarify the purpose of this amendment with the change of the conditional zoning on the development plan. With that, do you have any questions? >> any questions? Yes, Mr. Owens. >> cheryl, if you could, just or maybe tracy could as well, clarify with showing the development plan now, obviously it's showing a building there but it sounds like they only want to build the parking now? >> well, that's -- that was what their propose was originally was to build this. Now they want to not have to but President If building on but put the parking lot. So this is where, with us, we look at it as if it's already approved, and then we make sure it meets the conditions. So -- >> should the development plan reflect only parking space? If they're not going to build the building. >> ultimately they said that they wanted to build the building, so at this current time they want to build just the parking and then maybe at a later time build building. That's what -- we're under that -- that's our understanding. Any other questions? >> any other questions n. Have? Okay. Applicant n.>> Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my name is glenn hoskins I'm pleased to be here on behalf of the pesker applicant haymaker development company. I'm here with tim haymakers sitting behind me and we have two other guests who will be available to answer any questions if you have any after our presentation. Mr. -- Dr. Sid hopkins and vince bradock with baptist health care also sitting next to Mr. Haymaker. I'm going ask tim to and up give in layman peace terms the essence of what this quais is about, and then I'm going finish up were at least six evidencery reasons in response to what tracy said that the original application did not present any evidentiary reasons to support our request. Y so we've got at least six strong reasons of evidence that either one of them independently I believe would suffice and justify this request but all six of them in totality also are very strong compelling trains to grant this request. So while tim is coming up and explaining, I've got one handout that I'm going to pass out to each one of that you kind of explains this, and the last two pages of my handout are proposed findings of fact in the event that you all are compelled to agree with our position that this request should be adopted. So I'll turn it over to Mr. Haymaker at this time. >> ladies and gentlemen of the commission, Mr. Chairman, I guess one of the things I would like to say right off is maybe I took this too lightly when we originally proposed it. When the conditions were placed two years ago and it was a parking lot, my bad, I'm assuming a commercial-for-pay parking lot. We were down to just three or four lots at the time. Two of the lots are directly beside the moon dance amphitheater, which I was very concerned that we have an agreement that we're donating that currently to the lfucg for the parks and recreation. My concern was somebody would come in and try to look at those lots. But I'll tell you, I didn't dish just didn't think of it as supplementing a potential tenant. If, in fact, the baptist health care folks had come to me and said, would you build me a building of 10,000 square feet, and this much parking, exact will you, exactly like the plan that is currently approved and certified, you would have never seen us. We could have built the building. Nobody says that when you get your building permit, you have to build the building before you do the parking lot. Now, we're not man ip later. We don't believe in that kind of stuff. Certainly baptist health care and their attorneys didn't believe in that. They want to have's legitimate way to develop a parking lot, which is desperately needed for them, not only to service the market that they currently serve, but it's an expanding market and they need to grow. And I'm all for rewarding success. And to say, well, there's a technicality that you can't park across the street, I could also say to you that every one of the bus stops are on the outside of beaumont circle. So anybody that needs public transportation has to cross the street, so there are provisions for people to cross the street. It's not like this is the only place that happened. People constantly are you can wing back and forth between the -- walking can back and forth between the condominiums and the ayes ymca and if you go down do the kroger store all kinds of em poo are walking across those streets. So people on the streets. When I walk out of here in a few minutes, I'm going to have to walk across a big street. That's just a part of life. But I will say that I didn't expect this kind of pushback from the staff. I just thought it would be routine. And I should have paid more attention when we originally talked about the parking in the conditional uses. I take full responsibility for that. But again, we're trying to do the right thing. Their need is now. They have, and we've submitted to I -- I guess the staff got it to you -- I letter a letter from the bill sisson who is President Of baptist health care that says that because of the budget conditions that they won't be able to build their building under the currently approved budget, which they have the budget approved to buy the land, but the next budget cycle doesn't come up until September? September. At which time they will have an approval to build the building. >> could you share that letter with us. >> sure. >> just pass it. I don't have it. >> he says it's also in the packet. I'm sorry. It didn't know that. >> okay. >> but, you know, he's saying that to be included in the 2818 budget, but that starts in September, and so -- 2018 budget, but they need to park the people right now. I'm sorry that we have to come back fore zone changes more frequently than they would like, I'm sure, but you can tell you 705 acres, it's hard to imagine how to put it together down to the last lot. And, yeah, there are major changes out there in the marketplace. The last three people to locate out there, lexington clinic week baptist health care and stan tech, all came on commercially zoned b3 property, not to professional office. I stage to you find a five acre office site in this town right now. It May be tied up in something, but as a practical matter there's just no land available. That's why people are paying a significantly higher price for commercial land because there is no office land. And what comes through through the ed zone and the expansion, one of the things we found out is something didn't work because after 15 years none of it was absorbed. So is there a compelling need? Yes, it's there. These folks are having to turn patients away who want to be in that marketplace and be seen at that location. I still have two lots left, and I can tell you I don't get calls for restaurants which fit under b3. That's not who I'm getting the calls from. All of my calls are coming for office-type product because it doesn't exist. I can tell you this is a serious enough problem that the lexington clinic, who just built an open -- just about a year ago, maybe 14 months ago -- they have gone in, had to tear the front of her building off where there's a circular driveway to drop patients off. They have had to tear it off and add either seven or eight parking spaces. And to illustrate that, and I'm sorry, I don't know -- do I take it back over here? I'm going to show you quickly, this was at 12:15 today, four cars parked on the sidewalk out on the road. We're desperately trying to keep people off of the road. It is -- to me it is a real serious problem with safety. >> if you would, take that over there. >> I guess I'm just subject to you asking me questions. Have things changed dramatically in the office business? Man, they have. I'm looking at my partner bill gadon and used to be the owner on harrodsburg road, we don't have a person that's calling that wants four parking spaces per how to. They want six or seven or -- per thousand. They want six or seven or eight. And I represent lexmark and their leasing of their building, and we leased 100,000 square feet to xerox, and they have one -- their need is for one parking space for every 76 people. So -- I'my sorry. I said that wrong. It's 76 square feet that is dedicated per person which will take you up to about nine or ten parks per thousand. Things is changing. Technology is change so fast that I can't answer my phone anymore I can answer my phone but you can't keep it from ringing. So the world is different. Everything is different. And I have letters of support. Which I will be happy to share with you. I'm kind of embarrassed a little bit by the letters of support because one's ea partners, who is the next door neighbor's. Three of them I just signed one but three of them are properties that I'm the managing partner of. One's the wellness center, which is a group of people that's in a condominium with ea partners. Lexington clinic signed in support of us and certainly baptist health care signed in support of us. And -- and bb&t signed it because they use private access drive behind there. So that's basically what I have to say. We just think it's a technicality. And I understand the importance of technicalities. I truly do. By the same token, if I walked in here today -- if they wanted to rent this spot, you wouldn't have seen us. They would have just gone in. I can go down tomorrow with that certified development plan and pull air building permit and build a parking lot and then add the building in 12 mors 18 months or whatever it is. We're not into that. We want absolutely assurance that when -- and they don't want to rent it from you anyway. They want to own it. Their attorneys want absolute ha insurance that when they purchase the land, that they can actually build building and have the parking. They're not trying to play any games. Nobody's playing games. Can I answer any questions for you? >> any questions for Mr. Haymaker? Ms. Plumlee. >> yes. My question is the bottom line on this is from your temporary situation from your handout or from the handout, is you want a parking lot now but within two years baptist is going to put a building on it. Is that the size? >> that's pretty much it, yes. Yes, ma'am. >> thank you. >> we're talking about baptist hospital. This is not just any run-of-the-mill company. They're a great corporate citizen. >> any other questions? Mr. Penn. >> so, Mr. Haymaker, you're telling me that parking lot ube would be used exclusively for baptist health. >> yes, sir. I mean, somebody might park there that we might not know it's know about the. >> the intent is for baptist primarily. >> that's the intent. And primarily for employees so that they can leave around their building open for patients so that there aren't patients who May be impaired in some way trying to cross the street. >> Mr. Chair. >> yes, sir, Mr. Owens. >> if I May. Mr. Haymaker, to provide parking now for baptist health, the employees -- am I hearing it right? -- would be walking across beaumont center to their facility? >> had yes, sir, that's true. >> and then they have plans to buy and build this out in two years or whatever. When they do that, aren't we going to be in the same situation where we don't have parking again? >> no, actually, if you notice that's a two-story building so it's taking up a smaller footprint and they have made it, in their calculations, they have considered what is the minimum parking they think they would need for both places together. Be happy for them to answer that if you'd like. >> how much parking do they need now? >> oh, they probably -- >> I would say a two-story building filling up that parking space right now. >> I can say this. They need to hire works. They know their business better than I do. They have some need. If they knew they were going to be in this situation they furred first lot, I think they would have been more cautious and bought more land. I didn't know. Nobody down here came up and said, you're not building enough parking, stow we're living and learning. It's an unfortunate thing but they've got a problem, and they're trying to solve it. There's no place else -- el with there's two lots that I have left by the amphitheater but I'm not selling those has parking lots. They're just -- I don't want -- we spent $2 million to build that amphitheater. We're not going to jew it up now. >> -- going to screw it up now. >> you answered my questions. Thank you. >> be anyone >> anyone else.>> should I turn it over to glenn? >> ladies and gentlemen, the handout I gave at the very beginning of this presentation, the first four or five pages basically are I think about six various evidentiary justifications of major changes of an economic, physical and social nature in this area which have occurred since that last zone change that tracy talked about in 2014, and as I said, any of these I think independently would be enough to justify our request today but we believe all six of these apply, and these -- none of these were anticipated during the 2014 zone change. So I listed them in the bullet points there on the first page. As tim mentioned, the office space industry is going through one of these dynamic shifts, and a lot of it has happened since 2014 in the technology and the use of shared spaces is reducing the amount of square footage people, employees in an office building need. The trend now is to go to open areas and cubicles where in the old days you had big offices, one office for each employee, and that rule of thumb in the old days used to be one employee or 200 square feet of office space, according to the experts behind me. The stan tech building, an engineering firm right across the street opened a couple months ago and they have a, ratio of one employee per 180 square feet, so that's a tremendous reduction, and this has happened really in the last year. so it's obviously happened since the year 2014. So that's the office space industry. Now, the medical office space is even more compelling in that in the old days you had a lot of space in a medical office building that was used for storage of medical records and huge pieces of equipment used in the medical business. The technology has changed now so, so much of that is computerized and on disk and what not. The equipment that you go into a medical clinic has gotten a lot smaller. So the result is the space needs have changed, and that allows them to see more patients in more waiting rooms, smaller waiting rooms, and that also affects the ratio that I just spoke about in a dramatic way as it applies to medical buildings. So that's -- these two changes in the industry have dramatically changed just in the last two years. Now, specifically, as it applies to this area, the lexington clinic building, which is right up on lake crest circle almost across the street from this property, opened to the general public in November of 2015. That was after the subject be zone change that we're talking about. Again, that brought in an influx of additional medical people and patients that have forage or exacerbated the problem. Over to the top of the next page the baptist health care building thatng about that is presentl was purchased, and I think they opened it up for business in 2012, back in those days there was a partially constructed access road back behind their building, and that was used for stacking and storage automobiles for employees and patients. But when the stan tech building next door came along and that access road became a fully extended access road, so that created the loss of parking spaces that again was not anticipated and was not in existence in the year 2014. And as I mentioned, the stan tech building, which employs a whole lot of engineers, that just opened back in September of this year, and that's the building that they've got all these engineers crammed into cubicles and all that, and they have that ratio of approximately one employee per 180 square feet. So those three -- those two medical buildings or the two new buildings I had mentioned and if baptist helds building that changed their parking configuration all happened after 2014. And we believe that all of those or any of them independently, they increased the density of employees and parking space demand in the area. These were not anticipated when tim signed off on the restrictive condition in 2014, and I think that suffices as an adequate justification for our request today. As mentioned before, we have a safety concern. There are also bicycle pathways out in this area, and the goal of the developer, Mr. Haymaker, is to keep the people from parking on the streets and put them in parking lots because the more people that park on the streets, it's more of a safety risk and it sneers with bicyclists that we encourage to use the bicycle ped ways out there or the bikeways. In this packet I think there are at least four letters that tim mentioned who are -- which are signed by neighboring property owners in the area. They all not only endorse this concept but enthusiastically endorse the granting of our request today to solve the parking problems that they're all encountering out there. This is attempt prayer situation because eventually there will be baptist -- ballots health will build their building on this lot. It's too expensive a lot to let it sit there and not be used for an office building. And as Mr. Haymaker mentioned, our request is consistent with what his original intent was in 2014 where he agreed to that restricted note about no parking. He just thought that that meant look a pay lot. This would not be a pay lot. This would be a parking lot for a privately owned business which owns that privately-owned piece of property. So when we take all this on the whole, we believe sincerely that any of these reasons and all of them are adequate justifications of an ev deny sharey nature which would give this body the right and authorities and reasons to approve our you know. Finally, if you are so compelled to agree with our position, i have drafted and attached as the last two pages of your handout a two-page document which are proposed finding of fact, again if you're compelled to vote in favor of this request, you might consider these proposed findings of fact to support your motion, your vote. Show you into chone colludes our presentation. We've got -- concludes our presentation. We have two representations baptist the partners here and we will answer any questions you have and otherwise I'll sit down and we thank you all for your time and consideration. >> before you go, Mr. Penn has a question. >> to follow up on Mr. Owens' question, I don't see how you're going use that as a parking lot and still build a two-story building because baptist health isn't going to have the parking to build the two-story building, so in essence what we're actually doing is creating a parking lot because you're going to take up your parking lot -- >> I wondered the same thing myself. On the development plan, which Mr. Kale has, this development plan, the rebuilding only requires 25 parking spaces? >> yes. >> so you're going to have in excess of -- how many? 55 spaces? >> that's a requirement. >> it's creating an excess amount. Once the building is there of an additional 55 parking spaces over and above what that new building will require. >> is that at 180. >> >> calculations is one per 400 and that gave as a requirement of 25 and one per 200, which was kind of an older standard, that would still give us 30 additional spaces over requirements. If you're looking at between two buildings 15 spaces each at that point. >> it's still a net excess amount of parking spaces over what e. Ev we have right now. >> but somebody that -- I think Mr. Owens has come up with a very good point. I'd like to hear from baptist health if they think in two years they're going to be able to build a two-story building and still mack this work because the need for park 6 going to increase across the street at the same time the kneed for that building is going to require parking. So the question to come down here is we've the guy parking space. We're going to have a variance because there's not going to be enough parking spaces, and they're kicking the can down the road is I'm afraid what's going to happen. >> I think one of the representatives were like to sneak to that point. >> sneak to that point. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, my name is sid hopkins. I'm a physician a baptist health. Baptist health put a building at on bow nonet in 2012. They've been far more successful in developing that practice than we ever anticipated. the volumes there are large. We need more parking. We to get a lot of complaints from patients that they have trouble finding a parking place there. One of the things that happens when you increase the size of a practice by adding more physicians or providers, you've got to add more supporting staff for those people. So if you imagine for every provider, every physician or mid-level provider we'll be right back takes three support folks. So you can see that you got 21 places, sparking places that are going to be required just for the people to help support that office. It is our intention to put a building on this plot. We intentionally have made it smaller than what we'd like for it to be because we need the additional space for parking. Our thought is we're going to ask our employees in the existing building to use some of the parking spaces across the street, as I said, that's about 21 but it will help, it will allow patients to get in there with more ease. We also are going to change the type of practice. You wondered, what are we going to do. The building that we're dealing with now is primary care. That's high volume. What we're planning to put in the new building is specialty care, which is a lot smaller volume. So we don't anticipate the types of patient flows that we have in the primary care building. so I don't know if that answers your questions. I hope that it does. I'm happy to answer anything that I can help with. About. >> any other questions? >> thank you. >> thank you. At this time, then, we'll move to citizens' input. Is there anyone here that would like to speak on behalf of this particular project? Is there anyone here that would like to speak against this particular project? If that's the case, then we'll go very quickly to the rebuttal. If the petition errant a few extra minutes to make a few concluding remarks, you can do so at this time. Down on the to have rebut anything unless you want to rebut what the staff's comments were, and then staff gets a shot at the last. >> I really appreciate the opportunity but we don't have anything to rebut. We made our case that we said our various strong evidences, examples of evidence of things that have happened that have significantly changed the economic, physical, social character of that area since 2014, so we feel that our request is justified. Thank you very much. >> staff? >> ni the staff would be hesitant to suggest to the planning commission that we should adopt findings related to an industry-wide change. If medical offices are utilizing more technology or even general offices are utilizing less space per employee, that is something that is going to be across the industry, not just in effect in beaumont. So the staff would suggest you not adopt findings related to industry-wide changes because those are not related to this specific property, and changes in the immediate area. Obviously properties have continued to develop out there. I think from our perspective the applicant and perhaps other users in beaumont have utilized the b3 zone requirement for offices in terms of parking accounts, and that benefits them in terms of not building as much parking, but that doesn't benefit their customers and their employees in terms of having enough parking spaces for their use. They only built the building four years ago, and the staff is not aware that they have remodeled their building to accommodate additional staff or new additional patients, but it seems like they would have built their building to accommodate a certain number of patients and a certain number of staff members when they built and it not reconfigure their space within the last four years to accommodate additional users. I'm not sure. Karen munday is looking at me like -- >> they just said they had to redo the front for more pardoning. >> the jay sent user did, lexington clinic did. >> the adjacent users did the planning commission believes there's been a significant change, that's up to you all to make that decision. The staff doesn't believe there has been pay significant change in this area, and certainly findings one and two should not apply. >> thank you. With that, I will close the hearing for general discussion and bring it back now to the commission's discussion. And our motion. Mr. Wilson. >> it seems to me that, I mean, they can -- this is an approved development plan, and they can build this right now. I guess the question is, and what central baptist wanted to clarify want is that it sounds because of budgeting and things of that sort, they have the immediate need for parking but thieve indicated to us that they intend to build to building. So, you know, on that basis I don't see why we would turn this down. I mean, it's an approved plan. >> Ms. Munday. >> well, I'm out in that area a lot, and I will tell you we're talking about the safety issues. There are bike paths on both sides of that street, which annoyed me when I lived there because I couldn't park on that circle when I lived there in a townhouse for a temporary time. There's a friendly policeman that lives out there that seems to think you can't block a bike path, but you can, you can park over, and it that's what people are doing and then they're exiting their cars on that busy street, and even though the speed limit is what it is out there, people do get and I have had get going on that circle. so it really causes me some concern, a safety issue in having myself dodged people on that street getting out of their car than cross, then crossing to go in. The situation, as I understand it, is a parking lot for employees in all probability they're going to park there in the morning, they're going to cross the street. They're going to go back to their car maybe to go somewhere-for-lunch, probably not, and then they're going to go back to their cart in evening. It's note going to be like pedestrians who are unfamiliar with the terrain, the area, the traffic, crossing it on a constant basis. That's my thought process on it. And again, like will said, certainly the building could be built or plans or permits pulled for it but it might not be built for a year or two and he could still go ahead and put in the parking lot. So -- and we know central baptist, and we know they're good for their word. Mr. Haymaker has, in my recollection, done what he's always said he's going to do. So I understand staff's position on it, but I also think this is a little bit of a different situation that we find ourselves in. >> Ms. Plumlee. >> thank you, chair. I find this just slightly confusing in that we've been asked to build you parking lot before the building, so I have to kind of come to grasp with that even though there seem to be logical reasons. >> Mr. Penn, then Mr. Cravens. >> if we think we are inclined to approve this, I think Ms. Jones needs to work on some findings. I'm not comfortable with the findings that the applicant has presented here today because I think they're going tom could back and bite you in two or three years when this building gets ready to be built. I think the findings need to be broader and need to be for better reasons than what Mr. Hawkins has brought to us today. I still am concerned about that building with the number of people, I think the building is going to have to get smaller in order to be able to create the parking, and I'm not going that's going to serve baptist health's needs for a smaller building on that piece of property. Now, you all work out your own experiences and your own ratios and the whole thing but I don't know whether I'll be here two years or not, but if I am I really don't want to say I told you this is what was going to happen before I started because I know things change a lot but they don't dramatically change in two years. And so I'd like for you to look hat this as the idea that we are going to build that building, is that parking going to be adequate because I think the findings that we have here today for us to support this, and I think we are probably going to support it, but the finding that we have I don't think are going to serve you well down the road. >> are in cravens. Mr. Cravens. >> I see no reason not to support this. And I was going to ask if phrasy had any finding for approval. Are these acceptable n.>> we've been tweaking them. I would be reluctant to use the first two just because it talks about more changes in the office industry or the medical industry, which, you know, this is really an issue about parking, and I think if we're going to change them, and I've written some stuff you can show you, but I think we need to focus on what's changed in regard to the in kriese creeds parking and the use and -- increased parking and the things that they have lost that they had two years ago that they don't have now because of these other buildings. >> okay. So the rest of them are acceptable? >> I'm going to bring this to you>> while you're doing that, Mr. Owens. >> Mr. Chair, if I May, I think maybe I should have done this before you closed it, I've got one question for the applicant as far as this process, not such the plan or anything. Wy question would be have they shared these, these reasons with the staff? Because it didn't seem like they had coming in here this blind at this moment. >> I think we'll ask Ms. Wade that. >> the applicant's attorney notified us last week that they had drafted a justification and asked for our opinion, so we knifed last week, and this is pretty significantly different than what they -- not in the same 17 in terms of parking changes -- same vein but beyond what they showed us. Last week we told them it generally wasn't adequate to meet if requirements of the ordinance. >> so are you sighing these justifications are new or just -- >> yes. This is a new document. >> Mr. Cravens. >> Mr. Chairman, are you ready for a motion? >> well, let's talk just a minute. We are in the the discussion. We're still in the discussion phase here. Mr. Jones, are you comfortable with -- you've written them. You've tweaked them. >> I have them here. >> okay. The any other discussion, then? If that's the case, then we are ready for a motion. >> all right, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to move approval of plan mar 16-7 for these combined finding by the applicant and by our staff, and I need to read on the first page up at the top under the first paragraph our staff has written "these finding demonstrate that there has been a major kasich a physical nature in the area in which the subject property is located." then we're striking 1 and 2. And going down to 3. And we've added at the bottom of the first paragraph there, "which provided increased use and parking." that's on number 3. And then number 4 and 5 are being included in 6. So moved. >> tau motion has been made by Mr. Cravens that we approve of pln mar 16-17 haymaker development company. It's been seconded by Mr. Will berkley with the find, that have been outlined and identified by our attorney and have been submitted into the minutes by Mr. Cravens. Any discussion? Another discussion item. >> I'm going support this motion, but I'm going to do it very reluctantly because I believe the applicant and, Mr. Haymaker, you admitted the same thing, that this should have been given our staff before you showed up here today. It's a lot better process if we don't make decisions on the fly and do findings on the fly, and this is a tendency that's starting to happen with this commission. I personally don't like it because I think it's better to work through the staff than work in spite of the staff. And so I would encourage you all in the future when you get in this kind of situation that you have these findings for the staff to review before we get down in this kind of setting and try to do it on the fly because I think it will make your application a whole lot better and it will certainly make things down the road a whole lot better for your client. So I'm going to reluctantly support it but I don't like the process. >> any other discussion? Let me say from the chair's position here, also, I feel very uncomfortable with the process that we've done here today. Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with the project but I, too, feel, as Mr. Penn has indicated, that this information should have been given out earlier, and I feel very, very uncomfortable with people presenting information at the very last minute, especially since they've had an opportunity to do so during the whole process of deliberation and discussion. I have nothing against the project per se, but the process is worrisome to see when it puts staff in a bad position, puts all of us in a bad position as well. Those are my comments. With that, someone can call for the prev motion is approved 7-1. >> Mr. Chairman. >> yes, sir. >> move approval of the development plan mjdp-16-44. >> do we have a second? >> second. >> okay. It's been properly moved by Mr. Cravens, sendinged by Ms. Mun did I that well approve imagine beaumont farm unit 3b lot 1. I have one question. I thought we had already approved this. >> as a whole new development. >> this is a whole new development plan? So this will be classified as a new plan. Okay. In accordance with the new plan, then, we can accept the motion with the second. >> did you think I would mess up like that? >> yes, I did. [Laughter] >> I've been here longer than you have. >> you have, but experience has nothing to do with talent, I just want you to know. It's been properly moved and been properly seconded by Ms. Munday that we approve pln mjd-16-44 beaumont farm unit 3-b, lot 1. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors. Plan has been approved. Motion is approved. Thank you. >> good afternoon. Our next item is found on page 5 and it is item 5 and should be again tab 5 in your notebooks. This is pln mar-16-19, a request by cow gill partners, limited partnership. This is a request to rezone property on four parcels as well as small piece of adjacent railroad rite preservative those addresses are 339, 341, 345 and 349 blackburn avenue. Those parcels are partially zoned light industrial and partially zoned neighborhood business at this point and they're asking requesting to rezone to the high-rise apartment r5 zone. Subject property is located on blackburn avenue. Blackburn avenue is near downtown on the north side of downtown. It does run from southwest to northeast, very near new town pike, in between fourth street and third street. this is west third and west fourth. Also in the near vicinity jefferson street to the you southwest of the subject properties. Taken again, blackburn avenue is just a one-block connection between third street and fourth street. In this vicinity if you look at the time zoning map on the overhead you can see a lot of purple. That indicates a lot of light industrial zoning that does exist in this hear. Although the land uses don't necessarily quite line up with what you would expect with all that light industrial zoning. Just across west fourth street from this location is transylvania university's new sports complex. I believe it's a track and field, maybe lacrosse facility, and they have a structure there as well as a good bit of parking. In addition, there's a montessori school also across fourth street from the subject property, but to either side on this side of fourth street there are light industrial uses next to the subject property on henry street and then also across blackburn avenue from the subject property. If you traverse along blackburn avenue, though, towards west third street, the character of that street changes a bit. There is a church near the subject property. The property's I guess southern corner. And then they property across blackburn add jay tent sent to the subject property where they have a playground area. And then past that divide the rest of blackburn avenue is single family residential. So the character at this end is industrial, and then the character at the third street end is residential. Single family residential. The application is to rezone 1.73 acres of property, and they -- I guess I should mention, although it doesn't show up on our overhead very well in this vicinity is also the fisel station project across the railroad and then bctc new campuses down fourth street across new town across the railroad tracks. It's historically been an industrial area but there has been some change in the character between -- along jefferson and between jefferson and new town pike in this area. The applicant is proposing to rezone this property in order to develop one structure to house 72 dwelling units on the subject property, and then they're required parking on-site. They are also asking for a few variances with this zone change request and are Mr. Sallee will address that with his presentation. Just an on-site view of the corner here looking to the subject property, there are industrial or warehousing buildings located there, but they appeared vacant when we visited the site. No cars present. It appears this small white building on the subject property and the tree there is what maybe alliance with where the b1 zone currently is, and then towards the, I guess south end of the property is another small warehouse building. Along fourth street, though, again transylvania university recreation field is across the street and then this is a view of the adjacent industrial use at that corner of blackburn and fourth street. In terms of the application to rezone the property, the applicant contends that it is in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan. In reviewing that they cited several goals and objectives that they believe it's in agreement with, including those related to expanding housing choices with an emphasis on mixed use and higher density residential, which is goal 1b and 1d of theme a. Also the comprehensive plan also supports infill and redevelopment as a strategic component of growth, providing well-designed neighborhoods through mixed use and mixed type housing. The plan also encourages living in close proximity to where you work, which is part of theme c. Supports utilization and -- sorry -- the utilization of underutilized land in order to uphold the urban service bount ri concept and also building in a compact contiguous and/or sustainable manner. And that's in theme e. The pesker cited these goals and object -- petitioners cited these goals and objectives in their justification and in the staff's view we found the site is also within the central sector plan which was adopted by the planning commission in 2009. it's within the bound riff downtown lexington master plan which was partially included in our 2007 comprehensive plan. Not all of the elements of the plan were adopted. And then recently the staff engaged with transylvania university and bctc in a joint effort to study the area between jefferson and new town and then extended up torture to georgetown street a little bit called the fourth street zoning study, and that has not been adopted by the planning commission but it's something that has helped inform the staff in terms of possible redevelopment in this area near where bctc has relocated and where transylvania has started to build a few buildings and has a presence today. The central sector small area plan in the first are bullet there does identify fourth street as a focus area due to its proximity to the new bb&t campus and the presence of account utilized plan. That plan recognized the property trans vane your built on as underutilized but now it's obviously been utilized to a higher degree. That small area plan did recommend developing a new zoning carted for mixed use and included within that some design standards that would be appropriate. The downtown lexington master plan identified this within the north side district. There weren't any specific recommendations related to that district that would be pertinent to this request, but overall the master plan does recommend increasing residential density near downtown. And then lastly the fourth street study does describe east -- the east side of fourth street as a area for opportunity or an opportunity district for mid-density residential or low-density and mixed use because they saw a conflict between the industrial zoning and if residential zoning on the other end of the street. That information at hand the staff reviewed. We believe each of those plans suggests that there could be redevelopment at this location, and in terms of intensifying the use at this location would be appropriate. So the staff in concert with the applicant's justification does believe that this request is in agreement with the comprehensive plan as well as supported by these other planning efforts that have taken place that are in this area, and stow the staff found that the request was in agreement with the plan and supported by the small area plans and our findings. Finding 1 had to do with the comprehensive plan and those goals and objectives that I mentioned. Their application does support the higher density use that's suggested in terms of utilizing underutilized and vacant land with especially inside the urban service area and near downtown for infill and redevelopment. The subject properties again are located within these focus areas and these other three plans are supported in our findings under number 2, 3 and 4 related to development, additional development in this vicinity and specifically it being appropriate for this location. The staff also made a finding as we usually do, that if you approve this, that it be approved contingent on the zoning development plan being approved and certified within two weeks. I'd be happy to answer any questions about this specific recommendation for this zone change. >> Mr. Penn. >> tracy, this is another example of us taking I1 land and making residential land out of it. >> yes. >> I just wonder where do we see the I-1 land? We have dawn all georgetown road, converted that you will I-1 land to residential. Now we're working on this to take I-1 land and make it residential. Are we just saying there's no reason for I-1 land or are we just saying that there is a proposal here to develop it into residential? Incidentally, that picture of the piece of property was a fertilizer plant for a long time, it was cargo fertilizer, and there's a grainery on henry street, there's a lot of industrial use there, and I guess what I don't see if f. In this is the justification to do away with the I-1 land, and I'm more concerned about that than I am about the density or whatever else might be involved here. Could you speak to that just a little bit. >> I think the zoning study for fourth street looked hat that area, and because of the proximity to the single-family residential, the industrial, they felt look that was not a good mixture. Obviously it's been there for a very long time, but I think from the perspective that of study, that land use mixture isn't as desirable, and near downtown, you want to encourage the mixture of commercial, office and residential more so than industrial uses. I think there is available industrial land in our community currently. I know there's a lot of e-d land available as well as well as property available in cold stream. We have studied that quite a bit. So I think the idea is that industrial land not be so close to downtown. >> any other questions? Ms. Munday. >> I guess I just have a little comment about that. Ir mean, cold stream is great, beautiful and great property. There's no railroad. So what I'm seeing is that any access to the railroad is just about gone through this community. And through this -- so maybe the parcels are too small to benefit industrial close to railroad, but their really we're getting to the point there's no access to the railroad. >> and this property currently doesn't have access, either. >> they're right at it. >> up towards henry street. The railroad did in the past come through there. There was a spur. and part of the application to red zone includes the right-of-way that fronts along fourth street which transylvania university purchased from the riot -- or from the railroad because it's excess right-of-way. They're no longer there. I do understand your point. >> and I think my point is maybe not about this particular property but just the overall general thing. Yeah. Sorry. >> that's okay. >> any other question for Ms. Wade? Okay. I don't know who to call on next. It's the plan, I suppose. >> Mr. Martin. >> well, Mr. Martin, come forward. >> do you would you like to introduce Ms. Call? >> I was getting ready to but I was being cautious. >> Mr. Chairman with members of the commission, the preliminary development plan that's associated with this zone change is on page 5 of your agenda, however, you will find that we have passed out revised conditions for you for this plan. The site, as you can see, is located on west fourth street at the intersection with blackburn avenue. They are proposing an l-shaped building as you can see in this location up towards the street frontages. It is four stories, 49 feet in height proposed. They are proposing a 19,580-foot square foot floor area, and that will provide over 78,000 square feet total with four floors. That is an far of approximately 1.1 on this particular property. It is a mix of one and two bedroom units, 72 units total with 118 bedrooms, again a mix of one and two bedrooms. The parking determinator in this instance that is most restrictive is the unit calculation. It requires 108 parking spaces. They're providing 1 at the time parking spaces. You can see access off of blackburn with the parking basically stated to the back, the rear, the side of the property. We've got transylvania university property in this location. One of the interesting aspect about this property and its sore orientation to the street, this little strip height right here is owned by transylvania university. It's not master the subject property. There are four variances associated with this property. And they have a significant impact on the property. There's a height variance, a front yard and a side yard variance, swellings an open space variance being requested, and Mr. Sallee is going to go over those in detail with you. The -- there are several conditions that you can see on the plan. One of those as, of course, stated, you must grant the requested variances or revise the plan, they're showing a building envelope which again would allow them to adjust the building slightly back into the lot if they chose to. Here we see an area with a pool and considerable open space. Again, the variances on the front and side can have an impact on that open space. They're requesting a variance. We have a condition that we had look for to them to document how they're meeting the open space station and we want to see an exhibit in this case filed with us that clearly delineates what is open space and now it's being met, particularly if they choose to go with balconies, that sort of thing, which they could, whether or not they want to meet it on the surface of the lot itself. For instance, back in this area. The envelope if this got moved, tissue becomes how much of the front yard, then, would be allowable usable open space because only land behind the building line can be part of the open space. So we'd just like to have that clearly documented as an exhibit on this property. There's an article 18 question. They appear to have room in this area along this boundary to meet article 18, but however, an aspect of that is a fence. That is shown here but they have not indicated the height of the fence. They need to make it very clear how they're meeting article 18 requirements, and again particularly along this area of the plan. We also have a condition that we'd like for them to denote the floor area in the site stis picks. now, they make a reference to it. We'd like to see their math. We have duplicated it. We want to know that we agree on the numbers. It's the same reason we like to see dimensions when we calculate square footage. Wouldn't to make sure we agree with the numbers particularly when 1.1 and 1.3 is your maximum far. And then last and certainly not least in the sense of what we're looking for in an area look this, the fourth street study that tracy mentioned to you, we'd like for them to denote on the plan that that will be determined that the final development plan. This is one aspect of it. Their orientation to the street, and that's very important. There are some other aspects. The frontages, the building, pedestrian amenities. There's some other items that we think we need to pay attention to at the time of the final development plan in trying to conform and get the best development we can with that fourth street study in mind. So with that, this plan has been reviewed by your staff. This revised submittal. And we are recommending approval. >> I'll be happy to answer if I questions you May have for me. >> thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Sallee. Variances. >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. As has been allude to there are four requested dimensional variances associated with this zone change request, and what i've handed out to you in between presentations and it's also on the overhead are revised findings that the staff has prepared today because the applicant does wish to go forward and not postpone the application. The changes are very minimal, and the only changes proposed are shown in highlighting on the overhead also in your handout that shows as a double underline. Basically eliminating the postponement provision. >> to introduce the four requested variances again auction the development plan, the first is that the applicant asks that the height be allowed to be as high as 50 feet for this building and that they not be held to a four-to-one height to yard ratio meaning the building can be four feet tall for every foot it is away from to a property line, and that's because they wish to orient the building to this corner of the property with its frontage along blackburn avenue and an orientation to fourth street, not counting the property owned by transylvania that used to be the railroad spur that is included has part of the zone change but is not yet proposed for any development. The staff is not opposed to eye 50-foot high building at this location, and as you can see from our staff report that we presented to your zoning committee two weeks ago, this should be in your notebook right behind the report that Ms. Wade presented, their desire to do this is to bible to maximize the off-street park -- be able to max nize off street parking for to development generally the r-5 zone requires a 20-foot setback from the street and ten feet from side property lines and open space lease of 20%. These standards generally promote a building that is in the the center of a property that is surrounded by parking, so you can see from the development plan they do not propose that they wish to move the building to a corner of the property and maximize if rest of the property for parking. P. Ironically this building location, except perhaps for this wing extending down blackburn, would have the farthest setback from other residences further down blackburn avenue how much more do they need to make the staff happy? >> well, again, if they made no other change to this plan other than to add those balconies on the units. Turned over to transylvania to be used as a dorm them have already been eating up a number of properties in that area, and with the church and the field, that is all property out of the tax rolls that leaves the bulk of it for the rest of us. Poor little schlubs who own houses on blackburn areas and surrounding areas to pick up the slack. And I think that, we need to make sure that it does not become a dormitory or does not become an extended stay facility and I would like to see that there is no restaurant there. And then I have a general question: what is open space? is it space open to the community or on the interior of this development, that only people who live there see? What's the purpose of open space? I would have thought it was meant to be open space, open to the community. That does not sound like what is being counted as open space here. So I wanted to make sure that I have not left anything else out. Again, has that property been purchased by cowgill, I believe that it is 333. And open space. And yes, where do the guests park not to mention the guests of people who will be living there. So, those are my main concerns at this point. Thank you very much. >> thank you. >> my name is markklar. And my presentation is not as smooth as others. I did a lot of hands on stuff that I would like you to pass out amongst yourselves. I don't know if I have copies for everyone. This particular one using a base map of the old sand born insurance maps, 1906 will show you both what the neighborhood wants to look like, and also, give you an indication of the actual scale of this project on the neighborhood. The building is draw to scale as is the rest of it. And in addition, I have pictures of the houses that already exist. I believe approval of the zoning change from r2 to r5 would a mistake. the propose dense and density are both an appropriate for the street and the neighborhood. The request for 72 units at the minimum having 76 to 72 people. I understand that I think half of the apartments will be one bedroom and half will be two bedroom. I estimate at the minimum it would be 36 to 144 people living in this project. Currently there are 13 people living on the street and 8 homes, including faith house on the corner. Seven of the 8 are unoccupied and six first-time homeowners who have worked hard to upgrade their houses. And other than those of you here today, mostly young, in their late 20s or early 30s. Including one newborn infant. The homes are mostly one story in the picture, mostly one and a half stories. There are I think two two-story homes. Built in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Only four of the homes including faith's have off street parking. What our community needs is smart development, not easy quick design, with little thought to neighborhood context. The study arrived at after much thought and work by many people is appropriate. It calls for a mixed use and low to medium density housing, transitional intent does not call for high density. And this project is not transitional. It will take up one half. The building south would be physically and abrupt change in the streetscape. with no architectural relationship to the street itself. As it appear, it doesn't look like it will be particularly innovative in design. I wrote this before I discovered the setback progressed but I'll still repeat as I was normally going to say, is that the requested setback of five feet is one-third of the historic set back of 15 feet. And even though this new proposal calls for a fee, it is not in line with the rest of the houses. The height of any other building on the street is also, I think, inappropriate and I also have a question of is this going to be student housing or near student housing. Some of the concerns that the representative, Mr. Cowgill has presented, regarding safety issues, makes me actually a little bit more concerned than I was when I first stepped into the room. And that is, a bunch of college kids getting drunk and coming home to their property and being unable to hold their liquor, and presenting all -- similar problems that exist in other student housing areas of the city. I guess I would leave you with this one question. Is this appropriately scaled. , ifness remain as designed now, I would almost rather remain industrial in business, with the opportunities that that would afford in terms of actually bringing some commercial use to downtown. And if all of this business industrial and industrial space, that is downtown, is utilized, only as residential, and particularly this kind of high density residential, then I don't know what opportunities there will be for the development of commercial use downtown, accessible to downtown. We came, my wife and I came here from new haven, connecticut, and everything was in walking distance and we moved downtown. We lived on west third street jefferson for 15 years and we thought that that would be accessible. Downtown would be the accessible place. It is the least accessible place for actually living. Unless you want to spend most of your time at a bar. And I like street brewery and blue stallion, but we need other types of development. And again, if all of the available space that is downtown now is u gzed for high density, inappropriate housing, and I think we'll never get the kind of access downtown deserves. Thank you. >> anyone else like to speak to this particular agenda item? If not, we'll call the petitioner back and hopefully maybe address some of the thoughts, not all of them. >> sure. >> I tried to keep one notes to address the specific questions. I'll see if I can read my chicken scratch but if you see that I have overlooked one, please, point it out to me. I want to say we certainly respect the concerns of the concerns of neighbors and we have taken pains to try to isolate what we think are some of the effects and pull them away from the existing neighborhood. By massing the building closer to fourth street. We think that we respect, we're mindful of the significant height difference. That's why I pointed out those two vacant lots to you. There is a natural buffer that was a specific question that was asked so let me address it. Yes, Mr. Cow? Gill is attempting to purchase the lots and I believe that he intends to or has or will soon close on them although only I only learned that while the questions were being asked. What I can tell you and what I can represent to the neighbors, is that based on the zoning differences we cannot that on to the development flan without a zone change. We would have to bring it in to let it have anything to do with this. What use is envisioned? I don't know. I think it was just an opportunity presented to purchase the lots at a reasonable price and my client took advantage of that but those lots have nothing to do with this development. And in fact, we'll provide will provide a buffer from the existing single family residential. Let's talk about student housing and transient because that was the significant concern. It is hard for me to represent absolutes but here is what I can tell you that I know. There are no current plans to turn this into a transylvania dorm. Floor current plans to turn this into a bctc dorm that prospect has not been discussed. This development plan was not done with that in mind there is no plan to do that whatsoever. I can refer -- I can affirmatively represent that to the commission. Now, with respect to some of the other issues that were raised, there iser parking on iten one of things we discussed was making our side of the street, our side of blackburn avenue no parking as to alleviate some of that and allow people that are accessing our development to get in. It May not be that well founded and here is why. Third street is a one way, fourth a two way and our development is infinitely closer to fourth than third street. I this that I the vast majority of our users would stick close to our development and wouldn't go down and impact the existing residences down there. That said, we have discussed the prospect of no parking and that is something that we're open to. And another thing that came up in some of the technical review was perhaps doing a residential parking program like you see in other areas of the town, because there are some residents of blackburn who don't have that offstreet access, and I don't think that it is all of their cars that are the ones clog clogging up the road. Have other people in the road. There are pro active government am solutions that can protect those neighbors from that kind of impact. But I don't think that our development is going to have that kind of impact, one, and as I told you, we were very, very adamant and we did not want a parking variance. We did not want to dump that on the neighbors, our building was designed with that in mind. Two I think most access would be tied to fourth street and not necessarily third street. Three, I that I there are solutions that could be supplied to remedy some of those concerns. And as far as the lady's question who asked about protecting the environment, as the planning commission knows, not every element of the comprehensive plan is met on every development. I do think that there are some elements that I could express to you that wouldn't be protecting the environment. We talk about conservation of rural land increasing density to lessen the strain on bringing in rural land. That's why there are guidelines in place where where we have to demonstrate that we'll not detrimentally impact the sewer system. We have to reserve that cap space. Those are require innocents that we have to meet. I don't think that we'll be -- I can represent that I don't think that we're negatively impacting the environment. Do you want to talk about some pretty intense uses, some noise pollution, I1 uses available to go and pull a building permit on right now. They are pretty stout to the neighborhood. This has been a vacant building for some time. Oh, and that reminds me of the other question. We purchased this property in 2013 so that's the last time I was aware it was available for sale. We have been in discussion with other folks who have interest in this property. I have jokingly said this to you before but I have never met a developerwho wasn't interested in making money. If they were I-1 users clamoring for this property we absolutely would have entertained that prospect. Believe me, going through a zone change process is not a cheap or easy endeavor. So it is not something that we took lightly, when we made this decision. And I'm trying to think if there is anything else that I would have missed. Open space, I think this commission is aware of this but I wanted to address the neighbor's comment, no open space is not community oriented, it is really designed to serve the residents of that particular development. But think think is a lot of really neat community-oriented space that are in the proximity that we that I that they'll come in. The final thing that I want to turn back to, I think that I have pushed the transient issue, is this going to be student housing. the short answer is, I don't know. That's not our intent. This is not developed with a student population of mind but we're mindful of our location. We're located between bctc, and transylvania university. Obviously, there is a need for housing in those areas. The other thing that I would say is, we can't discriminate as to who our tenants. Are there are laws against age discrimination in this country and we can't turn away a tenant and merely because they are a student. However, I think that the market price that would be commanded for these apartments would make them less likely to be a student development. And that's certainly not our intent but I don't want to represent to the commission or neighbors that there would absolutely be no students living there because that's a promise that I can't make. Federal law prohibits it. So I think that's a fair assessment of what I had pulled the issues. If the commission is mindful of any question that I May have neglected to address, I would be happy to address that. But I think that staff's report does an outstanding job of showing why we're in compliance with those small area plans and those studies. The fourth street plan does call for mid-density. Now, lane, we'll close the hearing. Just pass that ash for us. And we'll close the hearing to the audience and such and we'll bring it back to the commission and we'll have our own decision discussion and our motion made on that. And we have three things, of course, we have the zone change, the requested variances as well as the development plan. >> I want ted thanks to the neighbors and it is wise to address it in this arena and we appreciate that thanks. >> >> I I too would like to add a thanks on behalf of the entire commission. This is the last step in the democratic process. It takes a little time but it is well worth it. And we again do appreciate your coming down and big a part of One Question: this. in looking at this, and I don't know if is the answer, is it possible that in regards to the open space variance, Mr. Pen's words, kick this can down the road to the final development resolving that time of final development plan? Is there a possibility for that? >> okay. Ms. Wade. >> the planning commission can only consider a variance in association with a zone change so if the planning commission did not approve the variances requested today, the applicant would need to make some changes to the development plan to meet those requirements before it is certified and they would need to seek additional variances through the board of adjustment. >> did you still want to know about the plan? One of the principles of the smaller area plan was to provide adequate and equitable housing. So it says the central sector is ideally suited to and should provide a variety of safe and convenient housing for residents with different incomes at different stages of life, and reflecting the multi-cultural makeup of the community. That would be across the entire central sector. And that identifies four sort of goals within that which are ensure adequate and low income housing, promote leverage and sustain new residential investment, implement strategies to balance affordable housing for local residents with rising real estate costs and values. And then utilize housing as an economic development tool. Those are some of the more general references within subsection c where this is located. The one bullet point that I see related to housing kind of jumped out at me was, ensure that infill development is of adequate density and perpetuates historic character and development pattern. 7 >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> Mr. Berkley. >> in regards to the existing parking and I'm not suggesting necessarily reducing parking, but have you all examined the credits and things associated with bikes, bike -- is that all factored in to this as well? >> kevin, correct me if I'm wrong but we have not taken any of those reductions and I know that I'm an attorney and I'm up here presenting a case but i don't mean to be disingenuous, we were concerned about the parking. Blackburn avenue is crowded and we're not naive to that there is no bike or transit stop reduction. >> and that's what I'm saying here is that, you know, this is kind of a little different circumstance. Obviously you don't own that transient opens that. Agree it will probably never be developed. But I think they've displayed an effort here to be mindful of the neighbors in parking it on site versus taking reductions that are available to them. I don't know if it would meet the open space requirement at that time or not. >> doesn't quite get us there but closer. >> all right so I think that we have to consider that in this situation. >> I thought that silence would help. People have the opportunity to think through what they are doing, what have you. I guess there are several option one, you can approve the zone change or go back and request the variances be reviewed. You have several options on the table. That's the question. If it should go one way or the other. Something. >> my understanding is that we have to deal with the variances now. >> we will but the question is, you don't have to vote yes on all of the things. You can vote yes on the zone changes and things like that. >> >> Mr. Chairman, do you have a motion? >> Mr. Craven. >> did we have enough time for discussion? >> I think that we've had enough time. >> >> move approval of the zone change for a plan mar-16-19. >> it has been properly moved by Mr. Craven, seconded by Ms. Mundy that we approve the pln-mar-16-19 cowgill partners lp. Any other discussion on that motion? >> that's for the reasons of my staff. >> sorry. For the reasons identified by staff. Okay. If not, please vote when it comes up on your monitors. And that motion carries. Second would be the requested variances. >> okay, I'll move approval of the variances as outlined by staff. >> >> let me be clear. The variances la, number one or number two are the recommendation of going from 20 to 10.U hj4 jdt"tq!I to reduce the minimum side yard from 10 to 5 but they have not recommended anything on four, is that correct? >> disi -- disapproval on four. >> it has been properly moved by Mr. Craven and seconded by Ms. Mundy that we approve variances 1, 2, 3, and disapprove four. any other discussion of the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Okay, 7-1, the ayes have it. And now for the plan. >> all right, I move approval of the development plan mjdp-16-45. Revised staff recommendation. >> Mr. Craven has moved approval. Seconded by Mr. Frank pen that we approve pln-mjdp-16-45, subdivision. Any other discussion on the motion? >> hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen. The ayes have it. The motion carries. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for a very long and lengthy process. We'll take about a five or six-minute -- I'll say a seven-minute recess and then we'll --  and another view looking in the vicinity of the entrance to the bctc campus and also the railroad crossing that is on west fourth, looking back toward the subject property on the left side of the street, and also the intersection of newtown and georgetown and west fourth. And across the way at the fast food restaurant that is on the opposite corner in a b-1 zone at that location. >> as you know, your staff always looks to the comprehensive plan and any small area plans when we review a zone change request. Including growing successful neighborhoods and maintaining a balance for urban and rural land in the community. These goals were generally cited by the applicant in their application. As has been mentioned there are other studies in the general area germane to this proposed rezoning. The first and the oldest being the downtown master plan that was deny over a decade ago. It had two direct recommendations that we maximized density, of vacant sites that were partly again in the last case a discussion, and also to celebrate the entrances into the downtown area. The primarily because we know it is in large part going to be considered one of the entrances to the downtown area. But, this was discussed in the downtown master plan effort a few years ago. Also this area was identified in the plan, this location as one of the potential entrances right at the newtown west fourth street entrance. The downtown master plan also put this in one of the edge west precincts, and the subject property in this is right in this area. At the very northern portion of this precinct. You can see the existing building is identified there at the corner but also, other buildings are recommended in this general area bound by the new street and that corrects it to west fourth street. And the text straight from the plan at the bottom this area has great potential primarily for a mixed use neighborhood with retail and other uses. the possibility of the use of this property for mixed use has been an item discussed much between the staff and the applicant since the filing of this zone change and the supplemental report that we have provided to you at your tab directly behind the original staff report that we presented the your zoning committee two week ago does spend some time discussing this possibility of a future mixed use in this area. It is fair to say the applicant is not at this time proposing a mixed use but they are requesting the zone that would allow a mixed use. And that is not missed by the staff in review of this application. As menti primarily by residents of the area, members of the community college and their staff and also by members of the transylvania university staff. The fourth street zoning study. Yet, it calls for a focus area in this area again, repeating some of the past recommendations for mixed use. The subject property is situated here. And for the audience, in this general area again bounded by newtown and west fourth street. My apology, I obviously hit a wrong button there. And that's just about the end of the presentation. Let's see if you can load it up there for me. I apologize, that's the end, I was expecting one more slide. So we'll continue the theme of operator error. But that's a good transition to bring you know to our supplemental staff report. for the reasons listed in our original of report, that appear on the agenda. The staff would note as I mentioned when we looked at photographs that there is a low level of building coverage on the site, and the form of this development has been of concern to staff since the initial filing and that's one of the items that we discussed with the petitioner in the intervening two week since your committee meetings. A convenience store and gas station was as always been part of this request, and the staff did not see that meeting much of the recommendations of the fourth street zoning study. Again that is a study that's not been adopted by the planning commission, but from the staff perspective we do think that it important to inform decision making for development and redevelopment projects along the west fourth street corridor. The convenience store and gas station as you'll see on the development plan, and I won't interrupt but that's a significant change from the staff perspective. One that allows us today to move from a postponement recommendation to a favorable recommendation to you on this zone change. We acknowledge that the station development immediately to the south is in the same zoning category, and it is proposing a mixed use development, it is large scale development proposal that's the first and only one in the community have met the form-based requirements of the b-1 zone which was done after a lengthy study and much discussion by the planning commission. The staff is cognizant that although we're not looking at a mixed use development at this time on the subject property, we are faced with the prospect of a rezoning to a zone that would allow a mixed use on the property in the future there is some speculative nature though the proposal that's before you so the staff thinks that this zone will not necessarily preclude a future mixed use on either part or all of the subject properties. From the staff perspective, it is logical in our view. To rezone this property in a similar fashion to that that has been approved for the larger property to the south, that is b-1, and away that would be consistent with other zoning in this area. The staff is now recommending approval of the zone change from I-1 to b-1 for the reasons that we list on the supplemental staff report. That is, the existing light industrial zoning is not appropriate and that the requested neighborhood business zoning is appropriate for five reasons that we have listed onc7si our staff report. And, when I return to my chair I'll be flood to put those on the screen for you and for the audience. The first, the site is located in the downtown master plan area and in the area reviewed by the fourth street zoning study. Both of which recommend mixed use development for the site. B-1 zone would permit this type of development. Secondly, the proposed b-1 zone allows much more flexibility and it is set backother zoning requirements which will permit a redevelopment of the sum site to better match the area's character and form. Thirdly, b1 uses would be a better complement to the surrounding institutional and residential neighborhoods in this area in the staff's view. And fourth, a b-1 zone would be more consistent with the theme, goals and objectives of the 2013 comprehensive plan. And finally, a b-1 zone would match that approved for thistle station site immediately to the south of this location. Our recommendation is made subject to two other matters. First, the commission's approval and the certification of the development plan that has been filed, within two weeks of your hearing today. And also that conditional zoning be employed to restrict some of the future uses possible at this location. The first two uses, animal hospitals and clinics and drive-through facilities are already restrict odden the property immediately to the south. Item c and d are restricted in some fashion on the thistle station development. Although the staff's recommendation is that those uses be restricted in closer proximity to the frontage along fourth street and not necessarily along the frontage of newtown pike. That again is in keeping more with the recommendations of the fourth street study. So approximately half of the subject property would be available to uses c and d that that are listed in our conditional zoning restrictions. We have provided in our report the necessary finding that the commission must make if you choose to accept that recommendation and impose any conditional zoning restrictions on this property. That is, that they are appropriate appropriate and necessary to ensure that future development would be compatible with the character of a I joining area. -- adjoining area. We've had a traffic impact study submitted with this zone change. And, it should be no surprise that Mr. End ponds would present to you the traffic transportation planning section review of that study. You will also hear from other planning services staff about the development plan in just a moment. But prior to that I would be glad to answer any questions about the staff's review of the zone change or about our revised recommendation for you this afternoon. >> any questions? Ms. Plumley. >> yes, in reviewing the staff report and the sanitary sewers, there is currently served by sanitary service. >> that's correct. >> however, there needs to be improvements to the lines along west fourth and newtown pike. They need to be upgraded. Because of the other development, so is it just a race to see who gets there first or how is that handled? >> that's how the capacity assurance program operates. It is a first come first served basis, and as you know, Ms. Plumley from serving on the committee that reviewed the recommendations before they were adopted, there was never an intent to allow a developer or an entity to hoard sanitary sewer capacity so very much it is a first come first served basis. Developers reserve sanitary sewer capacity through a written application, and partial payment of capacity fees. We don't know if this developer has done that or has intention to do that or not. But, it is very much first come first served basis. So if this happens to be a sewer bank with a moderate or a low sanitary sewer capacity, the competing developments could potentially time one or the other out in that scenario. To be honest I have not looked at the recent capacity for this particular area. I apologize. >> >> Mr. Chair, one quick question. Bill, as far as the prohibited uses, the gas pump, refueling closer to 125 feet doesn't affect this request? >> the plan that you're about to be introduced to would comply with that number. It's maybe ten percent beyond that limit. >> okay. >> >> thank you. >> yes, sir. >> any other questions? Okay, thank you. >> thank you very much. >> is Mr. Martin around now? >> I believe that Mr. Martin is approaching the podium. >> okay. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, the preliminary development plan that you see before you today on your agenda is on page 9. We have distributed to you on the gray handout, revised conditions. As Mr. Sally stated, we met with the applicant, and had a very constructive discussion and they submitted a revised plan. And what you see before you, on this plan, again, here is fourth street at the newtown intersection. Of course bctc is in this location, thinksle is down here and here is the old downtown right of way. They have again revised this. You May recall that the convenience store was more back in this area originally with pumps and that sort of thing. And then they had a store back in here and, but, what you see again is a revision with 6300 square foot proposed retail in this location. Here they are proposing another 6300 square foot, a restaurant in this location and with the orientation to fourth street. That urban sort of style orientation that fourth street recommended. The study. They have access here, it is still lined up across from bctc, two-way access as well as two-way access at this location into the site. and, as you know, fourth street is a two-way street. They have moved the veeps store back here in the rear. And with the pumps, they still have an orientation that they desired toward newtown, and again, with this access point, it has been slightly adjusted from the existing access point. But, there is a median, so it is right in right out. It is a controlled access point in that regard, controlled right in right out. And, through the revision, you can see they have addressed what we consider a lot of cleanup and discussion items that we had on the plan. One of which was the newtown pike landscape ordinance. And, that ordinance and I think it is important to note, requires large trees, mature trees eventually. Large mature trees and the ordinances along the corridors vary. And one thing that will assist, and they have located them, over the years, it will take some time, they will be large and mature that will really soften that orientation to newtown pike. Along with that, the street study again by orienting these buildings, this way, that addresses a major concern with fourth street study and again, this is a preliminary plan. There will be a final. Give this body an opportunity to look at this plan again, and examine some of these questions and if there needs to be some refinement to the plan. The veeps store is 5300 square feet. they are all just one story. There is one aspect of the massing and the spacing that is addressed that these are just single story buildings in this regard. The detention, they show potential detention or retention in this area. That again will be determined with the engineering design at the final development plan stage. There was an issue with article 18 in this area on the original plan. They have addressed this with this revision. So at this point with the exception of the tree sizes to the tree inventory map which is really a minor correction, that you can see is number 6, the plan only has five signoffs remaining for its approval. And -- with that, I'll be happy to answer your questions. >> any questions? >> Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I'll be very brief this property did require a meet the threshold to require a traffic study cdm smith did the traffic study for applicants. That is also from my standpoint very lucky they also, this is the same company that did the traffic study for the larger thistle station, so this traffic study is essentially kind of fit inside of that traffic study which was recently done. So we feel very confident in assumptions and the analysis that went into this staff report it was very well done. The applicant after looking at everything found the proposed development will have a very minimal impact on the highway system primarily newtown pike and fourth street were the primary streets that we looked at for this particular study. And, the applicant, cdm smith and the staff agrees there are no improvements that are needed to the highway system for this. In fact, when you look at the levels of service, about the greatest extra delay that you would have on this, is even less than a two seconds at any of the intersections that were studies. So we feel very confident that from a traffic impact analysis that this will be acceptable. If you have any questions for me, 50 ill be happy to answer them and I believe that completes the staff presentation. >> good, any questions? Thank you. Applicant. >> Mr. Chairman and members of the planning commission, I'm tony barrett here on behalf of the realty. Dnd realty is the entity that owns the property, the difl family opened the property since 1972. They operated the paint store located on the site for many years. And not as dnd realty but as the paint store. And, Mrs. Difl up fortunately is not able to be here. She's a school teacher and has to take care of that front. But, generally, we're -- not generally, we're in agreement with the staff and the recommendations, and I would request approval based on their findings. I would like to point out a couple of things, with regards to the central sector small area plan. We are in sub area c which is -- and sub ac is generally referred to as a mixed use urban neighborhood as is. And with regards to the exhibit, identifying our particular area, is a mixed use recommendation. I think that we do fit that. I don't think that it is necessarily required that we each parcel be a mixed use. I that I it is asking for the area to be mixed use. And that area, we are offering variety of uses and we have a mix of uses, non-residential and non-office. They are restaurant retail and convenience. Retail. But in that larger block, we as catagorized we're also included in the thistle station within that area which has 200 residential units so within that framework, we're certainly meeting that condition of being a mixed use area. And sub area c the george town neighborhood across from us, it is identified as single family residential neighborhood, and one of the concerns that they identified was access to retail and services. That's identified in the central area sector plan and we're certainly assisting in providing in that. Neighborhood concerns for our area in the central sector small area plan, identified growth and sustainability of retail notes is a concern that we are certainly addressing. Change in the fourth street, one way to two way was specific my identified as a business, was done as a -- in part to benefit businesses. And, we're certainly taking advantage of that. Recommendations for sub area a, it was the best opportunity, it identifies in their recommendations that the best opportunity to develop a commercial services center is at the intersection of georgetown road and newtown pike. That's essentially our intersection. We are -- fourth street is extended as georgetown so we're meeting that condition and they recognize revitalization. Retail revitalization at the georgetown road fourth street and newtown intersection is difficult, locating development along newtown pike and fourth street will provide the best visibility and access so they are in that small area plan are identifying this location, as appropriate area for retail users. Newtown pike is an arterial and we're taking advantage of the existing traffic on our -- on newtown pike, 25,000 vehicles per day. And, these are services that will -- are desperately needed for those users as well as the neighbors in the immediate area. Bctc we anticipate will be a significant user of our services, and we're serving their needs as well. And, anticipation of thistle station development, we anticipate that 202 units there and the recently approved 72 to be in a need for our services as well and we're -- it is appropriate that we provide what we are proposing. So with that, I'll leave it at that and I think that we have some people to speak in opposition and I'll let them speak, and I look forward to the opportunity to rebut their comments. Thank you. >> thank you. Any questions for Mr. Barrett? Okay. If not, if there are people here, who would like to speak for or against this particular proposal. >> any implication that we cooperated in this an my you occasion is untrue. Period. We don't want a gas station next to our property. We don't know why you or the staff would either. So, there is no awareness of neighborhood on session we don't understand. In our zoning work that we did with staff and with the commission and council, it was very very careful that we had no drive-through facilities here. You'll have a gas station. We regard that as a drive-through. And I assume these restaurants will also want drive-throughs because, most of them do. So we have been restricted and have agreed to that. Again, importantly, because we want this neighborhood and the neighborhood associations have told us that we don't want liquor stores, we don't want bars and we don't want gas stations. And as I understand it, the newtown plan specifically was -- did not want more automotive services on newtown pike. It already has plenty of automotive services. So we have not been consulted on this nor we did not have to be, of course, but, any implication that we were and implication that we had anything to do with this plan is incorrect. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next. Yes, sir. >> >> I'll reintroduce myself. Again this is in what I consider to be any neighborhood. I don't see the need for a convenience store nor do I see a need for a gas station in this sort of development. I think that, I have issues with it it meets the high density that would be more appropriate for that corner, I think. And, in fact I think it is ironic that the high density -- on any street and they are avoiding it on that corner. Also, there is a question that the bctc access to parking is right opposite one of the egresss to the gas station. And, I assume that will present problems as bctc grows, they are building another building, I think whole campus on cooper will be moving over there. And, going in and out of that corper is already awkward and be made more so by having a gas station there. Thank you. >> >> thank you. Anyone else? >> petitioner. >> I would like to make a statement. >> I avoided -- barbara grossman, I avoided saying this concerning the developments on blackburn and now soil state that I feel as though this neighborhood is literally under assault by developers. I won't use the word greedy with developers but you can surmise what I'm getting at. I really, we don't need a gas station, we don't need a drive through, anything, we don't need a convenience store. We need a grocery store. How about, I think that corner of blackburn and fourth street would make an ideal location for a smallish krogers, a luckys, something along that, tear down the buildings if you wanted to. Perhaps they have no historical value and my guess is they probably don't. Something that the community and specifically, the neighborhood can use, is in order. We don't need drive-through people going on the way to and from, we need something, if the purpose of these plans that people work through and attend meetings for, is to share the community wisdom, then I think it is fool hearty to ignore that over and over again which is the sense that I'm getting here today that neither the staff nor the commission, really pays attention to the community developed plans, and the fact that the woman from staff said yes, and we approve and it then you approve it, these things are exceedingly disconcerting, and basically that is all that I have to say except that I do feel this neighborhood is under assault, manning up a lot of properties to independent private developers, and seeing gold mines, where are all of the people who need these apartments. Frankly, I don't know that many people in need of apartments. So, when people move from one apartment to another, then that place becomes perhaps a ghost town. I mean, it is really not good planning and it is really not good administration. And I guess that's all that I'll say. I don't have any specific recommendations, other than, please, cease and desist we don't need any of these things. We need other things. And I know, it is interesting john saying what we have been saying because we have been on opposite sides of things. There are things that, he's tried to take our recommendations$bl into as he has done his work. There are things that the neighborhood needs and doesn't not need. What we don't need the a gas station and convenience store. That is it. >> anyone el, petitioner you have another. >> the staff report specifically identifies prohibits drive through facilities, so, we're in agreement accepting that. And the need for gas and convenience, I think, albeit the speakers here today are identifying they don't feel the need for it. We feel there is the need specific my addressing 25,000 cars on new town pike that pass us. And it is identified in the small area plan, the georgetown road neighborhood specifically was seeking convenience type services. So we would disagree with that finding. The downtown master plan identifies the convenience retail in the entire downtown area is significantly low. So we feel this is a definite need and this is the appropriate location at the intersection. >> thank you. >> >> thank you, commission. When I became aware this development plan had been filed under the name whistle stop, I was very excited. Because his stop happens to be a wonderful kentucky-based restaurant in glendale, kentucky. Which is near e-town. So I was very excite about this possibility and I believe that whistle stop is actually a trademark name. But, it has been used in this. And, this is as far from family restaurant, this is a bunch of convenience stores as people have said, and we need a grocery, a place to buy a quart of milk, that is not a convenience store. I would be very sad and it seems like we have millions, thousands of veeps stores in lexington and I don't see the need for another one. I don't believe that the georgetown neighborhood association wants this. I don't think the north side association wants this, and certainly, thistle station does not want a gas station. We our selfs are trying to develop a restaurant. So if there are restaurants on fourth street that are not fast food restaurants, of course, that would be great. But when you paw gas station and convenience store, the next thing that I think of is golden archs. We have got enough of the that in our neighborhood. Thank you. >> staff? >> >> to Ms. Plum my's questioning about sewer capacity. Deputy duncan was able to provide with me some information during the course of the hearing this bank currently has an available capacity of about 22,000 gallons per day. And that is probably a level that would allow the subject property development that you are reviewing and the thistle station development to both occur at that level. What May be available for the rest of the bank, we don't know. But that amount probably would allow both to proceed. I wanted to again try to answer your question from earlier. Thank you. >> >> and hold it, Mr. Sally, just a minute. Any other questions? >> in the booklet that we had, it talked about recommended approvals. Article 6-7, the following uses are recommended to be prohibited on the subject property. Animal hospitals, drive-through facilities and it says, automobile repair, service stations and gasoline pumps. and that's the key word right there. Okay. >> okay. All right. You answered my question. My colleagues have helped me out. Thank you. >> yes, sir. >> >> any other question for Mr. Sally. I forgot to ask if you had anything else. Okay, if not, then I will close this part of the hearing as such. And we'll bring it back to the commission for discussion or a motion. Speaking as far as the developers in an onslaught in the area, what I see, you know, there is a mix. It has been industrial for a long time, industrial area is underperforming and being underutilized. And in the sense of infill and redevelopment, that we have talked about. For as long as I have been on the commission anyway. This is one area that you are seeing a transformation in. I'm sorry the people look at it starts an onslaught, however, I think that underperforming property has to be utilized, and, I see this as one good way to do it as I did the previous one. So, with that said, when anybody is ready, I'll go with the motion. >> okay, we're ready for a motion. >> Mr. Chair I'll move for approval of the plan mar-16-23-dnd realty llc with the revised staff recommendation and conditions. >> it has been seconded that we approve mar-16-23 dnd realty llc are the revised staff recommendations and conditions. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen. >> that motion passes. Also. >> Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of mjdp-16-51, whistle stop with the revised staff recommendations with the six conditions. >> second. >> okay, it has been properly movedder again by Mr. Mike owens and seconded by Mr. Joe smith that we approve pln-mjdp-16-51 whistle stop with the six 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 much. I think that we have -- about 15 more, right? >> this is item d, 2016-1. This is a request for an early rehearing of a previously denied zone change on property at 425 charles burg road. The applicant is and they areson bridgewater llc, and the previous zone change was a request from an exist expansion residential 1 zone to an expansion residential 3 zone. The applicant is asking for permission to be able to file a new zone change on this property, from an existing zone of ear1 to a requested expansion area residential 2 zone. The previous case was denied by the planning commission in April of this year. We have a staff report in your notebook but to orient you to the location of the property, this property has an address of a very short distance north of the intersection of hayes boulevard. Hayes boulevard interacts boonesborough road with a signal at this location so to get to this subject property, you would come out ethans boonesborough. And then left again on bridge water way. The largest land mark in the area and you can see on the map the road system throughout the park. As mentimission to be able to file a zone change before May of next year to seek an ear2 zone for the subject property. The surrounding zoning is and agricultural rural on either side of the property. The stafaw a request like this. And it is a result of your bylaws, which do allow a petitioner to seek permission from the commission to file before the expiration of a year, should the planning commission disapprove of the request. That is another ten net of your bylaws by which an applicant must wait a year if the condition recommends disapproval before refiling any zone change on that same property. When the staff reviews these types of applications, we look for primarily primarily one issue, and is there something new that the petitioner is seeking that was not adequately or even considered by the planning commission at its previous hearing. This is a site plan if the request is granted. It would show a level of density approximately half, maybe just a little more than half of what you considered at your hearing in April of this year. That is significant to the staff. To provide a front face to the park, previously you May recall the existing road bridge waterway, was to cross the creek more perpendicularity extend along the opposite property line of tucker property. So that is a design difference both in terms of density and physical layout that the staff finds was not really considered by the planning commission. I do believe that it was technically mentioned during your hearing, I don't think that it was adequately considered. The same can be said for an ear-2 zone. There was a mention of that possibility by those U.K. Objecting to the zone change earlier this year. But there really was no consideration either by the commission, the an my can't or the staff, for the potential of an ear-2 zone for the property because the applicant was seeking a higher level of density and an ear-3 zone for the property. The staff as you do not know, because we have not had one of these in a long time does make a recommendation on these, and obviously like all of the recommendations you're free to accept them, modify them, or, decide differently. But the staff has recommended approval of the granting of this request by the applicant to allow them to file before May of next year for three reasons: first, although the zone is not in agreement with the expansion area residential -- pardon me, the expansion area master plan, the 2013 or the 2013 comprehensive plan, the applicant made has made in staff's view considerable effort to provide a different type of development that you considered earlier this year. Secondly the dwelling units has been reduced from half what you considered before, and, the ear-2 place as maximum density of since units per acre which is in essence what the applicant is requesting with your consideration of this early rehearing request. And thirdly, those taken together do constitute enough of a change in the staff's view, that it might have altered the outcome of your previous hearing. I would be glad to answer any questions about our recommendation to you before you hear from the an my can't on this request. >> any questions? >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill, there are two questions. And for the stake of consistency , that they would have to it back. So you know, which -- I can understand and I have read the bylaws, and the second paragraph of your staff report here is -- everybody can read it but it says if facts or conditions which were not present -- not presented or considered provincial, had become known, it might have, you know, changed the outcome. What I see here is a brand new request. Simply put. You know, it is not just reduction, it was not the fact that the single loaded street was not mentioned 8 months ago when it was, you know, that was not a possibility. You know there was discussion, but, it wasn't a possibility. So, I'm trying to come to grips with how do we go forward with this if we say, yes, I can, it just doesn't seem consistent with me, especially after the say brook situation. >> that's your bylaw, any time an an my can't is denied or recommended for disapproval by the commission, that there is a one-year waiting period. Also, included in your bylaws are the provision where an applicant can ask permission and in looking at the last time we had a request like this, was 2004. That year I believe that we had either three or four of that type of request. So we've gone a long time without this type of request there is no obligation for the planning commission to approve this request. And actually, the last time that the staff reviewed past practices of the commission which obviously was 2004 earlier, it was roughly 60-40 on the planning commission's considerations of these types of requests so they are very factual, they are very much tied to the property. And our fact disthe commission view that this is enough different from what they reviewed previously, to in essence allow the filing earlier than one year. I think it is simply that issue. >> >> if it had been missed in our earlier hearing, that's easy. You know, now, I'm dealing with the fact of, okay, do we allow for an early reapplication with just a completely different request? I'm just trying to come to grips with what is going on here. >> you're exactly right here. Any other questions? So let's hear from the an my can't. >> thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm dick murphy representing dennis anderson the owner of this property. As you all know, you have heard this zone change on this property back in April. And, we are filing, it is technically called an early rehearing request, but as has been mentioned we're -- it is actually we're not asking to rehear what you heard in April, we're asking you to allow us to file a new zone change request which is substantially different from the previous zone change request. And I wanted to the bylaw says that, it is not really what you're requesting before, it is just the same property. You can't bring in anything on the same property for a year if something is turned down. But, the bylaw itself has a provision in there stating -- there we go. If we go down to the bottom of that page, this is the rehearing of previously disapproved zone change amendments. And if we can go to the second page, where we have highlighted the language in there, it is not really about whether you talked about it before, whatever, grant a rehearing before the expiration of one year if new fact or conditions substantially attar the character of the original appeal. So, we have substantially altered the character of the original appeal in a number of ways. Biggest one, the zone itself we're asking for. We would be applying for an ear 2 zone instead of ear 3. It is about 60 percenter reduction in the dense ty. We're going from 189 unit which is you all heard at your hearing , to 75, we at one point asked for 209 but down to 75. We had asked you for mainly apartment buildings, now we're asking for all town houses, like already built in the in front of this property, if you have been out there off of charlesburg road, of the 75 units we're asking for, 23 have already been built or, are in -- have development plan approved for buildings. And you can see them out front, they will be similar to that. So really it is only 52 new units that we're asking for. Another big feature of the old plan, we had an emergency entrance through jacobson park which was approved by fire department. but, we don't need that here because we have consulted with the fire department. We're below the threshold of what is required for that emergency exit. They are in a lot more green space. There is!EHx more space available without the house. We'll have the single loaded street as mentioned so, it is really totally different from what we have had before. And the simple reason we're asking for this, is that hopefully if we can hear it in February which we could if you all approve this today, we can potentially start working in 2017. If we wait until June, and it goes through the council in August or September we're essentially knocked out of the entirety year so by going, by filing two or three or four months earlier, we can potentially gain a year on them. And that's why we're asking you for this. We meet the criteria because we're substantially different from what we did before, it is almost night and day as far as what we're anding on that. So, I know that you all have not heard one of these in 12 years. I guess that shows how rare they are. But I think that this is a case which we meet the criteria, we think it is appropriate here because it is a totally different request from what we have had before. So, we're in agreement with the staff recommendation. I think that we have managed to clear out the room here. we don't have any objectors to it here. So, I would be happy to answer any questions that you all might have a question for you. >> >> Mr. If you arefy he has cut this thing down to 60% and coming back with it, our town houses that much more profitable than apartments. >> the discussion, I remember a discussion sort of along those lines, and, we needed a figure of around 200 to be able to support the amenity package that we wanted to have here with the pool, clubhouse, party room and all of that sort of thing which we planned on the front. We're not planning that now. So we've done this and it is going be a nice community. It will not have a swimming pool, it will not have a party room and all of that sort of thing. >> I appreciate that and I understand it. My concern is because we couldn't get two land owners to get together we'll have another piece of property right there next to that, it will have the same issues that this one has because we couldn't put two development plans together. And that's what frustrates me the most about planning is that, we just cannot get pieces of property together where we can do a really good plan. We're going to do two halfway plans on a piece of property where you can put two of them together and do really nice plan. I know that you can't do anything about that, but, it is very frustrating for me and I've seen this over and over and over. And I wanted to ask that you gentlemen it is frustrating for us too. >> I'm sure it is. >> any other questions to Mr. Murphy? Thank you. >> anyone else that would like to speak to this plan? >> >> we're ready for a discussion or a motion. >> I I appreciate the fact they went back to the drawing board and they have tried to come one something that's more more acceptable rather than bull dose with council and make people mad and make people more contentious with the neighborhoods so I guess what time saying is that, I think they are trying to do what we asked them. And even at that we would not be in February, we would be in March, isn't that where we'd be? >> we're giving them three months? Okay, thank you. >> any other thoughts or comments? Okay. For me personally, I understood the issues that he was raising, but quite frankly, I do see this as distinctly a different plan, and, I simply say I appreciate you listening, but I'm ready to entertain a motion. >> and one last comment. Don't make it a habit. [Laughter] >> from Mr. Chair, I'll move for early rehearing as staff recommended on ear other 2016-1, anderson bridge water llc. >> okay, it has been properly moved and, Mr. Mike owens and seconded by Ms. Karyn mundy that we approve the early hearing request efr-2016-1 anderson bridge water. Any other discussion? Please vote when it comes up on your monitor. Motion carries. Thank you all very much. >> what else what else do we have? Is that it? Are there any other commission items? Does anyone want to talk about