test I would like

to call the March 23, 2017 urban planning commission to order.

The first order of business I would like to have a few moments

of silence for the ucla bruins

because they're going down.

[Laughter] On to serious matters.

Approval of the minutes. We have two sets.

>> Mr. Chair. >> yes ma'am.

In lieu of approval of

February 23, 2017 minutes and

March 9, 2017 minutes as corrected.

>> properly moved secondly Miss Carolyn richardson that we

approve the minutes of February 23, 2017 and March 9, 2017.

Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on

the monitors.

>> postponements and withdrawals. >> good afternoon.

Nick nichol son on behalf of taylor made real estate page 4

of the agenda item number 3. We would ask for a postponement

to the April 13 planning commission meeting.

We feel the only real issue is you all hard in the committees

is the traffic movements for the left hand turns and we wanted to

do a traffic stud toe -- study to make sure it gets reviewed.

We thought it would be helpful information to you all and the

neighbors as well. I have been told we can get it

done in time and since that's

the only issue we only request a

postponement.

>> I live in stonewall, a

neighborhood of the windale subdivision. I represent the neighborhood

association and we do accept the postponement request.

But I would request to make a

few comments if you don't mind. >> okay.

>> number one, we were informed

of this at 4:30 P.M. Yesterday. >> informed of what?

>> of the postponement at a meeting that we were using as

kind of a rehearsal for what we wanted to say and get our points

across. Is this right?

Can you hear me? >> yes.

>> I would just remind you that it's hard for neighborhoods to

get here with the kind of representatives that they want

and we all take time off from

our jobs, we have to rearrange

things and make child care arrangements. It would be very helpful if we

had more than 16 hours of notice for the postponement.

It really puts a burden on us.

And I did notice that the request for postponement is the

time to conduct traffic study regarding the two left turn

movements the neighborhood brought up in committee.

That committee meeting was March

2 and this is March 23rd.

We just think we could have a little more advance notice and

we respectfully request that. >> your comments are so noted.

Thank you, ma'am. >> could I also ask a

clarification for when we will

reconvene for this? >> they asked for April 13.

>> at what time and where? >> 1:30 right here.

>> okay, good. can I say one more thing?

>> you're pushing your luck but go ahead.

I'm feeling benevolent because I know the cats are going to take

this thing. >> the comprehensive plan is

important to all of us.

I respectfully hope that we can somehow write a need for advance

notice to neighborhoods neighborhoods when postponements and other issues

come up rather than 16 hours. Thank you for listening.

>> thank you, ma'am. Okay.

Now back anyone else? Good. I'll turn it back to the

commission for a motion.

For postponement until April 13. >> Mr. Chair, thank you.

I move for postponement of pln mar-0006-taylor made real estate

llc to April 13 of 2017.

>> it has been properly moved

and seconded that we postpone

pln-mar-0006 taylor made real estate until April 13.

Any discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on

the screen.

Postponements or withdrawals? We have an abbreviated hearing.

The abbreviated one is going to

be on page 2 david m carl and

joseph zoning map amendment. Will you prepare for that unless

the staff has anything else? >> staff has no objection but we

ask if anyone is here in the audience for this particular item.

Again we are looking at

imagination 2 of today's agenda.

Mar 17-0005, zone change request

for property with an address of

1251 red mile, zone change is

from b-4 to r-3. Is there anyone present today

who wishes to speak to this change or object to this

proposed zone change on red mile

road?

Seeing none we can do an abbreviated hearing.

>> staff ready for this? >> we'll set up the development

plan and be ready in a moment.

>> good afternoon.

Our item is pln-mar-175 request

by david m.Harl and

josophiad.Harl, to rezone from

r-4 to r-3 zone. The subject property is located

on red mile road.

It's on the southwest side of

red mile and ulin court stubs

into the property from south

broadway.

It's primarily in a b-4 zone.

One property that fronts on to red mile and south broadway

that's b-1 in that location red

mile is a mixture of commercial, residential office and on the

north side of red mile road we

have the red mile track and

event center and they propose in

their mixed use zone future development of residential,

retail and other entertainment

uses. The petitioner is proposing, I

guess we'll run through an aerial view of the subject property there.

You can see most of the properties around are developed

with the exception of across red

mile where the red mile property plans do some of their mixed use

and the adjacent property to the

northwest is also vacant. The subject property has a

building located on it and the

applicant proposes to reuse that building.

It was built in a b-4 zone for a

contractor to use as their office which is permitted use in

the b-4 zone.

But it does have a very residential character to it with

dormers and kind of a front windows and doors.

So this is how the subject

property looks currently.

They're requesting the rezoning

from b-4 to r-3 in order to occupy the structure with a

fraternity house for 25 beds for the fraternity house and that is

a conditional use in the r-3

zone as well as r-4 and r-5. Of course that will be addressed

in a separate report. This is looking to the

northwest.

The open vacant lot and beyond

that headquarters of phi gamma delta another fraternity.

This is where the landscaping is

not as full as in other locations and we identified it

as missing in that location. So from the rear of the property

looking back to the existing structure and red mile road, you

can see the entire rear yard of

this property is paved and then

these are the two side property

lines, the southeast property

line where uhlan court stubs in and the property line that is

shared with the vacant lot.

So the 2013 comprehensive plan of course doesn't make a land

use recommendation anymore but we do utilize the goals and

objectives and policy statements

from the plan to evaluate whether something is in

agreement with the comprehensive plan or not.

The applicant actually made

three justifications they feel is in agreement with the

comprehensive plan, they feel is appropriate this location and

they also felt it was compliant

with a 1990 south broadway

corridor plan. The staff did note in our report

we don't believe the 1990 corridor plan is in play any

longer since it is quite dated. The proposed residential zoning

for the fraternity house is in close proximity, especially

within walking distance of the

university of kentucky and it

would reduce vehicle miles

traveled to for individuals who would live here because they

would be able to walk, bike or

use public transit to campus there is mixed use development

plan across red mile road and

the staff opined that a residential use would be

compatible with nearby uses, specifically the mixed use

across the street and there is a

single family residential lot adjacent to to the property

although it is in a b-4 zone and

lastly there are several, we

believe there are redevelopment opportunities along south broadway near the intersection

of red mile and a pobilityd that

residential would be a good fit in this location as opposed to

the existing b-4 uses in that vicinity.

The staff did come to the conclusion that the proposed r-3

zone is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, specifically

the goals and objectives mentioned by the applicant which

include expanding housing

choices housing objections that

address market needs for all citizens.

Adaptive reuse of existing

structures and calling for compact contiguous mixed use

development inside of urban service bound requirement the

proposed zoning will allow adaptive reuse of a structure

that has distinctive residential

character and allow for additional housing options near

the university. Multifamily residential is

common along red mile road and

also parts of the south broadway corridor and this would be

consistent with that. The proposed redevelopment is

within the urban service

boundary and would allow for compact and contiguous

development.

The residential development for

is within walking distance and

the opportunities at this major intersection, the residential

lapped use redevelopment has historically been land use in

this area and we recommend approval contingent on the

acceptance and approval of the associated development plan by

the planning commission and its certification within two weeks.

The zoning committee recommended

approval of this request. Happy to answer any questions.

>> any questions for Miss Wade?

Thank you.

>> the development plan will be

next. >> you all should have a copy of

the blue sheet that says major

development plan 17-10 uhlan court subdivision. This is an existing building so

this is a final development plan

for the property because the building is existing and we are

just going to have a few sign-offs.

When we had it at the subdivision committee there were

concerns and issues over the

parking that was along this drive aisle here and they had a

larger area in the back that was

open since the committee meeting

they changed the layout so you have two way traffic in and out

because that was a concern with

the fire and traffic engineering and they created the parking to

the rear. They also have an area that's

kind of left open for basketball

court or outdoor activities in this area.

With this revision, there was a

gate that was already on the property so they're trying to

work with the gate that is located on the property so they

have the entrance going into the drive aisle this entrance here

is only 16 feet wide and

typically we like to see 18 to 20.

There is a sign-off for engineering. So we are working with them to

get the sign-off for that point.

We have a few variances for the distances and we'll go over

those with you. Any other questions?

>> Miss Gault on the development plan, you have a business that

is at the corner, however you

pronounce that street, u lan

uhlan court.

My understanding you can check with the Jr., we discussed this

with the engineer but eye understanding a grade change so

there is no way really for anyone to come in off uhlan

court to the property when you. >> when you get stuff from the

rental place you go in and out

that way. What is on the corner of uhlan

and broadway?

>> I think it's a sign company now. >> I'm on the other side of the street.

I understand.

>> and this is the property line

where uhlan court stubs in with the fence.

So there is not... There is a solid barrier there where they

would need to jump it or go around. >> I understand. Thank you.

>> any other questions for Miss Gault?

>> thank you. >> presenting the staff report

associated with items b and c on

page 3 of your agenda this is

mar 17-05, and they have

requested your approval and consideration of a conditional

use permit for the property to operate a fraternity house at

this location in the proposed

r-3 zone and they're also asking

for and providing you two staff reports.

The good news is I'm mindful that we are in an abbreviated

hearing today.

We've also handed out to you a

legal size sheet with findings

for your consideration of these

requests two variances they requested are to allow this

existing building to remain four

feet from the right of way along

red mile road and four feet from

the stub in addition, the elimination of the perimeter

landscaping requirement.

But I can tell you and you can see from some of the photographs

the perimeter of this property

is almost entirely compliant with the article 18 requirement.

That staff has noted nat our

report. As Miss Gault mentioned to you,

the applicant has revised significantly off street parking

and that has changed the staff's

opinion of this proposed conditional use.

With the parking now functional in a way that can be safely done

on the property while still ensuring there will be an open

space area for the residents of this fraternity should it be

approved, the staff can now say that all of the required

facilities are available and adequate for the proposed

conditional use. As you can tell from the agenda

three weeks ago, we had not reached that conclusion.

But this revision makes that

possible in the staff's view. There are no structural changes

proposed about to the building thus the provisions of article 3

of the ordinance allow that

structure to be rezoned and not

have to comply with the ordinary 20-foot set back of the r-3 zone.

The only exterior changes proposed to the property are the

addition of a handicap ramp and the staff understands in the

photo you are looking at here, the addition of a fire escape on

this end of the building from

the second floor. As I mentioned, the landscaping

is nearly compliant with the ordinance requirements.

There are two areas where it's just shy.

One is in the photograph in this area.

You can see there is a fence and a few trees.

We don't think it's missing two

or three trees the northern

property line, there is no double row of hedge material.

There is on the property a retaining wall where about

two-thirds of its lot depth to this point right here, which

begins the off street parking

area including the addition of

one handicapped parking space. The landscape variance portion

of this request was called for review by your landscape review

committee on February 14. However they did not have a quorum.

The discussion at that meeting

with the members present was

that with that particular use

planting from the end of that

wall to the rear of the parking area so that is part of the

staff's recommendation as a condition that that's the only

landscape material that is

recommended to be plant. If I request refer you quickly

to the legal size sheet titled

findings for conditional use,

these are compiled from the two staff reports, the one that was

done primarily for the landscaping three weeks ago and

the one that was sent to you late yesterday revising the

staff's recommendation on the conditional uses.

To summarize the staff is recommending approval of the

requested conditional use permit for two reasons.

First the use of the property for fraternity house will not

harm the public health safety or

welfare and will not impair the integrity or character of the

existing neighborhood with the redesign of the off street

parking area associated with the use, all necessary public

facilities and services are now available and adequate for the

proposed conditional use you can see the staff is recommending

five conditions associated with that.

Of the five, the very last one

on number 5, the requirement for curbing and/or wheel stops, the

applicant is not in agreement with that and certainly the

staff would have no objection to remove that to where that

condition would require the

separation without those

particular improvements to the site.

The staff is recommending

withdrawal of the requested front yard setback for the

reasons I mentioned article 3-2 does not require the building to

meet the ordinary 20-food because there are no structural

chaingsz proposed to that building. Staff is recommending approval

for the reasons on the sheet.

First there will be no adverse

health, safety or welfare impacts to the adjoining

neighborhood or neighboring properties.

Second unusual circumstances surrounding the r-3 property or

other land in the vicinity is that the height of the existing

fence and landscape material

will almost completely comply

with article 18 requirements thirdly strict application of

the ordinance requirements would constitute an unnecessary

hardship to the applicant approval of the variances would

not result in an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements as the applicant

has committed to retain the existing landscaping that is in

place on the property. Finally there is no willful

violation of any existing zoning

regulation by the applicant. at this point I would be glad to

answer any questions from the commission before you hear from

the applicant on this zone change request with the

variances and conditional uses

requested as well.

>> thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Sahly, with the cm use I -- conditional use, with the staff

recommendation, you mention there are no windows on the side

of the building that faces closest to the residential neighborhood.

If they choose to cut windows in there, what is the process?

Do they have to come back to us, get a building permit?

Is it possible? >> it May be possible and they

would not have to come back to

the planning commission for that. They could go to the division of

building inspection and have it reviewed under the building code

and any permits necessary for that would be issued through

that office, not through

planning. How critical is that.

You used it in the approval reasons. How critical do you think that

is? >> I'm not sure the planning

commission needs to include that

as a finding but we have had no information given to us that

they're participating that.

It is possible that converting

it to a residential use for egress May require additional

openings in that wall. What was most important to the

staff was that there only appeared to be one dwelling unit

within about 250 feet of the property.

>> okay, thank you.

>> any other questions for

Mr. Sahly?

>> thank you. >> Mr. Chairman I'm dick

murphy representing the owners

of the property Mr. And Mrs. Hard.

David harl is with me in the

audience and matt carter, our designer is here along with

chazz height who works with me. We are in general agreement with

the staff recommendations on the

property and we do withdraw our request for a front yard

variance on that.

We do withdraw that so it only leaves the landscape variance.

We appreciate working with the staff.

We have totally reconfigured the parking and recreation

arrangement from what you saw at

your subcommittees in the way suggested by the staff and so we

have made that major revision to

it and we thank them for working with us.

I do have two very minor items I wanted to present to you.

One is a note which we have worked out about the gate.

If I can give it here.

Should red mile be widened in

the future, my note which we

agreed to says that in the event

that red mile road is widened in the future, the gate shown on

the plan May be relocated or eliminated, as determined by the

division of traffic engineering and that would be a note on the

development plan.

We would put on the development plan.

The other issue that Mr. Sahly

mentioned was the note 5 on the

conditional use conditions for

approval about the separation between the basketball court

which is going to be our recreational area and the

parking which is rate along this line. You can see the parking spaces

there and the basketball court right there.

He had suggested curbing or wheel stops.

We would request for safety purposes something higher that people can see.

We are suggesting concrete planters because they would be

more in the field of vision of

people playing basketball. So I'm suggesting on that number

5 be worded exactly as you have

it but add the words, it says

with curbingor wheel stops.

I suggest adding or concrete planters or similar material on

that just to allow us to do something we feel is a little

more safe since you are going to have people playing basketball

next door. We are in agreement with the

staff recommendation.

>> I have a question for Mr. Pen.

>> Mr. Murphy, would this fraternity house be owned by

housing corporation or is that the same way?

I have been through the fraternity situations.

Is this a housing corporation buying this property?

>> no, Mr. And Mrs. Harl will retain ownership.

They'll do a long-term lease to

the housing corporation.

>> let me ask one quick question Mr. Sahly and staff. Are you all comfortable with

that modification given to you from Mr. Murphy about the

gate?

>> that's fine. >> all right, any other

questions for Mr. Murphy?

Thank you. During this abbreviated period

we can go right into the discussion and motions.

We have three things to work

with, actually four. Four items and we'll take them

in this order. First of all the zone change,

secondly the plan itself, then

we'll go back to the requested conditional uses and the

requested variances.

And we'll have to make some notifications going through here.

Normally we would combine the conditional uses with the

requesting variances but because it's making some changes here

I'm just exercising prerogative

here to make it three, four separate motions as opposed to

one. We'll entertain a motion on the

very first one, the plan itself.

Don't all speak at one time. >> Mr. Chairman, I move for

approval of pln-mar-17-5 the

david m. Harl and josophiad. Harl subdivision.

>> properly moved that we

approve pln-mar-17-5. Any discussion on the motion?

Please vote when it comes up on

the screens. Motion carries.

Could we move to the development

plan that's on page 4.

>> I move approval of

pln-mgdp-10, uhlan court subdivision.

>> second.

>> properly moved and seconded

we approve pln-mjdp-17-10 uhlan court subdivision.

Any other discussion on the motion? If not please vote when it comes

up on the screen. Let me back up just one minute

because we had a revision to the

conditions provided by staff

related to plan, so if it's agreeable with you, you are the

original maker of the motion that you would approve the plan

with the revised conditions made by staff. That's okay?

>> yes. And Mr. Patrick brewer, that's

okay with you as a second? >> yes.

Let's revote on that for safety sake. We are going to vote on the

revised conditions as presented. So please vote when it comes up

on the screen.

Thank you motion still carries 11-0.

Now we'll move back to the

conditional uses as the requested variance.

Let's take the conditional uses.

>> I move approval of the requested conditional use permit

with the findings presented by

staff with the exception of

adding to the number 5 condition

and adding planter or similar materials. >> what about the other

amendment, they had another

section that they wanted adding to that.

Move in the event the red mile

road, I don't have it up on... Yes.

>> development plan note that it

will be part of the sign-off.

>> so the original motion is

approval, properly moved by Miss

Carolyn richardson and seconded

by patrick brewer approve the conditional uses with conditions

outlined by staff and the findings by staff.

Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none would you please

vote on that?

Motion carries.

Requested variances.

>> I move for withdrawal of the

requested front yard variance.

>> second.

You want to move approval of the

other one. Staff recommendations are to

take one, eliminate, reduce the minimum front yard.

We only have one there.

So in other words you want to, I

think approve the staff recommendations related to the

requested variances with the

landscaping and then withdraw the front yard...

>> don't need two separate motions for that.

>> just take one will be fine. >> all right.

I move for approval of the requested landscape variances

with the findings that have been

recommended by the staff and including the withdrawal of the

requested front yard variance.

>> very nicely done. It has been properly moved and

seconded that we accept the approve the requested variance

with the elimination of 15-foot

perimeter landscape buffer,

withdrawing the requested front yard variance with the

conditions and findings presented by staff.

Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, would you please

vote when it comes up on the

screens? Motion carries.

Thank you. okay. Ladies and gentlemen oh one

other thing Mr. Murphy, I understand that you would like

to have another postponement. I don't want you to forget a

second time. >> I'm about ready to forget

this the second time.

On page 6, item c-1 zota,

supportive uses as a special provision in the economic

development zone, this is

technically your alls amendment but for a property for a client

I was working with. We request another one-month

postponement because the city

council has not yet had its

hearing on what I call the big

economic development text amendment.

I call this the little economic development text amendment so we

request a one-month postponement on that.

>> anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular

agenda item? For purposes I don't have my

calendar, what is the date on that?

>> zoning hearing in April is on

the 27th.

>> April 27..

>> I move for postponement of

zota 2016-5 to the April 27 meeting. >> it has been properly moved

and seconded that we postpone

zoda 2016-5 until April 27.

Any other discussion on the

motion? Motion carries.

Thank you.

Now we go back to page 1 ach son

heller.

>> our next item is pln

manufacture mar-17-2 ach atchisoner construction property

located at 2011 armstrong mill

road and 3539 ken eds drive to

rezone 11 and a half acres from

an auguster urban and townhouse

residential to a planned residential zone.

I have one letter from the

adjoining victory baptist church

related to extension of

fairinger drive.

The staff handed out a packet of information rlier before the

full meeting started.

It includes some historical information and planning

commission decisions and an

aerial photograph and then a

revised staff report that is not

in your notebook today. Hill

both of these road ways in this location are collector streets

and that intersection is

actually a four-way stop on armstrong mill.

We look a little closer at the

zoning in this area, the subject

property is primarily a-u with a

very small slice of r-1 t zoning. Adjacent to the subject property

is victory baptist church at 2261 armstrong mill.

They remain in an auguster urban zone.

There are a few other agricultural zones in the community.

To the southwest there are some

a-u and then just to the east,

less than a mile is the urban

service boundary. I believe.

But there remains some agricultural rural zoning in the

vicinity and then there is a utility substation also on

armstrong mill in an ag zone.

The rest of the property

vicinity is zoned currently for residential and developed as

residential.

It's a mixture of r-1, r-2, r-3

and r-4 as well as I guess r-1t

adjacent to the subject

property, r-1-e, r-4 for the heartland neighborhood across

armstrong mill and anticipate

complex just across ken saw kenesaw.

And if you look closer at an aerial photo, the subject

property is primarily just agricultural in nature as it

currently stands. There is a single family

residence and a barn on the subject property but it does

also have a repairian area that crosses the subject property.

I'm going to point that out. This trade area that crosses the

subject property and crosses

just very near the intersection

of armstrong mill what is we

would consider a repairian area. There is a creek that runs

through that part of the property and our fema flood

plain doesn't pick up until

right at kenesaw and that is generally because the property

is in an agricultural zone and

so detailed study of the fema flood plain was not completed

for property unless it was developed already.

It is presumed that will happen when a property comes in for

development, the developer does

the flood plain analysis and

fema provides the fema information.

Another view of the subject property, you can see the church

in the foreground on this and

where berringer drive stubs into

the subject property here, in this situation berringer drive

actually stubs into both the

church property and the subject property, their shared property

line at the rear of the church

is basically the center line of

berringer drive.

Another view of the barn in the

foreground on this photo, the

subject property single family residence proposed to remain and

victory baptist church and the

surrounding summer field... That's not summer field.

Surrounding subdivision.

The applicant is requesting this rezoning to r-3 in order to

develop a mixture of single

family dwelling units, 32, and

then townhouse residential units

8 of those total density of 3.74

units per acre. The application, I'm just going

to actually go over the

development plan slightly berringer drive stubs in on the

west side of the subject

property and that's an issue.

Here is the flood repairian area that crosses the property and

they show that eight townhouses

on the springfield drive side of the property and then the rest

of the property is shown with

single family residential.

They are keeping the existing

house and utilizing easements around the banks of single

family homes.

The applicant contends the 2013 comprehensive plan is being met

with this application and they

do cite several goals and

objectives related to a mixed

type housing development, which

they are showing.

Expanding housing choices, supporting infill redevelopment,

providing well designed neighborhoods and communities

which includes neighborhoods that are connected for

pedestrian and various modes of transportation and upholding the

urban service boundary. The staff would also encourage

the planning commission to consider several other goals and

objectives specifically related

to the existing drainage easement or drainage way that

crosses the property that the

creek that is in it as well as

the existence of a stub street.

Theme b goal a says to identify and protect natural resources

before development occurs and

then theme d goal 1 says to work

to achieve an effective and comprehensive transportation system.

The staff report report inned February to the zoning committee

and at that point recommended

postponement.

The requested zone change and associated development plan and

the development plan is a tool

that the applicant uses and that the staff and planning

commission evaluate to determine if something is in compliance

with the comprehensive plan. So while there are different

decision the comprehensive

planning commission makes, they are, we know very well connected

to each other.

But the staff felt at the beginning of February that there

were some pieces not being met

by the applicant in terms of the

comprehensive plan and I think

outside of those goals and objectives just in terms of

protecting and identifying the

natural resources and then the comprehensive transportation

network were cited.

The development plan we believe doesn't meet parts of the zoning

ordinance and land subdivision

regulations.

At this point there is a lack of

determination starting neant 90

excuse me in 1991, to establish at that point two lots, one for

the church and one for the featherston park farm and at

that time a cul-de-sac designation was made for the

extension of berringer drive so

those documents are what the

staff has provided.

A year prior emanuel church came

in and they were doing a church

plant and made aware a cul-de-sac would be required at

the end of berringer drive so

those documents from 1990 on did

document the extension of berringer drive.

At some point, some minor changes came to the board of

adjustment in 1997, basically

asking for allowances to, instead of building a permanent

building using a mobile home on

the site for an education wing,

and those were granted without the extension of berringer

shown, but in no way did those undo the work the planning

commission and the board of

adjustment did earlier in the 19

neants that plat -- 1990s, in

2001 the church signed another

plat acknowledging that there was still a reservation for

berringer drive to continue.

And that's all in the packet we've provided.

In addition to the proposed use

of access easements, detached single family residences, this

is the applicant's planning to

do those or asking to do those

but without any evidence as

required by the subdivision

regulations and the subdivision regulations specifically say there has to be evidence of a

rare and extreme circumstance or

other just cause in order for the planning commission to

approve those access easements. 's access easements proposed by

the petitioner actually create numerous lots where pavement is

located on three sides of the

single family residences. In February the staff

recommended postponement and we made the statement at that time

that these issues needed to be resolved before we could make a

substantial recommendation.

The applicant did meet with the

staff in mid February and they

submitted this revised plan, which really does not address

the issues, the two major issues

that or three issues that remained and the staff believes

are in conflict of interest with --

conflict with goals with the

zoning regulations.

One of the specific issues was berringer drive.

The staff of the division of planning, division of

engineering and the division of traffic engineering all agree

that a cul-de-sac, as proposed

in the early 90s at the end of berringer drive would provide an

appropriate termination to that

street and yet the applicant

continues to propose basically a

parking lot at the end of that

existing stub street. This puts... Well, I'll kind of

move on to the next thing.

The creek and the greenway and

repairian area, these need to be

identified and the applicant is

proposing as it appears to be taking the residential units

away from that greenway creek area.

However, the stream is not specifically delineated on the

plan. I think Mr. Martin sketched in

it with a blue parker to help the planning commission but when

you look at the aerial photographs it's actually a

winding creek that goes through there. It's not a straight line.

And the applicant hasn't provided any information about

the repairian area in that

location, any indication as to

where the flood plain might be,

and it's difficult for the planning commission and the

staff to assess whether

something is protecting an environmental resource if those

environmental resources can't be

identified on the development

plan.

Next the lfucg, I'm going to buzz through those because we've

already talked about them.

Greenway master plan also

identifies the man o'war greenway trail along the

frontage both along kenesaw and

armstrong mill for the subject

property. Subject property is here with

the creek shown crossing it and then some drainage ways along

the frontage as well and the

trail is proposed to be along armstrong mill and kenesaw drive.

Again the applicant hasn't indicated on their development

plan any indication that they're acknowledging, you know trail

needs to come along the frontage

of their plan. The staff, after looking at

these issues and acknowledging

our finding out that the applicant has account adequately

addressed them, we believe that

these circumstances don't foster

well designed neighborhoods as

recommended by the comprehensive plan.

The staff finds that the proposal doesn't respect the

existing character of the

immediate area, doesn't create an effective comprehensive

transportation network since berringer drive is not going to

be completed and does not do

enough to protect the natural

resources as they exist in the

property today. The 2013 comprehensive plan is

more than a land use plan.

It is, it now incorporates design into the goals and

objectives so while we want to maybe not look at some design

issues when we determine whether something is in agreement with

the comprehensive plan, those two things are really

intertwined now.

Completion of streets, protecting the streams and

creeks if that's thought known on the development plan, not

sure how the staff can say it's

in agreement with comprehensive plan. So in this case, the petitioner

has not provided enough

information to meet the design specifications of the

comprehensive plan. The land subdivision regulations

and the zoning ordinance so the

staff is recommending

disapproval of the requested

rezoning for two, actually three reasons.

The proposed r-3 zone is not in

agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan.

It runs contrary to several of the goals and objectives as

established in the plan; specifically theme b which is

protection of the environment

and specifically within that goal 3 a which calls for the

identification and protection of

our natural resources before

development occurs.

Also it is contrary to theme d

which is improving desirable community and specifically goal

1 and its objectives calls for

achieving and effective and comprehensive transportation

system and it runs contrary to

previous planning commission decisions.

Also the petitioner doesn't recognize the man o' war trail

on their plan and lastly, the plan calls for growing

successful neighborhoods and specific within that, that the

staff has the most concern about

is the well designed neighborhood part.

Of all the applicant is offering a mixture of residential types

at this location, the staff doesn't believe that this

respects the character of the

cear and doesn't provide for the well designed neighborhoods and

of most concern from the very beginning has been the use of

access easements and again several, I think eight lots have

access easements or public

street on three sides and that

creates a situation where really

it's just an undesirable

location to live.

The second reason the staff is recommending disapproval is we

don't believe there are any unanticipated change in the

immediate area that can be

documented in order to approve an r-3 zone at this location and

then lastly we believe that

because of this, really inappropriate plan that is

proposed that a-u remains appropriate at this location

until an appropriate development

plan that meets the

comprehensive plan zoning ordinance which are requirements

and land subdivision regulations

for the community. I would be happy to answer any

questions about this recommendation.

>> any questions for Miss Wade. Mr. Drake, I'll go with you

first since you haven't had a chance. >> yes, I have a question,

tracey.

I remember discussing this in zoning committee.

I don't remember all of the details.

Is there a dedicated easement

for the cul-de-sac?

If we don't approve this, then the cul-de-sac issue is postponed.

But if we do, it's on the table.

And if there is a dedicated

easement for the cul-de-sac does part of the...

>> there is no dedicated easement.

There is a reservation of land

acknowledged when the property was subdivided.

So that expresses the intent to

build a cul-de-sac at this location. >> does that have the same legal

binding as an easement?

>> I would ask our counsel that

question. >> does it have the same legal

finding? Glits another plan, right?

So I think they're obligated to

comply with that unless it's released.

>> the second part of the

question is any of the, does any

of the existing structure encroach upon that?

>> I'll refer you to sort of the

last couple of pages of the

exhibit the staff handed out.

Probably the 1991 plan that was

brought in or approved in

December 1990 and signed in January 1991 shows the

cul-de-sac with dash lines.

The right of way is, I believe 40 feet. Is that right, tom?

And then there is the required

set back of 20 feet from that

right of way line.

Their board of adjustment approval indicated that they

would be locating the building 45 feet from their property

line.

So that should accommodate both

the extension of the cul-de-sac

and the 20-foot set back.

The applicant's development plan

shows the building setback at 40 feet instead of 45.

But when I checked our aerial photograph in gis, it appeared

to be 45 feet.

So I would argue that the church located in the right location

and the subject development plan

was drafted incorrectly.

But they should be able to

accommodate a cul-de-sac at that location. >> thank you.

The only reason I raise that is

I wanted them to flow -- to know that if there was a potential

conflict in the future they should be prepared to deal with

it but apparently there will be no conflict.

>> the conflict would come where

they've included the playground and that was not on the site

plan for any of the board of adjustment cases.

So they've added that of their

own acard and not -- accord and not been granted any specific

permission to do so.

So an extension of the cul-de-sac as planned could

impact their playground but

again that was not an approved location for a playground.

>> that's not as serious as

having to dismantle a structure. >> right.

>> thank you. >> tracey.

In regards to this termination,

we've got a letter here from

victory saying they don't want

the cul-de-sac.

They're the adjoining owner.

The other end of berringer does

not end in a cul-de-sac.

The two streets that run off of

berringer do not end in cul-de-sacs.

The plan that we were going to

be looking at today, which got

postponed there on mill does not end in a cul-de-sac.

It's a hammer head.

This is the plan they that got postponed earlier.

So I guess my question is is if

we don't do this cul-de-sac, who is harmed here?

Who is damaged if that is not done?

>> I would say the public is damaged. >> how?

>> well, public access into and safety for safety reasons for

the fire trucks to circulate there for the trash trucks.

>> we've got the same situation

on berringer at the other end of

it and the two streets that come

off of it. >> I'm not sure what you mean by

saying they don't end in a cul-de-sac.

I'm assuming you are saying they're through streets?

>> they're not but they do not end in cul-de-sacs.

You can see it partially on this

, but the other end of

berringer does not end in a cul-de-sac.

>> that's a hammer head approved

by the subdivision regulations. >> so... >> the parking lot...

>> I still don't understand how

the public is going to be harmed by this when we've got that

situation out there. We were getting ready to create

the same situation on this plan.

>> that plan is for a daycare center. >> what?

>> that plan is for a daycare.

>> I understand but it's still public access.

>> it's basically a driveway to their building. >> okay.

Well that was my question.

>> tracey, a couple things.

One, you know, from what you

laid out, there are several

concerns here. The committee subdivision

committee when we last met first

of March, we primarily focused on just what the discussion is

right now, the cul-de-sac or berringer.

We really did not hear much as

far as the even the possibility

of a flood plain that I think

should be researched and so

forth. But my concern, I'm addressing

right at the moment, you

indicated that the staff hasn't met with baptist since February.

>> we offered to meet with them again and had no response.

>> you know, when we left out of subdivision committee, and i

think, I know it was recommended

for postponement, I May have

done it myself, but it was the

fact that this thing maybe is going forward but it's not ready

yet and discussions should be

had and these discussion items should be hammered out, you

know, prior to coming here this

week and obviously nothing, it doesn't sound like anything has been done.

>> nothing has been done.

>> that concerns me greatly with that. You know, I think this thing

needs more work and quite frankly I make a motion to

postpone it right now but I'm going to let the discussion go.

>> have you to let the

discussion go. >> tracey, this is a preliminary

development plan, right?

>> it is. >> it's preliminary enough, has

enough information on it for the soap change. >> I think the staff doesn't

believe it does. The division of engineering

asked for additional information about the flood plain and we are

not contacted either. >> well, there is no flood plain

marked on it.

Your map here doesn't show.

>> right, the designated fema

flood plain ends, the extent of detailed study ends as shown on

the aerial. So the applicant is responsible

for doing that additional engineering work.

>> well, I mean, you wouldn't do

it if it wasn't flood plain or

wasn't marked on there. Flood plains are marked through

the whole county. >> no.

>> whether developmented or not you got it going on down the

other way but I guess my point

is, the development plan and you

don't do a whole lot of work

until you know you've got the zoning done.

>> if the staff asked for additional information or to

evaluate whether it means the zoning ordinance, I think you do.

>> I got that.

But you don't do a whole lot of

flood plain studies and all that until you know as a developer

that you've got the zoning in

place and then you work that out on the development plan as

you've got your zoning. That's the way it works.

>> they didn't even locate the

stream or the creek on their

plan or the basic setback from

the creek or repairian area

which, even if you choose or ask not to do the flood plain,

detailed study showing that basic information so that the

staff can assess whether the

rear of those lots is in the reparrian area.

>> I was going to ask and it

pertains to the berringer and

access and the right of way. Let me hear from the development

plan and discussion.

>> any other questions for Miss Wade? Okay.

Thank you. >> who is presenting the

development plan. Mr. Martin is.

Okay. >> Mr. Chairman, members of

the planning commission. The preliminary development plan

that you see before you today is

on page 2 of your agenda.

plan major development plan 17-4 harper woods.

We have passed out for you on

this lovely spring yellow paper,

revised conditions. As Miss Wade explained to you we

have armstrong mill at this

location with kenesaw drive intersection here.

They are proposing their access

road, public street into here,

the cul-de-sac at this location.

Here we have berringer drive. Springfield drive comes up

through here and comes and intersects at kenesaw.

They are proposing 32 single family dwelling units and

normally this is not information as you are aware that would you

see but they're indicating the

single family homes on the lotting pattern.

Here we have the eight townhouses that they're

proposing off of berringer drive

in this general area is the environmentally sensitive area,

the drainage area, the area with

a lot of trees and yes, we just tried to give you a general

indication that there was

drainage here, not exactly how it meanders through that.

The point is this property is

impacted strongly by this environmentally sensitive area

which is a drainage area. Whether or not it will be actual

flood plain is yet to be determined on additional

studies.

Flood plain does begin here and flow down this location.

The pink shows you to demonstrate impacts on the property along with the

environmental impact with the drainage area, we have easement

here.

you can see where it extends off site and then back across the

front of the property there is a 15-foot easement in this

location long this side of the property.

It transitions to a five foot easement through here, utilities

on this boundary of the property. There are a lot of trees, a lot

of significant trees on this property.

Very large ones sprinkled

throughout the property lot here and there.

The layout is respecting for the most part these large trees.

There are some through here that

will have to go. Here is the existing house.

You can see two very large trees one of the conditions you will

see on your sheet is more detailed information.

They've given us a breakdown of the type that is here and

they've identified the sizes

that we want to tie those

together, both species and size

because article 26 defines significant trees both by size

and species. It's just a cleanup item that

they can provide us for

additional information. Beringer drive, on that plat, it

shows a reservation and it

states it is to be built when these properties are to be

developed on the recorded plat.

It shows a cul-de-sac with the street coming through here,

curls for this way, the cul-de-sac is more up on this

part of the property.

If it was extended as shown on

that plat.

This is a revised plan and we do

have revised conditions.

, however, staff wants to make

again a couple of points about

our concern on this property.

One, a very significant is the berringer extension and the

proper compliant extension of the street.

And I can tell you who can be harmed if we don't extend our

streets correctly and design them correctly which we have

been doing since 1965 with our land subdivision regulations and

that is because there are health and safety issue and we want to

be sure that we provide the

appropriate public services on

public streets and we want to provide a properly constructed

and designed street to make sure

that happens safely. And as I'm sure you are aware,

over the years there has been a lot of conflicts between public

and private, damage and who is responsible and many divisions

in our government, like traffic, solid waste and those people are

dealing with these sorts of

conflicts frequently on who is maintaining, this who is taking care of this?

My parking lot is torn up.

So, yes, staff has very strong

concerns about compliant street terminations.

And we have cul-de-sac, a cul-de-sac and hammer head.

The y ones are not in the subregs. They're out there.

They were never very popular. I want to make that point that

we are very concerned about the

legal well designed termination of berringer and you can see

when you look at the conditions

that we've handed out to you

that we want that recognized because look at the impact, the

potential design impact on the plan May be significant.

Once the study is done on this drainage through here, it could

have a significant impact on the

design as well.

That is why staff has a heightened concern about the

need for additional information and additional work on this plan

at this time.

Because you could see a very,

very different plan based on the results of that study and based

on building a compliant cul-de-sac. They haven't asked for a waiver.

They can do that.

They have to do justify it as you know.

And it is reviewed by all the

appropriate entities at that

time the access easements that Miss Wade explained to you

again, you can see as you come

up the street, here is an access

easement circulating through here for these houses that have

frontage on a public street and again there is frontages on the

public street through here, not with this one.

It has an access easement.

These are served by an access easement although they have

frontage on a public street.

I highlighted in orange these homes.

None of those are compliant with the subdivision regulations

unless they have this body makes

a finding on access easements. And that's necessary for these

to be compliant.

So these are all some of the impacts that staff is concerned

about and why we are still

recommending postponement of the

plan at this time.

I would add that should you approve this zone change or

approve this development plan,

that we have revised conditions

that state the addition of the reserved right of way per the

recorded plat or to shorten the cul-de-sac, which again we think

could remove and alleviate many

of the conflicts on the plan. We do believe that we can

resolve the use of the access

easements at the time of a final

development plan and because

this is primarily a single family development, we

anticipate what you will see is a preliminary subdivision plan

for the single home portion of

this property.

In addition, we are asking for a

conceptual storm water detention proposed for this development

prior to certification.

Staff would be perfectly happy with a note that would outline the approach towards storm water

management because we are aware that that itself going to take a study.

That's going to take some work. We have a storm water system in

that area and a considerable amount of this area, this

neighborhood does drain through this property.

So certainly a study is very necessary for this.

We are also recommending that

should you approve this, the townhouse conflict be removed

from that reserved right of way

or the cul-de-sac prior to certification because again it

exists on a recorded record plat.

The intent was clearly there to build it so we would like to

have that addressed.

Then a lighter matter that I think could be addressed very

easily is to identify the landscaping to article 18.

We are talking about right up in here, adjacent to these single

family homes.

There is a five-foot utility strip. They need to indicate compliance

with article 18 that could be a fence, a five-foot strip but

that's this boundary in here. That's, I think a relatively

modest change to the plan. With that, I'll be happy to

answer any questions you May

have. >> any questions for Mr. Mart snin.

>> a clarification.

You did say that you felt like

the access easement issues were resolvable? >> I think so.

Staff is concerned and we've

been concerned for sometime for

an overreliance on access easements.

We are not opposed to them but

again needs to bring to this

body a justification. >> Mr. Cravens.

>> tom, is that main street, is

that a city street? >> pardon me.

>> is that a city street, the main street going up?

>> I think they're intending for

that to be a public street, yes,

sir.

>> tom,. >> last time I saw the

recommendations on the

development plan coming out of

committee and the agenda, it had

nine, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, items. Tracey said y'all have not met

with the applicant since committee? >> that's correct.

>> so what you've got here is your best guess?

>> based on the revision they did submit.

They submitted that revision. Staff reviewed it.

>> when was that revision submitted?

>> the 23rd. February.

>> so, but since committee, you haven't met with them?

>> no, sir. >> so, okay.

And so this, you know, you don't know what they're thinking and

as I said, this is your best guess at the moment.

>> Mr. Owens again

recommending postponement. And again should you all see fit

to move this forward...

>> thank you.

Thank you Mr. Martin.

Applicant? >> good afternoon Mr. Chair,

members of the planning commission, jacob wahlburn on

behalf of the applicant. We are excited by how this is

going so far, I can tell. When I was a child, I grew up in

the cincinnati intushesz, my dad was a big fan for reasons I'll

never understand of A.M. Radio.

We listened to a lot of A.M. Radio in the car.

In the immortal words of paul harvey, it's time for the rest of the story.

But before I get into my

presentation, I think it's

important that you hear from the partners and before I let them

get up, I should mention my

clients ach son are here today.

But there is some information I hesitate to say the words untrue

but maybe misleading that has been presented to you.

i want to give al and rory a chance to address some of the

issues before you before I begin

my remarks. >> gl there have been two

subdivision committee meetings. We met with staff after the

first one. Topic of discussion after the

first meeting were the reparian

way, flood plain, the berringer

cul-de-sac and the overall plan.

In that meeting with staff

tracey, vaughn with traffic engineering, kristin curry which

I think is in the environmental

section, bill sahly was not

there nor was casey.

We had about an hour's meeting

and it became obvious that the

two primary concerns were the

reparian way, the flood plain and the fact that berringer was

not shown being connected on our plan.

The primarily we started with berringer first, the primary

concern expressed by tracey was the redevelopment of the church

property and how the church was going to redevelop if it didn't

have good direct access to berringer because it certainly

didn't want the church in a

redeveloped sense to have access

to armstrong mill road, which is

a collector street and you should obviously be able to have

access to a collector street.

But that was the concern relative to berringer.

So we submitted a revised

concept of how, in essence, berringer could be turned and

extended through the church property for redevelopment,

remain a public street, have

that cul-de-sac extend and approach armstrong mill serving

the needs of the public from a safety and health perspective

and also serving the needs of the church if and when it were

ever to redevelop. Let's assume it never

redeveloped, that stub street would continue to act in the

same form and fashion it has

acted since it was built, some 15 years ago I guess.

I'm guessing at that. Some period of time.

It is one lot depth away from an intersection. There is ample ability to turn

around and to have access up,

back and sideways for five, police, solid waste, and that's

the way it has been used, I

suppose, all these years,

without incident.

The next topic we discussed was

the stream that runs through the

property, and we had a pretty

lively debate about that, and we know what our requirements are

relative to that stream.

It's an intermittent stream.

We have a 50-foot buffer to provide around the center line

of that stream.

You have the ability also to modify that 100-foot width.

You can reduce it on one side up to 25 feet. That would increase it on the

other side to 75 feet. You also have the opportunity to

get in and evaluate the stream,

the reparian way in a very significant and particular

fashion to do the best thing for

the development and the best

thing for the reparian way. Discussed in that meeting were

the fact that one side of the reparian way is steep, one side

is kind of flat and plateaued,

certainly those two treatments relative to buffering

conditioning the reparian way

would probably be different approaches.

We left that meeting with the understanding that those details

could be worked out with the preliminary subdivision plan or

the final development plan.

We did not resolve the situation relative to berringer.

But we did resolve and

volunteer, I'm sure, that we

know we have to abide by the storm water manual.

Storm water manual was just

revised in October of 2016.

Very strenuous test relative to developing close to flood plains

and reparian ways. Very strenuous.

Division of water looks at it, kentucky division of water looks

at it, the corps looks at it and certainly the division of

engineering new development staff takes a hard and elaborate

look at that.

The planning staff does not get involved.

And I guess maybe they want to

be involved. But that was not presented to us

in that meeting, nor has it been presented since that February 16

meeting other than by conjecture.

And it takes time and effort and

money to adequately do the type of work that is necessary to

construct around this particular stream, this particular reparian

way and it is not a regulatory flood plain.

It has a flood plain, obviously

every stream does. Every street has a flood plain

if you want to look at it that way.

When it rains you have ponding in the street.

but it takes effort, time and

money to accurately portray the

extents of the flood plain and

it takes design ability and time

and money to figure out how to

make compatible with that stream

a development of this type. Do we think it can be done?

Certain will I we think it can be done or we would not have

submitted that plan.

We have knowledge of that reparian way wand we think we

can easily justify what we have shown on that plan.

However, if we can't, we also

know we are in front of this

body again with a much more detailed plan where we have to

have specific plans and specific answers about subjective matters

in some instances.

So we are prepared and I would

submit to you to take the risk

that this plan is the one to

use.

>>

and never heard the term.

I think that layout of our plan would be sufficient to accommodate any trail.

It is my understanding that armstrong mill has 80 feet of

right of way but only 41 feet of

pavement. It had been brought to our

attention at any point since January when we filed this, we

certainly would have addressed it but we never have been

informed of any potential

conflict prior to today. And I feel confident that we can

handle it.

I'm going to cut to the chase. I have a tendency to try to tee

these up and give you a lot of details. You've heard a lot of details

and let's get to what we're talking about. The property that's outlined in

red and this little triangle here are the subject of this

application.

I like to look at a little wider view, this is kind of what's

going on in the area generally.

And you see a lot of r-1, c, d

and e, a couple of patches r1t and interestingly the

navigational beacon for

lexington air travel, is located right there.

Learned a lot about that recently.

But we have the church that's immediately adjacent to us and a

whole lot of residential.

Have handful of au parcels and

ar parcels within the U.S. I me should it and it is just shiva

mile to the urban services boundary so we're out on the

fridges of the county.

I call mid-mother on this application. My mother and father's first

home in lexington was at the

corner, -- near the corner of armstrong mill and man of war.

She advised me in the '80s,

early '80s that that was the sticks, nothing out there and

the last time she had driven through there, she was pleased

to see how much it had grown up. Our contention is very simple

and I'll provide you proposed finding of fact and conclusions of law.

We think we're in accord with the comprehensive plan.

As a matter of fact, I don't

think it can be reasonably argued that r3 is an appropriate

use of this location.

It is -- the r1t area is more duplex oriented, two units attached to

each other than what I would consider true town houses

butness a sea of single family and r1t.

It is appropriate. R3 is appropriate.

We're not proposing anen apartment complex or a commercial development.

We're proposing single family

style residential and a handful of town houses in an area where

there is single family

residential and handful of town houses.

We also contend the au zone is inappropriate and r3 is

appropriate.

Based on the reasons that I have mentioned.

The au zone is intended to be a holding zone until public

facilities are available.

We have sewer, we have utilities.

The site is ready for development.

A-u is no longer appropriate as a holding zone.

So what's our problem? Well, as I expressed you to

walking in, I knew beringer

drive was going to be a problem.

Beringer was an 1100 foot street that has 12 houses on it.

There are more houses that touch beringer than that but they

don't front on it. Beringer is in some places likes

an alley. It sees the side of buildings,

but there are 12 single family

houses that have beringer addresses.

I'll correct one thing that al said. I believe it has been a sub

street for 30 years. The houses that are immediately

surround the stub were

constructed in?1_} 1987. 30 years ago.

I'll guess the street was stabbed about the time the

houses were constructed.

Zooming in as al mentioned, the stub served exactly two properties.

We'll get into something curious

about the second property.

But that is the only house that

is directly served by the stub.

This has actually been consolidated with the church property there is a walking trail that goes back to the

church parking lot.

I thought that it was because it

was a parsonage. But it is not as we go through the documents that you have been

provided by staff and that al referenced.

It was included as a proposal before the board of adjustment

to do classroom space for the church, and conditional use was

approved back in the mid to late 90sfor that purpose.

So we'll go through some of those real quickly.

This is actually a better example.

You can see through the pva mapping software that lot has

actually been consolidated.

So it is a part of an armstrong

mill address victory baptist church. And we're here talking about the

plan. We knew about the plan.

We're very familiar with the platt note. You have seen the letter from

victory baptist church.

They don't really want this.

But, this is what the genesis of

this dispute was this note on a plat. A little history about how we

got there. Immanual baptist church

petitioned for the conditional use back in 1990.

It was a consent agenda item before the board of adjustment.

In fact, that May not have been fair. I don't know that the board of

adjustment has a consent agenda

but they have extremely abbreviated hearings where folks

stand up and say yes, I agree to abide by the conditions and they

give approval. This is one of those items.

The note on the plan that dealt with the only thing that's ever

been mentioned in any of these

board of adjustment proceedings about beringer drive was access

from the church to beringer drive needed to be reviewed and

approved by the urban county traffic engineer.

And this was the fairly, I

called it ambitious plan that immanual brought forward at that

time. Four-phase development an abut dance of parking.

Looks to be fairly impressive development. And let's fast forward two and a

half years later and this is an aerial photograph from April 17

of 1993 nothing was built on the site. Not with standing approved

computerral use.

Nothing constructed there.

We compare it to the 1990 plan

and those two things do not resemble each other whatsoever.

What was contemplated when the

cul-de-sac was proposed was not constructed them go back and

here is a plan that shows what they were trying to do at that time.

the 1997 hearing the actually dealt with consolidation of that

house on beringer. Beringer drive was not mentioned.

The cul-de-sac was not mentioned and as you can see very clearly,

it was not even depicted on the plan that the board of

adjustment approved. We compare what's on the ground

in 1997 to what the 1997 plan is. They look pretty similar.

They were living up to what

their obligation had been. But they are pretty wildly

different from the time when we were contemplating a connection

from the church to beringer

drive and from the cul-de-sac. We move along further

construction, and we see the parking areas extending and them

build this new facility here. Our plan and I'll jump top the

chase, Mr. Drake, you asked, is that building conflict?

We think it is razor thin close to the area.

I have dropped it on gis and I

get about 42 feet so I must be splitting the difference between

staff and ourer. >> 's plan.

The building is razor close to

they would be prohibited. My point is, we have seen a lot

of evolving plans in compliance with the plans over time.

It has been a moving target. Now, I don't represent victory

baptist church and I'm not here

to give victory baptist church in any trouble.

As you're well aware, if you're

church attenders, the makeup of church congregations and

leadership evolve over time. Commitments made in 1990 May not

even be flown to some of the parishioners in 2017.

Victory baptist church as it stand today does not want this

cul-de-sac. Why? Because it conflict with what

they have built on the ground. And we're fine with that.

We don't want it either.

We would love to -- devise a solution, bring forward a

final -- for for the preliminary subdivision plan that can

accommodate all of the needs

that we think were raised by

staff in that February meeting. This was our original plan and

we did not want to connect it awful we wanted to leave the

neighborhood alone, and leave the church alone.

Moving into a new neighborhood,

you don't want to be the noisy neighbor. You don't want to upset the

church by saying, we really want

to reconfigure the way that you all access, this actually shows

you very well, there is a circular drive right there that

does conflict with the right of way easement that we simply have

to be redone.

They could not continue to use it. In the manner in which it was

constructed which we don't want to dump our traffic on the neighborhood.

You have her me up against neighborhood groups that are concerned about traffic.

What a better way to prevent traffic than to leave them alone.

Traffic engineering said they

would not require a full

connection of beringer drive

through that would not be necessary in the estimation of traffic engineering.

Staff hated it.

Staff did not like it whatsoever

so, these are things that I have already covered. I would mention that it does

create a sense of community in our neighborhood.

The existing homes in the area are 30 years old it would allow

our neighborhood to create its own sense of community separate

and apart from the existing neighborhood. Church told you they didn't

wasn't. I wanted to point that out we have the meeting February 16

where we go in and talk about that I didn't have a chance to update the presentation from

when I got the report. You'll notice that I said I

thought the environmental issues were addressed and we had

resolve those to the satisfaction. Perhaps we have not but we were

not in formed of such and the majority of that meeting

centered top beringer issue. Just to show that you we were

not uncooperative, we did submit this amended plan that we think

does an effective termination of

beringer and suggested several hours.

We suggested a true hammer head intersection. Think the third option is the

one that works the best for everybody involved.

If the concern was about future access to potential -- should it

ever redevelop which was a topic that was discussed at some

length in that February meeting, I think this third option

actually covers it very well. we would simply adjust our

development to get out of the their way.

The cul-de-sac could be extended into the property.

So that they would be able to utilize that if necessary at

that time.

If street was never completed though, we're really only

affecting one house that's functioned effectively for 30

years without any extension. I frankly don't see what the

fuss is about. I don't think that there there

is a public health or safety issue or certainly one has no

manifested itself in the last 30 years. Bottom line here is I don't

think that staff likes this plan. And that's okay.

But that's not a standard with

which we evaluate zone changes. Zone changes are about

appropriateness of the use in the location.

I don't think anyone could argue that r3 would wantiate a this

site.

41 units and a handful of single family houses and town houses.

I just can't fathom why that would not be an acceptable use

at this location.

Now, I hate to go into a he said and she said type thing but I

have to put a few things in the

record to rebut some of some of the point thes that have been

made. Mr. Gross following your all

subdivision committee, the one

in March, sent tracy an e-mail

asking if there was going to be an alteration or ed it to the

staff report. Tracy identified the three that

are on the screen here. They wanted a full connection or

a cul-de-sac of beringer, they

did not like our mix of units,

and that they don't like private access easements. Not withstanding the fact that

private access easements would be a waiver that we would seek

at the time of preliminary subdivision plan.

So I'll introduce her e-mail

into the record about what objections we were notified and I would encourage you all to

read this. Again it was not that we were

not communicating or asking, we thought many of these issues had

been resolved, simply were not

aware that they existed.

Let me respond to those concerns. Nobody wants the cul-de-sac.

We don't want the cul-de-sac. It is an ini efficient use of

our land. The neighborhood doesn't want it.

We don't want any of out traffic, it doesn't effectively serve them.

We think that we provided alternatives that could

accommodate any concerns about the future development.

But none of those compromised

solutions that we offered were deemed acceptable by the staff.

Staff said they did not care for the mix of unit ands we've done

internal market studies that reflect our units mix would be

effective and that the product

we're offering is a desirable product in lexington you May

know the construction they do quality work and have many

successful developments around kentucky. they are not willing to bring in

a speculative plan. They know the plan they propose

candidate work from a market perspective. And the reason for the private

access easements which again we deal with at the time of preliminary subdivision plan,

was to provide for a little bit of architectural variety.

If you take a look at this plan, you're going to see a lot of

different arrangements. There has been repeated concern

in lexington about front loaded garages.

This plan provides for detached rear garages.

Attached rear garages and front loaded garages.

Provide some architectural variety that was the only point

of the access easements. And we thought it would be

something more appropriately

addressed at the time of the preliminary subdivision plan.

So we think that the issues that have been brought to tower

attention are really good.

I want to tell you what we like about this plan.

The comprehensive plan as you hired me talk about many, many,

many times, calls for a mix of housing units in new and

existing neighborhoods. Our plan provides a mix of

housing units. We get to preserve a lot of the

significant trees on the property. I have heard this commission get

very, very upset when people got rid of significant trees.

This plan has a lot of open space that iser. >>ed to present seven the

significant trees.

develops a parcel and desirable area of town.

This as popular area of town to live. Heartland neighborhood is very

popular destination and very successful development.

We think that we would be a valuable he addition.

It doesn't impact the adjacent uses we don't have to cut

through neighborhoods, we don't have to mess with the church.

That's why we submitted the plan the way that we did.

But I think most importantly, we're able to provide three and

a half acres of open space. It is an 11 and a half acre site

and taking three and a half acres off the top and leaving it

green space.

I think that's a fantastic April butte of this plan.

And I remind that you we're talking about a preliminary development plan.

So I put the definition of the preliminary development plan on the board.

We're supposed to be able to provide you with a plan that

does not require an undue amount of final design work.

I guess except for a flood plain study. That's just not a requirement here.

We understand that we cannot build -- there is no regulatory

flood plain here. Access points, these are all

issues that we can have a little

bit of wiggle on, on a preliminary development plan.

We think that this plan does provide for a little bit of wiggle.

We know we May not be able to build exactly that to be frank,

we don't want to build exactly that. We present ifer if not to have

that beringer connection at all but that was an effort to try to

accommodate staff's concerns. We know we're going to be back

in front of you on a preliminary subdivision plan in a final

development plan.

You're going to get to take another bite at this an.

We don't think the plan that is before you today is not approvable.

We think it is perfectly approvable and we understand

that it May have to change once

we do that final design work, but, that's not what is called

for as part of a parallel preliminary development plan.

So I want to wrap up my remarks

and I'm sure that you'll have a numb questions but I don't think

it could be reasonably argued

that r3 is inappropriate use of this site.

R-3 is a perfectly almost use. Mix of units we're calling for

are entirely appropriate. This area has been contemplated

for a medium density housing development for at least 27

years. My guess it has been a lot longer than that.

That's the earliest reference

that I have looked at.

Medium density mentioned in the 1990 board of adjustment report.

Future development of the church can be accommodated with a

compromise. And we from posed several that

we thought might work. Stub has been there for 30 years.

It is not harming anybody. Traffic engineering has said

that we do not have to carry

beringer all the way through. We have never contemplated a

full connection.

The only thing that's ever been contemplated was a cul-de-sac

and frankly it is a cul-de-sac we don't think is necessary it

is essentially serving one or two houses and we think our

proposal is in accord with many

goals and objectives of the 2013 comprehensive plan.

Have any stated, just because staff is not wild about our

design, doesn't mean it is not well designed.

I think that the design

professionals, the experience of

atchison helder, this design while maybe not the preferred

mode of staff is certainly approvable under your

regulations. So I'll distribute to you some

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of thank you would

permit you to approve this

development today if you were so inclined.

And I think frankly that's the correct decision. There are issues that need to be

worked out on this development and we're mindful of those but

there are issues to be worked out at the time preliminary

subdivision plan and final development plan, not as part to

the zone change. The use here is appropriate.

And we would ask for your

approval of it and I thank you. >> I'm distribute these but in

the interim I would be happy to entertain my questions or my clients.

>> we'll give you a minute and

see our commissioners have any

questions for either one of you.

>> tracy said that was reserve for this cul-de-sac.

>> there is a note on a 1990 and

a 2001 plat. >> is that a legal easement?

>> it is not an easement.

I do think that it is reflective

of the intent to construct that at the time of future development.

In fact I can read to you, because I --

>> but.

>> this commission, if we were to okay these plan, does that --

>> I think it could be resolved as part of the preliminary

subdivision plan. Obviously we'll have to bring in

a plan, a plat to you to make these lots.

I think that that's how it would be appropriately.

>> it doesn't take an action by council. >> certainly not.

>>

>> jacob, I'm very aware of what great builders these guys are

and they do a quality product and I don't necessarily have an

issue with the layout or what is

going on with all of that, and, we can tweak all of that.

The thing that bothers me is, both sides are saying they don't

want the cul-de-sac. There say loft of things in life

that I don't want.

But, there is a commitment made

and it says, clearly on this

plan, right of way reserved and I have new contacts and I can't

read it but it is very small print.

But my point is, this was agreed

to and I'm looking at the final

record plat, that is signed in January of 191. So I have a little bit of heart

burn in the fact that there are aa lot of things in life that I

don't want, and the can church

doesn't want this and maybe atchicson-hell doesn't want but

it was agreed to in 1991. The fact that there is a play

ground built on it, someone made

a boo-boo and that's not your

client's fault and I understand that.

But, there still is a

reservation for this cull dea -- cul-de-sac. If that's worked out and it can

be resolved, I don't have a problem with that either.

But I do have a problem with the

fact that it is stated clearly

on this 1991 plan, and yet everybody is saying I don't want.

>> I can certainly understand that certain.

I can say two things in response to that because we don't want it doesn't mean that we understand

we May not be required to do it and that's why you see the

revised plan in front of you

that has the extension off. And why we floated the other

alternatives on the screen earlier that reflected emergency

the ability to terminate or to

do a more hammer head, we think efficient type cul-de-sac.

They were explicitly rejected by staff. We're trying to final a

reasonable compromise here. Returning to something I said in

the presentation, we're trying to be a accident neighbor to

people that have been there for 30 years. >> that's part I move hat burn,

I don't think that it is fair that your client is trying to

carry the whole burden on this.

>> because -- but, that's my opinion. And I'll stick with it and

that's that's my comment.

>>

>> I have minor concern and that can wait but there are two sets

of professionals coming really

close to calling each other

liars, and this is something that I look for within the

development process is good communication between the applicant and staff and

neighborhoods. You get that, you get a plan

that moves through very smoothly. When you don't have that, you

get a plan that hits road bumps and this is one where I hate to

even bring it up but it sound a lot like washington, somebody

claiming alternative fangs. It is or it isn't.

Did you communicate with staff or didn't.

The staff is saying you didn't. We now have legal finings that

need to be considered by the legal counsel.

What's -- what's the harm in postponement of this, and, get

these things ironed out. Get the lines of communication

put together and take some of

the heat off of it? >> we think this plan is

approvable and the cul-de-sac alternative that's been given to

you is approvable and to be frank, and I sat in that

February 16 meeting, I knew that

we would be having a discussion about beringer and I was hoping

to be able to persuade you.

The rest of the stuff, I've been completely blind sided by.

I was handed the report seven minutes so I had no idea.

while I agree that I think communication is important,

think communication is a two-way street. We were open to proposing

alternatives as I showed you. We brought if sketches and

switched them out on the development plan to try to find

a reasonable compromise. Now, you all know sometimes

applicants are able to reach a come propiece with staff and

sometimes we have to ask the

planning commission to make a

determination. We knew that was going to happen.

With beringer, I thought they had been resolved at the time.

We sent several e-mails asking

for a revised staff recommendation.

We never said, oh, by the way, we're concerned about man of war

or by the way, we're expecting a flood plain study.

We did attempt to move this process forward.

We did not receive any response either. We were told here are the objections.

The tracy e-mail that I gave you to or the objections brought to

our attend -- attention. We did not know about these other things.

>>

>> the harm to answer your

question, is continued delay. We knew that we had issues to

work out. We frankly thought they had been

resolved. In fact, if you notice the

timing of that meeting was on February 16, we were hoping they

would be resolved in time for

your February meeting.

but they were not so we voluntarily postponed. We did not receive any

indication these were still issues.

>> >> okay, anyone else?

We'll have time later on for discussion as such. Thank you.

At this time, we'll go to the citizens.

Is nip here would like to speak? Okay.

Are you speaking on behalf of or for or against?

>> >> at this time it would be

against. >> how many here are speaking for.

Is anyone speaking for? Okay, how many would like to

speak against? Just one. Okay.

Well, let go, sir.

>> we'll usually allow three minutes for comments.

>> considering what all has been mentioned here today

Mr. Chairman, and the council,

I have a list of items that have

not been addressed. If they have been addressed the

public has not been made aware

of it and I -- if you could pull

up that first one, please.

This is 1549 springfield drive. North side.

>> your name is address.

>> lane moore. 1549 springfield drive. >> thank you.

>>

>>this is the backside of my property. Okay.

This right here, is a storm

sewer inlet. which has been stocked up on

occasion, and I ended up with a

foot and a half of water in my outbuilding and a foot of water

on my house.

Show the staff side, please. This is the south side.

My point hear run out of batteries.

That creek, right at the very

beginning there, of that creek,

is a storm sewer outlet.

Which actually feeds -- all

right. That creek.

My concern at this point is, how are we going to address that.

If that gets the least bit of

backup, guess whose house gets flooded? Mine.

Now, there are several other

issues that have not been -- I'm through with that that have not

been addressed as far as I'm

concerned. I've not seen any traffic

reports at all.

If you come out of springfield drive, sir, take the mic. It is on I think.

>> is it on? >> springfield drive comes out

here. I don't know how many times that

I have been t boned because you cannot see around this curve.

People leave this four way stop

here, it is up the mid-

@a

>> this is difficult, hearing from the applicant and the

staff, and quite frankly, I don't think in ten years of

being down here that I have seen

the staff united to the degree

that they are, and -- with their recommendation, simply put.

It appear these did provide

e-mails that showed that march

2, Mr. Gross, this was just

after the subdivision and zoning

committee met that day, just after asked and they got a

response, and, you know, as far

as I'm concerned, it got dropped there, and I'm sorry to say, but

I feel like it got dropped by

the applicant. If there was a concern, they

should have followed up and

asked for a meeting. And that didn't happen.

They keep referring to February

but February was a long time ago.

We all met in subdivision and

zoning, and we recommended postponement. At this time I can not see this

thing going forward. I'm willing to hear from the commission members but I'm

willing to make the motion as soon as they are ready.

>> >> I've been here longer than

mike.

And, my problem with this thing

is the 5,000 foot thing.

I've never seen the staff as strong on a zone change

disapproval as I have seen today.

Never have I seen this. We did away with the map

amendments to give more flexibility but we said we were

going to use the goals and objectives as the plan as a road

map and our guide. We traded off.

We did away with the map

amendments and the maps and went

to this form of zoning. I have never seen a situation

where we have gone almost a

month with no communication, and we have come in with this strong of a staff report.

i have to look at that and think that's a place holder.

And if that is a place holder and it didn't meet our fundament

58 requirements of our

regulations, how can you bring it before us today, and ask us

to grant the zone change, based on what you put out against what

the staff recommended and ask us

to go ahead and postpone or pass the development plan?

I don't understand why you're doing this. I don't understand why we have

heard this for two and half hours or whatever we've been

here doing this. What you're asking us is what

you two should have done together and this is not the way

the planning commission works. Whether it is on the staff side

or the applicant side. >> two more comments and after

that we'll move it along. >>

>> I'm not going repeat everything that has been said.

I don't think this is fully baked.

I think there is sufficient doubt amongst the members this

would pass if it is going have

an up or down vote today which

legally we have to do. So I would make a suggestion

that you give the an my can't five minutes to talk and give

them the opportunity to postpone it.

>> >> okay, that's a possibility if

you want to consider that postponement.

>> I would go along the the same

lines.

Maybe they want to -- we can

continue to April 6 as a commission.

>> you can continue until -- if they are agreeable you can

continue to a date that you all agree on. I don't think that you have a

meeting on April 6. >> so we don't have another meeting. >> no.

>> okay so we can't do it.

They have to agree to do it. >> I was going to address the

client meeting situation and

we've talked this issue to death already.

The staff made their voice very clear, how they should go.

It does not meet the process,

that's why we're here.

To follow the process. So, I'm in favor of the motion.

>> let me simply say as part of the chair's position here, I too

have been very disturbed about the possibility of -- I mean,

there has been no communications here connected. There are several things that

are not completed and yet, at the same time, we're asked to

move forward on these different issues and the reason that I

wouldn't say that you can confer your client because you've had

almost several weeks to confer with your client.

That is what should have been done all along.

So at this stage of the game, I

think that, I'm somewhat frustrated by that portion of

the process. Mr. Drake, you have the last word.

>> thank I, Mr. Chairman. My question is procedural.

Do we have the option to postpone or disapprove? >> no.

We do not have the option to postpone. >> we do if he'll agree.

>> that's right. But I'm not even giving him that

option at this stage of the game. I'm denying him that option.

>> and we don't have any alternative. >> that's exactly right.

You vote it up or down at this time. >> thank you. >> Mr. Chairman.

>> yes. >>

>> excuse me? >> I asked to make a motion.

>> go ahead. >> wait.

>> I'll tell you what, we'll still have a discussion after the motion.

What's your motion?

>> my motion for plan mar-1-2atchison heller is to support the staff's

recommendation for disapproval. >> properly moved and seconded

by Ms. Plumley that we disapprove of -- support the

staff's recommendation of

disapproval of pln-mar-17-2.

Discussion. >>

>> I'll ask the applicant if he wants to continue it?

>> we're willing to do so. We'd be willing to do so. We're happy to.

>> >> all right.

>> any other discussion on the floor?

>> wait a minute. >> he asked the applicant is

whether or not he would be willing to make -- to postpone

on his own. >> to continue.

>> >> that's the point.

In effect what he has -- we

can't do it. But he could according to

Ms. Jones, right?

>> he has to be agreeable to a

continuance or postponement because of the statutorily

imposed time limit which expires

on April 6 for action on this plan.

So, if he is agreeable to that, which we need to definitely

note, we just heard on the record, then you would have to

continue -- I would recommend continuing it so you don't have

to go back through the entire

hearing if you're so inclined.

And then, it will be continued to a date certain for the rest

of the hearing which would then include some kind of discussion

with the staff and a revision of

some sort. >> I got it. >> unequivocally for the record, we'd be willing to so waive that requirement.

>> okay. >> now, we have a motion on the floor. It has been properly seconded.

So, we will vote on that motion and then, depending pong how

that works out, we'll go back. Unless the motioner would like

to take it off the table and make a new motion. >> I was going to ask, is that

an option is. >> it is an option.

>> if the motioner would like to

take it off the table and the

second agrees, yes, you can take it off the table. >> May I ask a question?

>> yes,.

>> I before I many motion was

made, you denied the option for him to confer and give that response.

Is this appropriate now? >> it is appropriate.

The point that I was making here is that I was disappointed in

the fact that they had not

resolved this issue prior to coming to this date.

In other words, it seemed to me that after all of the time that

had elapsed they have had plenty of time in effect I would argue

they knew this particular program was not ready to go

forward when they brought it here.

So, I felt like if they knew that, and that it was still

pushing it, I kept feel that I

had no obligation to do either

up or down so it depends. >> it depends on the body.

If you would like to tint, fine. But I was expressing my concern

with the fact of this lack of communication. And, in addition to that, let me

simply say this for the record:

none of us here on the panel

have frees behind our names that suggest that we're planners.

So, when the staff makes a strong recommendation regarding

anything, I'm inclined to go

along with that recommendation. And for someone to come in and

somewhat in a way, even in a

nice way accuse our staff of not following through, I don't take

lightly to that.

I don't particularly care for that particular kind of attitude

so that's a personal inflection.

Now, having said that, if the bodying because this is the

body, would like to remove the motion, it can be done.

If not, we vote on the motion as

it is, then we go from there. >> Mr. Their. >> yes, sir.

>> procedural question. >> procedural, yes, sir.

>> I want to make sure that I

understand counsel correctly. I think counsel suggested that

there was an efficiency and time

advantage to postponement versus

disapproval. >>

>> tippians is the way. If you want to hear it --

>> that's my question.

>> if mike takes his motion off the table -- I don't know who he

could ised it, they are in agreement he would can make a

motion to continue it and, which I would be. >> supportive of right now.

>> because, now we have on the record the representative, the

applicant saying that he agrees to that. >> okay.

So, now, Mr. Owens what do you --

>> Mr. Chair, in accordance with what I'll say as your

personal statement, a moment ago, I'm in title agreement that

the applicant has not communicated with the staff in

the way they should have. I'll let my motion stand. >> okay.

>> Ms. Plumley second stand so now we vote on the motion and

the motion primarily is for the

review is that the motion is to approve the staff's

recommendation for disapproval

for pln-mar-17-2, atchison heller construction.

We're voting for or against approval or recommending, you're

voting either to support the

staff's recommendation, or not. please vote when it comes up on

your screen. 6-4 to disapprove, passes and

the matter is concluded. >> Mr. Chair. >> go ahead.

>> the development plan I move

for postponement of 17-4 harper woods. ,. >> second.

>> okay, it has been properly

moved and seconded related to

the development plan pln-mjdp-17-4.

Harper woods.

That we postpone the development plan. It has been properly move by

Mr. Mike owens and seconded by Ms. Plumley. Any discussion on that motion?

Please vote when it comes up on

your screen.

Motion is approved by 8-2. 8-2 vote. Thank you.

>> okay, we'll take about a five-minute re s and then come

back in and finish our business. >> take a five-minute recess and

then come back in and finish our business.

It has been part part of the

zone since the 1990 first

writeup of it to make it a supportive use area, and a mixed

use area. That includes adding residential

to the mix on their property.

And then, also, modifying the

lot yard and height requirements of the zone.

That leads to the greater U.T. Throughization of land,

increasing the allowance and

reducing the yard sizes from

what is currently 50, 100 and 200 feet in terms of the front

yard down to five feet on the

local streets and then 15 feet

for side yards. Increasing the floor area ratio,

to a.75, and then, a eliminating the minimum size

which is currently half ago,.

And the last changes, the ordinance as drafted for

revision today, would include

now a report to the planning commission, so when a new

building is proposed, at scold

stream, it would go to their design review board, they would

make recommendations and then

that report or summary of the decision and recommendations

would be forwarded to the planning commission when they

came to the planning commission

with the development plan for

that particular new development. University park at M.I.T. Also

has a mixed use development in combination with their office and laboratory building and in

St. Louis there is the cortex

innovation district which is a combination of work with

washington university, st. Louis, university and the

university of missouri and st. Louis.

And this one is a little more

research driven and not as residential.

But, they do have space for rent for office use. These are things that are kind

of on the cutting and end the

university is asking the

planning commission to consider allowing them to really be part

of that paradigm shift.

So, in terms of the rise of

innovation districts, is sake

take away was that neighborhood councils, would be wise to

unleash the innovation district with the result of a step

towarded bying a stronger, more sustainable, more inclusive

economy in the early decades of

the young century,. These authors followed up a year

later, the first article in 2015

and second in 2016. And the follow-up was the more

important message to convey now

a year later is the imperative to combine and activate physical

assets in ways that create

vibrant places. Whatever your research part will

be, we don't want it to be a stale environment for the university to feel confident

about activating the space,er to asking for the text amendment so

that's sort of the outside of

just our fayette county lexington stance.

The staff is recommending

approval of the text that is in your notebooks and discussed

last week at the work session,

and, there are two reasons.

Two reasons on the agenda about the -- three reasons.

The staff is recommending approval of the staff

alternative tax, united statestive of kentucky has a

proven track record of economic development with over 1.3

million square feet of space.

And over 2,000 employees at cold stream research campus and this

text amendment will allow the

university to more effectively use the land and compete with

other research park across the country.

The proposed text amendment will allow for higher intensity of

use and still provide significant areas for open

space, and for a mixed use village or residential dwelling

units and then last, the text amendment will rename the zone

to university research campus,

to support the university and implementing their master plan

for the cold stream research

campus after 25 years, theirs is

the only property zoned p-2 in lexington fayette county.

>> questions. Are you ready?

>> tracy, I don't know if this is to be directed to you or the

counselor but I understood you had a work session to say that

the only other p-2 we had was the south farm?

>> >> the university, the only

thing they would have to qualify is the south farm?

>> they could probably expand

the p-2 zoning here. They own property still inside

of the interstate that continues

over to georgetown. So, if the university --

>> I think that he's asking about the corner of man of war

and nicholasville road. The farm there. >> thought that you meant other

than that l^4\ JJy

so this south farm location at man of war and nicholasville

road is currently has an agricultural zone? >> right.

>> so they could request a p-2 zone. >> yes. >> at that location.

>> and. >> and the same apply to this

because they own it. They own a lot of the land there.

>> right. >> and jim duncan.

>> >> this was a question that came

to mind earlier. Does the south farm property

have a land use recommendation

with the south nicholasville small area plan?

>> yes.

It does the planning commission

approved the south nicholasville, it approved a

land use for south farm similar

to what was approved for the farm.

>> okay, so, the p-2 would not

apply there or just a part of it? >> of course U.K. Could ask for

a p-2 zoning but that's not what

is recommended by the small area plan. >> okay.

Thank you. >>

>> tracy, you said that 40% is open space and 15 supportive

uses. That's supportive uses or are

there any required open space

within that?

>> they required buffering but

one of the changes to the zone

was to -- and I'm trying to find

which section that was in. Special provision too, we were

changing so no more than 60% of the pt project shall be covered

with buildings and parking which

leaves 40% for the open space,

but I think that the open space

can be grouped together.

>> okay, so, it necessarily wouldn't require open space. >> true.

>> okay. Thank you.

>> >> any other questions or are

you still trying to answer the other one?

>> I did hand out a letter of support as well from the

alliance. And I you one of those at each of your seats.

>> I have one quick question. And it is getting out of the

weeds. I appreciate the idea that there

are research centers and parks doing this longer than we have

but I was curious, do they use the -- did they get into some

discussion or do we have any

idea about how they handle their

supportive uses along with their -- >> I did not dig into those

zoning ordinances to find out how they regulated the supportive uses.

>> no problem.

Any other thoughts, questions? Okay, applicant.

>> thank you.

>> good afternoon, together we can answer any questions at the

conclusion of my presentation. I'll apologize in advance.

Usually when I'm fully in agreement with the staff and

there not opposition in the

room, I shut my mouth. But, today is not that day

because I do want to make sure that we point out a lot of

things getting lost in the weeds.

Not necessarily of this but of past ZONTAs.

The driver behind this is not supportive uses.

The driver behind this text

amendment is making a more

efficient land use and a better designed research park.

This is not about cold stream.

This is about a better p-2 zone.

I am not surprised that all of the p-2 but cold stream has gone

away from it because of how restrictive the design

requirements are in the p-2 as it exists today.

What we're here to do, what does that lead.

Al whole lot of space that is around the building that is not

really useable open space. You're having huge front yards

off of local streets, and you

are having 50 foot side yards

automatically, 50% open space requirement that as Ms. Wade

pointed out is the most extreme in the entire zoninged or naps.

And here is the big one. For employment driven principle

uses, you have a.4 floor area ratio.

P-1, is 1.3.

You have for the supportive uses

today, because again, supportive

uses are allowed in this zone today. That's not time pactful here

pause we already have 50 foot

side lots but you want a 70 foot building building that is not unusual in

a verge campus, you are then

limited to a huge tract of land

that based on how the raimondo ratios, you are isolating the

entire use and there is no connectivity between two parcels

of land as it is today.

So that is what we have.

Exactly what we talked about. Separation.

Large lots, significant setback setbacks, green space just

around buildings that is not truly useable.

You have no pedestrian connectivity, all in all, you

have a disconnected campus.

That is not because of cold stream's design. That's not because of the

property owner choice. that is because of the exact

text of the ordinance. So, in the ten years that we

have been looking at this ordinance, we have been trying

to figure out what other places are doing.

Ms. Wade did did an excellent job talking about the other

research innovation areas. You go to work and you leave and

you go back home. What these facilities are really

designed for, is basically interconnected working with the

other companies, where employees from all different companies are

meeting together in the spaces, in the middle of these

development centers.

So, these benefits, what we have

here, is increasing building density. Significantly.

We're adding actual acreage of employment land.

We are more than doubling floor

area ratio of employment-focused

principle uses and not support uses.

We're doubling employment square footage.

That is significant. Again the interior street design

is a much better layout in order

to create an urban kind of village.

This type of end novation campus.

The green space allows us to

create destination green spaces. These social infrastructure is

what I was just talking about that's what employers are really

driving for is the ability for their employees to intermingle

and to come work at a place they

want to work at and they want to spend time at.

So, with those benefits, what is lexington get?

That's what the p-2 zone gets.

What they get is more building

density, and they want more

employment land, higher density

in a more efficient manner. And that's going lead to more

jobs because that's where the driver is. You're creating more of the

campus that is desirable and it

is very clearly shown by the market studies that Ms. Wade

was kind of pointing to.

Makes it more affordable. They are not in the business of

selling this land, smaller par

simples and makes it more affordable now, again the green

space. You're reducing the kind of just

unuseable green space that just counts, and you're creating

destination green spaces, that helps us to assess the entire

community in our environmental

sustainability goals.

, this is the big drive driver when it comes to what the

employer is looking for when they are trying to locate.

I'm not going to get much more

into it exempt to say that, remember this picture right

here. As far as what the residential

looks above the retail because that's going to come back here

in just a minute. Normally I would stop talking

now because that's what this is about. Up fortunately, I don't feel

that I can stop right now.

Because of how intermingles this text amendment has come when

this was before you in August which is now still before the

council. Folks, these are really

different zones. Many of you were on the planning

commission when the master plan came in to focus.

You all know very well how different the expansion area is

from the kind of what's inside the traditional urban service

boundary as far as the zoning

categories go.

The amount of land that was focused on employment and the

expansion area, versus residential that was discussed

heavily, negotiated, that was

the result of a community widen deafer. At this point while it is not

some cement, how many zone changes have you seen in the

expansion area?

The implication to adding ed

would wreck the program a little more than it already is.

But, it doesn't happen. This employment land is fixed

there is a finite amount in the

expansion area. And that's not true inside the

true urban service boundary.

There are lots of different employment-driven zones.

Now, I'm not saying that that means that you shouldn't

restrict p-2.

But what I am saying is that, there is a reason why you put

additional restrictions on the

zone that you do not need to put

inside at the p-2 zone.

One of the main reasons is that p-2 is heavily restricted much

more so than the ed. Open space alone.

Ed has 25% of open space

requirement. That's it.

We're at 40. Even in our wildest dream, we're

at 40 because it is crucial that

open space plays a vital role in a park-like setting.

It is a campus-like setting.

That is in the text for the zone

goals now, and it remains in the

text moving forward.

Floor area ratio.

Ed is at 1 and we're only asking

for.75 expansion area,

employment land, is finite.

You want to use as much of that

as uses.

And also as Miss Wade pointed out again, this is internal to

the site. We are not allowing them to be

off any type of arterials.

They are to basically access the collectors and local streets

internal to the site so again it

is employee driven I don't want to spend too much time on this.

This is the last slide. The reason we think the

restriction on the supportive uses is appropriate and the one

that is proposed for the E.D. Is

not appropriate for the p-2 site.

I'm not criticizing it for the ed. Even at the work session it was

mentioned well why aren't these two, why aren't the restrictions

the same? I've gone over the kind of the

point of why the land is so much

more valuable, why you have to

restrict certain uses when it is a brand new classification. I got to point out though, we are doubling employment land.

We are not taking any away. The exact same percentage of the

supportive uses is moving

forward we are not gobbling up any extra employment acreage.

We are not gobbling up any employment square footage.

we are actually decreasing the

ratio of supportive use to principle employment use because

of that.4,.5 difference in floor ratio.

So today authorized of employment driven uses.

Under this proposal, that will jump to 10.8.

That is a significant jump that

should not be lost.

This zoda is about increasing

the employment land and

opportunities the difference in acreage resfrixes, floor area

restrictions, if you only limit

something to floor area, you are

encouraging a sprawl of uses and isolated uses.

I say this because of mixed use

building I pointed out to you earlier. You've seen it throughout lexington.

When you have a mixed use building you have one story of

retail, you got three stories of residential above it.

Very typical mixed use building. Under the restriction placed in

the E.D. Zone implemented in the p-2.

You would need to put 16 times

the amount of that size of retail of additional supportive

uses to meet that restriction. What do you gain by doing that.

It's sprawling out supportive uses and for what evil?

To prevent the third story, to

prevent a second story of residential?

There is no true goal, no true

evil that is being essentially

eliminated by focusing only on floor area restrictions.

If you do this on acreage, you

are locked in so what are you encouraging, efficiency of that

land. if you are doing this, make sure

it is as efficient as possible.

That makes sense to me.

That's wise utilization of land.

And we are not adding true supportive uses. We are adding types.

We are saying that town homes

could go in whereas before university dorms could go in, a

brew pub could go in in addition to a restaurant.

Restaurants are already allowed.

Like the supportive use is not

what is driving this text amendment.

So in summary I got to point out what is going on in this room

and what is not going on in this room. In this room right now the

applicant and staff have the same opinion on what the text

should be approved. There has been nine years in the

making, gaps in that nine years but it's nine years in the

making and we are on one page.

You have a letter from the preservationists supporting a

land owner. You don't have controversy

swirling. You don't have a packed room.

You have essentially all parties singing kumbaya right now.

Lexington is gaining we are

gaining employment land, gaining efficiency, better development

standards, meeting the competition.

You've seen the pictures of what

this can become when we focus on innovation campuses, this is

where lexington gains. What are we giving up?

Absolutely nothing.

The acreage percentage we are asking for is approved for

supportive uses today.

we are not giving up anything

except some bad design standards

that have led to, what I would

call inefficient use of vital land.

I'm happy to take any questions.

>> on the 250,000 square foot ratio.

You've met that, haven't you? >> yes.

>> does that include the peace palace? >> what?

>> the peace palace.

Are you familiar with the peace palace?

I knew you would... >> oh yes, we are still okay

there.

But why the phasing is important

is when the next p-2 comes

online, the tail is not wag the dog.

>> I had to throw that in for a little fun.

>> yes, sir, Mr. Cravens.

>> you pointed out a lot, the buildings out there on real

large lots.

Do you see those lots some new

uses being put on those lots. I don't know if that has been

specifically studied because that's getting this cart way out

in front of the horse when we don't even know if those design

standards could pass. >> Mr. Owens? >> thank you.

You mentioned dormitories, university dormatories.

What is the thought there? >> there are none right now.

They're approved in the p-2 zone, have been since 1990.

>> any plans? >> there aren't right now but I

just want to point that out from

the very beginning it was always contemplated that these types of

supportive uses, the exact ones

we are asking for were always contemplated for this zone.

That's another kind of just

difference between us and E.D.

>> thank you.

>> any other questions for the applicant? Thank you, sir.

>> appreciate it. Anyone else want to speak to

this particular issue? Okay then we are back to the

commission and we are ready for our additional discussion or a

motion. >> Mr. Mick olson covered it

really well in the committee

meetings or work session and I

asked and spoke of residential

component here in correlation with the E.D.

What he presented in his slide

in the p-2 to E.D. Kind of

showed in very clearly clarified

the differences when you are

talking about open space 40 to

25 and ff.A.R..75 to one, you know.

This is still very restrictive.

So I'm in favor of this. Willing to make a motion

whenever anybody is ready.

>> we're ready. >> Mr. Chair, I'll move for

approval of zoda 2016-7, the

amendment to article 824 for the office industrial research park

p-2 zone as recommended by the

staff.

We have a motion and second for

the zota 2016 amendments. Any other discussion.

If not please vote when it comes

up on the screen.

Motion as proved. Mr. Nichols, I might say it is

a personal privilege. I like this project.

I can say that now that the vote

is over.

Okay.

Next our next item is zota 2017-2 request by joel brown to

add banquet facilities as a use

in the community center which is our cz zone.

The cc zone is permitted only in

the expansion area.

It's basically the equivalent of

the neighborhood business zone,

but geared towards our expansion area. Banquet facilities are not

permitted currently in the zone

or any other of the expansion area zones and the applicant

believes that it would be an appropriate use to add to that

zone.

Banquet facilities were

originally defined and started

being regulated in 2007 with a

text amendment to the shopping center zone and the mixed use

zones.

But it did not come into any of the expansion area zones.

So the applicant is asking that

that use be added and the definition is included on the

staff report for what that is.

And it does include indoor live entertainment by definition the

applicant is not interested next panning the use to include

outdoor live entertainment

because the cc zone also has a requirement for residential.

We felt there could be an inherent conflict if there were

outdoor live entertainment where

residential is required to be located. The staff is recommending

approval of this very small

addition to the zoning ordinance

in article 23 a and the zoning committee also recommended

approval two weeks ago for the following reasons.

In the community center zone as long as outdoor live

entertainment is not included

the use will complement the other uses of that zone.

Happy to answer any questions about this text amendment.

>> any comments or questions for

Mr. Wade.

>> the new town pike has a 200

view shed setback. >> it does.

>> if you include that in his

plan, where will they park? >> at this point since it's just

a text amendment we have not made assessments.

>> it's in my backyard and we

have property on new town pike.

We know it's a setback thing. We know what is there.

So just as a situation, that is

my major concern because that is

the only cc zone that... Well I know of another one.

I wish they were more productive than they are.

Other than that I don't have any problem.

Are you allowed to park in the view shed, build a parking lot

in the view shed? >> I don't believe they are.

Bill, did you have a... >> I think that was an issue

when the expansion area plan was

done, there were a few renderings that indicated

parking would be allowed in that

new town pike view shed but my recollection is the way the

ordinance is drafted, a paved

parking area is not permitted. >> Mr. Owens has a question.

>> as a follow-up.

This goes forward.

Will they have to bring anything

to us as far as parking or any

development plans or anything?

if they're making changes like a

parking lot, it would require a development plan change and you

would see it through the development plan review.

If what they are proposing does

not require any fizz al changes,

chit sounds like your assessment

is that it would at some level,

they could get a permit.

>> very good. As frank mentioned, living and working in the neighborhood for a long time, you know, in general I don't have a problem with this.

It just seems like there is a

lot going on on that property

and, you know, parking would be a concern as far as I'm

concerned. Thank you.

>> Miss Wade, we'll resolve that very quickly.

We'll park on their property.

That's all. >> Mr. Penn's property.

>> you would have a hell of a walk.

>> if the applicant... >> Mr. Chairman, dick murphy

on ber half of joel brown the applicant and his sister jamie

foxx. They're both here with me today.

We are in agreement with the staff recommendation.

Answer that question, the

parking or the scenic area out there is in the E.D. Zone.

This is in the cc zone.

So that, you know, our parking is going to have to be in the zone we are in.

I think that takes care of that issue out there.

But anyway, I could go on about

this but it's 5 clinton 16 so we agree with the staff report and

we would be happy to answer any further questions.

>> any questions for Mr. Murphy? Anyone in the audience have any

thoughts about it. Okay, fine.

Then we are ready for a motion

here on this end. >> Mr. Chairman, I move

approval of zota 2017-2 banquet

facilities in the community care cc zone.

This petition, I recommend approval.

>> it has been properly moved

and seconded that we approve

zota 2017-2 banquet facilities in the community center cc zone

with the reason provided by staff. Any other discussion on the

motion? Please vote when it comes up on

the monitors. Motion carries.

Thank you. Commission items.

Okay. >> just one more.

We'll try to go as quickly as

possible.

Pfr for the bluegrass airport car rental agencies.

Should be on a blue sheet.

Y'all should have a copy of that. >> tab 7.

>> I'm sorry.

Tab 7.

This is the bluegrass airport

car rental area. Currently they have several car

rental agencies in this area and

they're wanting to remove the

car agencies, the parking and everything that's there.

They want to redevelop the

property, redevelop it, put in

new swails, new detention ponds,

they're also proposing to take air freight drive, which you see

on the aerial there and they're

going to extend that more and create a cul-de-sac at the end

for a turn around currently that

they don't have.

After they do the grating and the redevelopment of the land

they're going to come back in

with three new rental car

agencies, office space, they

propose one-story buildings, 23 feet in height and then they

have, since they have three different agencies, the smallest

agency is looking at and 00

square feet to I believe 7200 square feet.

And they're also going to add buildings for maintenance and

car washing. Each of the rental agencies will

also have their own gas pumps,

and they'll have above ground tanks in their areas.

They will have parking for

customers and for their employees and then they'll have

parking for the freight cars and

they will all be in fenced in areas.

And after reviewing this with the comprehensive plan, it met

several of the goals and

objectives of the comprehensive plan. The lexington bluegrass airport

is one of our rural activity centers and this does meet with

the rural land management plan. In summary, we believe this will

meet the redevelopment will meet

the lexington -- the bluegrass airport, this will be a benefit

to the city of lexington for the community, for the services

there and then for our visiting people that come to our

community. With that I'll leave that to you all.

If you have any other comments

or questions. >> cheryl, is that why they're

building the entrance in front

of keenland to bring the rental cars in? >> I don't know.

I've been asked that question since I got the report.

I have no clue what is going on. >> this gentleman here is from the airport.

He can answer it. It wasn't part of the plan that

they showed

I didn't know I was going to be up here.

Apologize for my casual dress. The entrance is in fact only

temporary as a construction staging area for some airfield

work that we are doing.

Once that work is done, the left

turn lane from U.S. 60 will be restored back to a median so it

will not be an entrance but it

will be a permanent exit for development, everything from

some horse traffic which is our

only cargo primaryily here at electricsingtons and some of the

tenants so it will be a safe

exit on to U.S. 60 at the light.

>> and the parking garage where

the rental cars are now is it

going or staying or...

>> the entrance or exit at U.S. 60 has nothing to do with the

rental car. Very different part of the property.

These are the service centers.

This is the back operations that most people never see.

So when you leave your dirty car half filled with fuel, the

rental car agencies take from it the terminal area to these

existing facilities, fuel, vac, wash them and simply we are

replacing like with like.

A little further south on air freight drive and adding a

little more capacity for storage.

We are having a great times in this community.

We are experiencing record passenger traffic and expect

that for the next few years so these sites are being developed

for the next 20 years of growth. >> but when do you that, what

will you do with the parking

garage where the rental cars are

now? >> that is the rental car ready return lot that you would get in your vehicles. That is staying as is at this

time. >> that's what I was trying to

figure out.

>> any other questions?

Thank you, sir.

>> thank you.

Anyone in the audience have any discussion about this item?

If not we are ready for a motion

on this one and of course the

motion should go with findings,

I'm assuming.

>> Mr. Chair, I move for

approval of or recommend

approval of pfr 2016-2 the staff report for bluegrass air rental

car facilities, recognizing the

summary findings. >> you said 2016.

You mean 2017. >> well, I'm sorry.

I guess I do mean 2017. I was reading off the blue sheet

though.

>> the blue one? >> that's... The blue sheet says

2016.

I think it is 2017 to be correct. >> okay.

We got a motion on the floor

from Mr. Mike owens second by

carolyn plumlee that we approve

pfr 2017-2 lexington bluegrass airport. Any discussion on the motion?

Hearing none please vote when it

comes up on the screen.

Motion carries.

Okay. >> thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The next and I believe the last

item on your agenda is on page

8, item b, initiation of the

text amendment for transfer of commercial landscape

administration and enforcement. This is an item that we did

discuss with you at your work

session last week and we have

provided to you the memorandum

and copy of the proposed text.

The memorandum from susan pflueger, the director of the

division of environmental services.

This is the same text we looked at last week.

If you'll recall most of the proposed changes article 18 or

just in the naming of the staff members and the divisions

responsible for that going from building inspection to the

division of environmental services. There are a couple of other

slight changes to the text

including one provision of the sub.

If the commission were to initiate this text amendment

today, the staff would need to

notify all the registered neighborhood associations before would you have a public hearing

on it so that would be several weeks if not a couple of months

or more from today's date.

i would be glad to answer any questions if you have any before

you consider whether or not to initiate these changes.

>> any questions? >> Mr. Cravens? >> are you ready for a motion?

>> oh well, if you don't have any other questions for him,

yes.

>> if I May, one thing, since susan pflueger has been here

probably most of the day, I

think we need to recognize her and let everyone know she was

here and didn't slip off and go elsewhere this afternoon.

>> and she May even have some

comments for you.

>> well, any comments? >> I haven't gotten to make a

motion all day. >> we'll let you in a minute.

>> reserve the motion. >> I will.

I've done that for others.

[Laughter]

>> I'm just glad to have

survived until 5:26.

It's really cold back there.

Just to summarize what I mentioned at the last meeting.

This transfers responsibility for insuring faithful

implementation of the zoning ordinance as it relates to

commercial landscaping from building inspection to environmental services.

Years ago there was specified

commercial land scape examer position in building inspection

but that position was lost at some point years ago due to

downsizing and so the staff had to make up the difference.

They still had to implement this portion of the ordinance but

they lost a staff member in

doing that.

when council reestablished the position, they established it in

environmental services and so we filled it and now we are going

through the process of moving all of the responsibilities from

one division to the other.

Okay. Mr. Cravens. >> I don't know if I want to

make it now. >> oh okay.

>> I'll make it for you.

>> Mr. Chairman, move initiation of the text amendment

for the transfer commercial

landscape administration and enforcement.

>> okay moved by Mr. Cravens

second by Mr. Plumb leigh we initiate the text amendments for

transfer of commercial landscape administration and enforcement. Any other discussion on the

motion? Please vote when it comes up on

the screen. Motion passes.

Thank you very much. Anything from Mr. Duncan?

Do you have anything else from the staff.

>> I'm sorry Mr. Chair we are

just too engrossed over here. We have another work session

next week. The second one for the month.

And at that time we will be

talking to you about the vacant land inventory and some updates

on the table for the comprehensive plan and I believe

we have another discussion about

changes to the zoning ordinance related to the board of

adjustment. And we will be in the phoenix building.

We will not be in this room and

we will be on the third floor. at 1:30 on thursday.

>> thank you. >> any other business.

Without objection the meeting is

adjourned.