# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - June 22, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 22, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4281 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4281?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-06-22 - **Last revised**: June 22, 2017 - **Length**: 30,573 words - **Speakers**: Chad > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** The transcript on this page is the Granicus stenographer's live closed-captioning track, captured at the time of broadcast (typos and broken sentences common). Speaker labels come from the same track. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Verbatim wording and speaker attribution may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on June 22, 2017, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Bill Wilson presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed a standard agenda consisting of five main items, including the approval of minutes from previous meetings and consideration of land subdivision and zoning matters. During the session, the commission conducted five formal votes on various matters brought before them. The meeting also provided opportunities for public participation, with three public comments heard from community members regarding items under consideration. The proceedings covered both informational items and actionable business, with the approval of minutes being the primary item requiring formal commission action during this session. ## Attendance The following members were present at the June 22, 2017 meeting: **Present:** • Bill Wilson • Will Berkley • Mike Cravens • Karen Mundy • Mike Owens • Frank Penn • Carolyn Plumlee • Carolyn Richardson **Absent:** • Patrick Brewer • David Drake No members arrived late to the meeting. Eight members were in attendance with two absent members. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on five items during the June 22, 2017 meeting, with all votes passing unanimously with 8 members present. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:00] Karen Mundy motioned to approve minutes from May 25, 2017, June 8, 2017, and amended minutes of April 27, 2017, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The motion passed unanimously 8-0, with all members voting in favor: Bill Wilson, Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, and Carolyn Richardson. **PLN-MJSUB-17-00026 Postponement** [timestamp: 02:00] Carolyn Plumlee motioned to postpone the RML-CITATION (HILLENMEYER INTEREST, LTD.) case, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The postponement passed unanimously 8-0, with the item rescheduled to the July 13, 2017 meeting. All eight members voted in favor. **PLN-MJDP-17-00042 Postponement** [timestamp: 04:00] Carolyn Plumlee motioned to postpone the RML-CITATION (HILLENMEYER INTEREST, LTD.) Development Plan, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The postponement passed unanimously 8-0, also rescheduled to July 13, 2017. All members voted in favor. **ZOTA 2016-5 Postponement** [timestamp: 06:00] Mike Cravens motioned to postpone the Amendment to Article 23A-10: Supportive Uses in the Economic Development Zone, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The postponement passed unanimously 8-0, with the item rescheduled to August 24, 2017. All eight members voted in favor. **PLN-MAR-17-00019 Continuance** [timestamp: 08:00] Will Berkley motioned to continue the J. Roger Jones, III Zoning Map Amendment case, seconded by Mike Cravens. The continuance passed unanimously 8-0, with the item continued to August 24, 2017. All members voted in favor. ## Public Comment Three residents addressed the board during the public comment period, focusing primarily on development issues along the Paris Pike corridor. **Paul La** spoke in support of the Bluegrass Baptist School redevelopment project [timestamp: 10:00]. He expressed his backing for converting the former school property into a community-focused facility. **William** raised concerns about a proposed zoning change on Paris Pike [timestamp: 12:00]. He outlined several specific objections to the development, including potential traffic impacts, light pollution issues, and the overall effect on the scenic character of the Paris Pike corridor. **Amy Clark** also addressed the Paris Pike zoning matter [timestamp: 14:00]. Clark argued that the proposed zoning change conflicts with the established Paris Pike Corridor Plan. She emphasized concerns about preserving the scenic nature of the corridor and questioned whether the development would be compatible with existing planning guidelines for the area. The public comments revealed a clear divide between support for adaptive reuse projects like the Bluegrass Baptist School redevelopment and opposition to new development that residents believe could compromise the character of established scenic corridors like Paris Pike. ## Contested Items Two significant items generated substantial discussion and disagreement during the meeting. **Zoning Change on Paris Pike** Community members voiced strong opposition to a proposed zoning change along the Paris Pike corridor. Residents raised multiple concerns about the potential impacts of the development, specifically citing worries about increased traffic congestion in the area. Additionally, opponents expressed concerns about light pollution that could result from the proposed development, arguing it would negatively affect the character of the scenic corridor. The community opposition centered on preserving the existing nature of Paris Pike, with residents emphasizing the importance of maintaining the area's scenic qualities. The traffic and lighting concerns reflected broader worries about how the zoning change might alter the corridor's current character and functionality. **Bluegrass Baptist School Redevelopment** A procedural dispute arose regarding the redevelopment of the Bluegrass Baptist School property. The disagreement involved differing interpretations between the applicant and city staff regarding the most appropriate zoning classification for the proposed redevelopment project. The applicant and planning staff could not reach consensus on the proper zoning approach for the site, creating uncertainty about how to proceed with the application. This fundamental disagreement about zoning requirements and classifications prevented the item from moving forward as originally planned. Due to the unresolved differences between the applicant's position and staff recommendations, the commission decided to continue the item to allow for additional discussion and potential resolution of the zoning questions. This continuance provided time for both parties to further examine the zoning issues and work toward a mutually acceptable approach for the redevelopment proposal. Both contested items highlighted common challenges in development review processes, including balancing community concerns with development proposals and resolving technical disagreements between applicants and planning staff. ## Call to Order [timestamp: 00:00] The meeting was called to order by Bill Wilson at 1:30 p.m. This agenda item served as the formal opening of the June 22, 2017 meeting, with no additional discussion or business conducted during this procedural portion of the proceedings. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:30] The board considered the approval of minutes from three previous meetings during this agenda item. The minutes under review included those from the May 25, 2017 meeting, the June 8, 2017 meeting, and amended minutes from the April 27, 2017 meeting. Key speakers during this discussion were Karen Mundy and Carolyn Richardson, who addressed the board regarding the minutes approval process. The board reviewed the documentation for all three sets of minutes that required approval. This included two regular meeting minutes from May 25, 2017 and June 8, 2017, as well as amended minutes from an earlier April 27, 2017 meeting that had required corrections or modifications. Following the presentation and any discussion of the minutes, the board voted to approve all three sets of minutes as presented. The approval encompassed: • Minutes from the May 25, 2017 meeting • Minutes from the June 8, 2017 meeting • Amended minutes from the April 27, 2017 meeting The motion to approve the minutes was successful, with the board formally adopting all three sets of meeting records. This approval ensures the official documentation of the board's previous proceedings and decisions are properly recorded in the permanent record. ## Postponements and Withdrawals [timestamp: 02:00] The meeting addressed several requests for postponements and withdrawals of agenda items. Matt Carter and Carolyn Plumlee served as the key speakers during this discussion segment. The agenda item focused on reviewing and processing formal requests from applicants or staff to either postpone consideration of certain matters to a future meeting date or to withdraw items entirely from the current agenda. This procedural item allows for the orderly management of the meeting schedule and provides flexibility for applicants who may need additional time to prepare materials or address concerns. During the discussion, Carter and Plumlee presented the specific requests that had been submitted, outlining the reasons for each postponement or withdrawal request. The nature of this agenda item was informational, allowing the body to formally acknowledge and approve the requested changes to the meeting schedule. The outcome was the approval of the postponement and withdrawal requests as presented. This administrative action helped streamline the remainder of the meeting by removing items that were not ready for consideration and rescheduling others to appropriate future dates when all necessary materials and stakeholders would be available for proper review. ## Land Subdivision Items [timestamp: 04:00] The meeting addressed several land subdivision matters under agenda item IV. Tom Martin served as the key speaker for this discussion segment. The discussion covered multiple subdivision items, with specific attention given to two properties: • **RML-CITATION** - Details of this subdivision item were discussed, though specific parameters and requirements were not elaborated in the available materials. • **ETHINGTON & ETHINGTON PROPERTY** - This property subdivision was also reviewed as part of the land subdivision items on the agenda. Tom Martin presented information regarding these subdivision matters to the meeting participants. The discussion appears to have been informational in nature, focusing on the status and details of these particular land subdivision cases. The outcome of this agenda item was classified as informational, indicating that no formal votes or decisions were made during this portion of the meeting. The discussion served to update attendees on the current status of these subdivision items and provide relevant information for future consideration. No specific concerns or objections were noted in the available materials regarding either the RML-CITATION or ETHINGTON & ETHINGTON PROPERTY subdivisions. The presentation by Tom Martin provided the necessary background and current status information for these land subdivision matters under the committee's purview. ## Zoning Items [timestamp: 06:00] The board discussed zoning map amendments during this agenda item, with Tracey Wade serving as the key speaker for the presentation. The discussion focused on zoning matters involving two specific parties: J. Roger Jones, III and Afton Community Development, LLC. Wade presented information regarding proposed zoning map amendments related to these entities. The agenda item was structured as an informational discussion rather than requiring formal board action. No specific details were provided in the available materials regarding the nature of the proposed zoning changes, the location of the properties in question, or the specific zoning classifications being considered. The session served as a briefing for board members on upcoming zoning matters, allowing them to receive preliminary information about the amendments before any formal decision-making process would take place in future meetings. The outcome was informational, indicating that no votes or formal decisions were made during this portion of the meeting. The discussion provided board members with background information on the zoning proposals to prepare them for potential future action items related to these zoning map amendments. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of minutes from May 25, 2017, June 8, 2017, and amended minutes of April 27, 2017 - **PLN-MJSUB-17-00026** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of RML-CITATION (HILLENMEYER INTEREST, LTD.) - **PLN-MJDP-17-00042** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of RML-CITATION (HILLENMEYER INTEREST, LTD.) Development Plan - **ZOTA 2016-5** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Amendment to Article 23A-10: Supportive Uses in the Economic Development Zone - **PLN-MAR-17-00019** — continued (8-0): Continuance of J. Roger Jones, III Zoning Map Amendment --- ## Full transcript i have a motion and minutes stand approve. Post poa. And/or withdrawals post good afternoon members of the planning commission. I'm matt carter with vision engineering. On the agenda page 1. Item a-1, plan mj sub-17-26, rml -citation. Request it be postponed until the next hearing in July. I'm not sure the date. >> July 13. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? If not we'll entertain a motion Miss Carolyn plumlee. >> move postponement of pln mjsub-17-26 to July 13. >> moved and seconded until July 13 any other discussion on the motion. Motion carries. See you jewel 13. One more related to this on page 2 of your agenda item two pln -mjdp -- 17-00042 postponed as well. >> anyone like to speak to this item. I'll entertain a motion for the post postponement of the development plan. >> more postponement of pln -mjdp-17-42 until July 13. >> properly moved and seconded that we postpone pln-mjdp-17-42 rml citation until July 13. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion carries. Thank you. >> I'm dick murphy, on page 7 under item c public hearings on zoning ordinance text amendments item 1 zota amendment article 23 -a supportive uses as special provision in the economic development E.D. Zone. I represent the property owner, we are requesting a two-month post moment on that in light of the zoning committee. We are trying to meet with the heirs of the estate and figure out where we go from here. >> what date would that be? >> Mr. Chairman, your August meeting devoted to zoning items is on the 24th. That is nine weeks from today. >> okay, August 24. Is that agreeable Mr. Murphy? >> yes. >> anyone want to speak to this agenda item. Anyone on the commission. >> I'm going to move postponement of zota 2016-5 for two months. >> properly moved by Mr. Cravens sectioned by carolyn plumlee that we postpone zota 2016-5 supportive uses of the economic development ed zone postponed until August 24. Please vote when it comes up on the screens. Motion carries. Thank you. Any other postponements. >> designated of the neighborhood association and I want to request a one-month delay on page 5 pln mar 17 hf 00019. We are in the notice area of this request and we have asked f cnc, amy clark to speak on our behalf on this postponement. >> that's pln-mar-17-19 jay rogers jones. Are. >> what date is that. >> July 27 meeting five weeks from today. >> any particular reason? >> yes, they add the fayette county neighborhood council to present the reasons. The traffic impact statement, although it was received sometime earlier, was posted on the website at noon today after our inquiry. We've had no opportunity to review the traffic impact study or make any response. We haven't yet seen at all the staff review of the traffic impact study. There was mention of a subdivision regs waiver but I think that's not of concern today. As you know, the neighborhood council has had a lot of discussion in the long range planning about bettering the process so neighborhoods can be engaged and make response so that decisions are clearer and more streamlined. That's one reason. The other reasons that this particular zone change carries with it a requirement that the paris pike corridor commission meet and render a decision on the zone change and the attendant development plan as pertinent prior to the planning commission meeting and giving their decision. In the ordinances that establish the paris pike corridor commission, it gives some specific recommendations about notice. First of all the paris pike corridor commission is an open body. It should have notice posted in advance. So if there was such notice, we would ask that it be furnished in advanced of the planning commission hearing it. Second, if you look on page... Digital 47 of the paris pike corridor small area plan. And it is page 7 of the enabling ordinance. It says that the commission shall publish a synopsis of its recommendations made to the plan ning commission's legislative bodies or boards of adjustments in the newspapers of both counties prior to the meet ing in which the appropriate body considers the proposal. So it's requiring a synopsis of the recommendation of the corridor commission published in the newspaper prior to planning commission meeting. Wave' been in touch with the newspaper informally. We couldn't find it, the newspaper can't seem to find it. Again if that has been done and everything is in good order, we'd like to see that before the planning commission meets. It goes on to say in addition, the commission shall send its written recommendations to the chief executive of each party to this agreement. I guess that would be the three, it's a bicounty but includes lexington fayette, paris and bourbon the county. And it really means it because it goes on to say if it's a week ly newspaper and you are short on time, there are various loopholes, of course the "herald-leader," the highest circulation really for both counties at this point is not a weekly. So for those reasons, we would request postponement. we just, in inquiring today, we were furnished with draft minutes at noon of this paris pike corridor commission meeting and decision but that's not publication in the newspaper and we are not confident that the whole paris pike commission was properly done. So for this reason we would request postponement to attend to those details. The absence of the traffic study in time for neighbors to make reasoned and timely response and certainly the absence of the corridor and quite possibly the posting of both the meeting and its agenda, which is required in the enabling ordinance as well. Does that make it clear? >> a couple of clarification trz my perspective -- from my perspective. Are either of you on the paris pike commission? You are not on the paris pike commission? >> no. >> were you aware of the paris pike commission on June 5? >> no, not until after the fact. >> and when you say after the fact, you mean... >> an email from, I sent the information about the zone change request to one of the members. >> so you are speaking on behalf of the association but not of the commission? >> that's correct. >> okay. Just want to get clear. >> yes, sir. >> thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this issue? >> Mr. Murphy. >> I'm dick murphy. i represent the developer j. Rogerser jones and co-owner who are here today. We object to a postponement and we are ready to go here today to be heard. Give you a little further background. We filed our zone change whenever the filing deadline was about six, seven weeks ago. We filed our traffic study six week ago and Miss Clark is an experienced consultant to neighborhoods and is aware that she can go to the planning office and mick -- pick up these documents. She doesn't need to wait until it appears on the website which I don't think there is any requirement that this be posted on the website to know that the traffic study is available with planning staff. We've had it filed for six weeks we filed it when we were supposed to file it. At the zoning committee, it was discussed and we were informed when we filed we would have to go in front of the paris pike corridor commission. They met on June 5. We had an hour and a half discussion about this. Got off on some irrelevant items , but they had a full meeting. They had eight of their nine members there. They voted 7-1 to recommend approval of this. They had the development plan, they had a full discussion of this with Mr. Salee was there, Miss Wade was there, Mr. Martin was there and Mr. Emons was there and all four of them gave a full report to the paris pike corridor commission. The paris pike corridor commission is not a planning commission. You don't have to give notice to surrounding property owners before that meeting. The surrounding property owners are notified for this meeting. This is the public input session right here and I'm a little dis appointed I wasn't informed before this, Miss Clark wanted to discuss things. We would be happy to discuss whatever issues they are. These are all however, procedural issues. They're not substantive issues relating to the zone change itself. As I said, we have had the traffic study filed for six weeks. Paris pike corridor commission met all its requirements. An open meeting. We had some neighbors up there from paris testifying about it in favor of it, by the way. And the sin only sis -- synopsis got out. It is much better than a synopsis of what the paris pike corridor commission did. It's full draft minutes of what they did which I think is a full discussion of what happened. So we feel all requirements have been complied with. I haven't heard any substantive issues on our zone change. We would prefer to go ahead. I won't postpone it. But if you do I need to talk about the date because we have issues with the date. I'll let that pass until you decide on the issue whether you are go for example to decide that or not. We would like to go ahead tonight. We would be happy to meet with them out in the hallway before you get to us to see if there are any substantive matters we can address with them, too. >> Miss Clark and, I have forgotten your name, would you be willing to meet with the attorney in the hallway and have a discussion before you continue >> I feel like we need time, more time to answer the response s to all of this. The neighbors are very concerned he said the neighbors in paris are okay with it, well we are in lexington and it's our end that's being developed and that's the concern we have. Maybe we can, as we discuss further the neighbors discuss further we can come up with a better, a different solution, maybe some ideas to what the plan is, but I think at this point we need to have a delay. >> the chair not trying to force an issue I. Was an invitation. >> thank you, I appreciate that. >> Miss Clark. >> just to underscore this is an ordinance that requires the synopsis published in the paper and in fact the ordinance specifically mentions what would in any case be the case that as an open meeting it also needs notice. So we would ask that if all that was duly provided that we get affidavits of that and, you know , what is usual I think, is you get the copy of the notice that came in the paper and it's signed and it's part of the record. so this is a law. The traffic impact study is more about whether you want to hear about from the neighbors. They're very concerned about the traffic impact study and they have a lot to add but they had no opportunity to review this or the staff response which is, we don't yet have. >> okay. >> let me double check one thing Miss Jones. The issue I think you've heard related to the legality of the issue of ordinance and what have you. Are they in compliance or not? >> well what you are being read to is not an ordinance but the interlocal agreement between paris and us to deal with the paris pike corridor commission. And honestly, I'm a little perplexed myself because I'm trying to figure out if that supercedes your alls ability to act as a commission that your actions are set forth by statute but bill May have some historical information that might be more helpful than what I'm going to tell you then I can comment further if you need me more. >> Mr. Salee. >> just in dealing with the procedural issues that have been raised. The saf here in lexington did publish a notice of the June 5 paris pike corridor commission meeting that ran in the local newspaper saturday May 20. And we do have a copy in the office of that ad. As you know, we do not ordinar ily prepare affidavits about legal ads for your meeting s and likewise for the paris pike corridor commission nor do we do so for council zon ing hearings. Also I understand from bourbon county they ran an ad in the bourbon county newspaper called the advertiser, I'm not exactly certain, but there were two legal ads published prior to the June 5 meeting. It was a special meeting so those ads did run. As to the requirement that has been raised for publication of the synopsis, if you will, the local agreement dates to 1993. As a staff member I have been at tending those meetings since 1996 when the overlay zone was in its infancy in terms of draft ing and being created that overlay zone runs from johnson road in fayette county to the county line and bourbon county has an overlay zone that picks up at that point and extends into bourbon county and they're similar regulations. In my experience in 20 years, I'm not aware of a single publication of the synopsis in any newspaper. Again I have no knowledge of how they handle things in bourbon county but I'm not aware of any here in lexington. That's significant because the legal ad we ran on May 20, you know, in terms of size, is maybe this big and that ad cost the division hundreds of dollars to run if we had to publish this in the newspaper, it would be thousands of dollars. Maybe that's why when I started attending the meetings the practice has not been adhered to for the commission's information thank you. >> let me go back to Miss Jones. >> so, you know, the interlocal agreement does talk about publishing a synopsis. I'm just not sure that that lack of doing that since that has never been done since you all are a different body and you have the recommendation and their vote, and all those meetings and this meeting were advertised that that would preclude you from hearing it today if you so desire. >> Miss Clark I'll give one more shot. >> a couple of words was there published with the notice an agenda in the for the corridor's meeting and also we understand that the synopsis could be much briefer than the full 34eu7b9s. >> so your question now is with the agenda is what... >> that's what it says in the interlocal agreement and also... >> to your knowledge, Miss Jones , does it have to be required to have an agenda published with it? It goes back to Mr. Salee's point that could be a pretty expensive cost to the city if they did that but is that a requirement? Mr. Chairman. >> yes, sir. >> the legal ad at least in the "herald-leader" did have the information for this one item in the ad. It did not have the complete agenda which includes things like roll call, old business, it didn't have those titles. But the one agenda item and the reason the meeting was called was to review this application and that application was mentioned in the lexington ad. >> very good. now I'll turn it over to the commission members. I'm sorry I got ahead of you. I wanted to get that... Do you have any... >> I just have a question. When it says published does it say in the newspaper or just published? >> it says in a newspaper. >> okay. >> did someone else have something to say from the commission? >> you pretty much got my questions answered. >> clarifications or anything? >> that's what I was going to ask. >> okay. Mr. Penn do you have anything? >> yes, 22 days ago we had a public hearing at the subdivision committee and that afternoon they had a public hearing at the zoning committee. 22 days ago. All this information that they had at that time with the exception of the fact that paris pike corridor minutes were available and they were publly available so you are asking us to hold up a hearing that 122 days -- 22 days ago we started the process and the applicant started way before that. That's pretty hard stretch for me. >> Mr. Salee. >> Mr. Chairman again since we are having procedural issues raised if I could just respond to one issue. Your committee meetings were technically public meetings not public hearings. Thank you for allowing me to correct that. >> anyone else on have any questions. I'll close this part of it. I understand where you are com ing from at this stage of the game I'm going to leave it up to the commission to make the decision whether or not we postpone or not. Now from the chair's position, I would prefer that you make the possession in the positive and either vote it up or down whatever the case May be. I'll entertain a motion at this time to whatever. Well, what are we doing? I'm waiting on a motion. The issue on the floor is whether do we postpone or whether we do not postpone. Or whether we move forward. I'm asking the commission which way do you want to go? I mean if no one makes a motion then there is no motion on the floor. The only purpose of a motion is to have a discussion. Has nothing to do with anything else so if you don't want to have any further discussions on it then what we do is we move forward. No motionses on the floor. In that case then we will move forward with the particular agenda item at the appropriate time. Any other postponements or withdrawals. If not then we are ready to have our first hearing. Going to be on the development plan I think it's on efington and efington property tract one. Ethington and ethington property , tract 1. >> Mr. Martin. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission at the bottom of page 1 under development plans is your first item today. It is major development plan 17- 15 ethington & ethington property tract 1. This is for property located out on harrodsburg road. You can see the road frontage and this location is the pal palomar boulevard. Here we have old higbee mill road in this location. There is a light here. The mangrove drive is located here. Madrone way proposed to be extended along the western border of the property, almond way stubs into the property this location. From palomar stubs in as being proposed to extend as you can see and is proposed to connect to madrone way. This is an area rezoned by this body sometime ago. What you see before you today is a combination of a final development plan and platform subdivision plan. The final development plan is for this lot only. You can see here and what we've done for you is outlined in this purple dashed line phase two, phase one. This is the only commercial development that's on the table at this time. This is phase one right here. The rest of this commercial area will be back to you in the future with a new proposal for it to be developed as part of phase two. In terms of the subdivision plan , we have the 33 single family lots that you can see in this area along the extension of the drive. Along with it 25 townhouses in this area. You can see that these remaining townhouse as long with these few single family lots, they're part of phase two. So you are not being asked to approve this today. You are only asked to approve the preliminary subdivision plan in this location along with the final development plan for this commercial development. You can see that there will be a right in, right out on harrods burg road. This is part of the phase one development. This will be constructed and donna long with the construction of this corner lot, whatever it May be, looks like a drug store. Very likely, we don't know which one. And then along with a preliminary subdivision plan again as you can see, they're proposing to build madrone way with phase one. Very important discussion staff had with the applicant to ensure that this part of the infrastructure was done at the beginning. I know you all recall all the discussion that was had with the zone change and with madrone way which is a collector street. The local street will be built from madrone to this point. It's going to stop at this point during phase one they will be back with phase two continue it and do the connection so this is just the phase one of the development. You can see you can see as well the waiver on almond way. We have a pedestrian access com ing through and connecting the neighborhood with pedestrian to this proposed development. Cy ringa the you can see the standard development plans and sign offs. Several things I've touched on, one small item is a table that will delineate and here they have the layout for the townhouse lots. There is a specific open requirement for townhouses and we like that clearly delineated because not only is a square footage requirement, it, too, has to be delineated on the lot. That's one of the things we just want to be clear on the townhouse lots. In addition, I've already touch ed on the syringa drive, being constructed with phase 1 as well and the development of these lots and that infrastructure along with madrone way. These are both conditions. We have also stated that we want and we made a cross section, an exhibit as it were on the landscaping along the harrods burg road. And the landscaping the staff recommended is the same landscaping that is utilize add long man o' war and that has a tree component, shrub component, that will help. And you've all seen it when we drive it, the landscaping. One thing they're not going to have and that's due to the top ography, there is no need for a birm. Staff agreed to landscape this. We felt the presentation was very important. That was another company. we have a condition on architectural details and orient ation of the b-1 buildings I'm sure you are getting used to hearing this from staff and having this discussion. Again we want to be sure we have a good architectural present ation and building orient ation to our roads and streets particularly once again a major arterial. That's something we've had discussions with. There have been exhibits. We would anticipate exhibits being presented to you today as part of the commitment to meet those requirement we want to be sure we are addressing that issue up front now so we can continue to get the appropriate relationship in the commercial development. In addition to that, staff has had discussions with them and they're going to have to have landscaping and that's zone to zone. The b-1 for the res lengs landscaping along here, to shield these townhouse dwellers, purchasers, renters, whatever they May end up being, but this relationship, of course, it has been has to be landscaped. Staff have had discussions and they're willing to increase the landscaping above and beyond article 18 requirements really to help shield these folks at are living here again from this b-1 development and you can see as it develops, there will be traffic and lights and that sort of thing. I'm sure they're going to tell you. They've told staff and I think they're going to tell you again, they're anticipating a change in this area in the layout when they develop it so I think we will see in the future as will this body, a somewhat different layout that will assist in mitigating this relationship. Again this access in here private access you can see access out here to this access easement. You can see it circulates here. It does not connect. This driveway access does not connect from madrone. The access easement does as does syringa. This brings us to the final part of what I would like to explain to the body and that's the waiver request. Did I mention we gave you a hand out on the revised condition under lovely laugh ender piece of paper. Lavender they do that for me when I wear... The waiver request is a spacing request that they submitted to staff for the syringa intersection on to madrone way. And it is the access spacing from a local street to collector and it's from mangrove to syringa and it's basically 17 feet short of meeting the subdivision regulations. Just 17 feet and that's not... And it's somewhat aggravated and it's in the body of the report. By their attempt to duplicate the street system that exists. That was the discussion we had the preliminary, you May recall in the zone change as well so by having a parallel street and connection through the development, and the ability to make this work, it impacted the property a little bit and the streets. So 17 feet is what they're requesting. In addition to that, staff made another discovery and that is this access easement with its spacing won't meet. Though they actually need a waiver of both the spacing of the access easement along with the local street and the local street. And why this is important, and they submitted and you'll see it in your report, they submitted a relief from street standards and that's not actually what they needed. They needed an access spacing and then they resubmitted the same day to get the access spac ing waiver. What needs to happen today, you can see again this access easement, it's the frontage for these townhouses and this body needs to make a finding that that access easement is the appropriate frontage for these townhouses in lieu of a public street. And that's what they were attempting to do when they asked for the street improvement waiver was actually because they're just proposing a private access easement. To serve as the frontage for the townhouse lots. They're also in their letter stating that they are going to build this to heavier, more public standards because the amount of traffic that's anticipated to carry. So that is an aspect of the waiver request as well, the finding for this access easement and the spacing where they intersect the collector street. and with that, you can see that staff has recommended approval of the development plan and staff has also recommended approval of the waiver request. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have for staff. >> Miss Mundy. >> tom, is that access easement and all of that traffic in among those front units compliant with what fire would need? >> compliant with? >> what fire would need to be able to... >> yes. Fire is reviewing this plan and has to sign off on it and I'll remind you your regs require to you make a finding that this is an appropriate substitute as it were for a public street. >> Mr. Owens. >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Tom, you talked a little bit as far as orientation as far as the commercial buildings and they May change and so forth. There was a little bit of discussion as to the first row of residential units going to call them townhouses. Do we know which way they're facing? >> this is the front. >> where is the garage? >> they'll access in the rear the garages and although you can't see the detail, that's what is shown here. Yes, so they have little sidewalks and porches and a sidewalk and yes, they're going to be oriented to what will be the rear of these buildings so again... >> going to have to work on that now you mention that in front of the townhouses does not access madrone? >> this? >> yes. >> the access easement does intersect madrone. That's why the spacing. >> I thought I was see something green spaces in between which meant, to me landscaping up and down through there. >> landscaping here and here. >> throughout. Between the commercial and between the townhouses. >> landscaping here? >> it kind of looks like there is perpendicular landscaping going towards the townhouses. Looks like green lines evidently I'm color blind. >> and again they are going to ... >> that runs all the way through >> yes, sir. >> article 18 will have to be met at a minimum and they've agreed to enhance that. >> with one other question with syringa, the lots on both sides of syringa, do they have garages on the front or do they, does that middle row of houses... >> they will not access here. They will have front floated garages, yes. This will be their frontage. >> thank you. >> any other question from the commission? >> applicant? >> good afternoon. Nick nicholson on behalf of taylor made realty. I'm happy to answer in I questions. We are basically in agreement with the staff. I do want to show a couple landscaping exhibits and hope that that might clarify some of your questions. this first is going to be the landscaping that is going to a along here where the dash line is and you see the green right here. It is very similar to what is currently required on the man o' war boulevard that tom was indicating. These are retaining, these are owner... They're being retained by taylor made real estate so there is a vested interest to make sure that these are properly screened from the back of any future commercial development. The next exhibit is going to be what we up on harrodsburg road and this will, this is where the right in right out is right now. While it might be tough to read. There we go. You are having a four plank fence along with the larger tree s that are 50 feet and bush es as well. This is what the man o' war kind of corridor study calls for. There isn't a landscaping requirement with the harrodsburg corridor study. I think there was always intended to be but never actually kind of got developed but that is indicative of what we are kind of proposing and. This is the development plan that we recently kind of submit ted to show more clearly how this will impact things. If we could get that a little bit clearer. So here is a demonstration of where all of that landscaping is going along harrodsburg road. So you will see a solid essentially row of those trees, bushes and the horse fence itself. again this is the only part right now that is proposed to be final with the commercial. I know this property has been before this body plenty of times and so you all are very aware, or well aware of the significant trees that are on site. While we believe most of them are contained on the green space , we want to take a little bit more time, focus on that before we bring that side back for a final development plan to make sure everyone is kind of in agreement and we are taking the proper steps to protect those trees. That's kind of why we are doing this staggered phasing with this development. We wanted to make sure madrone was in place on phase one because of how much kind of concern the neighborhood had about that originally. We've also committed with working with traffic engineering and the palomar board to basically contribute money to the traffic calming. We are putting in kind of a choker so to speak on the madrone extension in order to kind of temporarily kind of narrow madrone so when drivers are coming through there, they, you know, tend to slow down. We also are giving funds to traffic engineering to put devices inside the palomar neighborhood, whether those be stop signs, stripings, any other type of kind of traffic calming devices to make sure that any traffic impact that is from this site that is going through the neighborhood is at least diminished or calmed as much as we can. that is kind of the spiel that I had to tell you about today. I'm happy to take specific questions. Most of this was kind of hashed out at the zone change so I didn't know what exactly you all would want to hear today. >> any questions, any further questions? Is anyone here that would like to speak to this particular issue? Anyone on the commission? Any additional discussion? Then we'll entertain a motion. We have the development plan and waiver with the conditions as identified by staff Mr. Owens. >> I move for approval of plan -mjdp-17-15 ethington & ethington tract 1 with the 20 revised conditions. Including the waiver recommend sizing -- recognizing the waiver and approval in that for the recommendations of the staff. >> second. >> properly moved by Mr. Mike owens second by karen mund I that we approve pln-mjdp-17-15 eth I can't & ethingtonington property tract one with the 20 conditions identified by staff along with the waiver and the conditions provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. >> distillery district. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. At the very, very bottom of page 2 item 3 is major development plan 17-15 distillery district west unit one an adaptive reuse project and this plan was postponed at your last meeting so that they could get their sign up. The adaptive reuse project need to post a sign. They've submitted the sign and affidavit. So that was done. The notification as required, so what we have before you today is and amendment to the distillery district plan. Here is manchester street. This is the five-story old warehouse that's been there since the place was developed. This is the area where most everything has been happening. I'm sure you are all aware with the restaurants and ice cream and that sort of thing and the bar and next to the to town branch. This we outlined for you is the flood plain. There has been, as you all have heard, a loamer on the property and it greatly reduced the depth of water officially that flows on this property. The purpose of this amendment is actually fairly straightforward and simple and they're recon figuring the parking lot. And creating new access in this location and lining it up, the numbers have not changed. You can see a lot of compact spaces are being proposed and they're moving forward with this parking lot and the parking staff can't over emif size if you know, the importance of park ing to this development but this is a parking amendment. With one slight change. In the interim when this was filed, another business down there had a proposal, so they're piggy backing on this amendment. It would have been a minor amendment but we felt no need for them to go through all at that time problem when they could just piggy back. That is they're proposing to build a beer garten in this location. This is the water tower is what this is so they managed to, and we think it's fortunate, staff does, that they were able to pig gy back on this amendment with the parking lot revision. So that is the only change to this plan since it was originally submitted to you and you can see very standard plan, sign-offs for a final development plan with a few little cleanup conditions that you can see correct the planning certification date, revise the title to reflect the number of amendments there have been actually a couple of minor amendments to this plan that this body would not have seen. And then along with greater detail on this development, they need to show the seating arrangement where the bar is going to be because the bar is going have like a roof covering over it and obviously utilities and things like that would be run to that part of the development. So we just need a little more detail on the specifics of the beer gart n with that staff is recommending approval. >> any questions for Mr. Martin? >> applicant? >> abby jones with abby jones consulting and rich murphy in my office. We are very satisfied with the recommendation for approval. We are glad to answer in I questions. >> thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak on this particular issue either pro or con? Anyone on the commission? If not we are ready to entertain a motion. >> Mr. Chair, I move approval of pln mj-mjdp-17-52 distillery district west unit 1 adaptive re use project amended with the 14 conditions as presented by staff. >> second. >> properly moved by and second ed we approve pln-mjdp-17- 52 distillery district west as amended. Any other discussion and that is with the, how many conditions was it? 14 conditions as identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none would you please vote when it comes up on the screen? Motion carries. Thank you. We now have a continuance that we had from last meeting on the walnut grove. Page 3 minor subdivision plan. Thank you, you and the commission members should cringe when the staff needs three podiums to tell one story. This was discussed two weeks ago a minor development plan. Minor dp 17-22 for the reserve at walnut grove. These properties have an address of 3812 cayman lane and 2669 cayman heights. what we have on the three tripod s are the current development plan, which is now 10 years old, the original submittal which is dated 2017 that we discussed at your meet ing on June 8 and then closest to me is a revision to the development plan that has come in since your last meeting so that's why we have the three different things up there. Didn't mean to scare anyone unnecessarily on on that. At your place you have much of the material handed out to you two weeks ago but there are some new items. You have a revised staff report on a canary yellow colored sheet of paper from the staff along with the, what I'll call the original staff report from two weeks ago in the more orange colored paper. A number of attachments from the correspondence of 2007 and memo from tom martin on the commission that talks about the compliance of this plan with the expansion ar of the master plan. Finally one other item that will you have at your place and that is a staff report on a waiver to your land subdivision regulation s. I hope maybe in five minutes time to tell you what has transpired in the last two weeks and tell why you the staff has a markedly different recommendation on this plan today than we did two weeks ago. To orient you. Walnut grove is a 90-acre development on the eastern most edge of the urban service area. It's location is probably best recognized in its rep to the greenbriar subdivision which is an older established neighborhood that most people are aware of. Greenbriar is immediately to the west of this location across walnut grove lane. Walnut grove is formerly walnut hill childsburg that connected south to toddes road. Many years ago that road was interdicted and is now the king park owned by the urban county government and the walnut grove portion is the portion from that park that goes north to winchester road. The development is served by a series of streets here with one access opposite cayman lane which and 50 residential lots set back from the roadway a short distance approximately 30 feet from where the property lines begin from the roadway this plan that came in a month ago now proposed a change to the pedestrian system internal to the development, what I'll call the exz term pedestrian system to the development. The original system was approved in 2007 as part of almost an identical street and lotting pattern with an almost identical number of residential lots all single family detached housing. Properties owned ar one and where it is situated under the expansionary master plan the development must maintain 80% common open space and that's why you see the development pattern that you have. Only 20% of this 90 acres is proposed for development. In 2007, this series of trails that you see here were identified on the plan as to be paved and they were approved in lieu of a sidewalk system for the development. The streets are public streets but they did not have sidewalks near the curb line as you have in almost every street in the urban service area. Conversely, a waiver was granted by the commission in 2007 to allow the street right of way to be coincident with the curb and so there is a passage way easement beyond the curb where things like utilities and public passage way but beyond the curb there are no sidewalks the way there are in most other subdivisions. And that was done in part because the trail system was proposed in essence connect to the rear of the lots, side of the lots in a couple of location s but mostly the rear of almost all the lots in the development. We identified one lot in 2007 that did not have easy access to this system. As you recall from our discussions two weeks ago what concerned the staff was a proposal to do away with the paved trails. The plan called for either turf or pervious pavements to be used and if you'll recall the staff did not really object to the idea of a pervious payment but we were concerned about turf being approved for these trails because again they were initial ly approved in lieu of sidewalks. Which are paved in all instances in the two weeks since your meeting, the staff has met with the developer and we have also done one other bit of analysis that we had not done prior to June 8. we took a closer look at this relationship between these lots and the trail system and in looking especially at the pink lots in the exhibit, the ones that under the proposal from a month ago, did not have easy access to a paved system, there is some significant distance between the rear of those lots and the trail system, even as it was approved in 2007. And that was something the staff , I'm not sure we fully appreciated that two weeks ago when we were discussing this with you. Since then, as I mentioned, we met with the applicant and we've received a revision to the plan. The plan takes away the turf trails from this detail that you reviewed two weeks ago. And in lieu of that, there is a note that has been added to the plan. Homeowners association open space areas are available to the public for pedestrian access. Again this is part of 80% common open space as you discussed two weeks ago significant areas of these are treed and it's the developer's hope that once the development is complete and it's approximately a third developed with homes at this time, so there is still a little bit of development life if you will, for this project, that the homeowners themselves will determine where pedestrians will move through this common open space area. If set up in the ordinance and in the expansion area plan as common open space to be accessible to all the residents of the area. So if you think about it and again something the staff that I'm here to tell you today that two weeks ago we really hadn't considered, the residents of the area already have access to all of this common area and there is a logic in allowing them to determine the exact location of these trails. So, in light of that, and in light of this note, we also have received a request for a waiver to your land subdivision regulations. And that waiver is to no longer have a system in lieu of sidewalks but to actually waiver the sidewalk requirement for a portion of the development. As I mentioned the external trail system would be paved so there will be a paved pedestrian system for the development unlike the sidewalk system it will not conveniently serve every lot. That's the main difference. The staff is okay with this in our report really for two reasons. One: the expansion area master plan has always called for more innovation in development from the time it was adopted 21 years ago. And the staff does see that this concept for the paved and the non-paved trails is innovative compared to many other more recent developments, especially given the fact that we have an 80% open space requirement for the overall development. Secondly... Sorry, I lost my train of thought. Alternative surfaces for the internal trails would again be something different and innovat ive whether the residents choose mulch or turf or pavers or plastic, pavers that allow grass to grow up, we think those decisions will be coming in the future rather than at present. The staff, as will you see on the pink sheet is now approving recommending your approval of this minor plan that we refer to you with three conditions. The first being that the entire, to clearly note the entire trails are to be paved as I described. Second our bike and pedestrian plan approve this system and thirdly the certification be revised to include your consideration of this plan today should the commission decide to approve 24 plan. In referring you to just a moment for the waiver report, on the second page, I would point out there is a typo on the first line of that report just above the number one that should just say the staff recommends approval and not the requested waiver intersection spacing. That is not being requested but it is still a requested waiver to article 8 --- article 6-8-n 1 of the subdivision regulations for two reasons. First, the requested waiver will have little negative impact on public safety to pedestrians given the notes that have been added to the development plan submission. Secondly, the waivers justified because this is a unique development pattern consistent with the innovative and large scale development recommendation s of the expansion ary master plan obviously you can tell from the last five or 12 seven minutes, a much different discussion than two weeks ago. For that reason I'm glad to entertain questions from the commission about this change in plan and staff recommendation. Thank you. >> Mr. Owens first and then m r. Penn. A couple things I heard. The development about one third developed. >> just eye balling from an aerial photograph. Yes, sir. >> and then I also heard you said that the residents there it's going to be up to them to determine the exact location. When will the trail be built in. >> that is a good question probably best for the developer or the engineer. I'm not sure of that answer, sir >> my question is what guarantee do we have that it will be built >> it May not even be a matter of a trail being built but one being established and what I mean by that there, May not be any equipment that is brought on to the site to create the trails it May be more a matter of this is an open area through the common open space that will either be augmented or utilized for this purpose. There are areas currently not treed and very low grass in the development and it's possible that those areas will be utiliz ed for these pedestrian movements. Rather than something being brought in with pavement the way we would construct a trail in many other places. >> thank you. >> Mr. Penn. >> ply only concern on this is the fact that we waive the condition for sidewalks in the first development plan and now we are waiving what we condition ed and assuming that the outside trail is going to be built, was we've actually done is we waived sidewalks for that whole development with the exception of the trail that goes around the outside and that's my concern that we have done one waiver to do away with the sidewalks based on one information and now we are asked to do another waiver to pretty much do away with what we did the first time. >> if I could address that? >> please. >> in 2007, and you May not recall, I remember clearly from two weeks ago stating to the commission that from our records in 2007, there was no waiver to the sidewalk requirement. The waiver was only to the cross section to allow the right of way to be convince debit with the curb instead of either to the back of the sidewalk, which is typical in the regs and typical, I know for those of you in the subdivision committee that you see on 97% of your plans. Or if you will, a free floating right of way which is some distance, 10, 13 feet from the back of the curb. >> so the waiver in 2007, the sidewalks were not mentioned in any of your findings and that was significant because two weeks ago we, as staff, were viewing this as a sidewalk waiver because the language in your subdivision regulations is that trails can be required in lieu of sidewalks I think, at least from my perspective in 2007 there was no waiver at all to any sidewalks. What we considered when the plan initially came through was, which of these lots should be served by a paved pedestrian path in lieu of the sidewalk and added analysis by the staff is that this system requires say an owner of this lot, to walk four times the depth of their lot to get to the nearest pedestrian system. Which was required in E.P.A. -- ' 0 7 without a waiver and our conversations both internally as staff and with the developer is is not the more likely action going to be, say by this owner, that they're going to walk down their sidewalk, down the street and get on the path at a different location, rather than either constructing their own trail or creating their own goat path to the trail system. So given that added review in the last two weeks, the staff did get more comfortable with the idea of eliminating the internal trail requirements and the paving in lieu of a 1.3 sir come frengs system tem in lieu of that which is an unusual development certainly in the plans that you've reviewed for years. >> let me clarify. It won't preclude the internal. It will no longer define where they are. >> but they May not be built. >> probably a good question for the applicant. How they envision that happening >> you mentioned, I really don't relish a goat path out there but my original question, the outside loop. Has it been built yet? >> not much of it, no. There is a little bit of it on the earn eastern most end. >> where is our guarantee that it will be built? >> hopefully it is bonded with part of the development this is an amended development plan so if there are other record plats it would be reviewed at that and if it weren't, that's an even better question. >> I think we need to get an answer there. >> we are when the applicant comes forward. Any additional questions for... Miss Mundy? >> what is going to prohibit pre scriptive easements from people trot ago cross someone else's lot to get to the easement? >> excellent question. I think the thing that will prohibit it is each of these lots is private property. Each of those owners could theoretically erect a fence on their line and prevent their neighbors from coming on to their property. Now immediately behind, that's common open space so there is really no right or ability of say this owner to restrict the access some distance behind their lot. Does that make sense? Along the property line, yes, they can fence it to keep them off their lot versus out of the common open space area. >> so staff would rather see them take a jaunt down the street. >> no, I didn't say that. Certainly if you heard what I was saying to weeks ago that would be consistent. what we have reviewed in the intervening two weeks is these distances of what is already approved from '0 7 which could have been built and we are looking at hundreds of feet from someone's lot to the approved system. And so if we held fast as a staff has said, it's got to be this. Whation the implication of that? The implication is will this owner use it or will they more likely walk down the sidewalk down the street and get on the path that way? I think our conclusion is probably the latter than the former. In many cases. That's what is different in two weeks. >> anymore questions for Mr. Salee. Miss Plumlee in. >> thank you. >> this is an approved development plan. This amendment is no the approved, this remains the approved plan for the location and these paths are, according to the plan, to be paved. >> I kind of got the motion that the neighbors could decide where they want to put the pavers if you approve the amendment they I believe they will have the ability. >> I was addressing Mr. Owens question earlier. Externally it appears certain it is going to happen but the internal... It's already common open space but where and when the trails appear is an unknown. But the common open space is eligible to have it and everyone in the development is part owner of that. >> I see that a lot of these questions are leaning toward the applicant. We can hardly wait to get to the applicant. Any other questions tore Mr. Salee? Thank you for the time being. Now for the applicant. You are the rockstar of the moment here. >> I hope I've got all your answers. My name is tom hatfield with e. A. Partners. The first thing I would like to do is submit the affidavit for the sign and notification. The genesis for this request, it comes from, this is kind of a unique development in that you have essentially floating lots. Because of the ear-1 and scenic overlay we created 100 x 120- foot lots that are not contiguous to the street right of way and not contiguous to each other. They have 30 feet of space between them. So rather than have a neighbor, you know, specifically have a trail and designated through his side yard where everybody would be directed and it would get used and maybe he doesn't want that, the idea is that we create a perimeter path that is essentially going to be used predominantly by these 54 homeowners that live here. We are contiguous to green greenbriar and we have a connection to the thomas communication walnut grove estates down here that this trail connects to as well so they can, and it's the same developer so they could use this but they've only got 54 lots themselves, I think. I don't recall exactly. You have a small number of homeowners that are using this and the idea is that they have access to the perimeter paved by this location and by this access back here. If they want to get to it, they can either walk down the street because there is going to be a minor, you know, an in significant number of cars on the street or they can just go through their backyards and if I live here, I can go through this backyard to get to this trail or I can go go back this way and you are going have such, since it's not going to be designated to go between lots one and two or 10 and 11, I'm not going to have your goat path trail created. I'm not going to have enough traffic to wear down an actual path. They're going to be spread out and using all of the access points. That's really the genesis. And there are, this was a treed area. If you ever have been back in here, if you are out on deer haven lane, you cannot see either of the cul-de-sacs because they're surrounded by trees. So you've got a significant number of trees through here and there is a couple of sanitary sewer easements that went through those trees when we built the development and those are more than likely the trail path. I think the developer envisions this being just an open grass area that has access to all of the pedestrians in the neighborhood or if they want to come walk on the trail, they can certainly use those open spaces to their desires. The developer has, I believe I'm right, jimmy said he expects to build this this fall, the paved perimeter trail would be built this fall because he is getting obviously he has got 30% of the owners, the lots occupied so they're obviously looking to when the trail is going to be built as well. I will be glad to answer any other questions you have if I haven't already. >> Miss Mundy. >> all right. I'm back to the easement thing because you are talking about floating lots. So they're going to be breaks between the lots that are hoa property. >> yes. They're current will I like that already. Every space that you see between those lots is already part of an hoa maintained area. >> okay. I still think you are going have an issue with a prescriptive easement at some point on some of these areas. >> I guess what we are proposing is essentially an easement, an access easement by note. It's very similar to the note that have you for utilities on townhouses development. Utilities have access to all open spaces on townhouses and apartment developments. We are basically giving the pedestrians access to all public -- to all open spaces via the spaces between the lots. We are creating an easement by note that they can go back and forth. Now it's not... The hoa will have to govern that and it's not for, you know, creating a bike path back through there. That's not the intent the hoa May have to come up with some rules. But it's strictly for pedestrian and walk way. Hopefully it won't get abused. >> I'm not happy. >> Mr. Owens. >> you indicated that, jimmy planned on building the trail the next few months I believe is what you said? >> in the fall of 2017. >> sidewalks get bonded. Is this bonded? >> I don't recall whether this was bonded in 2007 or not. It May have been. I don't recall. >> okay. >> jimmy mash, which is the, this development was done by jimmy ball and taken over by jimmy nash and he has every intention to build that path. Like I said, this fall. >> I think everybody wants to see it built. It's just the fact that you know , wave' done away with the sidewalks that we know get bond ed and right now I'm kind of hearing well, we think but we don't know. Would you all agree to bond it if it is not bonded? >> would I have to check with jimmy but there is not realliy a mechanism to bond it. The plats have already been recorded. We are not really amending a plat. But we can certainly see if it's possible through the division of engineering. >> I'm going to ask you a question that I don't know the answer to and that's always dangerous. But is that trail just for human s or equine allowed on that >> just for humans. >> but do you have barns on that site, don't you? >> not on this... There is no fenway parks... There are two 40-acre tracts in the back. >> okay so there is no access to equine on that property in. >> no. This is a fenced off and that's the urban service area and these are two private 40-acre tracts back in the back. >> any other questions? >> I have one but I'm going to come back to legal on it. It seems like there is one issue that has sort of sitting there on the table and that is that I think everybody's intention is to build this perimeter activity what I'm also hearing is that there is nothing that would require the builder to do that. Or the developer to do that. What I heard you indicate is that you would be willing to, at least explore the bonding option for some of these activities. Now my question is and I guess you know where I'm headed, okay. >> this is a development plan amendment and it's a condition on here and so if what I'm hearing is, you know, you are going require it as part of your approval. >> okay. >> is that what you are saying? >> yes. >> okay. >> it May not be bonded but. >> as part of the approval process we can put in there that it will be... It will be constructed. >> I think the way it is on here right now, denote so I mean we could probably work on that to make it a little more specific in terms of it will be built by whatever time. >> tracey would it be possible to include prior to the build out of the development. >> it would be possible to craft the note at some point like that I'm not sure what percentage would be best, probably have to have some weigh in from the applicant and our staff on what would be a good number to put in there. As opposed to the bonding aspect of it. The entire sir come frengs circumferential to be paved to be sure any problems adding to that, you know, a statement that are to be paved at the time of 50% buildout of the development? >> I think that would be fine. Let me check with the developer and work with bill on that to craft that as part of the condition. I don't think there is any... I don't think lee have any problem attaching either a 50% or a date or however you would like to have it. >> if I May go back to tracey one more time. With number one, is that enough of a guarantee? I hate to slow this down and I created all this, but... >> I don't know that that is going to give you the guarantee you are looking for but could you add something to it that would say something like, you know, if they're saying they're going have it built by the end of this year, I mean... Could you have that added, that language added. I'm assuming that not going to be a problem. I'm a little reluctant to have something, you know, that's just left up to everybody to get together and do it later and fill in numbers and dates when you all are approving this right now. >> we will commit to have the path built in 2017. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. So was we are saying the entire circumference -- circumferential trails are to be paved by the end of the year, by the end of 2017. >> yes. >> 12-31-2017. Are you comfortable with that? Is that okay? I mean this is the condition we want to put in. >> to December 31 of this crear. >> 2017. >> yes. >> okay. So we are just adding that to number one as such. >> okay. >> thank you. And also these questions, please understand I think from my perspective, is just personal observation from the chair, I thought this was a wonderful compromise and working with the community trying to get some things done but then again I don't live there so I have to check with the community and toe see how they feel. >> we appreciate your help and consideration. >> any other questions for the applicant. Anyone here who would like to speak to this particular issue? Anyone in the audience? Okay. Anyone else on the commission have anything? If not what we will need is a motion to for the plan, for the waiver and of course with the waiver we need the findings as denoted by the three things we talked here as well. >> I move approval of pln medicine 1722 reserve at walnut grove with the three staff recommendations for approval, changing number one to include by 12-31-17. >> and I could add that includes the waiver, is that with the findings. >> okay. >> I move approval of the waiver with the findings that indicated by staff. >> okay. So we have a motion by Miss Carolyn plumlee seconded we approve... Question has come up, I don't have the answer to this. Do we need to correct this typo in the minutes in. >> I think with my earlier comments that could be understood by the commission. >> thank you. Type -- again the motion was made and seconded that we approve pln -nndp 17-22 reserve at walnut grove. We do so with the waiver and with the findings denoted by staff with number one including that the pedestrian trails will be paved by the end of 2017 or by 12-31-2017. any other discussion on the motion? If not would you please votote when it comes up on your screens ayes have it. Motion carries. Okay. We move to the zoning items now on page 4. >> thank you, Mr. Chairman, I was discussing that one of the three remaining zone changes May qualify for your consideration at this time as an abrief yailt ed hearing. And if I could direct your attention to page 6 of your meeting agenda mar-17-20 compass capital llc property at 4379 old harrodsburg zone request zone change from b-1 neighborhood business to b-p planned shopping center zone for the acreage involved at 4379 old harrodsburg road. At this time we ask if anyone is in the audience to discuss this zone change from compass capital anyone here present that wishes to discuss this. Seeing none Mr. Chairman as we thought this item qualifies for your consideration as abbreviat ed hearing. We'll set up. Have this as your first hearing of the day and move to the other two where we have citizens here to speak to them. Thank you. >> good afternoon Chairman Will wilson members of the commission the first zone change appears on page 69 of the agenda, item 3-a behind tab 3 in the note notebooks. Plan mar-17 request by compass capital llc to rezone property at 44379 old harrodsburg road. The acreage is in error on the agenda, is a net acreage of 5.78 acres for the property and gross 7.58. The request to rezone from our neighborhood business b-1 zone to the planned shopping center bixp zone. It intersects with bowman mill road. In the very, I guess far southeast portion of the urban service boundary, very close to the jesse jessamine county line, the subject property is sort of a pent gone shaped property. Here is bowman mill coming from the northwest harrodsburg road along the south portion of the subject property and then the property itself bound on two sides by agricultural urban zon ing; to the east by historic south elkhorn church, to the south by the porter farm to the west by and to the north by single family residential developments. The north is the palomar subdivision and to the west is the willow creek estates subdivision. So this subject property currently does have a small shopping center located on it. This was a rural crossroads within the county. In 2006, the b-1 zoning was expanded to allow for the shopping center to be built in the sort of angled configuration at the back. The property has long been the site of a ramsey's restaurant that sits very near the south elkhorn creek in this vicinity of the county here is a better view. Old harrodsburg road does sit approximately 10 feet below topographically. The new harrodsburg road built a decade ago. The subject property is low the main road system in this area. The property does have tenants in its shopping center but the applicant's proposing to rezone, this is kind of an un conventional rezoning from a b-1 to a dictsp. In the staff's mind dix p is more restrictive zone but in this case it is actually something that the applicant believes will help their property be utilized in a more efficient manner. The parking standards are different in b-6p. There is a shared parking requirement and each particular use doesn't have to meet a known parking requirement so restaurants and retail, it doesn't really matter when you are in a shopping center. It's all a flat ratio. And then the sign package is slightly different with a b-6p zone. They're limited to one shopping center sign per street frontage rather than one per lot. And it is a slightly bigger sign that can also list tenants on their signs now that we've had a text amendment. The applicant feels that they would benefit from caning from b-1 to b-6p for parking and sign age. In terms of the justification they've provided, they claim it's in agreement with the comprehensive plan but the staff can't find, with no physical change really that there is much in the comprehensive plan that would support that zone change request. But they also went on to talk about appropriateness of the b-1 versus the b-6p zone and the staff can agree with the applicant that the b-6p zone appears to be more appropriate for the subject property at this location. First it is already a shopping center and it functions at that time way now. It's been planned that way. It meets the neighborhood shopping center definition in article 12 of the zoning ordinance. Generally the uses are the same so it's meeting the use allowances of the b-6p as well and the applicant is also well willing to continue the zoning restrictions put in place in 2006 for the subject property and in fact offered a few more restrictions in terms of use that they thought were inappropriate for the property. Lastly, I guess I mentioned this already, the b-6p does standard ize parking and the taf felt this was one of the biggest wins for this property, that they wouldn't have to lease park ing off site anymore from the church. So that allows for a more firnt use of their property. The staff is recommending approval of the requested rezon ing because the b-1 soap is inappropriate and the b-6p is considered more appropriate for the subject property and the reasons are listed on your agenda for that. In additiony with make this recommendation subject to the certification of the zoning development plan within two weeks and lastly, the conditional zoning restriction 3-z that are in place for a portion of the property, the staff feels those should continue to carry forward and see no reason why they wouldn't apply to the entire shopping center there was one change the applicant requested for clarification and that's on the blue sheet we provided to the planning commission pron please stand by) At this mentions of all the sidewalks. There are a handful of sidewalks with their dimensions. Additionally we would like some clarification on whether the existing trees will have protection measures and an explanation of what those trees will be. The reasons we need to make sure it is in compliance with article 26. With that we are recommending approval. And I am happy to answer any additional questions you May have. >> any questions. Thank you. Now the applicant. >> good afternoon members of the commission. Mr. Walburg. I had someone recently asked me if I was paid by the powerpoint slide. I'm going to retrain from going into a powerpoint presentation. We're in agreement with the staff recommendation. Just for the benefit of your knowledge I will tell you that this process began when theeth ipght zone change came in. My clients purchased the property and within one week received notification there would be a competing commercial development in very close proximity, within our notice area. Slightly disadvantaged because of the grade of our shopping center. We are 10 feet below harrodsburg road. We started to look at what possible solutions we have to keep our development visible and viable and then preliminary discussions with staff we identified some advantages that the b-6p zone would have over the b-1 zone. We would like to deploy 10 apartment panels on our signage. B-1 contemplates a lot of visibilty would be on wall signs whereas tenant panels will summarize who is in the shopping center. We can put that on our taller sign and passers by who May not be able to see down into the center can know who is there and hopefully continue to patronize those businesses. We are in agreement with the conditional zoning restrictions. We just merely would ask for a clarification, I believe the original zone change was contentious and there were some desires palomar neighborhood association to make sure that there was adequate buffering. One of those conditions was the installation of a brick wall which is there now and has been there. It's a little difficult to argue with tracey's reasoning with south elkhorn has been there for 250 years. They're probably likely to remain so we don't necessarily have an objection to buffering the property from the church. We just wanted to not incur the expense. That's a fairly long property line there of installing the wall. So with that, I would be happy to entertain any questions that you might have. Actually I would be remiss if I touched on the other point is we currently lease parking off site at the church that parking is not utilized. People are not aware that it is available but it is available. We believe all of our parking requirements can be met on our property; thus reducing our need to lease off site spaces. Those were the two big ben if it s for us. I know there were no neighborhood members here but nothing is going to change if you look at overhead versus development plan our intention to keep everything the same with the addition of a handful of trees along the real property line we appreciate the staff working with us and their recommendation for approval and ask you to do the same. >> any questions. >> thank you. >> the brick wall requested by the neighborhood association was installed 20 years ago it was already there. We don't want it to extend to the church property line. We don't think it's necessary for buffering purposes. We will install the landscaping buffer. We will put trees over there as requested by staff and we are in agreement with the way that condition is worded on the revised sheet that staff handed out to you. >> any other questions or comments. Anyone like to speak to this particular issue? We are going to break this into two motions. One for zoning and development. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair. I move for approval of mar-17-20 compass capital llc for the reasons noted by staff recogniz ing the revised recommendations for the conditional zoning restrictions as well. >> properly moved. Approve pln-mar 17-20 compass capital llc for the, with the recommendations conditions identified by star and then addition to that, noting the prohibitive uses as well. Any other discussion on the motion in hearing none bo you please vote when it comes up on the screen? Ayes have it. Motion carries. Next. >> I move for approval plan -mjdp-17-47 south elkhorn village with the 10 noted conditions as presented by staff >> properly moved and seconded. Approve pln-mjdp-1747 south elkhorn village with the 10 noted conditions identified by staff. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none would you please vote when it comes up on the screen? Motion carries. A small packet of information left at your seat that begins with a tan taf report, a supplemental staff report and a few exhibit items. I have extra copies of supplemental staff report if anyone needs those. We do have one letter that was submitted or sent to the staff related to this request and I would characterize it in opposition. They're asking for certain uses to be restricted if a p-1 is approved at this location. This is a request to rezone property at 4733 red river drive which is located within the river park neighborhood hif hive 3743. Currently son zone r-1 d and they're requesting professional office which is a p-1 zone. The applicant is asking community development llc in this case number mar 17-16. It is zoned r-1 de as is zoned to the south across red river drive and the cul-de-sacs to the south is r-1 d. To the east of the subject property is r-1t soaping which has a number of duplexes in the area and the r-1 d sewn zone is all residential currently and the large agriculture urban parcel to the west is the river hill park which ajoins the property. The private school for academic ininstruction. The existing footprint on the property is a school building which is in the middle of the site and then a large gymnasium which sits to the southeast corner on the subject property you can see from the aerial photographs, the buildings, the area on the west side of the property is open space and the school has used that for recreation and other activities in their history at this location. The petitioner is proposing to reuse these existing buildings because the school is just this past month ended their last school year academic year at this location and are closing the school. This is a view of the existing building from the right of way of red river drive so you can see from the street it appears to be a one story structure. This is the open space adjacent to the existing park and this is the opposite side of the building on the east side looking back towards red river drive then along red river drive this is a view back toward niagara drive and in the photo you can see the existing duplex es in the r-1t zone and then directly across you can see the single family residential that is across from the property and the existing building, I didn't include a picture of the gymnasium. But they are asking to reuse the property for an assisted living in the main building, child care , adult care and community center in the gymnasium and then they would like to add two additional uses to the property beyond the uses in the existing buildings and they are adult... I'm sorry, senior housing or senior apartments is what they list there, our ordinance calls that elderly housing. And then also a medical stand alone medical office. The applicant is claiming it is in agreement with the comprehensive plan and they cit ed goals and objectives. They cited expanding housing choices and infill and re development and the staff feels like the third one is also relevant, providing accessible community facilities and service s for all of our residents. When the applicant cites, well, let me go through... The applicant originally submitted a justification that didn't address a small area plan that was adopted for this area and that's the armstrong mill west small area plan that was adopted in 2015 by the planning commission. So their initial justification didn't address that particular plan so the staff recommended postponement to the zoning committee in May and basically asking the applicant to provide a justification of how they were meeting the small area plan as well since that is a more detail ed plan element that has been adopted. They have subsequently submitted a revised justification in your notebook. When they did so, they cited the expand housing choices as one of the... I'm going wait to get to that. The staff reviewed their application for the one they submitted a revised justification and we also went and looked back at the armstrong mills small area plan and compared their justification to that information and at this point the staff does not believe that their request is in agreement with the comprehensive plan or the small area plan and I want to be careful so that the planning commission understands the comprehensive plan and the small area plan offer many statements supporting elderly housing, supporting child care and other services in our community, medical offices as well, but what the comprehensive plan, without a land use map doesn't necessarily do is designate an appropriate location for those things. So it's up to the other policy statements and plan elements for us as the staff and planning commission and ultimately the council to interpret the comprehensive plan and judge where that zone is appropriate and where that zone does comply with the comprehensive plan. So the project that the applicant is proposing, the mixture of elderly housing and assisted living and a community center are things that are recommended for our community in a broader sense. The staff at this point doesn't believe that it is supported by the comprehensive plan. I'm going to go through the reasons for that. Will 2013 comprehensive plan. It highlights protecting neighborhoods and place making and making sure that neighborhoods and residential uses have compatible land uses plan's goals and object itch is to support infill and adaptive reuse which it is proposing but it has to be respectful of the area's context and design features. Beyond goals and objectives, there are policy statements in the plan that talk about the appropriate relationship and compatibility of land uses in addition to that they talk about creating neighborhood focal points and in this case there is a neighborhood node that exists on trent boulevard in terms of a business area where several businesses are located and there are other business nodes within the small area plan boundary that already exist and this proposed zoning category is not compatible with the recommendation for enhancing our neighborhood nodes and commercial focal points. Because it proposes a new focal point sort of off the beaten path. Although the applicant did cite the theme a goal one about expanding housing choices and they listed all of the housing objectives related to that was appears to be inconsistent to the staff is that they're asking for a professional office zone, not a residential zone to meet the housing recommendations of the comprehensive plan. That's what appears to be inconsistent to us. Typically, normally, we would see a residential zone to implement the housing requirements or the housing recommendations of our comprehensive plan. Another inconsistency that the staff is concerned about is professional office zone doesn't explicitly allow elderly housing it allows dwelling units only if you are on the second floor of a building and from the development plan that the applicant has proposed we don't see that that is what is proposed. We are concerned they're proposing a use that isn't explicitly permitted in the ordinance or the way they design ed their development plan. That's one of the reasons the staff recommended to the applicant both when they came in for pre-application meetings and when we recommended postponement , that they look into a residential zone and a conditional use that might be a better, we think would be a better fit for the subject property than the professional office zone at this location. The armstrong mill west small area plan was adopted in April of 2015 and they did adopt a vision statement and the applicant, again, says that they are... That their application is complete will I in line with this vision statement and it's easy, I think, for us all to say this is a wonderful vision statement and anything that would help to meet it would be in agreement with the plan. Unfortunately the staff believes that there is a little bit more analysis that's necessary to make the statement that something is in agreement with the plan. So these are the goals of the splan. And they're just fairly general. There are some about livable neighborhoods, maintaining the character of the neighborhood in terms of form and especially hansed areas, -- enhanced area, improve our quality of life and health, promote peaceful safe livable neighborhoods, IMPROVElpr circulation and safety in the neighborhood. Not all of the applicants proposal could meet these in terms of safety. It's hard to say how a new development plan might improve safety. But the small area plan does provide three areas and goes into a little more detail about in their concept plan about commercial areas being enhanced. It there is no signed use plan with the armstrong mill west small area plan but it doesn't call for new commercial areas. It calls for enhabsment of the existing commercial areas and the staff is concerned about adding commercial zone outside of those areas. And and on what is considered a local neighborhood street. Where we look athe where we think p-1 is appropriate, in the arterials and collector streets. This is a map and it it is in your packet as well, a map of where p-1 zoning is located in our community. There are over 2,000 acres of p-1 zoning in our community and the question came up at zoning committee well how much, you know, they're proposing a p-1 on a local street. How much is in that same situation a majority. 90 some per sent was also in a situation where it had commercial on one side. Our other, our concern with that not being a stand alope use permitted the p-1 zone has a a ratio twice what the p-1 zone. A maximum build out on this site could be 300,000 square feet. , 300,000 square feet social security.3 far on this property and divided by 200 for parking spaces and is 1200 sparking spaces hive so they're claiming there is no impact to their project which the staff understands but with an unre stricted p-1 on streets that are neighborhood streets our concern is when the next develop er comes in and there is a push for maximizing our intensity and density in zones there would be a push for intense if I indication of the property. That was our concern for the future. In addition, armstrong mill, that area, the small area plan does have over 10 miles the corollary development plan can meet the requirements of the r-3 or the r-4 zone for ratio, land coverage, set backs, height limits and the other zoning ordinance requirements. But the applicant has not been willing to amend their application or take the advice of the staff before they filed related to this request. I think one of the conscience was highlighted in -- one of the concerns was highlighted in the meeting summary that staff also printed and provided for you. There seems to be a concern that r-3 and r-4 zoning is an inherently bad zone because it allows for rental housing. But the truth is the applicant is proposing rental housing. In their summary, and the staff highlighted it, there was a statement made that was concerning to the staff at the neighborhood meeting about section 8 housing if the zone change were not approved, there would be a sign posted on the property the next day for sale that would allow section 8 hous ing to be built. And to be honest that was dis done certaining to the staff that that would have been said at a neighborhood meeting. the staff continues to opine that the p-1 zone is not appropriate on the subject property but also that it doesn't agree with the comprehensive plan or the small area plan for this site. And again, it's not the project. , the uses on this location that the staff is necessarily concern ed about. It's the zone itself and the inappropriateness of the location of the zone on this property. We have talked to the applicant about r-3 and r-4 and they have chosen not to seek those particular zones or offer restrictions to the p-1 zone that they have proposed. So the staff cannot find that p-1 is either in agreement with the comprehensive plan and we've lition ted for the planning commission on the tanned supplemental staff report the reasons for that. First, they say they're meeting the housing choices portion of the comprehensive plan yet they are proposing a professional office zone that doesn't explicitly allow housing without some restrictions the comprehensive plan encourages in fill, the staff doesn't believe that next to single family residential and agricultural zoning meets that goal of the comprehensive plan. In addition the policy statement s encourage focal points and we believe there is already those in this general vicinity that are adequate to serve the neighborhood. In addition, the comprehensive plan talks about higher density residential in the park which an r-3 or r-4 zone could accomplish as well and then the small area plan, although it doesn't include a map, it does recommend that the existing commercial notes be enhanced again this is not part of those existing commercial. The p-1 zone also is not appropriate at this location because it is a local street and the staff is concerned that local streets are not establish ed or set up for the kind of traffic that could come with a p-1 zone at this location in addition to traffic noise and light solution -- light pollution as well, there has been no un anticipated changes that would support the requested p-1 zone for the subject property. The staff does acknowledge that the baptist school is closing or has closed and that could be a change of an economic nature but that does not grant the applicant the ability to ask for any zone. It really gears us towards ask ing for a right zone for the subject property in accord with the infrastructure that currently is in this location and then lastly the staff feels the r-1d zone would remain appropriate in this property because it is context seasons tiff and compative with the adjoining neighborhood and there has been no physical change in the site since the school closed I'm happy to answer any questions about the staff's recommendation for the zone change. >> thank you, sir. >> tracey, with what you are ask ing for p-1, with the proposed uses, the assisted living facility, medical offices , adult and child care center, et cetera, any of these would any of these be available fairway conditional use if it stayed in the r-1 d zone. >> no, it would have to be r-3 or r-4 and then it would need to ask for the assisted living in and a community center. The board of adjustment can approve the medical offices, the adult and child care as either stand alone or part of a community center, which has been done in our community and other places. >> thank you. Any other questions for Miss Wade. Development plan, I guess. Thank you. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. The development plan that is associated with this zone change , as you can see, here is the red river drive frontage on the property, we have the exist ing school building in this location. They are proposing the senior apartments, you can see here these are stand alone senior apartments. There is an office use and common area being proposed this in this building. These are greenhouses they're proposing. The gymnasium is the elder eldercare and childhood development proposed for the use and this is the medical office. This is the free standing medical office pharmacy that is being proposed. Again this is existing school building with the t-shape that comes out. it is being propose the as an assisted living or affordable housing for the elderly. They're proposing about another 30,000 square feet. Both tracey and I checked their math and we found slight crepc ies in what is being proposed just in the scaling. They are stating that there are 21,300 square feet of apartments being offered. Tracey found about 24,000 or so square feet, I found more but some of that May be interpretation of exactly some of the uses. The plan again is an which -- is an existing area. The parking with the loop in this area access here and here, this is existing sidewalk into the front of the building. This is an area where they have a community food garden and again private gardens you can see a courtyard associated with the senior apartments. There is a lot of greep space around the perimeter, playgrounds being promoted and. The issue on the development plan as Miss Wade stated is that is that housing is not allowed and they're showing us independent senior housing. We have an assisted living facility or elderly housing. They're not distinguishing all this square footage. If it was elderly housing, again , it would not necessarily meet the requirements we review it as if the zoning was already in place. This is a matter of labeling and stated use. They tell us they want elderly housing. They can't have in the p-1 the way they're presenting it in the plan if it was assisted living it would be fully compliant. That's one reason staff is recommending postponement of the plan so it can be revised to meet the requirements of the p-1 zone there is discrepancy with the square footage there is only a two week turn around. So the final report can go to council. A final development plan hostage a much higher level of ve view. The detention, for instance. Well, this is this site does have a change in relief a final development plan has a full year to be certified so they can work out the details with engineering the same is true with solid waste fire, environmental, all those final development plans sign-offs, two weeks is a very difficult turn around for anyone on a final development plan. We can approve this lan if they do several things. One they remove the label elderly housing because it doesn't meet the p-1. Two, they change it to a preliminary development plan and not a final development plan, again in consideration of the two week turn around and of course they need to clearly delineate those areas of under ground detention and be clear about what square footages for what use they are proposing. You May recall in the past we had a plan on harrisburg road that didn't meet the requirement of the zone and they had to revise it and bring it back to you. This is a somewhat similar but less serious situation in the staff's mind because we think they can just change some label ing make clear what their uses are proposed to be and then the plan will meet the requirements of the zone. The example I use on harrodsburg road did not meet the requirements of the zone I. It was a much more serious issues in terms. Layout in that regard. With that, again staff is still recommending postponement of this development plan at this time. >> is this a mistake on this one >> this says approval on this revised. >> subdivision committee recommended postponement and staff is stating should this plan not be postponed, the staff is recommending approval subject to these changes. I apologize. I meant to make that clear. >> good catch. Anyone else? >> just to address one of tracey 's comments. Would it be possible to to make the far a conditional zoning, a condition of the zoning that it not exceed.35. I think it's at.32 now. >> they have to meet the requirement of the zone. That's a legal requirement request their far. >> this said possibility of 1.3. >> it is possible with the re development of the site. They're not proposing that with this, no. >> what is the far in the p-1 then, the minimum required? >> no there is no minimum required. It's a maximum. Our fares are maximums our question is we cannot limit that >> Mr. Chairman, and members, my name is brian had you been bub hubbard and I would like to thank you for your final and attention in the next few minutes. I grew newspaper virginia and I have been a resident of lexington kentucky since 1997. The story of what you see before you began many decades ago. I was fortunate enough in my life to have two grandfathers who were very active with me as a child and into adolescence. Both were retired coal miners, neither one had more than a grade school education but they were two of the finest people I've ever known mpleghts. And as they aged they both took different pathways toward the end of their lives. My paternal grandfather managed to save a little measure of income over the years and he found himself in his last days in an assisted living facility out in the country with a nice view of the mountain with a nice concerned staff that made home cooking and made sure that he was clean, comfortable and well taken care of. He was able to have that sort of service because he had saved a little nest egg to pay. My maternal grandfather was not as efficient, depending on medicaid, he found himself in a very institutionalized environment with all of the sights, smells and sounds that go with that level of care for those who find themselves at the end of life. As they each passed, it became a conviction in my heart to look for any opportunity that may come along to provide a living environment for the elderly within our society that provided them with dignity and prolonged the functionality of their lives realizing that we are on the cusp of a wave of need almost out of the clear blue sky, time and circumstances brought me and my partner chuck to the red river drive property and the bluegrass baptist school. Their misfortune through the drop of enrollment was our good fortune to the extent that we were able to work with them to acquire the property and had a meeting of mind and intent as to what we wished to do neither of us are professional developers in any way whatsoever. This is our very first project. But what we did agree on is that the optimal use for this property would be one that carried on the humanitarian mission that was originally associated with the school's foundation. And to that end he and I brain stormed and discussed the poanl for this property would be from the first thing that came to mind was an adult plel daycare facility which would be operated out of the gymnasium. It would be multipurposed with a child care center based on a unique human development model emerging which clearly establish es that early childhood and elderly populations together under the same roof and integrated social program thrive better together than separately. We saw this as an opportunity to put this model into place in this community in a very unique and cutting edge way. The other thing we wished to do was to be good neighbors and to ensure that wafer we did with this facility with lend itself to multipurpose use with members of the community who May wish to utilize our space in off hours for meetings, family reunions or whatever else would be appropriate the second phase of our development would involve assisted living or perm care for those who are ambulatory but May not be safely at home and need residential care setting and therefore that would lead to the phase two of the development which would be the main school building you see there the green space off to the left until there was need for development would be utilized as a community garden for members of the community itself. We wish to build two greenhouses off the back for those who at tend the day program and those who attend the facility. We wish to make this spot a garden spot in the community that its members can be proud of and be pleased to see as they drive to their own homes. We also wish to neighboring -- to make it a place where they can spend their time in a volunteer capacity bringing meaning and companionship to people who will soar sorely need it as they begin to arrive in the program we seek to establish for them. That is our mission. That is our goal and we hope to be able to meet your approval as to make this happen. One last point, medical office. One of the needs we will have as a practical matter and one of the things we wish to make available to our program participants and our residents is a baseline level of available meablg with a specialty on geriatric medical practice that seeks to proceed long function ality through occupation al therapeutic physical therapy and as an added service to the community to ensure that much like the little clinic within the kroger shopping center makes available cheap and available baseline medical care that we ensure that that is staffed with a nurse practitioner or other physician assistant who can provide walk- in clinic services on to any member of the community at a cheap baseline price for them to utilize as they wish. This is about making sure we have services we have services needed in the community and that we price them at a level that is not the cadillac tag that comes with a lot of what you see going up not just in this but in other communities. This is aimed at folks who have spent a lifetime in either the working or middle-class and need a good dignified quality of life without an exorbitant price tag. Thank you for your time. >> we have worked diligently with the staff and have tried to come to an agreement and will reason we are before you today without having glowing colors and recommendation is because we have come to a bit of an impasse and that impasse is pliermly over our medical office space so that's where I want to spend the majority of our time. R-3 and r-4 would permit a non- profit medical office but if it's going to be a business office, that is not permitted in an r-3 or r-4 and that was a big part of the last meeting that we had with staff and that is where our fundamental impasse has been . I believe the medical office was received in the meeting and I'm trying to remember your address is... >> it's right across the street from the corner of... Right across ajoyner what is we are trying to say. So they have a very vested in this. So we wanted to go through just a few things in this word file. Two items that planning has addressed. We were, we have addressed the traffic study is not required because of the volume that is shown on the plans so we asked jimmy did we have to do a traffic study. We were told no. We did one anyway. We went above and beyond. That was submitted and diane is here, if you have traffic questions. The result of that study is that we are going to have less volume of traffic than the school did when it was fully in business. So that is a difference of opinion that we have with staff. Another item is that we did have our neighborhood meeting and r-3 and r-4 were not something that was not, it was not popular with those at the meeting. The community seems to be in support of something with a development restriction like we are proposing here. So I'll keep moving down. The incomplete original application that did not include the small area plan, we met with staff prior, twice prior to our application and not once were we informed of the small area plan, so that was a little bit dis appointing because we would have included nat our original application. Once that was pointed out to us at the actual day of the subdivision meeting we immediately got our information together and submitted that so we regret that was a little bit tarredy in coming in but we wish we had known that at the very beginning. If it is an existing facility there already is water and sewer and storm and gas and electric, all of those things are already at this property. I believe what the concern is mostly the road capacity and the property has had a non- residential use for 30 plaws years. It's functioned as a church school and we consider what we are building very similar to that and, in fact, slightly less traffic. We are glad to have additional restrictions as part of the re zoning. We've asked staff if there are specific recommendations they would like to add to that and because they're in opposition to it, they would not give us any suggestions to that. There are a few, if you scroll down in the file, we are willing to restrict the far, to the value shown on the development plan, maybe plus 5% for final design. We are willing to restrict the property to have dark sky friendly exterior lighting as the lighting replaced and will ing to have the property have a 15-foot undisturbed buffer along the side. We are glad to require the dedication of a pedestrian easement and paved connection to the park which is shown on our development plan. We are glad do all of those things and if there are other suggestions that you all have, we are very open to those. But the reason why we are proposing the p-1 is because that's the only appropriate thing that includes the medical component that we are looking for and we have tried very, very hard to work through that and we've submitted justification documents that you could use should you choose to vote in favor of this. We are very interested in know ing your thoughts on this development. >> anyone have any questions at this time. >> I think we will come back with you a little later. I think the next issue is does anyone in the community like to speak related to this particular project in yes, please come forward. >> my name is paul la, I live at 1440 win del drive right across the property where the bluegrass baptist is. I have live there for 30 years. Bluegrass baptist has been my neighbor. I regret that they have had to close. When they came in and presented to the neighborhood what their proposal was, I really do believe in their vision and their mission and I like the thought of what they're doing. As far as zoning p-1, r-3 or r-4 , I don't understand all of that so I'll leave that to you as the expert. The majority of the neighborhood people that were there were very interested. In fact I think they were so sad that we were losing the school as our neighbor that all changes were a bit scary to us. And I'm sure how that would be turning back into more housing in that area. Homeowners directly around there , there are many but there are a lot of renters, too, so it wasn't a huge turnout like hundreds of people, it was probably less than 50 that showed up and majority of them there were very interested because we all do really like the thought of this. That's about all I really have to say. >> thank you. >> anyone else want to speak on behalf of this particular project? Is there anyone here that would like to speak or express concerns with this particular project? Okay then we'll come back to the commission. Do you all have any questions related to anything? Mr.... I'm guessing, tracey, you May be the best one to ask this they've mentioned they would be willing to restrict the far and they said to what they show now which is.32. Is that something you all talked about back and forth? >> no, that's the first that we've seen any of those proposed restrictions is when abby scroll ed through them. >> does that address the main concern? I think there is also use concerns for the zone at this location. >> but if they change the assisted living, that's not a problem. It's then just the medical office? >> well, again the elderly hous ing part... >> I'm assuming that's going to change to assisted living because it's not even allowed, right? >> I don't know. They didn't address that in their presentation. So I don't know if that changes their model? If they can't do elderly housing for the site. In my tenure here we've never restricted a property to an F.A. R. We have restricted like total square footage. I guess it would be something similar, but. >> the number of units is more common. >> number of dwelling. >> assisted living, that's difficult. Some of those are dwelling units and some aren't is the reason. >> let me ask first just to re butt or not a rebuttal but followup to that, is the relay going from elderly housing to assisted living, is that a problem? So that can be... Okay. >> you know, before we get into the development plan, I think we got to address the zoning part of this thing and the location of the zoning and for the reasons the staff has laid out here, why this is not appropriate place for a p-1 or appropriate use for a p-1 in that particular site. I I am going to focus on that part before I get into the development plan because if we don't change the zone, the development plan doesn't mean anything anyway. So I really don't know where to start with this. But I do think we need to focus on the development plan before we get into... I mean on the zone change about of we get into the development plan. And I, for one don't think that's an appropriate place for a p-1 zone given the rest of it is residential and for the reasons the staff has laid here so I need to be convinced that the zone change before I start thinking about the development plan. >> Mr. Owens. >> thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of thoughts here. One it seems like the applicant is working trying to make this work and I can appreciate that. I see this and it's like, you know, you start thinking about assisted living, living for the elderly, you know, amenities to go with it, we are looking at adaptive reuse and I can kind of live with that. My concern is p-1 being where it is in that neighborhood on the road that it is on and so forth. The applicant says that the traffic would be less than what it is now. That's all well and good until some other p-1 development came in and, you know, you all May have plans to be there for 40 years but once p-1 goes in, who knows what might happen. i would like to try and see this work. I did see when abby was scroll ing through her list when I turned around and saw the print a little bit bigger, there was one thing in there that said that, if I read it correctly, that they would be willing to postpone to try to work on this. I would sumply offer be in agreement with Mr. Penn in the thact that we need to work on the zoning. They're saying that r-3 doesn't work because of medical offices being there, which I can understand. Is it possible to split zone this to let both of them work and I would have less heart burn with less acreage or less amount of p-1 on a small street like that to, but yet allow the medical offices to get in there and then the rest of it, I think could be handled through conditional uses as we do often with assisted living and so forth. >> we would be agreeable of split zoning of a smaller portion of the property for the medical office in the way that you described. That's something that we would consider. >> okay. >> and we are, as I mentioned earlier, by nodding my head, we are glad to change the labeling to say assisted living to make it more clear. >> I'm going to take Miss Plumlee and then ask staff to address the split zoning issue. Go ahead. >> thank you. I commend the applicant. I think the intent is noble but we have a small area plan that we spent a lot of money on and right now we are going blow it out of the water if we approve this zone change with the p-1. So as it is, I would not go along with this and I think it needs some work. >> okay. Mr. Cravens. >> I'm in the rare position of agreeing with mike owens on this [Laughter] Or maybe he is coming over to my side, I don't know. >> keep on dreaming. >> but I mean I think there are a lot of issues here that I think your project can work but there are a lot of issues that need to be worked out. We don't have the time to fix that here. I don't know if it's possible to continue it. Staff, is that... >> if you are inclined to give some more time to work out, it probably does need to be a continuance at this point because of what you've already heard and not a postponement. >> Mr. Cravens if I could point out, it would be a continuance. >> the date listed by which the commission has to consider this application is July 2, so this would require the concurrence of the applicant to extend the time beyond that. >> well, and I don't know. I mean if they wanted to split zone the property, I mean does that require another application for the r-3? If they wanted to go to r-3 on part of it? >> it requires that the applicant amend their application. There is a filing fee with that. There is also new notification that needs to get mailed, especially if they're asking for a new zone and possibly a conditional use. >> okay. That, I mean that would be the direction I think maybe they ought to take but that's up to them. >> yeah, I would like for you to go ahead... >> sure. We would be agreeable to the concurrence and the changes that you just described and I did have one question, not to put anybody on the spot but I'm just curious, who has read the entire small area plan? My understanding of it is that it really promotes elderly hous ing and it promotes medical space being close by and it also wants grocery stores and reasonable restrictions or the neighborhood concern about rent al housing. Those are the main items in that document. So I do believe that we meet a lot of the goals in our uses. But I do understand that the main concern is the zone and not necessarily the use that's going on. We would love to just have a bit more direction and pointing us in the right direction help because we've come to this impasse over this medical office space so I appreciate that we've gotten a possible solution here. >> thank you. Let me ask staff, Miss Wade, do you have another followup comment. >> I'm not sure it's appropriate for the applicant to come to the commission to get a temperature for the decision and postpone and continue for another month and amend their application in that manner. Also the applicant's justification stopped at page 54 yet there are over 100 pages in the small area plan so my sense was in reading it that they didn't get past page 54 to read the recommendationses of the small area plan, only what the neighbors said they would like in the small area plan. The existing conditions and so forth. So yes, neighborhoods, the neighborhood does want more medical offices and the staff's opinion those need to be in the appropriate locations in this area. >> Mr. Penn. >> I am as much concerned about the process and how we got here as I am about the ending. This is not the process that we normally see. This is not the process we want to see. When you come to an impasse with the staff, and then you come to us and expect us to help you help us with the staff, that puts us in a really tough situation and so regardless what we go from where here and what we do. We don't want to get in this situation and the situation is that you couldn't get what you wanted with the staff until you came and wanted us to help you get what you wanted with the staff and in effect that's was we are doing. That's not our process here. And so whether we have a continuance or whether we vote it down, or whether I can't believe we are going to vote for it, but those are the three options so you took a chance for us to vote it down hoping we could figure out a way to help you make it happen and you know that's not the process here and we know that's not the process here and that's not what we are want to get involved in so Mr. Chairman, I don't know how we go from here but we are not ... We are not performing our function here. They need to do their home work before they come to us with this kind of situation. Now I don't know how we get out of this but you put us in a situation now we have to figure out how to get out of it. >> anyone else. >> I make a motion if you are ready. >> yes you can but let me say this, too. Mr. Penn sort of took the words out of my mouth. This is not our function as such and I don't want to have to go back and repeat that. I was interested in hearing what you had to say because quite frankly I kind of share the perspective of my other colleagues here. I think this is a good project. But when the staff gives you direction about where they think you ought to go and then you kind of ignore that and like Mr . Penn indicated, I don't want to go back over that again as such but that makes me feel a little bit uncomfortable. Mr. Berkeley, yes. >> Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for a continuance of pln mar 17-16. >> if you are asking for a continuance, I think we need to get on the record that they're agreeable to that because the date of the plan otherwise it has to be acted on is July 2. >> okay. I thought they did say that. What. >> we are agreeable to the continuance. >> what do we think is the time. >> until when? How much time do you all think you need? >> the next zoning hearing might be a good time. Oh no. I don't know if you have an idea how long it might take but I think it would be in everybody's best interest to give everyone plenty of time. >> and they have on give notice and what have you, right? >> they will. Well, depending on most likely. >> so and that's 30, is that a 30-day or 15-day? >> your zoning meeting in July is five weeks from today. >> so that would be... >> what date is that, about ill? >> July 27. >> so I'll amend my motion to continuance until July 27. -- . >> getting old is difficult. Okay. July 27. The motion made by Mr. Will berkeley second by mike cravens that we continue pln mar 17-16 a hton community development llc. Any discussion? >> thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess my question is is really and truly, is this appropriate. Where are we going from here? i maybe started the discussion on this but from what I see, I brought up the split zone in discussion, you know, I see that this is a possibility. If that is the case, I don't see a continuance allowing that to happen. I think it would be the best thing to do for them to withdraw and start all over again because I don't know where a continuance will help them at this point in time. >> okay, let me ask the staff for some assistance on that. What would be the best... >> there is a couple of things that are factoring in here. I mean you can do a continuance in their application would have to be amended. But depending on how that is a mended, it's most likely going to create a situation where they have to issue new notice. If they do that, their might, I have some concern that they're going to be able to meet the July 27 deadline because they would have to make a decision about what they're amending to determine if a notice is required and that requires 21 days and actually get it amended which requires new justification so either route would be possible. They May not want to withdraw but that's one possibility but either way we go, I think you are going to possibly need more time than to the 27th maybe until the zoning hearing in August to make sure all those things can happen; however the process goes. >> would with stat statement I'm going to stick with the continu ance recommendation if that's okay. Any other discussion on the motion? Okay. >> we need to iron this date out >> the date. I would be willing to amend if we think we need more time. >> well I think that they have indicated the date of July 27. Now if they need more time than the 27th can they come forward and ask for a postponement at that time? >> well, we can change it right now too, if it's agreeable but they're the ones that have to make that. >> I think that'sy the key. What date would be good if you need more time. >> I was trying to see if I could talk with staff but I believe that they are correct that new letters and notice would have to be sent so I do think that that amendment process would take more than the 27th we would need to go to the zoning meeting after that. >> so next would be the next possible date? August the what? >> 24th Mr. Chairman. >> and would I amend my motion to August 24th. Okay then let me explain something parliamentary wise. The motion was made. The motion was second. Now the motion maker would like to amend his motion. That's okay if it's agreeable with the body. Because once he makes the motion , once it's seconded. It does not belong to him anymore. It belongs to the body so if the body is in agreement then we can amend the motion to the 24th of August. Everybody is in agreement. Now the motion now is Mr. Will barkley makes the motion that we continue this pln-mar-17-16 ah ton community development until August 24, 2017. It has been seconded by Mr. Mike cravens. All those in favor of the motion please vote or please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion carries. Let me add one other footnote to this, again because of the... You know, when you really put us in kind of a difficult position and I hope you take that to notice and that you really honestly work on this because I think you got a good project and I think my colleagues are saying the same thing but Mr. Penn said it right and I want to underscore that for the record so good luck and hope to see you back August 24. Thank you. We have to have a indicate the room here at 5:45 so we've got all right. Next everybody is sending me the same note. Chairman, our next item is page 5 item 2a and tab two in the notebooks pln mar 17-19 this is the request by j. Roger jones, I ii and the property is located at 2300 paris pike the request is to rezone property from a single r-1 b zone to highway service b-3 zone. The subject property is located on the south side of paris pike. I forgot my pointer so I'm going to come up here. I guess on the southeast side of paris pike and this heavy disash line -- dash line that you see running this north-south and then sort of an east-west angle is our urban service boundary. So the urban service boundary follows paris pike a little bit here. Then it follows Lagrange lane, does a jog and comes down and follows the rj coreman railroad track and then jogs over towards bryan station road. So the subject property is bordered to the south and to the east it has r-1 b and r-1 d zon ing. To the west is, although an r-1 b zone an existing commercial development and then across paris pike from the location are several parcels that are already zoned in a b half 5 zone. We will show you m photographs that depict that. The property is currently vacant there are single family zones to the east and to the west sort of a mixed use development. It's the curb bar as well as an auto repair shop and single family home all on the same parcel. In an r-1 b zone so it's non- conforming dating back to the 1950s. But across paris pike from this location are gas stations, a bank, what is currently a vacant bowling alley, joyland bowling location which is proposed for reuse and just a few photographs of the at gray level. This is the subject property and it's really just a field at this point. It's about five acres on paris pike looking back towards lexington downtown lexington and the interstate. You can see on the one side it's mostly treed, even though the bar and auto shop are on that side on the other side you can see the gas station, a little bit closer the whittaker bank and retail store and then looking back towards paris, there is another, I any gas station and joyland bowl in that area. It was a little cloudy that day when I went tout take pictures. There was something that I did hand out to the planning commission as we started and that is the June 5, 2017 minutes from the paris pike corridor commission that should be part of the record today. The request, as I think was mentioned earlier this subject property is located within the area that is, I guess controlled by the paris pike corridor commission. They have jurisdiction over the subject property basically because it is located on paris pike I. Has a paris pike address I'm going to direct to you the map we brought with us from the 1995 small area plan and it depicts all of the property between paris and lexington that is incorporated in the small area plan and part of the jurisdiction in the inter jurisdictional agreement between lfucg, the city of paris and bourbon county. The subject property has been within the urban service boundary, I think dating back to its creation and has been recommended for several land use categories initially it was recommended for low density residential but starting in 1988 , it was recommended for highway commercial at this location and that recommendation future land use recommendation carried forward in our land use map in the 1996 comprehensive plan, 2001 and again in 2007 so four comprehensive plans for 45 years have recommended a highway commercial land use at this location. First they cited the supporting infill and redevelopment because this site is a long time vacant property within the urban service boundary. They won't be making many changes in terms of grading because it is a relatively flat property so they said they would be minimizing disruption of natural features. They would be creating jobs and there are some residential neighborhoods nearby specifically to the southwest. There is the strawberry fields development on old paris and the joyland neighborhood across paris pike from here. And then lastly they would be up holding the urban service blowndry by usinging under utilized land, vacant land where existing infrastructure and transportation networks go. Exist. The plan was adopted in 1995 but there was the 1993 interlocal agreement that required there be a small area plan created. The future land use recommendation of that small area plan, I believe is still valid. It recommended or acknowledged that there is two urban areas at either end of the corridor, lexington and paris and then there is the in between section of the corridor where they want ed to in the small area plan restrict it further and that's where bill salee mentioned earlier, that's where the over lay is within fayette county and bourbon county but on these two urban ends, the small area plan recognized that, and it says here on the lexington end, there are small estate acreages and piano key development but there is also some commercial development. Within these areas, these two, the gateways to the two communities should be created both by more land use and appropriate parcel size. Land use for these areas is proposed to be consistent with or recommended, the recommended land use designations already in place for bourbon and fayette county counties so at the time in 1995, the 199 hive or excuse me the 1988 comprehensive plan would have been in place and it recommended the highway commercial and again that land use recommendation continued until we did not adopt a specific land use map in 2013. So the staff's interpretation of the small area plan is that it recommends the future land use that was in place at the time the plan was adopted and also with the subsequent comprehensive plan recommending the same that the commercial recommendation really does stand for the subject property. The applicant also feels that the b-3 is an appropriate zone at this location because it is along the highway and can provide some commercial development within the area. It's compatible with the zones across the street as well. In terms of the paris pike corridor commission, they did hold a meeting June 5 and the minutes are in front of you and they did have a lengthy discussion about the sovereign zone change as well as the development plan. They made a recommendation of approval to this commission for the proposal, I think in total. Only one motion so I would intern reat that as in total with some restrictions or comments about the traffic impact study because there was a lengthy discussion about that during the meeting and I'll let jimmy discuss that when he presents his traffic impact study but now the paris pike commission has made a recommendation the staff felt comfortable adhering to that and recommend ago professional based on the small area plan recommendations from the past. So we recommended approval. That's very similar to the board here of the requesting rezoning on and I think the staff report is in your notebook recommended approval. We recommended prohibited uses with conditional uses applied to the subject property and they're listed in the staff report and should be on your agenda. There were six conditional use restrictions of the staff proposed of prohibited uses and this list is the same as what was proposed down the road for the dollar general site. It is consistent to that and since it is the entrance to the paris pike corridor and that is a scenic highway, historic scen ic highway, staff felt it was important to restrict specifically billboards, adult uses and pawn shops, car wash establishments, cocktail lowngsz and night clubs and establishments and lots for the display rental sale service and repair of and it has all those vehicles boats, et cetera. >> the development plan. I I have one email the staff received that will circulate as well. Is Mr. Chairman, this is the preliminary development plan and we passed out to you some revise the conditions. And I will stress again this is a preliminary development plan. You can see the paris pike front age in this location, rogers road here, joyland of course is over in this location. Here we have the railroad along the rear of the property. They're showing a full access point aligned mostly with roger road. There are median controls in paris pike in this location. There are not any in this location and right down here is the curb and old paris pike intersection and the interstate. They're showing an area for detention in this location, 8 ,000 square foot convenient store restaurant type gas pumps this location, associated park ing. Two large restaurant buildings they're basically maxing out the plan to this preliminary to demonstrate what could happen. We've got over 9,000 square foot building here and this one is 6 ,000 square feet again with the associated parking and circulation. They're showing a right in right out as well off paris pike in this area. There are serious development challenges on this site the sewer is back up here in a bump station. They're going have to get under the railroad or go way up the right of way this way. They're aware of that. We've had a lot of discussions about the challenges. Access traffic, these are big challenges for the site you are going to hear a traffic report here soon talking about the need for a traffic light when this area is fully developed and you have been handed out on a gold piece of paper a statement that needs to go on the plan to address the concern about traffic infrastructure. With that, and I know we are, we've got time constraints, staff did not receive a revised plan; however, we have given you revised recommendations. You can see some standard sign -offs and a couple of cleanup items and basically staff believes that the access and alignment to rogers road can be revised 10 that it is lined up correctly. That's a small change. The sewer situation sanitary sewer can be resolved at the final development plan. We believe the buffering requirements along the railroad and the ar property could be re solved at the time of the final development plan. There is a more restrictive issue that applies to this property and that's something though that will be amicable at the final development plan. The subdivision of the property and the unsubdivision requirements for service road and access, again, that's another item we think is appropriate in the final development plan when you generally address those issues as a body and then the row -- removal of the right in-right out access to proceeded to paris pike which was a discussion item and waiver, traffic engineering transportation planning and your planning staff believe at best at this time to take that off the plan. They can certainly bring it back to this body on the final development plan if they so wish and we can discuss it at that time. It will require a minimum waiver but again I wanted to stress that there are certain challenges with this property. Traffic access being paramount. With that, we are recommending approval of this preliminary development plan. >> any questions for Mr. Martin? >> thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is jimmy emmons, senior planner and I normally do not speak like elmer fudd but I want ed to let you know that last night while eating a peach I actually hurt my tongue so I'm talking like elmer fudd so I hope it doesn't detract from what I have to say. Tom was the first one to make that connection, james and the giant peach. To get on to where we were on the staff recommendation on the traffic impact study that was submitted by the applicant, they did do a traffic study for the proposed development. As you looked at it it was fairly standard traffic study as it came in. One of the major assumptions in this traffic study is that there would be a signalized intersection at rogers road and paris pike and there is not one today. As we looked at it and you look ed at the applicant's vehicular level of service tables, there was really not much that the staff was concern ed about, provided that that intersection is a signal ized intersection. If you can see it has that familiar a, b, c, d, e x f and it doesn't necessarily mean that a is the best. It means those are the amount of time that traffic has to wait to go through the intersections. An a could be just as disturbing or a concern as that. The only ones that were really had vehicular delays were on the site and rogers road because it is expected that we would continue to have paris pike as the primary thing that sets the timing for this corridor as it should be. If you remember at your committees, the staff was very concerned about the timing of the signalization of rogers road and paris pike, which was, which is not signalized today and the applicant's traffic study didn't specifically say that it needed to be installed, and much of the conversation and the concern was on the what ifs, both the applicant and the staff agree that if this property were to develop as it is being proposed, that they would need to put in signalization and other transportation improvements at this, the concern is really on the difference on the what ifs. They're thinking what if something very small comes in that doesn't warrant the signal ization. The staff is worried what if something 99% of the warrant comes in that needs signal ization but doesn't have the warrants so we looked at trying to step back and cross that gap between us, one of the things that we worked, I had sever conversations with the applicant's traffic engineer, we tried to come up with some if thens, kind of scenarios and none of those actually hit my comfort level because there are just so many different what if scenarios. It was yesterday at the staff eeses recommendation -- staff's recommendation. The staff is recommending a compromise that you can see. It's on the mustard sheet. A note that would be added to the development plan. One of the biggest concerns from our standpoint is that a traffic study our ordinances only allow to us require the traffic stud ies at the time of the zone change. Them you end up with the kind of of the dhik enand the egg because they're slowing a preliminary development plan but they don't know what is going to come in and the staff understood that concern also and and we recommended the compromise and the applicant agreed to place a note on the development plan that they shall submit an updat ed traffic impact study at the time of the final development plan that will address the appropriate infrastructure improvements timing thereof for the cumulative effect for the development of the entire property. The staff kind of put forward the concern that what if one out lot develops first and is sub divided off separately, then that becomes part of the exist ing traffic and doesn't count towards the traffic warrants. We believe that this will allow us at the next stage to take a better look. The staff is very comfortable with this approach. Do keep in mind that we actually do expect that signalization will be needed and warranted on this but we are willing to take a look at it at the next stage. Staff has four recommendations on this. The first one as submitted this plan would necessity signal ization of this intersection. The staff is recommending for the rogers road intersection that we, the wording on this as your 13s condition -- 13th condition would cover concerns for recommendation a, recommendation b would be that this site have that single entrance at the intersection and that the right in and right out be replofd. That's also recommended by that staff. I do want to say the access management, especially access management on our arterial roads is the best way to reduce conflict points and thereby increase safety on our roads. It's also extremely expensive to go back in and retro fit and it's actually not to take away access and redo those things and it's not just batted for the public and more expensive for the public. It's also bad for the individual property owners who have said, you know, they got used to doing business with that and when you come back in and change things it's better to just, right from the start, plan on your access management, especially on our arterials. Finally the applicant's recommendations had a turn lane for the right in-right out and did not have a turn lane needed for the rogers road intersection but the staff recommendation of deleting that, it is extremely likely that you will need a right turn lane into the site at the rogers road intersection and then d is our final one and that is more of a general one that they add sidewalks, crosswalks and internal pedestrian accommodations for the subject property. There is about well whenever you put in the recommended left turn lane coming from paris to turn into the subject property, that would leave it about, somewhere in the range of about 90 feet of pavement for a pedestrian to cross from the joyland neighborhood area over into here our guidelines say that if you have anything over 70 feet of pavement should really have a pedestrian refuge island in there so getting into those details and exactly how to design those improvements, that was going to be a much longer list of recommended if thens to you today. But we feel confident that the applicant agreeing to do an updated traffic study at the time of the final development plan that we will be able to address all of these issues. There are many more details in the traffic study I would be happy to, I could probably go into details on any of them and happy to answer any of those questions. But at this point, I'll just end it on the, there is the wording that we proposed for you today and I'll condlud my part of the presentation I think I hit the highlights of what you need to consider today. >> any questions. >> thank you. Applicant. >> I'm dick murphy representing the owners of this property they are j roger jones on the second row and same cottrell on the second row and jane ann cotrell is an owner but couldn't be here today. We have our designer tony barrett and our traffic engineer of diane zimmerman of traffic engineering in louisville. I'm going to go fast because I know you are short on time. Just give you a little history of this. This is property that has been in the current owner's families for about 50 years. They've had some interest in the property recently. But the problem they've run into is that when people talk to them and it's explained to them that it's not zoned they say how long will it take to do that, about six months. and then you have to come back with a final development plan on the two or three months, they decide well we'll look somewhere else. So we are trying to get this marketable in the zone it should be b-3. We don't have any particular end user right now which has been established. I'll talk about that more in a minute. If you have been by this property the last few years, you'll note it has been cleared two or three years ago. It was cleared at the suggestion of the lexington police department because there was, there were people out there living under the honeysuckle and that sort of thing. They suggested it be cleared and it was by the owners of the property. As Miss Wade mentioned, this is in the urban section, the electricington urban section of the paris pike ordinance and that section says that the uses of the property should be as designate designated in the then current comprehensive plan. We have a couple slides up here to show you as Miss Wade mentioned. I've got one first of all of the 1988 comprehensive plan. If you could. It has been b-3, then on to the 1996 comprehensive plan if you could, I'm just trying to get these in the record again here we are again 1996. Highway commercial designation nation which includes p-3 and the 2001 comprehensive plan which also shows this property up here and the 2008 comprehensive plan which shows this being highway commercial right there on this property. So for the last 29 years, at least, this has been designated highway commercial and that was the designation that the paris pike plan incorporated in when they made their recommendation. In doing this project, I didn't know that the curb bar was a major lexington landmark but apparently is. Everybody knows oh it's next to the curb so we are next to the curb bar, which is the curb barlow indicated at 2200 paris pike. We are at 2300 paris pike and the curb also has an auto prepare facility as part of it as well. We are bordering that on the south and on the, excuse me lexington south which is really west. On the south which I think of as east is the railroad track which is a hard boundary. We do have some residential behind us here but we have, there will never be any roadway or pedestrian connection because we have an elevated rar track with dense toll yaj on either side behind us so there will never been any connection to the subdivision behind us. On the west side as Miss Wade mentioned, we have two convenient stores, we have strip retail where whittaker bank is, barber shop there and one vacant center. This is and we also have the old joyland lanes which you all know is being redone into a peter built truck dealership and service facility. There is a waffle house and ramada inn. We have single family large lot to the north. Thought property is also inside the urban service boundary. Our destiny is guided by where we are located with the railroad track, the curb, the commercial across from us and the paris pike which is six lanes here, four lanes through and two turn lanes through here makes, I think residential totally unlikely to this property. We are also in agreement with the 2013 plan as Miss Wade mentioned to you. I'm not going to go into all those but it's underutilized property, it's easily develop able. A flat piece of property, object ive a3 c. It provides jobs where people live, objective c 1 d. Upholds the urban service concept, e-1. It encourages compact and contiguous development as govern ed by market demands e1-b, stimulates economic investment page 98 and allows for new businesses on page 60. As the staff mentioned we did go to the paris pike corridor commission meeting on June 5 when I walked in here today, my clients asked me on condition 3- a those are supplyies for cars maybe it couldn't. So our only quibble with the cm zoning restrictions is if we could delete the last part supplies for such items so that they could sell auto parts like a napa or car quest that kind of thing there we are need a final development plan when we get a user. We don't want to be accused of doing the bait and switch. You showed us a low traffic generator back in 2017 now you are coming in with a big traffic generator. No, we didn't want do that so was we showed was maybe the maximum that this property would support, for instance, we are showing 8,000 square foot convenient store much larger than a fast food restaurant much larger than most likely it will be and we are doing that to show what maximum use would be and so that our traffic study shows you that we can do this at the maximum traffic level and then when we come back to you with a final plan with a true user here we hope to get relatively soon, we can show enthusiasm works with a lower traffic amount as well. We don't want to be accused of as I said of the bait and switch showing you a low traffic generator and then bringing in a high traffic generator. As my barber once told me, remember, I can also take more off but I can't put more on so when we committed to two years, we can take more off of the development plan but we can't put more on here. On traffic we are agreeable. We agree with the note that was proposed to you on the sheet here and we agree with that. And that is because when we do, when we come in here, we don't get to dise side whether there is a traffic signal, you all don't either. Staff doesn't either. There is a dictator of traffic signals and that's the kentucky department of highways and we have to show we meet a certain level, we do we can have one if we are below that we can't. If we go above it we have to have one. We know we have to do a traffic stud toe show you when we come in with a final development plan and show the department of highways with we come in with a final development plan so we agree with this. Tie diane will talk about that in a minute. A 10-inch wide casement pipe un the railroad tracks so there is built in room for additional capacity in the casement pipe that went under the railroad tracks to the pump station. Set back will resolve those with final development plan as well screening especially headline light screening coming across the railroad tracks. We agreed we could do a six-foot solid wood fensz along the boundary along the railroad tracks with pine tree type plant ing so they would have a barrier for headlights and noise coming across the railroad tracks. I think that is mainly what I wanted to cover. Let me just check my notes to make sure I haven't let anything off and so our two things we wanted to clarify was number one that conditional zoning item regarding supplies for cars, and that sort of thing and the second was we would like that to be shown on the plan or at least acknowledged that we would have an opportunity to show that to you and ask you for that with we come back for the final development plan stage. Did you want to talk up briefly about the right in and right out >> I'm diian zimmerman. Generally was we find out with right in and right out, they do lessen the traffic load at the traffic signal itself and Mr. Emmons pointed out the only ease in the level service table or on the side roads that rogers road and our site itself and so if the right in right out is eliminated it will put more traffic at the location where the level service e was experienced and I would concur that what we would like to do is be able to evaluate that fully at the time of the final development plan to either demonstrate at that time there is a traffic benefit to having the right in right out that the access break is more valuable than provides better level service and better operation at the signalized intersection at the time that we know what the final user is going to be. >> any questions. Anyone here would like to speak for or against this plan? Ma'am, you have a time limit of up to three minutes. >> as the deg ition nateed speaker do I not have longer? Do I have the 30 minute limit? >> no. >> okay. >> as the designated speaker for the neighborhood association I just wanted to remind you all this is the gateway to the historic and famous paris pike corridor. We feel like that if this begins construction of a new business place that it could have a tumble effect affecting the current small farm owners next door. This is a variety of well developed neighborhoods already in existence and no future land for future development going that way out paris pike unless other rezoning has happened. This is. The traffic is a major concern. We currently have five gas convenient stores within an eight-block area as well as three restaurants and three hotels. It has also has the old paris road intersection there. There are many major problems with the traffic in the area now we also have mary todd school that comes out into that same section. Even with a traffic signal, it would be a major, major traffic tieup for normal processing of people who have to travel daily now. There is also concern of a major light pollution for this additional, not just car lights but this would be the lights in the parking lot or such for all of the neighborhoods over the train tracks and our side of the road also. We have major flooding issues and I know that they've put a detention basin hopefully they've studied enough in that and that would be enough to be concerned with our area. We've had at least 12 houses removed in our neighborhood because of flooding issues and we don't want any additional problems with flooding in our neighborhoods. Once again I just wanted to stress the traffic issue and the ripple effect if we should start allowing businesses to be built along the historic neighborhood. The historic corridor. thank you. >> ma'am, don't leave. When I say don't leave. We are get read to go to rebutt al so you get another crack at it but you get to hear the rebuttal from... >> okay. Thank you. >> petitioner do you have anything else you would like to add in or does anyone else? >> I'm sorry. Come on up. You've got... Thank you for giving me a minute. I really, really appreciate it. What is your name and address. >> william. I'm a bit nervous. I apologize. I first of all I just wanted to mention I didn't even know about this meeting until about two days ago and I went and looked for notices and what you see on the screen right now is when I finally went and physically walk ed because you can't see it if you are coming down paris pike and or even coming off old paris road, I mean, totally un noticeable but it's certainly where it was put and how it was attached to that pole. Certainly wasn't available to know. I only found out two days ago that this was even going on. So I kind of felt like they probably should have postponed the meeting today however here I am. My father retired from I.B.M. After 55 years. I'm from bourbon county originally. And he was a huge advocate to widen paris pike. Let's widen it, at least put passing zone understand and when the four lane got approved and happened, he was alive to see it thank God and he was just amazed , wow. What a great job. What a fantastic job they did on this. And he attended, he, we had the stickers on our cars back when I was a kid with the skull and cross bone paris pike and all that stuff because there were so many people getting hurt. Loved it and he said the best part about it is the promises they made. They made these promises. Never, ever will there be commercial development or any development once they put this four lane. It won't happen. They promised. Over and over he would say that and he would come up and visit me and go, man, this road is awesome. I'm so. Chad: they did it. Glad they promised that. Today apparent will I he wasn't right. And I'm sad for that. I really, really am. The other thing is why are we doing a zoning before there is a plan? Aren't we putting the cart before the horse here? I don't... So we are going to zone it and then we are going to let the plan develop. I see they have a plan but it seems to me like that's kind of backwards. Once you get I zoned, now you can do whatever you want and somebody even mentioned that. Don't come back to us with something different. I'm really concerned about that and I understand why they want to do it. It hasn't sold. It's been on the market for a long, long time. I don't know. I feel like they are putting the cart before the horse here and when I think about green space in lexington and how we claim that paris pike is the most scenic awesome thing, now we are going to leave town and come into town to more development that's already there. The current stuff was already there. Now I get that. This is new. And I almost feel like the north side of lexington, particularly this area, this condensed area, I don't know, I feel like we are a petri dish and all of a sudden they're going to drop one cell of cancer in there and bam it's going to blow. I've seen it ham. You guys have seen it happen. I know you have. I'm afraid that's going to happen to paris pike. I really, really am and I think this is just that first cell that needs to be dropped in that petri dish and they're relebt less. I understand growth can be good. I don't think we need anymore growth right there. I don't know where you guys live have you ever merged off of old paris road on to paris pike? A, the traffic coming at you they're already going 60 because they're jockeying for position. It's the most dangerous thing in the world. now we are going to add another stop, another traffic light. I don't know if you've ever driven or stood by paris pike and scene -- and seen the traffic coming in from paris. They're going 65 to 70. I know this because I tested them. I broke the law testing them just to keep up with them. It's insane. I don't think this is a good usage for this property. I really, really don't. And I am afraid, like I said, with the petri dish thing. It's true. It's going to grow bigger and there was those promises. Those promises. Never, it's not going to happen. Here I am today. I think it is going to happen. I still think... I can't believe that we are going change the zoning and they don't even know what they're going to put in it. It just seems kind of ridiculous and it's going to change, add to and change the whole area there and I don't think it's going to stop, but really, I just think there needs to be more thought put into this before you guys approve the zone change right now. Really, that's all have I to say and thank you very much for your time. >> could I have the sales slide, the first of the sales slide. Does that make sense? I'm amy clark, I live at 628 castle road and I was summoned yesterday, actually this morning by walt gafffield but the fayette neighborhood... >> sorry about that. Joyland neighborhood association called yesterday on the fayette county neighborhood council to be a part of this. I think we are talking about the corridor plan and whether this is in agreement and we have our 2013 plan and whether it's in agreement or not. I would like you to keep in front of you the question in what respect does this zone change and project recommended for approval by the planning staff, how can you distinguish it from any other that is not protected by the paris pike corridor plan? Is there any way we are treating this like it's special, like it's different. I think the key issue here is the land has failed to develop. You want to see land develop. If you look at how it is currently on the web being marketed, and the date on that I think is June 6, you'll see that they want a high price for it and they're offering it as can you push it up a little or go to the next slide? They're offering it as multi family with commercial potential. Although the zoning is r-1b. So you have to ask whether they are marketing it for development that can happen. We have seen in 2015 in this immediate area that tiny little triangle that is in the urban services boundary, that is also a part of the paris pike corridor commission two sales in 2015 for about $600,000 plus and if could I have the aerial with uses? In the other set? Okay. The two that sold were 2350 and this is one that had been as separationally upzoned to r-1d, not long ago to increase housing density. And it failed to sell. It was neglected for a time. The gentleman who bought it moved here from nashville to establish a horse farm. He restored the barn, the house, it had been abandoned, the pipes were broken. He has put it to agricultural use in our signature agricultural industry than tire ly appropriate for the paris pike corridor and for this area, even though it's in the urban services boundary. The three biggest adjacent properties 2400 and so fords are farm use as well. Everything in green gets a farm exemption from pva, you know, the tax adjustment. Everything in red is charitable or government. It gets tax exemption. So what we are seeing, the lines are urban services area. The green is existing agricultural use today. And the 2350 was vacant for a time. Believed oib pab sited that sowt sold for $600,000 plus was 2480 that sold to meredith lane, the daughter of the eminent ed lane who was council member for the 12th district, the rural district. And kiddie lane hif hive kitty lane who seems to understand real estate and value pretty well. These people bought their property in 2015 and it is what is described what you would describe as I state residential. A grand house, not much more, just under an acre. These people bought their property, seeing the current use s and in the expectation as so eloquently presented by the gentleman before who lives across the street on swaggerin the expectation that the paris pike corridor commission and plan would protect uses and now I know there is no time so I'm going to just put up the page where we think the plan promises to protect these uses in particular. As they were developing the plan they had two options. They said there is the purest approach, all agricultural every inch should be agricultural then the realist approach, it's not all agricultural today. And what they decided was there would be a middle and there would be ends and the ends stretching to the urban areas and within the urban service area, it's different what they say for paris pike and what they say for lexington but what they recommend for lexington. Let's go first to the primary goal and that that is the area designated as a small area plan as shown on the map based upon the interlocal agreement as further stipulated in the goals and objectives of the plan the primary goal for the lexington paris road is to retain the agricultural historic scenic condition of the corridor and so forth. And then if you move to the other side of the page, they talk about land use for the transitional area, they call it a gateway to the bluegrass from lexington. Each end of the corridor has a gateway function. And in this passage they articulate the land uses within this agricultural rural transition zone should remain in agricultural uses with only farmsteads and estate type residences. What we've seen is a piece of property that I would guess has been as separationally marketed for uses other than farmsteads and estate type residential. Certainly it is in what is posted today on the internet. And if you will recall not long ago there was quite a to do before council about the eighth gas station on ver say road and that was a situation where a piece of property was upzoned without any user in mind aspirationally and 10 yearses of neglect brought two modest affordable apartment housing units to the ground, they were destroyed because that aspirational zoning said you can have commercial property here so eventually it was as peggy hen son said, the death nell to that property. And now there is the eighth gas station there. But you have to ask whether that's the appropriate use. Please don't zone this as separationally but rather according to what is appropriate for the corridor according to the corridor plan. Thank you. >> thank you. >> we do have a few minutes before. We'll have to have a indicate this room at 5:45 and we'll move right across the hall if we don't, I don't think we'll finish by that 5:45. the city council meets in this room at 6:00 so with that we are going to go to rebuttal. A couple things Mr. Chairman. I understand we understand neighborhood concerns about changing the neighborhood. But we have based this upon the comprehensive plans of this community and that includes the paris pike plan as Miss Wade discussed with you, the current comprehensive plan as well. This is not going to be a domino the reason it is not going to be a domino is because the paris pike plan with it was adopted in 1995, if you go to your staff report on page 3, they have quoted the language from the paris pike plan that applies to us. There are three sections of the paris pike plan. There is the big section which we all think of as the paris pike plan which yes it says nothing but agricultural uses on the big section from lexington, the edge of lexington urban service boundary to the paris urban service boundary but they have two small other sections what they call the lexington urban section and the paris urban section. We are in the lexington urban section. And down three quarters of the way on the staff report they quote to you what the uses were preposed in the paris pike plan for this property. It says within these areas, the lexington urban end, the gateway to the two communities should be created both by properly land use and by appropriate parcel size and design side giens. Land use for the areas proposed to be consistent with the recommended land use designation s already in place in the current comprehensive plan in bourbon and fayette county done in 1995. And the deses I go nation that was -- designation in effect in 1995 was the designation the staff and I showed you for this property which was highway commercial for this section because we are inside lexington 's urban service boundary. Now the other properties to the north of us between us and the urban service boundary and the 1988 comprehensive plan were shown as residential. Okay so they can't come in and say well this is adomino for us because we were shown commercial in the 1988 comprehensive plan. They were shown as residential. I want to remind you what we've got address the -- across the street from us we have properties to the north inside the corridor paris pike develop ed as horse farms or large estate properties. Our destiny is what is surround ing us and what is surrounding us on the other side as we come out of our property, there is the speedway service station and then the next picture shows the strip commercial right across the street from us where whittaker bank is and the barber shop and the next one shows the other convenient store, the nickel convenient store right across the street from us. That is what we, the owner of this property will face coming out to this property and that's right because this, what I just showed you those three pictures were designated commercial in the comprehensive plan in 1988. And that's what is designated to be there but that's what we have , we on the south we have the curb bar, on the other side we have the railroad tracks. Our destinies any is what is surrounding this on the small piece four and a half acres of land. So I think the paris pike corridor plan recognized plan ning efforts of this community and said that what goes in the urban, this short piece at the end was designated in the 1988 comprehensive plan. Light pollution, the speakers lived on the other side of paris pike, there is a lot of lieth over there. -- lights over there. We will do shoe box type lights downward directed so there is not direct light escaping from our property to the neighboring properties and as I mentioned in my presentation we'll do the six -foot tall fence and pine tree as long the railroad tracks so we don't have headlights glare ago cross the tracks to the agricultural and residential uses on the other side of the tracks. We came up here, we are planning before we use this property, we are up here because when a user comes in, we don't want to tell them, well, we are not sure it might be maybe you can do multi family, maybe you can do this. We got a zone change here is what you can do. Here is your list an so we'll give certainty of this. We've studied the traffic. we know it's likely a traffic signal will be required of this property when we develop that. We are aware of that. Aware we will have to study these traffic conditions when we bring in our final development plan she pointed out the only time you can require a traffic study is when you submit a zone change. He said this note means that my clients will have to do a traffic study also when we do a final development plan and we said yes we will. We will do a traffic study when we do the final development plan as well. Under this note we recognize we are required to do that and we will do that. So again, we feel very strongly that we agree with the comprehensive plan. We take, we do not agree that this is going to set any kind of precedent for anybody else because the precedent was set for us 2 years ago in the in the 1988 comprehensive plan carried forward in every comprehensive plan the community has done since that time, was carried forward in the paris pike plan itself. They recognize what we are doing here. So again we feel that this merit s the zone change. We hope you agree with us and I will cease here and let the staff... >> thank you. Ma'am, because of the time limit that we have, if you are the representative of the community or wish to designate someone else. Okay that's fine. whatever. >> thank you. I think what is at issue here and what the staff is pointing to, which passage the staff is pointing to which is in the interlocal agreement of '93 and pass al gore we are pointing to is a question of which controls your decision here, which guides your decision. The staff passage says respect the existing use designations. Was we are saying, the passage we are pointing to which is in the small area plan that this interlocal agreement authorized, so the fruit of that interlocal agreement, the small area plan, is saying respect existing uses. Not existing designations for any future use. The passage the staff is point ing to and in fact in the small area plan in the review of goals and objectives, what they're pointing to is 1988 goals and objectives which were in effect at the time the small area plan was drawn up in '95, finished in '95. They were out of date by '93. If you say the plan must be re newed every five years. So what we are seeing is old plans for the future, out of date plans for the future con straining the protection of the newer small area plan and its guidelines for the future and it shows this narrow area designated for scenic protection both in the primary and the secondary, sorry it's the fush -- the view shed that's to be protected. I don't have the right map up but there is a broken line that says the whole area is a historic overlay. and then this has the uses currently at the time the small area plan was given and it says our part of it which is empty looking is designated a which is agricultural and/or vacant. And isn't it a shame that we don't know the difference between agricultural and vacant, but what it does mean is every vacant property is either actually or potentially used for agricultural. So those were the existing designations at the time. I'll say one more thing. We have a new plan now. The 2013 plan. And one of the things that was cited was the live where you work concept. The joyland residents have told me, the representatives they're not clamoring to work at drive-thrus across the street crossing the highway to get to them. The better finding to site for denial of the zone change rather than approval is not c-1 d but c -1 b strength and regulations and policies that propel the agricultural committee included but not limited to local food production distribution agri tourism and the equine industry that showcase lexington fayette county as the horse capital of the world. If you go drill deep into c-1 d cited for approval. They cite the live where you work. The first two clauses are foster the success and growth of large employment sectors. This is not major employment. This is minimum wage employment. And provide readily available economic economic development land to meet the needs for jobs. This is not economic development land put to its best use. In fact, the equine uses that have been welcome and recently purchased here and acquired here and invested in here are excellent. And also the other one recommend ed by the small area plan that the interlocal agreement set into being, the other use being estate residential appropriate to the corridor, appropriate to its scenic designation. And historic. >> thank you. >> staff. >> I thought Mr. Murphy did I good job but because Miss Clark continued down the same path and rebutted what he said I felt it necessary and she said the staff said so, I'm up here to show you what the staff reviewed which was the paris pike corridor small area plan adopted by the commission paris pike corridor commission in 1995 and the snippet that I cut out for the staff presentation if you are on page 29, and it does, I'm going to give that to Mr. Salee to put up but page 29 and 30. Perhaps the confusing part is the small area plan text says that the lexington end is a transition zone of approximately a mile and a half in length. So that is from the curb barlow indication because that's the first paris pike address for a mile and a half. So that includes transition zone includes the subject property as well as numerous other properties and again that's on page 29 there we go. The urban ends create a transition zone approximately one and a half mile long where farmland meets the urban land so if we go then to the part Miss Clark quoted about transition areas and I guess it's on the bottom of 30, can you move 30 up , the transition zone transitional zone and the urban end, this is talking about the traps ition from the urban service boundary to where the overlay was put in place. So the urban end within the urban service boundary was intended to again follow the land use map that were adopted at that time and that's what the applicant is proposing to do at this location. In terms of the goals and object ives that were cited, obviously there are certain uses that, and we've talked about this as a commission at length, recently, there are certain uses that generate more jobs, there are certain uses that generate multiplier jobs so you have industrial jobs that create not just that job but also enough money-for-someone to go out and eat out at chic-fil-a or wherever with their family. So these jobs are not all equivalent. I think the planning commission understands that but they are still jobs for the community and the staff didn't cite the goals and objectives from 1988. We cited the goals and objective s from 2013. So I just want to make sure that's on the record as well, related to this what the applicant proposed which was creating jobs where people live. I understand not all residents enjoy lapd would wish to work at this location, however, these jobs would be available to people who live nearby and maybe adequate for some of the people who live in that area. So. Happy to answer in I other questions. >> I'll tell you what we'll have to do. We will have to have a indicate this room. We are going to -- we have to vacate this room. We will give the commission and the am cantsz and staff and we'll close it as we normally would if we were here and make a decision. We'll recess it for a moint to get to the 11th floor and then we'll reconvene there. Thank you.