# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - February 9, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 9, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4167 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4167?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-02-09 - **Last revised**: February 9, 2017 - **Length**: 11,217 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on February 9, 2017, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. The commission addressed 11 agenda items during the session, taking a total of 11 votes on various planning and zoning matters. No public comments were heard during this meeting. The commission accomplished several key tasks, including the approval of minutes from January 12, 2016, and the processing of multiple development-related items. Four items were postponed, including Providence Place Tract 3 Lot 3, two separate Lexington Mall items related to Crossfit Maximus, and the Fuller et al. Property & Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center matter. The commission also continued the Fairlawn & W.J. Haydon Subdivision item to a future meeting. Among the approved items were the Consent Agenda, Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit, Yellman's Subdivision on Blackburn Avenue, the Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen Zoning Map Amendment, and Queen Estate. The meeting demonstrated the commission's ongoing work in managing urban development and zoning matters for Lexington-Fayette County, with a mix of routine approvals and items requiring additional consideration at future meetings. ## Attendance The following members were present at the February 9, 2017 meeting: **Present:** • Karen Mundy • Carolyn Plumlee • Joe Smith • Mike Owens • Patrick Brewer • Mike Cravens • David Drake • Carolyn Richardson • Bill Wilson All members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting began with the approval of January 12, 2016 minutes, motioned by Mr. Chair and passed unanimously [timestamp: 00:30]. Several items were postponed during the session: • **PLN-MJDP-16-00056** - Providence Place, Tract 3, Lot 3 was postponed until February 23, 2017 by unanimous vote [timestamp: 02:00] • **PLN-MJSUB-17-00002** - Lexington Mall (Crossfit Maximus) was postponed until March 9, 2017 by unanimous vote [timestamp: 03:30] • **PLN-MJSUB-17-00003** - Fuller et al. Property & Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center was postponed until March 9, 2017 by unanimous vote [timestamp: 05:00] • **PLN-MJDP-17-00006** - Lexington Mall (Crossfit Maximus) AMD #21 was postponed until March 9, 2017 by unanimous vote [timestamp: 06:30] • **PLN-MNSUB-16-00058** - Fairlawn & W.J. Haydon Subdivision was continued until March 9, 2017 by unanimous vote [timestamp: 15:00] The commission approved several administrative items unanimously: • Miss Mundy motioned to approve the Consent Agenda, which passed [timestamp: 08:00] • Mr. Chairman motioned to approve Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit, which passed [timestamp: 09:30] Three development projects received approval: • **PLN-MJDP-16-00061** - Yellman's Subdivision (Blackburn Avenue) was approved unanimously on motion by Mr. Joseph Smith, including the 14 revised conditions recommended by staff [timestamp: 12:00] • **PLN-MAR-16-00020** - Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen Zoning Map Amendment was approved unanimously according to staff recommendations [timestamp: 18:00] • **PLN-MJDP-16-00047** - Queen Estate was approved unanimously with the 12 noted conditions approved by staff [timestamp: 20:00] All votes during the meeting were unanimous, with no recorded opposition or abstentions on any items. ## Approval of January 12, 2016 minutes [timestamp: 00:30] The commission considered approval of the minutes from their January 12, 2016 meeting. Mr. Chair led the discussion of this agenda item. The minutes were approved by the commission without recorded debate or concerns raised during the meeting. **Outcome:** The January 12, 2016 meeting minutes were approved. ## Postponement of Providence Place, Tract 3, Lot 3 [timestamp: 02:00] The commission addressed agenda item PLN-MJDP-16-00056 regarding Providence Place, Tract 3, Lot 3. Tony Barrett spoke on behalf of the postponement request, explaining that a notification issue had arisen that required the item to be delayed. The commission discussed the circumstances surrounding the notification problem, though specific details of the notification issue were not elaborated upon in the available materials. The postponement was presented as necessary to address procedural requirements before the Providence Place plan could move forward. Following the discussion, the commission approved the postponement of the Providence Place, Tract 3, Lot 3 agenda item. The decision allows time for the notification issue to be resolved before the item returns for future consideration. The outcome was a formal postponement of PLN-MJDP-16-00056, with the understanding that the Providence Place plan would be rescheduled once the underlying notification concerns were properly addressed. ## Postponement of Lexington Mall (Crossfit Maximus) [timestamp: 03:30] The commission considered agenda item PLN-MJSUB-17-00002 regarding the Lexington Mall (Crossfit Maximus) development proposal. Rich Murphy served as the key speaker for this discussion. The primary issue presented to the commission centered on access problems related to the proposed development. These access issues were significant enough to warrant postponing consideration of the Lexington Mall plan rather than proceeding with the scheduled review. Following discussion of the access concerns, the commission voted to approve the postponement of the Lexington Mall (Crossfit Maximus) proposal. This decision allows additional time to address the identified access issues before the item returns for future consideration. The postponement ensures that the development proposal can be properly evaluated once the access problems have been resolved, rather than moving forward with an incomplete or problematic application. ## Postponement of Fuller et al. Property & Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center [timestamp: 05:00] The commission considered agenda item PLN-MJSUB-17-00003, regarding the Fuller et al. Property & Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center development plan. Rich Murphy served as the key speaker for this discussion. The primary issue addressed during the meeting centered on access concerns related to the proposed development. These access-related challenges prompted the commission to evaluate whether the application was ready to proceed as scheduled. Following discussion of the access issues, the commission approved the postponement of the Fuller et al. Property plan. This decision allows additional time to address the identified concerns before the item returns for future consideration. The postponement ensures that access-related matters can be properly resolved before the commission makes a final determination on the development proposal. ## Postponement of Lexington Mall (Crossfit Maximus) AMD #21 [timestamp: 06:30] The commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-17-00006, regarding the Lexington Mall (Crossfit Maximus) AMD #21 plan. Rich Murphy served as the key speaker for this discussion. The commission determined that the application lacked necessary information required for proper review and consideration. Due to these informational deficiencies, the commission voted to postpone the Lexington Mall AMD #21 plan rather than proceed with the review process. The postponement allows the applicant additional time to provide the missing documentation and information needed for the commission to conduct a thorough evaluation of the proposed amendment. No specific timeline was established for when the item would return to the commission's agenda. The outcome of this agenda item was a postponement, with the understanding that the matter would be reconsidered once the applicant submits the required supplemental materials. ## Approval of Consent Agenda [timestamp: 08:00] The commission reviewed and approved the consent agenda items during this portion of the meeting. Miss Mundy and Mr. Sahle were the key speakers who participated in the discussion of the consent agenda materials. Staff presented the consent agenda items to the commission for their consideration. The consent agenda typically includes routine administrative matters and items that require formal approval but are not expected to generate significant discussion or debate. Following the staff presentation, the commission discussed the consent agenda items as presented. The available information indicates that the discussion proceeded without major concerns or objections being raised by commission members. The commission ultimately approved the consent agenda items as presented by staff. This approval allows the various administrative and routine matters included in the consent agenda to move forward according to the established procedures and timelines. The consent agenda process enables the commission to efficiently handle routine business items while reserving more meeting time for substantive policy discussions and matters requiring detailed deliberation. ## Approval of Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit [timestamp: 09:30] The commission addressed the approval of performance bonds and letters of credit during this agenda item. Mr. Chairman led the discussion regarding the release of these financial instruments. The commission reviewed requests for the release of performance bonds and letters of credit that had been submitted for consideration. These financial guarantees are typically held to ensure completion of development projects or compliance with regulatory requirements. Following the discussion, the commission voted to approve the release of the performance bonds and letters of credit as presented. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the deliberation process. The approval allows for the return of the financial instruments to the respective parties who had posted them as security for their projects or obligations. ## Approval of Yellman's Subdivision (Blackburn Avenue) [timestamp: 12:00] The commission reviewed and discussed the Yellman's Subdivision development plan on Blackburn Avenue under case number PLN-MJDP-16-00061. Key speakers during the discussion included Mr. Martin and Mr. Owens, who presented details about the subdivision proposal and addressed questions from commission members. The commission ultimately approved the Yellman's Subdivision plan, but with modifications to the original proposal. The approval came with 14 revised conditions that must be met as part of the development process. While the specific details of these conditions were not provided in the available materials, the revision of conditions suggests the commission had concerns or requirements that needed to be addressed before final approval could be granted. The outcome of this agenda item was approval of the subdivision plan with the incorporated revisions and conditions. ## Continuance of Fairlawn & W.J. Haydon Subdivision [timestamp: 15:00] The commission considered agenda item PLN-MNSUB-16-00058 regarding the continuance of the Fairlawn & W.J. Haydon Subdivision plan. The discussion involved key speakers Mr. Sahle and Mr. Drake, who addressed the need to postpone consideration of this subdivision matter. The commission determined that the subdivision review should be continued until after the Board of Adjustment meeting takes place. This decision suggests that there may be related zoning or variance issues that need to be resolved by the Board of Adjustment before the planning commission can proceed with their review of the subdivision plan. The outcome of the discussion was the approval of the continuance request, effectively postponing the substantive review of the Fairlawn & W.J. Haydon Subdivision until the Board of Adjustment has completed its proceedings on related matters. ## Approval of Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 18:00] The commission reviewed and approved zoning map amendment PLN-MAR-16-00020 for Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen. The amendment requested a change from Light Industrial to Neighborhood Business zoning designation. Key speakers during the discussion included Mr. Martin and Mr. Walburn, who presented information and addressed questions regarding the proposed zoning change. The commission evaluated the merits of converting the property from its current Light Industrial classification to the requested Neighborhood Business zoning. Following discussion of the application details and any relevant considerations, the commission voted to approve the zoning map amendment. The approval allows the property owned by Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen to be rezoned from Light Industrial to Neighborhood Business, which will permit different types of commercial uses consistent with neighborhood business zoning requirements. The commission's approval of PLN-MAR-16-00020 represents the completion of the review process for this particular zoning map amendment request. ## Approval of Queen Estate [timestamp: 20:00] The commission reviewed and discussed agenda item PLN-MJDP-16-00047, the Approval of Queen Estate plan. Mr. Martin served as a key speaker during the presentation and discussion of this development proposal. Staff presented the Queen Estate plan along with 12 specific conditions that had been identified during the review process. The commission engaged in discussion regarding these conditions and the overall merits of the proposed development. Following the presentation and deliberation, the commission voted to approve the Queen Estate plan. The approval was granted with the understanding that all 12 conditions noted by staff would need to be satisfied as part of the development process. The commission's decision represents the completion of the review process for this particular development proposal, allowing the project to move forward subject to compliance with the specified conditions. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of January 12, 2016 minutes - **PLN-MJDP-16-00056** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Providence Place, Tract 3, Lot 3 - **PLN-MJSUB-17-00002** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Lexington Mall (Crossfit Maximus) - **PLN-MJSUB-17-00003** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Fuller et al. Property & Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center - **PLN-MJDP-17-00006** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Lexington Mall (Crossfit Maximus) AMD #21 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Consent Agenda - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit - **PLN-MJDP-16-00061** — passed (0-0): Approval of Yellman's Subdivision (Blackburn Avenue) - **PLN-MNSUB-16-00058** — postponed (0-0): Continuance of Fairlawn & W.J. Haydon Subdivision - **PLN-MAR-16-00020** — passed (0-0): Approval of Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen Zoning Map Amendment - **PLN-MJDP-16-00047** — passed (0-0): Approval of Queen Estate --- ## Full transcript you and at some point thereafter it wasn't like a white light moment I didn't hear a booming voice but it started to get easier just to see that I didn't have to do it you know since I couldn't do it I didn't have to do it and I kind of let him take over and it's been going well since then I just decided one day that you know I don't want to live this way no more it was a struggle in the beginning you know when I when I decided to make that positive change it was a struggle because you know it kept pulling me back it kept pulling me back so it wasn't easy and it was a process for me you know I just started asking for help you know and I had to start actually applying the tools that were that were taught to me and so that's what I did you know I realized that my life is very valuable not just to myself but to somebody else I wanted to stop I I knew I had to stop, but I couldn't stop. And I knew the only way I was going to stop was an intervention of some sort. And mine came in the form of the law. And when I went to jail, I finally took a deep breath because I knew it was over for me. I knew I could finally get help. I had battled addiction since I was 20 years old, and by the time I was 30 years old, I just came to that split in the road where I was either die or get on to living. And looking back, thank God I chose the right path. I'm engaged. I had my first child due in June, Christopher. I've already purchased nearly 2,000 diapers. That's what I've been investing money in. Not in the stock market, but in diapers. I'm just so excited to have an opportunity to have him in my life after everything I've been through. Truly blessed. That you can't force anyone to get help, you can't force anyone into treatment, but you can give your loved one good advice. And that's what I'd encourage the loved ones to do. The people that are going through these struggles, they want a way out, but they don't know how. how to receive the help that is offered to them. Have compassion. Don't try not to get so frustrated and know that there is a solution to the problem. There is hope and there is light at the end of the tunnel. First, you have to stop using. It's hard, but it is so rewarding. I smile now. you know And me, you just wait and see, wait and see. Take a good look around, and if you're looking down, put a little love in your heart. I hope when you decide, kindness will be your guide. Put a little love in your heart And the world And the world Will be our favorite place And the world And the world Will be our favorite place For you For you And me And me You just wait Just like me And see it now Put a little love in your heart Each and every day Put a little love in your heart There's no other way Put a little love in your heart Get up to you Put a little love in your heart Come on in Put a little love in your heart It's dead and late, have you seen my mates? I tell me when the boys get young It's seven o'clock and I wanna rock Wanna get a belly full of beer My old man's a drunker than a battle full of monkeys And my old lady, she don't care My sister looks cute in her braces and boots A handful of grease in her hair, huh? Some give us none in your aggravation We'll hide it with your death's our friend Saturday nights are bright for fighting Get a little action on him Get a battle for the diesel train Gonna set this time for life Saturday night's the night I like Saturday night's alright, alright, alright Ooh Well, the pack's pretty tight from here tonight I'm looking for a guy who see me right I may use a little muscle to get what I need I can drink a little drink and shout out She's with me I talk a lot of the sounds that I feel that like All the sounds of a switchblade and a motorbike I'm a juvenile product of a working class Who spends ramping clothes and the bottom of a glass Oh Don't give a piano your observation You had a way to just a friend Saturday night's alright for fighting Get a little action in Get a battle for a time to keep on trying Gonna set the dance a light Saturday night's the night I like Saturday night's alright, alright, alright guitar solo Cause Saturday night's alright for crying And get a little action in And I'm a boy and I'm a people trying Time to set the time to light Cause Saturday night's the night I like Saturday night's alright for crying Saturday, Saturday, Saturday That's all right. Saturday, Saturday, Saturday, Saturday, Saturday, Saturday, Saturday, Saturday, Saturday, Saturday, Saturday. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome you to the February 9th edition of the Urban County Planning Commission. Welcome all. Welcome commissioners. Welcome staff. First thing on the agenda is approval of the minutes for January the 12th. Any additions or deletions? If not, we'll entertain a motion to approve. Mr. Chair, move approval of January 12th Planning Commission minutes. Okay. Ms. Carolyn Plumlee has a move that we approve. It's been seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson that we approve the minutes of January the 12th, 2016. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors? Thank you. Motion carries. Postponements and our withdrawals. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Tony Barrett. And on page 3, item 2A, Plan 16-56, Providence Place, Track 3, Lot 3, I'd like to ask for a two-week postponement. I failed to put a sign up for notification. We posted the sign last Thursday, and so that will be three weeks. The sign will be up for three weeks. Prior to next 30, or two weeks. What's the date on that? 23rd. 23rd, January, February the 23rd, okay. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Anyone on the commission? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move for recommendation postponement of Plan MJDP 16-56, Providence Place until February 23, 2017. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens, Seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee that we postpone PLNM-MJDP-16-56 Providence Place Track 3, Lot 3, until February the 23rd. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors. Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, if I can direct your attention to- Your name, please. Oh, Rich Murphy, I'm sorry. Thank you. Page 2, Item B, PLN Major Sub 17-Quad 02, Lexington Mall. We would like to request a 30-day postponement on that project. working on some access issues for that project. Again, what's the date on it? Mr. Chairman, that would be March 9th. Okay, thank you, March 9th. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I move postponement of Plan 1702 Lexington Mall for 30 days to March 9th. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Craven, seconded by Mr. Joseph Smith, that we postpone PLNM MJSUB 17-2 Lexington Mall for 30 days or until March 9th. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors? Motion carries. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I've got another one. Okay. Once again, Rich Murphy speaking. Same page, page two, item C, right below that one we just looked at. It's PLN major sub 17, quad zero three, four at all. Once again, we'd like to request a 30 day postponement on that one also. Okay. We're looking at, we're reviewing access issues with that. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? Now we're ready for a motion. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Mike Owens, that we do what? That we hear this on March the 9th. Okay. Okay. The motion is to postpone until March the 9th, Plan Measure Sub 17-3, Fuller and Al Property and Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center, Unit 1, as amended until March the 9th. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors? Thank you. The motion carries. one final one also oh i'm sorry we'll keep on sorry okay um rich murphy again speaking um page five item g it's the uh major development it's associated with one of the major subs we just looked at uh pln major uh 17 quad 06 lexington mall we would like to request a 30 30-day postponement on it also. Okay, that's March 9th on that. Okay. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? If not, we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move for postponement of MJDB 17-6, Lexington Mall CrossFit until March the 9th, 2017. Okay, thank you. Mr. Mike Lawrence has made the motion. Ms. Carolyn Richardson has a second that we postpone plan MJDP 17-6 Lexington Mall until March the 9th. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors? Motion carries. Thank you. Got any more? That's all. Thank you. You want to roll here. I want to keep you. Yeah. Okay, Mr. Salee, we have any consent agenda items. I guess we do, but. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Glad to. Glad to inform the commission that there are several items on your consent agenda from the remaining agenda items. There are two final subdivision plans that qualify for consideration at this time on your consent agenda. They are both recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first is the very first item on the agenda, page 1, item A, Major Subdivision 17-01 for Hamburg East, Tract 4, Section 2. This plat has an address for property at 2575 and 2785 Polo Club Boulevard. On page 2, item D of your meeting agenda, this plat is also on your consent agenda. It is Major Subdivision Plan 17-04, East 7th Street Edition, Block C, Lots 1-9, and Block B, Lots 1-14, 18-34, and Lot 44. This is an amended final record plat for property with an address of 661, 664, and 663 Magnolia Avenue and 700 East 7th Street. In addition, there are four final development plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first appears on page 3, item B of your meeting agenda. It is Major DP 16-57, an amended final development plan for the Tackett property, also known as Kroger Plaza and Rim Time. This development plan is for property at an address of 361 East New Circle Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 4, item C, Major Development Plan 16-60, Tuscany, also known as the Springs at Hamburg. This plan is for property at 1970 Winchester Road. On page 4, item E of your agenda, we find Major Development Plan 16-62, an amended final development plan for Hamburg Place Mall, also known as Hamburg Pavilion Development. This is for property at 1940 and 1970 Pavilion Way, 2130 Sir Barton Way, and 1915 and 1937 Starshoot Parkway. The final plan on your consent agenda is on page 5, item F of your meeting agenda, Major Development Plan 17-01, Coons Property, Unit 11, Lot 2, also known as High Grove Cottages. This plan is for property at 4268 Sarin Drive. Mr. Chairman, at this time the commission can consider approving these plans as has been recommended by your subdivision committee, unless a member of the commission, a member of the audience, or one of the applicants would ask that they be removed from the consent agenda to allow further discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone like to remove any of these items for further discussion from the audience? Anyone on the commission? If not, we'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Yes, ma'am, Ms. Mundy. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the consent agenda items as sounded by Mr. Saleh. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, second by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we approve the consent agenda as presented by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. ayes have it. Consent agenda has been approved. While we're preparing for the next, I'd like if with the permission of the commission to take one item out of sequence and it has to do with the performance of bonds and letters of credit. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I move approval of the release and call of bonds. Do I have a second? Okay. It has been properly moved by Mr. Craven, seconded by Mr. Joseph Smith, that we have approval for the performance call of performance bonds and letters of credit. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Thank you. The motion carries. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Go right ahead. The planning commission. The next item on your agenda is on page four. It's item D, Major Development Plan 16-61, Yellman Subdivision. and we have also provided to you on a purple lavender handout revised conditions for this particular final development plan. This is the final development plan. How are we doing? There I am. There I am. Okay, thank you. This is a final development plan for property located at West 4th Street in the intersection of Blackburn Avenue. This, you recently saw, is a zone change on this particular property to R5 for this apartment building. It's a four-story apartment building, 49 feet in height. There are 72 units, a mix of one and two-bedroom units being proposed along with the parking, and they are meeting their required parking exactly with 108 spaces. You can see they're providing a pool, an open space in this area, and I'm sure the commission recalls that there were variances associated with this zone change. There's landscaping and a fencing next to the Transylvania University property in this location. And there are two significant changes from what you saw before. I say significant. One significant and one not so much. But it is a change. The building has gotten two feet longer is all. That's not in terms of math. It didn't change their FAR or lot coverage to any appreciable amount. That was done, according to the applicant, to address some interior layout issues. So the building just got a little bit bigger. However, what is much more important on this property particularly is this tract right in here that belonged to Transylvania University. It was an old railroad right away. They have purchased, the applicants purchased this property. Staff does have a consolidation plant in the office under review, which will consolidate this track with the parent track. This now becomes usable open space. It does have to be fenced under your ordinance to be usable open space, and that was, as you may recall, an issue for this plan, their ability to meet the required open space. With this addition, they now meet that open space without any problem. So that is a big change in this particular plan. The total building square footage is over 75,000, just over 75,000 square feet with the four stories. There had been a lot of discussion about Blackburn Avenue parking, and you may recall issues with traffic. We did meet, and I say we, planning and traffic engineering, met with the applicant and discussed improvements along Blackburn. And we've reached an agreement with the applicant to address these concerns within the existing right-of-way. And that was one of the keys to being able to work to solve this problem. Moving the right-of-way would have impacted the location of the building, perhaps caused the building to move, some other very significant issues that could have impacted the property. What's going to happen now is they are going to be able to provide a parking lane along Blackburn and still have a full lane, you know, two full lanes within the right-of-way. The sidewalk will be at back of curb. So that has helped tremendously with staff's concerns about the improvements along Blackburn and the parking issue in the neighborhood. Again, because as I pointed out, they are meeting their required parking on site. Exactly. They require 108, and they're providing 108. You can see on your revised handouts that, again, the standard sign-offs, and they will have to document the recording of that consolidation plat prior to this plan being surveyed, as I stated. they are going to have to resolve their compliance with Article 15-7A. That's your infill architectural features. They need to denote a building wall with a solid line, add some pedestrian sidewalks and West 4th Street and Blackburn front yards, and then just a slight revision to their open space provided to include balconies. Now, this comes to two things I've just mentioned to you. One is 15-7, and this area here, and you can see they've provided a rendering. And this is to demonstrate their compliance and that they're going to meet 15-7. Down this frontage on 4th, they need some additional features to meet 15-7. But, again, that's something that's in your ordinance that they will have to meet. There is a note on the plan. But, again, we thought it would be helpful, and they agreed for you to see a rendering of what they envision for the development. Again, you can see brick facade, and they're adding balconies. You may recall, once again, with the open space discussion, there was a big discussion about the balconies. Well, balconies count as open space. So if they are going to have balconies, that needs to be added to the open space statistics. With that, staff is recommending approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, Mr. Hollins. Mr. Martin, thank you. The rendering, and you mentioned a fence and open space, the rendering looks like it's got a sidewalk from the curb to the building. The rendering does not reflect that open space and what they'll be doing along 4th Street. It's a building rendering. Okay. So the open space, will it be sidewalk or will it be grass? It will, I would assume, be grass and be open space. It will have to be fenced and be private. Now whether they could pave it, I'm not sure what advantage that would give them to have a paved open space because it'd be impervious surface and enter into their stormwater calculations. But they can elaborate on their plans for that space. What about the fence? What sort of fence does it have to be? A chain link, board fence? I'd have to double check. I don't believe the ordinance specifies a fence. I think it just specifies a fence. And again, it is intended to make it be private open space, not open just to the public coming and going. I don't believe it's intended to block view of the space. We'll see if the applicant can add to that. Thank you. Mr. Martin, any other questions from the Commission? Refresh my memory on one thing, is Blackburn a one-way or two-way street? Blackburn is a two-way street. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from Mr. Martin? Any other comments along this line? It's fine. Thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. Jacob Walbert on behalf of the applicant, Calville Partners and Calville properties. I'll address some of the questions that you all raised and then I'd be happy to entertain any additional that you have. What I've learned in Lexington with development, pavement is bad so the open space will be grass. It does impact our stormwater calculations. Also it makes for just generally better open space. With regard to the fencing I believe there are height requirements with regard to the fence but not material. It's not going to be chain link. I think we're envisioning some kind of brick bottom with a with a more wrought-iron feel for the top. Those details are still being worked out. Since it is our presentation to 4th Street, which is the much busier street, we will want that to be attractive. We also won't want plank privacy fence, I don't believe, because it would block the view of our building and we think it's an attractive building. With regard to the rendering, Mr. Owens, you are correct, that is not an accurate reflection of what it will look like on the ground vis-a-vis the strip there. It's a decent of what the building will look like there are a couple of minor tweaks that we need didn't realize we would need the rendering architect put it together a little fast we'll be sure to demonstrate compliance with those prior to plan certification it's going to take us a couple of minutes to get the consolidation plat done anyway so we will have time to work that out i'm most pleased to report that we did as i mentioned in the subdivision committee have a very productive meeting with traffic engineering following that meeting believe we have resolved their concerns about parking what we intend to do is and it's best to explain with what's on the ground now the right-of-way runs the back of the sidewalk as it exists now we will extend the street to the what is now the existing back of sidewalks so I think that ends up being about six seven feet wider lane to provide a parking lane then we will dedicate a public sidewalk easement on our property that addresses traffic's concern because it helps with the parking situation it addresses our concern because it doesn't impact our property line and get us in a pinch on the other side so with that we're very appreciative I do want to add one more thing I mentioned this in subcommittee but I would like the whole Commission to hear it sometimes I'm a little hard on planning staff when my clients don't disagree with them staff has been very diligent in working with us on this application opened the meeting has helped us resolve some what I think were difficult issues so I just wanted you to know that your staff was very very helpful on this application with that we appreciate the approval recommendation we'd ask you to do the same and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have any questions yes sir mr. all this is final development plan it is it is okay I do like hearing the aspects of attractiveness when it comes to fencing possible brick, possible wrought iron, something attractive and nice, I think, would add to it. That's for sure. Absolutely. Thank you. Monday. I'd just like to say thanks for working with traffic and helping the folks on Blackburn Avenue. I really appreciate you guys working with them on that. I think we've come to a, I think everybody lost a little bit, and that means it's usually a pretty good compromise. So I think we've helped to address the traffic there. Okay. Any other questions, comments? Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone here that would like to speak either for or have concerns with this particular plan? It is from the audience. Okay. Then we'll close that part of the meeting and get back to the commission itself. And would there be any additional discussion and are a motion? Mr. Chairman. Okay, Mr. Smith has indicated he would move. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of Plan MJDP-16-00061, Yellman Subdivision, Blackburn Avenue, including the 14 revived conditions recommended by staff. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Joseph Smith, second of Ms. Carolyn Richardson that we approve plan MJDP 16-61 Yellman subdivision Blackman Avenue with the 14 conditions as outlined identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Motion carries. Well, we're moving right along. Thank you. It is minor subdivision 16-58 for Fairlawn and W.J. Hayden subdivision and this property has an address of 1217, 1313, 1317 North Limestone and also includes 100 Withers Avenue. This is a plan that was on your agenda at your last subdivision meeting on January 12th and was continued to today's meeting for your consideration. At your place should be a packet of staff exhibits that we prepared for you last month. We have not revised these from that time, and I'd like to walk you through these exhibits after I explain to you the plat that we have in front of you today. The subject property consists of four lots with the addresses I've mentioned. We're on North Limestone Street. New Circle Road is some distance to the north of this location, but this block is generally bounded by Paris Avenue, which provides a connection from North Lyme all the way over to North Broadway, as does Withers Avenue here. Withers Avenue intersects North Broadway in the vicinity of Whitaker Bank Ballpark, for those familiar with that end of town. These four lots include a large lot at 1313 North Line, where there is a church that was rezoned R3 decades ago, which is operating under a conditional use permit. And this consolidation plat seeks to combine three other existing lots into that larger lot. One of the lots is also zoned R3 at 100 Withers Avenue and is existing for a parking lot. associated with the church. It has also been approved for a conditional use at that location in its R3 zone. Two lots flanking the church on North Limestone are also proposed to be combined into this property. They are not zoned R3. They are each zoned R1D. The property at 1317 North Limestone is vacant, and the property at 1217 North Limestone is not. It has a single-family dwelling on it and an accessory detached garage to the rear of that dwelling. And it is this lot in its condition for the reason that the staff is referring this plat to the Planning Commission today. If I can take you through the exhibits that we have. Last month I mentioned some email communications between the staff and the applicant. We thought that we had agreed to a postponement of this plat last month, and that is not the case. And talking to the applicant's representatives before today's meeting, they do wish to proceed on this plat today. We thought it might be continued once again. One of the issues we discussed last time is that the church was contemplating making an application to the Board of Adjustment involving all of these properties. That has since occurred, the application has been made, but the Board will not meet and consider this proposal until the end of this month, the 24th, the day after your next Planning Commission meeting. In Article 3 of the land subdivision regulations, which should be the first white sheet directly after the email correspondence, this is why the PLAT is being referred to you today. It says, if there's any question arising to the compliance of the PLAT with applicable regulations that shall be referred to the Planning Commission. So that's why this is on your agenda today. If you then move to the next page, on page 825 of the Zoning Ordinance, we find the restrictions of the R1C Single Family Residential Zone. This is the zoning of the two lots flanking the larger church property. We've not included the R3 requirements because, again, a church and its associated parking our conditional uses which have been approved for those two R3 lots involved with this plat. Staff has no issue with those two lots. But in the R1C zone, you can see it refers back to the requirements of the R1A zone. So flipping to the next page, we have the requirements from the R1A zone that carry forward to R1C. As a principal use in R1C, we find that a single-family detached residence is a principal permitted use in that zone. So the land use at 1217 North Limestone is a currently compliant use with the zoning ordinance. It's occupied by our dwelling. It has a detached garage, which you'll see under the listing of accessory uses behind that home. The lot at 1317 North Limestone is vacant. So the staff has no issue with that lot being combined into the church larger lot, even though it is of a different zone. It's a vacant property. It can be considered in essence a yard to the church for their use as an open space area. The staff has no issue with that. The only issue the staff, again, is referring this to you for is the lot at 1217 North Limestone. Under the conditional uses in R1A that also carry forward to R1C, we've highlighted in the right column conditional use number seven, which is for churches, Sunday schools, and parish houses. It's the staff's opinion that if the lot at 1217 is combined into the larger church property, that in essence it will become a parish house. It will be on the same lot as the church and its parking lot. And the staff has told the applicant the staff cannot assume that the Board of Adjustment will approve the application that the church has made. Conversely, we can also carry forward an assumption if the conditional use for that lot is not approved. If the conditional use is not approved and this plat precedes it, we have combined a principal structure into the church property that now the church cannot dispose of. So as I mentioned at our meeting last month when this was continued, from the staff perspective, the inclusion of 1217 North Limestone is strictly a timing issue. It seems to the staff to be premature today, ahead of the Board of Adjustments consideration of the application, to include that lot into this consolidation plat until we know whether or not the conditional use that the church proposes for that lot will be approved. So in essence, the staff sees really two alternatives here. If we must proceed today and go forward, the staff is prepared to make a recommendation to you that I'll go over with in just a moment. If we continue consideration of this plan until the board acts, then we all will have knowledge about the future status of 1217 and whether or not there is any issue in combining it with the remainder of the church property. If I can refer you then to the final page, which is on the golden sheet, this is the staff recommendation we had for you last month that we did not present, Again, today we have many more representatives of the church present, including the surveyor that's prepared the plan. But this is unchanged. And in the preamble, if you will, of the staff's report on this, as I've mentioned already, we find no issue with combining two of the proposed lots today into the larger church lot. It's strictly the lot at 1217 North Limestone that we're concerned about. We've advised the applicant, as I've mentioned, we can't assume that the board will approve their application today. Again, that meeting is two weeks and a day from today, and we all will know, if it's not postponed at that time, what the board's decision will be on that use. Moving forward today, the staff is recommending disapproval of the consolidation of 1217 North Limestone into the lot at 1313 North Limestone. We've provided three reasons for that recommendation. The first, a conditional use would be established without the prior approval of the Urban County Board of Adjustment in the staff's view if that were to happen. Finding number two and number three, the staff would suggest, because they have now applied to the board, that we strike the first sentence in each of finding number two and number three. Again, a month ago that had not happened. Today it has happened. Thus, finding number two would now read, This land use for a church is only allowed under a conditional use permit by the Board of Adjustment. No such permit has been approved at this time. And then finding number three would read, The Commission can't anticipate whether any future conditional use permit will be approved by the Board of Adjustment for this location. Those findings are all sound and still support a staff recommendation of disapproval of combining the one lot into the larger. By the same token, the staff is recommending approval of the remainder of the plot, and you see that just below. The staff recommends approval of the consolidation of 1317 North Limestone and 100 Withers Avenue into the lot at 1313 North Limestone. We are proposing five conditions be tied to your consideration of that plat should it go forward. Addressing office approval of the addresses. Urban County Traffic Engineers approval of the cross sections. Those are both standard, typical types of sign-offs. Three, remove lot one, which is 1217 North Limestone, from the plat, so it is not part of the consolidation. Fourth, revise conditional notes, pardon me, consolidation notes, to rename the parcels due to the removal of the one lot. And fifth, to denote the date of your approval of this plat, should it go forward. I thank you very much. I hope I have simplified the issue that's before you today. It really is a one-lot issue on a four-lot plat. So there's always a little bit of risk at it not being clear, But at this time, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the commission about our split recommendation on this plan. Any questions? Mr. Drake? I guess I'm a little bit confused, Bill. If the entire consolidation of all three lots were approved today and then the Board of Adjustment denied the conditional use for 1217, what are the circumstances then? Who suffers? Well, I don't know that anyone would suffer, but the plat would be if the board were to deny a conditional use for 1217 North Limestone, and your action on the plat matches that recommended by the staff, the plat and the board's action would be in lockstep. They would perfectly match. I understand that. But the applicant, I also assume, wants to proceed with the consolidation of all three lots today. Is that correct? That's my understanding. We'll find out from them in just a moment. So my question is, if we did that and the Board of Adjustment refused the conditional use, what position is the applicant in then? Well, our concern would be that if the Board does not approve a use for 1217 North Limestone, it would be impossible for the church to sell that property to someone else, since they can no longer use it without coming back to this commission and seeking approval of a final subdivision plan of the property. If they combine them together ahead of the board's action, the only way to undo that is the filing of a major subdivision plan with the staff that goes through the technical committee and the subdivision committee reviews and winds up on one of your future agendas for you to act, then has to go through the engineering department and is subject to all the regulations and requirements that are inherent in all subdivisions, we think it's more prudent to give the time necessary for the board to review application for that lot before we go to all that trouble, again, not assuming that they're going to approve the use of that property. So it strictly is a timing issue from the staff perspective. Thank you. Mr. Owens. Mr. Salley, let me continue in that vein. And if we go with staff recommendation disapproved 1217, I'm presuming they can still go to the Board of Adjustment and ask for the conditional use? Absolutely. And once they get that, then can they come back and ask for the consolidation? I would think that they could, yes, if it were approved by the Board. Okay. Unless there were some other zoning issue created, say a zone-to-zone screening issue or something like that, I would see no reason why that couldn't proceed. It would just be under a separate consolidation plan. The second question, I guess, is does that create much of a delay, or would it be quicker to continue all of this until the Board of Adjustment acts? Your meeting in March is on the 9th. The Board of Adjustment meets on the 24th of this month. The only unknown in all of that is whether or not the Board might postpone their consideration of their application to March. But generally, we're talking about 13 days, maybe between the Board's action and your next meeting, for knowledge of what the Board's decision would be. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any other questions for Mr. Salley? Okay, we'll call you back if we need you. Mr. Dapp, you know where to find me. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Justin Jury with 2020 Land Surveying. This is Mr. Sherrod Ledette. He's with Total Grace Church. Reverend Michael Robinson is also here. and I think what Mr. Solly kind of explained I agree with that this is a timing issue with this flat and Mr. Liddick can speak to it too we have applied for the Board of Adjustment variants and the meeting is on the 24th and as far as having taken that lot off I think we can agree to maybe have the Board of Adjustment recommendation as a condition for recording or a condition I don't know how you do it for the minor plats and it's not a major but as a condition to a yes or no vote by the Board of Adjustment as far as instead of having to do a second consolidation plat maybe if there's any further questions you want to have for me. If I could, let me just cut to the chase here just a little bit. I'm a little muddled on one thing. Why would you not have a continuance until after you've got the Board of Adjustment, and that way it will be cleaned up and cleared up and you can move forward? Right. Well, to speak to that, my client had us come and do a consolidation. They needed to have a consolidation plat as per advice from their engineer who's going to be doing the work as far as designing the parking lot and improvements that they want to plan for these vacant lots. And so we filed the consolidation plat, not knowing that typically minor plats don't get sent to the planning commission to be heard in front of them. So at that point, we didn't know that the board of adjustment of variance would affect the filing of this plat. And having had known that, we probably would have delayed filing this plat. But instead of hindsight's 20-20, so. Again, I don't want to cut my commission members off here, but just for clarification. So it is a timing issue, as I understand it. So the bottom line is, if in fact we continue this, not necessarily continue it, but do as the staff has recommended, you all would not suffer any definitive harm with that, would you? Well, as Mr. Salley said is correct. They would not want to continue with the consolidation if the board does not allow them to have that variance. Because that would affect the resale of that lot. I can't speak to if that's what exactly they would do or not. We understand that the whole timing issue. So, again, it was just based off our engineers saying that they needed consolidation of these lots. So we will follow that direction. And that's why we were here, or why we're here today for that whole aspect. So we have done everything and got everything to the Board of Adjustments. Everything's in place for us the 24th. So we are okay to understand that if we need to wait until that is done, then we understand that and we plan to kind of come back for that aspect of it. But if we can get the consolidation of the other three or however you guys plan on moving or I think the best action is we're okay with that as well because, again, we understand the Board of Adjustment is what's needed to move forward with all consolidations. Okay. Well, good. I think that makes me feel much better and perhaps potentially make some of the commission members. Oh, Mr. Berkley? Bill, they have suggested possibly adding a condition that this would all be subject to, first, the Board of Adjustment approval. would you all be alright with that kind of condition or is that even possible to do? We would have to modify the conditions that we have before you it is certainly possible to make your approval conditional on the board of adjustment approval. My fear not having looked at that is that we're in an either or situation and it's going to basically save them 13 days So if you'd like us to try and do that, we can try and change these conditions to allow that here in the next few minutes. And if I understand that correctly, that means basically if the Board of Adjustments does approve the conditional use of the property of 1217, then you are saying that based on that approval, you would be okay with the consolidation? Yeah, and I think what we're all saying here, for the most part, if you wait until March the 9th, you get the whole thing cleaned up real quickly. It's a mission or a continuance. That's the point that I was trying to drive a little bit because actually we're not in the position of advising clients, but at the same time we're here to do what we can and it's the best interest of the community. It seemed that the easiest thing for you all to have done to simply ask for a continuance until after that a board adjustment had done its work, then you'd been cleared to have done everything that you needed to have done. It would have been no discussion, quite frankly, I mean, not unless someone's got something here that I don't know anything about. Yeah, I believe we're going to go ahead and have this put out there and have it heard. So we're okay with the continuance. I think if, okay. You just said you're all right with that? Yeah, the continuance. Okay, that makes a lot of sense and that would clean up a lot of things here on this line. So Mr. Sally, I think that what we'll do then, if it's agreeable with you all, then we'll entertain a motion for continuance. Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm getting anxious here. Ms. Plumlee? Are we ready for the motion? Well, anyone want to say anything? You're all right. Continue. Okay. Mr. Chair. Excuse me. Anyone else that would like to speak to this? Okay. Okay. Now we're straight. If everybody's on board then, I will move for continuance for PLN, MJ, SUB 1600058, Fairlawn and WJ Hayden subdivision. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we have a continuance on plan MN, SUB 16-58, Fairlawn and WJ Hayden subdivision. Any other discussion on the motion? Mr. Chairman, we assume that's to the March 9th meeting. Okay, until, I'm sorry, to add to that motion to March 9th. March 9th sounds fine. Thank you. Okay, March 9th, we'll add that to the motion. And that goes to the second. So the second is agreeable with that. In that case, then we'll have the motion with the addition of March 9th. Any other discussion on that? Yeah, can I ask a question? If this happens and it is a minor plan, do we even have to see it again? because you have taken action on the plan I think the staff would feel uncomfortable certifying it without you re-reviewing it I can't recall that this happened before okay all right are we all on the same page now all right the motion is call for the call for the previous question all those in favor I mean Excuse me, if you're in favor of the motion to continue, would you please vote as it comes up on your screens? Okay, the motion has been granted to continue. Thank you very, very much for your patience, and we appreciate the opportunity to have a little dialogue here about this. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson, members of the Commission. Our next item is found on page 6 of your agenda, and it is a zone change and associated development plan. It's PLN MAR 16-20, and this is an amended application from last year. The properties associated with this zone change are 411 Chair Avenue, 410 Derudy Avenue, or not Avenue, excuse me, Street, and then five parcels on South Broadway from 603 to 619 South Broadway. The subject properties face along South Broadway between Derudy, which is an existing right-of-way, and Chair Avenue. They are on the northwest side of South Broadway. Across from the Derudy right-of-way is Bolivar Street, and Bolivar Street does connect over to the University of Kentucky campus in South Limestone. The subject property, Derudy Street, currently is a right-of-way adjacent to the subject property, but Oliver Lewis Way is currently being constructed adjacent to that right-of-way and also adjacent to the Lex larger development. I'm going to show you an aerial of that area. So if we look at the aerial photograph, it does show still some buildings on the subject property. This green space to the north and northeast of the subject property is where Oliver Lewis Way is currently being constructed and will intersect with South Broadway and come in directly across from Bolivar Street in this area. The Lex development is just to the northeast of the subject property. Also in this vicinity is another mixed-use development that was built on the Popeye Sign Company property, and I'm not sure, it has JDI and several townhouses. Also in this vicinity, there's a car wash across South Broadway, as well as several other businesses along South Broadway, restaurants and other businesses in this vicinity. The subject property, they're proposing to develop it with one structure for retail sales with what I would consider probably an accessory dwelling unit on the second floor and associated parking. These newer aerial photographs are a little bit more accurate of what the subject property looks like today. There still remains one building on the Chair Avenue property, but the buildings that faced onto South Broadway have all been removed. Because with the improvements along Oliver Lewis Way and South Broadway, The Transportation Cabinet and LFUCG have purchased frontage along South Broadway in order to have an additional left turn lane from Broadway on to Oliver Lewis. And that required enough property that it required the demolition of all those structures along South Broadway. So there are still utility poles and such, but the property is, for the most part, cleared at this point. Again, another view of the subject property with Oliver Lewis Way being constructed here in the foreground near the subject property. The subject property is located within the boundaries of our Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Small Area Plan, which was adopted in January of 2003. Generally, our smaller plans have about a 10-year horizon, but because Oliver Lewis Way is still being constructed, the staff believes it still should be considered as relevant when the Planning Commission and Council make zone change decisions. It does have a land use plan associated with it, and it also has several recommendations. One of those recommendations is that this intersection, it's identified as a major gateway for additional enhancements. And then I would also note that the council has adopted something called a commercial design and property access standards that further restrict all of the properties that face onto Oliver Lewis Way. The small area plan recommended retail office mixture land use, which was called an OR mixture or OR land use category. It included a residential component in that land use recommendation and calls for a combination of office and neighborhood retail, specifically to serve the neighborhoods in that area, and identified the residential uses as a critical part of the proposed mixture. And I'm going to use the map here to show you the subject property in this highlighted purple area. All of that purple shading is where the retail office mixture was recommended by that small area plan. The Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan also identified commercial development as a main focus along these two corridors where they intersect and gave some prototypes of how that would look. The prototype shown here shows a two-story building with commercial at the street, and the Urban County Council adopted standards require that the building be at the street. So even with the proposed B1 zone and the setbacks required with that, the council ordinance overrides that and pushes the building to the street. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan, the applicant contends in their justification that this zone changes in agreement with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and cited five of the goals and objectives related to that, specifically about infill and redevelopment, supporting well-designed neighborhoods, reducing Lexington's carbon footprint, putting jobs and housing together so that we can have mixed use, and then upholding the urban service area concept. The staff did agree with the applicant in terms of the 2013 comprehensive plan and also in terms of the small area plan that those those recommendations are being met with the proposed B1 zone at this location. And there were four reasons we cited in our staff report for that. First, the B1 zone or mixed use zoning would be compatible and appropriated in this location to create jobs where people live. And in this case, close to both downtown and the university. In addition, mixed use development tends to reduce Lexington's carbon footprints, which supports their contention that it's in agreement with that goal of the comprehensive plan. And the staff did find that the B1 more fully met the intent of the small area plan land use recommendation, as opposed to what the applicant had previously asked for, which was a B3 zone. And then lastly, the proposed zone, along with the standards adopted by the council, will ensure that this prominent corner of the intersection of Oliver Lewis and South Broadway will improve or create a well-designed neighborhood and specifically help to improve the South End Park neighborhood, which is a nearby or adjoining to this area. For those reasons, the staff did recommend approval, as did the zoning committee last week of this proposed zone change, and it is contingent on the development plan being approved and certified within two weeks. Happy to answer any questions about the proposed zone change. Any questions, Ms. Wade? Thank you. Mr. Martin. I hope everybody found their packet. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, on page 7, item B is the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change. The proposed development is a 10,550 square foot two-story building proposed, as you can see in this location, oriented towards the corner and towards South Broadway. And here's, of course, Oliver Lewis Way extension coming in here. The access is off of Chair Avenue and to the rear with the parking in this rear and to this, well, to the rear and side facing Broadway of the building. The plan is and has been fairly straightforward and simple with the building, the parking, and the access. This slight revision added to second floor. As you can recall, the discussion about the Newtown Pike extension and the design and access. So with the increase in square footage and an additional parking space, in essence, that's what this new plan shows you. It's very similar, almost identical in layout to the previous plan. It was reviewed by your subdivision committee and recommended for approval. And staff is recommending approval of this plan. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay. Thank you. Applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Jacob Walburn on behalf of the applicant, Bernard Queen. Try to contain your excitement. I have no PowerPoint today. They had me. It staff recommends approval. We think this is a pretty quality plan. A lot of, just to give you some context, a lot of the decisions we made were, frankly, because we had to. The right-of-way extension knocked out our existing buildings. There are restrictions about curb cuts onto Broadway and Oliver Lewis Way. We're not particularly wild about the second story unit, but that's required by the ordinance. And it's not the zoning ordinance. It's actually the Urban County Code of Ordinances. So we understand we have to work within the constrictions of the law. So here we are. We're very excited about this development. We think it will be a valuable addition to the South Broadway corridor, particularly appropriate with Oliver Lewis punching through. It looks like driving by just the other day, it looks like they're pretty close to being finished with that. So once they wrap up, we'll be ready to get started. Of course, pending finding a user and bringing forward a final development plan. So with that, we appreciate the recommendation of approval. Would ask you to do the same. Would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Oh, we've got about 50,000 questions for you. Mr. Chair, I get paid by the hour. Fire or what? Oh. Now I know why you're a lawyer. You're on the ball. Any questions? Yes, Mr. Owens. I do have one. It seems like originally, subdivision committee or whatever, there was some conversation maybe to the point of concern as to the zero setback is what I'm going to say. But that's according to. Correct. When we originally filed this, we had said B3. I actually still think that this is an appropriate site for B3. I understand where staff is coming from. And frankly, all of the uses we're considering fit in B1. but of course as you all are aware a lot of times you get maybe a b1 use and a b3 because of setbacks we don't get to pick our setbacks here we're all trumped by the ordinance the new town small area plan and the design standards ordinance so we're not i think it's meant to encourage a more urban streetscape up on the sidewalk two-story buildings i believe that's the intent of the urban county council ordinance um so we're there again kind of because we have to be so you're there with i'm hearing two-story building that's correct can you go higher um we would be permitted to within the restrictions of the zone but the ordinance requires a two-story at least a two-story building actually the wording is a two-story building in height so i'm not sure if that means it has to be the equivalent of two stories tall or it actually has to have two stories when we get an user identified we may have that discussion but we know we are cognizant that that has to be that tall. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay Mr. Walden thank you. Thank you. There's no one here on the audience so we just talked from the Commission's perspective or our motion. If you're ready for a motion. Yes, sir, Mr. Owens. We are. If you're ready, then I'll move that Plan MAR 16-20 Bernard Jeffries and Patricia M. Queen be approved according to the staff recommendations, C recommendations. Okay. It's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve PLN MAR 16-20 Bernard Jeffries and Patricia M. Queen as amended. with the conditions provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Thank you. Would you proceed? Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of Plan MJDP 16-47 Queen of State with the 12 noted conditions approved by staff. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved again by Mr. Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve the preliminary Plan MJDP 16-47 Queen of State with the 12 conditions to identify the staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Thank you. The motion carries, and you have it. Also, Mr. Walden, some of our members were not around when I did this, so I wanted to make sure that I did it again. I expressed on behalf of our commission a condolences to Mr. Walden for having the loss of his father, and so we just wanted to let everybody know that and what have you. Thank you. I sincerely appreciate it. Thank you very much, sir. Commission items. Yes, we have one. I think we have a courthouse. Are you? Okay. Please come forward. Good afternoon, Commission. I'm here today as the staff to the board and design review officer for the Courthouse Area Design Review Board. So I'm here to present to you the annual report from 2016 for the review board. So I'll try and keep this short and sweet, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask at the end. Our board, for its current makeup, we have five members. We have a business representative, two design representatives, an LFUCG representative, and a banking representative. And those change, they're on the board for four years, and they are staggered to go on and off every two years. So we have a full board at this moment. In 2016, we hosted three meetings of the four quarterly required. The one in February was canceled as there was no applications. But the remainder of the meetings, we had several projects come before us. Of those, the board approved seven that came before us. None came before me as staff approval. They all went before the board. Preliminary reviews, there were one of those, and no denials for 2016. I'll give you some examples of what those projects were. 121, 123 Cheapside, while the address is on Cheapside, actually what they were proposing was to alter their rear elevation, which faces on Mill Street. So if you see a before picture here and an after there, you can see on the ground floor they're looking to alter that so that you provide a storefront. That is right in line with what the Courthouse Review Board would like to see. It adds visual interest and things at the pedestrian scale. 107 West Main Street, this is at Sunrise Bakery and West 6 Green Room. They came before us to expand their operations out onto the street front. So they have a sidewalk cafe, and since it was not just a simple sidewalk, just chairs, they had to come before us to look at adding trees and planters and fencing. That has not gone up yet, but hopefully we'll see that this spring. Another, we get exciting things like exhaust vents, you know. So we're still working with Mr. Estes, who is the owner of Parley Social. He came before us saying he wanted to expand his business and offer fried foods. That means he needs an exhaust fan. We're looking to make that a little bit more pleasant to look at as you walk along the street, along Short Street and Market. So I'm still working with them on that, but hopefully you'll see some changes there. Other simple things, the corner of 200 West Main, this is the Harvey Hugo's, or actually just the Harvey's bar is on the ground floor. They're looking to install new windows on the upper street side and refurbish those on the Main Street side. simple things. We love that the property owners and businesses are wanting to continue enhancing those jewels in downtown. Additionally, 135 West Main Street. If you'll remember, this is right adjacent to 21C. There's a small parking lot there. Once upon a time, it was painted blue, and now I believe it's more of a taupe. RL Brown is across the front. The folks who came before us We're proposing to put in a restaurant bar on the ground floor. So they have proposed and were approved for the storefront with awning and signage. And so if you walk by now, you've probably seen some action going on. And I think they're looking for spring this year to have that finalized. This one's a little bit dark from my side. Hopefully you guys can see it better. 275 West Main Street. It is at the corner of Mill and Main. Currently on the ground floor, it's the probation office. but the property owner is looking to not continue that lease and have more retail and commercial use on the ground floor. So they are looking at altering that building, not only with just simple paint, but putting in new storefronts on the ground floor, opening that up more doors in and out. And they put in an example of the Jimmy Johns there. I don't know what they anticipate going in, but that is an example of what they were approved for. And then we have 100 West Main Street, also known as Centerpoint, which came back before us for an amendment to their authorization permit. And so they now have a final design is pending based upon staff approval. So the board has approved it as it has been submitted. They have a few details to work through, such as how they integrate the Town Branch Commons on Vine Street, identifying the final height of the buildings. they were approved for a variation of like 11 to 12 or 8 to 10. So we still have to finalize some minor details on that, but they do have their authorization permit pending as soon as I hear from them on that. So just looking ahead for the Courthouse Review Board, we had our first work session yesterday actually with the board, and we anticipate establishing a protocol for board membership orientation. and so we're following some new routes that we haven't taken so far. So I look forward to exploring that with the board. We this year will look with a subcommittee as to what do the guidelines currently have, do we need to recommend updates, do we need to look at allowing more staff approvals or not. So the board will be looking at those as well as we continue on this year. Prozoning ordinance, I have to tell you about our financial records. We don't have any, so that one's very easy to tell you about. So with that being said, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Any questions? What's the completion date of all this? What's the anticipated completion date of all the things downtown? Do you have any idea? I have no idea. There are some that had authorization permits two or three years ago that didn't come to fruition, but they would have to come back before us to get those reissued. A lot of these guys who got them in the fall, they've already started construction on the interior, so I hope that we see them by spring. but I can't say for sure. That's okay. Any other questions or comments? Well, thank you for the update. Thank you. Appreciate it. Any other items from the staff? Where's Mr. Duncan? Anyone else? Mr. Sally? Mr. Chairman, just would remind the commission that you do have a work session scheduled for next week and I think Mr. Duncan may wish to tell you a little bit about that. Mr. Duncan, we were talking about the work session for next week. Can you give us a little heads up? Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry. I was talking to the clerk about another issue, so I apologize. I hope it was about our parking. That's right. Okay. Good. Good enough. We'll call it that. I did want to also remind the Planning Commission that we have our third public input meeting tonight for the comprehensive plan. Tonight's meeting is at the Northside Library, and that's at 630. So we've got that same format as the one we had last week that some of you attended at the Beaumont Library. We had our second public input meeting yesterday. During the day at the Senior Center, it was even better attended than the Beaumont one was. So we're having good turnout. And just looking ahead, we have two more public input meetings, one on Monday the 13th, and that's going to be at Veterans Park Elementary, and that will be at 630. and then the night of following your work session we have our final ordinary public input meeting and that will be at the Central Library here downtown at 6.30. And as Mr. Salee said, we also have a work session next Thursday the 16th at 1.30. We have several items on that to give you an update on and including a preliminary update on what we're learning from the public input meeting. So we hope you all will be able to attend that meeting next Thursday the 16th at 1.30. Thank you. Any other items to come before the commission? Commission members have any items they want to notify us about? Any announcements? If not, without objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.