# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - February 23, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 23, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4184 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4184?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-02-23 - **Last revised**: February 23, 2017 - **Length**: 16,869 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on February 23, 2017, 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 six agenda items during the session, taking six motions and votes throughout the meeting. No public comments were heard during this session. The commission accomplished mixed results on the agenda items, approving four items while postponing two others for future consideration. The approved items included the meeting minutes, Providence Place Tract 3 Lot 3 Zoning Development Plan, Lexmark International Inc. Zoning Map Amendment, and Lexmark International Corporation Development Plan. Two significant items were postponed: the ATCHISON HELLER CONSTRUCTION, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Harper Woods Zoning Development Plan, and proposed amendments to Article 8-24 for the Office, Industry and Research Park (P-2) Zone. The meeting focused primarily on zoning and development matters affecting various properties and developments within the urban county jurisdiction. ## Attendance The following members were present at the February 23, 2017 meeting: • William Wilson • Mike Cravens • David Drake • Karen Mundy • Mike Owens • Carolyn Plumlee • Carolyn Richardson • Joseph Smith Three members were absent: • Will Berkley • Patrick Brewer • Frank Penn No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included six formal votes, all of which passed unanimously with all eight members present voting in favor. **Minutes Approval** Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve the minutes from January 26, 2017 and corrected minutes of October 13, 2017, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The motion passed unanimously 8-0, with William Wilson, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Carolyn Plumlee, Carolyn Richardson, and Joseph Smith all voting in favor. **Postponements** Two items were postponed by unanimous vote: • **PLN-MAR-17-00002**: Karen Mundy motioned to postpone the ATCHISON HELLER CONSTRUCTION, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Harper Woods Zoning Development Plan, seconded by Joseph Smith. The postponement passed 8-0. • **ZOTA 2016-7**: Mike Cravens motioned to postpone amendments to Article 8-24 for the Office, Industry and Research Park (P-2) Zone, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The postponement passed 8-0. **Approvals** Three development-related items were approved: • **PLN-MJDP-16-00056**: Mike Cravens motioned to approve the Providence Place, Tract 3, Lot 3 Zoning Development Plan, seconded by Karen Mundy. The approval passed 8-0 with the condition to resolve landscaping needed adjacent to the agricultural use on the northern property line. • **PLN-MAR-16-00012**: Karen Mundy motioned to approve the Lexmark International, Inc. Zoning Map Amendment, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The motion passed 8-0. • **PLN-MJDP-16-00027**: Karen Mundy motioned to approve the Lexmark International Corporation Development Plan, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The approval passed 8-0 with the condition to denote tree protection areas for 20", 32" and 40" existing trees identified on-site that do not conflict with parking areas. All votes showed complete consensus among the eight voting members present. ## Approval of Minutes The board considered the approval of minutes from two previous meetings during this agenda item. The minutes under review were from the January 26, 2017 meeting and corrected minutes from the October 13, 2017 meeting. Key speakers during this discussion included Carolyn Plumlee and Carolyn Richardson, who participated in the consideration of the meeting records. The board reviewed both sets of minutes and found them to be acceptable as presented. No significant concerns or corrections were raised regarding the accuracy or completeness of either the January 26, 2017 minutes or the corrected October 13, 2017 minutes. Following the review and discussion, both sets of minutes were approved by the board. This approval formally ratifies the official record of proceedings from these previous meetings and ensures the accuracy of the board's historical documentation. ## ATCHISON HELLER CONSTRUCTION, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Harper Woods Zoning Dev The planning commission considered petition PLN-MAR-17-00002, a zoning map amendment request from Atchison Heller Construction, LLC for the Harper Woods development project. The petition sought to rezone properties located at 2311 Armstrong Mill Road and 3539 Kenesaw Drive from Agricultural Urban (A-U) zone to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zone. Jacob Walbourn served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The petition included both the zoning map amendment and an associated zoning development plan for the Harper Woods project. The commission ultimately decided to postpone consideration of this ordinance rather than taking action during the February 23, 2017 meeting. No specific reasons for the postponement were detailed in the available meeting materials, and no transcript timestamp was provided for this agenda item. The proposed rezoning would have changed the land use designation from agricultural to residential, potentially allowing for higher-density residential development under the R-3 zoning classification. The postponement suggests the commission may have needed additional time to review the proposal, gather more information, or address concerns that arose during preliminary discussions. ## Amendments to Article 8-24 for the Office, Industry and Research Park (P-2) Zone The council 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. Nick Nickolson served as a key speaker for this agenda item, though specific details of his presentation were not captured in the available meeting materials. The petition sought to expand the permitted uses within the P-2 zoning district, which typically governs office, industrial, and research park developments. However, the specific additional uses being proposed and the rationale behind the amendment were not detailed in the available documentation. The council ultimately decided to postpone consideration of this zoning text amendment. No timeline was provided for when the item would return to the council's agenda for further discussion and potential action. The postponement suggests that additional information, public input, or staff analysis may be needed before the council is prepared to make a decision on the proposed changes to the P-2 zone regulations. ## Providence Place, Tract 3, Lot 3 Zoning Development Plan The planning commission reviewed ordinance PLN-MJDP-16-00056 for the Providence Place, Tract 3, Lot 3 Zoning Development Plan during the February 23, 2017 meeting. Tony Barrett served as a key speaker for this agenda item, presenting details about the proposed development plan for the specified tract and lot within the Providence Place development. The commission evaluated the zoning development plan proposal, with particular attention paid to landscaping requirements and specifications. During the review process, commissioners discussed various aspects of the development plan to ensure compliance with local zoning regulations and development standards. Following deliberation, the planning commission approved the Providence Place, Tract 3, Lot 3 Zoning Development Plan. However, the approval came with specific conditions that must be met by the developer. These conditions primarily focused on landscaping requirements that needed to be addressed as part of the development implementation. The conditional approval indicates that while the overall development plan met the necessary criteria for approval, the commission identified specific landscaping elements that required modification or enhancement to fully comply with municipal standards and community expectations. This approval allows the development to proceed on the designated tract and lot, provided that the developer satisfies the landscaping conditions outlined by the planning commission during their review process. ## Lexmark International, Inc. Zoning Map Amendment The Planning Commission considered petition PLN-MAR-16-00012, a request from Lexmark International, Inc. for a zoning map amendment affecting properties at 740 W. New Circle Road and 1180 Newtown Pike. The petition sought to rezone these parcels from Light Industrial (I-1) zone to Professional Office (P-1) zone. Key speakers during the discussion included Rory Kahly and Steve Davis, who presented information regarding the proposed zoning change. The amendment would allow for professional office uses on the properties rather than the current light industrial designation. The Planning Commission approved the zoning map amendment request. This approval will enable Lexmark International, Inc. to utilize the properties for professional office purposes, which aligns with the P-1 zoning classification that permits various office and professional service uses. The rezoning affects two specific locations along major thoroughfares in the area - one property on West New Circle Road and another on Newtown Pike. The change from industrial to professional office zoning represents a shift toward office-based land use for these parcels. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Lexmark International Corporation Development Plan The planning commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-16-00027, a development plan proposal for Lexmark International Corporation. Rory Kahly served as the key speaker presenting this ordinance to the commission. The development plan received approval from the commission, though the approval came with specific conditions attached. The conditions focused on two primary areas of concern that emerged during the review process: • **Tree Protection Requirements**: The approval included stipulations regarding the preservation and protection of existing trees on the development site. These conditions were designed to maintain environmental standards and preserve the natural character of the area. • **Parking Provisions**: The commission also imposed conditions related to parking arrangements for the development. These requirements addressed concerns about adequate parking capacity and proper traffic flow management for the Lexmark facility. The commission's decision to approve the development plan with conditions reflects a balanced approach to accommodating the corporation's development needs while ensuring compliance with municipal planning standards. The conditional approval allows the Lexmark International Corporation project to move forward while requiring adherence to specific environmental and infrastructure requirements. The approval of this development plan represents a significant planning decision for the municipality, given Lexmark International Corporation's status as a major technology company. The conditions attached to the approval demonstrate the commission's commitment to responsible development practices that consider both business needs and community standards. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item discussion.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of minutes from January 26, 2017 and corrected minutes of October 13, 2017 - **PLN-MAR-17-00002** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of ATCHISON HELLER CONSTRUCTION, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Harper Woods Zoning Development Plan - **ZOTA 2016-7** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Amendments to Article 8-24 for the Office, Industry and Research Park (P-2) Zone - **PLN-MJDP-16-00056** — passed (8-0): Approval of Providence Place, Tract 3, Lot 3 Zoning Development Plan - **PLN-MAR-16-00012** — passed (8-0): Approval of Lexmark International, Inc. Zoning Map Amendment - **PLN-MJDP-16-00027** — passed (8-0): Approval of Lexmark International Corporation Development Plan --- ## Full transcript It's about knowing that no matter what I've done, I can move on from it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Video discussion guide and opiate addiction toolkit are available at safekentucky.org. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. of October the 13th, 2016. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Thank you. Motion carries. Minutes are approved. Postponements and our withdrawals. Good afternoon. I'm here on behalf of University of Kentucky to postpone the ZODA on page 8, the P2 ZODA. We would request a postponement for one month until your March 23rd Planning Commission meeting. We thought that it would be best, while the staff and the applicant are in agreement with the text, we thought you all should have a chance at the work session to kind of kick the tires. Okay. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Anyone on the commission? If not, we'll entertain a motion to postpone. Mr. Chairman, move postponement of ZOTA 2016-7. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Cravens and seconded by Ms. Mundy that we postpone ZOTA 2016-7 until March the 23rd. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing and seeing none, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion carries. See March the 23rd. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission. If I could turn your attention to Agenda Page 6, Item 4, Atchison-Heller Construction, PLN-MAR 17-02. We'd like a one-month postponement to your March 23rd meeting. We're continuing to work with some issues with staff. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this Agenda Item? Seeing that, anyone on the commission? If not, we'll entertain a motion to postpone until March the 23rd. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of Etchison-Achison. Okay. Let me get down to PLN MAR17-0002, Etchison-Heller Construction, LLC, until our March 23rd, 2017 meeting. Okay. It's been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Mr. Joseph Smith, that we postpone PLNMAR 17-2 Atchison-Heller Construction, LLC until March the 23rd. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? All right, motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We'll now move back. we have a continuance or a postponement that we need to take over as it relates to the subdivision item on this Providence Place Track 3, Lot 3 Zoning Development Plan, not unless there are some other withdrawals or postponements. Did I miss anything? Not the staff's wear of, Mr. Chairman. Okay, then in that case, then we'll move forward to the first item on the agenda. After that, we'll move to abbreviated items, and then we'll move back to the regular agenda. Well, are we going to do anything here? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, item A on your agenda is Major Development Plan 16-56, Providence Place Track 3. This is a proposal to build a professional office building. It is located out on Providence Parkway with Newtown Pike in this area. It's on the other side of the interstate off Newtown Pike in the expansion area. This is Mary Fay Place. This is a street that has been dedicated but not yet constructed. It will be constructed with this project. It is a two-story, 21,000-square-foot building. You can see the associated parking, and they are proposing the two access points on Mary Faye Place. This plan was postponed due to the need to post a sign on the property that is required under your ordinance. in addition to the standard sign-offs on this property. And it is also an expansion area plan, and it is necessary for this plan, of course, for this body to make a finding on this particular plan. And the expansion area plan, and we neglected, I'm afraid, to pass out the reports at this particular meeting. I'm afraid we had them at the last meeting, and I suspect we neglected to bring new copies with us. However, there are only two expansion area issues that in essence exist in this area, and one is Providence Place, and it has been constructed, as you're aware, all the way up to the boundary. The other overriding issue for this particular expansion area is the sanitary sewer. And again, I know you all have heard a lot of talk about the sanitary sewer in this area. Thank you. There's an off-site pump station that is planned for this expansion area. It is in the design phase, and they're also, I believe, in the process of purchasing easements in other parts of the community for the new lines that will go to that pump station. In the interim, this property, just like the other properties that have been developing in this area, are going to utilize the existing pump station, which is down closer to the McDonald's on Newtown Pike. And that pump station has been upgraded recently in the last couple of years. So it's functioning fine, and it's staff's understanding that there will be no problems with serving this property. So what we have, in essence, with the expansion area and with the findings that we recommend to you is that we find that it does comply with the expansion area infrastructure, with the exception, and it's an exception of the sanitary sewer, but that's out of their control. We're not going to tell you they comply, but they can't comply until that is built. I know that's just a fine little distinction on how we view that. in terms of the land use component of the expansion area, certainly a professional office is consistent with the recommendation of your expansion area plan for ED land. So in the report, you'll find that staff is recommending approval of this, and we're recommending that you do make the finding that it does comply with the EAMP. There is one discussion item that concerns the landscaping, And this is their proposal, the buffer. And this is for this area next to the agricultural use, this location. Dr. Poole attended the last meeting. You may recall when they had to postpone the plan. They have met and discussed this issue with Dr. Poole, according to staff's understanding. In the past, when this land was developed, a berm was constructed, along with landscaping and fencing to shield Dr. Poole's land in this area. The applicant is offering here large trees 40 feet on center along with a hedge that will be located through here. Obviously, the berm, which goes from here through, there's not enough room for them to meet their parking requirement and maintain the berm. So they have offered this landscaping detail in this location. And again, staff would report that they have met with Dr. Poole. I don't believe she's here, but the applicant will have to elaborate on their discussions with Dr. Poole. It is staff's understanding they have met, and Dr. Poole, we believe, is satisfied with this particular arrangement. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Thank you. Applicant? I'm Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners here on behalf of Anderson Communities, Providence Place. I did meet with Dr. Poole on site and reviewed with her specifically what the proposal was with regards to landscape. And she did indicate to me at that time that she was fine with what we were proposing. She understands the berm is coming down. And she was agreeable to the, she liked the idea of the hedge. So that was, I think, I don't think she's here either, but she's welcome to express her opinion. but we are agreeable with the recommendations and ask for your approval. This is an elevation by EOP Architects of what is proposed. That would be the elevation from Providence Place Parkway. Thank you. Anyone have any questions? Thank you. Anyone here? Oh, I'm sorry, just a minute. Tony, hi. As far as landscaping, if that got changed to resolve in accordance with agreement, you'd be okay? I didn't hear you. In regards to the landscaping number 14, would you be okay with resolve in accordance with agreement with Mrs. Poole? That'd be fine. It's on the plan is what she approved. I mean, it's what she reviewed, so it could be just per plan. Okay. All right. Okay. Anyone here would like to speak further on this particular issue from the citizens? Okay. If not, turn it back to the commission for discussion and our motion. Let me clarify one thing. Did we decide that we do need or do not need the issue resolved? Is that okay to leave it as it is or do we need the resolved? That's item 14. It has down there a discuss and a recommendation from the. I think we're comfortable with resolve, again, with a caveat that we hope there's, it's our understanding that Dr. Poole is agreeable to this landscape. And certainly if she's not, we would hate to have to bring it back to you to resolve the issue. But since she's not here today. That's fine. Thank you. Let me frame the motion for whoever would like to make it. First of all, obviously you can either vote or how you want to vote on the recommendation for the PLN, MJDP, but you obviously remember to include with findings as such, and then, of course, with the word resolve, replacing number 14, discussing the N14. So I'm ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move recommendation of approval of plan MJDP 16-56 Providence Place with the 14 noted conditions, noting number 13 that this is in compliance with the EAMP and change in number 14 to resolve landscaping needed adjacent to the agricultural use on the northern property line. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens, second by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve PLN MJDP 16-56 Providence Place Track 3, Lot 3, with the 14 items as identified by staff with substituting the word resolve for discuss, and of course with findings on number 13. Any other discussion on the motion? Okay, now would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Now we go back to the abbreviated Mr. Salley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. Most of the remaining items on your agenda do qualify for consideration as abbreviated hearings, but we note there's a number of citizens here today, so that may not be possible. Okay. At this time, we would like to ascertain which cases have formal opposition to the requests. The first item that may qualify appears on page 2 of your meeting agenda. It is MAR16-12, a request for rezoning by Lexmark International from an existing light industrial zone and an existing agricultural urban zone to a requested professional office zone. This zone change involves about 30 acres, with the property having an address of 1180 Newtown Pike. This time, the staff would ask if anyone is present who wishes either to speak or to object to this proposed zone change for Lexmark International for property on Newtown Pike. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this can be our first abbreviated zone change hearing this afternoon. The next item that may qualify is the very next item on your agenda, page three carries over to page four, MAR 16-26, Anderson Bridgewater, LLC. This is a zone change from an expansion area residential one zone to an expansion area residential two zone involving 12.3 net acres, the property having an address of 425 Childsburg Road. Again, at this time, we would ask if anyone is present who wishes either to speak or to object to this proposed zone change for Anderson Bridgewater. Okay, seeing none, Mr. Chairman, I think we can proceed in abbreviated fashion on this case as well. The next item that may qualify appears on page four of your meeting agenda. MAR 17-1, a request by Kappa Kappa Gamma Incorporated. This is a zone change from a high density apartment R4 zone to a high rise apartment R5 zone for property at 238 through 248 East Maxwell Street and involves almost one acre of property. Again, at this time we would ask if anyone is present today who wishes either to speak or to object to this proposed zone change for Kappa Kappa Gamma on East Maxwell Street. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this item also can be abbreviated. We understand the petitioner is going to ask to remove one of the dimensional variance requests from their application. That is the one that the staff had recommended disapproval of. So all recommendations will be approval on that item. The next item that may qualify is item number five on page seven of your meeting agenda. This is MAR 17-3, a request by Ron Turner and Amtech of Kentucky, Incorporated. This is a zone change from a P1 professional office zone to a requested B4 wholesale and warehouse business zone, involving about five and a half net acres of property with an address of 2472 Fortune Drive. Again, at this time, we would ask if anyone today is present who wishes either to object or to speak to this proposed zone change for Mr. Turner and Amtech of Kentucky. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this item also can be had in abbreviated fashion. and I know we have several citizens here for the last item as well, so we will be able to proceed with these items in the order that they remain on your agenda and we'll proceed in abbreviated fashion. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, Lexmark International Incorporated. Thank you. Good afternoon Chairman Wilson, members of the commission. Our first item for zoning items today is PLNMAR 16-12, which is the request by Lexmark International Incorporated. They are requesting a rezoning for portions of two different properties, a portion of 1180 Newtown Pike and a portion of 745 New Circle Road. It totals about 30 acres in size. Let me move to the overhead here, and I'll show it on the – the subject property is, for the most part, currently I-1, which is our light industrial zone. and then a small portion is currently in an agricultural urban zone. And they are requesting, the applicant is requesting, that both pieces be rezoned to a professional office zone. So New Circle Road runs along the south boundary of the subject property, and the interchange of New Circle and New Town Pike is just to the southwest of the subject property here. So New Town Pike runs west of the subject property. Again, these are just a portion of two parcels. So the larger parcel does come out along Newtown Pike and is agricultural urban. And then this parcel connects to New Circle and expands both to the northeast and east of the subject property. Zoning in the vicinity of the subject property, it is I-1 to the north, which includes the rest of Lexmark's property and specifically their recreation facilities. To the east is B3 along New Circle Road and some B6P to the south. To the west of the subject property continues some I1 use, B3. I believe there's some restaurants and hotels here. And then the agricultural urban, again, is part of Lexmark's recreation uses on their parcel. And this aerial photograph, I think, shows a little bit better some of the uses in the area. last year the applicant proposed a subdivision of their property in order to utilize what is before you today as a separate parcel so the parcel 745 new town or new circle road actually crosses new circle road and it includes the rest of lexmark's campus to the south of new circle road They proposed to subdivide this portion off, and in doing so included part of the agricultural urban land and showed a development plan with that at the same time to increase parking on the site. And there was a question at that time as to whether with the subdivision we were creating a new principal use on the property. And then there was also a follow-up question as to whether in an ag zone the parking as a principal use would be permitted. That really spurred the staff having a conversation with the applicant about a zone change. And it resulted in the applicant filing their zone change in the late summer, early fall last year. So they are requesting a professional office zone and use for all of the property, which, again, is about 30 acres. The 2007 comprehensive plan recommended professional office or professional services land use for this area. So their request is consistent with that. But as you know, the 2013 comprehensive plan no longer has a land use map associated with it. However, this area is part of a more recent small area plan for the Windburn and Russell Cave neighborhoods. And so that came out in terms of the staff making a recommendation on this requested zone change. This is a view of the subject property from New Circle Road. Again, it is a current office building and has always been an office building at this location to serve Lexmark. It's been considered an accessory office building to the larger industrial use of that location. The subject property that's currently agricultural urban is adjoined by the KU substation, as well as parts of the Legacy Trail. In terms of the Windburn and Russell Cave neighborhood small area plan, that plan was just adopted by the Planning Commission last summer. There were seven principle guidelines or guiding principles that were established, and probably one that stood out to the staff or two in terms of making some changes or that related to this proposed zone change. First, increasing transportation connectivity and then optimizing the use of land to promote mixed housing types or mixed use as well, and improving public safety. The small area plan specifically called for a connection from Nandino Boulevard to connect through onto the Lexmark property. And in front of the subject, part of the subject property, specifically the agricultural urban land. The small area plan identified Lexmark's property as an opportunity or potential for and field development and stated that it is clear that connectivity is the foremost need for enhancement, not just in terms of mobility and connectivity, but also when evaluating safety, additional opportunities for economic development, and continuation of the neighborhood fabric. So this graphic actually shows not just the connectivity that we might consider for this property, but also for the rest of the small area plan. In terms of the Lexmark property, there were recommendations for mixed use, and the white dashed line on the graphic there shows where the legacy trail currently is. So the purple area is part of the subject property, and then the blue area here is, again, part of the subject property that's proposed for rezoning. The small area plan calls for intensification of use, And certainly a P1 zone as opposed to the I1 zone would allow for more building on the property. The applicant, however, is only really adding parking spaces at this time. They're utilizing the existing professional office structure, and then they're just adding quite a few parking spaces on the property. To implement the small area plan, the Lexmark Access Roadway was established as a new priority road connection so that Nandina Boulevard can connect through, again, to a public street system and around the site. In terms of the land use, the small area plan did recommend office use, as I mentioned there, as well as the mixed use. At this juncture, since the applicant doesn't plan to make any physical changes to the property in terms of increasing the land use of the property in terms of new office space. It is probably not at this juncture that they would make that street connection or public street connection. The staff is not sure why that building was located across New Circle Road from their main campus, but it was in that land use decision. There's the existing Newtown and Lexmark Road intersection. The site itself really does lend itself to be in a different zone, separate from the rest of the Lexmark property. The staff does agree that professional office at this location is appropriate and that the current I-1 and AU zones are no longer appropriate in this location. When the final development plan or if a final development plan is brought forward that does propose intensification of the property, the staff feels it would be appropriate at that time to consider a public street connecting back to Newtown Pike as the small area plan recommends. So at this point, the staff and the zoning committee did recommend approval of the rezoning, and there were three reasons listed on the agenda and on the staff report. Basically that the proposed P1 is appropriate and the existing AU and I1 zones are inappropriate at this location. And then in addition, it is in compliance with the small area plan as approved by the Planning Commission recently. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the proposed rezoning. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Okay, is Mr. Martin going to? He is. Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan associated with the zone change is on your agenda. On page three, it is major development plan 16-27, and we have also passed out to you on a light blue piece of paper revised conditions for this plan. As you can see, here is New Circle Road in this location. Newtown Pike would be up here in the intersection with Newtown Pike. This is the property in question. This is the large extensive floodplain that borders the property. The existing building, which is four stories and over 137,000 square feet, is in this location. They're adding the parking here. This is the large KU substation. And in addition, they're adding parking in these locations. You saw from the photograph the existing parking in this location. There's over 1,200 total spaces now once they complete this development. There are several remaining issues on the plan. One is to bring a walkway out to this bus stop. We'd like to see that designated on this plan. There are trees that have been identified on the site, large trees, particularly in this location, one in this location. This area is kind of heavily overgrown, and as you can see, it is going to be cleared for the parking. They've designated tree protection areas here. these areas are riparian and the tree protection staff would like to have it clear that these trees will be protected these larger trees we understand that where the parking is going in there's going to be some conflict and there's going to be some trees removed but that's one condition on the plan to clarify the tree protection for the trees that have been identified in these areas the legacy trail easement we've highlighted this for you the legacy trail through here we want it clearly denoted how they're going to deal with the conflict with the easement for that trail it may need to be adjusted moved that that would require a change in the easement agreement a plat and to keep the trail clearly separate from the parking that is being proposed so again and that needs to be denoted on the plan. Ms. Wade talked about the small area plan, the Windburn small area plan. You can see the easement as they come off New Circle Road, and here's an easement all the way around the property, feeds back in this way, and will also serve this parking. They've denoted its width in these locations. We need it clearly delineated all the way through here as to its width. It's a little odd, as you all know, but there was a final development plan on this property prior to this preliminary to address this zoning problem. Staff believes that when this property is redeveloped via a final development plan, then that would be the time to determine the reconstruction and designation of this area as the street that we believe is necessary to help the area redevelop in the vision that the Winburn plan has established. So we think that just needs to be denoted on this plan, that that will be dealt with at the final development plan stage with the redevelopment of this property. That's consistent with the discussion that was had on the final development plan as well. And with that, staff is recommending approval. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, Ms. Pomley. Thank you. Yes. Tom, on number nine, then that would go back to read, denote tree protection errors for the 2032 and 40 existing trees. Yes, ma'am. I believe that should actually. Instead of being stricken, it would come back in. Yes, ma'am. I think that is the intent that we have on that condition. Yes, that is a typo we've got. Yes. Yes. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, Chair. Mr. Chair. Tom, this was postponed because it did not have a tree inventory map. Do we have a tree inventory map? The trees have now been identified on this plan, and we can clearly identify those areas where there's conflict and no conflict, which is really one of the purposes of the map. Okay. And kind of as a follow-up with the number nine, to note tree protection areas for 20-foot, 32-foot, and 40-foot existing. That seems kind of odd. It seems like always in the past we've talked about caliper, diameter of trees, not necessarily height of tree. These are trees that they've identified, and we place that condition because they've identified these trees. Some are in conflict with the proposed parking. Others are not, but they're not clearly protected by any kind of tree protection area. Inches. Oh, I'm sorry. That is inches. That is caliper, not height. Yeah, it's supposed to be. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, it is caliper. Okay. It's large trees. We're looking to have the large trees protected. Okay, very good. And I'm sorry, one more question. Did you say that the conflict between the Legacy Trail and the new parking lot has been resolved? No, we want it denoted on the plan how they will resolve it. It's our understanding it could be shifted and moved, and obviously there's an easement that exists. So we want that conflict with the easement. But they haven't shown it since we've been talking about this for the past two months or whatever? No, sir. Okay. Thank you, sir. Any other questions? Okay, applicant. Mr. Chairman, members of the Plank Commission, Rory Kaley with the EA Partners here on behalf of Lexmark. With me in the audience is Steve Davis from Lexmark, in case you have some questions that I can't answer. Generally we're agreeable with the conditions staffs presented. And number nine, the one that we're talking about, it is the inches of the caliper of the trees have been added. And at the end of number nine, I'd like to have it to that condition added that are not in conflict with the proposed parking area. There are some 20-inch oak trees planted out there. essentially they were planted 50 years ago as parking lot trees. As we're extending the parking lot, those will need to be removed for the additional parking spaces, and new landscaping will go in with that development. So if we can clarify, because there are some of the 20-inch trees in conflict. And those were the ones that were not shown with the original filing. I've gone back out there and got the sizes of them. Typically, we don't get into the landscaped area for the trees of preservation because they're a planted bearing development and they can be removed as you redevelop. But we've corrected that. Number seven, we're showing a sidewalk. I will get that labeled as proposed as part of this increased parking area out front there of the building. And number 10, there's a deed of easement that established the legacy trail through these properties. And in that deed, it states that the property owner can relocate the trail at the owner's expense if needed. I imagine my note on the plan will be very similar to that, expressing and referring back to the deed of easement, how that conflict can be resolved. Other than that, I think we're good with everything, and I'll take any questions. Okay, just a clarification. The only thing that you're asking to be added for number nine is to make sure that it says not in conflict with the proposed parking area. Yeah, we need to make sure that those are 20 inches, 32 inches, and 40 inches, not feet, but yes. Is that okay with that? Yes, Mr. Martin. And I thought I would help clarify in particular. You see this line through here? These are all 20-inch and somewhat larger trees. These are two. These are the ones in conflict. These are not in conflict, and we wanted to be clear on that, and I think that's what Rory's referring to. So that addition is? Okay, good. Just want to clarify. Any other questions for the applicant? Yes, Ms. Lawrence. Thank you. Rory, I'll go back to number 10. you're saying that there is a conflict with the legacy trail and the new parking? Yeah, there's a small area. Yet you haven't figured out how to resolve it yet? Shift the trail when we get to the point where we're building the parking lot. You're asking for the parking lot to be built with this plan, aren't you? No, this one's just zoning. We'll see that later. You've already got a final development plan approved. This is one we've done backwards where we have the plat and the development plan first. This is now getting the zoning inappropriate and together all P1. And then the final development plan will give them the ability to build all of these parking areas we're showing as they're needed. Right now the building's not fully used. They don't, but they're projecting that they're going to have more uses coming on. And this little section right up here near the crossing is the only place where our parking gets within the easement of the trail itself. So if that crossing area would need to be shifted a little bit, it's in the deed of easements granting them the ability to do such at their own expense. Okay, so I'm still kind of confused. We've got a final development plan that's been approved? Yes, waiting on this zoning to be enacted before I can certify it. Does that final development plan show how you're resolving the conflict with the legacy? No, it's just like this. We're planning on. So that final development plan, if it's approved, it's not coming back to us. Correct. So the conflict will be just to relocate the crossing of the trail at that entry road for those parking spaces. I'm just trying to figure out why that conflict hadn't been resolved by now. We feel it's resolved. We have the ability to move that. My only question is, if it's that easy, why hasn't it already been done? We're moving the physical trail. We're keeping the parking, and we will physically move the trail. Well, we're not to the point where I've got it zoned or a lot recorded or a development plan certified, so I can't physically do any of that yet. But once I get these three documents in order, then the owners have the ability to physically relocate the trail crossing and put the parking lot in. Okay. And we need to make sure, as Tom was talking on number 11, he had said a final development plan. We need to make sure that it's, as far as looking at the Windburn small area plan, it will be an amended final development plan. Because, again, out of turn, you've already approved a final development plan. Yeah. Any other questions? You all clear on that? Nope. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, it's to the commission now. The audience obviously has had a chance to object a proposal, say, so it's now, since this is an abbreviated plan, it's back to the commission for our discussion and our motion. Yes, Ms. Mundy. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN MAR 16-00012, Lexmark International, with the three items as noted by staff. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve PLN MAR 16-12 Lexmark International Incorporated with the three conditions identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Ms. Mundy, you want to carry on? Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also move for approval of PLNMJDP 1600027 Lexmark International Corporation with the 11 items as noted by staff. However, changing number nine to read, denote tree protection areas for 20 inch, 32 inch and 40 inch existing trees identified on the site, not in conflict with parking areas. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, second by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve PLNMJDP 16-27, Lexmark International Corporation, with the 11 conditions identified by staff, noting that number nine should re-denote tree protection areas 20 inches, 32 and 40 existing trees identified on site, which would not be in conflict with the proposed parking area. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes on your screen? Thank you. The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. We did have one item, an email that was sent to the staff related to this proposed zone change, so I'll circulate that. And this is our next case. It's found on page 3 and can be found behind tab 2 in your notebooks from the Planning Commission members. It's PLN MAR 16-26, which is a request by Anderson Bridgewater, LLC. They are asking to rezone property at 425 Charlesburg Road from the existing expansion area residential 1 zone to an expansion area residential 2 zone. The subject property is located on the north side of Charlesburg Road. I don't I'm going to use the zoning map for a minute first on the north side of Charlesburg Road and Charlesburg Road in this vicinity is a scenic rural road in the expansionary master plan it connects to Hayes Boulevard to the southwest of the subject property continues, does a 90 degree turn very near the entrance to the subject property and continues to the northeast and then it connects again to Hayes Boulevard to the northeast of the subject property. So when the expansion area was started to be constructed, Hayes Boulevard became the collector street in this vicinity and Charlesburg Road was not necessary as a collector street. It was intended to remain a two-lane rural cross-section per the expansion area master plan and that has been maintained. The entrance to the subject property is along Charlesburg Road and the property does have a significant floodplain or greenway that crosses it and that is a connection from a detention area across Charlesburg Road that is flowing towards Jacobson Park and the reservoir. So the subject property is bounded to the south southwest by Jacobson Park as well as LFUCG property and part of the Graham Tucker estate and then also to the east again by a piece of property that is part of the Graham Tucker estate the vicinity though has quite a bit of single-family residential that's been constructed in the Andover Hills neighborhood still Meadows neighborhood and the Childsburg neighborhood here as well as the Richardson I guess this is Walnut Creek area and then Jacobson Park remains the recreation park facility in the vicinity. The subject property was added to the urban service boundary in 1996 with the adoption of the expansion area master plan. It is part of expansion area 2C, and with the adoption of that plan, And it was recommended for EAR1 zoning or land use, which is up to three dwelling units per acre. In 2010, the petitioner rezoned the property to the EAR1 zone and agreed to that particular density. And they also agreed to the other components of the expansion area master plan related to maintaining the rural scenic road and having the special design setback along Charlesburg Road, which is a 200-foot setback. Just an aerial view of the subject property and the adjoining residential neighborhoods. Still Meadow Lane is what connects out to Charlesburg Road and also connects into the Andover Hill. I'm sorry, it's not Still Meadow Lane that connects into Andover Hills, it's Ridgeview. The subject property does already have a number of townhouses that have been constructed. This photo is from early in 2016, and it shows the 17 units that have been there for some time. More recently, the applicant has begun construction, and they're quite a way into construction, of another set of townhouses at the front of the property facing Charlesburg Road. So if we go back, the kind of graded area here at the front along Childsburg Road is where those new townhouses are currently being constructed. That will bring the number of dwelling units on the property to 23. The applicant is now asking to rezone to the EAR2 zone in order to put 75 dwelling units on the property. That's 52 in addition to the 23 that have been previously approved on the, I guess, southern portion of this property. As you will remember, in 2015, the applicant actually asked for another rezoning on this property to the EAR-3 zone, and that was recommended for disapproval by the Planning Commission. They then withdrew that application and then came back and asked the Planning Commission if you would consider an early hearing, which you allowed, and that brought us a new application in January of this year and then to this hearing today. These are views along Charlesburg Road. As I mentioned, the roadway has been maintained as a rural scenic roadway. It is a two-lane road with just shoulders to the side, and it doesn't have any specific improvements planned. This is a view going towards the floodplain on the subject property. where an existing kind of rough crossing has been utilized. And just there is a great deal of water that is crossing through their property towards Jacobson Park. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan, as you know, doesn't have a land use recommendation, but the staff believes the Expansion Area Master Plan. And the goals and objectives of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan are what should inform the Planning Commission in terms of a recommendation for this particular zone change. With the proposed number of dwelling units at a density of 6.0 dwelling units per acre, this request doesn't agree with the expansion area master plan's land use recommendation, which did show the EAR1 zone in this area, right where the red star is. But the staff considered beyond that recommendation what the goals and objectives of the 2013 comprehensive plan said, and then also how that correlated back to the expansionary master plan in terms of the community design element and its policy statements. So the applicant contends that it is in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan, And they specifically cited goals and objectives related to expanding housing choices, providing housing that addresses market needs, safe, affordable, accessible housing. And then the staff felt that in terms of theme B and theme D, protecting natural resources, specifically the greenway, and then supporting the complete street concepts, that those were part of the comprehensive plan that the planning commission should consider. And then the applicant cited theme E, which is maintaining our balance between urban and rural uses or land, specifically to maintain the urban service area concept with infill development on our available land. But the policy statements of both the comp plan and the expansion area master plan are what really led to the staff's recommendation in this case. The 2013 comprehensive plan makes several specific statements that we think are applicable here. First, it recommends locating higher density next to our public open space, specifically in this case, Jacobson Park. And it also encourages single loaded streets, again, along open space to allow improved access to those public amenities. And I'll just point to the development plan that the applicant has provided. This is a single loaded street that runs along Jacobson Park. And then this is an increased density compared to what the expansion area master plan had specifically recommended for the property. And then lastly, the comp plan also talks about compatible land uses and making sure that we're respecting the character of the area. And how that relates to the community design element of the expansionary master plan from 20 years ago is surprising. The community design element actually points to creating neighborhoods that are linked by trails, paths, greenways, and roadways. The applicant is now proposing to maintain the Tucker's Crossing roadway connection towards Still Meadows. They have always been interested in having a trail that connected through the greenway into Jacobson Park. In addition, the existing roadway should be protected from incompatible development. They are maintaining the setback along Charlesburg Road that is intended. And then lastly, development should be organized around the series of greenways. And they are utilizing the greenway with their townhouses as they face into the greenway to be able to view that asset in the development. So the staff came to the conclusion that although it didn't agree with the land use element of the expansion area master plan, we felt that increasing the density at this location was an acceptable change. And we recommend approval, as did the zoning committee. And there were several reasons listed on our staff report. First, the proposed, well, the reason we are recommending approval is that the proposed EAR2 zone is in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan, specifically the goals and objectives and policy statements, as well as partially compliant with the expansion area master plan. And there were five reasons cited, and I think I've gone over those in my presentation already, so I won't repeat them. But our recommendation is made subject to approval of the Associated Development Plan, which of course shows many of the ways that the comprehensive plan would be implemented for this particular request. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the staff's recommendation. Yes, Ms. Lawrence. Tracy, we've seen many renditions of this, varying numbers as far as units. Can you chronicalize the varying number of units from beginning to now? When they first brought it in in 2010, there were 38 dwelling units proposed. That was the maximum allowed in the EAR1 zone, so right at 30 or 3 units per acre. Last year, they brought in a development plan. I believe their first plan had 209 dwelling units on it. That's not right. And then they slowly reduced the dwelling units as they went through the process. And I think at the end it might have been 183 when they brought it to the Planning Commission. But that was still in a mixture of townhouses and apartments. And the connectivity was being lost as well. So now they're proposing 75 dwelling units. And of those 75, how many has already been built? 17 have been completely constructed and occupied, and then the additional, I guess, six fronting on Charlesburg Road are under construction right now. Okay, so you've got 23 on the front, so are you going to have 52 on the back? 52 on the back. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Wade? Okay. Who's going to speak to the development plan? Is that Ms. Martin? Mr. Martin is. Oh, okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, on page four of your agenda is the preliminary development plan that is associated with this zone change. It is 17-02, Anderson II subdivision. here is the chilesburg road frontage that serves the development the single loaded street it'll come up through here you can see it'll run the length of development it is intended to tie in eventually to this public street when this intervening property is developed this the these are the construct the units currently under construction in the rear and of course this is the drainage floodplain greenway extensive area part of the expansion area plan that runs through and leads to the park in this location you can see they're proposing the townhouses and banks located here again single loaded street access easement serving the rear of these properties as stated there'll be a total of 75 units there are 208 parking spaces are utilizing garages to provide parking for the townhouses. There's a large tree burrow that will be protected in this location. One of the conditions that you have on your preliminary plan is a pedestrian access to the park. Now, in the expansion area, the greenways have a trail system associated with them that tie them all together, and it is intended that this be one of the access locations for pedestrians and cyclists and that sort of thing to reach the park. There's also been negotiations with the applicant in the parks department with putting another access up in this location to allow people pedestrian access into the park as well. The condition on your plan, and they've indicated it right here, this is a preliminary plan. You will have to see a final development plan as well as a preliminary subdivision plan before they can build any of this infrastructure in these townhouses. So staff is anticipating, again, that this will be constructed in conjunction with the infrastructure construction on this particular plan. There are fencing requirements adjacent to this property. They've been in place on every variation of plan that you have seen. They are addressed by a note on this plan and, again, will be addressed physically at the time you have a final development plan and a preliminary subdivision plan that will allow the development of the property. The same is true with your expansion area master plan compliance. These are items that will be addressed at your final development plan. We staff just received a handout. Thank you. From the applicant's attorney in negotiations with the neighbors, and you can see there's a discussion item on your agenda that deals with the landscaping in this area adjacent to these property owners. What you see on your screen is a note that the applicant and the neighbors have agreed to that they would like to have placed on this plan, and that addresses the landscaping that will match an exhibit that will be on file with the Division of Planning. And, of course, that will have to be done before we certify this plan that addresses the landscaping in this area to shield these neighbors from this development. Again, you can see with the access into the rear and the parking garages, they are seeking to have enhanced landscaping in this area. In conjunction, they wanted a note stating that stormwater drainage shall be designed to not flow into the four single-family lots in this location. And again, there will not be any engineering plans done until the next plan is approved, and they actually start developing the rest of the site. But that should address that final number nine on your agenda. And with that, staff will answer any questions you may have. Well, let me ask the commission any questions. Tom, it says shall be set forth as in the landscape exhibit on file with the Division of Planet. Do we have a? No, sir. I've not seen one. Okay. Thank you. Let me ask Mr. Martin one question related to the number nine. It says discuss fiscal barriers. We just passed along a note here saying something about removal of dead trees. Is that also addressed? Again, we'll have to see the exhibit to know. But I mean, dead trees are generally removed, yes, sir. I mean, that's something that generally goes on. But, and there apparently you have an exhibit. But, again, this was something the applicant worked on with the neighbors, and we just received that note prior to the meeting. Oh, okay. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. The applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy, pleased to be representing Anderson with Bridgewater LLC, which is the owner and developer of this property. We are in agreement with the staff recommendations, and I won't put on my full presentation on why we agree with the comprehensive plan, because I'm in agreement with the staff's recommendations on that. I think the main thing we wanted to point out was that we have been working with the neighbors on Park Ridge Lane, And especially Kif Skidmore, as you can see, is on the corner lot. She's here with us today. And Anushka Karkilanova, who is next door to her, and we've been working with them over the last few weeks on the landscaping along the property line. And we're sorry we didn't get this to the staff earlier, but this was changing as of five minutes before the meeting. And this is the only copy that I have of the final version of that. But as you can see, there are a couple parts to this and there is a written agreement too, which is part of this, which I'll give to the. What we've agreed is that this was written out by Ms. Skidmore and And we agreed to about conditions of approval. And we note that if we want to amend the development plan, which increases the density, they'd get notification. And just so you all know, we couldn't do that without a zone change anyway. So there would be a notification to everybody if we were going to increase the density on it. The main parts of the landscaping barrier are the fence, which you saw, which will be along this property line with the four adjoining properties on Park Ridge Lane, an eight-foot tall privacy fence that specifies the materials and the color along the entire property line with the four owners. And we have a photograph to show the type of fence there with a decorative feature on the top. And the fence will be completed prior to the start of construction of any of the 52 new units. And then on the planting, we specify the size of new trees that are going to be planted, the number of trees, and the species of trees, and that the existing trees that are there will remain in place unless they are dead or diseased, in which case they will be removed. And we will do the plantings by December this year, if not earlier. That's just if we don't build until next year, the plannings will still be done by December of this year to assure that. And then the second two pages of that are just examples of the type of fence that will go in there, which are included too if you wanted to show just briefly the next two pages of that. Well, there's our layout. That's part of the exhibit, which graphically shows what I just described to you. And that is one example of the type of fence that would be along the boundary. And the other example is the next page right there too, which is another decorative similar type fence there. This isn't a picture of our property, it's just an example of the type of fence that will be constructed along those lines. So hopefully I've accurately reflected our agreement with the neighbors. If not, they can come up and clarify that, welcome them to do that. And the only thing else I'd add, as you know, you have seen this before, our zone change we filed last year ended up being 189 units. We started out with 200. This is 75 total. It's a 60% reduction. And a big issue on the other one was we had an emergency access roadway through Jacobson Park, and that was not favored by many of the neighbors here, as you may recall. We do not need that now because we are below the threshold number of units that the fire department uses to have that type of entrance. So we do not need that extravehicular access through Jacobson Park, but we are providing for the pedestrian access. As you can see with a single loaded street, we have plenty of opportunity to have pedestrian access into Jacobson Park. And these will be townhouses which are similar to the ones that have already been constructed on the front. We have 23 either built or under construction in the front, which means there'll be 52 back in the rear part of the property. So that's what I have, and we appreciate your hearing us, and we'd be happy to answer any questions that you all might have. And we did propose, Mr. Martin had put up on the board the two additional notes to the development plan relating to the landscaping and the drainage, and we did agree to place those on the development plan as well. Any questions? Okay, thank you. Thank you. It's back to the Commission for additional discussion and our motion. Mr. Cravens. If no one has any discussion, I'll go on and make the motion. I'm going to move approval of Plan MAR 16-026, Anderson-Ridgewater, for the reasons by staff. Which one are we going to give credit to? I'll give it to Mr. Drake this time since I hadn't heard from him. Mr. Mike Craven moves. Mr. Drake seconds that we approve. You've got to get your name in. I hear what I'm saying. You want to be on television too, I guess, right? We're going to add all of that to it? Well, moving right along here. Maker of the motions, Mr. Mike Craven. Second, Mr. Drake, and that is to approve PLN MAR 16-26 Anderson Bridgewater, LLC. Any additional discussion? Anybody else want to be on television? Having said, without that, please vote when it comes on your screen. Ayes have it. Motion carries. And Mr. Chairman, we'll move approval of the development plan, MJDP 1702 and we got to do something with number 9 I don't know how staff wants that to read Mr. Craven's given the discussion I think you could delete that note okay just delete number deleting number 9 second okay yes we had two notes to be added to the development plan. I think we should tend to those as well at this point, shouldn't we? To take care of landscaping and stormwater offered by the applicant. I think if you wanted to do that you could just change number nine to resolve and those notes would probably go a long way to resolving those issues. Okay. So change number nine, leave number nine but just put resolve there? Okay. Is that okay with the motion maker? Sure, that's fine. Okay, second is okay with that. Any other discussion on the motion? All right, you've been properly moved by Mr. Cravens again, second by Mr. Smith, that we approve PLNMJDP 17-2 Anderson 2 to subdivision with the nine conditions provided by staff, changing number nine to resolve physical barriers, et cetera, et cetera. Any other discussion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, at the request of staff before they get started, I wanted to let the commission know that the applicant is withdrawing the front yard variance that the staff was requesting a disapproval of, and so that will not actually be voted on today. Okay, so that out of the four variances, that's number two as I see it. So we strike that one? Yes. Okay. We will when we get ready. Yeah, we'll clean it up at the end. Let's wait. Good afternoon. Our next item appears on page four, and it's behind tab three in the Plenty Commission's notebooks. It is PLN MAR 17-1, request by Kappa Kappa Gamma Incorporated to rezone property at the address of 238 to 248 East Maxwell Street. They are requesting a rezoning from our high-density apartment zone to the high-rise apartment zone, which is the R4 to the R5 zone. The subject property is located on the south side, I guess, of East Maxwell Street. So southwest, I guess. Maxwell is one of our one-way payers through downtown, and it bisects what's considered a college town in some of our planning documents. Nearby streets are Rose Street, which also cuts from downtown into campus. Avenue of Champions, further to the southwest of the subject property. and then we have High Street, Vine Street, Main Street, closer to where we are currently located, and then south Martin Luther King Boulevard to the northwest of the subject property. I would note that all of the property around the subject property is currently zoned R4. There are a few pods or spots of R5 zoning nearby on Rose Street and then one recent zone change on Lexington Avenue. so R5 zoning is not uncommon in this area. There are also several historic districts that are located around downtown, the closest being the Aylesford Historic District to the south of the subject property just across Rose Street from this location. The subject property is bounded on three sides by the University of Kentucky, mostly administrative buildings in this vicinity, but also the Joe Craft Center's parking lot, which is employee parking. So the parking lot is here to the south, and then the administrative buildings along Maxwell Street, adjacent to the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority. Again, they're all R4 zoning, but they don't adhere to our zoning regulations, so I'm not sure that that zone matters in this case. The sorority house is a conditional use in not only the current zone, but also the proposed zone as well as the R3 zone. And the applicant is asking for a conditional use as well as several variances associated with this requested rezoning. The facility is proposed to house 68 women at this location, as well as living quarters for a house mother and one guest room. With 70 occupants or residents in this particular location, the staff equates that to roughly 17 and a half dwelling units on the subject property. And that would correspond to a residential density of 18.81 dwelling units per acre on the property. The subject property, the way it's situated, the house is located towards one side property line. And the parking, their parking is located towards the other side property line. And that general configuration would stay. They're proposing to demolish the back addition to the house and replace it with a newer addition that is larger and taller in this vicinity. this vicinity. So this aerial photograph shows you kind of setbacks along Maxwell Street do vary for these historic structures. And the subject property's historic structure there sits about 50 to 55 feet back from Maxwell Street. Subject property. This is the side property line. One of the variances requested is to reduce the setback along the side property line. and then just at the side view of the current structure. And then looking down Maxwell Street back towards the northwest and then to the southeast. In terms of the justification for the zone change, the applicant is stating that it's in agreement with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, specifically the goals and objectives. They cited the expanding housing choices in supporting infill and redevelopment as a strategic component of growth, as well as providing well-designed neighborhoods and communities and those all fall under theme A. They also cited theme E, which the plan calls for compact contiguous and development to accommodate the future growth needs. Beyond that, the downtown master plan does encompass the subject property and specifically the College Town area. College Town area is defined as East High to Rose Street and then around Avenue of Champions and back to South Limestone. And East Maxwell here divides that in half. Again, the College Town area is part of campus and then also the area between campus and downtown. So the idea with the downtown master plan was to identify areas for infill and more infill, not redevelopment, and where there were opportunities for such infill. The downtown master plan for this location actually stated that there are a mix of opportunities and challenges, but there's a sound architectural and commercial footing along East Maxwell. And it stated that it was important to the successful development of the area, that there was retention of old and historic buildings and development of housing and retail space that not only increased density, but also responded to the architectural character of the area. And the staff believes that the applicant is, again, increasing the intensity of use here. They're allowing for additional students to live on the property, And they're maintaining the architectural integrity of the front of the house. They're not removing that. And they're providing, really meeting both of the expectations of what the downtown master plan recommends here. Increasing the residential density, but maintaining the historic character of the area. Looking back at the 2001 comprehensive plan, this location was recommended for high density residential, which is up to 25 dwelling units per acre. So that's consistent with what the applicant is requesting today. Then the last thing we would mention in terms of compatibility, East Maxwell Street is primarily a high residential corridor. Almost all of the structures directly across East Maxwell are two and three story multifamily buildings or Greek houses as well. And although they're asking for increased height and increased intensity on the property, the staff believes it is within the context of the area. It still remains appropriate and within scale. So the staff is recommending approval of the R5 zone change for higher intensity use for this property for the sorority. And the zoning committee also recommended approval three weeks ago. I'd be happy. The findings that we've provided are on the agenda and also our staff report for your reference. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the requested rezoning. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Applicant? Oh, I'm sorry. Well, we have two more reports. We have the development plan as well as the conditional use and variances. Who's handling what? Mr. Martin will be. We're going to do them both, huh? Coming back. Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the development plan that is associated with this zone change is on page six. It's Major Development Plan 17-3. We have also handed out for you revised conditions on this nice lavender colored paper. The plan for this development, of course, is its existing structure in this location. The addition will be here in the rear, the three stories. Of course, here we have East Maxwell Street at the intersection with Stone Avenue. They are proposing over 14,000 feet of lot coverage, along with approximately 35,000-plus total square footage with the addition. The existing structure has a front porch. You can see here they're proposing, as this is developed in the rear, a covered porch, a courtyard. They are proposing parking in this area and in the rear. 28 spaces are the requirement. They're proposing little over that, which is subject to one of the variances. They were proposing parking in this location. And one of the reasons for your revision is the revision states, as you heard, they withdrawn that front yard ordinance or variance request. You cannot have parking in front of the building line. And there's a 20-foot building line in this location, so that parking will need to be removed. Again, they're showing one-way circulation here in this location. There is a fence that will protect the parking lot and provide for private parking for the residents. Seventy bedrooms are being proposed. The size of the addition and the height is resulting in some of the variances that Mr. Sally is going to discuss with you. There is a four-to-one height-to-yard ratio, and because of the height of the building, That is impacting the side yard, and they are going to request a smaller side yard in this location. Staff, in working with the applicant, and again, you can see a wall proposed here in a courtyard, front yard in this location. They're stating on the plan that they're providing about 8,400 square feet of open space. Now, staff has requested an exhibit be filed that clearly delineates that, breaks out square footages where necessary. And that's because intuitively you look at a plan that covers this much of a lot, we want to be absolutely sure they are complying with the required open space. And, again, when you look at this, and this does not count in front of the building line. We're not saying they aren't meeting, but we want a clear delineation with that exhibit that they are meeting. And with that, you can see that other than one small condition that they denote the fence heights that are shown on the plan, and fence heights are governed by the ordinance, so we want the heights denoted on there to ensure compliance with the ordinance. Staff is recommending approval of the development plan. Any questions? Yes, Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry. Tom? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tom, if they were moving the front parking in the front yard, what about the access? Are they still going to have two access? They are not proposing to change the access at all. So they still have two? Yes, sir. It will still be circulating this way, one way with two access points. And just to clarify, the variance on the parking says reduce maximum parking from 28 spaces to 37. They will lose these, so it will reduce the number they actually need. We're going to try to add some back. What's the number that they're trying to get to? 28? 28 is their required. They are proposing 37. Okay. Because of the infill requirements, they have to have a variance to go over. Okay. Well, this just said reduce the maximum parking from 20. Okay. So we're still going up. Okay. Yes. Okay. We're going up. Thank you. Ms. Plumlee. They've re- Right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tom, I don't see any mention of capacity assurance. Do we need that in here? They are already covered under the program and grandfathered, and they were not. The building, there seems to be a greater occupancy, and so I thought maybe they might need to. Your CAP people reviewed it and stated that they had no concerns and were not necessary. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Ms. Plumlee, if I could, I would also add this is a preliminary development plan. That will be an issue much more important at the time of the final development plan. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, applicant. Oh, I'm sorry. I keep forgetting about the variances. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the commission, again, good afternoon. Yeah, you got to move fast around here today. I will move very fast since we're in abbreviated fashion. This item is at tab three of your notebook. This should be the second staff report at that tab. And I'm presenting the variance report from the staff to you for the three variances now and the one conditional use that are requested as part of this zone change. Again, the applicant is the sorority and they are requesting a conditional use of approval of a sorority house at this location. The three variances that are requested I'll identify using the development plan. The first is to increase the maximum height of the building from a four to one ratio, meaning a ratio of four times the setback of the structure from the side property lines to a height of 42 feet. The second is to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 10 feet to 8 feet and the third as has already been discussed is to increase the maximum amount of parking from the zoning ordinance requirement of 28 to 37. those are the three variances that remain with this proposal the structure is approximately 18 000 square feet remaining and will be enlarged considerably. The use of a sorority house is one that the staff has reviewed in light of the properties around this area. Generally in this area, as was shown in the photographs that Ms. Wade provided to you, much of the property that is not owned by the University of Kentucky, surrounding this location on three sides, is mostly residential and provided on a rental basis. The historic district that is nearby, a couple of blocks away, that is not the case. There's much more owner-occupied housing in that area. So the staff does not see an expansion of the existing sorority as having any negative impact to the immediate neighborhood in which the sorority house is located. So we are favorable to the proposed conditional use permit of a sorority house expansion at this location. The three variances. First, the parking increase. Obviously, this plan will need a reconfiguration of the parking, and it is possible that the six spaces shown in the front of the property could be reconfigured elsewhere on the property. The staff raised that in our initial report that we presented to you at your zoning committee meeting three weeks ago. The maximum number is because this property is in the designated infill and redevelopment area. When those regulations were established years ago to reduce yard setbacks, one of the things that were instituted was placing a maximum parking ratio that is generally one and one half times the minimum number. They already exceed that by having about 45 spaces on the site. So in actuality, even though they are requesting a variance from you to this standard, they will be more in compliance with the zoning ordinance with this development plan than exists there today at 37 spaces. The height increase to 42 feet is solely because the existing front of the sorority house is to remain. If that were not part of the proposal or if there was some separation between that structure and the addition, this variance and the other would not be necessary. The staff estimates that with the setback that is proposed, the maximum height at 4 to 1 is about 37 feet. If the 10-foot yard were there, obviously 4 to 1 would be a 40-foot. They are requesting 42 feet in height. Because the properties on three sides of this are all owned by the University of Kentucky, the university is not bound by our zoning limitations on height buildings. So the approval of this very minimal variance, we don't think will have any adverse impact on the surrounding properties because they are not bound by any type of height limitation from our zoning. The final variance is to the side yard requirement, as I've mentioned. The ordinance requires 10 feet. The existing building is about eight feet from the property line. Of course, they wish to retain the front part of the building. The entire addition will meet the 10-foot requirement. And in the staff's view, if you were to average that entire wall, it might comply. But I would point out we're at a preliminary development plan stage. There could easily be minuscule changes that are either required by building codes or by architecture standards once they get into design of the addition. And in abundance of caution, it makes sense to consider a modest variance to this standard today, so as to save the sorority some time and potentially some money later in the process should their plans have to shift or change slightly. Certainly the existence of the existing building at eight feet is an unusual circumstance that warrants consideration of the variance. The final design, as I mentioned, has not been developed. And again, we're surrounded by property owned by the University of Kentucky, which also is not bound by those type of side yard and rear yard setbacks. Those are the unique circumstances associated with these variances that is atypical of other property in the area, being surrounded on that many sides by publicly owned land and also by other properties that are zoned R5 in the community. The staff's recommendation is for approval of the requested conditional use permit for two reasons. The permit issuance will not adversely affect the subject property or the surrounding properties, and all necessary public facilities are available and adequate for this proposed use. As we mentioned at your zoning committee meeting, the staff recommended approval of three of the four original variances requested, and the findings for approval of the three remaining variances do appear on your agenda and in the staff report. The findings are, first, there will be no adverse health, safety, welfare impacts to the adjoining neighborhood or to adjoining properties for these variances. Second, the unusual circumstances surrounding this proposed R5 property is that it is bordered by land owned by the University of Kentucky on three sides, including a large parking lot immediately to the south of this location. Third, strict application of the zoning ordinance would necessitate a significant reduction in the size and scope of this Greek housing facility. Fourth, approval of these variances will not result in an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance as the applicant has attempted to reduce the scope and the scale of these variances to the greatest extent that possible. And finally, the fifth finding is that there is no willful violation of any existing zoning regulation by the applicant for this request. We are recommending four conditions to your consideration of approval of the conditional use in the variance. First, this is provided that the Urban County Council rezones the property to R5. Secondly, that it be developed in accordance with this development plan or the final development plan that perhaps someday will come to this commission. Thirdly, that a note be placed on the development plan should the Planning Commission grant these variances, noting that approval. And finally, that the new parking lot shall be screened and landscaped as required by the zoning ordinance. Before you hear from the applicant, I'd be glad to answer any questions about our report or recommendation on these three variances and the conditional use permit. Any questions for Mr. Martin? I mean, for Mr. Sally? Thank you. I have this one just for clarification. Yes, sir. It says the fourth variant says reduce the maximum parking from 28 spaces to 37. That probably is incorrect. It should be to increase the maximum parking. That's shown on the agenda, but the staff report has it. The staff report is correct. Okay, good. Thank you. So it is a typo on the agenda. Okay. That's where I was being confused as well. Okay, now we're straightened, I think. Thank you, Mrs. Sally. Yes, sir. Applicant. You've heard everything there is to say about this. We're in complete agreement with the staff, and we would appreciate your consideration for this zone change request and the conditional use and associated variances. I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Mr. Nicklaus? Okay, thank you. I think we've got four motions on this. First of all, because of the reduction, they've omitted and they've asked to withdraw. They reduced the minimum front yard, and that's been recognized by staff for the most part. So unless there's something issue here connected, I will just by consensus allow them to withdraw that. there's no particular problem with that. Okay. Okay, and plus that it is on the purple sheet. Yeah, yeah, thank you. With that, then, we'd like to entertain a motion if there's no further discussion. First, we'll take the zoning portion, and then we'll go to that from the planning, the preliminary plan, and then we'll go from that to the conditional use of the variances, and then to the variances. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of Plan MAR 17-1 Kappa Kappa Gamma Incorporated with the reasons provided by staff. Okay. It's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve PLN MAR 17-1 Kappa Kappa Gamma Incorporated and for the reasons provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay. Motion carries. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of Plan MJDP 17-3 Kappa Kappa Gamma Incorporated with the nine conditions provided by staff on the revised condition. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved again by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve PLN MJDP 17-3 Kappa Kappa Gamma with the nine conditions as identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval. The variances requested in association with Plan MAR17-1 Kappa Kappa Gamma Incorporated. the three variances now since one's been withdrawn for the reasons provided by staff and the conditions provided by staff. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved again by Mr. Michael and seconded by Mr. Carolyn Richardson that we approve the three variances as identified by staff as long as the conditional use and with the conditions as also identified by staff. any other discussion on that particular motion. Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. I thought we covered the conditional uses as well as a part of the motion. Did you not? Mr. Chair, I failed to do so. We can't add that, most definitely. We can? Yes, the conditional use as far as the sorority house, yes, sir. In other words, we can't add it to the motion that we... I'm fine with that, yes, sir. Okay. The second are okay? Yes. Okay. Then we'll add the conditional uses as identified, making sure. And that was what I heard the first time around, but I just wanted to make sure, and I think that for the record, you're right to do that. Thank you. Number five, Ron Turner. Okay. Good afternoon. Our next item is PLN MAR 17-3, the request by Ron Turner, Amtech of Kentucky. This is a request to rezone property at 2472 Fortune Drive. requesting to rezone from a professional office zone to our wholesale and warehouse business zone, which is the B4 zone. The property is approximately five and a half acres. It's located on the east side of Fortune Drive, and Fortune Drive connects from the north, Winchester Road. It's a collector street down to Liberty Road. It does parallel New Circle Road in this vicinity. It is To the south of this location, Fortune Drive is primarily residential. To the north of this location, Fortune Drive is primarily B4 and other business zones. In this vicinity, you actually have four or five different zone categories that border the subject property. B1 is located across Fortune Drive in a small shopping center setting. B4 to the north of the subject property, P1 to the southwest, R4 along the southeast boundary, and then R3 along the northeast boundary. In this vicinity, most of the properties surrounding the subject property have been developed. Again, across Fortune Drive is a small shopping center, or was originally developed as a small shopping center. To the north is kind of an office warehouse project. To the south, the professional office structure building and parking. And then along the southeast property line, where the R4 and the R3 exist here, is an assisted living facility. And so they have a structure towards the front of their property and then kind of open space in the back. And then the R3 to the northeast is vacant. That is part of the Hamburg Farm and specifically the Tuscany development, and it's projected to be single-family residential in the future. So that dividing line between more commercial use and more residential use generally has been, I think it's Cornerstone. Let me see my notes. Yeah, Cornerstone Drive, this kind of curvy road here. And then Liberty Woods is the neighborhood further to the south. that you see on the aerial photograph there. This is just a view of the subject property looking back towards the assisted living facility and the vacant property on the Hamburg farm. Originally, the applicant is asking to rezone the property in order to build a two story office warehouse project of about 50,000 square feet on the site. The property was originally rezoned in 1995 from, at that point, an agricultural urban zone to an actually R4 zone for residential development. That never materialized. The property was rezoned again in 2000 to the professional office zone, and again, no development materialized. about 10 years ago, a different applicant proposed this exact same zone change request, but it did not move forward and was withdrawn. At that point, the Alzheimer's facility had been opposed to it, and I think perhaps the professional office development was opposed at that time as well. So they withdrew their application. And now, again, still the property has remained vacant while the rest of this area has developed around it. The petitioner did cite the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and stated that it was in agreement with several goals and objectives. However, the goals and objectives that were cited listed things about economic development and creating jobs, but they didn't provide any supporting details about what kinds of jobs they were creating, how many jobs. So the staff really couldn't find that it was in agreement with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Rather, we think that the proposed zone is appropriate and the existing zone is no longer appropriate at this location. Just really quickly, this was my helper, hosting zone change signs. She's adorable. She wanted to pose with the picture, so I let her. This is the subject property and my beautiful daughter. And then a view of the front edge along Fortune Drive there. Just the last aerial view there. In this instance, the staff does agree or has come to the conclusion that the existing zone is not appropriate at this location, but the proposed zone of B4 would be appropriate. And there are some existing physical boundaries that exist on the property. Along the professional office boundary here, there's already an extensive tree line that would remain a physical boundary between a P1 and a B4 zone. And then, I didn't mention it, but there is a detention easement that's been on this property for a good number of years that crosses and they're proposing a detention basin in the back here along the residential portion of the property as well as some buffering along this residential boundary. And the staff believes that those physical delineations will remain a good buffer between the before use and the residential uses. In order to protect the residential uses a little bit more though, the staff is recommending conditional zoning restrictions. And specifically, use restrictions that would prevent some of the before uses that are normally rather loud, like a machine shop, automobile repair, tire retreading and recapping, circuses and carnivals. And then wholesale trucking operations that might have hours that are beyond the normal noise ordinance times. We would recommend restricting those louder before uses that might disturb the Alzheimer's facility or future residential units in the Hamburg area. And then the staff also would suggest a conditional zoning restriction related to the landscape buffer. And they are depicting on their development plan meeting the conditional zoning restriction, which would require that the landscape buffer remain at 15 feet in width along any residential boundary. Article 18 does allow for that to be reduced to 5 feet where you put up a fence, and in this case the staff believes we should maintain the width of 15 feet and wanted to make sure that that occurred at any time when the property develops. The staff is, again, recommending approval of the zone change, and the zoning committee also recommended approval three weeks ago at their meeting. Happy to answer any questions. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is Mr. Martin, oh, oh, I'm sorry. See, you all hide behind the board over there. I don't know who's coming. Yep. All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. We're turning to page eight, item B, which is MJDP 17-5. It is Eastwood, Unit 6, Section 2, Lot 6. This is a preliminary development plan and it is a two story mixed use office building, 52,000 square feet. The central structure will be two stories with the wings being one story. This is located at 2472 Fortune Drive. It's located on a curvature within Fortune Drive. To the north, you do have mixed office use, and to the south, there are professional office. Towards the southeast, it's the Breckenridge, which is an assisted living residential facility. One thing to note with this plan is there is cross-access shown to both the north and south parcels. With that being said, there are nine total conditions, with your first four being your standard sign-offs. The others being to complete the tree inventory information for all trees 12 inches or larger in diameter. To note that the office laboratory floor areas will not exceed 75% of the total floor area within the site statistics. This note has already been added within the plan notes, but staff would like to see this clearly stated within the site statistics. We'd like to see the adjacent property zoning denoted on the plan. We also have two topics that are labeled for resolve. The first is resolve access to adjacent property. Staff does believe that this has been resolved and we're comfortable with it as shown by the cross access shown on the plan. And the second one is to resolve additional screening adjacent to the residential facility. What's shown currently on this plan does meet Article 18. Staff's concern is that it not be less than what is shown. With that, staff does recommend approval, and I would be happy to answer any additional questions. Any questions? I assume we can delete then number eight, resolve access to adjacent properties. I believe we can, yes. I'm sorry? I believe we can, but this is a preliminary as well. Is that a yes? Yes. Okay. So we have eight conditions. Okay. Any other? Yeah, I'm just curious. The proposed lot and the residential, the space that's in there, is that a separate lot? Is it buildable? Do we have any knowledge of that? To the southeast, I guess, between the residential area and the proposed lot? There's vacant land there. There is an assisted living facility on that property, and I believe that is their open space. That's their open space. Okay. Yes, that's my understanding. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. We have an agreement with the staff recommendation on both matters and ask for your approval. Thank you. Any other discussion from the Commission? Any other questions? Not, then we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move for recommendation of approval of Plan 17-3, Ron Turner, Amtech of Kentucky Incorporated for the reasons provided by staff. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee that we approve PLN MAR 17-3, Ron Turner, Amtech of Kentucky Incorporated for the reasons provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. And then also move for approval of Plan MJDP 17-5 Eastwood, Unit 6, Section 2, for the now eight reasons, deleting number eight itself as far as resolve access to adjacent property. Okay. Leave in number nine, which is resolve additional screening. You said delete number nine? No, delete eight, leave in number nine. Okay, gotcha, so we got eight. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens, second by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we approve PLNMJDP 17-5 Eastwood Unit 6, Section 2, Lot 6 in parenthesis Liberty Woods with the eight conditions provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. While you all are doing this, I'm going to excuse myself from this particular last plan. I have a visitation and a memorial service to attend in Louisville, Kentucky. I've asked Mr. Mike Owens, the previous chair, to carry on. Let the record show we still have a quarrel. Sorry for the reasons that you're leaving, and we will miss you. Please note who said that. I believe last on our agenda is on page 8. It's item 6, Plan MAR17-4, Urban County Council. For, I believe all the addresses on Adara Road. Mr. Chairman, thank you. This item does appear on page 8. It is a zone change that has been initiated by the Urban County Council, MAR17-04. This is a request to rezone 18 properties from an existing R1C single-family residential zone to requested R1B single-family residential zone. The acreage involved is just under 11 net acres, and the properties are located at 400 through 449 Adair Road. We have received a petition. The urban county government, I should say, has received a petition about this rezoning, and I think that was presented to the council when they initiated this zone change, and we'll circulate this to you at this time. Also at your place you will find a revised staff report. The staff has prepared one exhibit for today's meeting. And this revised staff report is largely due to the staff exhibit, and I will explain that in just a few moments. The subject area is on the 400 block of Adair Road. A dare ends in a cul-de-sac and extends northward across Hart Road here and terminates at Fontaine Road, a collector street in the area that many are familiar with. The subject property is entirely zoned R1C, as are all of the surrounding properties, although we do have R1D and R2 zoning in the general vicinity. As I mentioned, this includes 18 single-family residential properties along the 400 block, which is a cul-de-sac. Immediately to the west, in this area that is shaded, is Lexington's newest ND1 overlay neighborhood. This is for the Clinton Road neighborhood. I believe that you may remember a zone change hearing on that proposal last year, and ultimately it was approved and adopted. So although the underlying zoning is R1C to the west, there is an ND1 overlay zone that accompanies that immediately west of the subject property as well. This proposal is to rezone these 18 properties from R1C to R1B. The existing R1C zone requires a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and minimum lot frontage of 60 feet. The proposed R1B zone has a requirement for 15,000 square foot minimum lot sizes and minimum lot frontage of 100 feet. So the lot standards are very different for these two zones, whereas the uses that are allowed in the zones are identical. So that is the proposal is to change the lot minimum lot standards for these 18 properties. I do have some photos and a map to show you, to orient you to the location of this property, especially since we do not have a development plan for you to review this afternoon. This is a photo looking from the west to the east. Let's see if I can maybe darken the room just a bit. It might help. We find the 400 block to the south of Hart Road along both sides of the cul-de-sac in this location. This is Cochrane, which stubs into the property. Clinton Road is here. Bristol Road is immediately to the west of this location. It also is a cul-de-sac. And then Hart Road wraps around Bristol in this location. We're now looking from the north to the south at the property. Again, we have Hart Road in the lower left of the photo, the subject property area along both sides of the 400 block of Adair, Clinton, and Bristol at this location. And now looking westward. Again, Hart Road is now at this corner, subject property, Adair Road here, and the lot surrounding. You can tell from these photographs that, just judging by rooftops, there are fewer homes along this street than generally along the streets on either side. That's indicative of the fact that these lots are larger and have fewer dwellings and thus a lower residential density than all the properties that surround them as well. The final photograph is looking to the north from the south at mid-block on Adair. This gives you a little bit closer view of some of the homes mid-block. And again, that relationship between the rooftops is apparent when you look at this scale of the property. Go ahead and flip it to the map. Just leave that. Thank you. The existing lots on the 400 block of Adair are generally between just under 16,000 square feet in size up to about 37,000 square feet in size. And as I've mentioned and as the photos demonstrate, they are considerably larger than properties both along Bristol and Hart and in this general area of the Shriners neighborhood. The comprehensive plan does not really recommend a particular land use or density any longer in this area. And the staff could not determine which of the two zones, either the existing or the proposed, is perhaps a better fit with the comprehensive plan. We did find a goal that I will mention in just a few minutes that does seem to speak to this proposal, however. We can go to the map. The staff has prepared an exhibit reviewing this zone change because we feel it important for the property owners that are subject to a downzoning request like this to understand the implications of the change to their properties. We have four characteristics of the two zones between R1C and R1B that determine lot size requirements, lot frontage requirements, front yard setbacks, and side yard setbacks. All of the properties will meet the R1B requirements for lot size and lot frontage should they be rezoned. In addition, there are two properties that appear to be closer than 10 feet to the side property lines. Those are indicated in blue on this exhibit. So two of the 18 appear to become nonconforming structures should this zone change happen. What that means is they'll not be able to expand those sides of the structure without getting variances from the Board of Adjustment. Similarly, there are three structures that appear to meet the current R1C requirements of 30 feet of setback from the right-of-way that do not appear to meet the 40-foot minimum of the R1B zone. Again, those become nonconforming structures. they're allowed to remain, but it may have future implications on additions to the front of those structures without dimensional variances being granted. All in all, with these 18 properties and these four standards, there are some 72 non-conformities that have the potential of being created, and only five the staff could identify are probably going to be created if this property is down-zoned. That means that these 18 lots meet 93% of the lot and size requirements of the R1B zone, which is a very high correlation. And that is significant from the staff's review of this application. Doubling of the density the staff cites in our report is possible with the existing zoning. And given the fact that these lot characteristics are so different from those surrounding, we felt that this could be disruptive to the property owners along the 400 block of Adair if the R1C zoning were to remain. So we certainly understood the reason that they petitioned the council to initiate this zone change. Staff concluded in our report that an R1B zone is much more appropriate for the 400 block of Adair than the existing zone. Your zoning committee and the staff have recommended approval of this zone change from R1C to R1B for the reasons that are listed on the agenda and also appear in the staff report. Those are not revised as part of the staff report. What was revised were the number of nonconformities and the items that we had three weeks ago before we had concluded this analysis of the nonconformities. informities. First, there is insufficient information to determine whether the requested R1B zone or the existing R1C zone is more in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan. That said, secondly, the requested R1B zone is appropriate and the existing R1C zone is inappropriate for the four reasons we've cited. First, the large lot sizes in the area are inconsistent with the much smaller lot size requirements of the R1C zone. Secondly, doubling of the residential density on the street allowable in the existing zoning would be very disruptive to this well-established neighborhood. Thirdly, an R1B zone for the subject area is much more appropriate given the existing lot sizes and lot frontage characteristics of this block of Adair. And finally, Chapter 1, which is the goals and objectives section of the 2013 comprehensive plan, does recommend enabling existing and new neighborhoods to flourish through improved regulation. The more restrictive requirements of an R1B zone would meet this goal. As I mentioned, there is no development plan since this is a council-initiated zone change. That's why I wanted to familiarize the commission with this area using photographs and this map. But before you hear from residents of the area, I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have about our staff report or our staff recommendation to you on this zone change. Questions for Mr. Salley? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Was this abbreviated or not? I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, if citizens wish to speak or not. Well, we can let them agree. One, is there a representative for the applicant? Any representation? If not, would anyone like to speak? If so, if not, thank you for coming. Okay. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? No? Okay. Thank you. I'll turn it back to the council then. Any questions? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion and or motion. Ms. Richardson? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move approval of PLN MAR 17-04, Urban County Council, with the recommended approvals of the staff. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of Plan MAR 17-04, Urban County Council, for the reasons provided by staff. Any questions? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you for coming down today. I believe that's all of the agenda items today. Any audience items, commission items? If not, I'll move on to staff. Yes, sir. Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chair, we don't have anything extra for you. I don't believe, do we, Mr. Sally? None that I'm aware of, sir. Okay. If not, then... Mr. Chair, just a moment. If you hold on just a moment. Our council would like to pass on something, Mr. Chair. Okay. I just wanted to make you all aware that we've received an appeal on the Boone Creek decision. It came in, I guess, yesterday. So we'll be responding to that accordingly. Okay. Very good. Does that involve us? It does. They filed both against the Planning Commission and the Urban County Council. What's the procedure? We have 20 days to file an answer or some kind of a motion, and then we'll go forward from there. Our legal department will keep us advised, I'm sure. Anything else? If not, I think I can call this meeting adjourned then. Thank you. Thank you. I'm out. One more time. Now.