# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - July 27, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 27, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4300 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4300?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-07-27 - **Last revised**: July 27, 2017 - **Length**: 15,324 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on July 27, 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. The commission addressed four agenda items during the session, with three items receiving approval and one being tabled for future consideration. The meeting included five motions and votes, with commissioners hearing three public comments from attendees. Key business included consideration of development projects such as the Manchester Development LLC proposal for Distillery District East Unit 1 and the Wyndale Development LLC zoning map amendment, both of which were approved, while the RML-Citation matter involving Hillenmeyer Interest, Ltd. was tabled for further review. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on July 27, 2017: • Frank Penn • Karen Mundy • Carolyn Plumlee • Mike Owens • Patrick Brewer • Mike Cravens • Carolyn Richardson • Bill Wilson All members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on five items during the July 27, 2017 meeting, with most decisions receiving unanimous support from the eight members present. **PLN-MJSUB-17-00026** [timestamp: 00:30]: Mike Cravens motioned for indefinite postponement of RML-CITATION (HILLENMEYER INTEREST, LTD.), seconded by Patrick Brewer. The motion passed unanimously 8-0, with all members voting in favor: Frank Penn, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Mike Owens, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, Carolyn Richardson, and Bill Wilson. **PLN-MJDP-17-00042** [timestamp: 01:30]: Frank Penn motioned to postpone RML-CITATION (HILLENMEYER INTEREST, LTD.) to August 10. The postponement was approved unanimously 8-0 by the same eight members. **PLN-MJDP-17-00054** [timestamp: 03:00]: Mike Owens motioned to approve Manchester Development, LLC (Distillery District East, Unit 1) with conditions, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The approval passed unanimously 8-0 with 13 revised conditions provided by staff. **PLN-MAR-17-00024** [timestamp: 05:00]: Patrick Brewer motioned to approve the Wyndale Development, LLC zoning map amendment for the reasons provided by staff. The motion passed unanimously 8-0. **ZOTA 2017-5** [timestamp: 07:00]: Mike Owens motioned to approve amendments relating to conditional uses, definitions, and clarifications, seconded by Karen Mundy. This item received a roll call vote, passing 10-1 with the exception of striking number 5 under move from conditional use to principal use. Ten members voted in favor: Frank Penn, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Mike Owens, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, Carolyn Richardson, Bill Wilson, Mike Cravens, and Patrick Brewer. Mike Cravens voted against the motion. ## Public Comment Three residents addressed the board during the public comment period, with two speakers expressing support for the Wyndale Development and one raising infrastructure concerns. **Angela Carpenter** spoke first regarding the Wyndale Development [timestamp: 06:00]. She expressed gratitude for the developer's willingness to meet with residents and discuss issues related to the project. Carpenter stated that she had no objections to the development moving forward. **Robin Young** also addressed the Wyndale Development [timestamp: 06:30]. Young thanked the board and developer for the collaborative process that had taken place and expressed satisfaction with the outcome of the development plan. **Otto** raised concerns about existing infrastructure issues [timestamp: 07:00]. He highlighted ongoing sewage overflow problems in the area and requested that sewer improvements be completed before any new homes from the development are connected to the existing system. Otto emphasized the importance of addressing current capacity issues before adding additional load to the sewage infrastructure. The public comment period reflected both community support for the collaborative approach taken on the Wyndale Development and practical concerns about ensuring adequate infrastructure to support new construction. ## Appointments The meeting included two appointments to municipal committees. **Zoning Committee** • Mr. Forester was appointed to the Zoning Committee **Subdivision Committee** • Mr. Bell was appointed to the Subdivision Committee Both appointments were approved during the July 27, 2017 meeting. No additional details regarding the terms of service or specific qualifications of the appointees were provided in the available meeting materials. ## Contested Items Two significant issues generated debate and opposition during the July 27, 2017 meeting. **Wyndale Development Sewage Concerns** Community residents raised strong objections regarding sewage infrastructure problems related to the Wyndale Development project. Local residents expressed concerns about existing sewage overflow issues in the area and demanded that these problems be addressed before any new residential connections are approved. The residents requested that infrastructure improvements be completed prior to allowing new homes in the development to connect to the current sewage system. This opposition reflected broader community concerns about the adequacy of existing municipal infrastructure to handle additional residential capacity. **Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments** The proposed zoning ordinance text amendments faced internal division among board members, resulting in a split vote. The amendments specifically addressed conditional uses within the zoning code, with particular focus on provisions related to religious assembly zoning requirements. Some members opposed the proposed changes to how religious assemblies would be regulated under the conditional use framework. The disagreement centered on the scope and impact of the amendments, though the specific concerns of opposing members were not detailed in the available materials. The split vote indicates significant disagreement among decision-makers about the appropriate regulatory approach for these land use categories. Both contested items highlight ongoing tensions between development pressures and community concerns about infrastructure capacity and zoning regulations. The sewage concerns represent direct community opposition to development timing, while the zoning amendments reflect internal policy disagreements among governing body members about appropriate regulatory frameworks. ## RML-CITATION (HILLENMEYER INTEREST, LTD.) [timestamp: 00:30] The planning commission considered agenda item PLN-MJSUB-17-00026, titled "RML-CITATION (HILLENMEYER INTEREST, LTD.)" during the July 27, 2017 meeting. Mike Cravens addressed the commission regarding this item. The primary issue preventing the project from moving forward was the incomplete status of necessary infrastructure improvements. Due to the pending infrastructure completion requirements, the commission decided to postpone the item indefinitely. No substantive discussion or debate occurred on the merits of the proposal itself, as the infrastructure prerequisites had not yet been satisfied. The item was tabled pending resolution of the infrastructure completion issues. No timeline was provided for when the item might return to the commission for consideration. ## Manchester Development, LLC (Distillery District East, Unit 1) [timestamp: 03:00] The commission reviewed development plan PLN-MJDP-17-00054 for Manchester Development, LLC's Distillery District East, Unit 1 project. Mike Owens served as the key speaker for this agenda item. The proposal called for the development of 34 townhouses as part of the larger Distillery District East development. The commission discussed the project's infrastructure requirements and pedestrian access provisions during their review. The development plan included specific conditions related to infrastructure improvements and pedestrian connectivity that the developer would need to address as part of the approval process. These conditions were designed to ensure the project would integrate properly with surrounding development and provide adequate access for residents and visitors. Following discussion of the proposal and its associated conditions, the commission voted to approve the development plan for the 34 townhouse units. The approval was granted with the understanding that Manchester Development, LLC would comply with all specified conditions regarding infrastructure and pedestrian access improvements. The Distillery District East, Unit 1 project represents a residential component of the broader mixed-use development planned for the area, contributing to the ongoing transformation of this district within the community. ## Wyndale Development, LLC Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 05:00] The planning commission considered agenda item PLN-MAR-17-00024, a zoning map amendment request from Wyndale Development, LLC. The proposal sought to rezone 10.14 acres from Agricultural Urban to Single Family Residential designation. Patrick Brewer served as the key speaker presenting information about the zoning change request. The amendment would allow for residential development on the property, transitioning it from its current agricultural zoning classification. The commission discussed the merits of converting the agricultural land to accommodate single-family housing development. The 10.14-acre parcel represents a significant tract that would be opened for residential construction under the proposed zoning change. Following deliberation on the zoning map amendment, the commission voted to approve PLN-MAR-17-00024. The approval allows Wyndale Development, LLC to proceed with plans for single-family residential development on the property, marking the transition from agricultural use to housing development for this portion of land within the jurisdiction. ## Amendments Relating to Conditional Uses, Definitions, and Clarifications [timestamp: 07:00] The meeting addressed ZOTA 2017-5, a comprehensive ordinance proposing text amendments to various articles of the zoning ordinance focused on adjusting conditional uses and definitions throughout the code. Mike Owens served as the key speaker presenting the proposed amendments to the board. The ordinance aimed to make clarifications and adjustments to existing conditional use provisions and definitional language within multiple articles of the zoning ordinance. The amendments were designed to refine and clarify existing zoning regulations rather than introduce major policy changes. The text modifications addressed conditional uses across different zoning districts and updated definitions to provide greater clarity for property owners, developers, and city staff in interpreting and applying zoning requirements. Following the presentation and discussion, the board approved ZOTA 2017-5. The approval of these text amendments will help streamline the zoning process by providing clearer guidance on conditional uses and eliminating ambiguities in definitional language that may have previously caused confusion in zoning determinations. The ordinance represents part of the city's ongoing efforts to maintain and update its zoning code to ensure it remains current, clear, and effective in guiding development while protecting community interests. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MJSUB-17-00026** — postponed (8-0): Indefinite postponement of RML-CITATION (HILLENMEYER INTEREST, LTD.) - **PLN-MJDP-17-00042** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of RML-CITATION (HILLENMEYER INTEREST, LTD.) to August 10 - **PLN-MJDP-17-00054** — passed (8-0): Approval of Manchester Development, LLC (Distillery District East, Unit 1) with conditions - **PLN-MAR-17-00024** — passed (8-0): Approval of Wyndale Development, LLC zoning map amendment - **ZOTA 2017-5** — passed (10-1): Approval of amendments relating to conditional uses, definitions, and clarifications --- ## Full transcript The gentleman that runs the Artisan Center up in Brea was telling us how covenant motor group tours are. They want to come and they want to come to some of the bourbon distors and they want to come to the horse park and they want to come to the Brea Artisan Center. And so we're trying to build that package. The people he was talking about was a motor coach company from out west in California. So like I said, I've told several people that the Kentucky Horse Park is better known internationally than it is nationally. and then we're better known outside the state of Kentucky than in Kentucky. But with the All Tech Arena, we're getting a lot of high school graduations. So for this school year of 18, we're going to have anywhere from 6 to 8 high school graduations. So we're going to try to find a hook to get these folks out here and graduate but make it a special graduation, Kentucky Horse Park style. Well, I've gone to a lot of fundraisers for nonprofits out there in the facility. Yes. So you really are becoming this well-known event space. Event space. And it couldn't be any more beautiful. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Laura. Thanks. Thanks for sharing. We're back. I'm Kathy Plowman doing council comment, and we're here at the Kentucky Horse Park. Gorgeous, gorgeous day. A little warm, but very, very pretty. I have with me Jonathan Lang, and he is the deputy executive director here at the Kentucky Horse Park. Laura had been telling me that there's so many events. How many events are here in the course of a year? We do over 200 events a year here at the park. So that ranges from, obviously, we're known as the horse capital of the world, so equestrian events, but then also non-equestrian events that could be high school cross-country meets, weddings, conferences, seminars, etc. So it kind of runs the whole, the full gamut. Yeah, I came out here about a month ago, and I went through the Man of War exhibit. And I would really, since it's the anniversary of 100 years, I would really suggest those of you that are out there to come out and take a look at that. It's very interactive and a lot of cool artifacts from back in Bannerwar's day. Now tell me this, the anniversary for the horse park is next year? Next year, yes. So what are you planning for that? Well, much like what we've done, this year was really a test run for us. So the whole goal, as Laura was saying, was to get more people engaged and get them to come to the park. And with the exhibit, when you tie it around, a lot of people don't know that our museum is a Smithsonian-affiliated museum. I did. And there's always something changing. because a lot of times people come in and they'll go back to the competition. So we're really trying to re-engage people on the front side of the park. So this year it was all about community engagement. So I think for the four... I'd like to welcome you to July 27, 2017, the Urban County Planning Commission. Welcome to staff. Welcome to commissioners. Welcome to you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for coming. With that, we'll have the approval of the minutes for June the 22nd. Ms. Plumlee? Mr. Chair, move approval of June 22nd, minutes 2017. Second. It's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve the minutes of June the 22nd, 2017. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing that, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Minutes approved. Postponements and our withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, On the first page of the agenda, item MJ-17-00026, RML citation, I would like to ask for an indefinite postponement. Originally, this plat, when we filed it, we had planned on asking for some waivers for completion of roads and some utilities. and we have now decided to go ahead and wait until these are constructed before we bring the plat forward. So for these reasons, I'd ask for an indefinite postponement. Anyone in the audience have any thoughts about this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? I will entertain a motion for an indefinite postponement for, well, you'll read it. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move indefinite postponement of Plan 17-26. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Craven, seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer, that we postpone indefinitely PLN MJSUV 17-26, RML Citation, Hill and Meyer, Interest LTD. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay. Motion is approved. And then at the bottom of the first page, MJDP 17-00042, RML citation. We do have a favorable approval from the staff on this, but at the subdivision committee, it was requested that the design engineer for the detention basin come to speak on behalf of this project. And he was unable to make this meeting at an emergency come up. And for this reason, I'd like to postpone it to the next hearing. Postpone it until the next year? No, hearing. Oh, next hearing. I was getting ready to say, I'm sorry, that's what happens when you get a little old and get a little age on you. I can't hear well. What's the date on the next hearing? Is that August the 10th? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Okay, August the 10th. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Anyone on the commission? Ready for a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move for one month postponement to August the 10th. Not a month, but next hearing date for PLNMJP 17-42. It has been properly moved by Mr. Frank Penn, second by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we postpone for one month or until August the 10th, PLNMJDP 17-42, RML citation, Hill and Meyer interest LTD. Any discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. All right, thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? If not, then we're ready to move to our first hearing as Manchester Development. That's what I'm going to do. I'm throwing all that stuff away. Mr. Mark. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the first item to be heard on your agenda today is on page 2. It is Major Development Plan 17-54, the Manchester Development, also known as Distillery District East, Unit 1. And you will please note that we've handed out revised conditions to you on the lovely mint green. This is a final development plan for 34 townhouses. You can see in this location in the distillery adaptive reuse project. Here we have Oliver Lewis Way in this location. How's that? Oh, there we go. All right. Once again, 34 townhouses being proposed in the distillery district adaptive reuse project area. We have Oliver Lewis Way in this location. This is Manchester Street. And, of course, Tar Trace, which is the new name of what was formerly Pine Street, in this location. They're proposing access here and here. It is one-way access through the development in this location. Detention here. There's some green space being proposed in the open area as well. These units you can see front on Otter Lewis Way, and these units are fronting on TAR Trace. That's both public right-of-way. The units in this location and this location are fronting on this access easement in this location, and that is the subject of a waiver request that is before you today. Specifically, the waiver request is on the lot frontage, and it applies to 11 units that are not fronting. on public right-of-way. They are fronting on the access easement, and that is the request today. As I've stated, this is part of the overall East Distillery District development. Down here, the barrel house and activities are going on, and there's been other properties added over the years. This was originally part of the project. This is not an addition. This was an original area that was approved as part of the original development. It was projected to be possibly a hotel. And as you can see, they've now come back with a strong residential component being located here. The staff has reviewed this plan and the revisions, and you can see from your handout that we have our standard conditions for a development plan. There's a couple little cleanup conditions that you can see addressing crosswalk information. As you are aware, there's a strong pedestrian component to adaptive reuse, and that is something staff wishes to encourage. Number 13 is important. I want to bring it to your attention. They're going to have to resolve the improvements to tar trace, and there's been a lot of discussion between staff and the applicant on the scope of these improvements. They've been working with traffic engineering. There's been several meetings and conversations, and people have been on site. And, again, the concern is because they're putting residential in here, you're going to have a lot of pedestrians, you're going to have people using this, as well as the known parking issues that exist. As this area becomes successful, there's demand for parking. People park up and down this street now. So there's concern that the appropriate improvements are done on this street. and I know that the exact scope of those are still under discussion with traffic engineering. Excuse me. And it's important to note, too, that Tar Trace, formerly Pine Street, was cut off by Versailles Road, so it doesn't terminate in a normal fashion. There's no cul-de-sac. Of course, that was done by governmental action, not by the applicant. But there is a lot of concern, again, about the appropriate improvements here on this street as, again, this area develops and becomes more and more vital as it goes along. The detention area, again, is located here. It slopes down, and that is particularly important in the area. The creek, of course, is back down in that direction where the water will eventually end up. Staff has reviewed this and is recommending approval of the plan. subject conditions. We are also recommending approval of the waiver based on infill and redevelopment facilitation. Again, as you're aware, that is a component of your subregs, that when we have infill and redevelopment, that we try to encourage it by reviewing and recommending waivers that are consistent with the intent of the subdivision regulations, public health and safety. Again, there's only 11 units out of the total of 34 need to front on the easement. They have an internal circulation pattern with parking and access. And there'll be access to the public right-of-way for pedestrians as well. So again, we're recommending approval of the waiver as well as the plan. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. The applicant? Good afternoon. Kevin Phillips with Interest Engineering. I have a required affidavit for the posting of the sign on the property for the infield and redevelopment for the areas. um we don't have anything to add to the staff's report i did bring a couple of an aerial photo that shows a larger area just to show you that termination uh tom had reference uh sir yeah good to mike thank you um so this is the just an aerial of the property as it's as it's sort of undeveloped now tar trace as it terminates it was cut off when it was pine street and they did for sales road improvements that was terminated some number of years ago our development is obviously here um so again i just wanted to show you what that termination looked like that the highway department left for us um again i don't think i have anything else to add there the agreed to the revised 13 conditions that staff has provided to you we had the the last item number 13 was to resolve the half section improvements to tar trace and I believe Mr. Murphy has met with traffic engineering yesterday or the day before and have come to some agreement about what would be done to tar trace and the driveways that will extend out to it. Other than that we would request your approval and answer any questions. Any questions of the applicant? Okay thank you. Anyone would like to to speak to this proposal from the audience. We're through with you at this time. Thank you. Hello. My name is Jeff Morgan. I live in Lexington in Childsburg at 605 Spadeleaf Park. I wanted to thank the traffic engineering for taking so much time to meet us out on work through some of the issues and the concerns that they had. Unfortunately, Mr. Murphy is a little late today coming from Nicholasville. He's not here, but he was able to meet with them again and discuss all the items, their concerns, and I think everybody worked together well to create a solution that benefited the city and the partnership that owns the property. So I think the plan is a good plan. I've done a lot of the townhouse developments recently in town. And this is a neat opportunity to work in the distillery district. I think the architecture that they're proposing for the development really reflects the distillery district and that kind of energy that's going on over there. So we're really looking forward to working in that area. So thank you very much. I appreciate it. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the audience? Oh, you have a question? Yeah. Okay. Anyone else from the audience would like to speak to this plan? Okay. Now we'll have questions, and Mr. Penn's got a first one. Yeah. While we've got you here, Kevin, number 13, that tar trace is such an important part of this development. development, do you see any reasons why that you and Traffic can't work out the issues on tar trace? No, no, that's why. Mr. Murphy had met with Jeff Neal of Traffic Engineering earlier in the week. Watch out, he may run over you, he's in a hurry. Oh, there he is, sorry. So I'll let him speak to that, but I think that's the situation. I'm sorry, I was in an oral argument in Jessamyn Circuit Court with Bruce Simpson. Simpson. It was supposed to last one hour, but it went two hours and 15 minutes. So I apologize to you all very much. The on revised condition 13, we did. I did discuss this last night with Jeff Deal, Neil, director of division of traffic engineering. We worked out an agreement on this one on what we were going to do on the half sections and how the units would orient. There were five items on this, Annette, in our agreement, which I promised to say in the record, and my clients can tackle me if I say anything wrong here. There's Joe Gothrop in the back. As you all know, the owners of this are Joe Gothrop and Malia Hoard. Joe is one of the leading builders in town, one of the pioneer female builders. She's built over 1,000 units here in Fayette County. and in Winchester she's been on the Green Space Commission and she's been on the Comprehensive Plan Committees as well. Malia is also experienced in building and they've chosen Jeff Morgan to build this and you all know Jeff has experienced in infill. He's done the South Broadway development. He's doing the building you see going up on Main Street right now next to Main and Rose. It's going to be a bank with residential condominiums above that and he's working on Jefferson and Maryland those are going up as well. So we've got a real good team to do this. And we appreciate working with Mr. Steve Parker and Casey and Mr. Jeff Neal of Traffic Engineering and the staff. And what we agreed to last night was number one that on these properties that face tar trace, which is right over here, here's tar trace coming down, which you all know is disconnected at this point. We had talked at one point about having gates over the driveways, and we agreed to no individual gates over driveways. Traffic engineering is okay with us having the interior entrance as a gated area as long as we comply with the fire department's requirements, which we will and we understand. The third part is we agreed to do the half section along tar trace, which includes some widening of tar trace, curb, gutter, sidewalk along tar trace. We agreed to do that. The big thing, I think, from Mr. Neal's suggestion is you see we have 12 units here which have driveways on the tar trace. We agreed to combine those so there would be, in other words, the driveway would go down the property line, so there would, in essence, be six driveways serving 12 units here to cut down the number of access points on the property. That would give us also larger landscape areas between the two driveways. So we agreed on that. That was the fourth thing. And number five, he said we would prohibit parking on our side of tar trace on this one with the standard signs and that sort of thing. And, of course, I wasn't here for the first part. I think we're in agreement with the rest of the conditions. Yes, Kevin is nodding his head. And so we wanted to just report to you how we were resolving these things with traffic. and obviously they have a sign-off on it, and so they'll be making sure we comply with those. But that's where we're at, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Yeah, we were discussing that, and the subdivision committee, Mr. Murphy, you know that was the major concern of this whole project. I think you've made great progress. I just wanted to get you on the record that that's what's going to happen, and with that and the waiver, I think we're in good shape. Thank you. Oh, yes, we are requesting a waiver of the lot frontage for these units here, which aren't on the street, and these units down here. And we do have a, I think you're required to make a finding that this agrees with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. We did put a comprehensive plan compliance statement in there, and I think Kevin's just handed me your finding and that you've got the waiver required and also possibly accept the compliance statement regarding the comprehensive plan. As you all know, this is infill. If this isn't infill, nothing's infill. This is infill, which is the goal of our 2013 comprehensive plan to allow density on vacant land within, especially this close to downtown, Rupp Arena, UK, and all that sort of thing. So I think if this doesn't agree with the comprehensive plan, I don't think you'll find a piece of property that does agree with the comprehensive plan in this community. So thank you very much, and I'm sorry, again, sorry I was late. And your reasons for being later properly noted, I think, with both humor and with sincerity. Thank you. And we've already asked if there was anyone from the audience that wanted to speak, and we've already had that taken care of. so we'll close this part of the meeting and come back to the commission. Do you all have any general questions, first of all, of any of the either the applicant or the staff? Mr. Lawrence. Thank you. Just touching on what Mr. Murphy just mentioned as far as compliance, do we need a condition statement? I'm not seeing that we've got that covered anywhere. I think that would be covered in sign-off of traffic engineering. Okay. Mr. Martin. As I stated earlier, it's already part of an adaptive reuse project area that's been approved, and the area complies with the comp plan, so it would just be redundant to state, I think, that this one complies, because that's a given from staff's perspective. It's already an approved adaptive review use area, and this is an acceptable legal use. So I don't think you really, if you'd like to, please go ahead, but I don't think you really need to. Okay. Any other questions of either the applicant or staff related to this particular agenda item? If not, then we'll close this part of the hearing, and we're ready for either additional discussion or a motion. And we'll need two motions. and the second motion, when we vote on the waiver, I'd like to have that with findings clarification. Mr. Owens. I move for approval of Plan MJDP 17-54, Manchester Development, LLC, with the 13 noted revised conditions. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve PLN MJDP 17-54 Manchester Development LLC Distillery District East Unit 1 with the 13 revised conditions provided by staff. Any additional discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, motion carries. Now we need a motion for the waiver, and please include with that waiver the findings as well. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of the findings for the petition for Waves of Land Subdivision Regulation associated with Plan MJDP 17-54 Distillery District East, Unit 1, amended for the reasons recommended by the staff. Second. Okay. It's been properly moved again by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve the waiver for PLNMJDP 17-54, Distillery District East Unit 1. This comes with the approval of the waiver along with findings. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Sorry for the delay. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Next. Mr. Chairman, that concludes the subdivision. and development plan. So we can move to the zoning items at this time. Okay. Let me ask you this. Did you vote? You got it now? Check. Thank you. . Technology. Technology. Mr. Penn and Ms. Richardson, can we record your vote from the last on the waiver, please? Were they affirmative? Mr. Penn? Yes. Did you vote in the affirmative? Affirmative on the waiver? Yes. Thank you. We'll see if that resets. Okay, Ms. Wade. Thank you, Chairman Wilson. And our next item is a zone change request, and it is PLN MAR 17-24. This is a request by Windale Development, LLC. And they are requesting a rezoning of 3455 Saybrook Road from an agricultural urban zone to a single-family residential, which is our R1, in this case, an R1D zone for the property. The staff has received one email related to this request, so I'll pass that around to the commission for review. The subject property is 10 acres in size, and it is located at the end of what is Saybrook Road here in Fayette County. This property is located somewhat in the southeast portion of the county. the major collector streets and arterials in this region, just on the aerial, and then we'll move to the bigger map, are Boston Road to the east of the subject property. Cromwell Way is south of the subject property. And then I'm going to move over here to the larger map. Again, this is Boston Road running to the east of the subject property, which connects to Monticello Boulevard north of the subject property, Clay's Mill to the west of the subject property, and then Manowar south of the subject property. So this property is located between two single-family residential subdivisions, Monticello and Robin Wood. Yes, Robin Wood. And all of the surrounding property, with the exception of a parcel just to the south or a portion of a parcel, is R1C, which is another single-family residential zone in our community. And that's reflected on this zone map here with the yellow highlighting. The green slice just to the south is not part of the subject property, but it is AU. It's actually something that LFUCG owns but does not, I guess, maintain. It's part of the floodplain, so there's really no need to do much maintenance on that property, and it's not actively used. The applicant is asking to rezone this property from an AU zone to an R1D, again, which is a single-family residential zone. They're proposing 18 single family lots on the subject property, which is a density of 1.78 dwelling units per acre. The property does have South Elkhorn Creek crossing it, so a good portion of the property is in a flood plain and is not developable. The applicant is extending Saybrook Road into the property and And then providing single family or wants to provide single family residential lots on one side for the most part of that road. This property has a little bit of recent history and then also some history from the 1960s coming forward. In 1969, the property was rezoned to the existing AU zone and has remained in that zone since that time. Prior to that, it was actually in an industrial zone and utilized for a private waste water treatment plant for the adjoining neighborhoods. When the sewers became available, our public sewers became available in the area, that sewage treatment plant was taken offline. And the subject property The subject property actually became a sort of a park for a short period of time in the 1980s into the early 90s. In 1994, there was a proposal to rezone the property, which was withdrawn by ball homes at that time, due to neighborhood concerns about environmental degradation on the property and also just general concerns about development in this location. Since 1994, the property has remained vacant and really just grown up with existing trees on the site and honeysuckle until recently. In 2015, the applicant under a different name proposed a rezoning to an R3 zone at this location, which the Planning Commission recommended disapproval of, and the applicant withdrew their application. In 2016, last year the Planning Commission also heard a presentation requesting R3 for the subject site. And the Planning Commission recommended approval at that time. However, the council disapproved the zone change request last year, which involved also single family residential, but at a higher density than what's proposed today. That brings us to 2017 with a now third proposal by the applicant, at this point under a different LLC name. But they are asking the Planning Commission this time to rezone to a single family residential zone. And again, citing the comprehensive plan and agreement with the plan as their justification for this rezoning. Just a few other photographs of the area. It is entirely green. These are the adjoining residential lots. You can see the existing infrastructure stops at the property. This is South Elkhorn Creek nearby as it's approaching the subject property. And then on the other side of the subject property in Cromwell, which is south of the subject property. The applicant cited several goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan in terms of residential infill, providing well designed neighborhoods, supporting the community's green infrastructure because their infrastructure plans, because they're staying out of the floodplain. Also enhancing our urban neighborhoods by creating a desirable community. and also doing context-sensitive and contiguous development in this infill site. At this point, the staff does agree with the applicant that their proposal to an R1D zone is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, where we disagreed about the R3 zone previously. We do think that this is the most appropriate zone and had mentioned that in the past two zoning hearings for the subject property and at this point are happy to see that the applicant is, we feel, fully complying with the 2013 comprehensive plan, not just in terms of use being context sensitive, but also providing a single loaded street next to the open space, allowing the open space to be not in or on private properties, but rather in an HOA or potentially given or transferred to the city, which provides for better protection of those environmental spaces. So the staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning, and the reasons are provided on your agenda, the findings related to that. The zoning committee also recommended approval three weeks ago for this request. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the proposed rezoning. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Mr. Penn. When I look at this at first blush, the 1.7 acre dwelling units per acre triggers to me, but if you take out the floodplain, do you know what that translates to? Is it four or five units per acre? I would say it's probably maybe three or four. Under four. I think doubling the density is about right because the floodplain is about half of the property, so in the range of three and a half to four. Okay. Because at first blush, that looks like that's not as dense as everything around it. But when you take that out, it makes sense. If you look at the aerial photograph, I think it's a little misleading just because it's bound on every side by cul-de-sacs. So oftentimes those cul-de-sac lots are larger than the average R1C lot is. But in this case, these lots are smaller than many of the adjoining. Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Wade? Applicant? Mr. Martin, I'm sorry. I apologize for doing that. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Let me see if I can find the right page. Here we go. Page four. Page four. Thank you. This is a preliminary development plan and a preliminary subdivision plan. 17-56, the Winding Creek at Monticello, and we have passed out once again to you revised conditions on this particular plan. As you can see, Saybrook Drive will be extended into the site, terminating in a cul-de-sac here. But with a cul-de-sac in this location, there are 18 buildable lots, with the 19th being the floodplain lot here. And you can see the floodplain. We've delineated for you the 25-foot setback off of that 100-year floodplain. These lots, in terms of size, there's actually only three lots that are under 8,000 square feet. Now, R1D has a 6,000 square foot minimum. R1C has the 8,000. So all the rest of these lots actually exceed the R1C in size. So there's only three, and they are all larger than the minimum in R1D. So that helps with the size of the lot situation. The plan is being recommended for approval with just very few conditions, as you can see. One is to denote the size of an existing sanitary sewer easement that comes through here and down, and there's manholes, manholes, comes over through here, again another manhole, and then an easement that runs through there. We just like to have that size clearly designated. Not so much out of any concern here, but the impact on this buildable lot is of particular importance, because they're going to have to stay off of that easement, possibly if they have to relocate some things, which I'm sure they would rather not do. With that, we also, they need to delineate the amount of street and feet. That's just a minor cleanup item. That's a requirement, not just a total right away, which they've given us, but actually the linear feet is one of your subdivision requirements. And then again, denoting the status of this plan as both a preliminary subdivision and a preliminary development plan. This will allow them to build the infrastructure off this plan and then come back with a final record plat and build houses without a final development plan. That's not something we want to impose on single-family homes, is a final development plan. So they'll do that. It is worth talking about this 4.9 acres of floodplain and this lot right here. There's been a lot of discussion about maintenance of this property. And again, in relationship with government-owned parcel here, with the history that this was a park at one time, no longer is, there's considerable sentiment that this be publicly maintained. That is outside your purview. That is not anything you can mandate. That is up to the Urban County Council if they want to maintain this property. However, what you can do, and you see we have a condition, discuss maintenance of Lot 19. Staff is recommending that this be an HOA lot, and it be stated that the HOA will be required to maintain Lot 19. And that is what needs to be done here. That is certainly within the purview of the Planning Commission to recommend that and require that. One of the other issues that came up is the fact there is, you saw the pictures, it's heavily wooded, beautiful, nice green area. There's a very large 36-foot-inch, pardon me, sycamore that they delineated in this location. It is well out of the buildable area on this lot. Here's the 25-foot setback. That's a structural setback. The most they'll do down in here is grade this lot in order to get a foundation, a building footprint on this lot. And again, they'll all have positive drainage as well. That's just a requirement of our development standards. This, again, in staff's estimation, this tree is adequately protected from any development pressures. And, again, there are urban county staff members who go out on these sites when construction is going on to check on that sort of thing and review it. So with that, staff is recommending approval of this plan. and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions? Thank you. Now, applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission. Jacob Walburn on behalf of the applicant, Windale Development. Welcome to our two new members. The other nine of you that have been here for a long time know this history very, very well. For the benefit of our two new members, congratulations on your appointment. By the way, I would tell you that this property has a long and somewhat complicated history. I think that Tracy did a reasonable job of explaining to you. For about 23 years, people have been looking to do a development on this lot and have run into numerous challenges. I'm pleased to report to you that we have the approval of the staff, that we have the approval of the Robinwood Neighborhood Association, and we have the approval of the Juanicello Neighborhood Association, which I don't believe that trifecta has ever come together in the past. So I'm pleased to be able to report that. There may be a few folks here to object outside of that, but I want to publicly acknowledge the two neighborhood associations and express my gratitude for them sitting down with us. I think there was a productive give and take. I don't think any side ended up with everything they wanted, and frankly that's probably how this is supposed to go. So I'm very pleased that we've been able to come up with a plan that meets with staff's approval. I will reserve the bulk of my comments in case they are needed for rebuttal. I know you all know that I get paid by the PowerPoint slide. I'm going to resist the strong urge to go into a lengthy PowerPoint. We'll reserve my comments for rebuttal. I do want to address the few issues that Mr. Martin raised in his presentation just to tell you where we are on them. By and large, we have no issue with them. With regard to the sanitary sewer easement, we don't believe there's actually a recorded easement for that line. We think the reason for that is this was originally a sewer treatment facility, and there wasn't an easement needed to go onto the property to run the lines in. We will make sure that the line is protected and will work to the satisfaction of sanitary sewers to make sure that that line is not impacted. I do anticipate that we may have to do some utility and sewage line relocation, but we will work with the Division of Sanitary Sewers on that point. The other issue is Lot 19, and I know there are neighbors in the audience, So I want to be very clear and unequivocally state on the record that the developer 100% supports Lot 19 going to the possession of the urban county government. We are ready, willing, and able to make that transfer. But much as the planning commission is unable to compel the council to take property, I'm not able to do it any better than you are. So we are continuing to work with the urban county government in the hopes that the urban county government will agree to take possession of that property. There have been discussions about having it be a passive open space with wild grasses and wildflowers, and I think it would be a lovely amenity to this development. In the interim, we are agreeable to a note that provides for HOA maintenance. I might suggest a slight tweak to that note that Lot 19 shall be maintained by the HOA unless and until the property is accepted by the urban county government. That way we don't have an ongoing obligation should it ever transfer. But other than that, we are fully agreeable to a note of that effect. But I did want to say on the record unequivocally, it's not our desire that the HOA, that NHOA hold that lot. We certainly do want to give it to the government. We'll continue to work so that can happen because I do know that that is a significant point of concern among the neighbors. Other than that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have of me. I appreciate your time and would request your ratification of staff's recommendation of approval. Any questions? Thank you. It's now time for our citizens' comments. We'd like to take those who are for this particular agenda item first, and then those who would like to speak against it, we'll get an opportunity a little bit later. Anyone here would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item? Well, please come forward if you'd like. We are, for the sake of time, about three minutes to max. Thank you. Hi, I'm Angela Hattiex Carpenter. I actually live at 3420 Stillwater, which does not abut this property, but it's about a half a block over. I would like to thank Mr. Walburn for meeting with us several times with residents of the neighborhood. We've had several meetings. Although I don't think any of us really want the property to be developed, We also understand that it has been bought by Mr. Perry and it will be developed one way or the other. We're very pleased that they were very gracious to meet with us and with our residents and to discuss our issues. We're very happy that they want to take the five acres of floodplain and turn it into a park. Renee Park Mooney, who is a resident on Saybrook, she's been very influential in dealing with the city on this. I know she has stated that several people within the green space authority, et cetera, are happy to take this on as a green space within the city of Lexington. If not, I'm assuming it will be taken over by the HOA of the development. and I think it's the best compromise any of us could get. We're very happy that all this turned out the way it did, and I have no objections. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item? My name's Robin Young with the Robin Wood Neighborhood Association, and my heart is so overwhelmed I'm to tears. And I want to thank everyone, everyone here in the city of Lexington, all of you, and Mr. Walburn, are you Mr. Perry? No. Okay. And Mr. Perry, I'm not sure if we've seen him or not, But it's been a learning experience, but it is a good example how this can be worked out. And a lot of neighbors have worked hard. A lot of neighbors knocked on doors. We talked. We worked together. And Mr. Walburn contacted us, said, will you meet with us? And that was wonderful. And I just want to thank everybody. It's been a journey. And Renee is Parks Mooney. Her heart has been in it, too. And she's on a well-deserved trip to Switzerland, if she watches us later. And she sent emails last night. I don't know if she can send an email from Switzerland. I don't know. But she was sending out emails last night. And I appreciate you. Okay, thank you. Anyone else would like to speak in favor of this particular? I'm Janet Piosky. I have stood here before as an objector for 24 years, starting with Ball Home. And I have to say that we are extremely grateful for the work of the staff in the last three, four years during several attempts to develop the property. And just extremely impressed with the thorough work that they did. And we are very grateful. Yes, this. And we are very grateful for the way things have turned out. We are in the property that is directly at the end, we're the last house on the street currently. And so we are impacted and to look at possibly 18 houses with 30 some extra cars up and down the street, traffic with the kids, It's much better than the first one with the 27 houses. So we appreciate all the work that's gone into this. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else to speak on behalf of this particular? Amy Clark at 628 Castle Road. I too just think it's a wonderful, wonderful day. This is a happy ending for this and I would like especially to thank Mr. Auburn and the staff and really everyone who helped to make this possible. I don't need to repeat how grateful the neighbors are. Their hearts are in this. I support it. I have one request and I think it's something no one would really mind. You may know that on the 20th they submitted a preliminary subdivision plan for what had earlier been what we used to call a ZDP. the development plan that accompanies the zone change. And that means this is your last really thorough going through review of it. Mr. Martin mentioned there are concerns about the trees. A lot of that is addressed in one of the notes on the plan where it talks about being careful about trees and not removing those over six inches in the floodplain area, which is lot 19. That's all great. What there really isn't is exactly a tree protection plan, and your zoning ordinance requires that a preliminary subdivision plan have a tree protection plan. I would request that you simply add a note that the tree protection plan shall be approved by the urban forester. And I think we can trust them to do this and do it well and do it right, because look at all the help they've given to try and help this come about in the way that it should. Of particular concern, a tree protection plan will make judgment calls on where you need a tree protection area. And you see on your map up there the plan that's submitted to you, that there is a giant sycamore that is a yard wide in its trunk. and that it qualifies it as a significant tree. It's also significant in this context, not officially, technically, but just important. Because it's a riparian tree, it sucks up water. The zoning ordinance specifies that if a tree is a significant tree, and this is one, is over 24 inches wide in its trunk diameter, it should have a foot and a half of tree protection area, foot and a half radius for every inch of its width. That would give it roughly a 50-foot radius, a 48-foot radius. And I've drawn that up. I've drawn it a little generous on there. But as you can see, that will clip a couple of lots some. So this is a suggestion. It's up to you. I think it would be a good idea to actually put that tree protection area on the plan here and now for a very particular reason. It's going to cut some lots that may already be challenged to have enough buildable area to have a good house and a good lot. If you do it now, you can make some judgment calls about maybe cutting some slack in a front yard variance or something. Later on, if it's just up to the urban forester, it may get a little dicey. So thank you very much. It's a wonderful thing to see, and I just can't tell you how encouraging it is to think that if you really do the process carefully, it can work. And just as a last word, it's a rare thing when not one but two neighborhoods find the leadership and find the unity of purpose to come together and come into agreement with the developer on how to add density to their neighborhood. I think it's wonderful. So I would ask you to add the note that a tree protection plan shall be approved by the urban forester or in whatever way is actually most correct to put it. and also to consider that particular tree protection area if you need to give it special attention now. Thank you. Ms. Clark, one of the things my colleagues just pointed out to me, we may have addressed this issue that you just brought up in item number four, but I'll let the staff deal with that when we get to it in the rebuttal. But if it's different than what you think should be there, you'll have a chance to come back. If I may say, the tree inventory map is required with the zoning development plan, and the staff has assured you that that is complete and correct. With the addition of the tree that you now do see on this subdivision plan, what I'm asking for is the next stage, which belongs to the preliminary subdivision plan that this turned into about a week ago. So it's, as far as I know, not something you did review as such in committee as a preliminary subdivision plan. So the tree protection plan is what I'm after. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Anyone else would like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay, then what we'll do then is recycle a little bit and go back to the petitioner The applicant would like to address? Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Anyone that would like to object to this particular agenda plan? My name is Otto Piosky. I live at 3451 Saybrook Road and have lived with my wife Janet and my mother-in-law there for 24 years. We are the property immediately adjacent to, I believe, what they are calling lot number one. The proposed housing development plan is good. The process of dialogue by which it came into existence has been very good, nevertheless. I and others are concerned about the sewage situation in the neighborhood, and I beg your patience in listening to our concerns. Please note that you have three minutes, sir. Thank you. As has been demonstrated previously, homes which are downflow from this proposed development are already having severe interior raw sewage overflow events. If the proposed homes are built and occupied prior to this problem being resolved, it is reasonable to expect that these events will continue and worsen. Further, should the sewer line flow system not be fully repaired prior to the building and occupation of these homes, it is possible that my home and other homes upflow along Saybrook Road will begin to experience similar interior raw sewage backup events. In response to this possible damage to my home, I have purchased for this type of event a portable sump pump, which with its hose will pump 340 gallons of fecal contaminated water out of my sewer system into my lawn, which will end up in lot number one on the road and eventually in South Elkhorn Creek. If 10 of my neighbors were to do the same thing for a reasonable overflow event of raw sewage of 10 hours, it could fill the large pool at Chillitoe Park. One of my near neighbors has decided to go to the route of getting a canvas bag not unlike this, opening the sewer access cover, dropping it with sand in, and then blocking that sewer pipe so that no raw sewage could flow back into his house, as has happened numerous times on the flow down end of Saybrook. The problem with that solution is that it will then cause backup to occur in more homes up the street. And if people follow his example, it'll then move up to Halifax. I ask the following of you. I ask that the sewer line solution be developed and then installed and then tested for effectiveness before the sewer lines of the houses in this proposed development are connected to the sewer system, specifically. I ask that this plan be approved with the condition that the sewer improvements needed are made, installed, tested, and proved effective before the sewer lines to the new houses are connected. I ask you to do this. I ask you to approve this condition and modification. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to express a concern related to this particular agenda item? Okay. Seeing none, then we'll go back to what we call the rebuttal stage, which is, Ms. Walden, you're up. I'll keep my comments very brief. We're mindful of the sewer issue. We were aware of it before. As this body is aware, there are development guidelines that are required to be met that I believe will satisfy the sewer concerns. I think in position of a condition like that, one that I'm not, and your counsel can advise you as to what you're able to do, I don't believe would be an effective condition, I wouldn't recommend going to that extreme step. One of the things, just so you can know that we're mindful of this issue, that we've looked into it, we've spoken with the Division of Water Quality and Charlie Martin about sewer improvements that are going to be needed in this area. To be frank, these are old pipes, some of them clay, that need to be replaced. As you can imagine, a fairly substantial overhaul of a neighborhood sewer system is an expensive undertaking, a time-consuming undertaking, and it's going to cause some fairly substantial interference with the neighbors use and enjoyment of their properties that they own right now. I'm told that that solution is on the way. In fact, one of the things that we're trying to do is time some of our construction at the same time that construction is scheduled to take place on Saybrook so that there's minimal disruption to the neighbors universally. It'll be a big project. I mean, we'll have our equipment there. The urban county government hopefully will be replacing lines at the same time. We're going to try to time those at the same time as to not overly burden the neighborhood with years long of construction projects. That said, I don't think a condition of the variety that was proposed is legally permissible, and certainly we will comply with the guidelines, new development guidelines, as imposed by the zoning ordinance and the code of ordinances, but I don't think an extreme condition like that is warranted. The other thing that was brought up was the tree protection area. that sycamore is not going anywhere we do not intend to touch that sycamore we would ask that you just impose a condition that we work with the urban forester i think the urban forester's compliance was speculated as maybe being a little dicey i think mr query does an excellent job we'd be happy to work with him to make sure there's no damage to the sycamore but we don't think it's appropriate to impose a specific area of exclusion beyond that that the urban forester thinks what was appropriate. Other than that, I'm gratified by the supportive comments. Appreciate them very much. Would happily entertain any of your questions, but would note that staff recommended approval and we'd ask for the same based on the conditions that they have required. Thank you. Well, we may ask you some questions later when we have a little bit more open dialogue, but thank you for that. To the gentleman who objected, do you have any additional thoughts based on what you just heard here related to how they're planning. Yes, sir, please come forward to the microphone. Thank you for offering me this opportunity. I'm having a little problem hearing, but I believe part of what I just heard in the comments while made was that this condition I suggested is not legally allowed. When When Dr. King wrote his letter from the Birmingham jail, he quoted St. Thomas Aquinas, his summary of theology. In the first section of the second part of that, St. Thomas said, any action which is necessary in response to an unjust ruling is moral. I don't care if this condition is right, a law, or whatever. It is a good suggestion. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Yes, Ms. Clark. Just to respond to Mr. Walvern about the tree protection area and to clarify whoever it was who said we've got that already in the conditions. A tree protection plan, and I put the ordinance into the record, is required of a preliminary subdivision plan. Its review is required. It's required before Planning Commission votes on it. So I do think it's important that one be submitted and reviewed by the staff and at least a condition of staff approval. This is a train that we don't need to stop. It's going fast and going to a good place, and it's seen too many delays and thwartings. So I think staff would be enough, but I do think it's important that there be a plan and that it have a staff approval denoted on the subdivision plan. And I would add that there's a note on that plan. You can see in the margins all the perimeter of the property. It says potential 15-foot easement or buffer or something. I think that was originally intended as a tree buffering to all the neighbors, so that would also come within a tree protection plan. I think it's important that it be set forth in all clarity and reviewed. Thank you. Thank you. Staff? I would add to that that these plans sometimes get filed as preliminary development plans, and then with single-family residential, we recommend they be preliminary subdivision plans. A preliminary development plan does not require a tree protection plan, but it is correct. The ordinance does require a tree protection plan on a preliminary subdivision plan. So it would be very simple to add to number four the urban foresters' approval of the tree inventory map and the tree preservation plan. That would be a very simple correction, and that would be consistent with requirements of your ordinance. And I would, while I'm up here on number nine, I would just change that to resolve maintenance of lot 19. I think that'll do it. So let me just clarify. The number four then could read Urban Forester's approval of tree inventory map and tree protection plan. Yes, sir. Okay. Any questions? Now, if the rebuttal is over with, I'm going to allow the commission members, if they have any questions to ask of either the applicant, the citizens, or the staff, now is the time if you need clarification on anything. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Whether it's for the staff or engineering, since it was raised as far as sewage overflow and so forth, maybe get some clarification from someone. in regards to that. I, of course, am not an engineer, but I will be glad to try to answer your question as I understand the system and how things work. I'm sure engineering and their sign-offs take care of sanitary sewers. And as you're aware, Mr. Owens, they will submit fully detailed construction plans that will be evaluated as to their design and their function, and they are aware of the area's problems and issues. So would engineering have any knowledge of what was said to be sewage overflows and improvements down the road for that? I am not sure about that. I do understand there's been communications with water quality because they're the ones that are, of course, are spending the millions of dollars on the improvements throughout our community to address our water quality issues and our overflows and that sort of thing. In this particular situation, engineering it refers to here, of course, is the urban county engineer and the new development section of engineering that will review the plans. But they communicate. I guess the only other thing would be as far as capacity. Oh, yes, sir. Capacity is always part of it. Yes. Thank you, sir. Any other questions from the commission? Let me just clarify one thing from my perspective. The gentleman indicated what he had heard, and I heard you say that as a part of the development that you all are addressing, would you please clarify that statement? You said something about working on these pipes at the same time, et cetera, et cetera. Sure. We had a couple of meetings with the neighborhood associations. At the initial meeting, several concerns were laid out. Primarily it was around the floodplain lot and the density. But one issue that did come up substantially in the council hearing on this matter, but also at that meeting was what to do about sanitary sewer, that there had been some existing sanitary sewer problems. In endeavoring to resolve those concerns prior to our next meeting, I contacted representatives of the Division of Water Quality and basically said, what's causing the problem out there? Now, you ask seven different engineers, you'll probably get seven different answers on what's the problem with that system, but I think it boils down primarily to two, maybe three things. They're old pipes, you're getting some cracks in them, so water will infiltrate. that's huge problem number one number two and and the neighbors don't necessarily believe this to be a problem but i was told this by water quality sometimes people will put their storm sewer into the sanitary sewer it's an illegal tap you're not allowed to do it but when it rains it floods the system and so infiltration plus illegal taps is what's going to cause the bulk of your overflows i am aware that there's an overflow issue historically has been an overflow issue in the area. I am aware that the Division of Water Quality intends to do substantial rehabilitation and replacement work in the area. In terms of the urban county government's exact timing, I can't speak to that. I do know it's contemplated. The scale of that project, someone from Water Quality would probably have to tell you. I do know that we've committed to the neighbors that we are going to work with Water Quality to try to time our improvements with theirs. Sanitary sewers is going to have to sign off as Mr. Martin mentioned. I do think that capacity issue will be resolved prior to anyone moving into these houses but that's a sign off that the urban county government's typically going to give. My concern with the condition is typically conditions are imposed that the applicant can meet. We're permitted to go forward with our development when certain requirements placed on us have been satisfied. If the requirement is the urban county government has to finish. That's my concern about the legality of the concerns. It's not that the concern is not well taken. It's not that we're not deeply concerned about the same thing. We're downhill of the gentleman that spoke. We're going to get inflows first. So you're not going to have difficulty selling new houses with sewage inflows. I'm not a real estate expert, but I think I can tell you that pretty safely. So I do think this is an issue that we're certainly going to have to resolve before it comes on. I would just, and it's not my job to caution you as to your legal obligations, but I would be remiss if I didn't object to a condition that my client can't meet of their own accord because I don't think that's the type you can impose. That's why I raise that objection. And I was just asking for clarification because I wanted him to hear to the degree that he could. Not to say that he has to always agree with it, but he didn't hear perhaps all the whole explanation that you've given. That's all. And I would say that Ms. Mooney, who's not here today, who's with one of the neighborhood associations, I'll try to use a polite adjective. Very diligent. She frequently contacts Mr. Martin and her council person about the sewage issues in this area. I believe the developer is going to try to work with council in their water quality as well. I think the neighbors are going to have this problem licked long before we're ready to build. Okay. Thank you very, very much. Any other questions, comments? Okay, Ms. Mundy. I think this is for staff. Probably Tom, I think. I know that we have a previous existing, already existing sewage condition possibility in the adjacent neighborhood. But I guess my concern is what makes this new development any different than any other new development with regard to sewage? In other words, they're going to upgrade, they're going to do what they need to do with regard to the new sewage lines that are put in. It is not this developer's responsibility to fix or deal with what they have coming at them, just like in any other new development. Is that correct? That is correct. Now, our staff and our divisions are aware of these problems, and they take these things into account. and they certainly try to coordinate when they can and again they are addressing these issues all over town again as i stay spending tremendous amount of money one one program of the consent decree is that we are redirecting the sump pumps out of this sanitary sewer and into the stormwater where they belong a lot of folks don't know and you'll forgive me for the history lesson but once upon a time the plumbing code actually required that and of course that was way they did it in the old days they didn't have any problem with but so that's that is one a very active program under the consent decree okay okay mr fan thank you mr martin i i'm not real clear on this five acres it's going to be maintained by the homeowners association unless the council votes to take that over. That's a pretty good area to have to maintain. My question is, is that are we all on record realizing that if the council doesn't take this over, that the Homeowner Association will have that from now on? There will need to be either the developer, the owner, or an HOA is going to have to maintain that until such time the government would choose to take it over, if they so choose to do so. Right. Okay, we've got that on the record. All right, thank you. Any other questions for the staff? Any other questions from any of the, from Mr. Walden or anyone else? If not, then I'm going to close this part of the commission. We'll bring it back to the commission itself. And I'm ready for either additional discussion and or a motion. We'll need two of them. I'd like to, Mr. Chairman, go back to what I thought was the seminal comment here. We've got the trifecta. I love the term, love the winner trifecta, and we got it here. It seems like the two staff, Neighborhood Association, and the applicant. So let's just further discussion. I'll make a motion for approval. Okay. You have a second? Is there anybody? I'm not jumping on anybody. No, you can go ahead. You can make them. Yep. Move for approval of PLN MAR 17-24 Wendell. Okay. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Patrick Brewer and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve. Do we want to change number nine to resolve? No, wait, wait, wait, no, wait, I'm sorry, that's all right, I got you covered over here. Mr. Chairman, if I may, and that's for the reasons provided by the staff. Yes. Thank you for the motion. Okay, good, you've covered me well on both ends. So now the motion has been made by Mr. Patrick Brewer and seconded by Ms. and Monday that we approve PLN MAR 17-24 Windell Development LLC for the reasons provided by staff. Any other discussion on that motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, the motion carries. Now we go to the development plan and make note of the fact that there are two changes. On number four, you add Urban Forester's approval of tree inventory map and tree protection plan. And then down at number nine, you strike the word discussed and resolve maintenance of lot number 19. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MJDP 17-56 with the changes in note four to add and tree protection plan and change discussed to resolve and number nine. Second. Okay, Mr. Apache Brewer has moved approval, and Ms. Karen Mundy has seconded that we approve the PLN MJDP 17-56 Winding Creek at Monticello with two changes. Number four, adding the tree protection plan, and number 10, strike the word discuss and put the word resolve in. Any other discussion on that motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when that comes up on the screen? Thank you. The motion carries. Thank you very, very much. We have just, I think, one more item. Thank you. Thank you. Are you ready? Please proceed. Thank you. This is ZODA 2017-5. It's on page four of your agenda and you can find it behind tab two in your notebooks. This is the text amendment that we asked you to initiate back in April. And it has two basic purposes, the first and the primary being to move some uses from the conditional use category to the principle permitted and accessory use categories. There are several articles in the zoning ordinance, as you can see several articles that are being affected, but it's mainly going to affect Article 1, which is the definition section. Article 3, which is the general regulations. in Article 8 which contains most of the zones and their uses and their requirements. The reason we asked you to initiate this is we think that it'll have multiple benefits changing the conditional uses to principle and accessory uses will provide better government and customer service. It'll hopefully adjust the workload of the staff, give us time to have more efficient use of our time. And then it'll reduce the number of cases that are reviewed by the Board of Adjustment and acted on by the Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission with the zone change. Five of us on the staff met for several months and we reviewed every conditional use in every zone. And we came up with 14 uses that we thought were prime candidates anyway. That would be on this sheet right here with the highlights. Those are the 14 uses that we originally came up with. And we gave it to the Board of Adjustment at their February meeting and Fayette County Neighborhood Council and Fayette Alliance were both watching that meeting at that time. And they asked to be able to review this list and they did provide us some input. We considered their comments and we determined that the four that are highlighted on that use should possibly be removed for now. And then just go with the ten that are left and The ten that are left are on the cleaned up version on the second sheet there. Those are more straightforward and they would have less potential for unintended consequences. So that is the ten uses that are left are the ones that we're proposing to be changed. The zoning ordinance has four basic use categories. We've got principle permitted uses, accessory uses, conditional uses, and prohibited. Principle permitted and accessory are uses that are allowed by right. Accessory uses have to be incidental and subordinate to a principal use on the property, and they cannot be there without a principal use on the property. Conditional uses have to go to the Board of Adjustment for approval or to the Planning Commission with a zone change. And they are uses that are okay in a zone, but you would need conditions on them to be sure that there is no negative impact to the surrounding properties. And then prohibited uses are just those that are not allowed. And with regard to the conditional uses, it doesn't matter if the use is innocuous or if it's potentially disturbing. If it's an individual or a group that's applying for something, or if it's an ordinary citizen or a professional. There's the same process for everybody in the same $200 fee. And for ordinary citizens, a lot of times the process can be daunting. It's confusing sometimes. It's always time consuming though for the applicants and for the staff. They have to prepare paperwork, letters of notification to surrounding property owners. They have to do a site plan. There's an online application. And then we as a staff have to provide an upfront explanation to the people that are just ordinary citizens, and prepare a notification map and a sample notification letter for them. That's for everybody, whether it's a professional or just an ordinary citizen. When it comes back in, everything has to be reviewed by the staff for accuracy and completeness, and then ultimately for appropriateness. It has to be advertised in the Herald-Leader. We write a staff report. We do a mailing, such as you all's mailing, that goes to attorneys, applicants, Board of Adjustment members, other urban county government staff, and the applicable urban county council member. And then it's heard at a public hearing. So one of the things we want to address, in addition to moving the conditional uses to principal or accessory, We want to address the use that work from their home. We want to do that so that that'll hopefully reduce some of these cases also. Right now we have two categories and two levels of regulations for this. One is a home office, which is an accessory use, and it's allowed by right. And that is for people that work off site, like contractors or realtors or whatever, and they just want to do their paperwork at home. That's allowed by right and that's considered an accessory use. And then other uses are people that work in their home and those are home occupations and that's always been a conditional use. And some conditional uses have no impact to surrounding properties and some conditional uses have a lot of impact. And so based on that, one of the things that we're proposing is to do a three tiered approach rather than just two tiered. For home office that will stay the same, Home occupation would be considered an accessory use because we're proposing to make a home occupation as one that doesn't have any traffic coming to the house, any negative impact to surrounding properties. And then those that do, we would consider a home-based business. And so that would be a conditional use, and then the home occupation would become an accessory use just like the home office is. Just to give you an example of some of the different levels of impact, One of the home occupations has always been sewing, handicrafts, computer design, and that's one that would not have any kind of impact to surrounding properties. Wouldn't have any customers coming to the house. Another one that has always been a conditional use as a home occupation has been tutoring or individual musical instruction. That would have some traffic, obviously, and minimum of noise because it can't be any amplified instrument. So it would have to be just like piano lessons or something like that. And then this is not exactly a home occupation, but it sort of is, but family childcare has a lot of traffic and a lot of noise. And there's another, gun repair has always been considered a home occupation. And you have to ask if you would want that in a residential neighborhood, and if so, yes. Then what kind of conditions to put on this to mitigate any kind of negative impact? So what we're proposing is uses with no traffic and little to no impact would be home occupations, and those would become accessory uses. And we could just approve those in staff, in the office, give us a zoning compliance permit for that so that they could get a certificate of occupancy. And then uses that have traffic or other potentially adverse impacts would still be a conditional use, and that would be considered a home-based business as opposed to a home occupation. And then the board would be able to impose conditions to minimize any kind of negative impact. We think the three-tier approach, in addition to moving these conditional uses to principal and accessory uses, will help to reduce the number of cases to the Board of Adjustment, and that is a good thing for everybody involved. Then we have a secondary purpose to this, and that's to create and revise some definitions to clarify some uses and replace some terms in the zoning ordinance. Recreating a definition for personal care facility and then tweaking the assisted living definition. Replacing the term rest home, which is an outdated term, which is also, I mean it's the same as a personal care facility, so we're going to change that to personal care facility. And then making a definition for home based business and creating the requirements for that. Revising the definition for home occupation and the regulations for that. And then replacing the term church with place of religious assembly. And for all of this text amendment, we're recommending approval because we think it's all timely updates to the ordinance and it's about time we do this. So the three reasons would be that the proposed text amendment will have multiple benefits. It'll adjust the planning staff's workload and so that more time can be spent on reviewing the more complex cases. It'll help to provide better government service and better customer service, and it will reduce the number of applications to the Board of Adjustment. Second reason is replacing the term church with place of religious assembly as a timely update to the ordinance, because a lot of the faiths that we have in Lexington do not consider themselves a church. So we're using place of religious assembly instead of church for that. And then adding the definition of personal care facility to the zoning ordinance will help to clarify the difference between personal care facility and assisted living facility in a nursing home. And if you have any questions. Mr. Penn has a question. I'd like to answer them. Help me understand why we took up plant nurseries with no on-site sales in AR and AB. What was the reason for not bringing that forward? We thought that would be better. I mean, it could be that there would be unintended consequences. There are places that consider themselves plant nurseries, but they actually have on-site sales. I don't know of any plant nursery that doesn't have people coming to the property. Jim might be able to better answer that, but most plant nurseries have some kind of wholesale usually. And so people do come, and I don't know of any that really don't have any on-site sales. But this says with no on-site sales. I know, and we thought that that would be something that would be possible, but then when we thought about it more after that, After we got the input from the Fayette County Neighborhood Council and Fayette Alliance and we thought about it, we don't think that that would be. So you can't raise wholesale Christmas trees? You can grow plants on your property and then take them elsewhere to be sold, but. Well, I mean, if it has plenty of people grow Christmas trees and harvest them. Right, right, and that would be. And that's allowed in the AR and AB. I don't see the difference if there's no on-site sales. Most people that have the Christmas trees, though, they have on-site sales. Just some more information on the plant nurseries. That was on our original list more as a clarification. It wasn't really a change. I think you're correct, Mr. Penn. Right now, you don't have to get conditional use if there's no on-site sales, whether wholesale or retail. That's an agricultural use. That's exempt. That's right. So I change it. The reason we took that out is, for one, we had a really controversial case off Old Richmond Road that involved a plant nursery. They did have to get a condition of use because they had wholesale business on site. So it was bad timing to even bring up the word plant nursery at all. So since it was just a clarification, not a real change, we elected just to not have to mess with that, and that's why we took that off the list. So now for me to understand, right, if they don't have on-farm sales, then they don't have to get a conditional use. It's an exempt agricultural use. That's what I thought. That's what all the rest of it is. I want to go hemp. I sure don't want to have to get a conditional use. Okay. Any other questions? Yes, Ms. Plumlee. Yes, Barbara. On number five, the religious assembly zones. The B3, B4, and I1. I'm having a little problem. I think that we still need another level of review, that we do not need to be changing those. On moving from conditional to principal? They would go from conditional to principal. For the? The churches and so on. The religious assembly, as it would read now. Okay. I just think religious assembly, that means they're out of the tax rolls, and I think we need to keep closer tabs on that type of zoning. You can make that recommendation. I would change that to, I would delete that one, I would strike that one. Okay, that will be noted. and and another reason there is a b3 in the uh outside the urban service area too that's correct and i don't think where that one is you're likely to get a religious assembly but it's there and for that that would be an equal reason why i would say delete that one that'll be noted in the minutes thank you okay it's monday i just want to say i agree with Carolyn on that. I think that needs a little more oversight. Okay. Okay. Ms. Craven? Are you talking about the church? Yeah, it's religious assembly. What? They've changed the term from church to religious assembly. Okay, you're not taking it out. Until this goes through it, so they're still called churches, so. You're not taking out principal use? uh no i don't know okay and i i'm going back over to seven on the first page i don't know why you took that out because if you had a church or sunday school or whatever they're calling it would rent a b3 building or b4 or i1 they might that could be be a large space and they might want to have this church-related school in there with them at the same time. Jim, you probably can explain this. I know it relates to Transylvania University because they consider themselves a church-related school. And they are in different, I mean, they have properties all over town in different zones. And there was something that I'm not sure exactly what the reason was, but it had to do with Transylvania University's properties and in all of their properties around town and the different zones that they're in. And so there was some reason that we considered it not a good idea because of that. But you don't know why? I'm not positive of the reason. Jim probably can answer more. It was just a general concern. A lot of what Transy does does go to the Board of Adjustment for conditional uses. They own a lot of property. it's a big use so and it's not a category where we get a lot of requests so the downside of taking it out was minimal because it doesn't come up very often well I guess I'm saying why did you put it in there in the first place I mean you know you thought it was a good idea at first looks like that's how the process works you know you fine tune things as you go along so Mr. Orns? Let me clarify with what Ms. Plumlee was saying as far as church schools and Sunday schools. This is saying here to move it from conditional use to principal permitted. I was thinking she was saying that she felt like it needed to stay in conditional uses at the present time, which I would agree with. Okay, I just wanted to clarify. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this, Zoda? Seeing none, back to the commission. What do you want to do? Looking for a motion if you want to make one. I'll give it a try. I guess Barb and Jim, you better pay attention to make sure we're correct on this. I guess there's two parts to this. One, the text amendment itself, and then we need to. It's all one text amendment, but. But aren't we making changes to this, with this? You're proposing a change to the one, yes. So you would, I don't know if you need to make separate motions, but. One motion. Okay. I'll move for approval of Zota 2017-5 amendments to Article 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 22A, 22B, 23, and 24, conditional uses, definitions, and clarifications for the reason provided by staff And along with the motion under the white paper that's conditional use review team, I would strike, delete 1, 6, and 7 from the heading of move from conditional use to principal permitted uses. And then under move from conditional use to accessory uses, strike number 2 and 6. Mr. Owens, can we just clarify? I'm over here. Sorry. For the minutes, are you talking about this front sheet? This is sort of a summary that zoning compliance prepared of the work our staff did. But you're talking. They've deleted those. Okay. Right. So they were comparison sheets. One was February when we all started. Okay. And then April is where you started. with the approval of Zota 2017-5 for the reasons provided by staff and looking at the white paper dated April 27th. Yes. Approving that with the exception of striking number five churches and Sunday schools from B3, B4, and I1 zone. Is that okay? Yes. So that would leave those uses the way they're treated today. Yes. Yes. Okay, so it's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve ZOTA 2017-5 amendments relating to conditional uses, definitions, and clarifications. In a petition for zoning ordinance, text amendments, Articles 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 22A, and B, 23, and 24 of the zoning ordinance. with the conditions provided by staff as it relates to the conditional use and principal use of striking number five under move from conditional use to principal permitted use, and the other stays the same. Is that? Yes, sir. Any other discussion on the motion? Yes, sir, Mr. Craven. You know, it looks like the staff started out doing a good thing. trying to eliminate some of these things that people have to do to do these things. And then it ended up they watered it back down. And, I mean, I just don't see any reason why a church or a Sunday school can't be a principal use in those zones. It's a principal use in the other zones, right? Yes. Well, except for the residential zones, yeah. Yeah, but it's allowed in residential, and it's allowed outside the expansion area if it's 10,000 feet or less. So, I mean, you start out doing a good thing, and it looks like some of them want to change it back to a bad thing, but I'm going to oppose taking number five out. In fact, I would like to make an amendment to leave number five in there. Now, we have two ways to deal with this. Number one, if the original motioner at this time wants to amend the motion to do that, that's fine. If not, then we work on the amendment alone. We'll go with the amendment first, and then we'll back up to the main motion. So does the original maker wish to modify the main motion to add back in? If not, then we'll have to deal with it a different way. I'd like to leave my motion as is. Okay, then the motion stays as is, but we do have an amendment on the floor. And first of all, we will vote on the amendment, and the amendment will be to reinsert Section 5. Beg your pardon? Was there a second? Yes, we have a motion. Mr. Owens made the motion. Mr. Karen Mundy made the second. On the amendment. Okay, okay, okay, you're right on that. He's making a motion. Do we have a second on his motion for amendment? Do we have a second on his motion for amendment? Do we have a second on his motion or amendment? The motion dies for lack of a second. Now we go back to the main motion. The main motion is on the floor, and it was stated. It was seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy. Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries 10 to 1. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, do we have anything? Mr. Duncan, do you have anything from the staff? Mr. Chair, I do want to remind everyone that our next meeting is next Thursday for our committee meetings at 8.30 and 1.30, respectively, in our conference room. And I also want to congratulate Mr. Forrester and Mr. Bell. This has been a long day for them. They started with us at 8 o'clock this morning for their four-plus hour orientation and then came straight to this meeting. So they are already showing their commitment to this body. Very good. Mr. Forrester has agreed to join us on the zoning committee. Mr. Bell will join us on the subdivision committee. So they've already had the assignments. I guess this is the last time that we'll have Mr. Salee with us. This is the last official meeting, and of course we have another retirement, Ms. Cindy Deets, and we wish her well. But in case of Mr. Salee, this is 32 years. It's been a long journey, but it's been a good journey. One of the things he indicated the other evening is that he's had fun, And I wanted to know if he wanted to say that now that he was leaving or it's because he's been here for 32 years and truly had that opportunity. But we certainly wish you well in retirement and what have you. Bill, the thing again I remember, and it's been said by many of us along the way, that one of the things that everybody has said, you have many attributes, but the one that sticks out with everybody is the fact of your integrity and your extreme and unparalleled professionalism. that you've definitely been calm. If someone says you're a real leader, if you can face the music, even if you don't like the tune, and you certainly have been able to guide us, keep us in line, and you've done that with an extraordinary amount of diplomacy, we're going to miss you. And as I indicated one other time, he is a truly consummate professional. I wish we could clone them both, Cindy and Bill, but not being that the case, The best we can do is to wish you the best, wish you well wishes in the future. A couple of things, though, I couldn't allow this to go by without just a couple of reminders. The best thing, the best time to start thinking about retirement is before your boss does. That's one. Number two, when a man retires, his wife gets twice the husband but only half the income. I just started reminding you that. retirement life is when you've seen it all, you've done it all, but you can't remember half of it. And finally, it is interesting that when a man retires and time is no longer a matter of urgent importance, his colleagues are generally presenting with a watch, so I hope you don't get that. But when you keep that in mind, keep in mind the love and respect and admiration we all have for the work that you've done and the manner in which you've done it. We appreciate that. Let's give him a round of applause. Thank you. peers, but I wouldn't have made it 32 years without a lot of good planning people to work with. And you probably know this, but you're blessed with a very competent, very professional, and very qualified staff. And it has been a pleasure to work with them, as it has been with you and your predecessors. Thank you so much. Thank you. Any other business come before this body? Yes, we will remind everybody to please stay for a picture with Mr. Sally. If no other business come before the body, without objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.